Can we all be photographers?

Thanks for pointing out this article. The author illuminates one of the prime differences in photography contrasted to other visual arts: Most visual arts are additive, the artist adding to the image until he/she feels it is complete, then stops.

The photographer starts with the chaos of reality and subtracts elements from within the frame until the arrangement says what he/she wants it to say.
 
Bike Tourist said:
Thanks for pointing out this article. The author illuminates one of the prime differences in photography contrasted to other visual arts: Most visual arts are additive, the artist adding to the image until he/she feels it is complete, then stops.

The photographer starts with the chaos of reality and subtracts elements from within the frame until the arrangement says what he/she wants it to say.
Click to expand...

Here, we can remember Antoine de Saint-Éxupery's words, "p[SIZE=-1]erfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away".[/SIZE]
 
The Saint-Exupery quote is a bit taken out of its context, and it might sound very different like this. Or even mean nothing.
 
I don't see anything wrong with the article, or the ideas expressed within it.

But then, I get rather amused when people go on about the master talents of a guy who shot thousands and thousands of frames without ever seeing the results. IMHO, the street photographer who thinks the main idea is to never stop shooting is nothing more than a monkey pounding keys - eventually a bit of Shakespear is bound to pop out of the typewrite.

I'd rather spend my time and money picking my shots. Sure, I'll take a lot of chances, bracket my shots, waste film, hoping something works better than I think it will. But I don't walk down the street hammering the shutter, either. Or sit at one corner and take ten shots of everything each minute, supposedly waiting for that "one shot." I'd rather go find that shot than sit in one place all day hoping lightning strikes in front of me by pure blind luck.

To be entirely fair, I often am convinced I am that monkey at the typewriter :)
 
Sorry 40oz, but your post somewhat associates me to a party i am not in. I asked Fred with full sincerity and good intention and so far as i am concerned I will like to hear his anwer.

I am sort of throwing on you cold water, kindly excuss me one time.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
sitemistic said:
I think the article is o.k., but kind of banal itself. He uses an entire column to describe what it is good photograhers do, like his is some rare epiphany. He simply seems to be stating the obvious.
Click to expand...


Good point, and this may explain Fred's negative reaction too.

Thanks,
Ruben
 
ruben said:
Sorry 40oz, but your post somewhat associates me to a party i am not in. I asked Fred with full sincerity and good intention and so far as i am concerned I will like to hear his anwer.

I am sort of throwing on you cold water, kindly excuss me one time.

Cheers,
Ruben
Click to expand...

no problem. I was poking fun at another for being willing to comment but not brave enough to explain.

I kind of agree with sitemistic, but would perhaps suggest that what is obvious to him is not necessarily obvious to everyone in the world. The banal to a resident of Bangkok is exotic to a resident of Baltimore. That's the very fact that so many photographers trade on. Exotic locales are hardly exotic to the locals.
 
So far I've read just he first 3 paragraphs.

While I agree with the author that it would be possible for an amateur to pick up a camera the first time and get a great shot by accident, I begin to disagree right away when he talks about questioning the ability of a photographer with an exhibition. An exhibition means many great photographs, and that is something an untalented photographer can not come up with by luck or accident.
 
Sometimes a photographer becomes famous due to the subject matter, and not the actual photography. I'm thinking of (is it?) Linda McCartney and her pictures of the beatles. And then there's Karsch, clearly with talent, but if his portraits were of Uncle Joe instead of Churchill and all the other famous people he had (often exclusive) access to, I doubt he'd be as famous.
 
Last edited:
Unusually uninsightful for such a large paper. As great photographers might have a bad frame here or there, writers are allowed to have a bad column from time to time.

B2 (;->
 
Hmmm nothing sensational until i came to Lee Miller:
"who the apparently dilettante nature of her portfolio, ranging from surrealist experiments with Man Ray through landscape shots of the Egyptian desert, wartime reportage..."
That's an attitude I don't like...That's a whole life as a photographer reduced to a "portfolio that ranges". She took photographs of concentration camps and accompanied troops in wartime. That's overstretching the word dillettante a bit.
 
Can we all be photographers? Yes we can.
Can we all be great photographers? No we can't.
Can we stll enjoy photography without being great photographers? Sure we can!
 
Last edited:
40oz said:
how many actually made it to the end of the article before commenting?
Click to expand...
I did, and my thoughts about the article (and the writer) didn't change from the first paragraph:

"Give me back my 5 minutes"

just kidding...

I didn't regret reading the article, from time-to-time we need to read various views to balance our own. But I cannot but feel pity to the writer who (at least in this article) seems to have prevented himself from appreciating beauty for what it is.

I agree that sometimes the banal takes center-stage leaving people like the writer (and most of us) saying "huh??"

But real beauty is real beauty.

I think he's wrong in two aspects:

First, "but beauty is quite an easy trick for photography to pull off."

The fact that it's "instant" does not reduce or cheapen the beauty. To follow the writer's musical analogy, I think of photography as similar to playing the piano. It took *NO* effort at all to hit the right key on a piano. Unlike guitar or the violin.

But only the piano that can exude the same grandeur as an orchestra, taking each of the symphonic parts and bring it together, with ten fingers, what the same ten cannot do with the violin.

Secondly, talking about Lee Miller, "There's no question that there are seriously good photographs here – but that still doesn't quite answer the question of whether she's a seriously good photographer, rather than an unusually persistent one with great access."

Here the writer wrote off persistence as though it's something easy. Persistence to a great photographer is like water to the fish. It is necessary for where they want to go. There are no such thing as lucky great photographers, but only *persistent* ones can be labeled as "great".

I saw the picture that the writer refers to, Lee Miller's "Portrait of Space" in the magazine. I liked the picture instantly without having to see "the others that she discards". I appreciate her eyes to capture the emptiness and make a beautiful picture out of it. And those eyes were not developed by "luck".

An innately talented photographer will go nowhere beyond "lucky" shots if he or she does not do anything about it... persistently.

I think the writer should take up photography rather than writing about it :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom