Overrated Photographers... and not just famous ones.

Status
Not open for further replies.
One basis of artistic composition is a centre of interest and in the case of photography a centre of interest with some visual impact.

Yes, but sometimes (oftentimes? 50/50? :D) the entire image is the center of interest and there is nothing wrong with that.

Also, a busy background behind a busy foreground can be a good thing when the photog does wish you to spend some time looking, does not wish his/her intention to be obvious... :er:

One thing in art that is sure is that we will never really know what the artist had in mind when he/she created the piece unless we were told directly by the artist. And that is only if assuming that the artist knows. I personally have some works that are very deliberate, planified, etc and I have some work that is purely instinct driven. With those pieces, you may actually know more about their meaning than I do. But then again, you could be totally wrong.

I usually prefer to just like a piece or not. And to be honest, just explaining why I like this and not that can sometimes be a problem. Explaining a gut feeling is never easy but you know it is right. For you, at least.
:D

Your spin is not accepted in my environment and I have written art curriculum for the Ministry of Education (provincial government), taught Art, and taught Photography. (Just for Derrel and his required backgrounds :D)

The entire image is never the centre of interest and as a matter of fact one of the basics of artistic photography is to isolate and draw attention to a centre of interest within an image. How well, a photographer accomplishes this determines his/her skill and artistry.

The wishes or intentions of the photographer by the way are totally irrelevant. A photograph MUST stand on its own. It is VIEWERS who must be shown what the intention of the photgrapher is and MORE IMPORTANT that it has been achieved, by solely looking at the photo.
Otherwise the photographer has FAILED in his/her efforts and intentions.

I suggest you look at the principles or elements of design in art which provide the basis for composition in the field of photography.

skieur
 
One basis of artistic composition is a centre of interest and in the case of photography a centre of interest with some visual impact.

Yes, but sometimes (oftentimes? 50/50? :D) the entire image is the center of interest and there is nothing wrong with that.

Also, a busy background behind a busy foreground can be a good thing when the photog does wish you to spend some time looking, does not wish his/her intention to be obvious... :er:

One thing in art that is sure is that we will never really know what the artist had in mind when he/she created the piece unless we were told directly by the artist. And that is only if assuming that the artist knows. I personally have some works that are very deliberate, planified, etc and I have some work that is purely instinct driven. With those pieces, you may actually know more about their meaning than I do. But then again, you could be totally wrong.

I usually prefer to just like a piece or not. And to be honest, just explaining why I like this and not that can sometimes be a problem. Explaining a gut feeling is never easy but you know it is right. For you, at least.
:D

Your spin is not accepted in my environment and I have written art curriculum for the Ministry of Education (provincial government), taught Art, and taught Photography. (Just for Derrel and his required backgrounds :D)

The entire image is never the centre of interest and as a matter of fact one of the basics of artistic photography is to isolate and draw attention to a centre of interest within an image. How well, a photographer accomplishes this determines his/her skill and artistry.

The wishes or intentions of the photographer by the way are totally irrelevant. A photograph MUST stand on its own. It is VIEWERS who must be shown what the intention of the photgrapher is and MORE IMPORTANT that it has been achieved, by solely looking at the photo.
Otherwise the photographer has FAILED in his/her efforts and intentions.

I suggest you look at the principles or elements of design in art which provide the basis for composition in the field of photography.

skieur

This is exactly how I feel the ideal photograph should be, its just that I could not put it in words, You nailed it skieur.
 
One basis of artistic composition is a centre of interest and in the case of photography a centre of interest with some visual impact.

Yes, but sometimes (oftentimes? 50/50? :D) the entire image is the center of interest and there is nothing wrong with that.

Also, a busy background behind a busy foreground can be a good thing when the photog does wish you to spend some time looking, does not wish his/her intention to be obvious... :er:

One thing in art that is sure is that we will never really know what the artist had in mind when he/she created the piece unless we were told directly by the artist. And that is only if assuming that the artist knows. I personally have some works that are very deliberate, planified, etc and I have some work that is purely instinct driven. With those pieces, you may actually know more about their meaning than I do. But then again, you could be totally wrong.

I usually prefer to just like a piece or not. And to be honest, just explaining why I like this and not that can sometimes be a problem. Explaining a gut feeling is never easy but you know it is right. For you, at least.
:D

Your spin is not accepted in my environment and I have written art curriculum for the Ministry of Education (provincial government), taught Art, and taught Photography. (Just for Derrel and his required backgrounds :D)

The entire image is never the centre of interest and as a matter of fact one of the basics of artistic photography is to isolate and draw attention to a centre of interest within an image. How well, a photographer accomplishes this determines his/her skill and artistry.

The wishes or intentions of the photographer by the way are totally irrelevant. A photograph MUST stand on its own. It is VIEWERS who must be shown what the intention of the photgrapher is and MORE IMPORTANT that it has been achieved, by solely looking at the photo.
Otherwise the photographer has FAILED in his/her efforts and intentions.

I suggest you look at the principles or elements of design in art which provide the basis for composition in the field of photography.

skieur

Well, I have taught art and I have taught photography and I still do and all I can say in response to your post is THANK GOD I don't deal with the government.

"The wishes or intentions of the photographer by the way are totally irrelevant." Really? THANK GOD I don't deal with the government.

"A photograph MUST stand on its own." I absolutely agree.

