Have You Got It?

[slickhare]

If you don't, then you won't, and you might be having fun but you're hopelessly grasping at something you innately lack.

don't take this personally, but i'm trying to understand your opinion...

so if i don't take "good" pictures right now then i will never ever have a chance in hell of taking a good picture in my life?

imo some people can be late bloomers withe creativity. they could start crappy and one day just be enlightened. i don't think that everyone who can't take a good picture at first should just give up immediately.

 

[Alpha]

Obviously you can't expect someone to take a brilliant roll the first time they pick up a camera. If you spend several years getting the technique and the knowledge, but aren't producing anything great, then yeah, you should probably consider a career at LifeTouch.

 

[craig]

Hate and crap are pretty ignorant words. Clearly we have different views and that is positive. I have found labels to be constricting. Consider art or whatever on many different levels. We choose photography as our life passion and work. That is only one view. Just because someone only takes photos on vacation or at birthday parties does not make their work any less valid. The beauty of photography is in that we capture a moment in time. We can say that a photo needs work or a reshoot. Personally I think that we can not say a photo is garbage. Someone decided to pick up a camera and take a photo. That photo is a personal decision and probably made someone feel something. Why would anyone deny that by saying that shot stinks.

Personally this view is anything but "dumbing down". More like understanding all images and taking them for what they are worth.

 

[Alpha]

There's hardly anything ignorant about loosely using the words hate or crap.

But to the point, I undertand what you're saying about intent generally, but I think the intent behind a vaction photo and the intent behind a photo taken for some sort of "artistic" value are completely different.

 

[craig]

The intent is completely different. What if the result is an excellent shot? Certainly said photo can stand alone. Not needing a D2X or 20 years experience.

 

[slickhare]

Obviously you can't expect someone to take a brilliant roll the first time they pick up a camera. If you spend several years getting the technique and the knowledge, but aren't producing anything great, then yeah, you should probably consider a career at LifeTouch.

so what, you can't be a photojournalist or something? this topic only covers ART photo. photo for information is something different. so if you don't have this "creative spark" you speak of, i don't think it means you should throw away your DSLR and cry in a corner.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

The intent is completely different. What if the result is an excellent shot? Certainly said photo can stand alone. Not needing a D2X or 20 years experience.

If a shot is 'excellent' by accident it does not make the Photographer good, only lucky.
One of the keys is 'repeatability'.
Art starts with an idea and is then a process of hard work, technique and skill to make that idea real.
You can get people who have original and wonderful ideas but who do not have the technical skill or knowledge to make it work.
You can have people with great technical expertise and control but who have no original ideas.
Both can and do produce Art.
Then you have the rare case of someone who combines both - and you get (for want of a better cliche) Great Art.
Looking at, and understanding, any kind of Art requires the viewer to appreciate both idea and technique in a work so that they can sort out the three different scenarios.
But it is also important to be aware of personal taste.
Liking something does not automatically make it Art, in the same way that disliking something doesn't make it trash.
Beauty and Art are two separate things.

And if no one aspired to making 'Great Art' - and anyone can aspire to this - then no-one would produce anything at all.

 

[ksmattfish]

Okay I honestly don't mean to be personally offensive, but that's the kind of blase elitism that I hate most. This whole "art means nothing" ultra-subjective crap ....you've either got a spark of brilliance behind your work or you don't. If you do, then you always have an always will. If you don't, then you won't, and you might be having fun but you're hopelessly grasping at something you innately lack.

You prefer your sort of elitism then? That creativity is a rare gem that only some of us are blessed with, and if you're not born with it, it will always be out of reach. "6th sense" is superstitious crap. I've never met an artist that gave credit to their "spark of brilliance" Although their agent and the gallery managers will insist that they do have it to any potential buyer.

If you look at almost anyone's body of work over their lives their are periods of brilliance and mundane. Many famous artists' (entertainers, scientists, writers, etc...) careers and legends are riding on a brief period of exceptional productivity. When you have an opportunity to look at an artists' entire body of work, not just the successful pieces presented to the public, then it brings them back down to Earth.

They say Picasso used to scrawl doodles on napkins to pay for meals after he became famous. Is that brilliant art, or just a famous autograph?

Being recognized for my work is always pleasurable, but that's not why I do photography, or paint, or sculpt, etc... Picture taker vs. picture maker is a debate I'll leave to the art academians. I'm too busy out taking pics.

The word 'art' is very slippery. It really has no importance in relation to one's work. I work for the pleasure, for the pleasure of the work, and everything else is a matter for the critics. -Manuel Alvarez Bravo

 

[markc]

I don't want this to be about anyone personally. I just want to take a poke at a concept and see what happens. What does it mean to do work just for oneself? Is that art (or Art), a craft, or something else? For me, the distinction between art and craft is the communication. Art is an attempt to tell the world something. If someone does work just for the pleasure of it, I would call that craft. Craft can be judged on technical merits, if you wish, but since there is no message there is no art. My guess is that there are very few people who simply do it for the craft though, aside from those who do it for a business (in the same way that one may make a shoe). The difference is if the message is conscious or not. If there is a message, then the work can be judged as art (though you may not want it to be) based on the success of that message in addition to the technical merits (craft).

