The Art

[Overread]

How?

Because they record reality.

and how is that more important?

-

Because PP does not like photographers - especailly if they try to do something as horrible as art

 

[Petraio Prime]

How?

Because they record reality.

and how is that more important?

-

It preserves an actual record of an event, not a fiction. It attains a sort of truth of which art is incapable.

 

[fwellers]

It preserves an actual record of an event, not a fiction. It attains a sort of truth of which art is incapable.

I sure hope you never use a shutter speed slower than 1/2 or so.
Because that is a lie and not reality. You are recording in one frame things that take a half second to transpire. You can get ghost people in that frame, you can show movement of things etc...
NOT REALITY !! therefore GARBAGE.

 

[Petraio Prime]

It preserves an actual record of an event, not a fiction. It attains a sort of truth of which art is incapable.

I sure hope you never use a shutter speed slower than 1/2 or so.
Because that is a lie and not reality. You are recording in one frame things that take a half second to transpire. You can get ghost people in that frame, you can show movement of things etc...
NOT REALITY !! therefore GARBAGE.

Where did you come up with that? Don't put words in my mouth. The earliest photographs took hours.

Where did I say anything about garbage? I simply said that straightforward photography is the core of photography. Everyone thinks that a straight image is boring and needs to be somehow enhanced, whereas the reverse is actually the case. Heavily manipulated images do nothing for me.

 

[Overread]

Ok serious question time which of these is the more realistic:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4148/4845492599_27cbef36e2_b.jpg
or
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3379/3407470294_68debf4c8a_o.jpg

Stating that photography should always be journalistic in approach and concept is however I think getting a bit rich. Photography can be many things and does not always have to be a photo journalistic approach - yes such photography that attempts to capture as realistic a moment in time as possible is very valuable, but so to (for different reasons) is artistic and other forms of photography.

 

[fwellers]

I simply said that ....... Heavily manipulated images do nothing for me.

Well you could have just said that and saved this whole thread, instead of making sweeping judgemental derisive and polarized statements designed solely for stirring the pot.
Are you a plant from the owners of the forum ? Because your threads certainly get active. :er:

 

[abraxas]

Because they record reality.

Because PP does not like photographers - especailly if they try to do something as horrible as art

It preserves an actual record of an event, not a fiction. It attains a sort of truth of which art is incapable.

and why is that more important?

 

[Petraio Prime]

Ok serious question time which of these is the more realistic:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4148/4845492599_27cbef36e2_b.jpg
or
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3379/3407470294_68debf4c8a_o.jpg

Stating that photography should always be journalistic in approach and concept is however I think getting a bit rich. Photography can be many things and does not always have to be a photo journalistic approach - yes such photography that attempts to capture as realistic a moment in time as possible is very valuable, but so to (for different reasons) is artistic and other forms of photography.

Where did I say that only a journalistic approach is valid? There is nothing wrong with retouching in portraiture, for instance, when intelligently and delicately applied.

See here:

Seraphic Secret: Joan Crawford: Untouched/Retouched

What I am objecting to is 'technique' simply for the sake of technique. I lived through numerous 'fads' in photography (listed above). If you don't have something worthwhile to start with, all the manipulation in the world won't save it.

Note the heavy diffusion in this photo of Greta Garbo from 1924. It was the style in the 20s:

http://www.updoprincess.com/images/Greta_Garbo_1920s.jpg

Today this strikes us as hopelessly antiquated.

Compare that with this somewhat later one, with little or no diffusion:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/Photographic3000/Greta%20Garbo/GretaGarbo17.jpg

And this one, with no apparent diffusion:

http://c2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/30/l_944d014f5fafe1779470c8d33ea53039.jpg

 

[Petraio Prime]

Because they record reality.

and how is that more important?

-

Because PP does not like photographers - especailly if they try to do something as horrible as art

I have no objection to photographers attempting to do art. They have every right to set up their easel, get out their brushes and oils, just like anyone else.

 

[JG_Coleman]

We've had this whole debate before - really we have and in the end we came out with

Works of art cannot be dependent upon the existence of their 'subject matter' in a causal connection.

A photograph is always 'of', refers to, and is dependent upon an entity. Art is not.

being a personal viewpoint that almost everyone else disagrees with. Doesn't make it right nor wrong, just makes it a view point that most people disagree with.

You know... you're right.

Here's the deal guys... I'm not saying you shouldn't continue to slug it out here... but let's face it... this thread really isn't going anywhere.

Wiley old Petraio subscribes to a relatively ludicrous viewpoint which perhaps a couple dozen people in the entire world sincerely agree with. By most all accounts, his point-of-view draws a meaningless distinction with no real purpose whatsoever (outside of drawing a distinction for the mere sake of doing so). The distinction doesn't contribute to a deeper understanding of art or photography, and it poorly delineates both.

Nonetheless, it a distinction which, in itself, can't be "proven" wrong.

Example:

I used to play a joke on new co-workers. While we were out back of our shop having a cigarette, I would point to the forest and, feigning sincerity, ask," How many trees do you think there are out there?" Now, of course, there were probably tens of thousands of trees... but I would continue," What do you think? Maybe 300, 400?"

The new guy would look at me in disbelief..."Of course not! There's gotta be 20,000 trees out there!"

"No... no..." I'd say," I'll give you maybe 600 or 700, tops..."

I'd let them go on and on trying to convince me otherwise... still pretending to be totally serious about there being no more than 1,000 trees.

It's funny, because despite my outrageous and clearly incorrect claims, they realized they couldn't correct me unless I conceded to be rational about the whole thing. There obviously had to be more than 600 trees in the forest, but for someone that insists otherwise and refuses to listen to common sense, there was no way to change my mind.

Eventually, once I got them totally wound up, I would give up the act and we'd have a laugh about it.

For the record, Petraio is far too stubborn and subscribes very sincerely to this oddball, fringe concept. For what it's worth, it's impossible to convince him otherwise because his viewpoint precludes the possibility that he is mistaken... he refuses to see it any other way.

We're better off leaving him to his own, where he can sit in a dark room under a solitary lightbulb writing angry letters to museum curators about how ignorant they are for calling photographs art.

 

[Petraio Prime]

We've had this whole debate before - really we have and in the end we came out with

Works of art cannot be dependent upon the existence of their 'subject matter' in a causal connection.

A photograph is always 'of', refers to, and is dependent upon an entity. Art is not.

being a personal viewpoint that almost everyone else disagrees with. Doesn't make it right nor wrong, just makes it a view point that most people disagree with.

You know... you're right.

Here's the deal guys... I'm not saying you shouldn't continue to slug it out here... but let's face it... this thread really isn't going anywhere.

Wiley old Petraio subscribes to a relatively ludicrous viewpoint which perhaps a couple dozen people in the entire world sincerely agree with. By most all accounts, his point-of-view draws a meaningless distinction with no real purpose whatsoever (outside of drawing a distinction for the mere sake of doing so). The distinction doesn't contribute to a deeper understanding of art or photography, and it poorly delineates both.

Nonetheless, it a distinction which, in itself, can't be "proven" wrong.

Example:

I used to play a joke on new co-workers. While we were out back of our shop having a cigarette, I would point to the forest and, feigning sincerity, ask," How many trees do you think there are out there?" Now, of course, there were probably tens of thousands of trees... but I would continue," What do you think? Maybe 300, 400?"

The new guy would look at me in disbelief..."Of course not! There's gotta be 20,000 trees out there!"

"No... no..." I'd say," I'll give you maybe 600 or 700, tops..."

I'd let them go on and on trying to convince me otherwise... still pretending to be totally serious about there being no more than 1,000 trees.

It's funny, because despite my outrageous and clearly incorrect claims, they realized they couldn't correct me unless I conceded to be rational about the whole thing. There obviously had to be more than 600 trees in the forest, but for someone that insists otherwise and refuses to listen to common sense, there was no way to change my mind.

Eventually, once I got them totally wound up, I would give up the act and we'd have a laugh about it.

For the record, Petraio is far too stubborn and subscribes very sincerely to this oddball, fringe concept. For what it's worth, it's impossible to convince him otherwise because his viewpoint precludes the possibility that he is mistaken... he refuses to see it any other way.

We're better off leaving him to his own, where he can sit in a dark room under a solitary lightbulb writing angry letters to museum curators about how ignorant they are for calling photographs art.

It is not a 'fringe' concept. You're just not familiar with the philosophy of art (also called "aesthetic theory"). Since you don't hang around with art theorists and philosophers, well you just don't know the terminology. Just because you have not heard something before, that doesn't mean it's wrong or ludicrous. It just means you need to learn more.

Again, read the essay on this by Roger Scruton. My argument and his coincide on most points.

 

[JG_Coleman]

It is not a 'fringe' concept. You're just not familiar with the philosophy of art (aesthetics). Since you don't hang around with art theorists and philosophers, well you just don't know the terminology. Just because you have not heard something before, that doesn't mean it's wrong or ludicrous. It just means you need to learn more.

Again, read the essay on this by Roger Scruton. My argument and his coincide on most points.

Riiiight.... seriously though, Petraio... I'm done playing the part of the new guy and trying to convince you that there more than 500 trees in the entire forest.

I'm done with you, man. You're really just too much.

 

[Petraio Prime]

It is not a 'fringe' concept. You're just not familiar with the philosophy of art (aesthetics). Since you don't hang around with art theorists and philosophers, well you just don't know the terminology. Just because you have not heard something before, that doesn't mean it's wrong or ludicrous. It just means you need to learn more.

Again, read the essay on this by Roger Scruton. My argument and his coincide on most points.

Riiiight.... seriously though, Petraio... I'm done playing the part of the new guy and trying to convince you that there more than 500 trees in the entire forest.

I'm done with you, man. You're really just too much.

Have you ever been involved in such a discussion before? You may want to look at these arguments and see how they are constructed.

The question we are discussing is a philosophical one and you should be familiar with this sort of thing before you dismiss what others say. Your emotional reaction does nothing to advance your argument.

Do you understand that such questions are unavoidably philosophical ones, and recognize that philosophical arguments are used in such a context, and that you have to be familiar with – and competent in – philosophical arguments to have any hope of making your point?

Just disagreeing or saying the other fellow's argument is nonsense won't cut it.

 

[abraxas]

Because they record reality.

Because PP does not like photographers - especailly if they try to do something as horrible as art

It preserves an actual record of an event, not a fiction. It attains a sort of truth of which art is incapable.

and why is that more important?

 

[Petraio Prime]

Because they record reality.

Because PP does not like photographers - especailly if they try to do something as horrible as art

It preserves an actual record of an event, not a fiction. It attains a sort of truth of which art is incapable.

and why is that more important?

Because it is valuable and unique to photography.