No question about it. I completely agree. But, something most non pros don't realize or see is the "deadline" ... with an editor or client seeing a daily feed and giving direction and often PRESSURE to get certain images in the limited event time (no sleep).
Oh, I realize... and know that I would have a hard time delivering. I can deliver a good image at my own leisure, but tell me I have to get something great within a certain amount of time... I'm not so sure.
Harvey is good at giving insight into the working photo world. It's often, not pretty. As an accomplished amateur, I wouldn't be envious of most pro photographers. It's like sausage, once you've been to the sausage factory, your opinion of sausage may be different.
http://www.burkuzzle.com/
Read this John! Burk, a former member and president of Magnum, helped all working photographers.
From Bill Pierce's column.
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0104/nutsandbolts.htm
Thank you for the additional info, I will certainly read it. Yeah... I only envy the output of certain pros... like DAH. Just beautiful work. I know the profession is not for me though. I'm ok with being a happy amateur.
Contarama
Well-known
This is an essential point which requires a lot of exercise to be able to do.
By the way as I'm learning to draw it's again the same thing!
robert
Once one is able to 'see' it becomes somewhat rote imo...do it with any tool....seek out new tools to do it in new ways. Thats a point where gear matters and we approach craft and/or art. Probably cant have one without the other in the grand scheme.
Perhaps one reason photography forums are usually more gear centric is because there are more beginners (maybe dillettantes?) than old hands.
nikonhswebmaster
reluctant moderator
Now I remember why I pretty much stopped posting on the RFF, I read through this entire thread, and frankly just don't understand what is being said about art. Even with my NEA's, my age, and my many brushes with great artists, I would never dare to be so "sure."
Time [I believe] would be better spent watching the filmmaker Jim Jarmusch's “Paterson.” https://www.newyorker.com/culture/r...-paterson-and-the-myth-of-the-solitary-artist
Time [I believe] would be better spent watching the filmmaker Jim Jarmusch's “Paterson.” https://www.newyorker.com/culture/r...-paterson-and-the-myth-of-the-solitary-artist
Michael Markey
Veteran
You need to start posting again 
gns
Well-known
...Time [I believe] would be better spent watching the filmmaker Jim Jarmusch's “Paterson.” https://www.newyorker.com/culture/r...-paterson-and-the-myth-of-the-solitary-artist
Or even, Fishing with John.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Now I remember why I pretty much stopped posting on the RFF, I read through this entire thread, and frankly just don't understand what is being said about art. Even with my NEA's, my age, and my many brushes with great artists, I would never dare to be so "sure."
[/url]
You just demonstrated that you do, in fact, understand the slippery “those who know don’t say, those who say don’t know” nature of “art”.
Please come back.
Now I remember why I pretty much stopped posting on the RFF, I read through this entire thread, and frankly just don't understand what is being said about art. Even with my NEA's, my age, and my many brushes with great artists, I would never dare to be so "sure."
Time [I believe] would be better spent watching the filmmaker Jim Jarmusch's “Paterson.” https://www.newyorker.com/culture/r...-paterson-and-the-myth-of-the-solitary-artist
Some just hate the term Art it seems... and think anything labeled as such is BS. I don't. I will continue reading and posting... but I will also see this movie when I get a chance. Thanks for the tip.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Some just hate the term Art it seems...
Perhaps the post location was just a coincidence but if that was aimed at me, you might want to rethink it, as it is pretty far off the mark.
PKR
Veteran
Perhaps the post location was just a coincidence but if that was aimed at me, you might want to rethink it, as it is pretty far off the mark.
Art, it seems, is a broad term.. and should be, to my thinking. If you want the classic "Art", this involves academics, museum curators, gallery owners and collectors with money. A lot of money and marketing go into launching a work of art into Art.
Many who have studied Art History know that the classically trained painters studied nature (da Vinci https://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/l/leonardo/11nature/ ) and were often products of a term of study with a recognized expert. This went for lute makers as well as painters.
So, to diverge from the above a bit, I'll cite Jay Maisel as an example of a Non Artist (in the Art Establishment sense). Jay studied Painting at Yale. He had a long and successful career as a commercial photographer. His very good earnings and a good noodle, directed him to purchase an old bank building in the Bowery. The recent sale of that building turned Jay from a millionaire into a multimillionaire .. it sold for 55M as I recall. Jay once said, if I worked as a cab driver, my work would be hanging in the MOMA.
Now look at one of my favorite Artists. I like the guy, but don't care much for his Art. Jeff Koons .. Jeff went to Art School, worked as a Bond Trader for a time and spent his lunch hour visiting NY Galleries. He figured out "their stick". He was soon making "Art" and promoting it like a Madison Av PR man.. and it worked. I once watched an extensive TV interview with Koons. He easily fessed up to not being able to draw. He told the story of a current commission (sculpture) where he hired day laborers and plaster workers to build the work. His hands were likely never on the piece while under construction. He bought plaster angels, cherubs and other elements from a lawn ornament company. He said they were much cheaper than crafting his own. Koons is a world famous artist. He often attacks the Art Establishment for buying into his BS.. (it's why I like him) for spending millions on his work. He now has a large factory that he owns, making his works of Art.
So, you decide what's Art and what isn't. To my mind, your opinion is just as valid as mine is. And, you don't have to go to Art School to have an opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Koons
http://www.jeffkoons.com/
One of Jeff's masterpieces of Art BS is a porn movie that he made with his former wife, "Cicciolina" . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilona_Staller The movie was boxed and sold as Art in the MOMA store.
http://www.jeffkoons.com/artwork/made-in-heaven/blow-job-kama-sutra
http://www.theworldsbestever.com/20...-koons-made-in-heaven-series-major-paintings/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Maisel
Jay's website is under construction.
c
benlees
Well-known
Anyone watched Dark on Netflix?
Art on RFF! Lol. Just put it on repeat...
Art on RFF! Lol. Just put it on repeat...
nikonhswebmaster
reluctant moderator
So, you decide what's Art and what isn't.
Why bother?
Perhaps the post location was just a coincidence but if that was aimed at me, you might want to rethink it, as it is pretty far off the mark.
Coincidence...
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Art, it seems, is a broad term.. and should be, to my thinking. If you want the classic "Art", this involves academics, museum curators, gallery owners and collectors with money. A lot of money and marketing go into launching a work of art into Art.
Many who have studied Art History know that the classically trained painters studied nature (da Vinci https://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/l/leonardo/11nature/ ) and were often products of a term of study with a recognized expert. This went for lute makers as well as painters.
So, to diverge from the above a bit, I'll cite Jay Maisel as an example of a Non Artist (in the Art Establishment sense). Jay studied Painting at Yale. He had a long and successful career as a commercial photographer. His very good earnings and a good noodle, directed him to purchase an old bank building in the Bowery. The recent sale of that building turned Jay from a millionaire into a multimillionaire .. it sold for 55M as I recall. Jay once said, if I worked as a cab driver, my work would be hanging in the MOMA.
Now look at one of my favorite Artists. I like the guy, but don't care much for his Art. Jeff Koons .. Jeff went to Art School, worked as a Bond Trader for a time and spent his lunch hour visiting NY Galleries. He figured out "their stick". He was soon making "Art" and promoting it like a Madison Av PR man.. and it worked. I once watched an extensive TV interview with Koons. He easily fessed up to not being able to draw. He told the story of a current commission (sculpture) where he hired day laborers and plaster workers to build the work. His hands were likely never on the piece while under construction. He bought plaster angels, cherubs and other elements from a lawn ornament company. He said they were much cheaper than crafting his own. Koons is a world famous artist. He often attacks the Art Establishment for buying into his BS.. (it's why I like him) for spending millions on his work. He now has a large factory that he owns, making his works of Art.
So, you decide what's Art and what isn't. To my mind, your opinion is just as valid as mine is. And, you don't have to go to Art School to have an opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Koons
http://www.jeffkoons.com/
One of Jeff's masterpieces of Art BS is a porn movie that he made with his former wife, "Cicciolina" . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilona_Staller The movie was boxed and sold as Art in the MOMA store.
http://www.jeffkoons.com/artwork/made-in-heaven/blow-job-kama-sutra
http://www.theworldsbestever.com/20...-koons-made-in-heaven-series-major-paintings/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Maisel
Jay's website is under construction.
c
Thanks for the interesting story about Jeff Koons. I was peripherally aware of some of that.
I went to high school with Julian Schnabel, who was two years behind me. He was a cute, vivacious, chubby kid with a good sense of humor and a natural at putting people on. The closest thing to a born showman I have ever personally known. One day I was at his house with another friend, playing Monopoly, and we were talking about Andy Warhol’s soup cans, and the seeming artistic absurdity thereof, and Julian said the he could get rich doing the same thing, as rich as Andy Warhol, because he could make people believe anything. This was when he was 15 or 16.
I enjoyed a laugh when I saw his face on the cover of Time magazine decades later.
If there is anything I have said in various posts earlier in this thread which have sounded to some as if I don’t appreciate art, or “hated the term”, those things have been misinterpreted. On the other hand, I have a very clear headed understanding about the nature of art criticism, and many of those who practice it, and are guilty of substantial overreach in the practice thereof, especially over the last five or six decades.
Criticism, here on this forum, of a photo’s technical qualities, lighting and so forth, can be very helpful. Criticism of it’s esthetic value is on much shakier intellectual ground, and, yes, that actually does come down to nothing more than “what you like”. The idea that there are solid objective criteria for that is delusional. If you can throw a lot of obscurantist verbiage at a work with an air of authority you can convince enough other people to form a “school” of criticism, and if your school is larger than other schools of critical thought you can take over the direction of a given field of art for many years. Clement Greenberg was correct until he wasn’t. But, it is still nothing more than what you like, reinforced by a gang, of lemmings in this case. Art, if it is art, speaks to human beings at their very deepest level. It directly short circuits and circumvents any attempt to describe it with language. Linguistic attempts can just as often lead people away as towards an understanding. The idea that “credentialing” creates authority in this area should be looked at as what it is, a power play, nothing more than a means of giving to those who seem to need it, a way to say, “what I like has more value than what you like, and you are probably a philistine”.
But, whatever. It’s a world which made my friend Julian very rich, and the nature of which he understood when he was 15. And, for a while, his friend Basquiat as well, before it destroyed him.
cassel
Well-known
My Response here is not directed at anyone here specifically:
Art DOES matter - and it is a worthwhile topic to discuss, teach and actually engage in the process. My second career, after working as a pro photographer, has been teaching art to middle and high school students. Every year, I have students who are unsure about the value and meaning of art. The class "just ends up" on their schedule. I have to gently lead them through a confidence-building process and I still remind them that they don't have to "become" a great artist themselves to "act like" an artist and, in the process, learn about more concrete terms about how to intelligently discuss/write/appreciate art and art history.
Other students are already excited about art and a few may even think of themselves as an artist. Even with my most engaged students, most are reluctant to self-label as "artist" for fear of sounding pretentious (or they just aren't sure they deserve the label). I go with a more craft-making approach and point out to them that if they are making art, they are an artist (at least in that moment).
Here's what I suspect, though: Some of us HAVE to make art...If we don't, we negatively affect our mental state. This drive starts EARLY and stays with you your entire life. Months, perhaps years will go by without creating art, but at some point it HAS to happen again
I have some students over the years for whom, art is one of the ONLY reasons they come to school...
Society Needs Us
Art DOES matter - and it is a worthwhile topic to discuss, teach and actually engage in the process. My second career, after working as a pro photographer, has been teaching art to middle and high school students. Every year, I have students who are unsure about the value and meaning of art. The class "just ends up" on their schedule. I have to gently lead them through a confidence-building process and I still remind them that they don't have to "become" a great artist themselves to "act like" an artist and, in the process, learn about more concrete terms about how to intelligently discuss/write/appreciate art and art history.
Other students are already excited about art and a few may even think of themselves as an artist. Even with my most engaged students, most are reluctant to self-label as "artist" for fear of sounding pretentious (or they just aren't sure they deserve the label). I go with a more craft-making approach and point out to them that if they are making art, they are an artist (at least in that moment).
Here's what I suspect, though: Some of us HAVE to make art...If we don't, we negatively affect our mental state. This drive starts EARLY and stays with you your entire life. Months, perhaps years will go by without creating art, but at some point it HAS to happen again
I have some students over the years for whom, art is one of the ONLY reasons they come to school...
Society Needs Us

nukecoke
⚛Yashica
Anyone watched Dark on Netflix?
Art on RFF! Lol. Just put it on repeat...
Me. I like it. It's very Germanic European in both graphics and storytelling. I don't think it is similar to Stranger Things as some medias says.
Cinematography-wise I think it's superior than Stranger Things.
PKR
Veteran
Thanks for the interesting story about Jeff Koons. I was peripherally aware of some of that.
I went to high school with Julian Schnabel, who was two years behind me. He was a cute, vivacious, chubby kid with a good sense of humor and a natural at putting people on. The closest thing to a born showman I have ever personally known. One day I was at his house with another friend, playing Monopoly, and we were talking about Andy Warhol’s soup cans, and the seeming artistic absurdity thereof, and Julian said the he could get rich doing the same thing, as rich as Andy Warhol, because he could make people believe anything. This was when he was 15 or 16.
I enjoyed a laugh when I saw his face on the cover of Time magazine decades later.
If there is anything I have said in various posts earlier in this thread which have sounded to some as if I don’t appreciate art, or “hated the term”, those things have been misinterpreted. On the other hand, I have a very clear headed understanding about the nature of art criticism, and many of those who practice it, and are guilty of substantial overreach in the practice thereof, especially over the last five or six decades.
Criticism, here on this forum, of a photo’s technical qualities, lighting and so forth, can be very helpful. Criticism of it’s esthetic value is on much shakier intellectual ground, and, yes, that actually does come down to nothing more than “what you like”. The idea that there are solid objective criteria for that is delusional. If you can throw a lot of obscurantist verbiage at a work with an air of authority you can convince enough other people to form a “school” of criticism, and if your school is larger than other schools of critical thought you can take over the direction of a given field of art for many years. Clement Greenberg was correct until he wasn’t. But, it is still nothing more than what you like, reinforced by a gang, of lemmings in this case. Art, if it is art, speaks to human beings at their very deepest level. It directly short circuits and circumvents any attempt to describe it with language. Linguistic attempts can just as often lead people away as towards an understanding. The idea that “credentialing” creates authority in this area should be looked at as what it is, a power play, nothing more than a means of giving to those who seem to need it, a way to say, “what I like has more value than what you like, and you are probably a philistine”.
But, whatever. It’s a world which made my friend Julian very rich, and the nature of which he understood when he was 15. And, for a while, his friend Basquiat as well, before it destroyed him.
The local museum paid $400K for a Schnabel. I saw the thing once; they didn't exhibit it often (probably too financially embarrassing) It was just a group of objects, including gum wrappers and deer antlers, glued to a canvas or hard backing. I had occasion to briefly comment on acquisitions with a women who was a biggie on the staff. I looked at her and simply said "sell the Schnabel". She looked at me and started to kind of vibrate in a kind of palsy like motion, and left without any reply. Pretty funny episode in my "Art" experiences.
nikonhswebmaster
reluctant moderator
I went to high school with Julian Schnabel
Name-dropper! LOL!!
PKR
Veteran
Name-dropper! LOL!!![]()
One person's primary source information is another person's "name dropping".
Nikon Web guy:
I could list some of the famous people I've photographed.. if you'd like to take a couple of shots at me.
Lets see, I'll give you one for starters: Martin Luther King..
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Name-dropper! LOL!!![]()
JeffS7444
Well-known
Now I remember why I pretty much stopped posting on the RFF, I read through this entire thread, and frankly just don't understand what is being said about art. Even with my NEA's, my age, and my many brushes with great artists, I would never dare to be so "sure."
Time [I believe] would be better spent watching the filmmaker Jim Jarmusch's “Paterson.” https://www.newyorker.com/culture/r...-paterson-and-the-myth-of-the-solitary-artist
Nearly 4-1/2 years since your post, I've just finished watching "Paterson", thanks for the recommendation: It's not often I encounter an American movie which takes it's time in revealing a rich nothing-much. I was reminded that rap is poetry, and that I shouldn't get a bulldog.
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.