A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What Makes a Photographer When Everyone is Taking Pictures



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old January 19th 16, 10:16 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default What Makes a Photographer When Everyone is Taking Pictures

On 19 Jan 2016 15:05:55 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:

Sandman:
It's more of a consensus thing rather than a declarative thing. IF
enough people consider your creation to have artistic value, then
it is art. If YOU consider it to have artistic value and no one
is agreeing with you, then it is not.

Whisky-dave:
Is that why Vincent van Gogh didnlt get to sell his pictures for
profit while he was alive things only becoamse art after the creater
has passed away.

Sandman:
Death has nothing to do with it.


It's got a lot to do with it if not everything.


Nope, nothing.

you only have to see that David Bowie has about 25% of teh top 10
hit albums/single this week for evidence the weeks before he died he
didn't have 25% of the charts or eve 0.25% .


I only have to do that to realize... what exactly?

Sandman:
It was art while he lives as well as long as that's what people
considered it to be. It wasn't popular enough to be economical
for him, though.


If enough of the right people don't consider it art it won;t be
popular that's the point


And has nothing to do with death.


Death is a factor. It can't be guaranteed to increase an artists
standing, but sometimes it will. Sometimes it depresses it even
further.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #72  
Old January 19th 16, 10:25 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default What Makes a Photographer When Everyone is Taking Pictures

On 19 Jan 2016 16:45:22 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , PAS wrote:

Whisky-dave:
It's got a lot to do with it if not everything.

Sandman:
Nope, nothing.


Whisky-dave:
you only have to see that David Bowie has about 25% of teh top 10
hit albums/single this week for evidence the weeks before he died he
didn't have 25% of the charts or eve 0.25% .

Sandman:
I only have to do that to realize... what exactly?


An artist's "worth" can go up tremendously once they die.


Of course, but that really never was the topic - the topic was "what makes a
photographer" and then more "what is art?", and the answer to those question
isn't dependent on whether or not the creator is dead or not.

David Bowie never had a number one album in the USA. He does now
and as good as it is, it never would have been number one had he
not died.


Of course not - that doesn't mean he wasn't a singer (photographer) before, nor
that what he created wasn't artistic.

Bowie is a bad example, of course, since his current surge of popularity is
directly linked to his death - i.e. when he died a lot of people wanted to
listen to his music, to remember him by, to see why everyone is talking about
this "Bowie" guy or anything in between. People's feelings about his music
really didn't change, other than perhaps for those that hadn't listened to him
and now have.

I know of no artists that were largely unknown and not until their time of
death was their work appreciated. Some very insanely famous when they lived
(Picasso) and their work got a lot more expensive after the time of deat for
the sole reason that what we had was what we had - there would be no more
picasso's, so the ones we have instantly became more valuable.

But some artists that are legends today never were when they were alive, like
Bach, Vermeer or Gogh.



J.S. Bach achieved what fame was possible in the early 1700s but
mainly as a an organist. Obviously he couldn't continue as an organist
after 1750 when he died so then he achieved fame as a composer. It's
amazing how often even now you can hear snatches of J.S. in modern pop
music and even commercials.

C.P.E. Bach achieved considerable fame during his life time and has
somewhat faded since.

Then there was Joseph Haydn and, later, the pop star Mozart whose fame
is still going strong.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #73  
Old January 19th 16, 11:01 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default What Makes a Photographer When Everyone is Taking Pictures

In article , PeterN wrote:

Sandman:
It's more of a consensus thing rather
than a declarative thing. IF enough people
consider your creation to have artistic value,
then it is art. If YOU consider it to have
artistic value and no one is agreeing with you,
then it is not.

Whisky-dave:
Is that why Vincent van Gogh didnlt get to sell his
pictures for profit while he was alive things only
becoamse art after the creater has passed away.

Sandman:
Death has nothing to do with it.

Tony Cooper:
If you are referring to artists in general, you
really have some odd ideas. The popularity of a bad artist
won't be enhanced by his/her death, but there's something
about there never being any new work by a good artist that
does increase both popularity and price.

Sandman:
Of course, which was never the topic, so I'm not sure
how we arrived at it. The subject is "what makes a
photographer" which then incorporated the more general (and
oft discussed here) topic of "what is art?". And whether or
not the creator is dead or not doesn't make something art or
the person a "photographer".

Tony Cooper:
There's such a thing as "topic drift". Perfectly acceptable.
Mention of one thing triggers thoughts about something not
directly related.


Sandman:
Yes, drifting is fine - which is how we came to "what is art?"
from "what makes a photographer?". But if you look in the quoted
text, the topmost paragraph is me talking about the "What is art?"
part of the discussion, and Dave jumps in and responds to my "what
is art?" paragraph and brings up death as a supposed parameter,
see the "is that why...?" part.


So I naturally answered his question about my paragraph with a
"no" but in a few more words.


Tony Cooper:
This is both an advantage and a disadvantage to a format like a
newsgroup. For those who like to stay on a particular topic, a
disadvantage. For those who don't find the original topic of
interest, forays into other areas restore interest.


Sandman:
Agreed - but there is a difference between "topic drift",
"changing the subject" and "misunderstanding the subject and/or a
post on the subject".


Often "changing the subject" happens in a single post, i.e. not so
much "drifting" but a deliberate new path/interpretation of the a
post. Sometimes this is quite alright, but sometimes it can
present a problem, if the original poster (i.e. the one that
subject changer replied to, poster A) doesn't follow along on the
changed subject, doesn't realize there was a changed subject by
poster B, or dislike what he may regard as a "goalpost shift".


Now, what happened here - and is often the case with Dave, is
route #3, misinterpretation of the subject and/or post. Or rather,
not understanding the post clearly enough to make a post that is
relevant to it. Once or twice and it can be the problem of poster
A who is being unclear or ambiguous, but this is a constant theme
with Dave.


In this case I moved the original subject into what I think is a
natural progression. There is not much difference between a
photographer who consistently produces superior photographs and any
other artist who produces superior work in his chosen field.


I was in reference to Dave's misunderstanding, not the natural "topic drift"
that you may or may not have initiated.

--
Sandman
  #74  
Old January 19th 16, 11:02 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default What Makes a Photographer When Everyone is Taking Pictures

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

It's more of a consensus thing rather than a
declarative thing. IF enough people consider your creation
to have artistic value, then it is art. If YOU consider it
to have artistic value and no one is agreeing with you,
then it is not.

Whisky-dave:
Is that why Vincent van Gogh didnlt get to sell
his pictures for profit while he was alive things only
becoamse art after the creater has passed away.

Sandman:
Death has nothing to do with it.

Whisky-dave:
It's got a lot to do with it if not everything.


Sandman:
Nope, nothing.


Whisky-dave:
you only have to see that David Bowie has about 25% of teh top
10 hit albums/single this week for evidence the weeks before he
died he didn't have 25% of the charts or eve 0.25% .


Sandman:
I only have to do that to realize... what exactly?


It was art while he lives as well as long as that's
what people considered it to be. It wasn't popular enough to
be economical for him, though.

Whisky-dave:
If enough of the right people don't consider it art it won;t be
popular that's the point


Sandman:
And has nothing to do with death.


Death is a factor. It can't be guaranteed to increase an artists
standing


My point was, "an artists standing" wasn't the subject, nor what I was talking
about when Dave chimed in.

--
Sandman
  #75  
Old January 20th 16, 04:52 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default What Makes a Photographer When Everyone is Taking Pictures

On 19 Jan 2016 22:02:28 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

It's more of a consensus thing rather than a
declarative thing. IF enough people consider your creation
to have artistic value, then it is art. If YOU consider it
to have artistic value and no one is agreeing with you,
then it is not.

Whisky-dave:
Is that why Vincent van Gogh didnlt get to sell
his pictures for profit while he was alive things only
becoamse art after the creater has passed away.

Sandman:
Death has nothing to do with it.

Whisky-dave:
It's got a lot to do with it if not everything.

Sandman:
Nope, nothing.


Whisky-dave:
you only have to see that David Bowie has about 25% of teh top
10 hit albums/single this week for evidence the weeks before he
died he didn't have 25% of the charts or eve 0.25% .

Sandman:
I only have to do that to realize... what exactly?


It was art while he lives as well as long as that's
what people considered it to be. It wasn't popular enough to
be economical for him, though.

Whisky-dave:
If enough of the right people don't consider it art it won;t be
popular that's the point

Sandman:
And has nothing to do with death.


Death is a factor. It can't be guaranteed to increase an artists
standing


My point was, "an artists standing" wasn't the subject, nor what I was talking
about when Dave chimed in.


I was just addressing:

Whisky-dave:
If enough of the right people don't consider it art it won;t
be popular that's the point.

Sandman:
And has nothing to do with death.

Eric Stevens:
Death is a factor. It can't be guaranteed to increase an
artists standing but sometimes it will. Sometimes it
depresses it even further.

