Have You Got It?

[Alpha]

Separate the men from the boys, the women from the girls.

I'm of the opinion that you've either got it or you don't. That applies to any art form. With enough knowledge and practice, almost anyone can get consistently "good" at something like photography, ceramics, printmaking, etc. That would be a great standard if art were vocational. What separates a good photographer from a great photographer isn't' film, or equipment, or even procedural knowledge per se. It's truly having an eye for photography, maybe even some uncanny sixth sense if you will.

So have you got it? Or do you disagree?

 

[slickhare]

photo is all about creativity, everyone has their own style. there's no such thing as a "good" photographer in my mind. just people who have tapped into their creativity, breaking away from the preconceived notions of what a good photo should look like.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

breaking away from the preconceived notions of what a good photo should look like.

But who's pre-conceived notions are we talking about?

 

['Daniel']

You can be a photographer and an artist. You can be a photographer but no artist.

You can be a good photographer. Can you be a good artist?

 

[slickhare]

But who's pre-conceived notions are we talking about?

yours (as in yourself) and others. often assembled from popular photographers work that becomes the "standard" by which people compare the art they view afterward.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

yours (as in yourself) and others. often assembled from popular photographers work that becomes the "standard" by which people compare the art they view afterward.

Notions as to what constitutes a 'good' photograph are, in fact, dictated by Society.
We are all creatures of our time. One generation's idea of avant-garde is the next generation's old-fashioned.
It's difficult to escape from a straightjacket when you don't know you are in one - or break rules you don't know are there.

 

[ksmattfish]

Talent is convenient. Without hard work it's not likely to get you far. The rarity of the creative instinct and ability in humans is greatly exaggerated by those who make money from art.

 

[panzershreck]

Talent is convenient. Without hard work it's not likely to get you far. The rarity of the creative instinct and ability in humans is greatly exaggerated by those who make money from art.

i agree, i don't think anybody can just have talent and sit on it, it's like buying a ferrari, then leaving it in a dusty barn for 30 years, people don't age like wine, you either work at keeping you where you are, or work to move forward, doing nothing is like not swimming from the sharks

/way too many analogies

 

[Torus34]

Owning a camera and clicking the shutter doesn't make you a photographer any more than owning a piano and pounding on the keys makes you a pianist. I believe we should be willing [as a start to reasoned discourse] to distinguish between 'picture-takers' and 'picture-makers,' for lack of better terminology. ["If you would discuss with me, let us first define our terms."]

I recall a well-known art teacher stating; "Give me 10 years and I can give almost anyone the technique of a master. But then what is he going to do with it?" This suggests that there is more to a great [again, excuse the plebeian terminology] photograph than precise exposure and focus, both of which, incidentally, can be and in some cameras are automated.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

there is more to a great photograph than precise exposure and focus,

Neither of these technical qualities are actually an essential ingredient of a 'good' photograph as both are subjective.
I know of a number of exceptional photographs that used being out of focus to great effect, and a number that use exposure to good effect as well.
And how sharp is the lens on a Holga?

 

[Alpha]

Holgas are fun and all but no less cliche than picking up your first roll of black and white and then running out to take photos of old barns.

The point i'm making is pretty indefineable in a concrete sense. There are lots of knowledgeabe, good photographers. Many of them take some very interesting shots. Then there are people who really have a gift for their art form. I think they're on a completely different playing field, especially in terms of mindset.

 

['Daniel']

Holgas are fun and all but no less cliche than picking up your first roll of black and white and then running out to take photos of old barns.

The point i'm making is pretty indefineable in a concrete sense. There are lots of knowledgeabe, good photographers. Many of them take some very interesting shots. Then there are people who really have a gift for their art form. I think they're on a completely different playing field, especially in terms of mindset.

You see this, as I said earlier should be where we make the distinction. A photographer is someone who uses photographic equipment to create photographs. Any one can be a photographer if they have the means to create a photograph. I think what people usually consider as a good photographer is someone who a is a good artist in the mdium of photography.

It's the artistry we should assess not the photography per se.

How do we assess artistry....well it's subjective...

 

[panzershreck]

You see this, as I said earlier should be where we make the distinction. A photographer is someone who uses photographic equipment to create photographs. Any one can be a photographer if they have the means to create a photograph. I think what people usually consider as a good photographer is someone who a is a good artist in the mdium of photography.

It's the artistry we should assess not the photography per se.

How do we assess artistry....well it's subjective...

you should speak to any art major in college, i know in our art department, there's no BS about the subjectivity of artwork, so how do they grade everybody? a process of elimination, rather than go from the bottom up, comparing and contrasting, they simply look for elements of art, including craft and technique, and how well the project works within the bounds of what it was intended to do

but after that, there's little to say, all they can really do is get a lot of professors together and get a general consensus, discuss things, and whichever really strikes a cord, be in feeling or discussion, i guess wins, but they're really only assessing the person behind the work of art, and trying to see what we were thinking while doing it, and whether we could improve something here and there

it's like a cheeseburger, whose to say one is better than another?

*but* there are still food contests, and a winner is chosen

i guess in order to judge something subjective, you have to think subjectively

 

[craig]

I do not think there is any magical it. Success as an artist is no secret. Takes a personal vision or idea. Takes skill to illustrate that to the rest of the world. Dedication and a lot of work is mandatory.

I will always consider myself a student of photography. I am continually blown away by photos taken by 3 year olds and so called amateurs. Terms like it or art, master, amateur and the like are useless to me.

 

[Alpha]

Okay I honestly don't mean to be personally offensive, but that's the kind of blase elitism that I hate most. This whole "art means nothing" ultra-subjective crap. I am wonderful and you are wonderful, and that guy with the 5 dollar point-and-shoot is wonderful. Such utter crap. A photo taken by a three year old is hardly in the same category as a photo by someone who takes their photos seriously as an art form because it lacks intent. Furthermore, I think it's a real show of indifference to photography as an art because it takes artistic intent and levels it into some worthless, nonchalant playing field. Saying something like "I will always be a student" is so facetious. Sure, you'll always be learning new mechanical tricks, but you've either got a spark of brilliance behind your work or you don't. If you do, then you always have an always will. If you don't, then you won't, and you might be having fun but you're hopelessly grasping at something you innately lack.

What's worse, all of this stupid subjectivity is just dumbing down any dialectical understanding we might have of art itself and what makes us appreciate it. You can't argue that we're all ants on the same hill unless you can look at a seemingly spastic canvas in a museum and think to yourself that it has no purpose.