Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Artistic Photography

  • 26-07-2008 11:00pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,148 ✭✭✭


    I was cleaning up the spare room today and found The Photo Book. A big book, full of famous and artistic pictures from hundreds of well-known and respected photographers.

    Some pictures I found in it are magical and jump off the page. You don't feel you even have to read the piece of text above the piece to appreciate it in it's entirety. Some are well known and almost iconic. Like this one of Sameul Beckett:

    23qexohr.jpg

    It's well known, moody and technically sound.

    And it's great to see pictures like this. But then, there are dozens and dozens of amateur looking shots that look like they could've been taken by any Tom, Dick or Harry. They give a big written speil about how they 'encapsulate dormant or phychopatical reverses of energy' and pass them off as fantastic pieces of art.

    Now I know the artistic world is full of pretension and well, -lets call a spade a spade here - bollocks, but a picture of a gentlemans midriff, semi-covered in a 'kimono' :confused: does not "chart the shape of entire human form, without impressing on it". If anything it's a picture of a mans stomach with post-structure thought added to it in an attempt to appear artistic.

    I'm not suggesting all pictures should be cold and heartless, but surely passing off poor photography as art is pointless. Art should inspire, not anger. We should look at artists like any other area of human achievement and attempt to surpass previous achievements, not arse around with a camera and a thesaurus.

    I am quite poor with numbers, but I would never attempt to wotk for a bank, cock up thier accounts and pass of my incompetence as 'highlighting the structural difference between humanity and it's flaws and created, intangible entities wholly dependant upon our lack of imprefections!' ... and then look for a feckin' raise!

    I am not claiming to be a fantastic photographer. Infact, Im far from it. But I think credit should be doled out to the deserved, to those that tried and earned it. Not to the articulate and pretenious!

    Rant over!


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,368 ✭✭✭Covey


    mehfesto2 wrote: »

    I am quite poor with numbers, but I would never attempt to wotk for a bank, cock up thier accounts and pass of my incompetence and then look for a feckin' raise

    Rant over!


    I knows someone who fits that description exactly and is very well paid for it. :P:D:rolleyes:

    One man's Art is another man's A*s* as they say.

    T.


Advertisement