OPINIONS PLEASE

thebeginning · Feb 13, 2005

There is a guy i've met on another forum, and whenever just about anyone posts pictures, he totally ravages them and says they are un-aesthetic and cliche. and everytime you ask him what he means, he's either really broad or very irate in what he says. it gets frusterating. but my question is, do you think art has changed so much that photography and other forms of art are only considered 'true art' if they are completely inventive (it should be), and that's it? Back in the day, art didnt have to be strange or vulgar, like most of the 'art' today is. Like say poetry for instance. It used to be a more strict system, and the true art was the talent required in filling and morphing the 'system' or guidelines into something beautiful and entertaining, no matter how boring the 'rules' were of that day. I think art has totally slidden back from talented minds to just weird minds (or even lucky ones). Do you think any of this applies to photography?

aggiezach · Feb 13, 2005

Honestly I think Art is a relative term. No two people will have the exact same opinion on anything Art related. That being said, I know what you mean about the weird art that people are raving about today. I think its all rubbish, but some people don't. See, point in case! As far as photography is related... I think a photograph can be considered and art piece if the photographer carefully considered all of the things that go into making that image. Composition, Exposure, Aperture, quality of light, lens, etc... Including any post processing that is done. If its a just a lucky snap shot, I have trouble considering that creative art. The camera did the work, Although when you look at the composition of an image of these images, all of the credit has to go to the photographer. I think my mind is just wondering all over the place about this. basically what I wanted to say was that Art is whatever you think it is. While it is nice to have it appreciated by others, ultimately you have to be the one who is happy with your 'Art'
Just my .02 cents!

Zach

railman44 · Feb 13, 2005

Beauty has always been in the eye of the beholder. This guy sounds like he may have some personal issues not related to the subject at hand. I make it a habit to never pay much or any attention to just one person's "art" criticisms. If I find some criticism in someone's photographic work, I try to add what I would have done to make it better and not criticise just for the sake of criticism. What's important is what you think of your work. Improvement can come through constructive criticism but the individual needs to convey what they would have done to correct what seems to be a problem to them...

Rob · Feb 13, 2005

I think this is a psychology issue, probably involving his lack of breast-feeding as a child.

To me, photography is a form of artistic expression. If I can capture an experience or a person in 1/125th of a second in a way which others understand and appreciate then it's great.

I try not to delve too much into the art / craft arguments, if you search here they are quite interesting.

QOTD: "Don't let the buggers grind you down"

Rob

mentos_007 · Feb 13, 2005

For me ART is very personal... it means something different for everyone. And what I lika might not be apreciated by someone else. If the author of the shot/poem/painting really LOVES the thing he/she has done/created - that is TRUE ART.

KevinR · Feb 13, 2005

Please yourself......and if anybody else likes it, then its a bonus, but does it really matter?

If create photos is your art. Then just continue doing it.

When critiquing anything, to put something down helps nobody. Critisism should be helpful, not hurtful.

I work in a few different mediums. I know which ones I am better at, but it doesn't stop me from attempting to create in the other ones.

And if your work resembles someone else, just remember that retro is in.

Kodan_Txips · Feb 14, 2005

It is a damned good idea to deliberately try to resemble other great photographers' photos. It works for painters, so why won't it work for photographers?

You learn by trying to understand the why and the how of great shots - but it is more important to understand the WHY.

And you get another benefit too. You may even be lucky enough to get a very old shot, emulated, but on better/sharper/bokeh-ier equipment than the original photographer used. I have a lovely image of Ansel Adams skipping happily around Yellowstone Park with a full Nikon outfit that weighs less than any single camera he then owned.

And if you get anything that even approaches the quality of his (published) stuff, you can get a fine large framed print of your own making, better than a scan of the image from a photo book, and at far less than the cost of a print from his original negative/plate. It would be legal, too - he may have owned the copyright of the shot, but not of the park.

I wouldn't advise trying to emulate the work of Don McCullin or any other war photographer though..

Hertz van Rental · Feb 14, 2005

It is usually considered that there is High Art and there is Low Art. The Victorians considered Photography to be Low Art - and it has struggled to prove itself ever since. The argument has always been that to be an Artist one has to have skill, ability and something to say. So how can Photography be Art if any fool can take a picture with a camera - where is the skill and ability in that?
Attitudes are changing, however (and have been for some time) helped by a lot of great Photographers who have shown that cameras can be instruments of magic and wonder in the right hands.
But we must remember that there is a lot more to a work becoming 'Art' than just saying it is. The true test is looking in retrospect - looking back on the History of an Art the important and influential works shine out like beacons. And a lot of 'art' and 'artists' who were hailed at the time have been forgotten.
One of the 'benchmarks' for great Art (and Artists) is to present the viewer with a new way of seeing the world. If you look at any Photographers who are considered as Greats they have all have this quality in common. This is why people who come after and copy or mimic a style are seen as second rate. Anyone can plagiarise but you have to be something pretty special to be the first.
As for your 'critic' - if he cannot be specific and precise as to the reasons why he considers an image to not be very good then it is fair to assume that what he really means is that it is not to his taste. If he rubbishes everything then ask him to post some of his pictures so that everyone can see how it should be done. Adding the words 'put up or shut up' might help.

Walt · Feb 14, 2005

As someone once said, I don't know art, but I know what I like. I would suspect everyone on this forum could give a different definition.
It's been my experience that critics like the one you're dealing with on the other forum have some sort of personality problem. (Trying to be polite here) Although, I've been accused of that too!

Digital Matt · Feb 14, 2005

There is a troll on just about every forum, and it looks like you found one who "fits the description" on that forum.

That's all I'll add, since everything else has been said already.

lazarus219 · Feb 15, 2005

hi,
there are only so many ways you can shoot a particular scene and if your not being completely individual it dosent mean you cant get a great shot, i enjoy taking shots using proven and i guess 'typical' scenes in my photos because i like the results using these techniques.

If possible could i get a link to the forum you mentioned?im always looknig for new good forums to join

raider · Feb 15, 2005

yeah - probably a troll there - buuut I have seen a lot of just... really bad pictures posted here and everyone is just gushing with praise on how good they are and welcome to the forum etc. I don't think that's doing any good for the 'photographer' or the people who come here to look at nice pictures. Save those everyday shots for your personal website. But then again, this isn't really just a professionals forum either, so it has to be expected.

airgunr · Feb 15, 2005

Railman44 has hit the point well. Art (like beauty) is in the eye of the beholder. What one person like may be different from what another does.

Personnally I am not impressed with Cristo's (sp?) "Gates" exhibition in New York's Central Park (or much of his other work). Does that mean it's not art? No, I personnally just don't like it. So what?

The guy who trashes you would seem to me to have some sort of need to denigrate others to make himself feel superior. Feel sorry for him but ignore him.