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

[bribrius]

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...

my opinion? honestly? even though im far from a artist and would never say I am? is that art comes from the soul, and hurt, and celebration. It is the dark ages and the dark times, that make the art in the light ages. No dark ages, no art. we stay peaceful, status quo, like a writer, loses things to write about. Or the soul or celebration to write from. so we invent crap to make art, because we ran out of celebration and darkness to celebrate the relief from. First few generations, recreate or create. But after a while, it is just more crap, piling on, piling on, piling on. Because the further you get from that initial dark period, and celebration, the further you get from the source of the art.

 

[Derrel]

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.

PROOF that "it has all been done".

500px + Horseshoe Bend - Google Search

The internet and the various aggregator sites make it possible to see the same old junk, shot by myriad shooters. Of the aggregator sites, 500px might be the worst offender in regurgitation of the same old stuff. High technical quality, but not much artistry as noobs Google well-known and not-so-well-known locations and see exactly how to shoot landmarks, where to plant their tripods, and how the most highly-rated photos were composed. Then they go out and shoot the same old crap. Great technicians, and good post-processing skills, but no vision, no imagination, no real vision, no artistry.

 

[bribrius]

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.

PROOF that "it has all been done".

500px + Horseshoe Bend - Google Search

The internet and the various aggregator sites make it possible to see the same old junk, shot by myriad shooters. Of the aggregator sites, 500px might be the worst offender in regurgitation of the same old stuff. High technical quality, but not much artistry as noobs Google well-known and not-so-well-known locations and see exactly how to shoot landmarks, where to plant their tripods, and how the most highly-rated photos were composed. Then they go out and shoot the same old crap. Great technicians, and good post-processing skills, but no vision, no imagination, no real vision, no artistry.

I think most movies fall into five or so basic plot groups and they just reuse the same plots with different actors. Art, assuming it comes from inside. Takes inspiration. status quo doesn't provide inspiration. Status quo makes unfeeling sheep. Media and technology too. How can you come out with a orginal idea when you are constantly exposed to other peoples ideas? Most everything is copied. Even on this site, seeing other people photos, it enters your subconscious and in some way you will recreate or copy that photo. But short of a giant upheaval, technological breakdown, some generation ends up parentless from a natural disaster, dead people, starving, war torn, something. Something so hideous followed by such a relief and celebration of life. I don't know where that inspiration can come from. years ago, they fought, starved, celebrated when they had food, lived closer to nature and death, without exposure to so many other copies of copies. It was probably easier for them to come up with a original idea and art.

 

[timor]

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.

I general I agree with you about the art being an icing on the cake of our lives. . But I would say we need that icing to survive. Even upheavals. Concept of art was established long time ego, some 30 000 years. That means, that people had the need for beautiful objects already then. Physical survival was one thing, but there was already need for survival of the soul. Like here:
BlueisKewl: Russian Soldiers Playing Piano in a Wrecked Living room in Berlin, 1945

The big problem with art in photography is the same like 100 years ago. Now even more acute. As photographic images are made rather mechanically there is a good chance for luck. To paraphrase HBC: anyone can make a brilliant photograph once in every 10000 frames. Even ape can press the trigger just in the right moment once in the life. Does it make it an artist ? I don't think so, but presented with just this one picture I might believe so.

 

[The_Traveler]

I bet you didn't like Andy Warhol and pop art
Andy Warhol, William Burroughs, David Lynch, Photographers' Gallery, review - Telegraph

You'd be wrong to make any jufgements about what I like or dislike except incompetence and if you are trying to make some point about me or my opinions, just say it straight out.

 

[bribrius]

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.

I general I agree with you about the art being an icing on the cake of our lives. . But I would say we need that icing to survive. Even upheavals. Concept of art was established long time ego, some 30 000 years. That means, that people had the need for beautiful objects already then. Physical survival was one thing, but there was already need for survival of the soul. Like here:
BlueisKewl: Russian Soldiers Playing Piano in a Wrecked Living room in Berlin, 1945

The big problem with art in photography is the same like 100 years ago. Now even more acute. As photographic images are made rather mechanically there is a good chance for luck. To paraphrase HBC: anyone can make a brilliant photograph once in every 10000 frames. Even ape can press the trigger just in the right moment once in the life. Does it make it an artist ? I don't think so, but presented with just this one picture I might believe so.

At this point im pretty happy with photography being a record of a place in time. If you see something, want to show other people, take a picture so they can see it too. you see something, want to hang on to that moment, take a picture so you can look or others can look at it later. A good reference. The art side of photography, in my opinion anyway, was a stretch from the beginning and few and far between. And even if someone managed to make art with a photograph, I don't think it ever held the same weight as painting or sculpting or other similar facets. Artsy type things is more common now, mostly from technology we can manipulate images better, but I don't consider image manipulation the same way I would sculpting either. I have seen some photos on here though, which I would consider pretty decent art. But for a chronological record, the copy to show others and record, is closer to what I see photography now.

And for that the photo doesn't have to be great, anymore than your penmanship does, it just has to show. I think art should be a celebration, or show something. This is where we have a problem. Most images, no matter how great, how well done, people will only give a moments time too. They are too common, lack soul or are shallow, and technology cant replace soul. "wow that is neat" is a lot different than seeing something you might remember the rest of your life. But we are at the "wow that's neat" point. And the person looking at it can tell you didn't do it, a machine did, a program did, so its importance is greatly diminished. Doesn't matter how technically correct or executed it was. I have always like the painter dali. why? Because the first time I saw on of the painting as a kid, that image stuck with me. I was AMAZED. I haven't had that feeling in a long time.

 

[table1349]

I personally find the premise of the thread to be amusingly with out real purpose. But then I tend to think that with most threads that try to come up with some sort of definition of what is art or whom is an artist. Remember that Paciasso's "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" was considered at the time horrified and disgusted the art community. Anyone want to take a swipe at it or Picasso now?

Frankly, craftsman, artist, good photo, bad photo. It's all subjective and in the long run, does it really matter at the end of the day? Unless you happen to be the one that is smart enough to buy some horrific, disgusting piece like the "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" only to watch it's value skyrocket despite what the art world thought.

 

[The_Traveler]

I personally find the premise of the thread to be amusingly with out real purpose. But then I tend to think that with most threads that try to come up with some sort of definition of what is art or whom is an artist. Remember that Paciasso's "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" was considered at the time horrified and disgusted the art community. Anyone want to take a swipe at it or Picasso now?

Frankly, craftsman, artist, good photo, bad photo. It's all subjective and in the long run, does it really matter at the end of the day? Unless you happen to be the one that is smart enough to buy some horrific, disgusting piece like the "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" only to watch it's value skyrocket despite what the art world thought.

Yet, you are here, giving your opinion.

If you actually read the thread, rather than looking for a way to comment on how silly it was and how much above it you are, you would find that I wasn't trying to define art or to say what it should be, I was expressing my frustration and disgust that people who take truly bad photos technically - and believe me after a bunch of years here, I have plenty of experience in judging when photos are bad technically - pass themselves off as artists and gallery owners play along.

 

[bribrius]

I personally find the premise of the thread to be amusingly with out real purpose. But then I tend to think that with most threads that try to come up with some sort of definition of what is art or whom is an artist. Remember that Paciasso's "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" was considered at the time horrified and disgusted the art community. Anyone want to take a swipe at it or Picasso now?

Frankly, craftsman, artist, good photo, bad photo. It's all subjective and in the long run, does it really matter at the end of the day? Unless you happen to be the one that is smart enough to buy some horrific, disgusting piece like the "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" only to watch it's value skyrocket despite what the art world thought.

Yet, you are here, giving your opinion.

If you actually read the thread, rather than looking for a way to comment on how silly it was and how much above it you are, you would find that I wasn't trying to define art or to say what it should be, I was expressing my frustration and disgust that people who take truly bad photos technically - and believe me after a bunch of years here, I have plenty of experience in judging when photos are bad technically - pass themselves off as artists and gallery owners play along.

maybe it's you. And you are too stuck on the technical. Maybe they will be the next Picasso with the art community currently finding fault with technical aspects (thought I highly doubt it).
Far as passing themselves off, well if they suck and are in the same gallery that just makes your mediocre stuff look better. I can empathize as a spectator however. ive seen some pretty bland and none to great photos in galleries. suppose with subjective art though, you just kind of nod your head and step along....