I wasn't saying anything about the rest of the thread.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #76  
Old January 20th 16, 08:42 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default What Makes a Photographer When Everyone is Taking Pictures

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Sandman:
It's more of a consensus thing rather than a
declarative thing. IF enough people consider your
creation to have artistic value, then it is art. If
YOU consider it to have artistic value and no one is
agreeing with you, then it is not.

Whisky-dave:
Is that why Vincent van Gogh didnlt get to sell
his pictures for profit while he was alive things only
becoamse art after the creater has passed away.


snip

Sandman:
My point was, "an artists standing" wasn't the subject, nor what I
was talking about when Dave chimed in.


But so what? Why do you feel we must continue with what you want to
talk about?


I don't, you get to talk about whatever you want. But Dave responded to me and
asked a question which was not related to what I had said. In essence:

subject: what is a potato?
Sandman: A potato is a starchy plant
Dave: Is that why Pringles are more popular, since they're in a can?
Sandman: Packaging has nothing to do with it
Tony: Packaging can be pretty important
Sandman: Not to what defines a potato, which was the subject
Tony: Topics drift, not everyone needs to talk about what you want
to talk about!

Which is true - but when Dave wants to change the subject, perhaps he should
start a new thread, or make it more clear that his followup has nothing to do
with what I said by either removing my text completely from his post or by not
phrasing his post as a question directly following my post, indicating that it
is relevant to it.

But either way, even if he does none of those things, that's just fine. But
when I make it clear that Dave changed the subject, that's just a statement of
a fact. Also, when he changes the subject, I have no obligation to follow him
on his new path which I may or may not find uninteresting, so my response will
reflect this.

--
Sandman
  #77  
Old January 22nd 16, 09:42 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default What Makes a Photographer When Everyone is Taking Pictures

In article ,
Sandman wrote:


Is it inherently pretentious to practice an art form
and see it that way?


No, it is pretentious to say that person A is an artist and person B is not
just because you dislike the method, the result or anything in between.

Some artforms require lots of skill, which means that the artist has spent
years and years practicing. But some artforms doesn't require much technical
skill. Photography certainly did require skill in the early days. You needed
to
know how a camera worked in order to produce an image.

These days, even the cheapest smart phones have a more than capable camera
that
figures out al of that automatically. Furthermore, you have tons and tons of
"dark room" post processing available to you, to make a mundane shot look
really interesting with the click of a button.

Just because that required tons of technical skills fifty years ago and none
these days doesn't mean the end result is any less.


that part is true (and the results are actually substantially better
now than back then), but there are still plenty of old-timers who look
down upon those who use modern methods.

Jackson Pollock is a good example, his "number 5" painting is the most
expensive painting ever sold, and required exactly no skill what so ever. It
is
by essence a "my child could have done that" painting.


if it was that easy, then other children would have painted something
similar and also been famous.

To further drive the point home - the most expensive photograph ever sold is
the "Reihn II" by Andreas Gursky:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02052/Rhein_II_2052673b.jpg

Anyone looking at that and think that requires any skill what so ever is
fooling themselves. Apart from the print being huge, it could obviously been
taken by any smart phone and the press of a button.


if it was that easy, then others would have taken similar photos.

"Art" isn't about skill,


yes it is.

it's about what people think about your creations.


which depends on the skill of the artist.
  #78  
Old January 22nd 16, 09:42 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default What Makes a Photographer When Everyone is Taking Pictures

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

Sandman:
Some artforms require lots of skill, which means that the artist
has spent years and years practicing. But some artforms doesn't
require much technical skill. Photography certainly did require
skill in the early days. You needed to know how a camera worked in
order to produce an image.


Usually, one still needs a certain degree of skill to consistently
produce decent images.


Not when it comes to camera equipment, not in a way that could be compared to
the days of yore. Anyone with a smartphone can take awesome photos with the
press of a button. The only "skill" involved may be that of composition,
opportunity and the intention to create a thoughtful, thought provoking or
emotional rendition of what he or she saw.


in other words, it requires skill. it's not just anyone with a phone.

Camera tech has come such a long way that you needn't know much about the
equipment in order to create stunning photos consistently.


nor should anyone need to know the technical details.

that leaves skill as the determining factor.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Shooting vs Taking pictures. irwell Digital Photography 18 December 18th 07 03:30 PM
taking pictures with computer? zara Digital Photography 4 September 25th 06 02:45 PM
Taking Pictures in Las Vegas [email protected] Digital Photography 8 January 3rd 06 03:35 AM
Taking Pictures in Las Vegas Steve Digital Photography 52 December 9th 04 05:01 AM
taking pictures in a museum susan dillingham General Photography Techniques 3 October 11th 03 03:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.