Art, it is within (I think?)...

[alistair.o]

Last evening I went to the theatre to see The Pitmen Painters.

For those who are unaware of what this play is about, here are some links:-

[FONT=&quot]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashington_Group[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]http://www.ashingtongroup.co.uk/artists1.html

[/FONT]These hard working, 'uneducated' coal miners, had a driving force within to learn and even amongst so few a number, one of their rank rose in skill and perception (though I would hang anyone of their pictures on my wall and consider myself blessed)

In the play they dicussed, from the soul, what is art and not art. They reached the conclusion that it is a personal journey that others may appreciate or not - it doesn't matter either way, the journey is the point.

Question to all: Is this how you see your own photography? Remember these men did not know Titian from tissue paper - they had no influence for subject other than a very small community of hard men and 'black earth'.

I look forward to your thoughts, personal views and ambitions.

 

[Andrea Taurisano]

They reached the conclusion that it is a personal journey that others may appreciate or not - it doesn't matter either way, the journey is the point.

Question to all: Is this how you see your own photography?

This is exactly how I see my photography. But then comes that ego thing in, with the need (need?) for acknowledgment, praise etc...

 

[tunalegs]

My definition of art is any work with a meaning deeper than what is explicit.

Most of my photography does not meet my definition of art as it is more or less "just look at this nice scene".

Although a personal journey could be what creates a deeper meaning in a work, I wouldn't say that it is in and of itself art.

 

[daveleo]

. . . . . . In the play they discussed, from the soul, what is art and not art. They reached the conclusion that it is a personal journey that others may appreciate or not - it doesn't matter either way, the journey is the point. . . .

This is exactly how I feel about my photography.
(But don't ask me to define "what is art" - I have no clue whatever - in fact I don't see the point in trying to put the definition in words.)

 

[robert blu]

I like the concept of the "journey" about art. And yes, my photography is a journey through various emotions and the attempt to communicate them and this is important to me. Does it mean my photography is art? Unfortunately no !
robert

 

[Sparrow]

... working class art eh? it's always had a novelty value for the elite ... a bit like brass-bands being almost music

 

[FrankS]

How about this: the art is not in the object produced, it is in the process/journey of producing it.

 

[noisycheese]

They reached the conclusion that it is a personal journey that others may appreciate or not - it doesn't matter either way, the journey is the point.

I would have to agree. If you are going to do photography - and not become discouraged and one day quit. A strong sense of self is vital to your being able to weather criticism and rejection of your work - and criticism and rejection is inevitable, unless you hide your work from the world.

This is exactly how I see my photography. But then comes that ego thing in, with the need (need?) for acknowledgment, praise etc...

I have been there - it's not a good place. You cannot live or die based on what other people think or say about your photography. You cannot give away your power to the critics. If you do, you will not survive as a photographer. You will not endure. You will not persevere. Sooner of later, you will give up and quit.

Somehow - without even realizing I did this - I was able to strip the emotion out of the "back end" of the photography equation and infuse it into the "front end" of the equation. It may well be that I was able to do this as a result of reading and internalizing this book: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1936891026 I would highly advocate that anyone who is serious about "making it as a photographer" (however you define "making it") buy and read this book. Read it multiple times, not just once. Internalize the information presented in this book. It is vital.

What does this mean?

The "back end" of the equation is what other people say about your photography after the fact. The desire for the approval of other people is tied to this. You have to strip all the meaning out of what other people say. You have to strip all emotion out of your reaction to what other people say. Their critique, their opinion, has to be completely and totally irrelevant to you. You have to get to the point where you really don't care what other people say or think.

Your worldview has to be "I will do this no matter what other people say or think. I will not EVER stop because a gallery said 'no, thanks' to my work."

No simply means "not yet." It does not mean "not ever." One gallery said "no, thanks." So what?? That was one gallery. There are 6500 other galleries in the U.S. One - or maybe even several - are bound to say yes. It is inevitable if you do your part.

When a gallery says "no thanks" to your work, It doesn't mean anything other than you presented your work to a gallery that for whatever reason could not appreciate your particular photographic vision. There are no absolutes for determining what constitutes "good" phtotography or "bad" photography in the world of artistic photography.

In the end, acceptance or rejection is only about the personal opinion of the particular gallery curator or owner that you presented your work to. It's all personal opinion, nothing more. There is no failure. There is only feedback.

What does "infusing emotion into the 'front end' of the equation" mean? It means you invest yourself emotionally in the creation of your work. You pour your heart and soul into your camera, your subject matter, your images and your finished prints. You take that craving that used to be craving for the approval of other people and transform it into craving for perfection in every facet of your images and prints: Subject selection, lens selection, exposure, composition, the instant you fire the shutter, the follow up shots, the recomposing of follow up shots, the processing of your film (or of your RAW files), the printing of your images, your signature on your images or on the matting, the matting and framing - you relentlessly pursue perfection in every facet, every detail. It means you commit yourself ten thousand percent to the realization of photographic perfection.

Of course, perfection is an extremely elusive thing. We seek it yet we hardly ever achieve it. Thank God for that! Anyone who thinks they have achieved photographic perfection is only fooling themselves. A photographer never truly "arrives" at perfection.

In any given year, the most a photographer can realistically hope for is to produce an outstanding image once every few months, along with a few images that are great, a handful that are good, a wagon-load that are okay, a train-load that are marginal and a Grand Canyon full of images that are missed shots or just plain crap. Robert Frank started a project once. He exposed over 27,000 negatives for this project. Out of 27,000 negatives, he selected just 83 images for inclusion in this project. The result was his landmark book, Americans.

Some may think I'm full of hogwash. If so, they are welcome to that opinion because I don't really care what they think. All I can say is that the above has been what I have experienced on my journey.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Well said noisycheese..
I agree.

 

[alistair.o]

... working class art eh? it's always had a novelty value for the elite ... a bit like brass-bands being almost music

No, not working class or any other class Stewart, but simply uneducated, hard working people ( miners in this case) who had no knowledge of much at all outside their Ashington North Eastern confines.

I realise that our country is riddled with a class system in every area of life. But I never mentioned it in this particular case (though you may see it as self evident) What I am addressing is the fact that they worked for 12 hours in the most dismal back breaking conditions and yet, when they realised that they could be 'artists' they were able to see and be taken on a journey and did not deviate or be persuaded into another persons view or vision and certainly not the mindset of 'these paints are better than those paints and these brushes are better than your' brushes etc.,

Theirs was a journey that they had to be on whether they used whitewash and or left over gloss paint (and they did) or oils, it made no odds. What mattered is that it had to come out, in their own style.

As has been said they made art by reproducing their live and living on a base. It is on show now as a legacy (a word I know you have little time for, though strange to tell you produce art of quality, compiled in print for both today and tomorrow - one of these you are experiencing and the other who knows, until tomorrow comes that is)

 

[semi-ambivalent]

I can recommend Art & Fear , 978-0-9614547-3-9. And don't forget to have fun, no need to cut your ear off like Kirk Douglas...

s-a

 

[Sparrow]

No, not working class or any other class Stewart, but simply uneducated, hard working people ( miners in this case) who had no knowledge of much at all outside their Ashington North Eastern confines.

I realise that our country is riddled with a class system in every area of life. But I never mentioned it in this particular case (though you may see it as self evident) What I am addressing is the fact that they worked for 12 hours in the most dismal back breaking conditions and yet, when they realised that they could be 'artists' they were able to see and be taken on a journey and did not deviate or be persuaded into another persons view or vision and certainly not the mindset of 'these paints are better than those paints and these brushes are better than your' brushes etc.,

Theirs was a journey that they had to be on whether they used whitewash and or left over gloss paint (and they did) or oils, it made no odds. What mattered is that it had to come out, in their own style.

As has been said they made art by reproducing their live and living on a base. It is on show now as a legacy (a word I know you have little time for, though strange to tell you produce art of quality, compiled in print for both today and tomorrow - one of these you are experiencing and the other who knows, until tomorrow comes that is)

Uneducated? ... I suspect not self improvement was a big part of the working class ethos in those days and the arts played a part in that education. They were certainly working class ... you would find few educated public schoolboys choosing to a career in mining in those days, my grandfather played cornet and trumpet, listened to opera and could recite Yates at will all self taught after leaving school at 13 and working in a textile mill fifty odd hours a week ... I suspect they were very aware of the world and their place in it

 

[Andrea Taurisano]

I would have to agree. If you are going to do photography - and not become discouraged and one day quit. A strong sense of self is vital to your being able to weather criticism and rejection of your work - and criticism and rejection is inevitable, unless you hide your work from the world.



I have been there - it's not a good place. You cannot live or die based on what other people think or say about your photography. You cannot give away your power to the critics. If you do, you will not survive as a photographer. You will not endure. You will not persevere. Sooner of later, you will give up and quit.

Somehow - without even realizing I did this - I was able to strip the emotion out of the "back end" of the photography equation and infuse it into the "front end" of the equation. It may well be that I was able to do this as a result of reading and internalizing this book: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1936891026 I would highly advocate that anyone who is serious about "making it as a photographer" (however you define "making it") buy and read this book. Read it multiple times, not just once. Internalize the information presented in this book. It is vital.

What does this mean?

The "back end" of the equation is what other people say about your photography after the fact. The desire for the approval of other people is tied to this. You have to strip all the meaning out of what other people say. You have to strip all emotion out of your reaction to what other people say. Their critique, their opinion, has to be completely and totally irrelevant to you. You have to get to the point where you really don't care what other people say or think.

Your worldview has to be "I will do this no matter what other people say or think. I will not EVER stop because a gallery said 'no, thanks' to my work."

No simply means "not yet." It does not mean "not ever." One gallery said "no, thanks." So what?? That was one gallery. There are 6500 other galleries in the U.S. One - or maybe even several - are bound to say yes. It is inevitable if you do your part.

When a gallery says "no thanks" to your work, It doesn't mean anything other than you presented your work to a gallery that for whatever reason could not appreciate your particular photographic vision. There are no absolutes for determining what constitutes "good" phtotography or "bad" photography in the world of artistic photography.

In the end, acceptance or rejection is only about the personal opinion of the particular gallery curator or owner that you presented your work to. It's all personal opinion, nothing more. There is no failure. There is only feedback.

What does "infusing emotion into the 'front end' of the equation" mean? It means you invest yourself emotionally in the creation of your work. You pour your heart and soul into your camera, your subject matter, your images and your finished prints. You take that craving that used to be craving for the approval of other people and transform it into craving for perfection in every facet of your images and prints: Subject selection, lens selection, exposure, composition, the instant you fire the shutter, the follow up shots, the recomposing of follow up shots, the processing of your film (or of your RAW files), the printing of your images, your signature on your images or on the matting, the matting and framing - you relentlessly pursue perfection in every facet, every detail. It means you commit yourself ten thousand percent to the realization of photographic perfection.

Of course, perfection is an extremely elusive thing. We seek it yet we hardly ever achieve it. Thank God for that! Anyone who thinks they have achieved photographic perfection is only fooling themselves. A photographer never truly "arrives" at perfection.

In any given year, the most a photographer can realistically hope for is to produce an outstanding image once every few months, along with a few images that are great, a handful that are good, a wagon-load that are okay, a train-load that are marginal and a Grand Canyon full of images that are missed shots or just plain crap. Robert Frank started a project once. He exposed over 27,000 negatives for this project. Out of 27,000 negatives, he selected just 83 images for inclusion in this project. The result was his landmark book, Americans.

Some may think I'm full of hogwash. If so, they are welcome to that opinion because I don't really care what they think. All I can say is that the above has been what I have experienced on my journey.

I agree on each and every word you wrote. The point I was making was exactly that it takes time and a genuine effort to overcome the natural human tendency to crave for praise, appreciation and so on.

That craving for aknowledgment and praise, for a "wide fan club" if you will, isn't just in the way as we pursue arts, but we see it pretty much everywhere out there. It traces back to evolution, where it all makes sense indeed. A while back I remember writing a short post on my blog exactly on what do do with critique (http://ilcimento.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/what-to-do-with-critique/), so I'm getting there.. BTW, the book you suggested is in my cart now.

 

[noisycheese]

I agree on each and every word you wrote. The point I was making was exactly that it takes time and a genuine effort to overcome the natural human tendency to crave for praise, appreciation and so on.

That craving for aknowledgment and praise, for a "wide fan club" if you will, isn't just in the way as we pursue arts, but we see it pretty much everywhere out there. It traces back to evolution, where it all makes sense indeed. A while back I remember writing a short post on my blog exactly on what do do with critique (http://ilcimento.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/what-to-do-with-critique/), so I'm getting there.. BTW, the book you suggested is in my cart now.

You are correct.

This issue appears to be related to a concept found in psychology called locus of control (internal locus of control vs. external locus of control).

Those with a high external locus of control are given to the desire to fit in, to be accepted by a particular group or groups of people and have a desire to be "popular." They therefore tailor their actions - and their lives - to garner the approval and acceptance of others.

Those with a high internal locus of control are more individualistic. They are more self-directed than those who seek the acceptance and approval of a given group/groups or of society in general. They tend to be lone wolf types who march to the beat of their own drum.

In some facets of photography, a high external locus of control would seem to be beneficial. Wedding photography, fashion photography and commercial photography come to mind.

On the other hand, a high internal locus of control would seem to be beneficial for those who pursue other facets of photography such as fine art, street and documentary.

I am not a psychologist; that is just my take on this issue based on personal observation and experience.

 

[robert blu]

Interesting points Andrea and Noisycheese, thanks. I'll try to find that book.
robert

 

[alistair.o]

Noisycheese, yes indeed. It is exactlly as you surmise. The miners in the play (and in reality) did not care what others thought, though they did have to show their works to each other at each session, under the direction of the 'visiting tutor' . In fact the tutor was struck by the immediate talent demonstrtated and the fact that they painted what they saw in the style that they had within.

It is certain that their eyes and minds were opened totally the first time they saw the work of (and ever heard the name of) Vincent Van Gogh. They rejoiced in his freedom to interpret what he saw without recourse to the establishment.

This is the last time I mention this fact: this whole subject was for them 'Classless' as it is for those who are enlightened. In the soul there is no class, only freedom or bondage.