artists' tools

hawkeye said:
What a funny discussion. It is so "boomer-ish" in its sense of the "best" as seen from the view of middle class folk.

Artists from the cave painters on have always used the material on hand. The photographers who traipse across the American continent used lenses and processes that are primitive by current standards.

I work with lots of artists and all seem to have their own favorite materials, paints and brushes.

I love Leicas but you can certainly make great pictures with a lot simpler camera and lenes. On that score and more recently Duane Michels comes to mind. He shot his book "Sequences" with an Argus C3.

Its never the tool but the hand and eye that uses it.

Hawkeye
Click to expand...

Bull****. You're a commercial photographer and I bet a million dollars you are not shooting those magazine covers on your website with simple equipment. Your older ones were probably shot with a Hasselblad or RZ67 or maybe even 4x5 with modern lenses, your current stuff a high end digital SLR.
 
Chris

Wrong, wrong, wrong. My "high end" pro gear is a D40x with a kit 18-55mm lens, A Panasonic G-1 with lenses. And my favorite a 10MP LX3 with a sweet 24 f2 summicron. And the little ole 10 and 12MP files seem just fine mag covers and posters and the occasional billboard.

Good gear but not high end. Not a Canon or a Hassleblad (ever). Yeah I had an old well loved M4 forever with a couple of lenses.

But when I started I had an old Miranda F (who remembers that?) and it made images that I loved.

I stand by my notion that it aint the meat its the motion. Its the heart and soul of the photog and not the gear.

regards

Hawkeye
 
Ah Miranda, so sweet with a removable pentaprism and no meter and no features, just your basic hand sized SLR to grow with.........................
 
I happen to recall a specific painter using mayonnaise, it sure has caused quite a stir since it began yellowing. I won't mention the name as anyone that cares will know the name.

Jean Michel Basquiat is another that comes to mind.

Honestly, in all of the art books i've read whether biography, theory, you name it, rarely do I read about the artist (sculptor, painter, photographer) obsessing over the medium and tools.

They are too busy doing something.

my most recent painting was on found fabric, painted with driveway sealant, off white primer, painted with a stick, and some accidental boot prints from walking on it. glued to an old 6 foot projector screen. It was well received and is hanging in someones living room now.

My point is, just do something.
 
Camera bodies, like a palette in painting, only matter if they are really bad. The standard ones do the same job as the luxury versions.

Camera lenses, just like brushes in painting, make a difference but it is often one of character, not always "better" or "worse". It depends on what you're going for.

Film or a CCD/CMOS sensor, just like paints in painting, make a critical difference. And you get what you pay for. Good ones will allow you to do whatever you need to do, cheap ones are only good if you're going for the dimmer, less controllable look they limit you to.

My opinion... Hawkeye's assertion that it is "never" the equipment is hyperbole. That D40's kit lens likely rarely limits him, but a $50 Exilim with a plastic lens and a sensor the size of a grain of rice sure would.
 
Brian

My issue is with the term "best" as if that exists. And I do believe that its about the photographers eye more than the gear.

And there are artists using toy cameras producing delightful work.

Check out some of the Diana camera picture sites.

Hawkeye

Check out one of the Diana camera web sites.
 
Some painters do worry, some don't. A lot depends on the kind of work they're doing. A bit like photographers, really. Though there seems to be less of a tendency among the painters I know to slag off the viewpoints of those with whom they disagree.

It does however seem probable to me that there are other reasons for buying good tools and materials than snobbery or a misplaced belief in the totemic ability of good tools to transform the work of a mediocre craftsman.

Cheers,

R.
 
If I'm not mistaken YOU (Hawkeye Steve) were the one who introduced the word 'best' in hte discussion. Prior to your first post only the words 'good' and 'better' have been used. I agree with you that 'good enough' is 'good enough' but why raise the stink of "best" and class distinctions, especially without defining them.
 
hawkeye said:
Stewart,

Whoa. How did you get so many assumptions into one little artifact. We do not even know what the purpose of the cave paintings were but you are certain that the object is a decorated tool that you have decided must mean it has value.

The painters lived some 30,000 years ago and we can hardly be sure of much about their lives--especially their motives.

And look even assuming that this is a tool and is valued it certainly does not relate to the discussion of the "best" tools. For all we know this was maybe the cave painters only tool.

And the next cave over the painter there may have had a much better piece of ochre.

Hawkeye
Click to expand...

It was actually almost 4 million years ago.

Would you care to explain how your opinion, for which you offer no evidence, is more believable than mine? for which i offer clear evidence

The artefact has wear marks consistent with being used to colour a surface, therefore it's user was an artisan. The artisan went to the trouble of carving a geometric pattern into the part he held therefore it had valued as a tool for him.

q e d the ancient artist valued his tools
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
Some painters do worry, some don't. A lot depends on the kind of work they're doing. A bit like photographers, really. Though there seems to be less of a tendency among the painters I know to slag off the viewpoints of those with whom they disagree.

It does however seem probable to me that there are other reasons for buying good tools and materials than snobbery or a misplaced belief in the totemic ability of good tools to transform the work of a mediocre craftsman.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Roger, read the stuff between John Ruskin and Millais, makes Adams look mellow
 
Sparrow

Golly gosh, 4 million years ago....hmmm.....WikiP says 32,000 years ago so you might be a wee bit off. Please check The Cave Painters by Gregory Curtis who agrees on the dating and speaks to the whole notion of what was going on with the cave folks.

But in the name of general accord in the forum I will humbly agree that your 4 million year old piece of ochre was the earliest known Leica.

Hawkeye
 
As a former painter I'll say the paint & brushes do matter. Just like the lenses matter to us- if one is concerned about the way their work looks one chooses particular tools. Think a Pentax Point & Shoot on Kodak Gold 200 vs a Summicron 35 pre-ASPH on Velvia.
 
One cool feature of the Miranda was its ability to use all of those Carl Zeiss Jena, Angenieux, Schneider, etc. Exacta mount auto diaphragm lenses and retain the auto diaphragm function. If only it'd retained auto diaphragm with the Pentax adapter also.

I wonder what the Miranda Girl looks like these days. Would she have such a sultry look as she shoots her grandkids with her little digi point & shoot?
 
i've often read that some photographers are too obsessed with their gear, and that painters do not waste their time discussing and fussing about their tools. but isn't true that there are super premium quality brushes and paints that are sold for exorbitant prices? would not these represent/ be analogous to leicas? surely they do not make a better painting. thoughts?
Click to expand...
No more so than leicas making better photographs.
 
hawkeye said:
Brian

My issue is with the term "best" as if that exists. And I do believe that its about the photographers eye more than the gear.

And there are artists using toy cameras producing delightful work.
Click to expand...

As somebody else noted, you brought up "best". I'll choose to believe you just didn't quite get on track with the conversation, since the alternative is that you intentionally set up a bull**** strawman.

And all of us here are aware of the Diana/Holga phenom and the daring-in-1840 idea that art can be made with the less than "perfect". No offense, but :rolleyes: . You didn't walk into a forum of undergrads eager for your wisdom here.
 
I paint and sell them. So does my father. I know a few others too.

NONE of them sit around talking about brushes, paint and so forth. One might as well sit around talking about glue and...eggwhite. (tempera get it?)


Much as you gear obsessed photographers would like to think painters do, they dont. Really.

Sure they use the best materials they can afford. So do I when I build a porch.

I dont howver sit around for hours obsessing on internet forums about the wood and the nails, and then ripping them nails out and replacing them with others that were handforged by a Spanish virgin in 1934.

What they do discuss is technique, and any check of an art forum will show you that. But endless discussions about gear seems sort of dumb doesnt it.

(I will except from my statement the age old mystery of the 'medium' the masters used...but that fell by the wayside alongtime ago.
It is interstingly, quite akin to the Leica "glow" thing I think.)
 
Al Kaplan said:
One cool feature of the Miranda was its ability to use all of those Carl Zeiss Jena, Angenieux, Schneider, etc. Exacta mount auto diaphragm lenses and retain the auto diaphragm function. If only it'd retained auto diaphragm with the Pentax adapter also.

I wonder what the Miranda Girl looks like these days. Would she have such a sultry look as she shoots her grandkids with her little digi point & shoot?
Click to expand...

one day Al i am going to come a calling. you sir, have a wealth of information that absolutely boggles my mind. i am very keen to go visit a photographer/butterfly friend of mine in NOLA and i reckon a swing by FL will be in order!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom