What Makes a Photographer When Everyone is Taking Pictures

On Jan 16, 2016, Sandman wrote
(in ):

In news.com, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jan 16, 2016, Sandman wrote (in
):

Sandman:
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.

Regarding that statement I would ask, have you ever got up close to
one of the Pollock paint drip works?

Yep.

They actually demand closer examination to see that there is a very
strong element of deliberation in his application of the paint.

Not if you ask Pollock himself,

That would be tough to do since these days, you could consider him to be a
dead drunk.

who describe them as works where the act of
deliberation has been removed, further showing that the "intent" rather than
the result is more important to some. No judgement about that, I merely
commented on the lack of actual skill involved in his most famous works.

However there is more to Pollock than drip, or action painting.
http://www.wikiart.org/en/jackson-pollock


They are abstractions which when veiwed in the flesh are breath
taking. Much the same can be said of the works of the masters,
â??The Night Watchâ? for example demands a lifetime of
examination.

Did you just compare Pollocks drippings to Rembrandts The Night Watch? Well..
I don't know what to say...

Then don’t.


Here is Pollock #2 shot with my D70 at the Munsen-Williams-Proctor
Art Institute. https://db.tt/Rp1N1OY1

Indeed, and a good example of my point exactly.

Sandman:
"Art" isn't about skill, it's about what people think about your
creations.

It is also about making the effort to create.

Don't know if I agree with that. A person making an effort to create art
doesn't mean it *is* art. As I said, art is in the eye of the beholder, not
by
virtue of the creator that merely just says it is art.

Art be it physical or etherial is an act of creation, and that act be it
painting or drawing fine art, acting, musicianship, photography, etc. they
all require some effort. It doesn’t matter what the creator calls it.

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.

It is tough to please everybody.



--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Jan 16, 2016, Sandman wrote
(in ):

In , PeterN wrote:

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

Sandman:
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.

I don't think that without more, the label "pretentious" can be
applied to the situation you describe. For example, I used to know
an art dealer who would convince his clients that certain artists
were up and coming. The price of those artists work therefore
increased. I had spoken with some art expert friends of mine, who
stated unconditionally that those pieces were worthless. The
purchasers regarded them as art. T think the dealer really
considered his customers marks. I knew some of those purchasers and
consider them to be pretentious A-holes. There is a commercial for
wines, showing a pretentious wine customer defining Pinot Noir, as
meaning peanut of the night. Pretentious is when one has know real
knowledge, and is trying to convince others that he/she is a shrewd
authority.

Indeed, such as when a photographer would claim that one is not a "real"
photographer unless you use specific equipment or methods. That's being
pretentious.

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.

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

snip "innate" rubbish

“innate�?

--

Regards,
Savageduck

In article m, Savageduck
wrote:

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

Sandman:
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.

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

snip "innate" rubbish

"innate"?

Yes, I snipped what Peter wrote about "innate ability".

--
Sandman

On Jan 16, 2016, Sandman wrote
(in ):

In news.com, Savageduck
wrote:

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

Sandman:
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.

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

snip "innate" rubbish

"innate"?

Yes, I snipped what Peter wrote about "innate ability".

I hope that you understand that your use of “innate� applied to
“rubbish� is out of context and has no coherent meaning, whereas
Peter’s usage in writing "Whether it is alearned skill, or an innate
skill,...� makes perfect sense.

I just had a hard time envisioning“innate rubbish�.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Jan 16, 2016, Tony Cooper wrote
(in ):

On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 15:01:42 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jan 16, 2016, Sandman wrote
(in ):

In news.com,
Savageduck
wrote:

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

Sandman:
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.

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

snip "innate" rubbish

"innate"?

Yes, I snipped what Peter wrote about "innate ability".

I hope that you understand that your use of “innate� applied to
“rubbish� is out of context and has no coherent meaning, whereas
Peter’s usage in writing "Whether it is alearned skill, or an innate
skill,...� makes perfect sense.

I just had a hard time envisioning“innate rubbish�.

You seldom see me coming to Sandman's defense in English usage, but
I'll be his wingman on this one.

There is a great deal of difference between ..."innate" rubbish... and
..."innate rubbish"....

The first states that the rubbish is the comment about "innate
(skill)". We know this because Sandman does not accept innate skill.

The second indicates that there is innate rubbish, and that - as you
say - makes no sense.

