What's the best ...?

[Simon Larbalestier]

With photography, you, your camera and film are just recording (stealing) reflected light from two and three dimensional objects. Nothing more and a lot less.

Best,
George

Well i've never seen this way but i guess we are all different.....

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

What I've been doing is browsing the RFF Galleries and Flickr then going out and trying to duplicate particular photos that I like. Of course, with photography, you can't really duplicate a shot but I try to get the same type of composition and, more importantly, the feel of the photograph. Its somewhat like a beginning musician playing covers I guess. I'm hoping that eventually I will stop emulating and start creating photographs on my own.

I just don't understand this methodology how can emulating the works of others even down to the "feel" of the photograph ever advance your own personal vision

Maybe i missed something along the road in the last 20 years but surely you have enough about you to make your own statements about life using a camera without the need to emulate others.....?

 

[Jocko]

All photography is craft. Some (a little) of it is also art. The crucial step is that someone (not just the photographer) is willing to designate it as art and (perhaps even more crucially) that someone is willing to give it public exposure as such. The more a particular exhibit generates 'artistic' interest, the more it acquires the status of one.

To my surprise, I partly disagree. We may now have a rather narrow, socio-economic definition of art, but that reflects a debased use of language. If one looks in old texts one finds not "art" but "the art" - art was (I would say is) the process of creation, the doing, not the done - something which lies in the individual, not the public realm. The thing created is simply a result of that process, whose value lies precisely in the personal vision Simon describes. Intriguingly, looking yet further back, we find that the word art derives from (Latin ars) simply meant "skill in joining together", exactly as Donald says.

So - perhaps a "good photograph" is one which joins people together, effectively communicating personal vision and experience.

Cheers, Ian

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

So - perhaps a "good photograph" is one which joins people together, effectively communicating personal vision and experience.

Cheers, Ian

Ian i like this definition - well reasoned. I think also a "good" photograph is one which touches, moves and inspires people. It may also have the potential to act as a catalyst.

 

[Pherdinand]

What's the best way to become a better photographer?

SHoot, shoot and shoot.
And read stuff written by photographers you like, try to familiarize with the idea they had in their head. In addition, if you read their stuff, you might get a hint about how much film they "wasted"to get that one single famous shot.

 

[Pherdinand]

Oh and something else. Try to get out with the camera with a well defined plan in your head, a plan not for shooting "something that pops up" but for a few specific photographs, a theme that interests you and a theme that you know something about, or you want to know something about. This will help in consistency and in creating a good base of your work instead of having 37 different random shots on every roll.

EDIT: I see the suggestion of "shooting for your own pleasure not to satisfy others" . This comes up quite often in such discussions, the idea of you being the only one that should lkike your work.
On one hand I couldf agree...you HAVE to like what you do... On the other hand, if you do not care about anybody else's oppinion, it has the risk of becoming an introverted activity, an intellectual masturbation if you pardon me the expression. A l'art pour l'art. Now, some people are perfectly fine with practicing such a hobby, but it certainly does no good to your social life, to your popularity and to your self confidence if any of these things matter to you at all.

 

[telenous]

To my surprise, I partly disagree. We may now have a rather narrow, socio-economic definition of art, but that reflects a debased use of language. If one looks in old texts one finds not "art" but "the art" - art was (I would say is) the process of creation, the doing, not the done - something which lies in the individual, not the public realm. The thing created is simply a result of that process, whose value lies precisely in the personal vision Simon describes. Intriguingly, looking yet further back, we find that the word art derives from (Latin ars) simply meant "skill in joining together", exactly as Donald says.

So - perhaps a "good photograph" is one which joins people together, effectively communicating personal vision and experience.

Cheers, Ian

Ian,

You make a sound point (and one which, to be honest, I hadn't thought of). Shifts in language meaning are not unusual, perhaps (almost certainly I now think) 'art' is one of them. Interestingly, the very word for 'poetry' in classical (but also modern) Greek ('ποίησις") is etymologically related to the verb "ποιώ", i.e. to make, to create. It is telling that there is no connotation other than the very act of creation in that word.

On the other hand, our present understanding of the word 'art' seems to be induced by a certain socio-economic practice; a practice perhaps foreign to other cultures and without universal application across time and place.

Best,

 

[demian]

Well, now *that* is the question isn't it..

It *all* begins with the idea.

Work from the idea, your idea, whatever that may be, truthfully and sincerely, sacrificing all else for the original idea (and that can be difficult).

Everything else will fall into place.

People discuss buying gear, GAS attacks, etc. when they have no idea what they really want, or are about?! Do they know exactly why they are buying "more" for?

The *idea* selects the gear, selects the medium, developer, selects the method of final display, etc.


To find the "idea" is the trick. Originality.

*Note: not for the faint of heart. Stop now if not interested in "more"**



Tell me one thing you say or do that is uniquely your own and has never been said or done before? Not a lot...

We are all copiests and reflections of our environment, friends, family, what we see, etc.

Yes, yes, it has all been done before, and "everything is art therefore nothing is art", etc....

What I am talking about here is that thing that is genuinely yours.

You will go through Hell to find your truth, your voice.

That I feel is what your real question is. (I may be wrong)


I do not care how old you are, it is never too late and you are never too old to begin a journey. In fact, the older the better, you have already learned a lot from living.

But it is, as they say, difficult to teach an old dog...don't allow ingrained habits stop you from breaking any walls within your head/heart. the older people become the more shallow the attempts it seems...

Deal with your past. Understand it.
Find your idea ..no matter how immature it may at first seem, and work without getting sidetracked or losing your way towards that thing that originally motivated you.

Your first attempts at originality will be like baby steps. Don't be embarrassed. they are genuine, and that is what you are after.

In photography it is so easy to copy other's ideas.....don't do it.

Likewise, studying and understanding the craft is very important. how others have done it and do it, etc...

As odd as this is to say (as we do not know one another), please trust me on this.....do not study anything too much.

I am a studier/researcher by nature. I want to know and learn everything, details, dates, you name it...to no end.

IT WILL PARALYZE YOU.

Studying anything too much, even analyzing too much your ideas, will render them sterile and dead.

Feelings, genuine feelings count far more. A look at all the great artists and and all the dilettantes will instatnly reflec this.

These fleeting brilliant ideas we have during the day that we wished we could remember later and write down....GET A NOTEBOOK. CARRY IT WITH YOU ALWAYS.



And personally, I never forget the average viewer.

Art/expression/ideas are intended to be shared. We are already egotistical..all artists are..it is about us after all. We are trying to understand ourselves in relation to all else!

Art is a bridge between the creator and the viewer. I feel it is always a challenge above all to create that bridge as the human mind is very complex and our ideas likewise can be.

Contemporary art is a perfect example. I used to think they were such charlattans, what is this sillyness?!

Serioulsy, study modern art movements, it will expand your mind tremendously...photography and contemporary art go hand in hand.

I know people who practiced traditional painting and moved onto installation art. Many photogs as well...Allow yourself to learn and understand it..whether you agree or not I fel it will help assist growth and originality more than ANYTHING else.

You are not wasting time studying photog. You will always use it no matter where it takes you.

Just remember to listen to what your blood is whispering to you. It is so easy to push away thoughts, your gut. Dont be afraid if it takes you away from photography.

When we invest so much time in something we are so afraid of making a change due to the time invested...even if in our heart we know the change is the right one and will encourage growth.

Anyway, it is strange how we must reach the complete bottom to then *shoot* upwards afterwards....you will probably find that too..if you choose to continue...and others here I am sure can certainly relate.



Best
D

 

[Jocko]

Demian - one word: BRAVO!

All the best, Ian

 

[lushd]

Sigh - Demian - if I had taken one picture that had the exquisite composition, tone, colour and light of the painting in your avatar ...

Now about this vision thing; I agree wholeheartedly with you. A good picture is one powered by a vision and that communicates enough of the vision to allow others to share it in some way.

But my enquiry is not over. How do you put that vision and the clues to sharing into your picture so someone else will get it?

 

[FPjohn]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/next-level.shtml

 

[dazedgonebye]

Dear Doug,

It seems you nailed me down. Yes, that is exactly what I am saying (said). Photography has not, is not, and never will be art.

Best,
George

I could easily be convinced that I have never produced "art" with a camera, and I'm certain that a large majority of people out there clicking away have never produced art, but to make the statement you've made....sorry. Can't go with that.
I have no doubt that YOU've never experienced a photograph that you considered to be art, but I think that is a personal experience that very few here will say they share.

 

[FrankS]

EDIT: I see the suggestion of "shooting for your own pleasure not to satisfy others" . This comes up quite often in such discussions, the idea of you being the only one that should lkike your work.
On one hand I couldf agree...you HAVE to like what you do... On the other hand, if you do not care about anybody else's oppinion, it has the risk of becoming an introverted activity, an intellectual masturbation if you pardon me the expression. A l'art pour l'art. Now, some people are perfectly fine with practicing such a hobby, but it certainly does no good to your social life, to your popularity and to your self confidence if any of these things matter to you at all.

There is commercial art, where the artist needs to please others, but IMO, the really great art that has been done comes purely from the artist's heart with no attempt whatsoever to please someone else. This is not masterbation! Or maybe it is, and it is very "good" and it is recognized as Art.

I know this for sure: If an artist follows his vision and creates works purely from the heart, he has a very small chance of becoming recognised/famous. If an artist produces works with the intent of pleasing others, he has no hope of this, because his work will lack the depth of personal conviction.

I believe in this so strongly Pherdinand, that I would not hesitate to have it written on my headstone.

