pleasing photographers, or pleasing the general public (viewers)

[catem]

Not me! I have better uses for mine than making prints!

The mind boggles

Chill out guys, you can keep your testes to yourselves

(btw just for the record it wasn't me that mentioned the 'testicle' thing in the first place )

 

[eddym]

The mind boggles

Chill out guys, you can keep your testes to yourselves

(btw just for the record it wasn't me that mentioned the 'testicle' thing in the first place )

I know, but I just couldn't resist (dare I say it?) the opening.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

The recent threads on Soviet Photo have uncovered this image :

http://sov-photo.livejournal.com/67827.html

Yep, it's definitely got a dodging halo, but I think it's effective. To echo other people's sentiment, it would be phoney to give meaning to a halo after the fact. It is a tool, albeit not necessarily a popular one, but it can be consititutive of what the picture means, I think.

 

[Jonathan Brewer]

Hilarious........men and women generalizing about each other, which after you do, doesn't make a bit of difference, it always has/will be on an individual basis, some women are in fact lousy photographers, some guys are lousy photographers, some women are great photographers, some guys are great photographers.

Reading about some of the greatest artists throughout history, many of them were supremely arrogant and didn't discriminate, they didn't think ANYBODY was as good as they were.

I actually understand both views, I've had white males and females come up to me and suggest I might be in the wrong place, that the store they were working for, was for 'professional photographers'. I've walked into a pro outlet in Orange County, and had several of the employees rushed up to the front counter like I was going to rob the place.

I'm a man, and I've loved and pursued photography my adult life, and at 58yrs old, I consider dwelling on the stupidity of others who don't think African American males or females can take photographs as a waste of time, but I do find it ironic that some of those that feel that way are women.

The bottom line is that you can't generalize about anybody, we all have our prejudices in some way/form or another, and I think it's mindboggling that as supposed artists, we ought to first ones to appreciate the differences in all of us.

I frankly don't see the need to prove anything, in fact, I don't have to prove anything to the people who like my art, and no matter what I do, the people who don't approve of it, never will.

Peformance isn't the qualifier, and NONE of us are equal, nobody except twins, but we are all human beings, and we are entitled to equal rights because of that humanity.

As to my art, I do it because I like it, when I shoot for myself, like most photographers, I know exactly what's right and wrong with it. It's simply tough to eventually learn to be brutally honest with your own work.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Standing back, and looking at everything ...

It frosts my cookies when some of those involved in art give lip service to a sense of "flexibility" in the choice of characteritics (re: halo, backlighting, soft focus areas, distortion, grain, high or low key...) and immediately harden in their critiques in the use of these (and more) as indelible indicators of "failure".

I see this occasionally: "Of course we should not limit the creation of art to any one set of standards ... but the only reason this photograph includes `blown highlights' is that the photographer was incompetent and is trying to sell an obviously inferior (must be ... if there are `blown highlights'), not as a matter of aesthetic choice, but to swindle us and make us believe that this is an acceptable photograph, when everyone knows it cannot be (because it contains `blown highlights')."

In my humble opinion, time and sequence is a poor measure of the "quality" of a photograph ... i.e., "It is only allowable if you intended to have it there in the first place .."
If the work of my hands has the effect of permeating my insides, fascinating me ... expressing something of my being that I would want to share with "kindred souls" ... I will mat and frame it and exhibit it wherever I choose - unaplogetically, blown highlights incuded. I will encourage everyone else to do the same.

I refuse to evaluate ANY work of art in terms of "honesty". The only concern I would have is that of out-an-out theft - stealing another's work and identifying it falsely with another's name. That is unconscionable.

So, gang - BE FREE! I haven't labeled anyone in art as an "evil cheater", ... mainly becasue I refuse to judge other's motivation, before, during or after.
I have not seen a case of outright theft (a.k.a. "plagarism") yet, either. I think that is exteremy rare in art.

 

[Jonathan Brewer]

There's blown highlights,.............and then there's blownhighlights.............if it's done high key(blown highlights done on purpose), and it looks good(whatever that means), TO ME, then it's acceptable. If it's blown highlights, and it gives me a headache looking at it, then it's unacceptable.

Same thing w/low key, if there's a wisp of light here and there, a dash of illumination in just the right place to give the illusion of a dark room that still tells a story, I'll say 'wow'.........good job. Now if the photograph is completely dark w/nothing else in, I mean absolutely nothing, then despite somebody saying it's a tribute to 'Diane Arbus', I'll say it's just a blank frame.

I guess asking the question what is art? Or what's a good photograph, can be answered in a universal way, the answer is different for all of us.

But bottom line in terms of BS for me is where the guy goes to the artstore, buys a blank canvas, does absolutely NOTHING to it, and convinces a gallery to display it, and SELL it, that ain't art. Tremendous marketing maybe, but not art.

I've shot stuff, thought it was good, put it away for a long period of time, looked at it again, and wondered, 'how did I think this was good?'. And pleasantly, I revisited shots I'd dismissed and thrown in a drawer, and realized, 'this isn't bad, what was it that I didn't like about this shot.

 

[Parsifal]

I wish you had been able to show an accurate representation of the print. That said, from what I can see it isn't even an acceptable job, much less a good one. It takes time and patience to develop good dodging skills. When you can't do it with hand manipulation, use a cardboard cutout made for that image.
Please, I'm not saying this to be throwing fire your way--but it's clearly an area where you need to work on your skills. Lots of the posts above are thoughtful and supportive, which is great, but they don't tell you where you actually are on this one.

Please, go back and work on this for you, so you can hold it up proudly with no explanation needed.

 

[Ed Sukach]

There's blown highlights,.............and then there's blownhighlights.............if it's done high key(blown highlights done on purpose), and it looks good(whatever that means), TO ME, then it's acceptable....
... Same thing w/low key, if there's a wisp of light here and there, a dash of illumination in just the right place to give the illusion of a dark room that still tells a story, I'll say 'wow'.........good job. Now if the photograph is completely dark w/nothing else in, I mean absolutely nothing, then despite somebody saying it's a tribute to 'Diane Arbus', I'll say it's just a blank frame.

I agree. Note that all this indicates a personal reaction to the work. The way *I* "feel* about a work, and the way others "feel" about various other works is sacred....

I guess asking the question what is art? Or what's a good photograph, can be answered in a universal way, the answer is different for all of us.

I'll assume that there is a "Freudian slip" here ... did you mean to write "can NOT be answered in a univeral way..."?
If so, I will agree. I have long realized that I cannot change the topography of the "Art World" ... that is NOT my responsiblity, not within my authority, and not within my (modest) capabilites.
If some Curator decides to pay mega$$$ for a work that is "a blank frame" ... I will confess to a twinge of ... some sort of complex reaction ... a lack of/ perverted justice; exposure to irrational behavior; wonder at the extent of fickle fate ...? - but in the last analysis - I do not control that curator - so i've learned NOT to agonize over such things.

There is an "obverse" side to this coin ... dead, lifeless, "formula" photography where the *only* - or at least an inordinately overriding concern - was the AVOIDANCE of "blown highlights" and "featureless shadows"... to the point where all emotional content is lost. To see these photographs venerated above all others produces - IN ME - the same complex "unfair" reaction.

I've shot stuff, thought it was good, put it away for a long period of time, looked at it again, and wondered, 'how did I think this was good?'. And pleasantly, I revisited shots I'd dismissed and thrown in a drawer, and realized, 'this isn't bad, what was it that I didn't like about this shot.

That happens to you too, huh. We are constantly changing both physically, in "personality", and in aesthetic sense. Our "evaluations" of art change as well... for some mysterious reason: acclimation, saturation, boredom, a desire for new adventures.
That is why I never throw out a negtive or contact sheet.

I could go on and on... all this is a subject dear to my heart.... But at some point, I have to discipline myself to DO and NOT "talk".

 

[Jonathan Brewer]

'I'll assume that there is a "Freudian slip" here ... did you mean to write "can NOT be answered in a univeral way..."?'....................

...............BETTER than a 'Frieudian slip', it was a slip of the tongue. Probably old age, but the greatest blessing that comes from old age, is a bad memory.

I'm in agreement in that Art is 'ebb and flow', in general, and of course for me personally, and I would agree of course that an open mind even regarding work that doesn't happen to be your 'shtick', is a good way to go, and I'd be the first one to admit, that I've changed my mind/opinion about work that I'd previously dismissed,...'it grew on me'.......I think is the operative phrase.

Of course at the other end of the spectrum is where somebody has an idea, totally jacks it up, knows it, knows it didn't work, but rationalizes away this bigtime flaw to show it anyway when it's not their best work,.........now I've had this argument with myself, and it was always over a shot/idea, I really wanted to work, in my old age, honesty now wins out, because I can now easily say, 'give up Jonathan, you wanted it to work, it just didn't work', and the shot goes in a drawer or the trash.

I essentially agree with you, working your way up the learning curve involves mistakes/insights/chances/risks/inspiration/setbacks/discouragement, in other words, it can be a struggle.

What excites me is when I have an idea, I shoot it, and there's some effect, or look, in the shot that I didn't think of, and it looks better than the original idea I had, and EVEN BETTER THAN THAT, is when I shoot something, make a MISTAKE in the execution of the shot, and the mistake turns out to be something that I'd wished I'd thought of originally, and now know for the next shot.........growth, in bits and pieces, and then chunks, and then it becomes a small hill, and then a mountain.

So my take on this is essentially a personal one, you grow faster as long as you don't lie to yourself, about your work, it's easy to 'pull the wool over other folks', .........it's way better to be able to say, ........'yeah that was a mistake'.

Refering to no one in particular, I see folks show stuff, ask for opinions, and then get pissed when not everybody likes their work. If you're showing your work to be told, 'hey, your brilliant, this shot is great',.........and you show it over the internet, be prepared for somebody to say 'IT STINKS',.........even if it is great.

I don't know if it's a good idea for the sometimes fragile sensibilities of a budding artist who's still finding their way up the learning curve to show everybody their work.

But somehow I get the feeling that some folks think they can rush this process, not take their time to learn, not take the time to 'fall flat on their ass', not take their time to get back and figure out the next move, that after a short period of time, they should be busting out with 'killer' shots. On one of the other forums, a while back, a guy was talking about how depressed he was because he wasn't producing 6 or 7 'keepers' A DAY!!!!! That's of course crazy, the shots come when they come, they happen.

 

[Jonathan Brewer]

I don't know if it's always the best thing to do to tell a budding artist that 'you didn't do this', or 'you didn't do that' because the point happens to be that they DON't know about the various techniques, but once they have a chance to the technique handled by someone who's got a 'handle' on it, they can build on that.

I've had about 40yrs to figure this out, for myself that is, and what meant more to me wasn't a critique of my earlier work so much as my getting to study the work of established masters and HOW they executed their techique, and HOW they got it to work.