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

[nonamexx]

a common scenerio we see here isn't simply a beginner getting "lucky" per se, but someone that posts an image for critique from a recent "shoot" they did for a "client" which is watermarked with their business logo, webpage, and business FB/twitter/flikr information. That, along with their signature being all of their business contact information leads people to believe that they are a professional photographer, and therefor they are often times given very professional critique. this is NOT the same scenario as a new hobbyist photographer posting an image and getting bashed for it. that is wrong. If you advertise yourself as taking paid jobs, I don't believe you have the right to complain when people want to judge your work by professional standards. that isn't newbie bashing, because if you are a photographer doing business on your own, then I think its fair for people to assume you are not a newbie.

Oh, that's a different scenario. And your point is taken. People posing as professionals and then getting found out is not what I was talking about.

 

[jwbryson1]

Who really cares?

 

[amolitor]

I care deeply! And in truth, it actually is the sort of thing I think about far too much for my own good. But I like it.

 

[runnah]

This is why I hate art. Everything else is based on facts, specs and data. This car is better because it has more horsepower, this laptop is better because it had a faster proccessor etc...

You can't quantify something that doesn't have quantifiable values.

 

[pgriz]

This is why I hate art. Everything else is based on facts, specs and data. This car is better because it has more horsepower, this laptop is better because it had a faster proccessor etc...

You can't quantify something that doesn't have quantifiable values.

So your position on affection, adulation, admiration is....
( )

 

[cynicaster]

To me, the argument of "art" over "technical accuracy" is only valid if the photographer actually HAS the knowledge and ability to produce either of them when it is applicable.
…
…
But I think there are also people that want to be taken seriously as a photographer that do not have a basic grasp of photography basics and use "artistic choice" as a crutch for poorly executed pictures.

I knew this was coming, and I mostly agree, but it seems like you’re only considering the extreme scenarios:

• Skilled photographer has both an artistic flair and a thorough grasp of technical aspects, knows just what rules to break to achieve a “vision”
• Clueless green square junkie produces inconsistent results, uses the label “art” to cover up lack of knowledge and wherewithal

What about the vast majority of the rest of us, who fall somewhere in the gaping middle?

As an example, let’s take a hobbyist photographer with a solid grasp of technical fundamentals and modest gear, who manages to capture an image that he or she is very proud of from an artistic perspective, despite some less than textbook-perfect technical aspects. The photographer is discerning enough to assess the technical efficacy of the photograph on their own, but is simply deciding that they like the photo in spite of its “flaws”.

In this case we’d have a photo that is less than perfect, but the “flaws” are not due to lack of knowledge on the photographer’s part, nor are they due to a clear intention on the photographer’s part—they are simply due to the stack up of chance elements, human error, and perhaps the operation of available gear at its limits. The reason doesn’t really matter, because even the most skilled and experienced photographers with their ridiculous gear are incapable of perfectly nailing every single shot.

So, our photographer comes to TPF and shares the photo, and receives lots of “oohs” and “aaahs” from the apparently “artsy-fartsy” types who are moved by the image, but predictably gets assailed from all angles by the techno-buffs over nitty-gritty. This, I think, is where the true colours shine through on the philosophical question of this thread.

Of course, nobody is obligated to like or dislike any photo for any reason; it’s all purely subjective. But what bears greater significance-- a positive response to the art or a negative response to the pixels? For me it’s the former, any day of the week.

 

[Derrel]

SNIP>>>>>>>>do the technically incorrect choices I made in my settings, specifically my shutter speed and resulting "imperfections" make it a failure by default?

No, this is not a failure. This photograph is a good example of pictorialism. We had a huge,lengthy discussion about pictorialism a year or so ago, started by BitterJeweler. Pictorialism was a widespread movement in photography, and it held wide sway for decades, and it was a popular way of working. Pictorialism as a popular movement that was respected and widely exhibited was killed off by people like Ansel Adams and the rest of the Group f/64 photogs and their curator co-conspirators, who insisted on rigidly correct technique and sharp-focus images. The Group f/64 folks killed off all the pretty, impressionistic, ethereal, delicate renderings, and instead gave us razor-sharp peppers, stark, sharp images of Half Dome, formalistic nudes, and facile renderings of scenic vistas, ad nauseum.

