"Technical" vs. "Artistic": Should One Trump The Other?

[LouR]

The poll is a little odd, and suffers from the "planted axiom" fallacy! The third choice introduces a client, and thereby suggests that the poll is about commercial photography.

I'm not commercial, at all, so. I answered 'artistic' is the only thing that matters to me, because that's all I care about. With 'artistic' pretty broadly construed, to cover everything that's not technical. Whatever THAT is.

It is worded "wrong" but the intent is "whatevah" so I chose it. I am not really a "commercial" photographer at all, I shoot what pleases me and hope it pleases others enough to hand over some hard earned dollars. However, with the exception of one unintentionally blurred accident, I have to be sure that most technical aspects are met; clarity, brightness (or darkness, depending on the subject), proper cropping within the context of the piece, things like that. If people have to ask "WTF is that?", then I have failed in those aspects.

 

[cgipson1]

I prefer artistic images without distractions! Distractions would be poor choices in technique, and the technical prerequisites. An artistic image that is over / under exposed, has branches though the subject face, OOF in the wrong places, Poor choice of DOF, harsh lighting, etc, etc... is usually not something I care for. There are exceptions where this can still work, but it is the overall totality of the image, the merger of the technical with the artistic.. that makes an image for me! You can seldom have one without the other.... IMO!

I didn't vote.. as I don't feel there is an option that covers this....

 

[KenC]

I voted for the third option because it really does depend on circumstances, like almost everything in life.

As far as the technical "correctness" of a photo, even that is a matter of opinion. Exposure can be chosen to emphasize detail in either the shadows or highlights in a contrasty scene and focus is also a choice when near-infinite DOF either is not possible or not desirable (another choice). I'm afraid what we're left with is a fuzzy subjective opinion about whether an image works for us.

 

[kathyt]

View attachment 40651Here is the image that started this whole thread. So, lets discuss it.

My goal of this shot was to get a very soft, delicate, and candid feel of this young girl. I am shooting through twigs and sticks, and I put the focus directly on the eyes. I did not want everything to be tack sharp, or I would not have been shooting through anything. I would have done a direct shot. Was this an artistic choice? For sure! Did I get what I wanted out of this shot. Yes. This client and her mother will not walk away from their ordering session saying, "Man, if only she was placed on the left side, or if only her hand wasn't so bright and high in intensity we would have spent more money." They will walk away with what I set them up to walk away with, which is an expressive, artistic image. Which is who she is. As long as I remain consistent then clients know what they are paying for, and they know what to expect from me. At this point, I know my style and I know what sells. So, if I continue to marry the two of those, then I will continue to grow. The second I lose sight of the artistic aspect is the time I will start to lose sight of my sales. I also agree with KMH in which the greater understanding of the technical aspects, the greater the range of artistic possibilities.

 

[cgipson1]

View attachment 40651Here is the image that started this whole thread. So, lets discuss it.

My goal of this shot was to get a very soft, delicate, and candid feel of this young girl. I am shooting through twigs and sticks, and I put the focus directly on the eyes. I did not want everything to be tack sharp, or I would not have been shooting through anything. I would have done a direct shot. Was this an artistic choice? For sure! Did I get what I wanted out of this shot. Yes. This client and her mother will not walk away from their ordering session saying, "Man, if only she was placed on the left side, or if only her hand wasn't so bright and high in intensity we would have spent more money." They will walk away with what I set them up to walk away with, which is an expressive, artistic image. Which is who she is. As long as I remain consistent then clients know what they are paying for, and they know what to expect from me. At this point, I know my style and I know what sells. So, if I continue to marry the two of those, then I will continue to grow. The second I lose sight of the artistic aspect is the time I will start to lose sight of my sales. I also agree with KMH in which the greater understanding of the technical aspects, the greater the range of artistic possibilities.

I actually like the image... although I hate the headchop. But it is a popular look today... and it sells! If I was still shooting professionally.. I would probably be forced to shoot like this.. just to be competitive. But I would probably do less "headchop" even then... personal preference! I would have also probably shot it vertically.. since I am more of a traditionalist that way... and it would show off more of that lovely lady without the "wasted" space.

I am not saying Kathy is wrong to shoot it this way... I am saying I would not do it that way!

 

[TimothyJinx]

Kathy, very well said. I'm new and I'm a noob so I guess my opinion carries very little weight. But photography, like many other realms I've been in throughout my life, has its share of over-sized egos. Some people HAVE to be able to quantify things, measure things and point out what is wrong or right. Artistic expression takes this ability away from those people. To say something is an ineffective artistic expression because the technical aspects are missing is ridiculous. I love this picture. Very nice job!