 

[table1349]

I personally find the premise of the thread to be amusingly with out real purpose. But then I tend to think that with most threads that try to come up with some sort of definition of what is art or whom is an artist. Remember that Paciasso's "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" was considered at the time horrified and disgusted the art community. Anyone want to take a swipe at it or Picasso now?

Frankly, craftsman, artist, good photo, bad photo. It's all subjective and in the long run, does it really matter at the end of the day? Unless you happen to be the one that is smart enough to buy some horrific, disgusting piece like the "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" only to watch it's value skyrocket despite what the art world thought.

Yet, you are here, giving your opinion.

If you actually read the thread, rather than looking for a way to comment on how silly it was and how much above it you are, you would find that I wasn't trying to define art or to say what it should be, I was expressing my frustration and disgust that people who take truly bad photos technically - and believe me after a bunch of years here, I have plenty of experience in judging when photos are bad technically - pass themselves off as artists and gallery owners play along.

Lew......At the end of the day in what way does it all matter? There are a lot of "techniques" being used these days that I personally find to be bad. My response to those techniques......I don't use them. If you like it, great. If you don't like it, no skin off my nose. Makes life a whole lot easier to live and a whole lot more stress free.

 

[bribrius]

I personally find the premise of the thread to be amusingly with out real purpose. But then I tend to think that with most threads that try to come up with some sort of definition of what is art or whom is an artist. Remember that Paciasso's "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" was considered at the time horrified and disgusted the art community. Anyone want to take a swipe at it or Picasso now?

Frankly, craftsman, artist, good photo, bad photo. It's all subjective and in the long run, does it really matter at the end of the day? Unless you happen to be the one that is smart enough to buy some horrific, disgusting piece like the "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" only to watch it's value skyrocket despite what the art world thought.

Yet, you are here, giving your opinion.

If you actually read the thread, rather than looking for a way to comment on how silly it was and how much above it you are, you would find that I wasn't trying to define art or to say what it should be, I was expressing my frustration and disgust that people who take truly bad photos technically - and believe me after a bunch of years here, I have plenty of experience in judging when photos are bad technically - pass themselves off as artists and gallery owners play along.

Lew......At the end of the day in what way does it all matter? There are a lot of "techniques" being used these days that I personally find to be bad. My response to those techniques......I don't use them. If you like it, great. If you don't like it, no skin off my nose. Makes life a whole lot easier to live and a whole lot more stress free.

yeah, geez. live and let live lew. :lmao:

 

[robbins.photo]

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.

Ok, so you open this thread basically taking issue with people who post in the forum and are dismissive of learning anything new or being willing to examine things from a different point of view. Does this then strike you as ironic or is just me?

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.

Well most galleries are there to make money, not to protect what is or is not someone else's idea of what does or doesn't rise to the level of art. I do get where your coming from Lew, you spent a lot of time learning an perfecting your "craft" or "art" or whatever designation you wish to give it, and along comes someone who picks up a DSLR with no experience, no desire to really learn or improve and they think that they can shoot a wedding, or get there stuff in a gallery somewhere. Sadly enough because of the way the world works they are occasionally afforded such opportunities even though they've done nothing to earn it.

Oh yes, I can certainly understand how frustrating that can be - but much like so many other things in life people often rise to the maximum level of their incompetence. You see it in most endeavors really, people who talk a really good game but in the end that's all they can produce, a lot of talk.

So I guess my thought process is there just isn't any point in taking it personally. Just food for thought.

 

[Steve5D]

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

Only to those who see the same photography you do, and conclude, like you, that it's crappy...

 

[Rick58]

ARROGANCE : offensive display of superiority or self-importance and overbearing pride. Just sayin'

 

[pixmedic]

I know how you feel lew....
I feel the same way about photos with sun flare and desaturation.