which ruler do you use?

elven

Yes, it's another one of 'those' threads, so if you don't like them, click back now :rolleyes:

I was doing a bit of thinking on the difference between how I react to my own pictures, and how i look at those of others. Then I listened to this podcast (right click and save target for the mp3 file) and it seemed to add another dimension to the concept. It made me wonder, what 'arena' do we actually consider our own stuff to be in? Do we judge images differently because of how they are presented to us?

I saw an arts magazine last week with a review of a photography exhibition where someone had taken some nice stuff of abandoned houses, you know the ones, with pictures of mary and jesus on the wall, dodgy armchairs losing their stuffing and swirly flowery carpets and wallpaper - and the reviewer was waffling on about how they had captured a sense of abandonment and blah blah blah, great - they could have been taken by any of us, given the same subject. But we aren't showing in a gallery and being waffled about. i expected something a little more, well, developed, or advanced, for an exhibition. I expect to be blown away by the beauty or made to think about the concept but that seemed almost like photography class 1, year 1, not something to be held up as an example of art to the rest of the world. If someone had posted them on boards I'd have been pretty impressed though, and that shows that I do expect something different from an exhibition than from us lot.

On the same note, there is a lot of stuff round here that seems to be better than what gets hung on gallery walls so it goes both ways - but i think that's just the nature of life - a lot of buskers are a whole lot better than your average chart topping boy bands...

sheesh

Presentation is important. but Also the will of the person creating the art. whats the betting that the person with the photography hanging in a gallery decided that they were capable of creating 'Art' and that with that attitude went out to create Art than got an agent and started finding a patron and somewhere to display their photographs. Hey Presto Baby! you are an artist!!

I always remember hearing that when W.B Yeats decided that he was going to be a poet he started Dressing as one.

There is no way around it elven your going to have to buy a beret and wear it all the time,

at a jaunty angle,

for no good reason.


also buy a cigarette holder and start smoking.

it all helps:)

Borderfox

Personally I think it comes down to business and connections, I know in my business that my pictures are more consistent and of a better quality than quite a lot of other people but I dont have the connections to get them further so that is what I have to work on, but I will get there and thats whats important to me

Thirdfox

Why do lawyers wear the wig and gown? (Apart from covering the syphillis back in the 17th century) - it's to make us feel like we're in the know and masters of our craft.

Like posters have already said - confidence about your own work and presentation is what sets a "normal" image apart from "art". I don't get high concept art - some of it just appears like random blogs or if a tornado had hit a studio somewhere and the debris was left behind.

I don't call my photos art...but if I did I could make up pages and pages of waffle about how the great the underlying metaphors of the image were etc. etc. Then I just need someone to believe my waffle (of course I could genuinely believe my waffle too) and voila, I'm an artist. Market economics my dear - once the demand is there you can charge what you want - but to get that demand requires clever advertising etc. (even if you only have a mediocre product - ipod 2/3rd generation etc.)

nilhg

Talk of "high art" always makes me think of this, I always knew there was an artist inside me trying to get out....:D:D

ThOnda

Well, there is only one ruler - I find it interesting or not. I don't care about name, camera, size of print, gallery name.
If I find some interest in looking at the picture, I can start thinking if I like it or not. But it is only the final product hanging on the wall, printed on paper or seen on my display what is going to make the impression on me. Not the details about.
Sometimes it is easier to be just a simple person :-)

Thirdfox

nilhg wrote: »

Talk of "high art" always makes me think of this, I always knew there was an artist inside me trying to get out....:D:D

"Tracey Emin shows us her own bed, in all its embarrassing glory. Empty booze bottles, fag butts, stained sheets, worn panties: the bloody aftermath of a nervous breakdown. By presenting her bed as art, Tracey Emin shares her most personal space, revealing she’s as insecure and imperfect as the rest of the world."

Lol! I should move my bedroom to an art gallery too then - it's even worse than hers right now

Fajitas!

elven wrote: »

Do we judge images differently because of how they are presented to us?

Of course we do. Seeing something on an image sharing website is very different to seeing something in a large white room. The thing about galleries is people expect to see the finest of art in there. There's a preconception about what you're going to see, as compared to what you might find in a magazine, or on an image sharing site like flickr. Images seen on sites like flickr are so much easier to dismiss, because you only have to close your browser.

I saw an arts magazine last week with a review of a photography exhibition where someone had taken some nice stuff of abandoned houses, you know the ones, with pictures of mary and jesus on the wall, dodgy armchairs losing their stuffing and swirly flowery carpets and wallpaper - and the reviewer was waffling on about how they had captured a sense of abandonment and blah blah blah, great - they could have been taken by any of us, given the same subject. But we aren't showing in a gallery and being waffled about. i expected something a little more, well, developed, or advanced, for an exhibition. I expect to be blown away by the beauty or made to think about the concept but that seemed almost like photography class 1, year 1, not something to be held up as an example of art to the rest of the world. If someone had posted them on boards I'd have been pretty impressed though, and that shows that I do expect something different from an exhibition than from us lot.

As I was saying above, because it's in a gallery context, you expect something of it, which isn't always the case. Now, the review is where the interesting theory comes in, that of "death of the author". Most of us would have seen these type of images before, we've been (over?) exposed to a lot of genres, due to image sharing sites, and forums such as this one (remember I said how easy it is to be dismissive?) and when we see in an exhibition, something that we could imagine anyone taking, I think some people might get dissapointed.

The reviewed might have never seen photos of urban exploration, etc, before, and can put his/her own ideas into the work. The artist has presented the work, several images, it's up to other people to look and think now. (Death of the author theory). I think it's important to think who these photographs are aimed at - Personally, I'd be aiming my work more at people who don't know about photography, rather than other photographers. I think it could be a sad state of affairs to go out looking to take photographs for other photographers.

Thirdfox wrote: »

Like posters have already said - confidence about your own work and presentation is what sets a "normal" image apart from "art". I don't get high concept art - some of it just appears like random blogs or if a tornado had hit a studio somewhere and the debris was left behind.

No, ideas behind the work, conceptuality, etc are generally what seperates "normal" photos from art. It just helps if you're confident about it.

[/jaunty angled beret & cigarette holder]

unreggd

I think bein an amateur, most of the time, will get the better/more interestin results, as you have that extra Umph, and you're doin it out of pure passion and interest

I think the more "established" artists let early fame go to their head, and become good businessmen, as opposed to better artists

Fajitas!

I don't really agree that being an amatuer will give you more interesting results, I think that's down to the person behind the camera.

If you're a professional photographer or an artist, you're hopefully still going to be working out of passion or interest, otherwise you'd surely move on in your game. If you're out of interest and you don't move on, it will most definitly show up in your work.

If you think the more established artists let the fame go to their heads, I really think you're looking at the wrong ones!!!

ThOnda

I agree with Fajitas. It doesn't matter how famous you are, but how creative and innovative you are.
If you keep producing the same style of photos somebody liked many years ago, you keep producing the same photos/art. And where is no development, there is lack of creativity. And art is about creating, as far as I've understood.

DadaKopf

When I take photos, it's weird. In my head, I'm probably thinking lots of things: this could be 'art', it's just a 'snapshot', this'll be going up on flickr, this is like documentary, this is like photojournalism, this is 'travel photography'.

It all depends on my mood, the place, time or situation I'm in. I'm happy so long as I feel that I'm struggling to learn, innovate and develop. Looking differently, and expressing myself is important to me. But I think it's fine to be like a magpie when it comes to style.

I mean, reading this book has given me a great appreciation for the expanses and dilemmas of photography - far more important to me creatively than an instructional book or trawl through Flickr.

If the history and theory of photography has shown me anything, it's that photography is capable of infinate mutation and genres and labels like 'art' and 'hobby' are both very interesting, and often labels merge. Some 'art' photographers mimic 'hobby' photographs, some curators 'discover' personal photography by hobbyists and display them in galleries. Commercial photography colonises any style it can get its hands on and spits it out at glossy fashion photographs and advertisements.

As the Magnum agency showed, documentary photography can be art photography and vice versa. And photography never 'objectively' records the world, photographs are partial constructions, products of the photographer's environment, open to infinite (mis)interpretation. Some is creative, some is very uncreative, sometimes the 'uncreative' photos are the more interesting ones.

It's funny. Photography is the only 'art form' where someone can make a great work by accident - with drawing, painting, sculpture, you just can't do that.

unreggd

ThOnda wrote: »

I agree with Fajitas. It doesn't matter how famous you are, but how creative and innovative you are.
If you keep producing the same style of photos somebody liked many years ago, you keep producing the same photos/art. And where is no development, there is lack of creativity. And art is about creating, as far as I've understood.

yeah I know what ye mean, i just worded that comment bad

I meant when you're into the big bucks, a lot of people, not all, may lose their passion and treat it as a job as opposed to a hobby/way of life, so theres no artistic development

ThOnda

I met few very good photographers back home in the Czech Republic. Few of them become well known, well paid and very respected. And they are still very creative, innovative and open minded.

On the other hand, I have even those, who were praised for their work 30 years ago and so they keep to that style to extend their fame and money making. But their minds stalled (in creative way).

Guess who's exhibitions are packed with interesting people and who's exhibitions are pack with media stars and politicians.

You can find the difference by their reactions. If you really don't like some of their photos, tell it to them. And the reaction could be:

• Really? Could you tell me why?
• Show me your pictures if you think they are better!

Muineach

I prefer metric over imperial rulers :rolleyes:

sry I just had to

ThOnda

You are more than welcomed! :-D

elven

DadaKopf wrote: »

If the history and theory of photography has shown me anything, it's that photography is capable of infinate mutation and genres and labels like 'art' and 'hobby' are both very interesting, and often labels merge. Some 'art' photographers mimic 'hobby' photographs, some curators 'discover' personal photography by hobbyists and display them in galleries. Commercial photography colonises any style it can get its hands on and spits it out at glossy fashion photographs and advertisements.

Don't even get me started on the snapshot aesthetic...

but it is a shame that a certain approach can be tainted when it's used in advertising. I've started to notice some photography in advertising, if you can just take it out of its environment you can appreciate that it's sometimes more than just making something pretty.

It's funny. Photography is the only 'art form' where someone can make a great work by accident - with drawing, painting, sculpture, you just can't do that.

Well, that depends on who is labelling it great work, no? I think the measure of greatness is if the photograph does what you set out to do with it - and if you weren't setting out with anything in mind, is there greatness to be had? Don't take me up on that one though, because that would mean that the photographer's intention is what you judge an image by and of course you can't tell what someone's intention was unless you were in their head before they took the picture - even if they tell you they intended to do what the image does, they could have made that up after taking the picture anyway. I think it's one of those cases where you're just cheating yourself to do that, really. Ugh, my brain hurts

Must put that book on my reading list - looks great, thanks for the link

DadaKopf

Some very famous (and some of my favourite) art was composed by chance or involved strong elements of chance. Dadaists like Kurt Schwitters, proto-surrealists/conceptualists like Marcel Duchamp, and even Pablo Picasso used chance extensively. Photography can be similar, and always where intention begins and ends is problematic. Think about how many great, supposedly controlled masterpieces, involved accidents and chance now thought of as genius flourishes? Loads I'll bet.

For me, chance and control go hand in hand, and depends on what mood I'm in.

But please, rant away! I'd love a good exploration of all this!

nilhg

DadaKopf wrote: »

Some very famous (and some of my favourite) art was composed by chance or involved strong elements of chance. Dadaists like Kurt Schwitters, proto-surrealists/conceptualists like Marcel Duchamp, and even Pablo Picasso used chance extensively. Photography can be similar, and always where intention begins and ends is problematic. Think about how many great, supposedly controlled masterpieces, involved accidents and chance now thought of as genius flourishes? Loads I'll bet.

For me, chance and control go hand in hand, and depends on what mood I'm in.

But please, rant away! I'd love a good exploration of all this!

When folks start to talk about the role of chance/luck I always think of the golfer Gary Players comment " The more I practice, the luckier I get ", you have to have the talent and skill to make the best of whatever situation you are in.

DadaKopf

Fair enough. I think my point was it's easier to take a thrilling, interesting photograph than it is to paint a thrilling, interesting painting. Not that photography is devoid of skill, it's just that a good photo is easier to take in a moment than a good sketch.