What's the best ...?

Emotion

Emotion

My feeling is that it is all about getting pleasure....and giving ...
I need to feel emotion, the urgent pressure to take pictures; it can be looking at your white cat jumping on your bed or water and sky after the rain,...
And then having a camera you are very familiar with.
I feel the greatest pleasure with Ikoflex IIa- tlr for landscapes and contax RX slr shooting ferias in Spain.;)
 
lushd said:
If you have a vision as a photographer, is that enough to make you an artist? Can you be an artist without an inner vision?

Does the artist control the meaning and interpetation of his or her work?
Click to expand...
As I see it, to answer each question: Not necessarily / It's possible / It happens.

Ian brings up an interesting point, and you may think this is not related at first: who really is the maker, the "doer" of Art? Do you have to literally get your hands dirty, so to speak, or not lift a single finger, and still be creative?

Ideas are powerful. Art, evoking ideas, is often more powerful than that which simply is what it is and nothing more. For example, the tired Exhibit A: the Mona Lisa. Technically it is full of "flaws" and perfections. It has ideas executed and suggested. It is red herring and compass. Exhibit B: Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup can. It is what it is, and nothing more, yet it leaves you as the viewer to decide whether what you're seeing is Art or merely a can of soup. It is direct and elusive too. Technically it is full of "flaws" and perfections. As an idea, it still stands on its own. The debate on whether it's art or not, that work is left to us (to those that care, anyway).

The mastermind and the executioner, that's what photography as Art usually shows you. And like all living things, you may be focusing on one thing, but there are many pieces building the collective work, just like an organism. Most concentrate on the eyes, the face, and this is what the "main works" tend to be (as I see it). It is rare to see only one work and one work only as output from an artist. The artist strives to express him or herself, until they're satisfied (which is hardly ever the case) or until they're ignored by his or her public. There are artists whose public are only themselves.

This quest for "improvement" usually leads to seemingly pointless questions such as "what is the best fork for eating sweet peas?" Who cares, just grab the peas, some say. Use a knife, that's always worked for me, would say others. If the question is simply for attracting attention, then it's merely an exercise in egoism. Some people are better at it than others, and they have chosen their medium.
 
Of the 3 men that you mention, I know which 2 I respect more as artists! This is the point I've been trying to make. It is the visionaries that create art, not those who create to please others to become wealthy. Art should not be done for profit, it should be done because that is what is exploding in your head that needs to be released.

Dramatic, but trying to make my point.
Click to expand...

Yet Picasso made tons of work just to please his buyers, and became a multi-millionaire.

And that Joshua guy, he just extended what Rembrandt already did (any many of his contemporaries). Even in Da Vinci and Michelangelo's time this production-line kind of working is established and accepted. Heck, it was the sign of an accomplished artist to have such a work(sweat?)shop! And we can go back even further to Roman and Ancient Greek times, and perhaps even further, to see similar practises.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom