Challenge 139 - It's all there in black and white
Meadowlark

Chalenge 140 - In Motion
John



Challenge 141 - Artistic
TimmyG

Challenge 142 - Smoking!
John
It is currently Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:16 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 8:10 am 
Offline
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 11:02 am
Posts: 901
Location: South of Charlotte, just across the line
OK to edit my images: No
When thinking people aren’t impressed by what is declared to be an extraordinarily brilliant artistic achievement, the theory has this explanation: they can’t see what is so exceptional, because they lack artistic vision… That is bullshit. The theory sometimes makes the “visionary” artist rich as fools clamber to snap up his crap in order to prove their bona fides as art aficionados. What a joke.

We see the theory in play in some photographer’s work. You know what I am describing: “artists” who think they are really cool when they ignore fundamental principles such as the venerable rule of thirds ostensibly because they have “artistic vision”. They want us to believe those principles are passe’ and such ordinary concepts are of no importance in the framework of their esoteric knowledge. I remember one who even claimed that composition cannot be learned.. he stated: “you either have it or you don’t” … that is bullshit.

I was musing about the bullshit theory and began to wonder ‘where does it come from?’ Why does society (or at least the fools among us) discard the wisdom of the ages in favor of some nonsensical explanation such as artistic vision? Maybe it starts in the schools where children are given a box of crayons, allowed to scribble at will on a piece of paper and then, regardless of the result, told what a great job they are doing. I remember when some kids actually didn’t pass from one grade to the next just because the year had gone by…. A time when coloring inside the lines was considered a skill instead of a lack of vision…. Don’t misunderstand-- the highly prized “thinking outside the box” is a totally legitimate concept… but the most important word in that concept is “thinking”.

So, what is the point of all this? An artist like any other craftsman starts with the concept and result he wants to produce. He then applies certain principles to achieve that result. The success of his effort is dependent on his skill in the use of those principles as measured by the intended audience at large, not some mystical bullshit called “artistic vision”.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: This piece is not directed at anyone here or in rebuttal to anything that anyone might have written. I wrote it a long time ago, but have just recently published it. I recognize it is mildly profane and irreverent and those aspects may be sufficient for some to discard it out of hand.

I don’t seek a debate on the subject. I do hope it causes a moment of reflection and if you find any nuggets you can agree with then this post was worthwhile.

_________________
No Edits please.

Everyone except my mother calls me Al.

"Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" - Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 4:39 pm 
Offline
Das Kapital
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 4:03 pm
Posts: 6780
Location: Victoria BC
Camera: Canon 60D, Fuji XP20, odd film cameras
Lens: Tokina 11-16, Canon 17-55
Inspiration: The stuff out there.
OK to edit my images: Yes
I think you are simplifying the issue by imposing this dichotomy of "avant garde bullshit" vs. "real art made by people with talent".

There are a lot of issues covered in your post:

1. Money: the high art world is the same as the high fashion world - a game for people with lots of money to buy expensive things simply because they can. The value is not in the art itself; it's in the price tag, and the buyer's demonstration of an ability to pay it. Trends come and go, some is great art and some is terrible, but the underlying principle is the same: expensive things that are worthwhile only because they are expensive and regular people can't afford them. When you look at a million dollar avant garde piece of shit and say "my kid could do that!" - it's true. Your kid could make that art. But your kid could not curry favour with the aristocracy and get them to buy his bullshit, and that's what the game really is.

2. Rule breaking. Rule breaking has been an ongoing aspect of art (and I'm no art historian here, but there has been an ongoing progression from stick-man cave paintings to realism to impressionism and so on, with every stage sort of a rejection or modification of the rules of the preceeding stage... even the concept of photo realism is a fairly new concept and throughout the ages people painted in all kinds of different styles and the idea of perfect visual reproduction didn't even really exist)... . but I think only really became an encoded principle of a style of art during the modern art period (started in the 1800s btw) where the act of breaking the rules became the standard. Since then it is something of a cliché and maybe something that every young college student must go through to reach a full understanding of the world and of art.

3. Artistic vision. This is a pretty loosely defined concept and each person has a very different definition of it. I don't think you can define it, in the context of subjective interpretation of art. You'd probably have to go to social scientific disciplines like history, sociology, and even into anthropology & neurology to really understand it from all angles.

From the artistic / subjective / layman's angle though, some people prize exceptional technical skill above all else and consider that to be the highest form of "artistic vision". Some prefer certain emotional reactions (sorrow, happiness, joy, anger, or just "any strong emotion") and call that the work of a visionary artist. Some just like a pretty nature scene and consider the capture of that to be the ultimate expression of artistic vision. There are such complexities of subject matter, artistic medium (photography? painting? drawing? charcoal? spray-paint?), choices within that medium (B&W large format? rough camera / pinhole? 35mm / digital SLR? panorama or 4:5 or 35mm aspect ratio? ultra wide or telephoto or B&W or colour or toned bicolour or...?), etc, that to make any statements about such an ethereal concept is silly. Ultimately art is about a viewer looking at a product and interpreting it. As I said, you can't really codify it using normal human language so you probably have to try to understand it from a more scientific angle (historical context, human neural biology, etc).

4. Wisdom of the ages? Man, what does that even mean? Are we all still re-creating thousands-of-years old saint iconography? Are we still painting flat, highly stylized landscapes (see second image below)? Did Ansel Adams accept the wisdom of the ages when he developed and codified a whole new way of looking at and using light and tone in B&W photography?

Image

Image

Rule breaking for the sake of rule breaking is at least a 150 year old concept from modernism. It's no longer meaningful as a "new way of looking at things" and is, on its own, something of a tired cliché. But some of the best new artists have found some *new* way of doing things which gives their work a unique impact. It's just that trying to codify this as an approach to art is just the refuge of the shitty artist.

One other thought: people seem to value things that seem "difficult". I'm going to generalize freely here, but of course there are exceptions and caveats and all that. When the first crop of HDR images (particularly subtly-done ones, not the stupid cartoonish ones) started popping up in around year 2005, everybody loved them... thought they were mind-blowing and utterly amazing, and the photographers doing them earned high praise just for showing photographs that looked masterful and difficult. Look up "Shaun Lowe" or "Mahesh Thapa" for examples of reasonably well-known photographers on the internet forums from this era (no idea what they are up to, now). Once HDR became a stock effect that anybody could use with a quick burst on a tripod & a processing through a single software tool, it's impact was lessened because it looked *easier*. And then lomography and that sort of thing became the rage, because you needed to go out and buy an obscure medium format film camera and perform cross processing and scan the images and go through this whole analogue rigamarole that highly technical digital photography could not do. It looked *difficult* and people liked it. Now, you can download an app for your phone for $0.99 to accomplish the same look, and while everybody uses the hell out of instagram and stuff, as an artistic statement people consider it silly and cliché. What's the newest "difficult" thing? I don't know.

Here's Mahesh Thapa's galleries: http://starvingphotographer.smugmug.com ... 30&k=xgyck

When I first encountered his work, around 2005/2006, I had never seen HDR imaging in landscapes and his imagery was utterly groundbreaking for me. There is no denying that he is an incredibly talented photographer and that he uses HDR techniques well, but the impact of his technique is slightly lower now that HDR imaging has been adopted in a very widespread way and is easily recognizable as such.

_________________
The meaning of life is simple: we exist to use our senses and consciousness to appreciate a universe that might otherwise go unappreciated in its eons of vast silence.

http://visualfiction.org/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:17 pm 
Offline
Silver Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 12:00 am
Posts: 375
Location: Calgary AB, Canada
Camera: Nikon F5, N90s, D700, Rollei TLR, Linhof Tech IV, Blad and on and on
Lens: To many to mention, I'm an addict, what can I say.
Favorite Type: landscape and small stuff
Inspiration: Edward Weston and a good single malt scotch
I love it when you sink your teeth and intellect into something Walter. Well said.

