What can one read from a photograph

[photoguy99]

You fellows are welcome to carry on assuming that I don't know anything about anything. I can see that it makes you feel comfortable, and that's nice.

For the lurkers, though, perhaps the most relevant point is this:

I did not say that knowledge and education would not enhance ones appreciation of a photograph. Only that a good photograph can be appreciated more deeply than with grunts by an average joe. You don't have to get all the metaphors and political references to enjoy Shakespeare on a more than primitive level. Simply being a native english speaker will open up a great deal of these plays to you. As will being a sighted person open up a great deal of a good photograph to you.

People who make pictures that you need to be specially educated to "get" at all are poseurs. People who make pictures that you can "get" in several ways, and at varying degrees of depth, might be artists.

 

[Scatterbrained]

The idea that you need some sort of expertise to get anything more than the simplest gruntlike 'Thag like'/'Thag not like' result out of looking at a photograph is:

* pervasive
* slightly noxious
* wrong.....................

You fellows are welcome to carry on assuming that I don't know anything about anything. I can see that it makes you feel comfortable, and that's nice.

.....................

Maybe you should make an effort to be a bit more concise and then you wouldn't have that issue.

 

[The_Traveler]

You fellows are welcome to carry on assuming that I don't know anything about anything. I can see that it makes you feel comfortable, and that's nice.

Thanks but you are doing fine demonstrating your capability by yourself.

People who make pictures that you need to be specially educated to "get" at all are poseurs. People who make pictures that you can "get" in several ways, and at varying degrees of depth, might be artists.

You seem to state that as a fact when it is indeed only your opinion, and the opinion of someone whose knowledge and abilities are unknown to us here so it might not have much weight except with those others who are also made uncomfortable by stuff they don't understand.
Your 'fact' certainly isn't true for music or painting or written works and it is difficult for me to see why photography as a medium should go by a different set of rules than the others.

 

[photoguy99]

Your 'fact' certainly isn't true for music or painting or written works

This is simply untrue, and suggests to me that you're not understanding me.

 

[bribrius]

high art could be very well overated. Even the concept of it. wasn't that a joke all the way through the eighties? I remember they came out with that movie "high art" at one point to and everyone though it might have to do with art. we have art coming out of our ears. Can we even consider it high anymore? OR just different? How much high art means a damn thing in the end? Very little I imagine. And sometimes, it can go so far, ill admit I don't understand some art i've seen. I don't even get the purpose of it. But it is received well, apparently by people who understand it better than me.
But you just keep the pretty shiny things going and keep them looking for a few seconds, its all good.
I said before, I listen to a lot of classical. I cant play it, but I listen to it. I have read Shakespeare too. Personally, I wasn't that impressed with Shakespeare but I did enjoy a few plays ive been to. i am a fan of theatre even if I cant act. Art, a lot of it I don't like, I think they are more caught up in the b.s. than anything if it goes too "high". im sure we've all been there. see a sculpture and the reaction is "what the **** is that?". course if you are really into trying to look smart you can pretend you understand it or like it and b.s. your way with technicalities about it. some of it is good, some really is just a lot of b.s. course, the shiny happy things I don't see the depth often, so I figure they must have been done for a ten year old to enjoy...
:lmao:
The realistic photos, I usually enjoy the most. As hum drum as they can be, that is life it isn't always entertaining. it is the real world I live in. im not looking to escape it. Perhaps study it more. I don't read much for fiction novels or watch much for fantasy movies either. All said and done though, I still watch cartoons sometimes. But cartoons themselves can be considered high art for anyone that knows how much work goes into them. There might be more creativity in cartoons than you find in many galleries.

 

[bribrius]

You fellows are welcome to carry on assuming that I don't know anything about anything. I can see that it makes you feel comfortable, and that's nice.

For the lurkers, though, perhaps the most relevant point is this:

I did not say that knowledge and education would not enhance ones appreciation of a photograph. Only that a good photograph can be appreciated more deeply than with grunts by an average joe. You don't have to get all the metaphors and political references to enjoy Shakespeare on a more than primitive level. Simply being a native english speaker will open up a great deal of these plays to you. As will being a sighted person open up a great deal of a good photograph to you.

People who make pictures that you need to be specially educated to "get" at all are poseurs. People who make pictures that you can "get" in several ways, and at varying degrees of depth, might be artists.

I cant totally agree with this either. sometimes it takes the right frame of mind to begin with, to adequately contemplate any work of art. But yes, I can agree the art world is full of many educated and uneducated poseurs. I can usually tell when I hear them talk and my b.s. meter skyrockets. just call it like I see it.


". This is precisely why photography always seems to suffer from a lingering 'but is it art?'"

photography in art was always considered one of the lesser arts. Many not even considering it a art at all. The reason I would imagine is because its very nature is a direct copy of what one is seeing. A representation. And in earlier times tweaking images wasn't as available. A painter could tweak a painting much easier than one could tweak a replica photo. So it was considered more a record than anything else, and still is by most. The idea of it being art has never really held on by the general populace, and still doesn't. Its popularity is because most untalented people that cant sculpt, paint, write music can manage to take a photo. And photos are much easier as tools in forms of family photos or records than trying to sculpt.
It isn't taking a month to complete a sculpture or painting. OR even a week. Most photographs take minutes or hours. They are copies of what one is seeing and started off as a record, turned film, turned entertainment and record, with a small off shoot of photography as actual art.. while some bring it to artform, it is always a struggle. Most photos are valued less, received harder by others. I went through a place the other day, the only photographs they had weren't for sale they were for reference. What was for sale were the paintings. Not a single photo for sale they weren't even on the walls for sale. I asked about it, they referred me to discuss it with someone else that controlled what went on the walls for sale. looking at the paintings, I actually considered getting one of my photos up so was curious.

the same way film turned entertainment not just being a record, photography has to a extent too. Entertainment is far different than art. what a lot of people are considering art. im actually considering more entertainment level. "shiny pretty things".

