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

[imagemaker46]

Personally I like everything about the photo except one thing, her hand doesn't look like it belongs in the photo. There is nothing really wrong technically with the photo, the light is nice, the focus point is right, I don't like the crop, which is probably why the hand doesn't look right. I try not to look at photographs from a technical aspect, but more from the emotional side. I don't always know why I like a photo, but I do know why I don't like a photo. It may be technically perfect, but if I don't connect with it, it means little to me.

I've shot photos that don't mean anything to me, but the client likes them, they may not even be artistically or technically perfect, but it doesn't matter as long as they work for the people that are looking at them.

 

[kathyt]

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.

This is a great art history lesson, but what are YOU bringing to your clients that is unique and that sets you apart from other people? What do you consider more important in your own images rather than the works of others? Times are changing. You continually say, well so and so does this or that, and your breaking this rule and that rule. Well, show us what YOU are bringing to the table. I would much rather see that then to constantly hear you talk so much about other artists. Become your own artist and then lets talk about that. Also, Shakespeare's work was not a part of my business plan. My work was. So, if I would like to carry out my plan as intended then I must take the lead, and not follow in the path of others.

 

[pixmedic]

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.

This is a great art history lesson, but what are YOU bringing to your clients that is unique and that sets you apart from other people? What do you consider more important in your own images rather than the works of others? Times are changing. You continually say, well so and so does this or that, and your breaking this rule and that rule. Well, show us what YOU are bringing to the table. I would much rather see that then to constantly hear you talk so much about other artists. Become your own artist and then lets talk about that. Also, Shakespeare's work was not a part of my business plan. My work was. So, if I would like to carry out my plan as intended then I must take the lead, and not follow in the path of others.

I think maybe you could have asked what Derrel brings to the table...well, probably before you were even born. I think he may have earned the right by now, not to have to qualify his every statement with proof like most of us relatively new photographers. I dont think anyone here has said anything to the contrary of you working however you want to, or even that it was right or wrong. Derrel only offered critique on a photograph. nothing more.

OUR clients, mainly wedding and portrait, ask for a certain level of technical correctness and formality. and that's what we aspire to deliver to them.
we do very little "candid" and almost zero "natural light" photography. that is simply the way we choose to do business, and it is what our clients want us to do for them.
to say that other people are not artistic because of YOUR standards, is doing to other people, exactly what you complained was being done to you. because by YOUR definition, OUR work is not artistic. and we are ok with that, because our clients are ok with it.

and honestly...there is almost nothing anymore that is entirely unique about any photography style. its all been done.

 

[Derrel]

Kathy, I write long replies to all sorts of topics, all across this forum, on all topics. I have no idea why you're once again trying to attack me ad hominem, except that your feelings are still bruised from the thread you started, and then had closed earlier today. What the heck does the OP's post, and my response to it in THIS thread, HIS thread, have to do with YOU, and YOUR axe to grind?

My post above is not and was not about "you" Kathy, or your most recent thread, which you posted in The Professional Gallery. Please take a look at where this is posted. We are here, in the Photographic Discussions section of TPF. It's a big,big forum.

Why are you stalking me, Kathy?

By the way, in the poll earlier this MORNING, when I voted, I voted "It would depend on the situation, the client, and the desired image."

 

[kathyt]

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.

This is a great art history lesson, but what are YOU bringing to your clients that is unique and that sets you apart from other people? What do you consider more important in your own images rather than the works of others? Times are changing. You continually say, well so and so does this or that, and your breaking this rule and that rule. Well, show us what YOU are bringing to the table. I would much rather see that then to constantly hear you talk so much about other artists. Become your own artist and then lets talk about that. Also, Shakespeare's work was not a part of my business plan. My work was. So, if I would like to carry out my plan as intended then I must take the lead, and not follow in the path of others.

I think maybe you could have asked what Derrel brings to the table...well, probably before you were even born. I think he may have earned the right by now, not to have to qualify his every statement with proof like most of us relatively new photographers. I dont think anyone here has said anything to the contrary of you working however you want to, or even that it was right or wrong. Derrel only offered critique on a photograph. nothing more.