Pictorialist photographers deliberately chose lenses that had "pictorial" rendering characteristics, and made images that were more "conceptual" shall we say, than the later Group f/64 types that came to dominate photography in the 1930's through the 1950's and into the 1960's. I think all of the drug use, cultural upheaval, and the widespread re-examination of ALL SORTS OF cultural "ideals" in the 1960's helped pave the way for some new, refreshing ways of doing phototography that first started popping up in widespread locations around the world in the mid- to late 1960's.

Technical values need only be high enough to get the desired meaning across to viewers. The shot above is a pictorialst-style image. It does its job. It is a successful photograph!

 

[pgriz]

Can I be an artsy-fartsy with nitty gritty tendencies? Please?

 

[Derrel]

Can I be an artsy-fartsy with nitty gritty tendencies? Please?

Yes. As long as you bring cookies, that is!

 

[amolitor]

The thing about photographs is that while the result may be an evocative piece of art, the stuff that goes into it is all technical details. You make a series of essentially technical choices, either on purpose or by accident, which produce the image.

Critique, ideally, addresses both. Worrying about sharpness divorced from anything is kind of silly, unless someone's asking specifically for help on technical issues. Looking at the image holistically, and trying to grasp maybe what the photographer was going for, is where we should start. Generally. This goes for purely commercial stuff too, just because it's a picture of a beer bottle or a bride doesn't mean you're not going for some holistic thing.

So, view it holistically, as a thing in and of itself. How do you feel, etc etc, all that artistic crap. None of this is particularly useful if you can't boil solutions down to technical solutions. Often, I can't, but I usually give it a try. "The frame feels unbalanced, off-kilter, and it seems like you were going for a more peaceful feeling. I think shooting from a foot to the left, and then cropping the result square would create a more balanced and therefore peaceful image." is the kind of thing I really want to say every time I give critique. Do I succeed? No.

So, anyways. What's it all mean? I think it means that the technical details and the artistic result are inextricably intertwined.

Which is NOT the same thing as saying that technical excellence is necessary for artistic excellence.

 

[manaheim]

This is why I hate art. Everything else is based on facts, specs and data. This car is better because it has more horsepower, this laptop is better because it had a faster proccessor etc...

You can't quantify something that doesn't have quantifiable values.

Mac or PC?

-dives behind a couch-

 

[KenC]

This is why I hate art. Everything else is based on facts, specs and data. This car is better because it has more horsepower, this laptop is better because it had a faster proccessor etc...

You can't quantify something that doesn't have quantifiable values.

Mac or PC?

-dives behind a couch-

- where he bumps into the Canon vs. Nikon crowd-

 

[pixmedic]

The only aspect of photography that can be critiqued on a a measurable level is its technical qualities . If you are going to critique just on an artistic level, your limited to liking or dislikeing it on a personal level. That isnt what most people posting for critique are looking for if they want to improve. We have a section for people just looking to share photos that dont want c&c.

 

[amolitor]

I disagree, pixmedic.

If I post a photograph and get 5 people saying 'yeah, wow, that's gloomy' that's interesting. It becomes more a process of polling than of measuring, but it's not worthless. I've actually learned a lot about how to make evocative images by doing just that. Well, to be precise, I've learned a lot about how not to make them.

One person's response to other-than-technical stuff isn't all *that* interesting, but add a couple more and you're starting to get something good.

There is something to the idea of a "good" image, a "powerful" image, an "evocative" one, that goes beyond the technical. These are real things, but getting at them is tricky.

 

[PixelRabbit]

Can I be an artsy-fartsy with nitty gritty tendencies? Please?

Can I be an artsy-fartsy with nitty gritty tendencies? Please?

Yes. As long as you bring cookies, that is!

Ah yes, come to the dark side, we have cookies

Oh and Derrel, that part about the 60's I think I may be stuck there in many ways lol :hippie:

To those that commented on my picture, thank you. I absolutely don't consider it a failure because of it's "technical flaws" I think it is a success because of them.

"I think it means that the technical details and the artistic result are inextricably intertwined."

Amolitor expressed it very well with this line, I think that when you play around with settings that will provide a "technically incorrect result" you have to use that result effectively, it can't appear to be a mistake but rather disappear, become irrelevant/relevant or elevate the image in some way.

Anything that causes the intended audience of the image to not be engaged (meh, click next!) or to be jarred out of viewing an image (unless you intend to jar your audience) is a technical failure and it is our job as the one trying to engage the audience to figure out where it falls short.