- Joined
- Dec 10, 2009
- Messages
- 6,297
- Format
- Multi Format
A lot of photographers and darkroom practitioners could determine contrast range of both. I worked for old dog photographers that know how much develop film to match their paper grades.
In over forty years spent in photography, I have heard a lot of different approaches to process. A lot of them begin with exposure of the camera negative. I have come to believe the more expedient and repeatable process must begin with the printing paper or print medium. Until we know the contrast range of the print we can not know the proper exposure and development of the camera negative.
What are your thoughts on this?
What is "art"? Who defines "art"?
Your response seems strange in that you propose that producing "art" is primary for you yet you seem unwilling to answer either of my questions. It would seem that if one is engaged in producing art they would be able to define what that is.That is a question you need to ask yourself and then answer, and refrain from making disparaging remarks about other peoples images. You'll also note that I wasn't the one bringing the notion of art up in this thread.
You need to keep to the subject of your original post in this thread.
Ian
It is my opinion that this is pretty much a pointless question. I think it is more meaningful to ponder WHY someone would ask "what is Art?". These discussions always seem to imply that if one of us has our creative output labeled "Art" then suddenly all other validation is unnecessary, as if our work has reached a pinnacle of value and we have finally "arrived" as an "artist". Such nonsense. If you are creating photographs purely for the sake of reaching for some elusive, ill-defined "ultimate validation" then you're motivated by the wrong forces. Just my opinion, of course.
Ian, I see you are still unwilling or unable to answer the questions that your comment indicated as being appropriate. No personal attack intended. Will you please share what your thoughts are on the subject.Are you same Donald Miller, you seem to be having a breakdown, and are you the same Donald Miller who was here some years ago ? What's with your personal attacks ?
I DID NOT introduce the word art into this thread take your questions up with the person that did.
Ian
Are you same Donald Miller, you seem to be having a breakdown, and are you the same Donald Miller who was here some years ago ? What's with your personal attacks ?
I DID NOT introduce the word art into this thread take your questions up with the person that did.
Ian
I have observed other photographers who say things like "I am doing fine art photography" yet when I actually began to question that I was unable to define what that was. I have not found many other photographers who have been able to get their minds around what that term connotates. Yet many continue to do what you do and yet are reluctant or unable to define it when questioned.
I agree with that definition as well. I do think that just as spoken languages have specific differences they also have universal similarities.Or art is a process. But 'art is a language' is quite nicely put...thanks.
Is not "straight to the heart" an emotional response?I believe the Greeks considered the vocal and acting arts to be of the highest order. 'Language' is a handy metaphor, but appears to break down as such when it becomes 'unspoken'. Spoken poetry is words straight to the heart. Photography is vision straight to the heart. Music is distilled sex.
When art, composition, and traditions are discussed here, it tends to be from a Euro-centric viewpoint. my signature line kind od tells you where my mind is at.
This is precisely why the question is pointless (or perhaps I should say futile). No two people can (or ever have) agreed upon a definition. However, rather than trying to imbue the word with specific properties, it might be more useful to simply say that "art is a language" and leave it at that.
As far as I am concerned, I don't tell people I make "Art". I don't care if my output gets labeled as such - it wouldn't make it any more meaningful to/for me, so why yearn for the title? I enjoy making photographs and I leave it to other people to attach whatever labels they care to use. That's none of my concern.
OK taken as you do not feel able to engage in an intellectual examination of your stated position. CiaoDonald Miller, your abusive approach helps no-one particularly yourself. By the way apologies for the Typo I meant to say "Are you sane Donald Miller" in my last post
I don't have to reply as to what I think is art. Perhaps it's worth worth noting I do have a a Post Graduate MA qualification from a University Arts faculty and have exhibited extensively in Art and Photography Galleries and none have been "Vanity" exhibitions, I've been paid to exhibit, had arts funding and sponsorship.
Actually I take exactly the same line as Paul Barden:
So I find your questioning on this offensive, puerile, and childish. It's something you need to resolve for yourself. I just won't participate in your argument.
Ian
OK taken as you do not feel able to engage in an intellectual examination of your stated position. Ciao
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?