What should the serious amateur concern himself with?

Any 'serious' photographer should be striving to get the most out of
whatever equipment is at hand, and being satisfied with the results.

Any 'serious' photographer should be striving to get the most out of
whatever equipment is at hand, and being satisfied with the results.

Any 'serious' photographer should be striving to get the most out of
whatever equipment is at hand, and being satisfied with the results.

You have that raw honest passion for creating images. Nothing else is
important.

Mike

You have that raw honest passion for creating images. Nothing else is
important.

Mike

"Mike Henley" wrote in message
oups.com...
So, after this introduction to clarify it, I pose the question again,
and invite views; What should the serious amateur concern himself with?

Nothing, I don't believe "Art" is an intellectual exercise at all. I would
say that think/talk is the fastest way there is to squash talent or vision.
There's only so much energy building itself up for "Art", and draining it
with arguments of LPMs or MBs or the cool colors next to warm colors lead to
nothing but analysis paralysis. Bob Hickey

"Mike Henley" wrote in message
oups.com...

(I'm inviting discussion/debate, not seeking personal, prescriptive
advice. I'm also cross-posting because I think it's a general issue
that's relevant to both. de-cross-post your reply if you wish)

What should the serious amateur concern himself with?

I guess a simple, individualistic answer could be to do whatever he
pleases. But there are a few who had learned the basics, settled on a
satisfying set of equipment, taken their happy snapshots, and are
seeking an artistic mission (hence, the *serious* designation I pose).
I oftentimes, unfortunately, see amateurs who seem to imitate
professional or commercial shots, reproducing cliche after cliche,
eventhough they're not bound by the demagoguery of the market. My
personal opinion is that amateurs should stay clear of professional or
commercial grounds, unless they're planning to turn professional at
some near point in time. But, of course, each to their own. I guess
some people get some satisfaction from thinking that their shots look
professional or commercial, which would be understandable if it was a
technical mastery that was the point, but disagrees with me when it
actually is the choice of topics and treatment, as is often the case.

One of the interesting views I've come across from some on these groups
is of the amateur being a historical documentarian, taking images for
posterity, particularly of a certain locale or populace that happens to
be his, that may not otherwise be covered.

So, after this introduction to clarify it, I pose the question again,
and invite views; What should the serious amateur concern himself with?

When you apply the words should and should not to art or artists you risk
stifling creativity. Your question is valid only if you dismiss the concept
that photography is an art form.
me

"Mike Henley" wrote in message
oups.com...

(I'm inviting discussion/debate, not seeking personal, prescriptive
advice. I'm also cross-posting because I think it's a general issue
that's relevant to both. de-cross-post your reply if you wish)

What should the serious amateur concern himself with?

I guess a simple, individualistic answer could be to do whatever he
pleases. But there are a few who had learned the basics, settled on a
satisfying set of equipment, taken their happy snapshots, and are
seeking an artistic mission (hence, the *serious* designation I pose).
I oftentimes, unfortunately, see amateurs who seem to imitate
professional or commercial shots, reproducing cliche after cliche,
eventhough they're not bound by the demagoguery of the market. My
personal opinion is that amateurs should stay clear of professional or
commercial grounds, unless they're planning to turn professional at
some near point in time. But, of course, each to their own. I guess
some people get some satisfaction from thinking that their shots look
professional or commercial, which would be understandable if it was a
technical mastery that was the point, but disagrees with me when it
actually is the choice of topics and treatment, as is often the case.

One of the interesting views I've come across from some on these groups
is of the amateur being a historical documentarian, taking images for
posterity, particularly of a certain locale or populace that happens to
be his, that may not otherwise be covered.

So, after this introduction to clarify it, I pose the question again,
and invite views; What should the serious amateur concern himself with?

When you apply the words should and should not to art or artists you risk
stifling creativity. Your question is valid only if you dismiss the concept
that photography is an art form.
me

This really does raise some interesting questions.

For example, why paint the roof of the Cistine chapel with anything
other than white paint? Raw plaster (of the time) had a nice color too.

So why go to all the trouble, expense and effort of securing the
services of an eccentric artist?

Then, why does it retain attraction to this day.

By empathising with technology - the artists work will seem dated.

By empathising with something intangible, abstract and at the same time
tactile, physical, real and with presence, then the artists work will be
ageless.

It is (IMHO) the agelessness that is undefinable. If it could be
defined, it would then it could be repeated.

Musicians work with a finite number of notes with finite duration,
Other artists work with finitely many colors on finite sized media.

Blues musician - or even, dare I say it jazz? - work within a framework
of beat and percussion.

By defining the limits of the techniques we (IMHO) do not limit the
creativity of the genre

Thus spake Aerticeus (C) 2004

This really does raise some interesting questions.

For example, why paint the roof of the Cistine chapel with anything
other than white paint? Raw plaster (of the time) had a nice color too.

So why go to all the trouble, expense and effort of securing the
services of an eccentric artist?

Then, why does it retain attraction to this day.

By empathising with technology - the artists work will seem dated.

By empathising with something intangible, abstract and at the same time
tactile, physical, real and with presence, then the artists work will be
ageless.

It is (IMHO) the agelessness that is undefinable. If it could be
defined, it would then it could be repeated.

Musicians work with a finite number of notes with finite duration,
Other artists work with finitely many colors on finite sized media.

Blues musician - or even, dare I say it jazz? - work within a framework
of beat and percussion.

By defining the limits of the techniques we (IMHO) do not limit the
creativity of the genre

Thus spake Aerticeus (C) 2004