Can anyone take a good photograph?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Tom Hudson, Dec 7, 2004.

  1. Tom Hudson

    casioculture Guest

    I see what you're saying.

    I suggest you be careful then in what you say about the work of
    artists; "I don't understand it" is a good and safe phrase, "immensely
    dull and very often inept" or 'tasteless junk' are not.
    casioculture, Dec 19, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Tom Hudson

    Owamanga Guest

    Oh come on.

    Here's a better phrase: Some 'artists' are crap.

    There is nothing special about this group of people that they suddenly
    break the laws of averages and are all totally amazing at what they
    do. They aren't all good, which means some are crap.

    Twits who spout the failure to appreciate art is always due to some
    limitation of the beholder need to give themselves a slap.

    The Sun in the UK is a crap paper.
    The Big Mac is crap food.

    Just because a people hand over hard cash to buy this stuff, doesn't
    mean it's not crap.

    In the area of photography, it's possible to determine crapness at
    many levels. With a few exceptions that we can put down to 'artistic
    license' (a phrase coined specially for this group of people as an
    excuse for failing in one or more standard achievement guidelines) a
    photograph that is out of focus, improperly exposed, contains
    distracting and irrelevant items, cropped or printed badly is all too
    easy to spot. In these cases, irrespective of it's artistic merit, the
    guy simply failed to take a good photograph, and it is, therefore,
    Owamanga, Dec 20, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. I'm not surprised you respond like this. At least I took the time to reply
    to all relevant parts of your post.
    My interest is in gaining a small insight to the POV's of a modern art
    appreciator. My interest isn't in agreeing with or becoming one.
    I take pride only in being honest with myself and others. I gauge
    photographs by values that I hold dear not those held by others. Using these
    values I will always give my honest opinion of a photograph.
    I didn't wade through the whole of that thrird link but thats vaguely
    interesting. I don't need to know any of this stuff to enjoy the film
    though. I love the starkness of the visuals and Nicholson's performance in
    The Shining. That's enough for me. Life's too short to be dwelling on the
    intricacy's of a film directors creation
    Simon Stanmore, Dec 20, 2004
  4. If that's what I think it is then that's what I'll call it. I have my own
    standards and a visual awareness that I devoted on a daily basis to making
    images since before I could walk (apparently), and for the next 17 years. I
    continue now to constantly scrutinise light, shadow, expression, posture,
    colour, etc. to deeply understand their dynamic and composition. I now seek
    to understand the keys to producing highly salable commercial imagery. So
    when I say a photo is junk I am applying my awareness, standards and values,
    not those of the modern art world. In turn that world so often sneers at
    imagery that I respect and admire. It understands it in the only way it can:
    A way that does not know what I've experienced or what I value and
    appreciate. I do not suggest it say "I don't understand it". I let it have
    its opinion and its say
    Simon Stanmore, Dec 20, 2004
  5. No apologies required - Neither Usenet or I demand prompt replies.

    I can understand all that you say here Alan. JR's work is almost pure
    commercial and that's always gonna be too much cheese and cliche for some
    (and often for the photographers that take the stuff)
    Simon Stanmore, Dec 20, 2004
  6. Tom Hudson

    JPS Guest

    In message <[email protected]>,
    Some artists are *making* rules.

    JPS, Dec 28, 2004
  7. I see nothing in conflict in that with what I wrote.

    A little side note - it is not the artists that *makes* the
    rules. If no one cares - they are no rules. At least not
    rules of any value.

    Roland Karlsson, Dec 28, 2004
  8. Tom Hudson

    Tony Guest

    Tony, Dec 29, 2004
  9. Tom Hudson

    Don Lathrop Guest

    A catchy trendy phrase as full of meaning as
    a toy balloon.
    Don Lathrop, Dec 29, 2004
  10. Tom Hudson

    Mike Henley Guest

    I agree. It's nonsense.
    Mike Henley, Dec 29, 2004
  11. Sounds nice - but means nothing.

    Roland Karlsson, Dec 29, 2004
  12. Tom Hudson

    Charlie Self Guest

    Reverse it and it may make sense. There is no art without rules. In that sense,
    IMO, photography is very much like painting. You've got to know how to draw a
    correct figure, and paint it, before you can become Picasso, distorting the
    figure for effect.

    Charlie Self
    "A politician is an animal which can sit on a fence and yet keep both ears to
    the ground." H. L. Mencken
    Charlie Self, Dec 29, 2004
  13. Tom Hudson

    Tony Guest

    Art IS breaking the rules. If you live within them you make decortions. That
    may mean nothing to you but an artist will understand it intrinsically -
    which is why the history of art is littered with hacks who stuck to the
    rules and only made "acceptable" art. They made the safe and sure and are
    largely forgotten. The innovators - the crazy people who broke the rules are
    the people we remember now - van Gogh, Matisse, Picasso, da Vinci, etc. The
    people who created, as opposed to the people who just worked the trade. The
    hacks and their acolates laughed at the Impressionists, called the Cubists
    psychotic, etc etc etc. Listen to a concerto by Scalieri, Mozart's more
    successful rival in Vienna. There is much knowledge of the rules in his
    composition, but nothing to remember.
    95 percent of all art is hackwork. Those are the rule followers.

    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    Tony, Dec 29, 2004
  14. Tom Hudson

    Mike Henley Guest

    You evidently know the history of art, so yes, from someone like you, I
    would agree with the notion that "Art IS breaking the rules", given
    that i know what you mean. Though I would perhaps prefer it had you
    used a term such as "advancing" or "redefining" rather than breaking;
    for those artistic innovators, they knew the rules too well, that they
    knew their place in history and their limitations, and they worked
    beyond them, each triggering a movement in his wake. What I have a
    problem with is the new bastardized version of "Art is breaking the
    rules" that refuses the notion that art is a discipline, and whose idea
    of "art" is random pretentious nonsense, you know, the 'artsy fartsy'

    With regard to the innovators, I personally think a key feature that
    set them apart from the '95% tradesmen' was that they were the masters
    of their own aesthetic universe and they did what pleased their
    sensibilities, rather than the '95% hacks' who generally worked
    according to the rules and tastes of others.
    Mike Henley, Dec 29, 2004
  15. Tom Hudson

    Don Lathrop Guest

    Is that your rule?

    Who the hell are you?
    Don Lathrop, Dec 29, 2004
  16. Is that a rule?

    Roland Karlsson, Dec 29, 2004
  17. Tom Hudson

    nick c Guest

    I might agree with you if it were not for a monkey that painted some
    par-out paintings that were exhibited and sold. Ah, the art world.

    nick c, Dec 29, 2004
  18. Tom Hudson

    nick c Guest

    There is a fine line between what is considered art and what is
    considered trash and rules have a great deal to do with creative
    acceptance. IMOP, those who tend to think esoterically may oftentimes be
    confused as to not recognizing a rule is being applied in support of a
    technique which is being born. Oh, to burst self-made images of

    Begin at the beginning; what is art.

    Art is defined and accepted as being works of human creativity. One of
    the recognized branches of art encompass, music, dance, literature, and
    painting. There are rules in each of these categories.

    Dance: The rule of dance is rhythm. The rule of Intervals in a which
    recurring sequence of events take place.

    Music: The rule of music is the musical scale. Within the use of the
    musical scale is the rule time.

    Literature: The rule of literature is governed by style, requiring a

    Painting: An action of applying paint to a surface. The rule of painting
    may be seen in technique and subject form.

    No thanks. Rules apply. To think they don't is indeed foolish.

    nick c, Dec 29, 2004
  19. Tom Hudson

    nick c Guest

    One who can't tell the difference between an artistic rule and a
    technique or style. :)

    nick c, Dec 29, 2004
  20. Tom Hudson

    Tony Guest

    Tony, Dec 30, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.