Sharpness is Overrated!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Perception of art requires only an openness of mind and eye.
Recognizing “cause and effect” requires training and knowledge.
Being able to describe it in context, requires vocabulary and education.
Perception can lead to feeling, but context gives it meaning.
Returning to David’s original question – Sharpness is an attribute whose importance depends on the context, and the context may require a non-literal interpretation of the imagery. We have learned that “sharpness” is where we should be looking – but is the photographer directing our attention honestly, or duplicitously? And if the latter, why are we given the sleigh-of-hand to see what he/she wants us to see?
 
I do not believe sharpness is overrated, I believe it has it's place and applications just like any other aspect of photography. You could look at B&W and say "color is overrated" with the same mindset, and very few people would agree. It all depends on the message you are trying to convey and the specific look and feel you are going for in each particular image.
 
The thing is these types of threads are ridiculous. There is no definitive right or wrong. There is no "ultimate" source. Everyone here is right and wrong, because this is all opinion/personal belief related based on interpretation of what art should/could/limited to be. All that happens is people going round and round. I don't think I've ever seen one person change their standing because of a response to a thread.
It's an attention seeking thread from an insecure, borderline manic depressant.The entire thread goes overboard with over- analyzing AND bringing overboard technicality to a hobby. The OP posts this in a beginners forum. Limme scratch my head here.I won't comment on what's politically - technically correct.I'll comment on what I see. And feel.Now, all you " followers" who can't wait to pull on bitters beard. He's mortal.There's nothing about him any different from any other internet , egotistical forum member.Such as myself. lolThe bottom line here is.............nearly all of you have commented " IT'S OOF." Or , IT'S NOT SHARP, OR, it looks soft"Now all of a sudden............The God of Photography says, " Hey wait a minute, maybe sharpness is overrated"And like a "herd" of bandits..............everybody piles on stroking his ego.It's a freggin joke and I call BS. Since no one else will.If nothing else, he knows how to take the fun out of having a camera.Now, I'm going to bed.I'll bicker with Tyler tomorrow, BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW he's going to come running to this like a horse to a bucket, who hasn't had water in a week.And to think I looked up to you Mr. Jeweler. Oh well.Shyt happens.lesson learned

OMG, what is your frigging problem? You sound like a jilted Hollywood lover....

And that might be too kind of a characterization after all you have had to say lately.

Jeeze.
 
It's an attention seeking thread from an insecure, borderline manic depressant.

You know. Some of us here might actually be manic depressive and don't appreciate using our medical condition as an insult.
 
From artistic standpoint, Sharpness is overrated...
From a commercial business standpoint, it depends (on what sells, customer etc)

I found one of the best ways to enjoy/experiment..... shoot with older vintage lenses. One learns to appreciate all types of lenses.



Stepping back a bit... I think all this technology in photography is WAY overrated.



PS> Bitter Jeweler, thanks for linking the good read.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the minds of the majority of people play well with abstraction. "What does it all mean?" "That line must stand for something other than...well...a line" etc....

Nope. Because art isn't about communication, it's about understanding the world. I am very much not a fan of art being defined by the audience, and even less of a fan of shallow symbolism.

But there is always synthesis, the line represents form, composition, placement - some other aesthetic or conceptual consideration. It's never functioning just as a line.

True. But if it was solely about understanding the world, then people wouldn't try so hard to get their art recognized in some shape or form. I don't want to sound like I'm generalizing a whole section of the population (but I'm going to anyways) - artists seem to want to communicate to others their understanding of the world. Isn't that the point of creating the best photo possible, and showing it to people? To allow the world to take a glimpse into how you think, what your understanding of the world is?

I can understand how the line can complement a piece aesthetically or conceptually, but that does not necessarily mean that it is trying to convey some complex meaning other than the literal quality of the piece of art.

Like a photo of a pair of railroad tracks leading into the distance. Maybe the photographer was trying to understand how there is no finish line for human lives, and it's really the journey that matters...yeah.

Or maybe the railroad tracks show a really good example of how parallel lines and symmetry create an appealing image. I don't think that art always has to be about simplifying complexity. Sometimes it's just pretty.

This is just my opinion though. I'm not educated in the arts, so I'm not sure if I'm qualified to even be discussing this. But whatever.

I think you know more about art that you are letting yourself believe, and your misunderstanding of what I am saying is totally understandable precisely because there is a huge misunderstanding of art as a whole - which you've managed to have broken through.

