Pretentious Newb Photographers.

[Hertz van Rental]

As we all know, art is subjective, so I don't think just adding a frame makes it art. If you call it art...it's art. If you consider it art..it's art.

What we like is subjective - but Art transcends such considerations, so Art per se is not subjective.
Subjective means one person's view. Society defines Art by consensus and then influences what we consider to be Art.
This issue was raised by Duchamp back around 1917 when he came up with the idea of 'ready mades'.
http://www.beatmuseum.org/duchamp/fountain.html
This was a work he put up at an exhibition - and outraged the organisers who said it was 'an Art exhibition, not a plumber's merchants'.
Duchamp's answer was reputedly 'it's being exhibited in an Art gallery, it's signed by an artist.... and you can't p*ss in it. So if it isn't Art then tell me what it is.'
The argument has raged ever since.

And yes, that was the point I was making about frames.
We do everything for a reason. I therefore like to question everything we do. The answers give more meaning to the activity

 

[Dawn Roberts]

organisers who said it was 'an Art exhibition, not a plumber's merchants'.

That's great and a great example.

 

[Onyx]

How about explanations of pictures? Some pictures are more interesting if the story of the shot is given. There are times where a picture can stand in its own right, but becomes deeper with explanation.

to me its like explaining why a joke is funny. Its pointless and ruins it.

 

[Onyx]

I think the original poster here is being the pretentious one actually. Assuming anyone with a border on their images, or a signature is a noob?

By definition I'm not pretentious. I've identified myself as a noob and I don't think my photos are all that great.

I never said every who puts a border or sig on a pic is a noob or pretentous. To clarify I think its a symptom of pretentious noobs. To clariy even further, noob photographers that ARE pretentious will try to fit in any way they can. My original intent was not to say borders or sigs are silly. It was about the frustration I have with my peers(noobs) and the arrogance that they exhibit.

 

[JohnMF]

I put frames on a couple i've displayed here. My intention was to create a neutral space around my photo/image, that would de-clutter and seperate it from all the distracting avatars and sigs etc on the screen, and hopefully draw the viewers eye in towards my picture... i decided to stop doing it when people kept asking me "how do you make your frames?" rather than commenting on my pictures :hertz:

 

[Torus34]

[Hertz van Rental] "But if I'm going too fast for you..."

Oops! I didn't mean to trigger this response! Sorry to take so long getting back to you with an apology for any misunderstanding.

What was obtusely intended [soft focussed?] with the reference to Arbus' and Magritte's works was that these examples are viewed as photographs and paintings respectively and not as literature or containing a literary component. They were intended solely as examples of well-regarded works which contained 'explanations.' Magritte's pun wasn't a part of the concept: the words can, and often are, considered in the context of our understanding of the relationship between sign, symbol and object.

Again, my apologies.

 

[monicam]

everyones opinions was right...we cannot hender other's taste and beliefs..the only thing we can do is that accept all the comments from our members here..

I'm glad am part of thisforum..i am learning now.

 

[ceecookie]

yeah i guess ive stopped being patient with people that cant take criticism. when i first started to try to take nice photos a pro photographer friend told me they were crap and told me why. i think that was probably the most helpful thing she could have done. i learned quickly that just because i like it doesnt mean its good. it helped me to be more objective with my own photos. to this day i still like to hear that my photos suck because i see something i can work on:mrgreen:

ah ok....after reading this one i wont be like so hurt with criticism

 

[mysteryscribe]

Constructive criticism is one thing... criticism without something being taught isn't much more than an ego trip for the one doing the criticising.

 

[photoromopr]

that is very true mysteryscribe, very well put

 

['Daniel']

Constructive criticism is one thing... criticism without something being taught isn't much more than an ego trip for the one doing the criticising.

What about if it is someone's job?

I don't really like the term constructive criticism. Usually what I find it is is just criticism that a 5 year old could understand.

If criticism tells you what is wrong with it in a stern way it's usally not labelled as constructive. If the information is in there then its fine for me. Sometimes being stern gets stuff across better.

Also criticism doesn't have to be negative.

 

[The Why Not Guy]

I can't speak for others, but when I first joined this and several other photography boards, I had a few goals in mind. I wanted to expose myself to the countless styles and approaches to photography out there, and add my own small vision to the mix. I wanted to learn from people with far more talent and experience than I have, by studying their work and reading their posts. I wanted to harness the spirit of friendly competition to push myself to improve. I'm thrilled that the boards have done this and more for me beyond my wildest expectations.

