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

[The_Traveler]

What are these artists doing? Taking photos?

Is the show curated in a way that doesn't differentiate between your objectives and theirs?

What bothers me is that the managers of the galleries seem relatively oblivious to any need for technical execution supporting the art. The work looks good in description and from a distance but, too often, up close the impact is destroyed by terrible execution and lack of skills.

That is a common trope among faux artists, that they are above the mere technical execution. It is a way of excusing their inability and their lack of knowledge. It's a great time saver not to actually have to 'know' anything or be able to 'do' anything with any degree of skill.

It is the equivalent of those at the other end of the arc who want to make believing oneself to be an 'artist' to be a pretentious pose, that their skills are enough. Their behavior is to say, I am just a plain, honest craftsman, doing beautiful things and not a poseur who needs a title. I'm doing the work and my beautiful work is all that there is or needs to be.'

It is a way of excusing or justifying their own choices by denying there is anything more.

As far as craftsmanship and art go, the artist need only know enough to produce their vision for a piece to be successful.

Ironically, it is typically the vision/idea that is lacking, and not the craftsmanship. There are plenty of well-crafted images that say very little about their subjects. If given a choice, I would prefer to see an image that lacks in craftsmanship but explodes in vision/idea over one that is perfectly crafted, and utterly meaningless.

I couldn't agree with this more. It has become my belief that technical execution is irrelevant unless it hurts appreciation of the artist's vision.

Artists can use photography as their means of expression, the difficulty is that there must be something that the artist wants to say or show. Just recording what one sees, no matter how nicely it is done, how pretty the scene, how difficult the shot, is not art.

Art is creation, not copying.

As a photographer, I'm not an artist. I take pictures of things so I represent them faithfully to the public I'm selling to. I don't feel like the way I do it is really artistic, and that the camera's more of a tool than anything else in these circumstances.

As an artist, I know that I don't have the ability to get what I see onto that sensor and into that memory card quite yet. I try, and I'm getting far better, but I'm not sure if I need more specialized equipment or just more skills (well, more skills is a definite) and more education to achieve my goals with more regularity. My gut says... go for the education and skills first, then get the equipment.

Eventually you will get to the point where you will be unsatisfied with just copying and you will try to translate your feelings and ideas onto the sensor. Guaranteed not everything will work.

 

[gsgary]

What really set this off is my coming across a number of people proclaiming themselves as artists and being accepted as such in the local 'arts' community and yet they have no skills and are seemingly unaware that skills are required. The local galleries show these people and are seemingly themselves unaware of how truly awful they are.

I was in a show with two other photographers and they were terrible - it was a bad experience.
I have a show later this year and I'm at the point where I am going to investigate the other photographer and decide whether or not to withdraw.

I can't see why it would matter if they are good or not, are you worried that the public will like theirs more than yours ?

 

[The_Traveler]

I can't see why it would matter if they are good or not, are you worried that the public will like theirs more than yours ?

When truly crappy photography is represented as good by the nominal authorities - galleries- then the public conception of photography as an art suffers.

 

[gsgary]

I can't see why it would matter if they are good or not, are you worried that the public will like theirs more than yours ?

When truly crappy photography is represented as good by the nominal authorities - galleries- then the public conception of photography as an art suffers.

Crappy photography in your eyes but maybe not in the art world, 2 of the best photographers that can make something very plain look wonderful are Willian Eggleston and Stephen Shore 25 years ago i thought their work was garbage but when i started to understand it my view changed

 

[71M]

[ art trascendes the moment and shows us something bigger and more important.

Roughly put, I agree. 'Bigger', 'important' ..we can refine or substitute terms but yes: Artists deal in ideas, they transcend, explore and feed ideas back into the loop. Do that with a camera, whether by design or chance, and you should regard yourself as an artist, because at that moment you are.

I think maybe Lew's just peeved he's been chucked in with the noobs.

 

[robbins.photo]

Well again I woke up this morning with the dreaded Pinocchio complex, just feeling the overwhelming desire to stick my elongated proboscis in, so here goes.

I think this entire thing is more or less a moot point unless you could begin to "define" or "categorize" things with which you can do neither. Case in point, I've often heard Lew extol the notion that in order to be good the photograph must have an interesting subject or story - and while I wholeheartedly agree, the problem comes in when you start to ask, interesting to whom? Certainly what I find interesting is going to be much different than what other people might find interesting. I find animals fascinating. I also find certain works of technology, such as certain airplanes or certain cars or even certain motorcycles of great interest.

People on a subway? Eh, not so much really, not for me at least. But just because I don't find that interesting for the most part doesn't mean that someone else feels the same way about the same subject. So really I'm in no position to judge what is or is not "interesting" enough to make it qualify as "art" because all I can really say is how interesting it is to me, not how interesting it is on some objective scale of all things interesting.

