Art verses Photography
-
- Thread starter BADGER.BRAD
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Gundlach-Manhattan Hyperion Diffusion 7in f/4 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Linhof Recessed lens board
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale Leica M4-2
- Started by chriscrawfordphoto
Forum statistics
I've always thought of photography as a science and art.
the science is all the darkroom n processing involved.
the art is in the composition n printing.
as many know, the traveling negative is proof how the same image can be interpreted 100 different ways.
the science is all the darkroom n processing involved.
the art is in the composition n printing.
as many know, the traveling negative is proof how the same image can be interpreted 100 different ways.
FWIW.....i am very Blue Collar, i do not have much artistic ability, and i approach photography as a "trade" more than an art.
Light in between railroad cars, light shining Under railroad cars, a guy at Home Depot with ALL the shopping carts with their nose up in the air so he can work on them, rusted and bent metal, boats and ropes, big wooden door casting shadow on a ceramic tile floor...bicycle with a basket and a young girls finger on the bell, etc etc etc.
That is the kind of thing i look for...utilitarian stuff that clashes with light to make some kind of contrast that MIGHT make a cool looking Black & White photo. Just everyday stuff that most people do not even give a second glance. I suppose i specialize in the mundane.
It is just a hobby for me, but it is satisfying.
I find "Street Photography" to be a wonderful passing of time. I find it very relaxing. Almost Meditative...therapeutic...Buddha and Zen.
Nothing too ground breaking, but i am also not a tortured artist...undiscovered by a cruel world....with artistic angst dying to get out and be discovered. The life of an artist is something i will never have to worry about or endure.
Then again, nobody will ever call me an Artist.
Light in between railroad cars, light shining Under railroad cars, a guy at Home Depot with ALL the shopping carts with their nose up in the air so he can work on them, rusted and bent metal, boats and ropes, big wooden door casting shadow on a ceramic tile floor...bicycle with a basket and a young girls finger on the bell, etc etc etc.
That is the kind of thing i look for...utilitarian stuff that clashes with light to make some kind of contrast that MIGHT make a cool looking Black & White photo. Just everyday stuff that most people do not even give a second glance. I suppose i specialize in the mundane.
It is just a hobby for me, but it is satisfying.I find "Street Photography" to be a wonderful passing of time. I find it very relaxing. Almost Meditative...therapeutic...Buddha and Zen.
Nothing too ground breaking, but i am also not a tortured artist...undiscovered by a cruel world....with artistic angst dying to get out and be discovered. The life of an artist is something i will never have to worry about or endure.
Then again, nobody will ever call me an Artist.
Every painter and sculpture who's worth his or her salt knows the "vision" I'm talking about. Michelangelo famously said "Every block of stone has a statue inside it and it is the task of the sculptor to discover it. I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free." Ask anyone who's good at drawing, and they'll tell you they see the lines on the paper first, and then trace them with their pencil. Ask any good musician and they'll tell you they hear the part in their head before they play it. Sure, you can blindly stumble around and come up with something interesting, but that just serves as inspiration. It's just a start, not a final product.its one of my pet peeves too !
i don't know this for sure, but the painters or sculptors that i know or have known
have never talked about "vision" it must be a photographer-thing
i never really understood what it was they were talking about, and the workshop givers
i am really note sure how they can teach photographers how to "see" ( have vision?)
if they can't already do it.
i was talking to a musician last weekend. we were talking about
the same sort of thing, the difference between a musician and a musician he suggested it
was more about being less of a technician. he didn't say anything about vision, but
i am sure there is a similar buzz-word in musical circles...
whew !
Anyway, I don't know where you guys are coming from in all of this, but your tone has offended me. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it okay for you to tear down those who do.
Jim, there also is a misconception/stereotyping of who or what an artist is. Most of it is playful (hopefully). You make good points, but I will say that there are many approaches to making art. Basically, you just stated that my way of working; the intensity of what I experience and see, how I get it onto film and then onto paper in a way to express that experience or what I have learned to the viewer, is the equivilent of blindly stumbling around. I suppose I could get offended, but I am not...I'm smiling actually. I think there are too many ways to approach art for any such broad definitive statements.
I look at the whole process, from wandering with the camera, to exposing the film, all the way to matting and framing the print to be a single artistic process...a circular process that does not necessarily start with an idea. A circle has no beginning nor end.
I look at the whole process, from wandering with the camera, to exposing the film, all the way to matting and framing the print to be a single artistic process...a circular process that does not necessarily start with an idea. A circle has no beginning nor end.