I think being recognized for your work is something that doesn't have anything to do with art. A shoemaker or attorney may or may not feel the same way. I think the question should be, "What do you want to say?" It may not be conscious, but I believe it's there. If that's something that someone doesn't want to answer, then I would ask, "Why not?"

If you don't believe you have anything to say, then I would gather all the work you've done and go through it. What choices are you making? Do you do landscapes, people, still life... ? Color or b&w? Shallow or deep DOF? Blurred motion or everthing crisp? Any themes show up? Do you have people alone a lot, or are they always in groups? Do you have people at all? There are a lot of questions to ask, but they lead to what someone is trying to say. It doesn't have to be anything earthshaking. It could be simply, "I'm alone" or "the world is a happy place".

When I did this I found a single word that applied to so much of my work. Even things going back to the begining that I didn't feel were very good. It's something that still shows up, though somewhat mutated into what I've mentioned in other threads. Once I recognized it, I was able to refine the concept in my head into something a bit "more". Now I'm working on refining it in my images.

 

['Daniel']

This whole "art means nothing" ultra-subjective crap. I am wonderful and you are wonderful, and that guy with the 5 dollar point-and-shoot is wonderful. Such utter crap. A photo taken by a three year old is hardly in the same category as a photo by someone who takes their photos seriously as an art form because it lacks intent. Furthermore, I think it's a real show of indifference to photography as an art because it takes artistic intent and levels it into some worthless, nonchalant playing field. Saying something like "I will always be a student" is so facetious. Sure, you'll always be learning new mechanical tricks, but you've either got a spark of brilliance behind your work or you don't. If you do, then you always have an always will. If you don't, then you won't, and you might be having fun but you're hopelessly grasping at something you innately lack.

I think that you seem to have an odd view of subjectivity. Art does not have one objective meaning that exists intrinsically. Art is subjective. it means one thing to one eprson another to someone else. Saying art is subjectve is not a disparraging remark in any way.

I think this subjectis hard as a whole. How successful a piece of art is depends on who is judging it. There is no definitve answer for what a piece of art means or how good it is.

the person who makes a piece of art has nothing todo with how "good" iit is. just because intent wasn't there it doesn't make a piece of art less valid if you look at it without and history of the piece. Imagine if a great piece had happened because someone spilled paint cans in a pleasing way totally by accident. If that was put next to something that was in the making for years and the artist spent years conceptualising and had the intent of making it a piece that expresses anger but no one agrees. Which is the better piece of art? Neither. they are different. some people will like both some only one some none.

There is no way to assess art because everyone's criteria are different.

 

[markc]

Imagine if a great piece had happened because someone spilled paint cans in a pleasing way totally by accident. If that was put next to something that was in the making for years and the artist spent years conceptualising and had the intent of making it a piece that expresses anger but no one agrees. Which is the better piece of art? Neither. they are different. some people will like both some only one some none.

I agree as mentioned earlier that successful art is separate from "like". There's a third piece that you didn't mention. The one that was intended to express anger and does so. That's the one I would call a successful piece of art. For me, being pleasing has nothing to do with it. That's taste, which is subjective. Success of intent is something that can be more readily measured.

Some people don't want art to be measured or judged. That's fine. I used to be in that group until very recently. But that doesn't mean that this aspect of art isn't there. I still believe that just about anything can be art, but my method of assessment has changed.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Art does not have one objective meaning that exists intrinsically. Art is subjective. it means one thing to one eprson another to someone else.

What defines a work of Art is determined by Society and so changes over time.
That makes 'Art' an abstract concept.
Individuals can make a subjective interpretation as to what they think is meant by 'Art' but this interpretation for most people is guided largely by personal taste.

 

[JTHphoto]

Sure, you'll always be learning new mechanical tricks, but you've either got a spark of brilliance behind your work or you don't. If you do, then you always have an always will. If you don't, then you won't, and you might be having fun but you're hopelessly grasping at something you innately lack.

To address your original question, Max, i agree with that there has to be an "it" factor to make a person a good/great photographer. However, I don't really believe you either have "it" or you don't have "it". I think it's more like people having "it" to different levels and honing that natural talent into something, art or craft or whatever.

I think it can be compared to anything else - sports, acting, music, writing... people have different levels of natural ability, and everybody trains/practices/works differently. Those with the most talent and a greater passion and dedication for developing that talent will go onto greatness leaving others behind to just be good. The extent of the natural talent just makes it easier for some...

I like to think that i have "it" to an extent, but I fear sometimes that i may fall into the category above ("hopelessly grasping"). But even if i'm only having fun, that's pretty much the point anyway - photography is more of a hobby (markc's "craft" maybe) than an art for me personally. I don't claim to know what art is, and don't consider myself to be an "artist", but I still really enjoy the medium and I like to think I have an "eye" for my particular style of photography. How much of that "eye" is intrinsic talent and how much is learned is debatable, but i still call myself a photographer, i'll let others judge if i'm great or just good or just plain horrendously awful.