 

[RML]

In a related fashion... when does an artist become an artist?

Is my work art because I'm an artist, or am I an artist becaise my work is art? And what if I deny being an artist or deny my work is art? Doesn't it mostly depend on the viewer/audience/buyer/gallery/etc to "decide" what is or isn't art and who is or isn't an artist?

 

[Jocko]

In a related fashion... when does an artist become an artist

This is merely what I think. As human beings we are locked inside ourselves, limited, contained. When we bring that inside out, to manifest in the exterior world, we begin to work in the sphere of art, albeit in the very broadest sense. When we make something tangible it breaks the barrier between the self and not-self. They become one, hence to that degree we are all artists unawares.

But perhaps awareness is the point. I think that anyone who has ever worked creatively, be they knitter, sculptor, gardener, mechanic or Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, will have experienced that moment of absolute focus where self and not-self vanish and there is just perfect unity and the work in hand, which joyfully pours from the source of ones’ being. At that all too brief moment, I would say, one becomes an artist.

Cheers, Ian

 

[Pherdinand]

I know this for sure: If an artist follows his vision and creates works purely from the heart, he has a very small chance of becoming recognised/famous. If an artist produces works with the intent of pleasing others, he has no hope of this, because his work will lack the depth of personal conviction.

I believe in this so strongly Pherdinand, that I would not hesitate to have it written on my headstone.

Frank, it's fine whatever you believe in, I believe in the thing I wrote though
ANyway - about what you know "for sure"- history gave us plenty of artists who worked to please the people paying them, and created work like the Mona Lisa, the chapel of Sixtus, the pyramids, or the photo of the D-day. Of course, they were (might have been) working from the heart, but this does not conflict with the intention of pleasing others, imo.
And i also did not mean that you have to be some kind of fashion follower. I just say, it helps if you consider what people around you might prefer. It's more on the level of: you have three good ideas, they are equally appealing to you, so you go on first with the one that might appeal to some kind of "public" the most. I say nothing wrong with that.

 

[Pherdinand]

In a related fashion... when does an artist become an artist?

Is my work art because I'm an artist, or am I an artist becaise my work is art?

I think this is like the chicken and egg "problem". WHich, i heard, was solved lately, but who cares about chicken and eggs anyway, it's the symbolic problem what matters

I think everybody has to decide him/herself on being an artist or not. If he will be considered an artist in hundred years or not, that's a different matter, there we don't have a word. But if I say i'm an artist, who are you to say I'm a loser. Just like I also can write crappy stories and say I am a writer, and I'm sure my mom will like them

 

[Bertram2]

What's the best way to become a better photographer?

The "shoot-shoot-shoot" thing won't lead you anywhere. Too many prove it, their stuff still looks like the crap they have started with 40 years ago.

First of all you must be able to forget your own greatness and then to learn, from others and the from poor and faulty results you produce yourself, in a dialectical process. This is the decisive basic condition on which some people , in a second step, can build up their own evolution of craft and art.

And never forget the point of true mastership is at infinite.

Regards,
bertram

 

[telenous]

In a related fashion... when does an artist become an artist?

Is my work art because I'm an artist, or am I an artist becaise my work is art? And what if I deny being an artist or deny my work is art? Doesn't it mostly depend on the viewer/audience/buyer/gallery/etc to "decide" what is or isn't art and who is or isn't an artist?

This question is analogous to the Socratic question on piety in Plato's Euthyphro. Socrates asked whether pious acts are pious because they are preferred by the gods (for current purposes, we may substitute the gods with social acceptability). Or the gods prefer them because they are pious?

Such dilemas can be solved by deciding what is the direction of explanation. Personally, I favour the view that the artist is coming before the work of art. If it was the other way round, then there could be works of art that were created in the absence of a specific artist (e.g. by Nature). Some people will obviously say that Nature is artistic, but the lack of intention seems to me crucial in resisting the point. Could there be though an artist who has never created (nor ever will he) a work of art? Difficult question, and one that can be answered in the affirmative only if we accept that the potential to do art is sufficient for someone to be thought of as an artist.

 

[Sparrow]

This question is analogous to the Socratic question on piety in Plato's Euthyphro. Socrates asked whether pious acts are pious because they are preferred by the gods (for current purposes, we may substitute the gods with social acceptability). Or the gods prefer them because they are pious?

Such dilemas can be solved by deciding what is the direction of explanation. Personally, I favour the view that the artist is coming before the work of art. If it was the other way round, then there could be works of art that were created in the absence of a specific artist (e.g. by Nature). Some people will obviously say that Nature is artistic, but the lack of intention seems to me crucial in resisting the point. Could there be though an artist who has never created (nor ever will he) a work of art? Difficult question, and one that can be answered in the affirmative only if we accept that the potential to do art is sufficient for someone to be thought of as an artist.

I’m more comfortable with Gautier’s “Art for the art's sake" independent of either creator or critic