But it's also a mixed bag. Newcomers aspire. They want to be what you already are. Your acceptance and praise means a lot. When they frame their work and sign it, think of it as a (misguided, perhaps) attempt to emulate what they think photography is. Think of it as them taking care to only present their best work, as attractively (so they think) as possibly. They want to be part of the club, that's all.

Criticism is tougher. Once in a while I post a shot I'm really happy with and while my brain is thinking "maybe I'll get some good constructive criticism" my heart is saying "oooh I hope everyone loves this picture!" Then, when the advice rolls in, sure, my brain is grateful but my heart is hurt. That's if I'm lucky enough to not have my shot ignored completely.

That's not to say you should hold back on expressing your opinions or offering advice, particularly when it's asked for. I'm just saying that those of us who aspire react to criticism a bit differently than those of you who are already "part of the club." My favorite thing is when someone is kind enough to take the time to give me an honest appraisal of what I've posted, along with advice on how to improve it and praise for something I may have gotten right.

Thanks for listening.

 

[ksmattfish]

So this isn't really a "I'm better than everyelse" type thing.

I think it's a "Everyone else is doing it, so I'd better too" sort of thing.

 

[Michel Szulc Krzyzanowski]

Because of the way we humans are, everything we do has a meaning, though most people are unaware of this.
Most things have a much deeper symbolic meaning that we read at a subliminal level but rarely at a conscious one.
This is how Advertising (and an awful lot else) works.
Frames around photos, signatures on prints, et al, all have deeper levels of meaning than the immediately obvious. Being aware of these deeper meanings and trying to understand them means that you can use them to advantage.
The alternative is to whistle in the dark, but some people are happier doing that.[/QUOTE]
Text by Hertz van Rental
==========================================================

It is true that photography can serve as a psycho-therapy. Or as a tool for spiritual growing. Photography can be very effective for this, once the protagonist is aware of this knowledge and learns how to use it.
However, many make the mistake to think that the photographic results
are important for others because they were important for the photographer.
This can be observed in the field of art-photography.
Narcism of no importance to anyone else.
Nevertheless, there is a way to practise photography as a tool for a personal process of spiritual growing while also having meaning for a wide audience.

 

[panzershreck]

Because of the way we humans are, everything we do has a meaning, though most people are unaware of this.
Most things have a much deeper symbolic meaning that we read at a subliminal level but rarely at a conscious one.
This is how Advertising (and an awful lot else) works.
Frames around photos, signatures on prints, et al, all have deeper levels of meaning than the immediately obvious. Being aware of these deeper meanings and trying to understand them means that you can use them to advantage.
The alternative is to whistle in the dark, but some people are happier doing that.

Text by Hertz van Rental
==========================================================

It is true that photography can serve as a psycho-therapy. Or as a tool for spiritual growing. Photography can be very effective for this, once the protagonist is aware of this knowledge and learns how to use it.
However, many make the mistake to think that the photographic results
are important for others because they were important for the photographer.
This can be observed in the field of art-photography.
Narcism of no importance to anyone else.
Nevertheless, there is a way to practise photography as a tool for a personal process of spiritual growing while also having meaning for a wide audience.

i agree and i disagree

not everything has symbolism of a greater meaning

but anything can be viewed as having meaning, ie: if you write out everything that comes to your mind, everything, without thought... yah know, a lot of it is merely train of thought, logic, which needs a conclusion or end point than a real answer... so you write 10 things that can have meaning, and 10 things that are totally random... the randomness can have meaning, but the things themselves cannot (unless you really push it), and of course, there's mistakes, if some photographer takes a photo and simply twitches and frames incorrectly to what he wanted, but finds out later that the framing is unbelievably better... there is no meaning, he twitched uncontrollably

most people who create art are attached in some way, even if they did it in .5 seconds with little thought, an artist will defend it because it's a product of their being, they're expressing themselves in some way, and when somebody attacks that expression, it means they're attacking the person that expressed it

hence things like projecting one's view of importance of their product on others, it's sometimes obnoxious and pretentious, but totally natural

gotta separate those who copy from those who think they're da bomb though, copying is a trait of learning, da bomb is arrogance