OUR clients, mainly wedding and portrait, ask for a certain level of technical correctness and formality. and that's what we aspire to deliver to them.
we do very little "candid" and almost zero "natural light" photography. that is simply the way we choose to do business, and it is what our clients want us to do for them.
to say that other people are not artistic because of YOUR standards, is doing to other people, exactly what you complained was being done to you. because by YOUR definition, OUR work is not artistic. and we are ok with that, because our clients are ok with it.

and honestly...there is almost nothing anymore that is entirely unique about any photography style. its all been done.

What? I asked Derrel a question about right now, not forty years ago. Right now. Present tense. To say it has all been done is absolute hog wash. Let him speak for himself.

 

[The_Traveler]

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!

Let me point out something in this post.
I don't disagree necessarily with the idea but, considering the history of this discussion, there is a certain amount of passive aggressive behavior in talking about some people with over-sized egos.

If I had been Derrel and made the comment that started the previous ruckus, I would feel that this above was a sneaky jab at me.
It could have been easily left out of the paragraph without changing the meaning.
It isn't productive behavior to do this in the middle of a different discussion.

 

[IByte]

Ladies and gents can't we settle this over a pint(5-8 for me)?

 

[kathyt]

Kathy, I write long replies to all sorts of topics, all across this forum, on all topics. I have no idea why you're once again trying to attack me ad hominem, except that your feelings are still bruised from the thread you started, and then had closed earlier today. What the heck does the OP's post, and my response to it in THIS thread, HIS thread, have to do with YOU, and YOUR axe to grind?

My post above is not and was not about "you" Kathy, or your most recent thread, which you posted in The Professional Gallery. Please take a look at where this is posted. We are here, in the Photographic Discussions section of TPF. It's a big,big forum.

Why are you stalking me, Kathy?

By the way, in the poll earlier this MORNING, when I voted, I voted "It would depend on the situation, the client, and the desired image."

Who said that post was about me? I didn't. I was responding to what YOU wrote in THIS thread. Are your posts off limits to make comments on? How was that an attack Derrel? My point was that we are our own artist, and that we can certainly gain inspiration from past artists, but ultimately we must form our own identity to become successful. My feelings are not bruised over your "critique" Derrel. That I can promise you.

 

[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!

Let me point out something in this post.
I don't disagree necessarily with the idea but, considering the history of this discussion, there is a certain amount of passive aggressive behavior in talking about some people with over-sized egos.

If I had been Derrel and made the comment that started the previous ruckus, I would feel that this above was a sneaky jab at me.
It could have been easily left out of the paragraph without changing the meaning.
It isn't productive behavior to do this in the middle of a different discussion.

First of all, I certainly wasn't talking to or about Darrel. In fact, I think his comment came after mine but I'm not sure. Secondly, I didn't intend to be passive aggressive - I was just trying to make the point that our egos sometimes drive us to want to be able to point out flaws or indicate broken rules. I'm truly sorry if I've offended you or anyone else.

 

[runnah]

I volunteer myself as a giver of consoling hugs to to Kathy.

 

[IByte]

I volunteer myself as a giver of consoling hugs to to Kathy.

Maybe a group hug lol.

 

[runnah]

Maybe a group hug lol.

I think that would have the opposite effect.

 

[IByte]

I think that would have the opposite effect.

It's all about hugs not drugs .

 

[kathyt]

I volunteer myself as a giver of consoling hugs to to Kathy.

You just made me spit my water out laughing. Thank you.

 

[cynicaster]

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.

Wow man, that is what I was going to say, verbatim.

I'm fairly new to photography as well, but I've been big into music for 20 years, and it's the exact same story in that medium. You get these self-righteous blowhards who go on and on about how band A puts band B to shame, simply because band A plays songs in odd time signatures with 8 minute tap-style guitar solos, while band B constructs songs out of 4 chords and has no solos at all. To be completely honest, I sometimes find myself feeling sorry for people like that; people whose brains simply cannot acknowledge beauty in things that fail to achieve some minimum score on a set of technical metrics.

Don't get me wrong, it's not that I'm "anti-technical-prowess" in photography, far from it; I'm simply saying that some people fail to see a picture simply because the pixels are in the way.