That's exactly the problem with most photographers. They live in a small world and never seriously educated themselves about (fine) art in general. They still have an opinion about art though, but it is a deformed vision because it is based on nothing.
The 'best' examples can be found in discussions about abstract photography (which is even more difficult), where people are inventing all sorts of definitions of 'abstract' because they refuse to study this subject before delivering an opinion, with a cringing result.
So, I compare this with driving a car. You can only drive a car when you followed a course and did an exam. It takes some effort to get to this point. It makes no sense for an uneducated person to have an opinion about driving cars.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
jim
talking about "vision" seems like a late 20th / early21st century thing
none of the artists i studied ( photographers included ) as a student
studying art, architecture and art/architectural history ever spoke about
and their biographers never wrote about their "vision" or "creative vision" ...
i've heard gallery owners tell me about it, but i think it was more of a
marketing strategy ... there are plenty of people making things in this day and age,
and they make no personal commentary either digital or spoken about creative vision.
to me, at least, it is just an expression a subset of photographers use to
define/explain what they do.
i do my best NOT to explain what i do when i make something. because
it is a personal thing that can't be explained-- i just do it ... and it certainly can't be workshopped
in a day for $5000 by hanging out with me, following me around the streets of la or las vegas or nyc to point out what i
see as photographic, or some remote spot in a national park. most people i think, are oblivious. what makes
someone who creates "stuff" tick is all related to personal experience and something else maybe that is vision? i don't know
i'd rather not say what it is cause i don't have a clue !
as stated previosly someone can teach technique, how a camera works, how to process film, and print a print
but s/he can't do much else... not for $5000, or $50,000. but if someone wants to be my pal for $5000 or $50,000
i'd make sure to point out everything and even critique their portfolio !
talking about "vision" seems like a late 20th / early21st century thing
none of the artists i studied ( photographers included ) as a student
studying art, architecture and art/architectural history ever spoke about
and their biographers never wrote about their "vision" or "creative vision" ...
i've heard gallery owners tell me about it, but i think it was more of a
marketing strategy ... there are plenty of people making things in this day and age,
and they make no personal commentary either digital or spoken about creative vision.
to me, at least, it is just an expression a subset of photographers use to
define/explain what they do.
i do my best NOT to explain what i do when i make something. because
it is a personal thing that can't be explained-- i just do it ... and it certainly can't be workshopped
in a day for $5000 by hanging out with me, following me around the streets of la or las vegas or nyc to point out what i
see as photographic, or some remote spot in a national park. most people i think, are oblivious. what makes
someone who creates "stuff" tick is all related to personal experience and something else maybe that is vision? i don't know
i'd rather not say what it is cause i don't have a clue !
as stated previosly someone can teach technique, how a camera works, how to process film, and print a print
but s/he can't do much else... not for $5000, or $50,000. but if someone wants to be my pal for $5000 or $50,000
i'd make sure to point out everything and even critique their portfolio !
A hell of a lot of artists groups had manifestos in 20th century or agendas which in themselves could be called "vision" as it predetermined what their work was to be.
On the 1920s and 30s that mindset would have been the avant garde!FWIW.....i am very Blue Collar, i do not have much artistic ability, and i approach photography as a "trade" more than an art.
Light in between railroad cars, light shining Under railroad cars, a guy at Home Depot with ALL the shopping carts with their nose up in the air so he can work on them, rusted and bent metal, boats and ropes, big wooden door casting shadow on a ceramic tile floor...bicycle with a basket and a young girls finger on the bell, etc etc etc.
That is the kind of thing i look for...utilitarian stuff that clashes with light to make some kind of contrast that MIGHT make a cool looking Black & White photo. Just everyday stuff that most people do not even give a second glance. I suppose i specialize in the mundane.
I find "Street Photography" to be a wonderful passing of time. I find it very relaxing. Almost Meditative...therapeutic...Buddha and Zen.
Nothing too ground breaking, but i am also not a tortured artist...undiscovered by a cruel world....with artistic angst dying to get out and be discovered. The life of an artist is something i will never have to worry about or endure.
Then again, nobody will ever call me an Artist.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
yeah, i agree they had manifestos but they didn't say one word like GHWB that it was " a vision thing "
and their manifestos said nothing about their creative process how they explained what they saw and did
what they did ... the manifestos were kind of like a demand letter, not a emotional, get inside my head, kind of letter.
take theo van doesburg's de stjl manifesto for example
http://lucasbattich.com/ebooks/4_De_Stijl_Retrograde_Chapbook.pdf
it states specifics about what neoplasticism is and what it will be, it really has nothing to do with creative "vision"
unless using a religion ( theosophy ) primary colors, pure beauty &c as a framework is creative vision ...
maybe it is splitting hairs on my part ... but IDK when people talk about vision, it is usually photographers ..
( which isn't bad, because art and creativity are not easy subjects to talk about )
Last edited:
Anyway, it is prevision that really counts.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2009
- Messages
- 3,589
- Format
- Medium Format
Many years ago I attempted to impress a pretty art student by having dinner at Isamu Noguchi's home/studio (he was a family friend). He asked what she was studying. When she said art and painting, he replied she should study something really useful to an artist such as chemistry or physics. Needless to say, that date bombed.
The oint is that every medium can be used to make great art...brush, pen, pencil,musical instruments, voice, camera, etc. Familiarity with all kinds of art and artists helps. Two examples come to mind. The drummer Gene Krupa recommended drummers listen to and study the music of Ravel and Debussy, many bebopers listened to Bach. Of course there is a knack to art that cannot be taught but only learned through self study. But the persuit is fun. The problem for many "professional" artists is that if a certain kind of style sells they are stuck with it for much of their lives. The true artist evolves. Think but don't worry about it, but enjoy what your doing.
The oint is that every medium can be used to make great art...brush, pen, pencil,musical instruments, voice, camera, etc. Familiarity with all kinds of art and artists helps. Two examples come to mind. The drummer Gene Krupa recommended drummers listen to and study the music of Ravel and Debussy, many bebopers listened to Bach. Of course there is a knack to art that cannot be taught but only learned through self study. But the persuit is fun. The problem for many "professional" artists is that if a certain kind of style sells they are stuck with it for much of their lives. The true artist evolves. Think but don't worry about it, but enjoy what your doing.
i agree but one can tell different movements just by looking at them so aesthetic and manifesto are intertwinned. You also see manifestos which outline new aesthetics or visions of the future. It sounds hokey now 50 or 100 years later and the alarm bells always ring but I'd say a lot of these you could file under "vision". Equally a lot of people one might bestow title of artist,or heavyweight photographer on would blanche at notions of vision - they just do their thing - no more no less
I've said it before and I'll repeat it here once again
"Make your first 10,000 negatives and you will surely create a vision. It's the Zen of it" it might still not be ART ;
Regardless you'll know how to develop negatives!
"Make your first 10,000 negatives and you will surely create a vision. It's the Zen of it" it might still not be ART ;
Regardless you'll know how to develop negatives!
First off, this isn't directed to anyone here. It's just a pet peeve of mine about art and it's relationship to society at large. I apologize if anyone is offended, and please know it was not my intent. I just want to take a moment to express my relationship with art and the world.
When I was a child, I would go to art museums and often find myself engrossed with these elderly patrons in deep conversations about the meaning of art. I remember how perplexing those conversations were due to my thoughts outpacing my lexicon of the time. As I've grown, I've learned to narrow the gap, but still struggle to properly manifest these notions into language. However, I remember one such time when a stranger suggested that I "could do better than that" which was some modern art painting that hung before us like the lure of an anglerfish. I was very proud that day, naively thinking that it was a compliment to my skills. I was, after all, a burgeoning child artist who clearly stood out amongst the other 120ish kids in my grade. Maybe word got out about beyond my school about my talents. Maybe I was more than just the best artist at a medium sized school. Maybe that would be my work hanging on that wall one day! It was third grade; a place where potential and probabilities ran with possibilities, like dogs in a pack.
As I got older, and heard that phrase repeated ad nauseam, I learned it wasn't a compliment to anyone. It's especially not flattering to the mouths from which those poisonous syllables dribble. It's a proclamation of pride in one's own ignorance; a pig's squeal as it rolls in it's own filth. Yet that seems to be all the fashion these days, as people can't help but contort their own realities to affix themselves atop the intellectuals and "high minded elitists" through sheer will of narcissism. "Everyone is entitled to their own facts" as they now say. It's the Dunning-Kruger effect run amok. If we don't understand something, apparently we now believe it's appropriate to spit on it and drag it down to our level, rather than strive to meet it on it's own. Suddenly everyone is an artist, and no one's even trying. We're all experts at everything, and always have been. 10,000 hours be damned! I have guts with instinct!
I get that not everyone understands the fine art world. I get that not everyone cares to. And honestly, it's not necessary that everyone does. Not everyone needs art in their lives, nor does everyone need to develop the same level of appreciations for it. There are many who will be perfectly content with beauty or even practicality as a substitute. And that's okay. But to me, fine art is important. It serves as proof of the sentient and sensitive nature of humanity. It's the witness to the proverbial tree that fell in the woods. It's the derivative of the equations of our own experience. It's the language through which we define the meaning of life. Some people are predisposed to dismiss it as unimportant or claim that the fine art community is nothing but a bunch of snobs (which isn't entirely untrue, mind you) and can't see past the technical nature of a craft to experience the art in all of it's transcendent bliss. I get that. But tearing down what you don't understand won't build you up. Saying art is just an elitist institution of self congratulation doesn't make you the curtain puller exposing the fraud of art to the world. What it makes you is bitter.
Perhaps this is partly a self inflicted wound by the art world. I think we have to admit that. We have tended to undermine the value of the craftsperson, sorting the intangible nature of philosophy above the tangible evidence of toil. We've accused them of leading the charge of the Philistines against the better life. Perhaps this is the impetus for so many crafts persons to declare themselves artists, and then slight the art world for it's lack of technical mastery and promotions of concept over composition. We've made them do the time, so why should we be surprised when the commit the crime? In reality, both should be held in the same high esteem. The talent of a craftsperson should not be held subservient to the talents of an artist, especially as there is so much overlapping territory between the two nations. We are the neighbors who live in separate houses but hunt different game on the same lands. Some crossfire is inevitable, but deference to each other's equal right to existence should be paramount. We need each other.
It's not easy to define what art is and foolhardy to define what art isn't. And there's no excuse to attempt to distill into words what makes art good or fine. But people who know, know when they see it. It can't be taught, but it can be learned. And people who don't know, somehow still "know". So here we are, stuck to our guns, blindly firing into the night's fog, enraged with the fear of self defense, and secretly knowing the sun will never rise to reveal our true positions, and perhaps just a bit too grateful for that.
When I was a child, I would go to art museums and often find myself engrossed with these elderly patrons in deep conversations about the meaning of art. I remember how perplexing those conversations were due to my thoughts outpacing my lexicon of the time. As I've grown, I've learned to narrow the gap, but still struggle to properly manifest these notions into language. However, I remember one such time when a stranger suggested that I "could do better than that" which was some modern art painting that hung before us like the lure of an anglerfish. I was very proud that day, naively thinking that it was a compliment to my skills. I was, after all, a burgeoning child artist who clearly stood out amongst the other 120ish kids in my grade. Maybe word got out about beyond my school about my talents. Maybe I was more than just the best artist at a medium sized school. Maybe that would be my work hanging on that wall one day! It was third grade; a place where potential and probabilities ran with possibilities, like dogs in a pack.
As I got older, and heard that phrase repeated ad nauseam, I learned it wasn't a compliment to anyone. It's especially not flattering to the mouths from which those poisonous syllables dribble. It's a proclamation of pride in one's own ignorance; a pig's squeal as it rolls in it's own filth. Yet that seems to be all the fashion these days, as people can't help but contort their own realities to affix themselves atop the intellectuals and "high minded elitists" through sheer will of narcissism. "Everyone is entitled to their own facts" as they now say. It's the Dunning-Kruger effect run amok. If we don't understand something, apparently we now believe it's appropriate to spit on it and drag it down to our level, rather than strive to meet it on it's own. Suddenly everyone is an artist, and no one's even trying. We're all experts at everything, and always have been. 10,000 hours be damned! I have guts with instinct!
I get that not everyone understands the fine art world. I get that not everyone cares to. And honestly, it's not necessary that everyone does. Not everyone needs art in their lives, nor does everyone need to develop the same level of appreciations for it. There are many who will be perfectly content with beauty or even practicality as a substitute. And that's okay. But to me, fine art is important. It serves as proof of the sentient and sensitive nature of humanity. It's the witness to the proverbial tree that fell in the woods. It's the derivative of the equations of our own experience. It's the language through which we define the meaning of life. Some people are predisposed to dismiss it as unimportant or claim that the fine art community is nothing but a bunch of snobs (which isn't entirely untrue, mind you) and can't see past the technical nature of a craft to experience the art in all of it's transcendent bliss. I get that. But tearing down what you don't understand won't build you up. Saying art is just an elitist institution of self congratulation doesn't make you the curtain puller exposing the fraud of art to the world. What it makes you is bitter.
