|
brad industry posted:I don't understand why people think only a surface level appreciate of photography is acceptable, as if photographs are created in some kind of vacuum, and that even the slightest appreciation for history or context is pretentious art fag bullshit. This kind of stuff is what makes photography interesting and different from every other medium ever invented. I certainly was saying the opposite. I cannot stand the attitude that art that garners main stream appeal isn't "real art" or is inferior to the more esoteric stuff that requires nearly a phd to understand. There is a need for both and they feed of each other. But in my personal opinion, art that can entertain the masses is a lot more justifiable than ivory tower stuff. Being able to be a full time artist, or even dabble in it part time, is an awfully self indulgent life in comparison to the majority of the world's population. I think at some point there is a certain social contract aspect that comes into play. Plus I think you'll find that a lot more than just rich white westerners read, even though photography is more approachable than literature (ie illiteracy vs blindness). The better comparison would be to pick a hard read that no one just sits down with a cup of coffee with. (because most twain is incredibly entertaining) poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Feb 5, 2011 |
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 20:54 |
|
|
I don't think anyone has said more appeal = not real art. Every time any discussion along these lines comes up someone has to say it's all bullshit and not worth talking about. Easily accessible things can be just as meaningful or interesting as something that requires a slight knowledge of art or photo history, or even just the social context that it was made in. Kind of like how Twain is infinitely more interesting and entertaining if you know even just a little about American history. Pretty much all the photographers mentioned so far are known for their mass media editorial work anyways, and what could possibly be less ivory tower than the idea of the "democratic camera"? It's the opposite of pretentious. Anyways, more images. If you need a PhD to understand Martin Parr you might be blind:     
brad industry fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Feb 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:I certainly was saying the opposite. I cannot stand the attitude that art that garners main stream appeal isn't "real art" or is inferior to the more esoteric stuff that requires nearly a phd to understand. There is a need for both and they feed of each other. But in my personal opinion, art that can entertain the masses is a lot more justifiable than ivory tower stuff. Being able to be a full time artist, or even dabble in it part time, is an awfully self indulgent life in comparison to the majority of the world's population. I think at some point there is a certain social contract aspect that comes into play. What the hell am I reading here. Firstly, what are we trying to justify? And secondly, a list of jobs that a 'self indulgent' compared to the majority of the world's population is pretty loving massive and being an artist is nowhere near the top.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 23:29
|
|
|
I just linked a bunch of pictures from her Facebook I kinda liked. I was just pleasantly surprised with how much she'd progressed since I knew her in high school. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 23:41
|
|
|
Would it be 'art' if it was digital? I don't get it and it annoys me. I'm not going to pretend anything else and I can't quantify it. But that's how I feel. It reminds me of some people in my photography class at college who published a book of terrible poo poo that is apparently art. Also I'll tell you what I do like! This: http://www.geh.org/parkeharrison/index.htm I think it should class as photography since it's all elaborate sets?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2011 00:08
|
|
|
A5H posted:Would it be 'art' if it was digital? it probably was!
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2011 00:44
|
|
|
How does digital vs film even begin to factor into whether it's 'art' or not? What does building sets have to do with photo vs non-photo?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2011 00:56
|
|
|
brad industry posted:How does digital vs film even begin to factor into whether it's 'art' or not? What does building sets have to do with photo vs non-photo? Because it seems like film always gets more credit at being artsy than digital. Building sets I mean it is an actual photo and not all CG.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2011 01:04
|
|
|
For what it's worth I'm not calling banality and such bullshit I'm just trying to put myself into the mindset of someone who is frustrated by people saying such and such is art when it's essentially just a photo of a bush. I think what rubs PIMM and I the wrong way is that when people have the attitude that banality and types of fine art are superior somehow to "traditional" forms of photography. I think this is an interesting conversation to have and I hope it doesn't devolve into a "this is bullshit" "you don't understand it" circle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2011 01:10
|
|
|
brad industry posted:How does digital vs film even begin to factor into whether it's 'art' or not? What does building sets have to do with photo vs non-photo? You are telling me you are absolutely befuddled at the idea some of us see (in others) a legitimacy enhancer whenever something was shot on film?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2011 01:29
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:You are telling me you are absolutely befuddled at the idea some of us see (in others) a legitimacy enhancer whenever something was shot on film? Yeah, there are a lot of dumb people that attach more legitimacy to a photo if it was shot on film or if it was straight out of camera etc. Shall we move all this to a new thread?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2011 01:48
|
|
|
I'm sure there are people out there who would (wrongly) say that a photo taken with film is inherently better than a digital one but I don't really see what that has to do with this discussion whatsoever. edit: Peter Granser is a photographer who takes really good pictures     
Twenties Superstar fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Feb 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2011 04:29
|
|
|
