Easy art form and generally easy things been sold cheap except swedish furniture :)

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

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

 

[blansky]

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.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

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.

 

[DannL.]

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.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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.

Au contraire mon frere - just like cooking, there are those who can follow a recipe and make a cake that looks like a cake and tastes like chocolate. And there are those who can invent a recipe, make a cake, and it tastes sublime. Many can learn to make platinum prints or wet plate collodion plates, but the difference is what you do with them. You can teach any fool to make a copy of an Ansel Adams print - you can't teach him to be Ansel Adams.

I'm sorry if you're having an existential crisis as it relates to your art medium; it happens to all of us at some point, some times many points. If that's the case, go off and make some sculpture for a while, put down the camera, and come back when you're ready.

 

[removed account4]

couldn't agree more scott

it is hard to create, it is easy to make ..

 

[blansky]

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.

 

[DannL.]

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.

I am very hard to please in that regard. But, that is not important. I have been tainted by my experiences.

 

[gone]

Photography can't be THAT easy. I'm lucky to get what I would call 1 keeper out of several hundred shots (as Mustafa pointed out in his first sentence). But out of 10 quick sketch drawings, I might get 3 or 4 that could be worked up into something. That's a big difference. I used to think photography was easy. Now I know better.

I wish someone would show me how to make a good gumbo. That can't be made from a recipe, you need someone to show you how. Jambalaya I can do, and red beans and rice. But no gumbo here.

 

[MDR]

Making a good photograph that is considered art is just as hard as making a sculpture or a painting if not more so. Both sculpture and painting are considered art by the majority of People, photography on the other and is considered easy since supposedly everybody can do it. In reality everybody can paint or sculpt it is a question of training nothing more. The difficulty in art is not the craft but creating something that transcends the craft to be more than just as you said a kitchen recipe and this applies to every art form. Up to the Invention of photography painting and drawing was considered a craft so was sculpture. The pre dominant medium of an era is always held in lower esteem than others. Watercolour is easier than oil (not really) therefore oil is more art. Making a sculputure out of marble is more difficult than out of clay marble sculpture is more art (not really). An imagined difficulty makes art more art than the supposedly easier technique which is pure B.S.

 

[ic-racer]

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.

 

[blansky]

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.

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.

 

[pschwart]

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

Pressing the shutter release doesn't make one an artist or even a photographer. If it's so easy, you must have a few really fine images you can share with us

 

[DannL.]

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.

An interesting example, but if I had created that exact image and submitted it to Sotheby's, they would have replied that is was just a snapshot without merit. Having already submitted images to Sotheby's, which were taken by a very well known photographer, I know exactly how that works. It has everything to do with provenance,the photographer's reputation, and previous sales history, and nothing to do with the image itself. The tricycle is a good example of that. It is after all . . . just a snapshot.

 

[benjiboy]

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.

 

[blansky]

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.

To you and I. But not to the public.

If you're taking pictures, to them, you are a photographer.

 

[removed account4]

nothing in the label photographer implies competency ..

 

[moose10101]

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.

Which "internet galleries" did you search in? And is it necessary to have formal training in the arts in order to produce art?

 

[removed account4]

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.

michael was the music done by z'ev or non ?
I have one of z'ev's lp's from the mid-late 80s ...
and it was not what a lot would call music ...
same with other stuff I listen to by TG
and others in that genre ....

 

[DannL.]

Which "internet galleries" did you search in? And is it necessary to have formal training in the arts in order to produce art?

Try Photo.net for one. There should be plenty of "quality images" to evaluate. Many categories over a number of years.

Formal Training? I probably should have said "any education in the arts". Education, be it self-taught or Formal, are equally viable.

Your inquiry made me think of this statement . . .

"While knowledge of principles and familiarity with the elements of beauty will never alone enable a person to produce a beautiful thing in any realm of art, the informed person is likely to make fewer ridiculous attempts than the ignorant person, who excuses himself—and justifies himself—by saying, "I know nothing about art, but I know what I like."
Photography and Fine Art; Henry Turner Bailey

 

[Dali]

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).

 

[removed account4]

No, none of those. Sorry.

its OK .. a lot of that stuff ( industrial music from the 70s and 80s ) sounds
like noise to some ( and others too ) ...

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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).

Actually that's true of most media - think of that white guy with the afro who had the long-running tv show on how to paint. That was true middlebrow mediocrity. And then there's Thomas Kinkade.

 

[dpurdy]

I think in our society photography has become everyone's art. From grandma with her brownie to household 35mm SLRs in the 1970s to the current Iphones, all anyone ever needed to do to become an artist was buy a camera. Now I am seeing amazing phone photographs by people who never considered being a photographer. I used to be important to my extended family because I was needed to make the family and kid photos. Now nah everyone can do it and everyone does do it. The general public has created an entirely new art form... and named it.. the selfie.

Photography is and has always been a "minor" art. There is still a distinction between a photography gallery and an art gallery. An art gallery will sometimes have some photography in it but a gallery dedicated to photography is never called an art gallery.

It is hard to see the talent in a photograph compared to seeing the talent in painting/drawing/sculpture. I was standing next to one of my own prints hanging in an all medium public non juried art show. My print was of a still life with wire arrangement, shot on 8x10 and printed in platinum. A woman walked up and looked at it because it had won a blue ribbon and not knowing I was the photographer she commented to me with a scoff, "but that is something anyone could have done" I agreed with her.

 

[blansky]

But as with all the threads lately the missing statement usually about photography is the duality of the mission. Before photography few could afford artistic compositions of life and more importantly family. Only the rich could get a family picture, or self indulgent portrait. I'm sure sketch artists were around to some extent but even that was not available to most people.

Photography did become the "people's art" and not just because professional photographers started to take pictures of the lower to middle classes but magazines started to print them as well. When the Brownie and other easily accessible cameras became available to the unwashed masses it really took off. And still does today although in a different form.

But the duality is really the motives of the people taking the pictures, and what we sort of refer to as serious photographers vs the masses with their snapshots. Each has really totally different mindsets and motives for picture taking.

So when we lump them together we do a disservice to the photographic "artists" that are every bit as concerned with the same aspects of the craft as were the painters of bygone days. And I'm sure they weren't all Rembrandts back then either.