 

[cgipson1]

Kathy, very well said. I'm new and I'm a noob so I guess my opinion carries very little weight. But photography, like many other realms I've been in throughout my life, has its share of over-sized egos. Some people HAVE to be able to quantify things, measure things and point out what is wrong or right. Artistic expression takes this ability away from those people. To say something is an ineffective artistic expression because the technical aspects are missing is ridiculous. I love this picture. Very nice job!

There are NO technical aspects missing... but there are some "inclusions" that would make many traditionalists and classically trained artists call it a snapshot. But it is a nice image... light is nice, subject is nice, focus is nice... but is a "Today" photo, shot in today's trends and fashions! That does not make it right or wrong... but that doesn't mean every has to like it... or that everyone will hate it either.

Noobs will like it more than old-timers will... because this this the type of image they are most exposed to... what they expect!

 

[TimothyJinx]

Noobs will like it more than old-timers will... because this this the type of image they are most exposed to... what they expect!

No disrespect, because I'm sure you are a very talented photographer. But this is exactly what I'm talking about - what you are saying is I'm not experienced or smart enough to know what to like.

 

[cgipson1]

Noobs will like it more than old-timers will... because this this the type of image they are most exposed to... what they expect!

No disrespect, because I'm sure you are a very talented photographer. But this is exactly what I'm talking about - what you are saying is I'm not experienced or smart enough to know what to like.

No.. I am saying you like what you are learning to like, which is what you are exposed to, what is popular! I am saying that you have not been exposed to forty or fifty years of photography AS a photographer. You have only been exposed to the modern photography AS a photographer!

You like what you like.... I like what I like.... no big deal.

 

[amolitor]

TimothyJinx, being a noob doesn't mean you're not qualified to say "I like that" and "I don't like that" and ultimately, that's all anyone can do. A pro just knows more about where to stick the lights to make it so more people would have liked it 5 years ago.

 

[TimothyJinx]

Noobs will like it more than old-timers will... because this this the type of image they are most exposed to... what they expect!

No disrespect, because I'm sure you are a very talented photographer. But this is exactly what I'm talking about - what you are saying is I'm not experienced or smart enough to know what to like.

No.. I am saying you like what you are learning to like, which is what you are exposed to, what is popular! I am saying that you have not been exposed to forty or fifty years of photography AS a photographer. You have only been exposed to the modern photography AS a photographer!

You like what you like.... I like what I like.... no big deal.

Agreed.

 

[cgipson1]

No disrespect, because I'm sure you are a very talented photographer. But this is exactly what I'm talking about - what you are saying is I'm not experienced or smart enough to know what to like.

No.. I am saying you like what you are learning to like, which is what you are exposed to, what is popular! I am saying that you have not been exposed to forty or fifty years of photography AS a photographer. You have only been exposed to the modern photography AS a photographer!

You like what you like.... I like what I like.... no big deal.

Agreed.

Good! There was no offense or condescension intended! We merely have totally different viewpoints! I can see from your avatar that you are probably close to the same generation as I am... but the reason I stressed above "AS a photographer", is that you look at things differently once you start getting serious about photography... you look at framing, composition, lighting, etc.... which you would not have really paid much attention to.. PRE-Photography! I hope you understand what I am trying to say...

 

[Derrel]

I remember leaving the movie, "The Tooth Fairy" with my then six and a half-year-old son, who excitedly said, "Wasn't that just the BEST movie EVER, Dad!!??", and I said, "Yes, yes it was!" A few weeks later, I took him to another kid movie, and as we left he said, "That was the BEST movie I have ever,ever SEEN! What did you think of it, Dad?" and I said, , "Oh MAN, it was totally AWESOME!" And you know what? As a movie for KIDS, it WAS, indeed, very good!!!!

Fast forward three years, and I was involved in an on-line discussion about the comedy/slasher movie entitled, "A Night In The Woods" A Night in the Woods (2011) - IMDb with some 20-something people...some of them thought the film was pretty good...others, with a bit more cinematic seasoning, saw the obvious failures.

I went to see an Oregon Shakespearean festival production of The Taming of The Shrew, and wondered as I sat there why more episodes of The Simpsons were not nearly as good as that moldy old play.

