I want to be a photographer – or maybe an artist. - small rant

[table1349]

you're wrong

funny

Ipad & safari don't seem to like smileys.

Sent from my iPad....
:thumbup::lmao:ldman::smileys::cheers:

Works for me..

 

[lambertpix]

Back several hundreds of years ago there used to be rigorous academies of art in Europe. They took several years to complete (I believe 4?) with each year focusing on a specific foundation of painting (and possibly other forms of art, but through the past 500 years painting has been kind of considered the big daddy mac of art), until in the last year they would seek out a skilled mentor and would typically try and reproduce one of their best artworks. A lot of the masters of painting went through the academy or had apprentices in the academy.

Some of the most influential artists, however, are also those who opposed the "idealistic" views of the academy. One spin-off of this criticism was impressionism, which is a naturalistic approach to painting and art. It's not as calculated and academic as a lot of the art before it.

There has always been a bar. It just depends on how much you care or how applicable that bar is.

Can the notion of "skill" be separated from "art"? Clearly, skill can be taught, learned, and maybe even measured. I think for photographers, skill usually translates into the technical aspects of photography -- the stuff that's easier to evaluate and critique.

Art, though, is harder to measure, but it's the stuff most of us aspire to. Other disciplines have this sort of dichotomy, too. Sports commentators can look at a quarterback and say that he's got flawed throwing dynamics (skill), but he's a great leader and a great competitor, so maybe he's still a good quarterback. Whereas sports has a scoreboard, though, all we've got to really measure the "success" of art is commercial success.

I think if you're happy with commercial success as a measure of whether art is good, then you have to accept gallery showings, etc., as the de-facto measuring sticks of that success. Figuring out what drives success in that paradigm is a whole other discussion, but you can't criticize the galleries in that paradigm, because they're deterministic.

On the other hand, if you believe that the value of art isn't measured commercially, then gallery showings are just anecdotal -- no more meaningful than the preponderance of cat photos on the internet. Go figure out how *you* want to value art, and then work to that end. Maybe the value of your art is just for you, and if anyone else finds it pleasant, then so be it. If you're trying to please someone else with your art, though, I think much more thought needs to be invested in understanding the viewer rather than in trying to *fix* the viewer.

 

[Rick58]

It wasn't me that started ad hominem remarks; as I remember Rick58 called me something, I won't look back to find it.

Hey hold on there slick. Maybe you SHOULD go back and re-read my post. I merely quoted a definition. Now if you think that grease belongs on your wheel, well...

 

[Derrel]

I think we need to give The_Traveler a little leeway here, and cut him some slack. It's tough being the guy who is always correct when he rants about the inadequacies of others and who constantly must deal with the heavy burden of his own moral superiority and correctness. It can get pretty tough dealing with one's artistic inferiors, day after day. Surely none of knows from experience how trying it must be to be the best artist and the best craftsman in a three-person show. Imagine how awful it must be to deal with the fear of having one's superior artistry and craft possibly confused with the chit-grade work of co-exhibitors. So, come on, let's give the guy his rant and all nod in unanimous assent that his position is *the* position. Oh...better throw in a smiley here.

 

[Rick58]

I think we need to give The_Traveler a little leeway here, and cut him some slack. It's tough being the guy who is always correct when he rants about the inadequacies of others and who constantly must deal with the heavy burden of his own moral superiority and correctness. It can get pretty tough dealing with one's artistic inferiors, day after day. Surely none of knows from experience how trying it must be to be the best artist and the best craftsman in a three-person show. Imagine how awful it must be to deal with the fear of having one's superior artistry and craft possibly confused with the chit-grade work of co-exhibitors. So, come on, let's give the guy his rant and all nod in unanimous assent that his position is *the* position. Oh...better throw in a smiley here.

You're right Derrel, Sorry Lew.

 

[71M]

Some of the most influential artists, however, are also those who opposed the "idealistic" views of the academy. One spin-off of this criticism was impressionism, which is a naturalistic approach to painting and art. It's not as calculated and academic as a lot of the art before it.

Impressionist, fauvist, cubist: churlish, patronizing, and derisory terms, originally dreamt up by critics and detractors. Artists such as Cezanne, van Gogh, Gauguin, Braque, movements like Die Brücke, Bauhaus, De Stijl, CoBrA etc, were idealistic.

 

[rexbobcat]

Some of the most influential artists, however, are also those who opposed the "idealistic" views of the academy. One spin-off of this criticism was impressionism, which is a naturalistic approach to painting and art. It's not as calculated and academic as a lot of the art before it.

Impressionist, fauvist, cubist: churlish, patronizing, and derisory terms, originally dreamt up by critics and detractors. Artists such as Cezanne, van Gogh, Gauguin, Braque, movements like Die Brücke, Bauhaus, De Stijl, CoBrA etc, were idealistic as well.

Really? From what I read, they weren't idealistic because their motives were vastly different (among other things).

They didn't like the mythological/religious overtones of much of the academic art, and they didn't see landscapes and still life's as the low hanging fruit of painting.

They weren't idealistic in the way of the academy.

Bauhaus and De Stijl are two styles that are far removed from the original academy as well.

 

[71M]

The atelier method/Salon monopoly was establishment art-from-a-mold, both in terms of rigid technique and narrowly defined 'appropriate subjectivity'. The new-wave artists wanted to tackle fresh subjects, in new ways.

 

[71M]

Some of the most influential artists, however, are also those who opposed the "idealistic" views of the academy. One spin-off of this criticism was impressionism, which is a naturalistic approach to painting and art. It's not as calculated and academic as a lot of the art before it.

Impressionist, fauvist, cubist: churlish, patronizing, and derisory terms, originally dreamt up by critics and detractors. Artists such as Cezanne, van Gogh, Gauguin, Braque, movements like Die Brücke, Bauhaus, De Stijl, CoBrA etc, were idealistic as well.

Really? From what I read, they weren't idealistic because their motives were vastly different (among other things).

They didn't like the mythological/religious overtones of much of the academic art, and they didn't see landscapes and still life's as the low hanging fruit of painting.

They weren't idealistic in the way of the academy.

No, but all driven by ideologies; read Gauguin's letters, read van Gogh's letters, Cezanne's; read Die Brücke's or CoBrA's manifesto, (how can a group draw up a manifesto, if it has no ideals?); Picasso and Braque: "we were like two mountaineers, roped together" - in an idealistic pursuit of a new form of art. Bauhaus: a narrow, dogmatic approach to design, instituted as a school. It's surprising that the course of Modern Art is perceived as rudderless 'dabbling'. It wasn't like that.

 

[minicoop1985]

Ansel Adams, Tack Sharp, Film Vs Digital, Artist vs Photographer... /stir the pot

 

[timor]

I don't think it has much to do with changing times. Basic mans psyche is the same and that is competitiveness. A desire to be the best.

no comprende. im just a guy that takes photos.

My grandmother also takes pictures. But she is not on this or any other for that matter photo forum as you and I do. No, you're much more, than just a guy that takes photos. You have ambition to become better and I like that.

 

[The_Traveler]

What seems to be most threatening to the group at large is that someone has an opinion that is different from theirs and won't give it up.
So the group responds by trying to argue him out of it.
And if that doesn't work, the group tries to denigrate the opinion by making fun.

I think, exactly what I thought when I started, which is that when technical imperfections get between the viewer and the art, that is the only time that technical issues matter.
I also thought that it was a shame that gallery committees, and it was a committee that chose that show, knew so little about photography that they ignored the issues with the photographers and pictures chosen.
I also thought that 'artists' of a caliber to show should have mastered their craft enough so that their technical inadequacies didn't disrupt their work.

If any of you had any point to make about those issues, besides telling me that I didn't have the right to have an opinion or that I was angry and therefore wrong, well that was totally missed.

 

[timor]

this thread delivers

This thread is touching deep emotions. Photography is only a pretext.

 

[The_Traveler]

 

[timor]

What seems to be most threatening to the group at large is that someone has an opinion that is different from theirs and won't give it up.
So the group responds by trying to argue him out of it.
And if that doesn't work, the group tries to denigrate the opinion by making fun.

I think, exactly what I thought when I started, which is that when technical imperfections get between the viewer and the art, that is the only time that technical issues matter.
I also thought that it was a shame that gallery committees, and it was a committee that chose that show, knew so little about photography that they ignored the issues with the photographers and pictures chosen.
I also thought that 'artists' of a caliber to show should have mastered their craft enough so that their technical inadequacies didn't disrupt their work.

If any of you had any point to make about those issues, besides telling me that I didn't have the right to have an opinion or that I was angry and therefore wrong, well that was totally missed.

You're still here. Good. If we will give up our opinions and agree on one I am out of here. Luckily this forum is not dominated by few individuals, who know everything, it is they way or highway. No, never give up, if you do, you're finished. My question was only, if you direct your frustration on the right group of people. Anyone have the right to think about him/her as of artist and it is the society job to evaluate such a claim. The skills of that evaluations are watered down by a want of a better feel about ourselves. You are right, technical skill in photography is very important, just luck is not enough. Luck is inconsistent, artist should be. Many creates pictures for amusement or decoration, but that's not enough. Art should have a lasting consequence. But that is not easily visible in the thick fog of mass creation, only time will filter that. If any of us is creating anything of lasting consequence there will be a Wiki page about him in the future.