What makes it right?

[Garbz]

You mean when we say yeah nice but I would have done it like... Well that's just it. If I were the artist I may have done it another way. I speak for myself and for no one else on this board when I like or hate something. I guess it would be similar to Michaelangelo going to Picasso and saying yeah it's not bad but I would have put the eye up there and the nose over here.

 

[Snyder]

Photographs are subjective, I run into this problem all the time at work, some think it the best photo ever others thinks its crap. When it comes down to it if you shooting for a customer shoot it the way they want to if not shoot it the way you want too. I believe the basic rulez are important to achieve amazing photographs but thats how I was taught.

 

[gmarquez]

Saying it should be done this way or that way takes the art out of it.

No it doesn't. Feel free to quote me.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

I said "capture it with SUCESS"....not anyone that takes a snapshot. And a machine can not see something and WANT to take a picture.

You added 'or at least to their standards'. Success is therefore determined by the person taking the picture not by anyone else.
My criticism still stands and is valid.

As for machines 'seeing something an wanting to take a picture'. That does not differentiate enough between people and machines.
A lot of people do not know why they take pictures, in fact it could even be described as an automatic response in some situations (see Susan Sontag On Photography for more on this) which makes them no better than machines.
Also, people can only take pictures with cameras, which are themselves just machines. So the argument can be made that there is no difference between a person actuating a camera and a photo booth which is actuated by the person in it.
Your definition of 'artist' and 'art' is still way too sloppy. You make sweeping statements based on your opinion without taking the time to think through all the ramifications.
To give a further example: under your definition an X-ray taken by a radiologist or a dentist used solely for the purpose of checking the health of a patient is a work of art as it fulfills all of your criteria.
Your arguments are fundamentally flawed.

 

[batonrougeart]

Well Mr. Rental....maybe your percise and unflawed definition is better than mine. Maybe you can explain how someone can call themselves an "artist". I didn't write this to stir up drama. And again for the record: I am an artist. If I take paint and paint a picture of the mona lisa, or if I throw a sock soaked in paint at a cavas.... If I expressed what I wanted to express, and It is what I want it to be, Sorry to tell you. It is art. You can look at pencil sketches by Dali, Or abstract paintings by jackson pollock...both different BUT claimed by the artist to be art....and therefore it is. And if you disprove that, tell the people that have spent millions on them , not me.
Try to be witty, and pull some big words out your hat to try and disprove it. Fine. YOU are just an example of someone that cant look at things outside of the box or what you read in a book someone else wrote that tells you what to look for in art. Some people are born with a gift, and think of new ways to be "artists" and push limits and set new bars.....and then there are some that can read a book by Susan Sontag, and follow the rules set before them like sheep in a flock.

...and before you say anything of my pictures and art, blah blah blah. I have stated, I am new.....I dont consider them art, I have to make progress in them before I myself am comfortable, and capture the image in the way I want to capture it. I havent done that yet, still practicing.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Maybe you can explain how someone can call themselves an "artist".

It's quite easy. You just call yourself an artist. You do not have to take an exam.

You can look at pencil sketches by Dali, Or abstract paintings by jackson pollock...both different BUT claimed by the artist to be art....and therefore it is. And if you disprove that, tell the people that have spent millions on them , not me.
Try to be witty, and pull some big words out your hat to try and disprove it. Fine. YOU are just an example of someone that cant look at things outside of the box or what you read in a book someone else wrote that tells you what to look for in art. Some people are born with a gift, and think of new ways to be "artists" and push limits and set new bars.....and then there are some that can read a book by Susan Sontag, and follow the rules set before them like sheep in a flock.

And some people need to learn to grow up when and not have a hissy fit when someone questions what they say.
I have taught Art and I went to Art College for four years. But I would not call myself an artist. Neither would most artists bother to call themselves artists or give what they do a name.
They do what they do and it's up to others to give what they do a name. The term 'artist' is all too frequently used by people who are nothing of the sort but just using it to massage their egos.
And as for 'thinking outside the box' - you should follow your own advice if you are capable.
Giving any activity a label is a way of controlling and restricting. By calling yourself an artist you are not only defining yourself in the eyes of others, but you are defining yourself in your own mind.
If you actually bothered to read my comments you would see that this is what I am pointing out.
You use the word 'artist' in a way that seeks to be undefined - but the word defines the activity by it's very nature (artist has quite a specific meaning). I was merely advising you to think and choose your words more carefully to avoid confusion. You may know what you mean but it does not follow that everyone else does.

As for being able to read a book. I have read a lot and it is something that I would recommend you to try. There are a great many that have been written around this subject and I think you would find them quite illuminating.

 

[abraxas]

...
My question here is this, why is it that so many people follow such a strict guideline with photograpy? Saying it should be done this way or that way takes the art out of it. The person holding the camera is the artist and the camera being the brush......who at that point says its right or wrong?

I think the moment a 'producer' asks, "what do you think?" is when they subject themselves to the power of others over them- ie:rules/guidelines.

Check it out, here's my favorite definition of artist this week:
A practicing fine artist who is not necessarily a resident of the Kansas City metro area.

 

[Iron Flatline]

Haven't read the thread, so here's my answer: a lot of people are into photography not just for the creative parts, but because it's fun to geek out over the functionality of the equipment. There are other photography forums where it's a LOT worse - everyone complains about some imagined minute issue with some arcane piece of equipment, but they never use it. And when they do shoot some pictures and show them, you realize "Hmmm... they're not that creative, are they...."

Well, those people like rules. They need rules. They need to know how to do it, and they need the tools to interpret the work of others. It's a form of drawing between the lines.

 

[Jon, The Elder]

My question here is this, why is it that so many people follow such a strict guideline with photograpy?

I take it that the misspelling is intentional.....

Over the last hundred years of photography, certain things have proven to be more pleasing and satisfying to most viewers. These have become the 'traditional' guidelines.

If you wish to create a different reaction from the viewer, then bend or discard the guidelines to whatever degree you see fit. Doing this may well reduce your 'audience'.

 

[The_Traveler]

I think if everyone were an artist, the human race would have died off long ago. God is the only true artist, which is why we are stuck on a round rock and spin in circles around a light source that supplies us with life while we wonder about how he can be so cruel. That is boundless artistry.


The only area of photography that I find infuriating in regards to rules of composition are fireworks. Inane, mediocre, childish, limiting, rediculous, and arbitrary, these "rules" are just better off ignored. It is an obcenity that they were ever compiled in the first place. Sharpness....oh yes, well isn't that just the cats meow. Makes me want to puke. These rules completely replace the subject with the ego of the photographer. Fireworks are magical, ask any child what they think of them. Thats how they should be shot.

I'm a .333 hitter. I understood 1 out of the 3 paragraphs in this post. Anyone who can explain these two above will get credit for an assist.

 

[Christie Photo]

I'm a .333 hitter. I understood 1 out of the 3 paragraphs in this post. Anyone who can explain these two above will get credit for an assist.

Hmmm..... I'll give it a shot. Please remember this does not mean I do or do not subscribe to either assertion.

I THINK the first paragraph might be explained with an analogy: Let's say a fellow has a birthday coming up. His six-year-old son wants to give him a present, so he asks his dad for 10 bucks. Now this pleases the father; to receive a gift from his son... a gift of the son's choosing. But really, has the son GIVEN anything to his father? Some say yes.... some no.

The second paragraph, IMO, sounds like justification for not understanding and appreciating, or not having knowledge of conventional thinking about visual arts.

Well... that's my reaction.


OH..... do I get points for trying?

 

[Iron Flatline]

I believe it says "Cats should be shot by God" ...

...but Chronicle is new and might not realize that we poke fun in a good-natured collegial kind of a way...

 

[Christie Photo]

I believe it says "Cats should be shot by God" ...

OHHHHH..... how did I miss it?!

I suppose I'll surrender my credit.

 

[abraxas]

I believe it says "Cats should be shot ..." ...
...

With fireworks.

 

[THORHAMMER]

Art is pretty much subjective, but a lot of people all seem to like the same stuff, so something is going on there.

There is a right way to do some things, ie. contrast, sharpness, color
but the composition, subject. light etc are more subjective things.
For art its really all subjective, for commercial work there are a lot more rules,...