Art Appreciation

[Luke]

Luke: on the comment of a 'bagillion' shots -- it's a statistical fact that given enough monkeys typing on enough word processors for a long enough time, they will eventually come up with "How do I love thee? Let me count the ways. . ." This does not diminish Will Shakespeare's talent, nor the artistic quality of the poem, by a single iota.

Please excuse me for this:

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! YOU n0000000b!!!! shakespeare didn't write that poem!!!!! Elizabeth Barret Browning nubcake.
BEsides, my point was, that just because the inexperienced can create something beautiful everyonce in a while, doesnt pose a threat to the dedicated. I don't see what monkeys replicating shakespeare *cough* browning *cough* has to do with that at all.
anyway sorry bout that, stepped a bit outa line, took it a bit to far, but i had to pwn you there, couldn't resist .

 

[JamesD]

Puerility aside, the point remains, and it's this: If you take a thousand shots, with at least marginal control of exposure and post-processing (particularly with the powerful tools we use, and which any novice can use, though perhaps not as well), then you're bound to eventually wind up with at least one image that's halfway decent, and perhaps even pretty good.

The point is, the process is, at least to some degree, accidental.

Introduce skill into the process, and the results will be much more consistent--and more to the point, deliberate.

It's not a matter of the professional being threatened by the amateur. It's a matter of wading through the flood of mediocrity, and a matter of dealing with the conceited amateur (or n00'b, to use your eloquent term) thinking that because his or her occasional accident is perhaps as good as the skilled practitioner's deliberate and consistently repeated excellence, that the conceited amateur is therefore the skilled practitioner's equal. This is clearly not the case.

The novice or amateur who is not conceited and is willing to learn and improve in a deliberate manner; or who recognizes his own level of skill and where it stands on the scale, not seeking to artificially elevate it to a point he has not yet attained.... this is another case entirely. Such an artist is worthy of attention.

And now, I'm going to place my attention on something less unworthy.

 

[panzershreck]

i'll weigh in with my opinion

honestly i don't care about the "commercial" or "accidental" aspect of art as a disadvantage in anyway, in fact i think it's an advantage, in a sense everytime i go out to take a picture i'm merely going by intuition and accident, the only skilled part of my process is my knowledge of the camera and my ability to say "no" to taking a picture, something anybody who is 100% dedicated to film (at the moment) has to live by... in my drawing most things are accidents, the only difference between me and say - some guy off the street, is that i know how to draw with some tools, and he doesn't, i'm positive that if that random guy was interested in learning how to use drawing tools and motivated to learn how to approach drawing in his own way, he'd probably be better than I am

the thing is that the photo with the dolphin in it IS a good photo, if some random guy popped up on here with it people would be praising him for it, however corny it may seem... it's not National Geographic worthy of course, but then most photos - artistic or not - aren't worthy, simply out of the approach the photos take to their subject...

as far as automation goes, most processes are already out of my hands anyways, you can never be totally original when you're accepting a medium somebody else invented, unless you invent your own medium, and even then you're accepting the way other people throughout history have developed image composition, just look at photos today in general compared to photos from 30 years ago, totally different styles...

point being, i think it's rediculous to blast people for enjoying a photo, i also think it's rediculous to blast photographers because of lack of skill and praise those in turn who do have skill, as inferior/superior in any way, i know i can consistently turn out good results, i also know that i can consistently turn out bad results... who cares? besides i never know what other people like of mine... i can say "this is a good photo!" but then everybody i know picks an accidental photo as the good photo... as a film photographer i can say that i'm more artistic, because i have a 70% success rate when i go out to take photos - and then i only take say 24 or less photos of which 20 are good, whereas some guy with a digital camera goes out and takes 500 photos and picks 20 good photos, and because of that i'm better because if i took 500 photos i'd end up with 400 good photos... i think not! in the end who cares?

after all, photography is still not 100% accepted in the art world, painting/sculpture still reign supreme there

 

[Arch]

It's not a matter of the professional being threatened by the amateur.

if a crap photographer can be good cos of digital, imagine how good a talented photographer will be, i don't think this will brng any sort of revolution.

In the world of 'art' with 'artists' ..... you both may have a point. But in the world of the professional commercial photographer, it is very much a matter of the pro being threatened by the amateur and the digital revolution is already effecting the pro.

Most of the photo's i get sent on disk nowadays from businesses to incorporate into design work are taken by amateurs, where previously i would of only been sent professional or stock photography......

Also how about all these people that are being asked to do weddings with no prior experience...... i was going to do one in sept, but i'v pulled out..... if i didn't get the shots the bride wanted i'd feel bad..... so although the money was good i recomended a professional, but i know of many people who chose to use thier friend who has a DSLR.

Point being if we were all still shooting film, there would certainly be less options available for businesses and brides, using a film camera would be too nerve racking for a novice..... thus creating more work for the professional.

I feel bad for them..... i know a few pro's (in england) whos income has dropped in recent years and often say how theres not enough work around...... the same thing has happened in graphic design.... which is why a career change may be in order for me soon. It may have less impact on the big spenders and larger cities, but for us smaller cities and towns the career of a pro could be considered threatend...... and what will happen in the future when digital cameras get better and better and cheeper by the year.

Food for thought thats all....... but im still with rob on the dolphin picture.... told you you've opened a can of worms rob

 

[JamesD]

In the world of 'art' with 'artists' ..... you both may have a point. But in the world of the professional commercial photographer, it is very much a matter of the pro being threatened by the amateur and the digital revolution is already effecting the pro.

You do indeed have a point here. I hadn't considered the business side, and for a couple of reasons, the main one being that I've got no knowledge of it whatsoever. Business is a fickle thing, anyway, in my opinion; and the better work does not always get picked. Deadlines, format, style, and a host of subjective ideas (being interpreted by the guy who's writing the checks) determine whose name is on the check.

And right on about weddings. Someone told me day before yesterday that a friend of his was looking for a wedding photographer. Before he even finished the sentence, I was shaking my head and saying "no." I know I don't have the skills, and I'd hate to disappoint the interested parties and possibly get my friend in hot water with hisfriends. I just hope they didn't hire that portrait-studio guy down town--but that's another story.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Ah the business end of photography.... I could tell you horror stories but let me sum up my opnion of photo customers with this one statement. Olin mills was once the largest grossing photo business in the world... it paid its photographers at that time (not long ago) 6bucks an hour. I know because they were forever calling me looking for a job. The wanted to be trainees because they had not learned a thing from Olin Mills... So why did people buy from them... THEY KNEW HOW TO MARKET...

 

[Torus34]

Luke: Thanks for catching my error in translating from the Portuguese.

 

[Torus34]

Luke: To add to your already vast store of knowledge -- 'Browning' and 'Shakespeare' are usually capitalized.

 

[mysteryscribe]

And one more thing about Browning and Shakespere, they are both dead and probably dont care if you misquote or misspell their name lol....

 

[Torus34]

Man, I'm so laid back that I don't even care if you even misspell mine!

 

[mysteryscribe]

and I did...

 

[Luke]

Puerility aside, the point remains, and it's this: If you take a thousand shots, with at least marginal control of exposure and post-processing (particularly with the powerful tools we use, and which any novice can use, though perhaps not as well), then you're bound to eventually wind up with at least one image that's halfway decent, and perhaps even pretty good.

The point is, the process is, at least to some degree, accidental.

Introduce skill into the process, and the results will be much more consistent--and more to the point, deliberate.

It's not a matter of the professional being threatened by the amateur. It's a matter of wading through the flood of mediocrity, and a matter of dealing with the conceited amateur (or n00'b, to use your eloquent term) thinking that because his or her occasional accident is perhaps as good as the skilled practitioner's deliberate and consistently repeated excellence, that the conceited amateur is therefore the skilled practitioner's equal. This is clearly not the case.

exactly my point, only with more words. right on. once again excuse my puerility(is that the right spelling)

Luke: To add to your already vast store of knowledge -- 'Browning' and 'Shakespeare' are usually capitalized.[/QOUTE]
Yeah, I know I was being arrogant, but I really couldn't resist, you just got unlucky that Browning, is one of my favourite poets. No hard feelings eh...
ANYWAY:

I was interested in the discusion about people loosing work because amatures with their DSLRS are getting work from their friends, I think this is slightly worrying, and though I've no experience with it, it seems that from what you guys say there's not really any denying it. I can't think of anything to say, it's pretty dreadful.
On the otherhand, im sure you guys are all familiar with 4.5/5.6 (actually i made the syndrome up just then) syndrome when you're looking at a photo. It's the unmistakable feeling that what you're looking at has been shot by an amature with a 4.5/5.6 35-80mm lens, and a DSLR body. My point is that amature shots are pretty easy to pick, and though amatures do seems to pose a threat to wedding photography, and other photojournalism im not sure if there could really be much threat to fine art and fashion photog.
Having said that, I the amature, or to make things even, the n00b , only shoot film, with only prime lenses and no autofocus, as my funds are less than DSLR friendly, can only talk up to the point where being an art observer with some experience goes.
EDIT:
And I agree with all those that said that we should give utmost respect to amatures striving to improve, it's really cool to be on the photo forum with all the fellow amatures who are striving to learn and loving it, like me, and all the pros to lead us in the right direction, like padawans

 

[mysteryscribe]

I was in photography with a wedding and portrait service when 35mm films improved enough to shoot weddings. Most pros said the same things then but,,, it was mostly the guys who had more in their hands, than in their heads. Uncle George is shooting for sally, who cant afford you anyway. He isnt replacing you, he is replacing no pics at all.

Sorry guys there will always be guys who do walmart pricing, and give walmart service, to walmart type customers. It's just a fact of life everybody cant pay thousands of dollars for pics. Ones they look at for a couple of months then store away for most of their lives.

 

[Luke]

I was in photography with a wedding and portrait service when 35mm films improved enough to shoot weddings. Most pros said the same things then but,,, it was mostly the guys who had more in their hands, than in their heads. Uncle George is shooting for sally, who cant afford you anyway. He isnt replacing you, he is replacing no pics at all.

Sorry guys there will always be guys who do walmart pricing, and give walmart service, to walmart type customers. It's just a fact of life everybody cant pay thousands of dollars for pics. Ones they look at for a couple of months then store away for most of their lives.

that sounds promising, since i have no experience with wedding photog im going on what i hear here, i think the truth probly lies somewhere near mystery scribe, it doesn't seem logical that an advance in photographic technology will greatly effect pros, the ones with skills (or skillz).

 

[Torus34]

Luke: Not only no hard feelings, but you stand very tall in my sight. I was so busy trying to get my point across that I didn't even think about who the original poet was! And I knew better! Your correction was fully warranted, if a tad high spirited! I need a major dose of humility now and then.

And while I'm at it, don't worry about your gear. I use manual 35mm and 6x6cm rigs and shoot B&W. Most of my best prints were made with standard lenses and cameras that today's digital wonk would dismiss out of hand. Remember that the work of the great photographers was often done with almost prehistoric equipment. Adams did some of his better work with a $5 lens.


Best regards!