I assume you understand that he's using "rubbish" to mean "nonsense"
and not "trash". On this side of the pond, the "nonsense" meaning is
not widely used, but it is on his side.

Oh well.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

Davoud:
How smug, how elitist. A person who makes one photograph in their life
is probably not a photographer. But a person who regularly makes
photographs, be they spectacular landscapes a la Ansel Adams, studio
portraits of the rich and famous a la Karsh, or blurry snapshots of the
family and pets, is a photographer.

PeterN:
If the utterer clearly intended to use the term photographers as only
good or better photographers, would you consider that too, to be
pretentious?

Smug, elitist, and pretentious. Who is this utterer to decide--god?

I maintain that Ansel Adams, although a great landscape photographer,
would have been a lousy event photographer. A different skill set is
required for different types of photography.

I'm not certain that I agree with that, either. We have no way of
knowing what kind of event photographer Adams would have made--IF that
had been his interest. Basic skills, interest, and practice makes
perfect.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On 1/16/2016 4:49 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 12:06:19 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jan 16, 2016, Sandman wrote
(in ):



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.

Regarding that statement I would ask, have you ever got up close to one of
the Pollock paint drip works?

The statement that to create "Number 5" required no skill reminds me
of nospam's contention that there is no such thing as an accident and
Sandman's earlier claim that there is no such thing as natural talent.

Yet, if there was no skill involved in creating the painting it must
have been the result of either an accident or natural undeveloped
talent. Skill is the result of practice, you know.



True, but practice does not necessarily result in skill. I could
practice the violin 24/7 for ten years, and I still would not have much
skill in playing that instrument. OTOH, give me a French Horn, and I
would probably do a lot better.


--
PeterN

On 1/16/2016 5:11 PM, Sandman wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote:

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

Sandman:
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.

I don't think that without more, the label "pretentious" can be
applied to the situation you describe. For example, I used to know
an art dealer who would convince his clients that certain artists
were up and coming. The price of those artists work therefore
increased. I had spoken with some art expert friends of mine, who
stated unconditionally that those pieces were worthless. The
purchasers regarded them as art. T think the dealer really
considered his customers marks. I knew some of those purchasers and
consider them to be pretentious A-holes. There is a commercial for
wines, showing a pretentious wine customer defining Pinot Noir, as
meaning peanut of the night. Pretentious is when one has know real
knowledge, and is trying to convince others that he/she is a shrewd
authority.

Indeed, such as when a photographer would claim that one is not a "real"
photographer unless you use specific equipment or methods. That's being
pretentious.

No. It's being an ignorant A-hole

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.

You are leaving off ability to utilize light, and natural talent.


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

snip "innate" rubbish




--
PeterN

On 1/16/2016 5:49 PM, Sandman wrote:
In article m, Savageduck
wrote:

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

Sandman:
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.

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

snip "innate" rubbish

"innate"?

Yes, I snipped what Peter wrote about "innate ability".


Innate, or natural ability is the difference. As an example. My daughter
uses an old D70, with a kit lens, yet she has received over $800 for
some of her images, and has been invited to put on one woman shows.
Your statement that in effect denies their is such a thing as natural
talent is, quite simply wrong. I will not discuss that issue further. It
has already been beaten to death.


--
PeterN

On 1/16/2016 7:03 PM, Davoud wrote:
Davoud:
How smug, how elitist. A person who makes one photograph in their life
is probably not a photographer. But a person who regularly makes
photographs, be they spectacular landscapes a la Ansel Adams, studio
portraits of the rich and famous a la Karsh, or blurry snapshots of the
family and pets, is a photographer.

PeterN:
If the utterer clearly intended to use the term photographers as only
good or better photographers, would you consider that too, to be
pretentious?

Smug, elitist, and pretentious. Who is this utterer to decide--god?


Would it be smug, elitist and pretentious, to state an opinion on
whether they thought a particular image was fine art, a scientific
catalog image, or just an ordinary snapshot?

Suppose they were talking about the photographer?
And, why?


I maintain that Ansel Adams, although a great landscape photographer,
would have been a lousy event photographer. A different skill set is
required for different types of photography.

I'm not certain that I agree with that, either. We have no way of
knowing what kind of event photographer Adams would have made--IF that
had been his interest. Basic skills, interest, and practice makes
perfect.


According to people I've met who knew him, he totally lacked the
diplomatic skills used by event photographers.


--
PeterN