"Technical" vs. "Artistic": Should One Trump The Other?

[manaheim]

The thing is "technical goodness" isn't even a meaningful phrase. Any technical element can be used powerfully in either direction.

Technical elements of photography are just effects that can be applied. Put the focus here, put it there, you get different images. Warm colors, cool colors, you get different images. Sharper or softer, different images. These images all feel different to the viewer and they either work or not. The effect either supports the image and the ideas in it, detracts from them, or is neutral.

The only real difference is whether you can do it in post. Sharper is better up front not because sharper is better, but because you can't add sharpness in post. Youcan add the opposite of sharpness.

As technology advances, the list of technical stuff you can change in post gets longer, though. See Lytro cameras, light-field tech, for a contemporary example.

Technical goodness... Is really the skill necessary to execute the photo you want in the way you want it. You bring up a great point though... If I want overexposure in a certain part of the photo I need to know how to do that to execute on my artistic vision... Which IS what I'm saying, except that it also brings about the point that something that would traditionally be called "a mistake" and panned would actually be intentional. Ergo a "bad" image can actually be a "good" one ... If the artist intended it as such and the message is effectively carried.

Ugh. That hurts my head.

Good thought provoking comment as always, amolitor.

 

[pixmedic]

To me, the argument of "art" over "technical accuracy" is only valid if the photographer actually HAS the knowledge and ability to produce either of them when it is applicable. There IS always the chance that someone can just get "lucky" with a shot. (someone has to win the lottery, right?) To somewhat clarify, the real problem is....you cant argue "art" or "sentimental value". you can only argue technical aspects of a photo like focus, cropping, color...some of those might have been done as an artistic choice, or maybe by mistake, or even poor post processing choices. But I think there are also people that want to be taken seriously as a photographer that do not have a basic grasp of photography basics and use "artistic choice" as a crutch for poorly executed pictures. I suppose they have the right to claim "artistic choice" as much as the next person, but I think there is a big difference between someone that CAN take a technically good photo that sometimes chooses to break the rules for the sake of art, and someone that cries "its my artistic style" due to a lack of fundamental camera skills.

 

[amolitor]

The claim of "artistic choice" implies a choice. If you made it out of focus on purpose, that's an artistic choice. If you made it out of focus because you don't know how to make it in focus, that's not a choice. If you then CLAIM it was an artistic choice, you're just lying

The picture might still work, or not work, though!

 

[kathyt]

To me, the argument of "art" over "technical accuracy" is only valid if the photographer actually HAS the knowledge and ability to produce either of them when it is applicable. There IS always the chance that someone can just get "lucky" with a shot. (someone has to win the lottery, right?) To somewhat clarify, the real problem is....you cant argue "art" or "sentimental value". you can only argue technical aspects of a photo like focus, cropping, color...some of those might have been done as an artistic choice, or maybe by mistake, or even poor post processing choices. But I think there are also people that want to be taken seriously as a photographer that do not have a basic grasp of photography basics and use "artistic choice" as a crutch for poorly executed pictures. I suppose they have the right to claim "artistic choice" as much as the next person, but I think there is a big difference between someone that CAN take a technically good photo that sometimes chooses to break the rules for the sake of art, and someone that cries "its my artistic style" due to a lack of fundamental camera skills.

This pretty much sums it up right here. It is going to be a case by case basis. I can't have a completely unfocused, scattered, **** portfolio, and then call it "art." There has to be some technical knowledge swimming in there somewhere for someone to look at my work and tell if I know what I am doing.

 

[amolitor]

If you give a bunch of bozos a bunch of cameras and have them take 1,000,000 photographs, and then curate and photoshop that down to a collection of 50 stylistically connected and powerful images, what then? You've got a strong portfolio, potentially. You have exactly zero capacity to add a 51st photograph to it, though, which is, I feel, an interesting point.

Who's the artist? Is it art at all? Hep! Hep! What's going on here?!

 

[The_Traveler]

If you give a bunch of bozos a bunch of cameras and have them take 1,000,000 photographs, and then curate and photoshop that down to a collection of 50 stylistically connected and powerful images, what then? You've got a strong portfolio, potentially. You have exactly zero capacity to add a 51st photograph to it, though, which is, I feel, an interesting point.

Who's the artist? Is it art at all? Hep! Hep! What's going on here?!

I'm a bit insulted.
You're describing my methodology and calling me a bozo.

 

[nonamexx]

To me, the argument of "art" over "technical accuracy" is only valid if the photographer actually HAS the knowledge and ability to produce either of them when it is applicable. There IS always the chance that someone can just get "lucky" with a shot. (someone has to win the lottery, right?) To somewhat clarify, the real problem is....you cant argue "art" or "sentimental value". you can only argue technical aspects of a photo like focus, cropping, color...some of those might have been done as an artistic choice, or maybe by mistake, or even poor post processing choices. But I think there are also people that want to be taken seriously as a photographer that do not have a basic grasp of photography basics and use "artistic choice" as a crutch for poorly executed pictures. I suppose they have the right to claim "artistic choice" as much as the next person, but I think there is a big difference between someone that CAN take a technically good photo that sometimes chooses to break the rules for the sake of art, and someone that cries "its my artistic style" due to a lack of fundamental camera skills.

You make very good points, but this may be a reason why value judgements are formed based on the perceived skill level of the photographer in question and not the actual image posted for critique, leading to quite a bit of subjective bias. This is true not just of this forum, but in general media as well.

Too often a photograph put up for critique alone is not criticized, but by implication photographer as well. A person putting a photo for critique is asking for what is right or wrong with that particular photo. I've read critiques here that become patronizing and condescending about a photographer's skills, particularly when they attempt something different outside their comfort zone. If a critique is given, the technical flaws may be highlighted but must be balanced with other aspects to give a rounded perspective. Let the photographer then decide how to go about improving. Not all of us go around with a camera all the time and when we do, it's purely a hobby. That is one reason why those who put their work for critique also become defensive.

If a beginner has got 'lucky', so what? It's almost as though some critics gets riled up that a beginner could take such a great photo without much thought when an expert takes the effort. The critic's role is the review the picture, not the photographer's mindset when taking the picture. Critics sometimes go way beyond their scope and try to "mentor" when not asked for. Some people seem to enjoy going out of the way to analyze too much and in the process provide advice that is not really appreciated. In that case, they have no logical basis to get defensive when asked to show their own work.

I now realize that part of the reason why I've been intimidated to post much on this forum is not because most of the experts here have the knowledge and experience, but from browsing around, I found that some people can get quite condescending or dismissive about those who don't have the knowledge or experience. This is human nature. The bar is set too high. Technical perfection combined with artistic perfection is a tough goal. There's also a lot of implicit gear snobbery.

On the other hand, many reviews are nice and considerate, and useful at the same time. So thumbs up to all those who take time to review others' work to genuinely help out and not to feel superior.

 

[amolitor]

I'm a bit insulted.
You're describing my methodology and calling me a bozo.

Sorry, man. I meant genius of course. They're, like, RIGHT NEXT to one another on the keyboard.

 

[pixmedic]

If you give a bunch of bozos a bunch of cameras and have them take 1,000,000 photographs, and then curate and photoshop that down to a collection of 50 stylistically connected and powerful images, what then? You've got a strong portfolio, potentially. You have exactly zero capacity to add a 51st photograph to it, though, which is, I feel, an interesting point.

Who's the artist? Is it art at all? Hep! Hep! What's going on here?!

i was talking about ONE bozo, you are talking about MANY bozos.
also, if it takes a dozen bozos taking a million pictures to piece together 50 "good"ones, I personally call that "luck" not "artistic anything".
that isn't to say they may or may not be good images, on whatever merits you choose to judge them on, they are just "lucky" images.
whos to say that only ONE of those bozos didn't take all 50 "good" images and zero were chosen from the other bozos.
maybe one bozo with some actual photography talent slipped in with the rest.
statistically speaking, even with ZERO skill or experience, in 1 million shots taken, 50 that could be deemed as "good" by SOME criteria is actually pretty likely.
I dont personally find the million photos taken analogy to be particularly compelling in this discussion.

 

[amolitor]

Certainly the million photos scenario has wandered a bit afield of the topic. It seemed tangentially relevant at the time!

 

[PixelRabbit]

Every time this conversation comes up I think about this image. I think if you ignore the whole of the image it can be torn apart, motion blur/out of focus, blown highlight top left in the cloud, nothing is sharp, it is riddled with what can be considered technical flaws created by my choice to use a slow shutter speed while panning.

Could I have captured this image technically perfectly? Yep, just up my shutter speed and we would be most of the way there, we would end up with a nicely lit, simply composed, sharp, richly coloured picture of a willow tree and tiny pond (I have the pictures to prove it somewhere but not going to go hunting for them lol). So since there are a set of choices that I can make to create a technically perfect version of the photo below do the technically incorrect choices I made in my settings, specifically my shutter speed and resulting "imperfections" make it a failure by default?

 

[The_Traveler]

Without arguing with harishankar, I have a slightly different take on this.

If we don't know the maker then it is difficult to know where to start with what one says or how far to go.

It is much easier for me if I know 1) what skill level the photographer is at and 2) what is the implied question he/she is asking.

For new posters, that is the best way to get a c/c that is appropriate.
Say what you are trying to do and pose a sample question.

That is like the first thrown ball in a game of catch.
The reply will be more likely to be appropriate.

 

[pixmedic]

To me, the argument of "art" over "technical accuracy" is only valid if the photographer actually HAS the knowledge and ability to produce either of them when it is applicable. There IS always the chance that someone can just get "lucky" with a shot. (someone has to win the lottery, right?) To somewhat clarify, the real problem is....you cant argue "art" or "sentimental value". you can only argue technical aspects of a photo like focus, cropping, color...some of those might have been done as an artistic choice, or maybe by mistake, or even poor post processing choices. But I think there are also people that want to be taken seriously as a photographer that do not have a basic grasp of photography basics and use "artistic choice" as a crutch for poorly executed pictures. I suppose they have the right to claim "artistic choice" as much as the next person, but I think there is a big difference between someone that CAN take a technically good photo that sometimes chooses to break the rules for the sake of art, and someone that cries "its my artistic style" due to a lack of fundamental camera skills.

You make very good points, but this may be a reason why value judgements are formed based on the perceived skill level of the photographer in question and not the actual image posted for critique, leading to quite a bit of subjective bias. This is true not just of this forum, but in general media as well.

Too often a photograph put up for critique alone is not criticized, but by implication photographer as well. A person putting a photo for critique is asking for what is right or wrong with that particular photo. I've read critiques here that become patronizing and condescending about a photographer's skills, particularly when they attempt something different outside their comfort zone. If a critique is given, the technical flaws may be highlighted but must be balanced with other aspects to give a rounded perspective. Let the photographer then decide how to go about improving. Not all of us go around with a camera all the time and when we do, it's purely a hobby. That is one reason why those who put their work for critique also become defensive.

If a beginner has got 'lucky', so what? It's almost as though some critics gets riled up that a beginner could take such a great photo without much thought when an expert takes the effort. The critic's role is the review the picture, not the photographer's mindset when taking the picture. Critics sometimes go way beyond their scope and try to "mentor" when not asked for. Some people seem to enjoy going out of the way to analyze too much and in the process provide advice that is not really appreciated. In that case, they have no logical basis to get defensive when asked to show their own work.

I now realize that part of the reason why I've been intimidated to post much on this forum is not because most of the experts here have the knowledge and experience, but from browsing around, I found that some people can get quite condescending or dismissive about those who don't have the knowledge or experience. This is human nature. The bar is set too high. Technical perfection combined with artistic perfection is a tough goal. There's also a lot of implicit gear snobbery.

On the other hand, many reviews are nice and considerate, and useful at the same time. So thumbs up to all those who take time to review others' work to genuinely help out and not to feel superior.

a common scenerio we see here isn't simply a beginner getting "lucky" per se, but someone that posts an image for critique from a recent "shoot" they did for a "client" which is watermarked with their business logo, webpage, and business FB/twitter/flikr information. That, along with their signature being all of their business contact information leads people to believe that they are a professional photographer, and therefor they are often times given very professional critique. this is NOT the same scenario as a new hobbyist photographer posting an image and getting bashed for it. that is wrong. If you advertise yourself as taking paid jobs, I don't believe you have the right to complain when people want to judge your work by professional standards. that isn't newbie bashing, because if you are a photographer doing business on your own, then I think its fair for people to assume you are not a newbie.

 

[pixmedic]

Every time this conversation comes up I think about this image. I think if you ignore the whole of the image it can be torn apart, motion blur/out of focus, blown highlight top left in the cloud, nothing is sharp, it is riddled with what can be considered technical flaws created by my choice to use a slow shutter speed while panning.

Could I have captured this image technically perfectly? Yep, just up my shutter speed and we would be most of the way there, we would end up with a nicely lit, simply composed, sharp, richly coloured picture of a willow tree and tiny pond (I have the pictures to prove it somewhere but not going to go hunting for them lol). So since there are a set of choices that I can make to create a technically perfect version of the photo below do the technically incorrect choices I made in my settings, specifically my shutter speed and resulting "imperfections" make it a failure by default?

by MY criteria and definition? nope. your just fine, because it is a choice, not a mistake. others may disagree of course.

 

[nonamexx]

Without arguing with harishankar, I have a slightly different take on this.

If we don't know the maker then it is difficult to know where to start with what one says or how far to go.

It is much easier for me if I know 1) what skill level the photographer is at and 2) what is the implied question he/she is asking.

For new posters, that is the best way to get a c/c that is appropriate.
Say what you are trying to do and pose a sample question.

That is like the first thrown ball in a game of catch.
The reply will be more likely to be appropriate.

I'm not saying it's not relevant, but it becomes a factor in bias. On the other side, people are very intimidated to offer harsher critique to somebody they know as an experienced pro photographer for the same reason, even if the image in question is below par. Not that it happens often, but sometimes it does.

There is also the assumption that a professional photographer always makes mistakes on purpose to enhance the beauty or artistic vision. So that, even if the average viewer doesn't really "get it" they have to go along with the flow and pretend they do.

On another note, PixelRabbit's photo above is a great example of HOW to do an artistic photo really well. That one is gorgeous and you don't need to be an expert to appreciate the artistic vision there.