Same problem with most anything to do with art - there are no objective scales by which things can be measured. Something that might cause major emotional reactions for many often make me feeling nothing but slightly annoyed because I see them as pandering for an obvious audience. But not everyone will have that same reaction I do - whereas some things that might be of only passing interest and have no emotional reaction from most might get a much deeper emotional reaction from me because it reminds me of some event or something to which that emotion is tied.

The problem here is that the foundation for all of this is subjective. It’s a house who’s foundation is built on sand that is constantly shifting. One moment selective coloring is the hottest new trend and you just can’t be considered an artist without it. Next minute the vast majority of people wouldn’t be caught dead doing it if their life depended on it.

So honestly you can refine the terms all you wish, but I guess it’s the devil’s advocate in me that forces me to point out it really won’t make a hill of beans difference in the end.

 

[timor]

What really set this off is my coming across a number of people proclaiming themselves as artists and being accepted as such in the local 'arts' community and yet they have no skills and are seemingly unaware that skills are required. The local galleries show these people and are seemingly themselves unaware of how truly awful they are.

I was in a show with two other photographers and they were terrible - it was a bad experience.
I have a show later this year and I'm at the point where I am going to investigate the other photographer and decide whether or not to withdraw.

I can't see why it would matter if they are good or not, are you worried that the public will like theirs more than yours ?

Good answer, Gary.
Yes Lew, you have to decide, why you are so "unhappy" ? World is a very complicated space and will offer you punches from every corner. Logical or not, just, or not. Are you mad at people, who call themselves artists despite lack of deeper knowledge (of the medium or whatever) in your opinion ? Or are you mad at people, who are promoting that people as artists ? Or is this discussion aimed at a definition who is an artist ? Or who has a right to make that call ? Is there any "Higher Authority" in this matter ?
No, there is nothing of that sort. However many have claim to it. Take some newspapers and go to "art section" and look how artists are made or destroyed by people who claim, that they know better. Do they ? Or they just push an agenda ? Own or the owners of the paper ?
No Lew. Artist is always self proclaim. Without the full belief in such a proclamation no one can really be an artist. ( Did you ever seen an artist, who would say: "Eh... I am 50% sure, I am an artist" ? ) If you do not furiously believe you are an artist, you will never be one. Such a proclamation has nothing to do with the technical level achieved by such a person in given medium. It is triggered by complicated network of conscious and subconscious factors of ones psyche. And there is nothing anyone can do about it except for pumping up or destroying such a person. And here come the art critics. Who they are ? That's another big, big question. IMO they are those, who try to standardise the art and by using proper propaganda means get their opinion around and influence everybody. They may promote anything, even what you hold as a crap, as a good. The fact, that you used word "nominal authorities" means, they influenced you already. About how important they are. Life will verify those "artists" as such eventually, however will not take away from them the money they are paid now. Is that your problem ?
Here excellent example of a person who didn't act like an artist in her life. We, now, proclaimed her to be an artist:
Vivian Maier - Her Discovered Work
That's, how it works.

 

[lambertpix]

When truly crappy photography is represented as good by the nominal authorities - galleries- then the public conception of photography as an art suffers.

Isn't that an issue with all forms of art (ie, paintings, sculpture, music)?

In fact, is there any art at all that's considered gallery-worthy that's universally appealing? I'm beginning to gain an appreciation that although there are lots and lots of rules & principles we can apply to make our work generally well-received, there's still an underlying bias in the people who view our work -- some stuff just "works" for some people and not others.

Consider a work that lots of people think is "nice" vs. one where some people love it and others hate it. Which is better art?

 

[The_Traveler]

To be honest, I can't follow some of points people are trying to make, except that people seem to be really happy at the opportunity to try and make them.

I am offended by really bad photography, badly executed, badly finished being passed off as art.
I don't mean work with some potentially higher concept that I'm not getting - I'm perfectly willing to accept 'art' that I don't understand - but pictures of flowers and shrubs and peoples faces that are badly done in every conceivable way, I am happy and confident to dislike them.
I am confident in my ability to look at pictures that are partially OOF, terribly over-saturated and over-sharpened and say those are crap; these don't rise to the level of art because there is nothing to consider about them.
And I am disappointed in the institutions, the galleries, that are oblivious to the basic ideas of composition and execution and are willing to house this work.


And I don't care if people dislike what I do.
I am pleased when people actually do like it but it is irrelevant to me when they don't.

 

[gsgary]

To be honest, I can't follow some of points people are trying to make, except that people seem to be really happy at the opportunity to try and make them.