My friend Dean told me of a conversation he'd had with an older dude at the bar; they were talking about art and the OD said something leading into "Corporations are art." Dean's an artist (Dean Reiner in Portland FWIW) and a fairly anarchic, anti-corporate person, so this shocked him. OD explained that the people running corporations have dedicated their lives to the pursuance of instinctive excellence at what they do - never mind that some of it is some pretty evil poo poo. They make it look easy while it's impenetrable to the average person. Later I was talking with my artist friend Rhonda. She knows Dean and I was telling her of the same exchange. I told her I'd realized it was the same thing athletes describe about being in The Zone - when they literally *can't* drop the ball/miss the shot, when baseball players say that the ball looked absolutely huge headed toward them because they had Zone Tunnel Vision... This had the same "holy poo poo" effect on her as OD's remark to Dean because neither she nor I are sports people. If you've read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, then the confluence of subjective Quality and Zen is speaking of the same thing. If a visual artist makes something with sincere artistic intent, and has legitimate faith in what they do, then the art is really in the creative process; the output - be it a photo, sculpture, painting, music, whatever - is really just an artifact of that creative process, for which the artist holds copyright and potential commercial value. When someone observes something arty, their interpretation of it is a unique and separate incident of art itself - but with no physical form, and of course no copyrights. Everyone who's contemplated the Mona Lisa has "created" a separate Mona Lisa-esque piece of art that exists only in their head. A new photographer who knows they are not operating at the level to which they aspire may not be able to create the art they want - yet - but someone observing their output might see something that the photographer doesn't see, and that observance / interpretation could be more "art" than the photographer's own effort. Of course greater credit is given to the originator of the art - the copyright holder of the artifact of the process. It's the way it works and the way that it should work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2011 05:45
|
|
|
Oh good, the dreaded "What is Art?" question. I've got a fine art degree, and the general consensus at my college was mostly this: Art is anything you create and call art, or anything you place in an artistic context. A toilet is a regular ol' object if it's in your house, but it becomes art if the toilet's sculptor asks you to examine it as art - or if another artist presents it as art as a way to make a statement about gallery culture and whatnot. Photos are art if the photographer calls them art. If someone found a bunch of point-and-shoot cameras laying in a puddle, developed the shots, and exhibited them in an artistic context, that too would be art. Passport photos presented as art are art. Etc. etc. Whether or not that art is interesting or effective, well, that's a much bigger question. A well-expressed intent gives some leeway and can make boring images become quite interesting if they're curated or presented with an interesting theme, but there's plenty of rampant bullshitting out there too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2011 06:43
|
|
is go
|
Twenties Superstar posted:I'm sure there are people out there who would (wrongly) say that a photo taken with film is inherently better than a digital one but I don't really see what that has to do with this discussion whatsoever. Really love the first 3. I love symmetrical even lines. I always wonder how it can sometimes look so fresh (like in these 3) and other times look so trite.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2011 12:32
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:banal stuff especially I think rubs people the wrong way because it just comes across as really low effort despite any explanation or qualification. I'd bet there are more than a few art students that ended up making up some complete bullshit about a photograph of a tea cup or mug they took the night before the assignment was due. Dr. Cogwerks posted:Whether or not that art is interesting or effective, well, that's a much bigger question. A well-expressed intent gives some leeway and can make boring images become quite interesting if they're curated or presented with an interesting theme, but there's plenty of rampant bullshitting out there too. A5H posted:Would it be 'art' if it was digital? I don't think any of this need concern most people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2011 17:25
|
|
|
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/02/picture-of-the-day-capturing-a-full-day-in-a-single-photograph/70675/
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2011 22:06
|
|
|
baccaruda posted:http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/02/picture-of-the-day-capturing-a-full-day-in-a-single-photograph/70675/ That's pretty rad. It's fun to play with timelapse stacking like he's doing there. I tried one a couple years ago with a half hour of separation between the red, green, and blue channels - sort of an extremely exaggerated trichrome process, I guess. Turned out a bit too gimmicky to be of any real use though. Trichrome test e: removed some stuff Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 11:17 on Feb 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2011 01:43
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:I'm sure there are people out there who would (wrongly) say that a photo taken with film is inherently better than a digital one but I don't really see what that has to do with this discussion whatsoever. And thank you for letting me segue into a photographer who I've been reading about the past evening, Andreas Gursky. A similar landscape photographer but he incorporates the people in such a striking manner, especially in the first three minutes of the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TWtlhApag0 EDIT: Actually, on second thought, not really similar but any excuse to post that video. Fragrag fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Feb 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2011 02:40
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:And thank you for letting me segue into a photographer who I've been reading about the past evening, Andreas Gursky. A similar landscape photographer but he incorporates the people in such a striking manner, especially in the first three minutes of the video. Andreas Gursky was my god until I went to an exhibition by him and now he is just. some. punk. and nothing more than that. I find the idea that photography is super easy offensive. It isn't, everyone knows that. There's a guy who takes deep scuba diving pictures. He's good at that, and then merkley??? on flickr, I could go on, but people take photos that not in 20 years could I duplicate the awesomeness, and the skill behind. And the feeling. But gursky has no skill. you can intimitate him with a disposable camera, with less arrogance. he cheapens photography, he's the reason why that hairy gently caress you have to work with snorts at your excitement over a photographic moment because he painted abstract in high school, 15 years ago, and nearly won award for it but didn't because his grades were too low because he was hooked on the pot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2011 05:21
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:But gursky has no skill. you can intimitate him with a disposable camera, with less arrogance. he cheapens photography, he's the reason why that hairy gently caress you have to work with snorts at your excitement over a photographic moment because he painted abstract in high school, 15 years ago, and nearly won award for it but didn't because his grades were too low because he was hooked on the pot. Congratulations, you are the guy who says "but my 2 year old could paint that."
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2011 11:47
|
|
|
I forgot Gursky was the reason behind the first "Is that art?" derail on page 2 of this thread. I think I just completed the thread's cycle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2011 13:48
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Congratulations, you are the guy who says "but my 2 year old could paint that." How many photographers does it take to change a lightbulb? Five - one to change the bulb and four to stand around and say "I could've done that".
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2011 14:37
|
|
|
brad industry posted:tl;dr photos like that emphasize a photographic way of seeing that is unique to photography
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2011 17:00
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:Andreas Gursky was my god until I went to an exhibition by him and now he is just. some. punk. and nothing more than that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2011 17:03
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:Andreas Gursky I understand the point you are trying to make... there are plenty of people out there that suck... but that's a pretty bad example.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2011 18:25
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Much harder to show just how articulate you are in just one line, though. Haha, I didn't write a million words on some crappy photo in a forum where nobody reads my posts anyway to show off how articulate I am. I know I'm not very articulate and I know that explaining some basic art theory is not going to make me look like some super erudite guy when there are people here (brad industry for one) with much more knowledge and experience than I who can reduce my points so concisely. I just love photography and I think about it a lot and I see a lot of people here who also seem to love photography but don't know how to deal with a photograph that was taken with different values in mind then what they are used to. All that I really want to do is show that there are other ways to think about things and there is more to photography than nice views.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2011 18:51
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:All that I really want to do is show that there are other ways to think about things and there is more to photography than nice views. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2011 21:53
|
|
|
To get the thread back on track: http://danwintersphoto.com/ This guy is great and very prolific. A lot of his still life/interior stuff reminds me of Brad's style. Very cool, very fun. His portrait of Tom Hanks tends to divide my friends on it's legitimacy though (I think it's p. coo). I feel that some of his portraits get a bit repetitive but I am in love with his shot of Sandra Bullock. Oprah Haza fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Feb 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2011 22:11
|
|
|
Oprah Haza posted:To get the thread back on track: http://danwintersphoto.com/ I love looking through the galleries of prolithic editorial shooters like this, and lachapelle, and seeing all the magazine covers I recognize, since I never really paid much attention until recently to who the actual photographer was.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2011 23:55
|
|
|
Oprah Haza posted:To get the thread back on track: http://danwintersphoto.com/ Oh, he did the Brad Pitt stuff for Wired. I loved that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 07:23
|
|
|
That portrait of Fred Rogers is amazing. Making me think about who *I* am as a person. Heh... my dreams tonight should be interesting. I'll tell King Friday hi for everyone :p
baccaruda fucked around with this message at 08:19 on Feb 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 08:16
|
|
|
Here is a good interview with Dan Winters http://thecandidframe.blogspot.com/2009/11/candid-frame-85-dan-winters.html The Candid Frame is one of my favorite podcasts, although some photographers have more interesting personalities than others. You can gauge pretty quickly who is going to be a rough interview. I love it because it doesn't focus on gear or technicals but the personalities and thought process behind photography. It's helped me a lot. This photo blew my loving mind tonight. Take your lovely band photos back to the brick walls, empty fields, and train tracks where they came from.  This guy holds it down for real. http://www.codypickens.com
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2011 02:16
|
|
|
I'm really liking Tom Hido. http://www.toddhido.com/
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 04:18
|
|
|
Oprah Haza posted:To get the thread back on track: http://danwintersphoto.com/ this is one of my favorite celebrity portraits of all time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 05:41
|
|
|
Gazmachine posted:How many photographers does it take to change a lightbulb? Fixed it for ya.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 17:20
|
|
|
Oregoons: http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/daido-moriyama-photographs-from-five-decades/Event?oid=3305520 Daido Moriyama: Photographs from Five Decades. Open through the 26th of this month.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 19:10
|
|
|
Musket posted:Oregoons: Thank god, Portland really has a dearth of good art exhibits.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2011 00:59
|
|
|
I don't believe Carl Burton has been posted in this thread yet. So here we go: http://www.carlburton.net/gallery/ Just saw an exhibit of his at the Montgomery Museum of Fine Arts. Really nice stuff, and some great colors:  Click here for the full 1024x334 image.  Click here for the full 1024x768 image.  Click here for the full 1010x1024 image.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2011 05:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 20:54 |
|
|
TotalHell posted:I don't believe Carl Burton has been posted in this thread yet. So here we go: Without getting into the usual debate on what looks pro or not, I'm having a real hard time being impressed by these. Just not seeing anything I haven't seen done a hundred times over by students... :/
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 21:02
|
|