_________________
Eric Rose
http://www.ericrose.com
http://www.baddog.ericrose.com

I don't have a beard, I don't play the piano, I have no hope as a photographer.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:24 pm 
Offline
The Scout
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 7:58 pm
Posts: 7083
Location: Vancouver Wa/Portland Or
Camera: Canon XT, Canon 60D
Lens: Canon 17-85, Sigma 105, Canon 50 1.8, lens baby, Canon f4 70-200 L
Favorite Type: I try all kinds of things, Family and macro heavy dash of landscape
Inspiration: My Dad got me started years ago when he bought my first 35mm pentax.
OK to edit my images: No
I would love to find a rich patron that would pay thousands of dollars for my interpretive nature photographs. One of the recent most expensive photographs was nothing more than some colored bands in my opinion. It was a river grass and sky if I remember correctly. I simply don't know the right people.

Walter you have done a nice job of summing things up, I would only be arguing with you for arguments sake if I challenged your comments.

_________________
Image
http://s14.photobucket.com/albums/a331/scotthadl/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 10:01 pm 
Offline
Silver Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 11:51 pm
Posts: 158
Camera: Fuji X100
Lens: 23mm
Favorite Type: Portraiture, HDR
Inspiration: Selgado
OK to edit my images: Yes
You have all made good points, but I would like to point out one crucial aspect of this discussion that has been overlooked.
A photograph is not a work of "art". It is a "document".

Art is the selective recreation of reality according to an artists metaphysical value judgments. It is a means of rendering man's widest (metaphysical) concepts in a form that can be experienced by the viewer in his/her immediate perceptual awareness. As such, art deals in universals (abstractions).

Photography does not deal in abstractions; it deals in concretes . It is not concerned with universals, but of actual entities.

A photograph of a woman can express that particular individual at a particular moment in time. It is an extension of journalism.
A painting of the same woman can express ideas far beyond the range of that moment. It is an extension of philosophy.

I do not consider photography to be in any sense below art. The intentions and results differ. That is all.
In fact, most photographers demonstrate far more creativity and provide us with images of greater value than the charlatans engaged in most so-called artistic endeavors. The idea of "representation" is closely related to "meaning". Thus, non-representative art is meaningless. It expresses NOTHING except perhaps the belief that existence (as reflected in the artwork) is meaningless - a doctrine I cannot abide.

I agree with most of what you say, but it is important to define our terms.

_________________
mashimisha

Man's own happiness is the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:17 am 
Offline
Das Kapital
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 4:03 pm
Posts: 6780
Location: Victoria BC
Camera: Canon 60D, Fuji XP20, odd film cameras
Lens: Tokina 11-16, Canon 17-55
Inspiration: The stuff out there.
OK to edit my images: Yes
mashimisha wrote:
You have all made good points, but I would like to point out one crucial aspect of this discussion that has been overlooked.
A photograph is not a work of "art". It is a "document".


Photography is a medium. Nothing more. In fact, it is not even just one medium - digital SLR capture and inkjet printing is grossly different from large format wet plate photography and making platinotypes from 16x20 B&W ULF negatives.

A photograph is completely interpretive (or, in the case of a non-photographer with a P&S, somewhat haphazardly selective). Every single choice you make is the elimination of all other possibilities; the type of camera and lens, the field of view, the direction you point the camera, the position of the camera, the focus and aperture, film speed or ISO setting, and the moment the shutter is pressed, all eliminate far more than they include from the reality that you are ostensibly documenting.

The world is not flat; it is not static / atemporal; it is not limited to 6 EV of light (or even 10 if you start using tonemapping or darkroom gymnastics); it is not restricted to a particular viewpoint, point of focus, or depth of field.

To claim that one restricted goal of photography (documentation) is the only possible definition of photography is to ignore its entire 200+ year history as a medium. Just look at pictorialism as but one example of the changing methods and styles that photography has gone through over the years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictorialism

Is this famous piece of artwork by Steichen not a photograph?

Image

Does gum bichromate printing and this choice of tonal range objectively trump the more starkly realistic style of choosing an inkjet printer and straightforward digital capture, or vice versa? If you gruffly dismiss this, how do you explain the legions who find meaning and intrigue in it? Are we all idiots because we don't share exactly your view of what photography ought to be?

Quote:
Thus, non-representative art is meaningless. It expresses NOTHING except perhaps the belief that existence (as reflected in the artwork) is meaningless - a doctrine I cannot abide.


