Are you a snapper?

[zsas]

Merely undertaking activities that might lead to finding pretty things in a heap of dross is like going to the beach for seashells. Signing pretty shells does not make the shells art or the signer an artist worthy of reverence.

I respectfully disagree as would Marcel Duchamp...
http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?workid=26850

However I admire you articulating your view of the philosophy of art and photography's place at that rather large table.

 

[eddie]

The only worthwhile reason for looking at photographs (or any other kind of picture) in an art context is that they are "mind maps" of the artist. Otherwise with no mind, there's no map, and finally no art.

I think this is a bit limiting. Successful art can also be a "mind map" for the viewer. If you are touched by a piece of art, it says more about you than the artist.

 

[ME Super]

This has turned into another one of those "X is art because of x, Y is not art because of y" threads. So here's some more fuel to the fire...

I've seen some of Shore's work. What little of it I've seen did not speak to me. To ME, Shore's work falls in the "Not art" category because it did not speak to me.

I generally prefer color work, but there are some things shot in B&W that definitely speak to me. I like a lot of Adams' work, even though most of it is B&W. To ME, it's art, because it speaks to me. O'Keefe's work is art (yes, it's color, and it's not photography, but it's art) because it speaks to me.

Having said that, most of what I shoot doesn't appear to me to be art until a few years later when time has fogged the memory in my mind.

I think this is a bit limiting. Successful art can also be a "mind map" for the viewer. If you are touched by a piece of art, it says more about you than the artist.

It says that the artist is speaking my language.

 

[eddie]

It says that the artist is speaking my language.

Or, you're speaking his? :confused:

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I remember seeing a Gary Winogrand show. He was a compulsive snapper. Here a quote from Wikipedia "At the time of his death there was discovered about 2,500 rolls of undeveloped film, 6,500 rolls of developed but not proofed exposures". I would think that snapping was very therapeutic for him. For me, when I shoot, I can't wait to process my negs. I won't be motivated to grab my camera until I've processed my film. I don't like unfinished business.

 

[Roger Cole]

I have about six rolls undeveloped right now, going back to last autumn, and maybe a half dozen sheets of 4x5. I did some catching up and developed 12 sheets and, I think, five rolls a few weeks back. Most of those have been proofed, but not even all of them.

I'd love to have enough darkroom time to not develop [pun unintended] a backlog, but I just don't.

 

[removed account4]

andy,
R.MUTT was quite a rebel

not sure what a snapper is ....
i use a camera, sometimes i am on auto pilot, sometimes i am not, sometimes i point and shoot, sometimes
i look through the viewer ... sometimes i don't use a camera ...

i see a huge difference between taking and making a photograph.
people love to create a mysticism around setting up a camera, pushing a button,
processing the film, and enlarging ( or printing ) a negative ..

for me at least, unless the person further works on the image
hand paints it, turned it into a bromoil, or oil print, or another transformation ...
it is taken or recorded, not made.

maris, i always enjoy reading your posts !

john

 

[Chris Lange]

I have about 20 older rolls that I need to process, and that's after I got through another bag of about 20 earlier in january. I also have some sheets of 4x5, 8 new rolls from this past week, and a little pile of 35mm to get through...

I shoot a lot...

 

[Maris]

I respectfully disagree as would Marcel Duchamp...
http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?workid=26850

However I admire you articulating your view of the philosophy of art and photography's place at that rather large table.

Very true, Marcel Duchamp would disagree but I'm glad he did not succeed in his Dada agenda: to destroy art itself.

Apologetic readings of Duchamp suggest he was trying to liberate art, to open new doors of perception, to cast aside the chains of old practice and old values. It's not true. He really was out to destroy art. His personal career bore this out. He produced very little, the Large Glass notwithstanding. I reckon he stayed famous for years not as a successful artist but rather as a successful impostor. And he has a lot to answer for even today.

The photography world today has many "successful impostors" (think of some names) and some much-praised snappers are surely among them.

 

[benjiboy]

I respectfully disagree as would Marcel Duchamp...
http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?workid=26850

However I admire you articulating your view of the philosophy of art and photography's place at that rather large table.

This is the product of "a piss artist"

 

[scottnichol]

i shoot a lot with a 4x5 camera, so i don't take many snapshots. and even when i do shoot digital, it's often quite well planned out.

 

[xdielanx]

I like snapshooting a lot. I would say my photography is half snapshots and half planned. I recently came across a Nikon L35af at a thrift store and havent been able to stop shooting with it since.