And this is where you run into a problem. Capture ones attention, interest. some of the basic foundations of what is considered a good photo in composition, IS BASED ON ENTERTAINMENT VALUE. Which is a fairly recent transition of photography. But That is Not art. Least to me. Art is not about entertainment. It is expression, it is saying something, pleasing to look at perhaps, disturbing, confronting. it is many things, but it isn't really meant to be entertaining.

two cents I could just be ignorant "i don't get it".

 

[table1349]

 

[bribrius]

View attachment 72453

see all the crap I just wrote? I can bull**** just like the rest of them..............get your waders...

 

[The_Traveler]

I just looked at Gryphonslair's contributions to this forum.
6000+ posts, and I could only find 2 times where he actually posted a picture for C/C, and that was back in 2006.

Well, 6000 posts and only two pictures shown certainly seems to make him the expert on intellectual masturbation.

 

[runnah]

I just looked at Gryphonslair's contributions to this forum. 6000+ posts, and I could only find 2 times where he actually posted a picture for C/C, and that was back in 2006. Well, 6000 posts and only two pictures shown certainly seems to make him the expert on intellectual masturbation.

Never get a haircut from a bald barber.

 

[table1349]

I just looked at Gryphonslair's contributions to this forum.
6000+ posts, and I could only find 2 times where he actually posted a picture for C/C, and that was back in 2006.

Well, 6000 posts and only two pictures shown certainly seems to make him the expert on intellectual masturbation.

You make the faulty assumption that I gave a rats ass what you or anyone else thinks of them or any of my photography. I liked them at the time I took them. Still do. That is all that matters. Nor do I care if you think you can or cannot find some "meaning" in them.

That's why you don't see me give C&C either. To me it is really simple. Take a photograph, process the photograph, look at the photograph. Do you like it? Good, your done. Do you not like it? Why not? Figure out how to fix it, retake photo, be happy and move on.

It's even simpler with clients. Don't fill them with a whole lot artsy fartsy BS. Talk to them. More importantly listen to them and provide them what THEY want. If you think that they are having some difficulties with what they want, do what they stated, then do a few more of what you think they might be looking for. Show them to the client and let them pick what they want. If they got what they wanted, be it what they said or your experiments life is good. No use pouting or stressing out over what they did or didn't pick. Jobs done, move on. As long as the client satisfied with what I provide them, what you or anyone else thinks doesn't mean a damn thing.

FYI. Two of the three also sold to the institutions that were interested in them even though I didn't even take them for anyone, just for my self. In fact I did a seasonal series of one of them and all four were purchased by the institution that owns the property and are displayed in their front lobby. That is all that mattered to them and to me. They didn't bother to try and find some meaning in them, some "deep prepossessing soul." They liked them, they framed them to match their decor and have displayed them since 2007.

Lew, we are basically two different types of people. Me, I am confident with who I am, what I am, what my skills are and my place in this universe is, not just photographically but in all aspects of my life. You can take it or leave it, doesn't matter to me. I have no need to constantly question others about myself, my beliefs, my photos, my work, my clothes, my shoes, the toothbrush I use, or the soap I shower with. Nor to I need to have others provide me with their ideas or opinions of me or any of those things or how I should think. I'm just not Borg material.

 

[table1349]

I just looked at Gryphonslair's contributions to this forum. 6000+ posts, and I could only find 2 times where he actually posted a picture for C/C, and that was back in 2006. Well, 6000 posts and only two pictures shown certainly seems to make him the expert on intellectual masturbation.

Never get a haircut from a bald barber.

Why not, when was the last time you saw a barber cutting THEIR OWN hair? I guess you would never use a surgeon that hasn't performed the same operation on themselves? :lmao:

 

[The_Traveler]

If you were so confident about what you are you wouldn't have to spend all your time pointing out how smart you are and how dumb everyone else is.

You are essentially useless here, an empty barrel that makes a lot of noise.

 

[table1349]

If you were so confident about what you are you wouldn't have to spend all your time pointing out how smart you are and how dumb everyone else is.

You are essentially useless here, an empty barrel that makes a lot of noise.

There you go Lew getting angry once again spewing venom and hate. Have you nothing constructive to add to the discussion?

 

[pixmedic]

Photographs are like the Bible, you can make anything out of it you like and people always do. Subjective opinion or informed opinion doesn't matter. Still just an opinion. You like it, you don't like it or you don't care either way. Why you do or don't like something doesn't really matter to me and vice-versa. The only opinion that matters to anyone is their own. The pomposity of the whole thing shows itself when one person tries to subject their opinions on others.

That is simply not true. Not all opinions are created equal.

There are entire academic departments dedicated to art theory and criticism. There are critics whose opinions matter more than yours or mine, in the sense that they help decide what deserves attention, and what does not. A curator's opinion decides what gets into the Whitney and what does not. These decisions impact the culture of the arts. Their opinions help to shape the history of art and influence public perceptions. Their opinions are informed, based on a close study of the art object as well as historical and contemporary understandings of art. Someone who just looks at an image and decides in a few seconds based on limited knowledge is making a subjective opinion, which is fine, but weightless.

irregardless,

however "right" the curators opinion might be, it does not necessarily have any weight or impact on my feelings of a piece of art.