Morality, integrity and capability

[Sparrow]

Leighgion

Do painters have similar endless debates about how their craft had more integrity when they had to mix their own paints out of two colors as opposed to being able to buy endless shades in tubes from the store? About how there should be rules about how many colors you can buy per month? OK, I'm sure it comes up occasionally, but I'll bet the bulk of modern painters are quite happy they don't have to painstakingly slave over two pigments just to get a couple extra colours so they can think about actually painting.

I do, Designer by profession, i have eight airbrushes and two compressors at the last count, artist friends discuss the same stuff as everybody else, both kit and motivation.

Generally speaking limiting your colour pallet makes life easier not harder, and yes grinding pigments by hand is a pain and I hope the art-schools have stopped the practice.

I was actually thinking more about a personal integrity, I know its foolish but if I have to sharpen a photo I value the print less, and I'm not sure why, I don't think anybody else feels like that.

 

[Leighgion]

I was thinking more about a personal integrity, I know its foolish but if I have to sharpen a photo I value the print less, and I'm not sure why, I don't think anybody else feels like that.

I'm sure you're not totally alone, but.. yeah, I do rather think it's foolish and I think "integrity" is misused here as it implies value judgements on techniques, which I and others have already argued against on this thread.

Every artist absolutely has the right to reject the use of certain techniques in their own work, but it's just that -- a right to choose not to use them. While strictly speaking according to the laws of an open society, it can be argued that an artist also has the right to speak out and condemn techniques as inferior too, I feel in a larger sense that would be the real breach of integrity as it'd be striking against the spirit of artistic freedom that all artists want for themselves. If it's okay for one artist to do this and couch his personal preferences in terms of high-minded rhetoric like "morality" and "integrity," then where's it stop? Who decides these standards on purely technical issues? You end up with artistic fascism.

 

[williams473]

"I've got no problem with using whatever level or era of techniques one chooses to, but I strenuously object to complaining that newer and easier ones are available to others. If anything is immoral, it's wanting to look better by wishing everybody else looked worse."

I wasn't complaining - just my take on what I think a lot of photographers are thinking when they opt to stay with older, harder to use cameras. To point out the attitude exists doesn't mean I condone it.

I also feel there is nothing wrong with being elitist - there billions of good and bad images put out there every day and a slim, slim amount of those will ever be seen by anyone, or valued for that matter. I would put those who get their work in big galleries and in books in the "elite" category. Doesn't David Beckham know he's one of the best footballers in the World? Hasn't he earned the right to look down his nose a bit at other players? He's elite. to strive to be elite is not a negative thing in my opinion.

 

[Sparrow]

I'm sure you're not totally alone, but.. yeah, I do rather think it's foolish and I think "integrity" is misused here as it implies value judgements on techniques, which I and others have already argued against on this thread.

Every artist absolutely has the right to reject the use of certain techniques in their own work, but it's just that -- a right to choose not to use them. While strictly speaking according to the laws of an open society, it can be argued that an artist also has the right to speak out and condemn techniques as inferior too, I feel in a larger sense that would be the real breach of integrity as it'd be striking against the spirit of artistic freedom that all artists want for themselves. If it's okay for one artist to do this and couch his personal preferences in terms of high-minded rhetoric like "morality" and "integrity," then where's it stop? Who decides these standards on purely technical issues? You end up with artistic fascism.

Intellectually I agree to almost all of that, however it's not my choice, I can't choose which print to value most, that's a heart thing not a head thing.

I was hoping to discus other peoples values, NOT trying to claim my values have any particular value, they don't

 

[Nh3]

We often deceive ourselves more than anyone else. We seek comfort convenience and the short cut; we want fast results, less effort and more appreciation. In this post-modern age we are no longer individuals but consumers of products, thoughts and ideas propagated by the collective - the market.

Anyway, my point is that every man creates an essence for his life through his own force of creativity and the more individual the creative force the more authentic the essence of that individuals being.

Create your own values and live by them, that's what I think.

 

[Sparrow]

I blame all of this on Ansel Adams.

yep, come the revolution that one goes to the mines

 

[BillP]

Mines are too good for him. He should be sentenced to pack-shooting for Marmite.

Regards,

Bill

 

[Sparrow]

Mines are too good for him. He should be sentenced to pack-shooting for Marmite.

Regards,

Bill

eating it 😀😀 better still

 

[Leighgion]

...to strive to be elite is not a negative thing in my opinion.

You and I are looking at different aspects of "elite."

I personally can be very fairly accused of elitism in many ways. Do I look down on people who go on and on about American Idol? Yes I do. Do I consider it Philistine and plebeian to avoid movies with subtitles in favor of dubs? Oh yes.

The type of elitism I object to in terms of art, and specifically the march of technology making photography widespread, is the desire to hold back time so that the artform remains the domain of a very few rather than be democratized. This isn't striving for excellence, it's a desire to deny access to the tools of art thus maintain a synthetic elite. I hate that. It goes back to looking better by making sure nobody else has a chance to even try to look good.

I may be a movie snob, but I will happily welcome anybody else to cultivate their taste. I want more people to watch and appreciate Tarkovsky, not hide his works away so I can do obscure name dropping.

 

[Leighgion]

Intellectually I agree to almost all of that, however it's not my choice, I can't choose which print to value most, that's a heart thing not a head thing.

I was hoping to discus other peoples values, NOT trying to claim my values have any particular value, they don't

Fair enough.

Still, I feel like there's not much special to be said about values regarding photography. Far as I see it, my own values cover photography the same as they do everything else. Photography is special to me only in that I spend more time on it that I do some other things and so naturally it gets more attention. I feel that, with adaption for context, I apply pretty much all the same values to photography as I would to writing, shooting video or making a short speech.

 

[georgef]

You and I are looking at different aspects of "elite."

I personally can be very fairly accused of elitism in many ways. Do I look down on people who go on and on about American Idol? Yes I do. Do I consider it Philistine and plebeian to avoid movies with subtitles in favor of dubs? Oh yes.

The type of elitism I object to in terms of art, and specifically the march of technology making photography widespread, is the desire to hold back time so that the artform remains the domain of a very few rather than be democratized. This isn't striving for excellence, it's a desire to deny access to the tools of art thus maintain a synthetic elite. I hate that. It goes back to looking better by making sure nobody else has a chance to even try to look good.

I may be a movie snob, but I will happily welcome anybody else to cultivate their taste. I want more people to watch and appreciate Tarkovsky, not hide his works away so I can do obscure name dropping.

I agree with your previous rant L, but this one blew chunks for me my friend: being an elitist is a frame of mind: a wine snob, is also a camera snob, also a car snob, a movie snob.... justifying one kind of elit and putting down another is, well very bourgeoisie no?😉

"...why can't we all just...get along?..." Jack Nickolson, MARS ATTACKS

 

[Leighgion]

I agree with your previous rant L, but this one blew chunks for me my friend: being an elitist is a frame of mind: a wine snob, is also a camera snob, also a car snob, a movie snob.... justifying one kind of elit and putting down another is, well very bourgeoisie no?😉

"...why can't we all just...get along?..." Jack Nickolson, MARS ATTACKS

OK, how's this then: eliteness is now mandatory. You are not allowed to settle, ever, in anything, or permit it in others. Is that a more egalitarian form of eliteness? 😀

 

[Sparrow]

Fair enough.

Still, I feel like there's not much special to be said about values regarding photography. Far as I see it, my own values cover photography the same as they do everything else. Photography is special to me only in that I spend more time on it that I do some other things and so naturally it gets more attention. I feel that, with adaption for context, I apply pretty much all the same values to photography as I would to writing, shooting video or making a short speech.

That's fine then, I'm not trying to convert anyone here, if you don't think there's anything special to be said about values in photography feel free not to contribute further.

I'll continue to try to understand myself better by inquiring about the values others hold if you don't mind.

 

[Sparrow]

Stewart and Bill,
I think you'll have to dig him up first.😉

I'm game 😀

suppose he is by now

 

[benlees]

My answer is no on all three. It is up to you. I forget who said it but it goes something like: "The photograph starts after the shutter is released." Is this true? Sure... Obviously, the image is a manipulation of varying degrees, before or after the shutter is pressed, whether we believe it or not. Doesn't matter if you are a master printer, PS whiz, or a lets-get-it-right-the-first-time type of person. One approach has no more integrity than any other without a context. Why is it a photograph?

This thread ties in well with Roger Hick's thread 'Propaganda'.

 

[Al Patterson]

I believe this argument also occured in a cave in the Neander Valley.

Does this make criticism the oldest profession?

 

[amateriat]

So assuming my presumption that some of us are frustrated painters holds true, we tend to hold on tightly to the more difficult and antiquated processes of photography - because it means we can still do something others can't.

In some limited quarters, I think this is true, unfortunately: the "every bum a photographer/every photographer a bum" thing.

However, one of the interesting quirks of human nature, IMO, is that, the easier something becomes to do, the less interesting that thing ultimately becomes. Lots of people can buy a dSLR, take a bunch of pictures, get them into a computer, and spit them out unto the Web. That part is now (relatively) easy. How many of them will be interested in kicking their photography up to the next level? Damn few, I'd say. A few will discover that they had a "good eye" all this time, and for those lucky few, technology has offered them a conduit to let that "eye" develop and flourish. For everyone else, tough darts. Getting pictures out of a camera has rarely been difficult; tweaking them to a fare-thee-well, has gotten easier, but you still need an idea and some basic technical chops just to make a half-assed fabrication (for Art or deception, or Artful Deception...I really should copyright that last one 🙂). The digital Etch-a-Sketch thing is entertaining for a while, but many will move on to the next modern distraction rather than sweat the details to raise their creative game another notch or two.

As a more nefarious mind than mine once offered: technology won't chew the food for you.


- Barrett