Jorge said:Then again there are web sites like Per Volkuarts' (sorry if I mangled your last name Per) or Ron Rosenstock's, where the beauty of the prints comes through even on the web...
And I believe the texture, tonal range, tonal transition, etc. IS the content of the photograph
Fascinating discussions. Flying straight in the face of many views here (and mine), I am applying for a significant grant from a major Arts Council and guess what they want as support material PHOTOGRAPHY applications? SCANS! JPEGs of 72 dpi-thingies max! NO originals allowed! How weird is that!!!
Michael A. Smith said:Jorge: "I think these should be things a competent printer should be able to achieve, but the complete photograph should be able to "tell" me what was it that the photgrapher envisioned, what attracted him/her to take the photo."
For one thing, Jorge, the photograph is not complete without the "texture, tonal range, tonal transition, etc." And it is not the photographs job to tell you anything. It is the viewer's job to try to realize what the work of art is telling him or her--to meet the work of art at least halfway, and maybe more. Any less of an effort by the viewer is laziness.
Michael A. Smith said:Ed, If one has the spark, nothing anyone will say will be daunting or discouraging. Enlightening perhaps, thought provoking, but not discouraging.
Jorge: "I think these should be things a competent printer should be able to achieve, but the complete photograph should be able to "tell" me what was it that the photgrapher envisioned, what attracted him/her to take the photo."
For one thing, Jorge, the photograph is not complete without the "texture, tonal range, tonal transition, etc." And it is not the photographs job to tell you anything. It is the viewer's job to try to realize what the work of art is telling him or her--to meet the work of art at least halfway, and maybe more. Any less of an effort by the viewer is laziness.
Just one very brief practical point - don't ask me why, but something happens to digital files (maybe just JPEGs) in transmission. Every time I put an image on a website, what looks great on my screen turns out muddy. The answer which I have devised is to lighten my pictures, based on previous experience, and then e-mail them to myself. When the e-mailed picture I receive looks right (which will mean that the transmitted picture is ridiculously light), then I upload it to the website.Michael A. Smith said:But why are our scans so bad?
Ed Sukach said:I do not accept the idea that the "worth" of a photograph must be determined objectively. Objectivity implies an evaluation without the involvement of my "being".
I agree, but it is not a question of quantity of worth, but the nature of that worth that we are debating surely (hence definitions of words in dictionaries -we have to have some rules like what art is vs craft, sentiment etc). A tractor might be worth more than a 1967 ferrari whatever if you are a farmer, but.......
My work is subjective; I want it to be. It should, and. if all goes well, it WILL, speak to the viewer of, "What I am - my thoughts, feelings, predispositions, fantasies, vision ... aesthetics". That translates to "having life".
We have no choice in this of course.
A work produced "objectively" avoids all of these, and to me, is lifeless, dead.
But how would you know just by looking at it alone? I think this is not quite what I have meant so far.......I am referring to the objective categorisation of what something is once produced. Lots of passion goes into making a feat of engineering, such as a bridge. Challenges met and overcome. Other engineers may marvel at it. However, it might be a hell of an ugly bridge (beautifully) expertly designed. For that it might be the awe of the world. It is not art just because it stimulates the maker and others in one way or other.
Second, the work *I* don't understand. Someone else did - the artist - In their eyes, it meant a great deal, but due to our differences, it does not affect me the same way. Not necessarily "bad" - just a reinforcement of the idea that each of us are different. Useful in the investigation of those "differences".
Does this assume some do get it? What would it be if nobody 'got it'? Would it still be art if nobody got it but the artist's passion was there etc etc. I would say no. I would also say that the essence of what they are getting from it defines it. Emotional response based on visual elements (art?)vs respect and admiration and awe for it as an accomplished creation (thing - craft). I personally FWIW think a great photo has to be both. The art is the content/vision and the craft (technical skill) is required to communicate this through a print. The craft can only make the very best of what the photographer wishes people to see (so the best print is of course always best). However, cannot ever be more than this surely.....cannot stand alone as art? If a lifesize photo of a doorway was so good that I kept trying to walk thru it, I would be in awe at the technical accomplishment. It would make me laugh, then rub my head. It would not be art tho. Bad exampleA photo of a window view so good I could not distinguish it from a real window and view (but the view was of something with no stimulating emotional journey with nothing 'behind it that shines through'). I would want it, because it represented astonishing printing talent, but it is surely not successful as art. It is just sophisticated, but cold.
Third, that which "enraptures" me. The exposure to it has affected me profoundly - I cannot get the image out of my mind. I'll return to it and stare at it. I'll close my eyes, and STILL see it... I'll dream and daydream about it.
With me, that is what occurred upon exposure to Renoir's Torse au soleil.
Canot argue with that. It is not just a wonderfully done 'thing' one assumes(not familiar with it). I suspect that you would find a level of inherent beauty/wonder as a poster, albeit far less wonderful than the original (get saving!). You do not therefore need to own it (the original) to gain pleasure. You could get lots of pleasure from an OK reproduction maybe? Lots lost in translation, but still embodying 'something' and lots of it?
My goal is, always, "Enrapturing Work". It is `successful' when it enraptures ME -- and it is NIRVANA when my works engenders the same state in someone else. NOTHING else, status, approval in the eyes of the elite, - NOTHING else even comes close
I agree, but could this not be used to describe other (exhilarating)experiences derived through other means? In which case, we need to be more specific about what we describe as photographic art, rather than art in general or even things which we would almost unanimously agree have nothing to do with art or getting closer, supremely good photographic craft.........A brilliant craft may be as pleasing to a person (or more so as it might be more relevant to their being (like a well made raft to Robinson Crusoe......, I am not denying this, but it is a different thing. If it is not, we might as well abondon the dictionary.
David H. Bebbington said:Just one very brief practical point - don't ask me why, but something happens to digital files (maybe just JPEGs) in transmission. Every time I put an image on a website, what looks great on my screen turns out muddy. The answer which I have devised is to lighten my pictures, based on previous experience, and then e-mail them to myself. When the e-mailed picture I receive looks right (which will mean that the transmitted picture is ridiculously light), then I upload it to the website.
Rhetorical, I would guess. "we"??? - I have no intention of telling you what to do. This is my opinion. Feel free to discuss.Tom Stanworth said:My work is subjective; I want it to be.
We have no choice in this, of course.
Of course.Second, the work *I* don't understand. Someone else did -
Does this assume some do get it?
Third, that which "enraptures" me. The exposure to it has affected me profoundly - I cannot get the image out of my mind. I'll return to it and stare at it. I'll close my eyes, and STILL see it... I'll dream and daydream about it.
With me, that is what occurred upon exposure to Renoir's Torse au soleil. Canot argue with that. It is not just a wonderfully done 'thing' one assumes(not familiar with it). I suspect that you would find a level of inherent beauty/wonder as a poster, albeit far less wonderful than the original (get saving!). You do not therefore need to own it (the original) to gain pleasure. You could get lots of pleasure from an OK reproduction maybe? Lots lost in translation, but still embodying 'something' and lots of it?
Yes it could.My goal is, always, "Enrapturing Work". It is `successful' when it enraptures ME -- and it is NIRVANA when my works engenders the same state in someone else. NOTHING else, status, approval in the eyes of the elite, - NOTHING else even comes close
I agree, but could this not be used to describe other (exhilarating)experiences derived through other means?
Here we go with "we" again. I don't find it necessary. I simply do not have to explain everything on the face of this planet. I'll continue as I have in the past, and "feel"... In which case, we need to be more specific about what we describe as photographic art, ...
Somewhere in reading this, I got lost. If you mean "dictionary" as something of a set of rules to define art... It cannot be abandoned. I don't think it exists, now, or ever has before.If it is not, we might as well abandon the dictionary.
Tom Stanworth said:... Can you comment in respect to this piece and say what it is that you like about it? This means that despite an element of technical perfection being lost, there is definitely a message to be carried.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?