I'm confident that none of these pictures are any good.

[photocist]

Creativity IS something that must be learned to be used effectively. There is a difference between a boring photo and "exciting" photo simply by the subject photographed. While people should not be telling each other what to shoot, it is helpful to know that a fence or trashcan alone are of no significance, and unless one is able to show creativity and able to separate their shot from every other trashcan or fence shot, it is a mundane subject and photograph.

 

[gina_d]

Your comparison to Eggleston, only applies in it's purist distilled form, and disregards that he was an early pioneer of color photography, and fails to acknowledge the art movements of that time. Williams' images have dark and often sinister undertones. But yes of course at face value, he took pictures of mundane things.

Yes, it wasn't a discussion of Eggleston's placement in the world of art or photography (that he was an early pioneer of color photography, that his was the first color photography exhibition at the MoMA, the tone or mood one might experience attribute to his photos, etc.) It was purely about acknowledging a big-deal photographer who shot mundane, everyday subject matter - the very same subject matter being lampooned by others at the outset of this thread.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

You raise an interesting point, worthy of discussion. Should we offer creative advice?

I whole heartedly think so. The benefit I see, and have found useful myself, is in getting different perspectives. Even unstudied people have offered up ah-hah! moments. It should be creative conversation. It helps everyone think. Right or wrong doesn't matter, as long as it creates thought. Everyone benefits. The down side is, people making suggestions that totally change the concept. But conversation in a manner to possibly improve a concept? Sure, why not? In the end it's up to the individual to decide to take any of it on board. In the end, I find that to be a fun aspect to art. Talking about it.

I think there is also a problem that people ask "how can this be better", and we have no clue what they are asking for. Tech or art?

 

[gina_d]

You raise an interesting point, worthy of discussion. Should we offer creative advice?

I whole heartedly think so. The benefit I see, and have found useful myself, is in getting different perspectives. Even unstudied people have offered up ah-hah! moments. It should be creative conversation. It helps everyone think. Right or wrong doesn't matter, as long as it creates thought. Everyone benefits. The down side is, people making suggestions that totally change the concept. But conversation in a manner to possibly improve a concept? Sure, why not? In the end it's up to the individual to decide to take any of it on board. In the end, I find that to be a fun aspect to art. Talking about it.

I think there is also a problem that people ask "how can this be better", and we have no clue what they are asking for. Tech or art?

I feel like we're hijacking Kevin's thread now. ha...sorry!

It's not that I'm against the giving and receiving of creative advice or opinion, it's just that most of what I've seen here doesn't give me confidence in what's being said in that regard. Whereas I'm completely confident in the technical abilities and advice of the members (if not their diplomacy in dispensing it :razz. Overall it's kind of unbelievable the wealth of knowledge amassed here.

Should we offer creative advice here? Well, yes... unless it's wrong. Ok, I jest. I'm all about openness and conversation, but the problem I have is with the narrow-mindedness and lack of consideration that there could be another possible conclusion beyond one's own. Creativity is entirely subjective and, of course, we're each going to draw our own conclusion and opinion, but leave some room for the poor soul to drawn their own. Just out and out telling someone they're wrong for their creative choices seems very short-sighted and narrow-minded to me. Talk about stunting someone's creative growth...

Oh, and I think you're exactly right on the "tech or art?" question. If you don't know what the person is looking for (and they may not either), it leaves it open for interpretation. I don't offer advice on things like subject matter though unless someone specifically asks. "Umm, no... I think your photos would be MUCH better if you stopped photographing dandelion fluff and started photographing cats. They're much more interesting."

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Your comparison to Eggleston, only applies in it's purist distilled form, and disregards that he was an early pioneer of color photography, and fails to acknowledge the art movements of that time. Williams' images have dark and often sinister undertones. But yes of course at face value, he took pictures of mundane things.

Yes, it wasn't a discussion of Eggleston's placement in the world of art or photography (that he was an early pioneer of color photography, that his was the first color photography exhibition at the MoMA, the tone or mood one might experience attribute to his photos, etc.) It was purely about acknowledging a big-deal photographer who shot mundane, everyday subject matter - the very same subject matter being lampooned by others at the outset of this thread.

OMG! I think I :heart: you!

I don't find that a fair comparison. It's quite superficial. You can say any blurry OOF image posted here is a success because it mirrors the pictorial photographers of the early 20's who where striving to get photography recognized as a fine art, by trying to make photographs that looked like paintings. Go back to W. E. Who was photographing the "mundane" while we had the painters painting the mundane in a photorealistic manner. Look at what is displayed in museums, it's more often than not, the artists that started a movement of something new, or the best artists of a movement.

What W. E. did was successfully push boundaries of that time. I can't just look at something at it's simple base level and separate that out. I mean that something is good because a famous person did it to, leaving out everything else that made it work.

And just to share with you, Gina, I like to shoot mundane things that people pass everyday. I strive to find that thing that everyone misses.

Oh, something lost in all this, is that I agree Kevin's shots are more than snapshots. I can look at them and see that he thought about how to capture each image he presented. In time he will find his voice, and I think he can find help with that here.
:hug::

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Oh, and I think you're exactly right on the "tech or art?" question. If you don't know what the person is looking for (and they may not either), it leaves it open for interpretation. I don't offer advice on things like subject matter though unless someone specifically asks. "Umm, no... I think your photos would be MUCH better if you stopped photographing dandelion fluff and started photographing cats. They're much more interesting."

I know your joking. That's not what generally happens here (shoot cats instead). And you are right that my phrasing of mundane content wasn't exactly helpful, but also a poorly solidified thought.

I work 12+ hour days, every day, and you kept me up really late.
I will hate you tomorrow, but it will pass. :greenpbl:

 

[o hey tyler]

Did someone mention cat photos? MY FAV.

 

[Derrel]

Kevin,
I'd immediately start looking round Omaha for new subject matter. Focus on tricycles, old tail-finned Cadillacs, naked men, and run-down buildings, and then have everything made into dye transfer prints. You'll be well on your way to Eggleston status within, say, 30 years' time.

 

[gina_d]

Ugh, I tried to post this LATE last night, but seems the site was experiencing some technical difficulties. It was entirely too late anyway.

Your comparison to Eggleston, only applies in it's purist distilled form, and disregards that he was an early pioneer of color photography, and fails to acknowledge the art movements of that time. Williams' images have dark and often sinister undertones. But yes of course at face value, he took pictures of mundane things.

Yes, it wasn't a discussion of Eggleston's placement in the world of art or photography (that he was an early pioneer of color photography, that his was the first color photography exhibition at the MoMA, the tone or mood one might experience attribute to his photos, etc.) It was purely about acknowledging a big-deal photographer who shot mundane, everyday subject matter - the very same subject matter being lampooned by others at the outset of this thread.

OMG! I think I :heart: you!

I don't find that a fair comparison.

In time he will find his voice, and I think he can find help with that here.
:hug::

OMG! I think I :heart: you!

Oh great... now it's all awkward and stuff...​

I don't find that a fair comparison.

Again, not a comparison. It was only an acknowledgement of a well-known contemporary photographer shooting mundane subject matter and expressing the validity of the choice by the OP to shoot such subject matter.
​

In time he will find his voice, and I think he can find help with that here.
:hug::

I see your "Everything Is Beautiful" and raise you a Kumbaya. :hug::​

I work 12+ hour days, every day, and you kept me up really late.
I will hate you tomorrow, but it will pass. :greenpbl:

12+ hrs every day and you still have time to post nearly 6,000 comments here?? You are one dedicated photoforum enthusiast!​

Annnnnd, done.

 

[gina_d]

Kevin,
I'd immediately start looking round Omaha for new subject matter. Focus on tricycles, old tail-finned Cadillacs, naked men, and run-down buildings, and then have everything made into dye transfer prints. You'll be well on your way to Eggleston status within, say, 30 years' time.

:thumbup: He could get worse advice I suppose. (and has)

Also? No one really suggested he emulate Eggleston. My reference to Eggleston was to suggest that his choice of subject matter is not outside the realm of possibility - contrary to what he was being told. If that's what he chooses to shoot? It's a valid choice.

Seriously though, dye transfer prints? yum.

(apparently I only thought I was done)

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I work 12+ hour days, every day, and you kept me up really late.
I will hate you tomorrow, but it will pass. :greenpbl:

12+ hrs every day and you still have time to post nearly 6,000 comments here?? You are one dedicated photoforum enthusiast!​

Annnnnd, done.

So, I take breaks. It's good for my eyes.
And yeah, OCD has it's down sides too.

 

[Derrel]

Yeah, the garbage can, chain link fence shots, and the beaver-gnawed tree were all Eggleston-worthy subject matter. The only difference is, between thirty and forty years have passed, and Eggleston was a capable,seasoned photographer, whereas Kevin is a newbie, struggling to find his voice. Eggleston was pushing a boundary--Kevin was pushing the shutter release button. And of course, Eggleston saw and seized an opportunity to flaunt the then-current artistic mindset by photographing and elevating the mundane, as a way of poking fun at fine art photography and gallery curators, and as a way of making a serious name and reputation for himself; Kevin on the other hand, lives in Omaha,Nebraska, which is known as quite a boring place, and spent a half hour wandering around a local lake, and then did a photo dump of several pictures made within thirty minutes of one another. So, there really is very little worthy of comparison between Kevin's card dump images and Eggleston's work; if Kevin however were to do SERIES work of say, chain link fences, or beaver-gnawed trees, or even urban garbage cans, he could develop any of those three themes into coherent collections or portfolios of work.

But I am sorry Gina, your idea that Kevin's pictures are "more than snapshots" is ludicrous. The fact that William Eggleston photographed the mundane does not make the random results of a thirty minute photo walk's compact flash card dump into anything more than snapshots...it takes more than mundane subject matter to equal "fine art" or to notch a show at MoMA. What Kevin showed us were boring photos of boring subjects, minus the technical proficiency of W.E., and minus any context other than, "I am confident that none of these pictures are any good,right?" Kevin's images also lack a physical manifestation: where is the fine-quality dye transfer image of the Omaha garbage can? Where is the dye transfer print of the out of focus fishing float on the lake surface?

 

[KevinPutman]

Dear lord,
A lot of reading to do here.

As far as creativity goes, to an extent it should be discussed, I think. But one should not flat out be told that something is wrong on the creative side. Creativity is everything, and everything can be creative. Personally with my experience of graphic design I found forums topics for inspiration to be very helpful. A kind of thread where everyone posts a collection of images that they feel inspires their photography in some way or the other.
I'm not sure if there's such a thread here, and it would probably have to be discussed with the admins for rights to post actual images from other artists in the topic, but I'm sure a simple "This is not my image, I simply use it for inspiration, and find it a nice picture, blah blah" would suffice as far as that goes.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Creativity is everything, and everything can be creative.

WWW.REGRETSY.COM

Sometimes NSFW.

 

[KevinPutman]

Creativity is everything, and everything can be creative.

WWW.REGRETSY.COM

Sometimes NSFW.

lolol
no comment.