"It is VIEWERS who must be shown what the intention of the photgrapher is and MORE IMPORTANT that it has been achieved, by solely looking at the photo." Fine but does that mean we are to bring everything to the lowest common denominator? Sorry, I don't agree. Then again I don't work for the government.
 
"It is VIEWERS who must be shown what the intention of the photgrapher is and MORE IMPORTANT that it has been achieved, by solely looking at the photo." Fine but does that mean we are to bring everything to the lowest common denominator? Sorry, I don't agree. Then again I don't work for the government.
You don't have to resort the lowest common denominator to convey a strong message. This I think, is the hardest part about photography, which is producing an image that stands on its own without having to resort to that lowest common denominator. Creating something with your own style and trying to produce a impactful message is something that the majority of photographers fail at doing.
 
Generally if there's a piece of artwork that I "don't get" I take the less arrogant approach and assume the artist knows something I don't. In other words, if I don't get it it's because I don't know any better. Sometimes meanings and intentions are very subtle. Art doesn't have to scream "meaning." Either you get it or you don't, and if you don't generally some discussion of the work with other people can help clear the fog.

As it may take some time to produce a piece of artwork, it may also take some time to truly understand it.
 
Generally if there's a piece of artwork that I "don't get" I take the less arrogant approach and assume the artist knows something I don't. In other words, if I don't get it it's because I don't know any better. Sometimes meanings and intentions are very subtle. Art doesn't have to scream "meaning." Either you get it or you don't, and if you don't generally some discussion of the work with other people can help clear the fog.

As it may take some time to produce a piece of artwork, it may also take some time to truly understand it.

I completely agree with you that a "meaning" does not have to be some grand scale idea that shows the horrors/emotions/actions/etc of humanity. However, If the artist is trying to produce an image that only he/she understands what is the point of showcasing it to the general public?
 
*ahem*

Thomas Struth

blows big chunks
Yeah I googled him and thought the OPs rant is misplaced. Her shots are by far better. The shots of the woods look like many of my shots I rejected. Now I guess I should pull them back up and I could get a show, after seeing his work.
 
*ahem*

Thomas Struth

blows big chunks
Yeah I googled him and thought the OPs rant is misplaced. Her shots are by far better. The shots of the woods look like many of my shots I rejected. Now I guess I should pull them back up and I could get a show, after seeing his work.

Hers were for sure way way better than Thomas Struth, but I didn't think hers were worthy of gallery display either, the only thing she has going for her is good exposures.
 
Art is subjective. We have hanging in the Queensland Art Gallery a painting that is completely crap dark shade of black, nothing more, just a colour. There was a 3 paragraph blurb on how the artist was going through a period of dark thoughts, and couldn't get his head straight, and was changing the colour constantly layering colour on colour until all the colours blended together in one black shade. Then it went on to say how many artists go through a period like this and this artist managed to get these thoughts onto the canvas.

The entire time I was thinking, it's a ****ing black sqaure. At least if he threw up on it it would have some colour. It's not art. It's what you get when you accidentally spill paint on a canvas, and why the heck was it hanging in a gallery and what lonely idiot had nothing better to do than write 3 paragraphs about a black square.

That's the saddest part of all, art critics sometimes put more effort into their writing than the artist themselves. Derrel you're right in saying "snapshots" is a cheap way of not understanding what was going through the artists head, but this is all subjectual. I look at that image and think, I had an image just like that, and deleted it just after I coped it off my camera because it really was just a crap snapshot.

Someone somewhere though clearly likes what in my opinion is mediocre crap... who knew. But just like one man's black square is another man's master piece, and one man's snapshot is another's framed print on the wall.
 
"It is VIEWERS who must be shown what the intention of the photgrapher is and MORE IMPORTANT that it has been achieved, by solely looking at the photo." Fine but does that mean we are to bring everything to the lowest common denominator? Sorry, I don't agree. Then again I don't work for the government.
You don't have to resort the lowest common denominator to convey a strong message. This I think, is the hardest part about photography, which is producing an image that stands on its own without having to resort to that lowest common denominator. Creating something with your own style and trying to produce a impactful message is something that the majority of photographers fail at doing.

I totally agree with Ccauceg and by the way, the government came to me with an offer. I had total freedom to write what I wished, and I wrote what I believe based on a half century of photographic experience. I doubt that you can match my background or experience.

skieur
 
"90% of them were snap shots"

Nice try, but you'll need to do better if you wish to become an art critic. That's a tired old slam, and actually quite inappropriate. She's working in a genre that requires an educated viewer who has a background in art.

hmmmm i dont know if i should agree or disagree with this statement, while i 100% disagree with the ts opinon on this particular photographer, i also think its pompus to inflate the opinion of the " educated" or " experienced."
 
"90% of them were snap shots"

Nice try, but you'll need to do better if you wish to become an art critic. That's a tired old slam, and actually quite inappropriate. She's working in a genre that requires an educated viewer who has a background in art.

hmmmm i dont know if i should agree or disagree with this statement, while i 100% disagree with the ts opinon on this particular photographer, i also think its pompus to inflate the opinion of the " educated" or " experienced."
Exactly!
 
I thought the pictures were pretty reasonable. I didn't find any of them to be 'snapshots', as if that were some scarlet letter.

John.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Most reactions

Back
Top