C&C: street art and graffiti

[Chamelion 6]

I seriously didn't see anything so malicious about the comments here...

Maybe I'm getting jaded.

Look for my WTFs in This Color.

What does that have to do with anything? But if you are such a great artist why don't you show us how to make as much money from those shots of yours as Warhol did with the soup... <----- WTF!!!!

You missed my point.

And he won't get it any time soon. <--------- ????

Really? I mean, what was all that crap about?

At some point this thread deviated from a commentary on your photos to the more general topic of what is a good graffitti photo. At that point things got a bit less constructive, granted.

But somehow the topic of what makes a photographer and what is art always turns into a bar fight on this forum. I don't know why. When the thread turns that direction, the best thing to do is step outside and watch through the window.

I wouldn't take it so personally, it seems to go that way no matter who is in the hot seat.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I usually avoid stirring this sort of pot, especially when people are as angry as some here have been, but here is my two cents on the issue of shooting graffiti straight on:

Museum of Contemporary Photography

I'm not saying hjf's pictures approach this, or that my attempts at similar stuff do, but just that the fact of shooting stuff on a wall does not disqualify something from being serious work. Perhaps other aspects of the pictures may do so, but to present serious criticism one has to work a little harder and try to identify what those other aspects are. (and a thicker skin helps if you're on the other end)

Yay! Discussion engaged!

Absolutely. There is a little difference to Aaron's work. A couple of them are merely stuff on a wall, but small sections. He saw something specific that he wanted to show. My response in this thread is geared towards #2, and then the OP's comment that all photos are depictions of someone elses work. #2 is a nice documentary shot of somebody elses interesting painting, on an interesting ground. Much like taking a picture of Warhol's soup can and filling the frame with it. It is a picture of somebody elses work. OP's latter shots are stepping beyond that. There is more interest there, and #3 has rather nice composition.

To OP's comment that taking landscape photos is also somebody elses work, is a poor correlation. The photographer must find the the interesting or compelling views, choosing lighting conditions carefully, often waiting for days for just the right sky, and frame it in a way that has impact.

Back to Aaron's work. I personally have less of a problem if the photographer found and interesting detail in somebody elses work of art, and creates a interesting new composition from it. Aaron found an interesting subsection of the words on a storefront, and made an interesting composition with it. Now it takes on new meaning. OP's #2 shot is just showing us another artist's work. The best you can say for that image, is that it is a well focused, nicely exposed image of another artist's work.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Well, in 15 years I haven't. Maybe because I never was part of a community where any random jerk thinks he's the greatest artist in history. But seems to be a common trait between artist wannabes... someone just told me DeviantART is full of this kind of crap too.

At this point you are the random jerk. Artist wannabe? This describes you as well as most of this forum, no? Photography is an art. You wannabe a photographer?...


Wannabe is a bit of a harsh word for people here though. Well, most of them.

 

[hjf]

I usually avoid stirring this sort of pot, especially when people are as angry as some here have been, but here is my two cents on the issue of shooting graffiti straight on:

Museum of Contemporary Photography

I'm not saying hjf's pictures approach this, or that my attempts at similar stuff do, but just that the fact of shooting stuff on a wall does not disqualify something from being serious work. Perhaps other aspects of the pictures may do so, but to present serious criticism one has to work a little harder and try to identify what those other aspects are. (and a thicker skin helps if you're on the other end)

Yay! Discussion engaged!

Absolutely. There is a little difference to Aaron's work. A couple of them are merely stuff on a wall, but small sections. He saw something specific that he wanted to show. My response in this thread is geared towards #2, and then the OP's comment that all photos are depictions of someone elses work. #2 is a nice documentary shot of somebody elses interesting painting, on an interesting ground. Much like taking a picture of Warhol's soup can and filling the frame with it. It is a picture of somebody elses work. OP's latter shots are stepping beyond that. There is more interest there, and #3 has rather nice composition.

To OP's comment that taking landscape photos is also somebody elses work, is a poor correlation. The photographer must find the the interesting or compelling views, choosing lighting conditions carefully, often waiting for days for just the right sky, and frame it in a way that has impact.

Back to Aaron's work. I personally have less of a problem if the photographer found and interesting detail in somebody elses work of art, and creates a interesting new composition from it. Aaron found an interesting subsection of the words on a storefront, and made an interesting composition with it. Now it takes on new meaning. OP's #2 shot is just showing us another artist's work. The best you can say for that image, is that it is a well focused, nicely exposed image of another artist's work.

Couldn't you have said all that in the first place and save all this drama?

Well, in 15 years I haven't. Maybe because I never was part of a community where any random jerk thinks he's the greatest artist in history. But seems to be a common trait between artist wannabes... someone just told me DeviantART is full of this kind of crap too.

At this point you are the random jerk. Artist wannabe? This describes you as well as most of this forum, no? Photography is an art. You wannabe a photographer?...

Well, when in rome, do as the romans do, right?

Wannabe is a bit of a harsh word for people here though. Well, most of them.

I usually choose my words carefully. This was no exception.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I usually avoid stirring this sort of pot, especially when people are as angry as some here have been, but here is my two cents on the issue of shooting graffiti straight on:

Museum of Contemporary Photography

I'm not saying hjf's pictures approach this, or that my attempts at similar stuff do, but just that the fact of shooting stuff on a wall does not disqualify something from being serious work. Perhaps other aspects of the pictures may do so, but to present serious criticism one has to work a little harder and try to identify what those other aspects are. (and a thicker skin helps if you're on the other end)

Yay! Discussion engaged!

Absolutely. There is a little difference to Aaron's work. A couple of them are merely stuff on a wall, but small sections. He saw something specific that he wanted to show. My response in this thread is geared towards #2, and then the OP's comment that all photos are depictions of someone elses work. #2 is a nice documentary shot of somebody elses interesting painting, on an interesting ground. Much like taking a picture of Warhol's soup can and filling the frame with it. It is a picture of somebody elses work. OP's latter shots are stepping beyond that. There is more interest there, and #3 has rather nice composition.

To OP's comment that taking landscape photos is also somebody elses work, is a poor correlation. The photographer must find the the interesting or compelling views, choosing lighting conditions carefully, often waiting for days for just the right sky, and frame it in a way that has impact.

Back to Aaron's work. I personally have less of a problem if the photographer found and interesting detail in somebody elses work of art, and creates a interesting new composition from it. Aaron found an interesting subsection of the words on a storefront, and made an interesting composition with it. Now it takes on new meaning. OP's #2 shot is just showing us another artist's work. The best you can say for that image, is that it is a well focused, nicely exposed image of another artist's work.

Couldn't you have said all that in the first place and save all this drama?

At this point you are the random jerk. Artist wannabe? This describes you as well as most of this forum, no? Photography is an art. You wannabe a photographer?...

Well, when in rome, do as the romans do, right?

Wannabe is a bit of a harsh word for people here though. Well, most of them.

I usually choose my words carefully. This was no exception.

You started the drama.
Don't be a lemming.
Are you suggesting I am an artist wannabe, with your carefully chosen words?

 

[Chamelion 6]

I don't really have a problem withlabeling art "derivitive" and "uninspired" or stuff like that, especially when it's just a "textbook" shot of someone else's art. But I do get a little uncomfortable when the discussion turns to "this is art and this is not."

I think it pidgeon holes artists too much and usually for the worst. I just don't see words like "artist" or "photographer" as huge, larger than life, or anything to get all stuffy over. Too many artists have an overly inflated view of themselves and their work.

For me, it's easier and more reasonable to judge each piece on it's own terms rather than try to define a genre around it. In the end, like someone said about music; there are only 2 kinds of art, good and bad, I like both.

 

[12sndsgood]

Your verbiage doesn't make you any cooler, and does nothing for your point. I called them what they were, in my opinion. And asked if they were all shot at eye level, you never responded so I felt no need to waste my time any further.

Until now.

Seriously, get a grip and work on seeing things in ways many don't, it will improve your work and give the viewer more to think about.

15 years online? You'd think you'd be better prepared for the variety of responses one gets and not act like an e-thug.

gotta agree there. in 15 years ive pretty much read it all and know not to get so bent out of shape over someones responce.

Well, in 15 years I haven't. Maybe because I never was part of a community where any random jerk thinks he's the greatest artist in history. But seems to be a common trait between artist wannabes... someone just told me DeviantART is full of this kind of crap too.

i see the same thing in any online community wether it be photography, cars, local city sites. a forum is a microcosim of the real world. just as the real worl has people that you consider to be jerks or wannabe's so does the online world. suck it up and dont take things to personally.