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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |