Overrated Photographers... and not just famous ones.

[jackieclayton]

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

What if, as I mentioned a few times, the artist doesn't know what it means?

if it doesn't have a meaning, is it worth anything? If I took some random picture and submitted it to a contest and someone asked me what it meant and I said "i dunno..." I doubt the viewer is going to respect it either. Some people think Jackson Pollock's art is just some paint splattered, but to him it was emotion, anger, depression, and feeling. I mean, I could go splatter some paint on a canvas but it wouldn't mean crap to anyone because I had no purpose doing it... it conveys no personal message... and I think thats the most important thing an artist needs... an inspiration and a purpose. then you hone in on technique and style and all the other things that will win an award one day...

 

[John de Michele]

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

What if, as I mentioned a few times, the artist doesn't know what it means?

if it doesn't have a meaning, is it worth anything? If I took some random picture and submitted it to a contest and someone asked me what it meant and I said "i dunno..." I doubt the viewer is going to respect it either. Some people think Jackson Pollock's art is just some paint splattered, but to him it was emotion, anger, depression, and feeling. I mean, I could go splatter some paint on a canvas but it wouldn't mean crap to anyone because I had no purpose doing it... it conveys no personal message... and I think thats the most important thing an artist needs... an inspiration and a purpose. then you hone in on technique and style and all the other things that will win an award one day...

Why assume that the photographer's/artist's meaning is the only possible meaning? If you take a picture that means one thing to you, and a person viewing it has a totally different interpretation, is that interpretation any less valid than yours? Maybe trying to get the viewer to come up with their own meaning *is* the purpose.

John.

 

[jackieclayton]

Why assume that the photographer's/artist's meaning is the only possible meaning? If you take a picture that means one thing to you, and a person viewing it has a totally different interpretation, is that interpretation any less valid than yours? Maybe trying to get the viewer to come up with their own meaning *is* the purpose.

John.

ok, i can see that... that is a good point. Thats why some art is really special to some people because of a feeling they personally get from it, even if its something other than the artist intended. I guess I was looking at that statment from the perspective that there is no rhyme or reason the artist took a picture and doesn't know what it means. Thats pointless to me, "art" should be special to the photographer, even if me being the viewer doesn't really like it. I can go outside right now and take a picture of some palm trees blowing in the wind... and there's no purpose that I took it, just shot it b/c it looked neat... and then a group of hippie pot smokers saw it and got like some crazy interpretation that its a portrait of God or something and wanted to put it in a gallery... would you call the picture I took a work of art or a peice of crap that other people took too seriously? It had no purpose to me when I took it and I have no meaning behind it... but others loved it.... if the artist doesn't have emotion behind it, I personally would have a hard time feeling an ounce of passion for it...

 

[John de Michele]

ok, i can see that... that is a good point. Thats why some art is really special to some people because of a feeling they personally get from it, even if its something other than the artist intended. I guess I was looking at that statment from the perspective that there is no rhyme or reason the artist took a picture and doesn't know what it means. Thats pointless to me, "art" should be special to the photographer, even if me being the viewer doesn't really like it. I can go outside right now and take a picture of some palm trees blowing in the wind... and there's no purpose that I took it, just shot it b/c it looked neat... and then a group of hippie pot smokers saw it and got like some crazy interpretation that its a portrait of God or something and wanted to put it in a gallery... would you call the picture I took a work of art or a peice of crap that other people took too seriously? It had no purpose to me when I took it and I have no meaning behind it... but others loved it.... if the artist doesn't have emotion behind it, I personally would have a hard time feeling an ounce of passion for it...

It would depend on the mood I was in when I saw the picture. If it invoked a mood or a feeling, or even just a stray fancy, then I would say that, yes, it is art, even if it doesn't move everyone.

John.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

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

What if, as I mentioned a few times, the artist doesn't know what it means?

if it doesn't have a meaning, is it worth anything? If I took some random picture and submitted it to a contest and someone asked me what it meant and I said "i dunno..." I doubt the viewer is going to respect it either. Some people think Jackson Pollock's art is just some paint splattered, but to him it was emotion, anger, depression, and feeling. I mean, I could go splatter some paint on a canvas but it wouldn't mean crap to anyone because I had no purpose doing it... it conveys no personal message... and I think thats the most important thing an artist needs... an inspiration and a purpose. then you hone in on technique and style and all the other things that will win an award one day...

First I didn't say it had no meaning, I said that the artist does not always know what he/she means. Quite a difference.

Second, why does it have to have meaning? Can't you be happy just enjoying an image? I can. Sometimes I see things in somebody's work and sometimes I don't but I won't reject a work just because I don't see a meaning. If it's beautiful it's plenty good enough for me. I have told buyers of my work that the piece they were interested in had no meaning and it didn't keep them from buying

Plus, as John de Michele says, how do you know the meaning you get from the work is the same as that of the artist if he had one?

 

[c.cloudwalker]

I can go outside right now and take a picture of some palm trees blowing in the wind... and there's no purpose that I took it, just shot it b/c it looked neat... and then a group of hippie pot smokers saw it and got like some crazy interpretation that its a portrait of God or something and wanted to put it in a gallery... would you call the picture I took a work of art or a peice of crap that other people took too seriously? It had no purpose to me when I took it and I have no meaning behind it... but others loved it.... if the artist doesn't have emotion behind it, I personally would have a hard time feeling an ounce of passion for it...

If I felt that bad about one of my art works, I wouldn't let anybody hang it in a gallery

 

[jackieclayton]

If I felt that bad about one of my art works, I wouldn't let anybody hang it in a gallery

lol, well... if there is cash involved for some random snapshot I took when its hanging in a gallery, I suppose I could learn to appreciate it... lol!

you all make good points... there's a hypothetical situation to everything... i guess take each picture at face value and give it the benefit of the doubt that it's a work of art... you might love it, you might hate it... and move on to the next... :mrgreen:

 

[Ccauceg]

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

What if, as I mentioned a few times, the artist doesn't know what it means?

if it doesn't have a meaning, is it worth anything? If I took some random picture and submitted it to a contest and someone asked me what it meant and I said "i dunno..." I doubt the viewer is going to respect it either. Some people think Jackson Pollock's art is just some paint splattered, but to him it was emotion, anger, depression, and feeling. I mean, I could go splatter some paint on a canvas but it wouldn't mean crap to anyone because I had no purpose doing it... it conveys no personal message... and I think thats the most important thing an artist needs... an inspiration and a purpose. then you hone in on technique and style and all the other things that will win an award one day...

I completely agree with this, the artist needs to deliver some idea/purpose/meaning to the viewer without having to be educated by them. The potency of the visual message to the viewer is determined by an artists skill in their medium. If the artist leaves the viewer being stumped and wondering why they created the piece of art in the first place the artist has failed IMO.

As I have stated in my previous post meaning does not have to be some grand question like "the meaning of life" or crap like that. Meaning can be as simple as a dog playing fetch, or an organized layout of lines in a scene. Meaning can even be a demonstration of the artists technical skill in his or her medium. In the end, it is up to the artists level of skill in their medium in how potent these meanings are delivered to the viewer.

 

[Doonbury83]

I enjoy Lamergod's link, it's definitely tight work. I dislike the work of Kristamas Klousch. A friend suggested I look at the "art" photography and linked me to her work. I don't find it new or riveting. It is extremely cliché. Looking at her flickr, someone called her a "Cindy Sherman whose read too much Poe." I agree. No intelligent use of lighting and what she does use is not well done - I'm unsure she understands light at all. No images other than herself, which is boring - the nude shots of her are less artistic and strike me as more of a narcissistic stance, in fact the entire body of work strikes me as narcissistic. I've been told and from what I see, all the images are of her, which look heavily altered in photoshop and even then poorly rendered. I think some of them look like cell phone images as well, which causes me to wonder if she uses a camera at all. How can this qualify as photography and what makes this work any good? Personally, I dislike it and think it's frivolous.

As for the OP of this thread, I went to the Rachel Hulin link and I think she's working with a lot of natural light - which can be tricky. Some shots are a hit, some a miss. The ones that are bad, are very bad. I find some of her stuff okay though. I wouldn't say she's fantastic.

 

[Braineack]

Didn't read thread, just hoping Terry Richardson was mentioned...

 

[Scatterbrained]

Well, it's a four year old thread, the images originally linked aren't even up anymore.

 

[Overread]

I think we might lay this one to rest.