Perhaps this is partly a self inflicted wound by the art world. I think we have to admit that. We have tended to undermine the value of the craftsperson, sorting the intangible nature of philosophy above the tangible evidence of toil. We've accused them of leading the charge of the Philistines against the better life. Perhaps this is the impetus for so many crafts persons to declare themselves artists, and then slight the art world for it's lack of technical mastery and promotions of concept over composition. We've made them do the time, so why should we be surprised when the commit the crime? In reality, both should be held in the same high esteem. The talent of a craftsperson should not be held subservient to the talents of an artist, especially as there is so much overlapping territory between the two nations. We are the neighbors who live in separate houses but hunt different game on the same lands. Some crossfire is inevitable, but deference to each other's equal right to existence should be paramount. We need each other.
It's not easy to define what art is and foolhardy to define what art isn't. And there's no excuse to attempt to distill into words what makes art good or fine. But people who know, know when they see it. It can't be taught, but it can be learned. And people who don't know, somehow still "know". So here we are, stuck to our guns, blindly firing into the night's fog, enraged with the fear of self defense, and secretly knowing the sun will never rise to reveal our true positions, and perhaps just a bit too grateful for that.
tried mescaline as a youth all I got was stricknine pains.
Everyone consumes art be it music, books, tv, cinema,theatre. its only certain people that choose to distinguish their art consumption or creation from others through the prefix "fine" as if it were in some way better than others as a form of discrimination. That's not art, that's just perpetuating a burnt out class structure.
Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
"Do you consider yourself an artist or a capturer of memories/history".
Both...and they overlap often, for me.
Both...and they overlap often, for me.
Well said. I don't know about your photography, but your words are sure artful.
I generally agree with your points, but I would just add that, as with most things in life, there is good and bad, and this is true in the world of art as well. Not all criticism of art is ill-informed and narcissistic. We must also remember that art is an industry driven by sales and profits, and factor that into the calculation as well. The maxim " Keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out" is appropriate here.
I have had this question for a Long time.....what is "Fine Art".?
I would settle for a few concrete examples of both.
These two things are Fine Art -
These two things are not Fine Art -
thank you
CMoore, the term "fine art" as I learned it in art school was a matter of practicality. If the art in question has a practical purpose, a coffee mug, a photo for an advertisement, it is not "fine" art. Art made for no practical purpose other than appreciation for what it is, is "fine" art. That definition works for me most of the time. Of course there are many exceptions, it is not a rule, but it helps define a difference. For example, a ceramic artist makes a cup. It may be "fine art" in the context it is displayed. As a student, the fine art ceramists always had to deal with that issue. Were they craftspeople or "fine" artists? Again, it isn't a value judgement, though it was at a "fine" art school, so the students in the ceramics dept saw themselves as fine artists when they were making bowls and pitchers. Looking at the objects they made (and some I own) I would agree. Also for example, Performance Art would almost always have to be seen as "fine." My point is that the "fine" in "fine art" is not a value judgement. It has to do with the object's context and purpose. I have waded through much "fine art" I do not think is good (we were all students once!). I have looked at much art NOT defined as "fine" that I find deeply meaningful.
Jim, I can see you are passionate about the subject. I am too. I think you could open up your thinking a bit and be less judgmental. The art world is a big place. It's beautiful, maddening, dirty and crass, just another investment vehicle, spiritually essential to some, without meaning or value to others. IMO, Art for artists is in the doing, not trying to define it in words, that's the f*****g art critic's job. Just get the work done.
Jim, I can see you are passionate about the subject. I am too. I think you could open up your thinking a bit and be less judgmental. The art world is a big place. It's beautiful, maddening, dirty and crass, just another investment vehicle, spiritually essential to some, without meaning or value to others. IMO, Art for artists is in the doing, not trying to define it in words, that's the f*****g art critic's job. Just get the work done.
Well that is a silly, half-assed.......
Just teasing you
That actually is as good or Better than most definitions. Makes pretty good sense to me.....pretty clear....i get the gist.
Thank You
I will just kind of go with That from here on in.
Thanks Again
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2017
- Messages
- 639
- Format
- Multi Format
I like what jim10219 said in his first post, about taking time, months or longer, to develop an idea. I work this way and enjoy it. Sometimes things work and sometimes not. Painters through the ages have worked this way, so did Ansel. Variations on theme with subtle changes over time.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
but did you get "vision" ?
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |