Right/Wrong thinking and its impact on photography

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Wayne J. Cosshall, May 27, 2007.

  1. Hi All,

    I've written the latest piece in my Digital ImageMaker World series, on
    how our thinking can either hold us back or encourage us to move forward
    and grow as photographers or artists:
    http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/dimw.php
    or if you want to go direct:
    http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=1005

    Cheers,

    Wayne

    --
    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
    Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
    http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
    Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/
     
    Wayne J. Cosshall, May 27, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Aaron Guest

    I have enjoyed reading several of your more philosophical posts,
    Wayne, and I touched on a couple of similar issues on my site as well.
    In a feat of shameless self-promotion, here is one that follows a
    tangent from the article you linked above:

    http://www.singleservingphoto.com/2007/05/21/digital-is-still-photography/

    I was inspired to write that article after reading the tirade that
    developed here over the Lensbaby 3G (which I consider to be one of the
    most cost-effective and unique "creative" lenses you can pick up right
    now). I think it's somewhat obtuse to claim that any particular method
    or process devalues the artistic product, but that point of view
    remains popular, even among some who frequent this group.

    Hopefully between the two of us we can raise the level of debate and
    explore the ramifications that new technologies and processes have had
    on the institution of photography as an art form, which I find
    fascinating.

    Cheers.
     
    Aaron, May 29, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. "Aaron" was strip-searched in Waverly, AL for writing in part:
    I think it's even more obtuse to take personally *anything* said on
    rec.photo.digital. The way to win Lensbaby skeptics over, if that's even
    what you want to do, is to use them to make interesting images.

    Be careful what you wish for. A small part of me is starting to think
    digital infrared sucks now that I see people making IR images that are
    much better than mine. ;-)
    THEM'S FIGHTIN' WORDS!
     
    Unclaimed Mysteries, May 29, 2007
    #3
  4. Hi Aaron,

    Yup, your article makes valid points.

    I'm running some workshops nationally here (Australia) next week on
    photographic thinking and it was in the leadup to those that I was
    thinking about many things that hold us back or liberate us in our
    thinking. My article about right/wrong thinking was one result. I
    actually think it is so endemic to our culture that it is hard not to do
    it, and you need to work hard to not just do it automatically.

    Always happy to push people's buttons :)

    Cheers,

    Wayne

    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
    Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
    http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
    Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/
     
    Wayne J. Cosshall, May 29, 2007
    #4
  5. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Aaron Guest

    And lo, Unclaimed Mysteries
    It's safe to say that rec.photo.digital suffers its own share of
    trolls. I am always willing to listen to any viewpoint and sometimes
    very good supporting arguments are furnished to support those
    viewpoints contrary to mine. Such is the way of debate, and I
    encourage that.

    I don't take it personally that people don't *like* the Lensbaby.
    Surely there are people who just don't like zoom lenses in general, or
    who don't like prime lenses in general, or who don't like some certain
    brand of lenses in general. They're entitled to their opinions.

    However, when the subject of debate is whether any piece of equipment
    or any process is incapable of creating pure art, for the reason of
    widespread adoption or an individual's own personal opinion of what
    art is, that is obtuse. It seems to me that even when the artistic
    merit of any image comes into question (which happens often due to the
    subjective nature of the field), the process and the equipment used to
    create it are least significant; certainly they are of lesser
    significance than the intent and the result.
    So you're saying that *your* digital infrared sucks. :)

    Infrared is no less viable a medium just because many others are using
    it and because its output is similar in appearance.
     
    Aaron, May 29, 2007
    #5
    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.