Art Appreciation

[bigfatbadger]

Surely half of it is the fact that a) it's a motivational poster and b) it's been done about a million times before?

 

[mysteryscribe]

Ya know thats true about been done and SOLD a hundred times before... It's the same reason burger king restaurants are within sight of McDonalds. That's commerce not art though unless a big mac is an art object.... na it's an object of lust...

 

[terri]

1860 comment by watercolorist... the Fkn camera thingie is a flash in the pan....

1910... comment by portrait painter... woe is me that Eastman thing is going to fix it so we never sell another painting. It is just matter of time...

1940... Comment by 4x5 graflex photographer... mark my words the 120 camera will put an end to photography as a business, anyone will be able to have one. If any idiot can shoot ten shots he will get one good one. It is the end of serious photography.

1960... comment by 120 photographer... Damn 35mm will kill us all. If they ever get the film right it will mean any idiot can go out and shoot 200 shots of his friend's wedding and we will be out of business, mark my words. That's not to mention the idot Land's toy camera putting all the labs out of business.

1999... Comment by the ghost of them all in a huddle.... Okay we were wrong before but by god digital cameras will mark the end of all other forms of art. We just don't need anything else. Any piece of crap anyone shoots can be fixed in the software.
**************
The only problem is art and artistry has always been about what you shoot, or what you paint, more than what kind of brush or camera you did it with. You can't sell that as a camera accessory and sometimes you can't even teach it. I would made a pretty good guess that the number of successful "art" photographers is much less then the number of people who graduate from the Schools teaching you how to be an artist.

And art school drop outs arent the only ones pretending to be artists. In the end "THE WORK SPEAKS FOR ITSELF". When the piece hits it's home, on someone's wall or in a museum even, I have never seen a label that tells what camera, what fstop, what brush, what paper, or how the artist held his brush...

listen up I'll say it again.... THE WORK SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.....

Sometimes it is more about marketing than the work and that is sad. A painter in this area comes to mind. They say he is a great draftsman, but not a real artist. I tend to agree because I to would like to make the money he makes and therefore I too am envious. It might not be art but it hangs in might fancy places, and he might wrongly consider himself an artist, but he doesn't worry about paying his car payment next month.

One last thing on a personal note.... If Art were about perfection, there would be about zero pieces made previous to today. I see an awful lot of digital photography these days and you know what. I can usually tell that it is because there is so much perfection. Don't cha think that this kind of cookie cutter perfection will tend to get boring after a while. There are about a thousand ways to process an image that is well composed and well executed even with digital. The old house on the beach that we all played with comes to mind. But a piece of crap no matter how you wrap it still smells after a while. To a real artist the media never made a heck of a lot of difference and to us hacks it didn't either. So digital in the end isn't going to change a thing but the way people do what they always did.

You see it, you shoot (compose) it, you process it, and then it is an orphan and has to stand on it's own.

:thumbup: or even: :hail:

and this:

That's not to mention the idot Land's toy camera putting all the labs out of business.

leave Edwin out of it, damn you!

 

[JamesD]

Everyone keeps say that this image has been done counteless, sickening times before.

I'd like to point out. this is, in fact, the only time this image has been done. Many copies of it have been made, and many similar images have been made, but this one is it's own.

Yes, the "inspirational message" is cheesy. I don't contest that. I believe it's a non-issue, because the consensus seems to be that it's cheesy.

With that said... this is a dolphin picture, and many people have taken dolphin pictures. It's a sunset picture, and many people have taken sunset pictures. I've no doubt that the two have even been taken together in a similar manner.

How many pictures of the Eiffel tower are there? How many landscapes? How many pictures of old buildings? Horses?

How many impressionist paintings of people have been made? How many paintings of nudes? How many sculptures of people and gods and mythological characters have been made? How many cathedrals have been built? How many tapestries woven?

Yes, it's a dolphin + sunset picture. It's got nice colors. It might not be the best art in the world, it might not be as impressive as Ansel Adams' Yosemite photos, Picasso's paintings, or Shakespeare's sonnets.

What is so impressive? One in a thousand? One in a million? A thousand million? The work has to speak for itself. Listen to what this one says about itself. I hear this: "I'm a dolphin jumping out of the water in front of a sunset-looking sky. Somebody cared enough make me so someone else could see me, too." You may hear something different.

If you don't like what you hear, don't buy it. If you do, help feed a photographer.

Please don't misunderstand; I'm not trying to come across as being irritated, angry or anything. I'm merely reflecting on the subject.... and I believe this one (granted, the text is cheesy) is being given a bit too hard a time.

I mean, I'm a landlubber, and I've never seen a dolphin in person. And it's got pretty colors, for crying out loud!

 

[mysteryscribe]

damnit james there is no such thing as the nude being over done. Jeeze have you learning nothing rofl.

Sunset ect okay, but not nudes....

 

[Digital Matt]

Well said James.

 

[JohnMF]

damnit james there is no such thing as the nude being over done. Jeeze have you learning nothing rofl.

Sunset ect okay, but not nudes....

Yes but what about a nude dolphin in front of a sunset????

 

[bigfatbadger]

Do you think that although this particular image hasn't been done before, because it's constituents have, it is already regarded as cliche?

Like James, I'm not being provocative, just musing

 

[mysteryscribe]

Now I have not said anything about the image itself. Here is my openion..

Some of you know I shoot poster 'art' now and then. I think poster art is a breed unto itself. It is more commercial in nature and must appeal to the masses, since the plan is for it to be sold several times, in most cases. Trite and overly simple themes are what makes it sell... It's a heck of a lot like tv. Dummy it down.

I would not hang a poster of a starlet in a bikini on my dinning room wall, but I might pay for one to hang in my workshop. There are my two criteria for art... would I pay for it, low commericial art.... would I hang it in my formal dining room, higher form of art... For everyone those criteria are personal, but if you think about it some art (poster) is meant for bedroom doors mostly in teenaged boy's rooms, and some paintings are meant for the walls of the formal areas of a house.

The big fish and orange sun are the commercial type. I wouldn't really buy it, so I don't really think a lot of it, but a lot of people would. I would definitely shoot it and sell it gladly. In which case I would call it art. I don't think i would take it to a high end festival though.

God help me I know I'm in for it now, but to me it is more flea market art... No Reverand Spuds isn't even that high up on the art food chain. rofl

To summerize: Hertzburger had it right, or the victorians did, there is Art and there is art. And keep you hand on you wallet while shopping for art. And I am being provocative.

 

[JamesD]

damnit james there is no such thing as the nude being over done. Jeeze have you learning nothing rofl.

Sunset ect okay, but not nudes....

Of course not, I'd never imply that!

Seriously, though, I have to somewhat disagree. There's another forum I visit where lots and lots of figure photography is posted, although it's not specifically a figure photography forum. Frankly, after watching the posts over the months, I find that I usually skip posts which refer to nudes, figure photos, or models whom I know to be figure models, at least until I'm done with the more generalized posts. The other images are more interesting to me, because I've seen entirely too many of the genera, and my interests are much broader than that.

Are they bad photos? Not by any means whatsoever: I wish I had the skills and/or talent and/or luck to produce such imagery. Are they overdone? Given this particular context, along with my own personal tastes and interests, I'd say "yes, I'd like to see more images of a wider range of subjects."

It is in the eye of the beholder, and also in the experience of the beholder. If you see nudes, or dolphins, or whatever until you're just tired of seeing them, then you may develop a distaste for them, even if the images excel in aesthetics and originality. In my case, I certainly hope that such a distaste is temporary, so that some day in the future, when I'm not so bored with them, I can once again enjoy the marvellous images these photogs have created. I'd be saddened greatly to be permanantly deprived of their enjoyment.

By the way, Charlie: thanks for providing some of the phrasing for which I'd been searching. I hadn't quite found it on my own yet (too obvious, yanno?) and I needed it before I could figure out exactly what I was trying to say. That's why I hadn't posted previously, even though I've been following this thread pretty closely, at the same time as our little discussion over yonder.

 

[JamesD]

Yes but what about a nude dolphin in front of a sunset????

LMFAO!

 

[2framesbelowzero]

i meant like a 2 year foundation collage course....

lol That's pretty intensive!
Have some damn fine collage at the end of that one. :thumbup:


Montage..don't get me started about montage...

 

[mysteryscribe]

I think we all need to step back have a beer and rethink this whole thing rofl... We are getting punch here...

 

[Torus34]

Going back to the start of this thread, it seems to have concerned Art versus non-Art. [Caps intentional. We're talking about the concern of the Muses here.]

So let me propose a fresh starting point.

First, the artist. An artist creates a work [medium not of importance here, though some are more refractory than others.] in order to make a statement of some sort. There are greater and lesser artists. The greatest often have a recognizable 'voice' -- Beethoven, Copland, Hemmingway, Issa, Picasso, Rembrandt, Shakespeare, Vaughan Williams and Frank Lloyd Wright will serve as examples.

Next, the work. Art can be ranked. Great art makes profound statements. Lesser art makes statements that have less to 'say.' It's a continuum, you see; certainly not a simple dichotomy. The dolphin/sunset print can easily squeak in under this definition though, like a lot of 'poster art', its statement may be trivial. There is much that can be considered as art in which the artist simply says 'I feel that this is beautiful.' It may in fact be the lowest rung of a ranking ladder. If so, the next rung up may be works which convey a feeling [turmoil, serenity] and the next those which encompass an emotion [anger, love.]

 

[mysteryscribe]

Excellent summation of what everyone has said. There is ART and there is art.. and there are authors. Its all rock and roll to me. Don't eat the tuna is all I can tell ya.

We all explored parts of the issue and could do it forever because as someone's tag line says, it's all subjective.