There is this sophomoric approach to art that concludes everything must have some deep hidden meaning which you must read into. This Campbellian approach may keep cultural anthropologists busy and employed, but really doesn't have a lot to do with art or why it's created in the first place. Certainly, everything we do and enjoy we enjoy because it is filtered through our subconscious understanding, but that doesn't mean that we have to decode every single piece of artwork in order to appreciate or understand what it is we enjoy - or worse - what the artist's intentions were.

I remember in a writing class some kid was going on about the symbolism in his novel he was writing - if the symbolism is known to the artist at the time of creation then it's contrived in fact, to get back to Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung, these contrived symbols aren't symbols at all, but rather signs.

Certainly art can be symbolic or "signatic" (made up word!), but this is not the extent of what art is or what it should be, and my definition does permit this. It doesn't need to be deep synthesis between the lines, though it could be. As with science, art can be synthesizing the natural world as it is. The train tracks could synthesize life and death, as Jung would assert, or it could synthesize a train track.

But there is PLENTY of complexity involved in objective reality, no more perhaps than subjective meanings. Complex needn't mean convoluted. If a photographer can capture the essence of what it means to objectively experience what he or she did at that moment is much more successful a synthesis than haphazardly conveying some vague emotion which she strongly felt at the time.

My whole goal is to break down these dichotomies of science and art, internal and external, artist and audience.
 
OMG, what is your frigging problem? You sound like a jilted Hollywood lover....

And that might be too kind of a characterization after all you have had to say lately.

Jeeze.

Post removed. I agree with exception to the part of your little fantasy ( jilted lover crap) I snapped at him in bad taste.
You may now mind your own business , Mother nature.
 
Nice try Kerby!!! Learning through reading is frowned upon in Texas!!! You're quite a clever fellow...I am not surprised that you don't like book-learnin'!

Derrel, you are ignorant of Texas. You should stop...

<< Raised in Texas. My high school is rated at the top tier nationally. Texas also offers such a wide variety of college level opportunities not limited by one's parental wealth. I was a "B" student in high school and a low "A" in college but I still surpass most ivy league and masters graduates at work.

As someone said, you seem to be very good at reading.... I'm good at experimenting and learning through observation. No reason to put others down for being wired differently.
 
Last edited:
As someone said, you seem to be very good at reading.... I'm good at experimenting and learning through experience. No reason to put others down for being wired differently.

Perhaps Derrel is well read, but I am really not seeing a lot of evidence of that in this thread. Just a lot of the same vague and baseless "I know art when I see it" definition.
 
LightSpeed said:
Post removed. I agree with exception to the part of your little fantasy ( jilted lover crap) I snapped at him in bad taste.
You may now mind your own business , Mother nature.

I hope you get banned real soon.
 
Nice try Kerby!!! Learning through reading is frowned upon in Texas!!! You're quite a clever fellow...I am not surprised that you don't like book-learnin'!

Oh snap?

As Valedictorian of my high school, I kindly ask you, Derrel, to just stop talking.
Period.

But regardless of my academic record, you just seem like you have to much of a God-complex to be likeable. :(

And your use of stereotypes (ridiculous ones at that) is appalling, because you believe yourself to be clever and witty. But you are not.

You're just offensive, and I don't understand how you yourself have not been banned by now. Honestly.
 
I hope you get banned real soon.

Oh here we go.
Cry babying about banning people because they didn't like what they read.
Such is the Internet where not much else can be done, by those who spout off, but don't like being spouted off, to.
Remind you of anyone you know?
 
LightSpeed said:
Oh here we go.
Cry babying about banning people because they didn't like what they read.
Such is the Internet where not much else can be done, by those who spout off, but don't like being spouted off, to.
Remind you of anyone you know?

No it doesn't remind me of anyone. Tou are the only self professed drug addict on this site. It's clear to me why you behave the way you do and yet you label your behavior as simple as arrogance.

Why don't you go and take some more drugs and them go and shoot some more poorly lit and soft focused shots of wasps and then come back here and call sharpness overrated.

That's the topic. Not Bitter
 
OK everyone, let's all cool it and get back to the original thread. All I am reading now are insults flying right and left, which is not what TPF is all about. If you have anything at all positive to add to the thread, do so. Otherwise this thread is closing really soon. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Most reactions

Back
Top