I think there are many levels of craft. In painting we have Dogs Playing Poker []Dogs Playing POker - Google Search, the epitome of kitsch, and then we have things like Guernica. Both are "painting". But both have very,very different levels of artistic involvement. At times it's good to go along,like I did with my young son and agree, wholeheartedly, and say things like, "YES! That kid movie is the best movie ever made!" The level of the craft needs to be sufficient for the level of artistic expression desired. (I think that a famous photographer once said something kind of like that statement.) Kid movies are not the same as historical drama, like the film Lincoln, or Schindler's List, and different levels of craft are needed for each type of movie. An episode of The Simpsons is vastly different than a Shakespearean play, and in today's marketplace, an episode of The Simpsons is probably more marketable than a Shakespearean play, and yet, I highly doubt that most universities world-wide will offer courses in The Simpsons. And let me assure you, the movie A Night In The Woods is a very,very,very weak offering in its genre, but in today's market, younger viewers bought enough tickets to, probably, recoup the cost of production of the movie.

What do the above examples have in common? Well, in all of them, the "technical" [as a singular quality] was adequate for their genre and target audience. However, the "artistic" aims of all of the above examples I brought up were very different. Some shoot low,others swing for the fences. The Simpsons is a product of modern industrial animation techniques and "the technical", bringing cartoon figures to "life". Shakespeare's works were based upon true artistry, bringing archetypal feelings, emotions, and concocted characters to life, to such a degree that people are still paying money to see his artistry over 400 years later.

 

[TimothyJinx]

Good! There was no offense or condescension intended! We merely have totally different viewpoints! I can see from your avatar that you are probably close to the same generation as I am... but the reason I stressed above "AS a photographer", is that you look at things differently once you start getting serious about photography... you look at framing, composition, lighting, etc.... which you would not have really paid much attention to.. PRE-Photography! I hope you understand what I am trying to say...

Wow, did you just call me old? Just kidding and no offense taken. I understand where you are coming from

 

[cgipson1]

I remember leaving the movie, "The Tooth Fairy" with my then six and a half-year-old son, who excitedly said, "Wasn't that just the BEST movie EVER, Dad!!??", and I said, "Yes, yes it was!" A few weeks later, I took him to another kid movie, and as we left he said, "That was the BEST movie I have ever,ever SEEN! What did you think of it, Dad?" and I said, , "Oh MAN, it was totally AWESOME!" And you know what? As a movie for KIDS, it WAS, indeed, very good!!!!

Fast forward three years, and I was involved in an on-line discussion about the comedy/slasher movie entitled, "A Night In The Woods" A Night in the Woods (2011) - IMDb with some 20-something people...some of them thought the film was pretty good...others, with a bit more cinematic seasoning, saw the obvious failures.

I went to see an Oregon Shakespearean festival production of The Taming of The Shrew, and wondered as I sat there why more episodes of The Simpsons were not nearly as good as that moldy old play.

I think there are many levels of craft. In painting we have Dogs Playing Poker []Dogs Playing POker - Google Search, the epitome of kitsch, and then we have things like Guernica. Both are "painting". But both have very,very different levels of artistic involvement. At times it's good to go along,like I did with my young son and agree, wholeheartedly, and say things like, "YES! That kid movie is the best movie ever made!" The level of the craft needs to be sufficient for the level of artistic expression desired. (I think that a famous photographer once said something kind of like that statement.) Kid movies are not the same as historical drama, like the film Lincoln, or Schindler's List, and different levels of craft are needed for each type of movie. An episode of The Simpsons is vastly different than a Shakespearean play, and in today's marketplace, an episode of The Simpsons is probably more marketable than a Shakespearean play, and yet, I highly doubt that most universities world-wide will offer courses in The Simpsons. And let me assure you, the movie A Night In The Woods is a very,very,very weak offering in its genre, but in today's market, younger viewers bought enough tickets to, probably, recoup the cost of production of the movie.

What do the above examples have in common? Well, in all of them, the "technical" [as a singular quality] was adequate for their genre and target audience. However, the "artistic" aims of all of the above examples I brought up were very different. Some shoot low,others swing for the fences. The Simpsons is a product of modern industrial animation techniques and "the technical", bringing cartoon figures to "life". Shakespeare's works were based upon true artistry, bringing archetypal feelings, emotions, and concocted characters to life, to such a degree that people are still paying money to see his artistry over 400 years later.

Nicely written! I agree.. the trends and fads come and go! The "Art" stays...