I recieved an email today...

Seriously you all did not understand what he means? I guess you need to be not native english speaker, like me, to undestand it then 🙂

He means that the photography (as art) is becoming so predictable and monotonous, giving you what you expect you to see, meaning there is less/no creativity, like replication of each other, like everyone is having a chorus. Most people are trying to make pretty pictures with no meanings or messages behind. Yes I kinda agree with that. For example there is a big misperception of photography between people that the sharp, saturated photos are good.

It is funny though how he made us to think on what he wrote, like in art. People derives their own meaning/story behind it and find themselves in it...That is how the photography must be to my opinion. He is right.
 
Will, Doug, I think this is a little different. I'd consider myself far more 'subject orientated' than aesthetics in most cases, in fact I care very little for photographs that have nothing but aesthetics. What I find interesting about his comments (I've spoken to him in person about this too) was that he only values artworks that were created with a complete vision that was formed before the artwork was created. While this is possible to do in photography, I argued that it isn't necessary that you have a rigid plan set out beforehand in order to create good work. That good work and the depth of a photo especially can be, or is formed after it is taken.

I tried to put it in words here if you're keen to have a read of my thoughts http://rustyclockwork.blogspot.com/2011/08/this-photo-isnt-art-i-received-email.html#comments
And to add to that, I do have a general broad theme and also a genre of photography. But have a read of that post and hopefully you'll understand what I mean by it.

True Juan, but I think it still raised an interesting belief. It is also a little sad as this person and I are quite close and he used to call me up to get creative inspiration. So it was pretty sweet to find out what he thought...
 
LeicaFoReVer said:
He means that the photography (as art) is becoming so predictable and monotonous, giving you what you expect you to see, meaning there is less/no creativity, like replication of each other, like everyone is having a chorus. Most people are trying to make pretty pictures with no meanings or messages behind. Yes I kinda agree with that. For example there is a big misperception of photography between people that the sharp, saturated photos are good.
Click to expand...

I actually had a chat with him in person shortly after he wrote that to me, he didn't mean what you said exactly. More so that art needs to have an intention before it can be created and that the full depth of the artwork should be decided upon before starting. For example, when you paint a painting, knowing how you will paint different objects to represent all the themes and how they will relate to each other on the canvas. I argued that photography works differently in many cases, but that does not mean it isn't 'art'.
 
Neare said:
I actually had a chat with him in person shortly after he wrote that to me, he didn't mean what you said exactly. More so that art needs to have an intention before it can be created and that the full depth of the artwork should be decided upon before starting. For example, when you paint a painting, knowing how you will paint different objects to represent all the themes and how they will relate to each other on the canvas. I argued that photography works differently in many cases, but that does not mean it isn't 'art'.
Click to expand...

Just read to him what I wrote and ask if he agrees then 😀
 
Neare said:
I actually had a chat with him in person shortly after he wrote that to me, he didn't mean what you said exactly. More so that art needs to have an intention before it can be created and that the full depth of the artwork should be decided upon before starting. For example, when you paint a painting, knowing how you will paint different objects to represent all the themes and how they will relate to each other on the canvas. I argued that photography works differently in many cases, but that does not mean it isn't 'art'.
Click to expand...


To me, what your friend is doing is comparing apples to oranges in his mind without maybe realizing how distinct his art is from photography. Some things of course you can plan and put deep thought into before taking the photo, but the brilliance in photography is the photographer's awareness of his surrounding and his or her creative eye that captures this world around us in a way that others (or just you) can appreciate. Appreciation can be on many different levels, whether that instills a sense of happiness, sadness, nostalgia or a creativity that is admirable, or the photographer's ability to recreate a moment that puts the viewer in that scene.
A photograph is frozen moment in time that so often cannot be planned ahead of time or ever recreated. You have to get that shot on the first chance or it is gone forever. Sure you can put yourself in an environment where you are more likely to get a shot worth keeping, but the way a painter thinks about a painting before starting cannot be the same process on many levels that a photographer would take. I'm really talking about street photography which is what we mostly shoot here.
 
Last edited:
huntjump said:
To me, what your friend is doing is comparing apples to oranges in his mind without maybe realizing how distinct his art is from photography. Some things of course you can plan and put deep thought into before taking the photo, but the brilliance in photography is the photographer's awareness of his surrounding and his or her creative eye that captures this world around us in a way that others (or just you) can appreciate. Appreciation can be on many different levels, whether that instills a sense of happiness, sadness, nostalgia or a creativity that is admirable, or the photographer's ability to recreate a moment that puts the viewer in that scene.
A photograph is frozen moment in time that so often cannot be planned ahead of time or ever recreated. You have to get that shot on the first chance or it is gone forever. Sure you can put yourself in an environment where you are more likely to get a shot worth keeping, but the way a painter thinks about a painting before starting cannot be the same process on many levels that a photographer would take. I'm really talking about street photography which is what we mostly shoot here.
Click to expand...


Come on you can plan your photographs too. You can stage, you can use models and other aids. There are people doing it (as art, not talking about fashion photography). Surely you can not plan all. Street photography for example.
 
Last edited:
huntjump said:
To me, what your friend is doing is comparing apples to oranges in his mind without maybe realizing how distinct his art is from photography. Some things of course you can plan and put deep thought into before taking the photo, but the brilliance in photography is the photographer's awareness of his surrounding and his or her creative eye that captures this world around us in a way that others (or just you) can appreciate. Appreciation can be on many different levels, whether that instills a sense of happiness, sadness, nostalgia or a creativity that is admirable, or the photographer's ability to recreate a moment that puts the viewer in that scene.
A photograph is frozen moment in time that so often cannot be planned ahead of time or ever recreated. You have to get that shot on the first chance or it is gone forever. Sure you can put yourself in an environment where you are more likely to get a shot worth keeping, but the way a painter thinks about a painting before starting cannot be the same process on many levels that a photographer would take. I'm really talking about street photography which is what we mostly shoot here.
Click to expand...

Indeed, this is more or less what I wrote about in my blog. I used the word 'instinct', that although a photographer can choose b&w or colour, locations etc. to help convey a certain theme, the photograph opportunity only appears for an instant and photographers use their instinct to take what they hope will be a good photo. The world doesn't pause and arrange itself to the photographer's whims.
 
LeicaFoReVer said:
Come on you can plan your photographs too. You can stage, you can use models and other aids. There are people doing it (as art, not talking about fashion photography). Surely you can not plan all. Street photography for example.
Click to expand...

Well if you reread what I wrote, that is specifically what I am referring to here. I'm not suggesting all forms of photography are purely spontaneous. But the style of shooting I, Neare and many others shoot is precisely street. Sure there can be some planning but I'm arguing it is different than the way a painter plans and the lens in which OP's friend is looking at Neare's photos is skewed to his painter's perception, in my opinion of course.
 
What an artist intends, and what an artist achieves, are two distinct things. It is not at all clear that an artist must have an explicit plan to achieve "art". In fact, some of the least interesting art is ideological and clearly planned. Do we really believe that a photographer must have a representational or symbolic plan in mind for her photography to be meaningful? Don't know about others, but for me conceptual art, in painting, photography, acting, or writing is a stretch. And when you need a story to make a photograph "art" you are raising justifying rhetoric, not imagery, to an art form.
Just my 2¢ worth. But worth a whole lot more when you understand my intentions, of course.
 
I wouldn't ever try to push meaning on a viewer of my photographs and I would never demand it in any photograph either. The photo had a meaning that was personal to the painter and he shouldn't let your lack of intent affect his ultimate value in the photograph. It would appear that he is trying to provide a reason for his own pretentiousness and is unable to appreciate the inherent beauty of aesthetic works of art. As he makes demands of the photographer to suit his own needs, he ignores or misrepresents the needs or desires of other viewers and denies their and your freedom to view your photographs with a unique eye.

Photographs that are a reflection of the photographer and express something of meaning greater than the photographer, for me, qualify as art. A well done wedding photo or portrait may never be art, except for the subject. Others may view an abstract work as rubbish or brilliance, the determining factor is not the photographer's or painter's intent, but the interpretation of the viewer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom