Why Your Pictures Suck

[MarylandBill]

This is the absolute necessary first step: dehumanization of your photographs. José Ortega-y-Gasset expalins this:
http://www.amazon.com/Dehumanization-Culture-Literature-Princeton-Paperbacks/dp/0691019614
It is actually very simple concepts, once you "get it".
Without understanding these concepts though person cannot move forward, pass phographing cats on pillows and comparing summicrons with summiluxes.

But then again, not everybody is even aspiring to do art, some are perfectly fine with testing latest summiluxses...

I doubt an artist can capture the humanity of their subject by dehumanizing it. Of course, his concept of art is also very elitist. If you get art his way you are among the elite, if you fail to get it, well you are among the popular masses.

Frankly this attitude has struck me as the core of what is wrong with art in the 20th and 21st century. All art is, in some sense abstract, but the best art captures reality in that abstraction.

--
Bill

 

[mdarnton]

Of course, his concept of art is also very elitist. If you get art his way you are among the elite, if you fail to get it, well you are among the popular masses.

Frankly this attitude has struck me as the core of what is wrong with art in the 20th and 21st century.

Bill

There's no shortage of art that appeals to the masses--it's everywhere, in fact. But then there are also more sophisticated layers of understanding everything, not only art. Saying this is "elitist" is like saying physics is elitist because the man on the street doesn't get it. I would say that the idea that everyone needs to be at the same level, mostly by requiring a lot of the population to become dumber, because the other direction doesn't work too well, is one of the big diseases of the late 20th century. Everyone gets an "A".

 

[MikeL]

Ibarionex Perello seems like a good photographer. Does anyone know what camera he uses? I want to use best camera like Ibarionex.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I once heard an old fashioned English scholar say of someone that "he never goes to bed with anyone else, especially for sex".

The phrase went through my mind about two sentences into that page.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

If you aren't getting paid and have to please a client - all you need to know about your photos is if YOU like them.

Well said.

 

[MIkhail]

"I, at least, shot more for the color than the subject matter, which was a big mistake." That's it; I think you nailed it.

HFL

Saul Leiter begs to differ.

 

[MarylandBill]

There's no shortage of art that appeals to the masses--it's everywhere, in fact. But then there are also more sophisticated layers of understanding everything, not only art. Saying this is "elitist" is like saying physics is elitist because the man on the street doesn't get it. I would say that the idea that everyone needs to be at the same level, mostly by requiring a lot of the population to become dumber, because the other direction doesn't work too well, is one of the big diseases of the late 20th century. Everyone gets an "A".

Physics is elitist. Only a fraction of the population will ever understand physics at more than a basic level. But by the same token, physics has an objective set of standards that art simply cannot have. Further, even the most elite physics can produce results that are very tangible for every level of society. Art that becomes too elite on the other hand looses that connection to society.

I do agree that there can be different layers of meaning in art, different ways of appreciating it. But I think when art can't be appreciated by any but a small percentage of the population, it is acceptable to question its status as art.

--
Bill

 

[MIkhail]

If you get art his way you are among the elite, if you fail to get it, well you are among the popular masses.

Frankly this attitude has struck me as the core of what is wrong with art in the 20th and 21st century. All art is, in some sense abstract, but the best art captures reality in that abstraction.

--
Bill

So we don’t like the fact that somebody enjoys something and we don’t understand what is there to enjoy? It can be irritating...

Same can be said about coffee beans, or vine, for example, right?
Nobody stops a person from becoming a connoisseur of coffee. One can spend all your life drinking office coffee and be fine. If somebody will give you a small cup of a real thing, you may not even like it.
I remember at one point I was thinking that best vine has to be sweet.
Once you start learning and discovering, it’s all downhill from there 

 

[aizan]

what about our descendants? they will probably see things differently.

 

[KoNickon]

... got it ... an expletive for the wimp or wooly thinker

Not sure what you mean here -- if you mean it's essentially a vague term, and one used by people who can't or won't really say what they mean, maybe so. I guess I do think it's lazy, and crude to boot. But as another way of simply saying "isn't any good," it's effective.

I mean, any normal American baseball fan understands "Yankees suck!"

 

[Filson Back]

This would be easier to take seriously if his pictures were truly amazing rather than merely strong. I get tired of myriad people offering advice when the only real advice worth hearing is that you have to work. Hard.

 

[Roger Hicks]

This stuff has to be tongue in cheek. . . .

CHEEK?

That's exceptionally unambitious.

Seriously, anyone who uses the world 'suck' to convey the concept 'not very good' is so terminally lazy, stupid, sloppy and incompetent in the English language that I would be disinclined to trust their judgement when it comes to anything else.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . I mean, any normal American baseball fan understands "Yankees suck!"

Possibly. But what about English speakers?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sparrow]

Not sure what you mean here -- if you mean it's essentially a vague term, and one used by people who can't or won't really say what they mean, maybe so. I guess I do think it's lazy, and crude to boot. But as another way of simply saying "isn't any good," it's effective.

I mean, any normal American baseball fan understands "Yankees suck!"

So it's like an oxymora then? ... fellatio that one doesn't enjoy?

 

[mugent]

Gear fixation isn't a serious issue for me, but I wonder if I got to know a single camera over years and years, would my photography improve, well, yes certainly. But a lot of rolls I shoot are 'test' rolls to make sure my latest purchase is functioning correctly.

For me, the laziness factor is a huge one. I'd get better pictures if I went out just before sunrise, and waited for the perfect light, if I didn't get good light then, I come back the next day, etc...
The photos I take fit in with whatever else I have to do, if I'm in London, then I shoot 'urban decay' or whatever, because London has a lot of it. If I'm in Hawaii, I shoot seascapes...

I dare say there are a lot of street photographers here who shoot street simply because it's on their doorstep, or on their way to work.

There is a lot of crap photography because good photography is actually very difficult. Street photography is really easy, *good* street photography, is damn near impossible.

 

[back alley]

my pictures don't suck...fyi!

 

[Keith]

And if you reigned in all the patrons of every McDonalds for a ten mile radius around MOMA you may actually have a bigger crowd! 😀

 

[MikeL]

I like fish tongue and fish cheek.

 

[Keith]

OK I will bite, the connection between art and eating burgers and fries? 😕

I'm such a cynic sadly ... and although I aknowledge that it's reafirming to discover that the arts are supported by a group who will always do so, there is a far larger group who will never give a sh!t and are actually more comfortable with watching reality TV and eating take out!

Just the way my mind works unfortunately!

😀

 

[Exdsc]

You're really entertaining -

Some of the funniest stuff on here of late.

Thanks, pkr

Beside being entertaining, I also every now and then post a photograph in this forum so that I don't come across as the noisy empty vessel.