I don't think you've given this enough thought.

I mean, is this representative of anything?

If so, what is it representative of?

Okay, so you meant visual art. Well, what about this? It is an entirely non-representative object created from an arbitrary but interesting mathematical equation, which has been tied into a completely made up universe of mathematical symbols by the human mind. Is it without value? Does it tug us into a nihilistic hole of meaninglessness and despair? Of course not - it is beautiful.

_________________
The meaning of life is simple: we exist to use our senses and consciousness to appreciate a universe that might otherwise go unappreciated in its eons of vast silence.

http://visualfiction.org/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 6:09 pm 
Offline
The Scout
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 7:58 pm
Posts: 7083
Location: Vancouver Wa/Portland Or
Camera: Canon XT, Canon 60D
Lens: Canon 17-85, Sigma 105, Canon 50 1.8, lens baby, Canon f4 70-200 L
Favorite Type: I try all kinds of things, Family and macro heavy dash of landscape
Inspiration: My Dad got me started years ago when he bought my first 35mm pentax.
OK to edit my images: No
Your recent HDR of the restaurant is not a documentary image mashimisha, you clearly had a vision for the image and how you presented. Photography may not be as tactile as painting but the process is no less artistic in the way each person would record a single give object. If we all were to shoot the same apple not one image would be the same even if we restricted shooting the apple to the same location, each person could find a unique way to take and present the image.

_________________
Image
http://s14.photobucket.com/albums/a331/scotthadl/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 10:32 pm 
Offline
Silver Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 11:51 pm
Posts: 158
Camera: Fuji X100
Lens: 23mm
Favorite Type: Portraiture, HDR
Inspiration: Selgado
OK to edit my images: Yes
Walter23, you misunderstood what I was saying. I meant only to point out the need to define our terms. Anyone who writes as beautifully as you do must appreciate the importance of this.

walter23 wrote:
Is this famous piece of artwork by Steichen not a photograph?


This beautiful photograph by Steichen is not an artwork.

It is ironic that you should select this image to illustrate your point. Steichen is among my favorite photographers, who is right on the edge between photography and art. As I pointed out in my previous post, an artwork must represent metaphysical value judgements. Thus, any image that does not include these elements cannot be considered "art". That building in the photo cannot be considered an appropriate subject for the contemplation of universal (philosophical) themes. Even the inclusion of a gentleman in a tophat and great coat does not qualify it as art. It is a document of an earlier time, when romantic notions still held sway. Nonetheless, a philosophical perspective is not a philosophical statement.

My remarks concerning "non-represntative art" were not directed at photographers (how could they be, considering that it is my contention that photography is entirely representational). I was taking aim at so-called modern artists. Take Picasso for example, he has a famous painting of a bombed out village in Spain. Unfortunately, unless you looked at the caption of the painting and were familiar with that actual event, the painting would have no more emotional impact than an episode of the Simpsons. This is a non-representative painting of an actual event. What a frigging joke. Anyone claiming to be affected by the painting of Geurnica is a liar. On the other hand, a photograph of that village (with or without a caption) could reduce even the hardest heart to tears. Nonetheless, such a photo would remain a document of that event. Even abstracting its meaning as an inditement of man (as an example of his cruelty), it would remain an EXAMPLE- not an ABSTRACTION.

I have been earnestly pondering this issue for years and would welcome the opportunity to continue this discussion. I have enjoyed reading your comments and look forward to hearing more.

mashimisha

P.S. The Mandelbrot IS a beautiful decoration - not art. The way that we perceive instrumental music and react to it differs from all other forms of expression. Instrumental music is the most abstract of any art form and is therefore perhaps the most evocative. We could go into a discussion of the differences between the visual and auditory forms of art, but I suspect that you are aware of them (considering the examples you cited).

_________________
mashimisha

Man's own happiness is the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.


Last edited by mashimisha on Sun Sep 02, 2012 3:46 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 10:46 pm 
Offline
Silver Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 11:51 pm
Posts: 158
Camera: Fuji X100
Lens: 23mm
Favorite Type: Portraiture, HDR
Inspiration: Selgado
OK to edit my images: Yes
ScottHadl wrote:
Your recent HDR of the restaurant is not a documentary image mashimisha


Actually Scott, I believe it is a document. That is an actual restaurant in which I had lunch with my son. It is not an abstraction of "restaurantness" or representative of anything other than what it IS. My HDR treatment rendered an image closer to what I actually saw than what would have been possible using traditional methods. That is all.

Do you see my meaning?

_________________
mashimisha

Man's own happiness is the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:28 pm 
Offline
The Scout
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 7:58 pm
Posts: 7083
Location: Vancouver Wa/Portland Or
Camera: Canon XT, Canon 60D
Lens: Canon 17-85, Sigma 105, Canon 50 1.8, lens baby, Canon f4 70-200 L
Favorite Type: I try all kinds of things, Family and macro heavy dash of landscape
Inspiration: My Dad got me started years ago when he bought my first 35mm pentax.
OK to edit my images: No
I do see your point, So let’s compare your HDR image to a hyper real painting, or a water color of the same subject. Each is a representation of the artist vision. In a hyper real painting the artist may choose to remove distracting elements but the restaurant would be as detailed as any photograph. In water color the details would be even more subtle or missing but if you knew the restaurant the viewer could still recognize it and it could be considered a document even if it were somewhat abstracted ( I could shoot the building with a sharp frame and a out of focus frame blend them and make a water color effect of sorts). Now if I were to photograph the same building as you and choose my own processing even if it were HDR we would have two completely different results even if we stood in the same exact spot and shot with the same camera settings. My interpretation of the restaurant final print would be less dramatic than your interpretation of what you saw. I may choose to clone out some distracting elements or present a black and white image. While the camera captures what it sees in a very exact way, the setting you us affect how the subject is viewed, a super shallow DOF is not possible to see with the naked eye, under exposing or over exposing would be an expression of artistic vision. Can you see my point that just because you are only capturing what is there with a camera, your choices affect how the subject will be viewed by the public? If you can take the mundane and use some creative thinking and make it extraordinary you have gone from a documentary image to art. I am not to that point in my photography but I aspire to show my vision of the world in my photographs.

_________________
Image
http://s14.photobucket.com/albums/a331/scotthadl/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:59 am 
Offline
Silver Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 11:51 pm
Posts: 158
Camera: Fuji X100
Lens: 23mm
Favorite Type: Portraiture, HDR
Inspiration: Selgado
OK to edit my images: Yes
Well Scott:

I think that if the subject were a person instead of a restaurant, you could make a very strong argument that Photoshop and HDR are carrying photography into the realm of art.

This has been a fun discussion.

Cheers

_________________
mashimisha

Man's own happiness is the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:16 pm 
Offline
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 11:02 am
Posts: 901
Location: South of Charlotte, just across the line
OK to edit my images: No
Wow, I forgot to look into this thread for a long time… but no matter, you all have enjoyed yourselves and I trust gained some different perspectives about this thing we all enjoy.

I like to keep things simple… the more complex we make a subject the more room there is to argue one’s case and the less chance for consensus. Maybe it is a right brain - left brain issue. My thrust in writing this was pretty simple…. All fields of human endeavor are continually evolving and new knowledge adds to the principles which can be applied within each field… “Art” is no different. We don’t discard what we know to be true (the wisdom of the ages) in favor of “Artistic Vision” because that is as much bullshit as denying the existence of gravity in favor of warp drive.

Artistic vision is not complex or varied from one artist to another. It is nothing more than the idea in the artist’s mind when he sets out to produce something. His ability to achieve what he sets out to has nothing to do with artistic vision and everything to do with his skill in the application of accumulated principles aka the Wisdom of the ages.

My simple mind won’t allow me to debate this on the level you all have. Perhaps one day I will have time to put up a piece I have been thinking about on “Art vs. Porn”. I’d love to hear your thoughts on that one.

_________________
No Edits please.

Everyone except my mother calls me Al.

"Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" - Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 2:53 pm 
Offline
Das Kapital
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 4:03 pm
Posts: 6780
Location: Victoria BC
Camera: Canon 60D, Fuji XP20, odd film cameras
Lens: Tokina 11-16, Canon 17-55
Inspiration: The stuff out there.
OK to edit my images: Yes
Meadowlark wrote:
We don’t discard what we know to be true (the wisdom of the ages) in favor of “Artistic Vision” because that is as much bullshit as denying the existence of gravity in favor of warp drive.


As a trained scientist I have a big problem with the notion of "wisdom of ages". This is because there really isn't any such thing, to a scientific mind.

Science is a way of thinking of things that says nothing is set in stone. Every belief can be changed if enough people do experiments as carefully as they can and see contradictions. Some things are set, for the moment, as "laws", because nobody, doing careful and honest experiments, has ever seen a contradiction that could also be verified by other people.... but if new tests showed contradictions, those laws would be broken!

This gets tricky because you have to start worrying about what a good and careful test means, and how much verification by other people you need, and how to tell if those people are honest or liars or just plain confused about what they are doing, so it gets difficult. But it works well enough in spite of these problems, and you can see it in the results of scientific thinking that are all around you, like airplanes, rockets, computers, and medicine!

Now to get back to the topic at hand... I'm just nitpicking here, but I think it's important to point out where I stand on the notion of "wisdom of ages".

Quote:
Artistic vision is not complex or varied from one artist to another. It is nothing more than the idea in the artist’s mind when he sets out to produce something.


Don't you contradict yourself here? If artistic vision is an idea in the artist's mind, how can it not be "varied from one artist to another?" Ideas are imaginary things, and imagination is a pretty big thing... and everybody has a different one. Even if you are cynical and think a lot of people think alike, you will admit that some people have very different imaginations than others.

Quote:
His ability to achieve what he sets out to has nothing to do with artistic vision and everything to do with his skill in the application of accumulated principles aka the Wisdom of the ages.


When you say "wisdom of ages", do you mean techniques like "exposure" and "focus"? Or do you mean something more imaginary, like "posing people in sensible and proper ways"?

I want to ask you a couple of questions about pioneers.

The frenchman Niepce is credited as one of the fathers of photography. Did Niepce follow the "wisdom of the ages" when he *invented photography*?

Ansel Adams is known as the man who invented the Zone System and transformed the way photographers looked at, and treated, light. Now, instead of something that "just landed on the film", it was something you could play with and change! He came up with a whole new system of treating exposure, development, printing, and tricky ways to manipulate tones so that they didn't really match nature. Was he following the "wisdom of the ages"?

Quote:
My simple mind won’t allow me to debate this on the level you all have.


Simplicity is a virtue, but when you try to stick a complicated thing into a simple box and then tell everybody they must accept it is simple just because you say it is, you're bound to find a lot of people disagree with you.

If you just see photography as "something you do", without thinking about how you are taking certain things for granted, you won't be a very good photographer. You might think that by making it simple you are just "capturing the truth", but I think the truth becomes even harder to find if you simplify things too much. Photojournalists need to be aware of what they are assuming and what they might be missing when they are taking photographs of important events, otherwise they are letting their own careless accidents of photography set up what they show to the world.

_________________
The meaning of life is simple: we exist to use our senses and consciousness to appreciate a universe that might otherwise go unappreciated in its eons of vast silence.

http://visualfiction.org/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:31 pm 
Offline
Silver Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 11:51 pm
Posts: 158
Camera: Fuji X100
Lens: 23mm
Favorite Type: Portraiture, HDR
Inspiration: Selgado
OK to edit my images: Yes
Well Walter, you had me nodding in agreement with everything you wrote here.

_________________
mashimisha

Man's own happiness is the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 9:05 am 
Offline
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 11:02 am
Posts: 901
Location: South of Charlotte, just across the line
OK to edit my images: No
walter23 wrote:

As a trained scientist I have a big problem with the notion of "wisdom of ages". This is because there really isn't any such thing, to a scientific mind.


Cmon Walter, that is like saying we have learned nothing over the course of human existence. The notion that a Scientist must test everything is rubbish… How could he even begin to do a test without applying the previously learned principles of testing?


Quote:

Don't you contradict yourself here? If artistic vision is an idea in the artist's mind, how can it not be "varied from one artist to another?" Ideas are imaginary things, and imagination is a pretty big thing... and everybody has a different one. Even if you are cynical and think a lot of people think alike, you will admit that some people have very different imaginations than others.


Not at all. I was explaining the concept of artistic vision, not what exists in the minds of different artists.

Quote:
When you say "wisdom of ages", do you mean techniques like "exposure" and "focus"? Or do you mean something more imaginary, like "posing people in sensible and proper ways"?


Both.. but posing people is not an imaginary process. There are established techniques for doing so and they have been developed through many years of application. We must try different things in order to advance the field.. but they are bullshit if not accepted by the audience at large……. If that acceptance passes the test of time, they become part of the wisdom of the ages. Without that test of time, a temporary excitement with something new is nothing more than a fad.

Quote:
I want to ask you a couple of questions about pioneers.

There you go again… an unnecessary complication…

_________________
No Edits please.

Everyone except my mother calls me Al.

"Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" - Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 12:11 pm 
Offline
Das Kapital
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 4:03 pm
Posts: 6780
Location: Victoria BC
Camera: Canon 60D, Fuji XP20, odd film cameras
Lens: Tokina 11-16, Canon 17-55
Inspiration: The stuff out there.
OK to edit my images: Yes
Meadowlark wrote:
Cmon Walter, that is like saying we have learned nothing over the course of human existence. The notion that a Scientist must test everything is rubbish… How could he even begin to do a test without applying the previously learned principles of testing?


There's a difference between using principles and worshiping them as unwavering absolutes.


Quote:

Not at all. I was explaining the concept of artistic vision, not what exists in the minds of different artists.


I'm confused then. You said that artistic vision was "nothing more than the idea in the artist’s mind".

Quote:
Both.. but posing people is not an imaginary process.


I meant an "abstract, non-technical" process. To be very simple, exposure is a technical issue of measuring light and setting the shutter to capture it as close to human vision as you can. Posing people is more "imaginary", in the sense that there is no strictly right way to do it, just conventions.

Quote:
Quote:
I want to ask you a couple of questions about pioneers.

There you go again… an unnecessary complication…


I don't mean to be insulting here (or at least, no more than you are by totally dismissing my points), but to my mind this is the equivalent of a grumpy old grandfather, confused and unable to hear the conversation on account of his bad hearing, blurting out through ill-fitting dentures "blarr it's all a bunch of bullshit!" before refilling his glass of scotch and ignoring everybody.

_________________
The meaning of life is simple: we exist to use our senses and consciousness to appreciate a universe that might otherwise go unappreciated in its eons of vast silence.

http://visualfiction.org/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 12:18 pm 
Offline
Das Kapital
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 4:03 pm
Posts: 6780
Location: Victoria BC
Camera: Canon 60D, Fuji XP20, odd film cameras
Lens: Tokina 11-16, Canon 17-55
Inspiration: The stuff out there.
OK to edit my images: Yes
I do get the gist of your point, Meadowlark:

There are long standing traditions and there are temporary fads. Some people go to great lengths to do things differently, just to be different, and this often fails.

I think we pretty much all realize this is true.

Where you and I differ is that I also find the nuances and complications of it very interesting, and I find it pretty dull to dismiss them.

_________________
The meaning of life is simple: we exist to use our senses and consciousness to appreciate a universe that might otherwise go unappreciated in its eons of vast silence.

http://visualfiction.org/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 3:42 pm 
Offline
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 11:02 am
Posts: 901
Location: South of Charlotte, just across the line
OK to edit my images: No
walter23 wrote:

There's a difference between using principles and worshiping them as unwavering absolutes.


Scientists don’t dispute gravity even though they may explore warp drive. The point is they use what is already known to advance the field. Some wanne-be pioneers in the art world cannot explain their work within the framework of existing principles. So they hide behind an inexplicable tenet which they call artistic vision. That is where the bullshit comes in.

walter23 wrote:
I'm confused then. You said that artistic vision was "nothing more than the idea in the artist’s mind".


Correct. Think of it this way: The artist wants his viewer to become sad upon viewing the image. That is his Artistic Vision for that piece. Whether the viewer becomes sad has nothing to do with what the artist wants, and everything to do with his skill in the application of known principles to achieve his objective.

walter23 wrote:
I meant an "abstract, non-technical" process. To be very simple, exposure is a technical issue of measuring light and setting the shutter to capture it as close to human vision as you can. Posing people is more "imaginary", in the sense that there is no strictly right way to do it, just conventions.


Well, I can’t quite agree with that.. There are conventional poses to be sure, but some people have broken those poses down into component parts which constitute fundamental principles… A new pose that has a remarkable impact on the viewer is the result of skillful application of the fundamental principles (the components) not some mystical bullshit called artistic vision. Ok, so the artist who first tried it had to think of it before he could do it. The point is that it is explainable in terms of the components. From time to time Science makes advances; they generally don’t involve rejecting previously proven principles. The same is true for Art.

_________________
No Edits please.

Everyone except my mother calls me Al.

"Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" - Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 3:48 pm 
Offline
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 11:02 am
Posts: 901
Location: South of Charlotte, just across the line
OK to edit my images: No
walter23 wrote:
I do get the gist of your point, Meadowlark:

Where you and I differ is that I also find the nuances and complications of it very interesting, and I find it pretty dull to dismiss them.


Early on in this most interesting discussion, you stated that you were a trained scientist.. I thought about mentioning that I am a trained engineer. You find the nuances and complications interesting. I find the application of principles to achieve results interesting. Here is an engineer’s perspective:

A scientist is someone who hears there is a need for understanding how to prevent coffee from spilling out of a cup while one carrying the cup is walking. The scientist pores over weeks of papers on fluid dynamics and human biomechanics, homonid gait evolution and spends millions of dollars he begged for in grant money. The Engineer spends 2 cents and says "can i have a lid for this cup?"

I don’t mean to be flippant Walter… I am what I am… and by the way, I have a son who is just like you in this regard – he has the PhD. not me.

_________________
No Edits please.

Everyone except my mother calls me Al.

"Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" - Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 9:01 pm 
Offline
Das Kapital
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 4:03 pm
Posts: 6780
Location: Victoria BC
Camera: Canon 60D, Fuji XP20, odd film cameras
Lens: Tokina 11-16, Canon 17-55
Inspiration: The stuff out there.
OK to edit my images: Yes
Meadowlark wrote:
Correct. Think of it this way: The artist wants his viewer to become sad upon viewing the image. That is his Artistic Vision for that piece. Whether the viewer becomes sad has nothing to do with what the artist wants, and everything to do with his skill in the application of known principles to achieve his objective.


Okay, now we're getting somewhere! I understand what you're saying here. I would, however, substitute "either known, or novel but effective, principles" for "known principles". I think that's the core of where we differ.

_________________
The meaning of life is simple: we exist to use our senses and consciousness to appreciate a universe that might otherwise go unappreciated in its eons of vast silence.

http://visualfiction.org/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 11:03 pm 
Offline
Das Kapital
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 4:03 pm
Posts: 6780
Location: Victoria BC
Camera: Canon 60D, Fuji XP20, odd film cameras
Lens: Tokina 11-16, Canon 17-55
Inspiration: The stuff out there.
OK to edit my images: Yes
walter23 wrote:
as a trained scientist


Just realized how pompous that could have looked. Meant it just as an explanation of background.

Quote:
The Engineer spends 2 cents and says "can i have a lid for this cup?"


Yeah, after 100 years of scientists doing research on polymer chemistry that culminates in the invention of the substance called plastic that the engineers can apply their 2 cents to ;)

_________________
The meaning of life is simple: we exist to use our senses and consciousness to appreciate a universe that might otherwise go unappreciated in its eons of vast silence.

http://visualfiction.org/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 7:01 am 
Offline
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 11:02 am
Posts: 901
Location: South of Charlotte, just across the line
OK to edit my images: No
walter23 wrote:
Yeah, after 100 years of scientists doing research on polymer chemistry that culminates in the invention of the substance called plastic that the engineers can apply their 2 cents to ;)


Exactly right… but the objective was not to invent polymer chemistry it was to keep the coffee in the cup.

_________________
No Edits please.

Everyone except my mother calls me Al.

"Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" - Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group