I am offended by really bad photography, badly executed, badly finished being passed off as art.
I don't mean work with some potentially higher concept that I'm not getting - I'm perfectly willing to accept 'art' that I don't understand - but pictures of flowers and shrubs and peoples faces that are badly done in every conceivable way, I am happy and confident to dislike them.
I am confident in my ability to look at pictures that are partially OOF, terribly over-saturated and over-sharpened and say those are crap; these don't rise to the level of art because there is nothing to consider about them.
And I am disappointed in the institutions, the galleries, that are oblivious to the basic ideas of composition and execution and are willing to house this work.


And I don't care if people dislike what I do.
I am pleased when people actually do like it but it is irrelevant to me when they don't.

I bet you didn't like Andy Warhol and pop art
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...David-Lynch-Photographers-Gallery-review.html

 

[timor]

- but pictures of flowers and shrubs and peoples faces that are badly done in every conceivable way,

That's the age of happy digital shooting. Darkroom had one clear advantage after all, was giving the space and time for the photographer to think, what is worth his effort. People were more serious. Today add for every digi camera promises artistry. People want to believe. [h=1]Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur[/h]

 

[bribrius]

But does any of it really matter? Really? you are born, you live, you die. End of story. you wont know the difference and it wouldn't matter if you do.

Is there some concern about saving some artistic purity here? Because that is all b.s.
History is full of bad eras, bad clothes, bad hair, bad art. Don't make a bit of difference.
in fact art or this craft or any not necessary itself is a luxury. like a renaissance. such luxury's of even contemplating this, right now, is due to a societal peace and security. Humans spent more years trying to survive, war, building and rebuilding, starving, than contemplating art. we contemplate art when WE ARE BORED and life allows us such a luxury. its a luxurious time killer for good peace easy survival times. Then we go through a so upheaval, and the art all ends up being putting aside, or being burned in piles if you are in Nazi Germany, and people move on to more important things like staying alive. The good thing, is if all this is bad art, or bad craftsmanship, if it gets burned in giant piles at least it wont be anything to valuable being desecrated.

 

[rexbobcat]

But does any of it really matter? Really? you are born, you live, you die. End of story. you wont know the difference and it wouldn't matter if you do. Is there some concern about saving some artistic purity here? Because that is all b.s. History is full of bad eras, bad clothes, bad hair, bad art. Don't make a bit of difference. in fact art or this craft or any not necessary itself is a luxury. like a renaissance. such luxury's of even contemplating this, right now, is due to a societal peace and security. Humans spent more years trying to survive, war, building and rebuilding, starving, than contemplating art. we contemplate art when WE ARE BORED and life allows us such a luxury. its a luxurious time killer for good peace easy survival times. Then we go through a so upheaval, and the art all ends up being putting aside, or being burned in piles if you are in Nazi Germany, and people move on to more important things like staying alive. The good thing, is if all this is bad art, or bad craftsmanship, if it gets burned in giant piles at least it wont be anything to valuable being desecrated.

But this is the first time (that I can recall) in history where the absence of art is the art.

It's like a depressing way of artists saying "It's all been done so let's not do anything but make people think we're doing something."

 

[bribrius]

But does any of it really matter? Really? you are born, you live, you die. End of story. you wont know the difference and it wouldn't matter if you do. Is there some concern about saving some artistic purity here? Because that is all b.s. History is full of bad eras, bad clothes, bad hair, bad art. Don't make a bit of difference. in fact art or this craft or any not necessary itself is a luxury. like a renaissance. such luxury's of even contemplating this, right now, is due to a societal peace and security. Humans spent more years trying to survive, war, building and rebuilding, starving, than contemplating art. we contemplate art when WE ARE BORED and life allows us such a luxury. its a luxurious time killer for good peace easy survival times. Then we go through a so upheaval, and the art all ends up being putting aside, or being burned in piles if you are in Nazi Germany, and people move on to more important things like staying alive. The good thing, is if all this is bad art, or bad craftsmanship, if it gets burned in giant piles at least it wont be anything to valuable being desecrated.

But this is the first time (that I can recall) in history where the absence of art is the art.

It's like a depressing way of artists saying "It's all been done so let's not do anything but make people think we're doing something."

it has all been done. The difference is technology, now you see it because of easy communication, that it has all been done. if you were still living in a town with no electricity, kept ignorant, you would just keep carrying on producing whatever art you can to whatever level you can. It also isn't special as it once was. Because we have gone through such a extended period of peace, in which to create and dwell on such things, we have art coming out of our ears. A giant calamity to wipe it all out, a dark ages, to begin again new and refreshed, to start again, is probably what art needs.

 

[rexbobcat]

it has all been done. The difference is technology, now you see it because of easy communication, that it has all been done. if you were still living in a town with no electricity, kept ignorant, you would just keep carrying on producing whatever art you can to whatever level you can. It also isn't special as it once was. Because we have gone through such a extended period of peace, in which to create and dwell on such things, we have art coming out of our ears. A giant calamity to wipe it all out, a dark ages, to begin again new and refreshed, to start again, is probably what art needs.

How do we know it has all been done...