That has always been the knock on photography.
It's too easy. "Art" for the masses.
BUT, the good stuff is still pretty hard. The mediocre stuff is pervasive.
Still I don't care. I like doing it.
I can play the piano. I'm not a concert pianist. Do I care?
No.
Hello,
What is the hard thing in photography ? Glass plates , platin , they are cooking recipes , you try 10 times and invest 3000 dollars and voila , you do it !
I think 1960s life magazine reportage salvador dali , picasso photography long gone , you cant never see a rich famous man like 60s.
I find HCB did a big job but nobody interests in today. Nobody cares for poor and eccentric people on reach at internet , you can see only faces at hcb but now you can listen , watch , read free.
I think radio days photography is death and never resurrected.
I recently challenged myself to go though a number of internet galleries, viewing and evaluating images by photographers, with one goal in mind . . . to find a photograph that I liked enough to hang on my wall. I knew going in that this would be a daunting task. When I viewed some 35,000 and images I finally found one that I really liked. I started anew and when I reach 14,000 plus without finding an image. . . I stopped. It became obvious that the majority of those photographers had little knowledge of art, and no formal training in the arts. This does not mean that their intentions were to be artistic with their photography, but that their lack of knowledge of art was obvious in their work. Like a bad actor on the silver screen. I think this has been the case since Kodak introduced the camera to the masses. Owning and using a cameras does not make you a good photographer.
Since I don't know what "art" is I'll take your word for you struggles to find anything. That being said I look at dozens of pictures on the internet daily and in 10 minutes I can find pictures I'd put on my wall (if I had wall space) so I don't share your opinion. You may be far more picky than me.
But you may be looking for "art" and I'd be looking for pictures that move me.
As for your comment that owning photographic equipment doesn't make you a good photographer, I absolutely agree. Obviously.
And owning a scalpel doesn't make one a good surgeon.
Everyone if they are even blind ,can be a photographer.
No, they can take a picture. Being a photographer is something else. Likewise anyone can pluck the strings of a bass guitar and make noise. Even if you do actually know how to fret a note, it still does not make you a musician.
I found that photography is an excellent art form for whom shot 1000 frames and there will be few good prints out of that collection
but when whatever you do , you cant do the same if they give you a bass guitar , if you have small hands , no ability to hear notes , no long education , no ability to read notes , apply to fretboards etc.
Everyone if they are even blind ,can be a photographer. Send a blind man to colorado and give him a 4x5 and level it , voila !
They say for some women , sweat honey if I am not wrong.
Than I find the oldest apug members loves horrible colors , compositions , photographs.
I found today , may be I might invest in sculpture , music or painting forum or philosophy or language learning in that last 10 years.
It was easy and easy things classified as cheap.
Umut
OP, no not really. Look at Eggelston half mil tricycle. Lots of other things as well. But photo biz is generally a lesser art than the high arts.
But therein lies the dilemma.
We all, well almost all, can recognize music, over noise. Even if we hate the music, we still can say, that is music.
But give a monkey a camera for a day, and I guarantee you could take the prints and sell them to someone. Crop it, frame it, don't tell them a monkey took it, and someone could sell it as "art".
That's the problem.
It's just too easy. Because any photography can be judged by, I like it or I don't. And if I do, then I may buy it.
The problem is also, by definition anyone with a camera is a photographer. There are no standards. There is no achievement necessary to say, finally I'm a photographer.
The ONLY achievement necessary is that you are alive at some point. And took a picture.
I respectfully disagree Michael "anyone with a camera" is a camera owner, not a photographer any more than anyone who owns a Stradivarius violin is a violinist, or a Ferrari a racing driver.
I recently challenged myself to go though a number of internet galleries, viewing and evaluating images by photographers, with one goal in mind . . . to find a photograph that I liked enough to hang on my wall. I knew going in that this would be a daunting task. After I viewing some 35,000 images I finally found one that I really liked. I started anew and when I reach 14,000 plus without finding an image. . . I stopped. It became obvious that the majority of those photographers had little knowledge of art, and no formal training in the arts. This does not mean that their intentions were to be artistic with their photography, but that their lack of knowledge of art was obvious in their work. Like a bad actor on the silver screen. I think this has been the case since Kodak introduced the camera to the masses. Owning and using a camera does not make you a good photographer.
Don't be so sure. This can be done with painting and several other artforms. It can even be done with music. I promise you I've heard music most people would swear is just noise.
Which "internet galleries" did you search in? And is it necessary to have formal training in the arts in order to produce art?
No, none of those. Sorry.
Mustafa, I somewhat agree with you. To make reference to a well-known book from Pierre Bourdieu, photography is a middle-brow art. As such it is accessible to most of us without much training and knowledge compared to other activities like music or painting. In a sense, I would put photography is the same category as litterature: most of us know how to write (take a picture) correctly, a far less have a special touch and are driven by a clear idea of what they mean, and even less have the ability to go beyond the words (the images).
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?