Profile
Subscribe
This is not what I had invisioned as a blog but I thought it appropriate to give some acknowledgement to some who have shown us what we aspire to be. now this is not to say that we want to be exactly like these people, we each aspire to have our own creativity but I wanted to give you all a chance to see some of the greats of today and from the past. I hope you enjoy the following photos and those that have brought a sence of meaning to the word Photographer
Ansel Adams, Mouth Lassan from the Devasted Area, Mount Lassen Volcanic National Park, 1945
2000 Chase Jarvis Photos in 5 Minutes
Baroness Thatcher, whose 80th birthday photos were taken by Lord Lichfield, said he was “an absolute delight to sit for”.
These are just a few of the photographers that seem to have “moved” the world of photography to where it is now. A free form of expression. I was going through one of Chase Jarvis’ blogs the other day, and went through a poll asking which photos I liked the best. I was among 82% percent that liked 3 photos for an ad that he was preping for Nike. NONE of the photos that we picked were used, the photo with the least amount of votes was picked by the CEO for their national campain. The photo in my opinion was hidious
So this got me thinking, what makes for a great photo? what draws the line between art and foolish snapping away? This got me going enough that I spent hours looking through photos past and present. What did I come up with? It does not matter what I think, WHAT INSPIRES YOU?
I think a great photo, and I’m a newbie here, but I think a great photo is one that appeals to the human brain on average.
It’s how we are WIRED to perceive and whether that image you have captured appeals or does not appeal. And yes, we are all wired differently but there is commonality.
And you can read about these things, what we humans tend to have in common in the way our brains perceive pictures and thus what can make great camera work. So what are your materials? Light and the manipulation or use of light, form, shape, line, color, balance, lack of color, depth of view, emotion, tension,angle of view, use of shutter to freeze motion and capture the moment. Be aware of them, use them, combine them, and you can create a great photo, even “art”. Ignore them or remain ignorant of them and you only wind up with that rare great shot?
Your executive may not be artistic at all and may not even be attracted to photos most people can relate to.
Can we learn photographic art or must we be born with it? Can someone with true artistic talent make better art than a skilled photographer who has learned the basics of what makes a picture “art”? Can someone with very little artistic skill learn to make pictures that are “art”?
as much as i would like to agree with you alot of times, given the fact that alot of art is not what i would call art including some photography such as time lapse, I have to say we are both wrong there. Art is anything that inspires freedom of expression. what may inspire a nation, group or even one person, can be considered art. the same can be said with photography if the person is purposly trying for that effect and feels that he or she has captured what they intended. case in point, the first photo above of Ansel Adams, lots of people could say, yeah he took a picture of a stump so what. thats not the point, the point is he took a picture that turned out the way he intended and he did what he had to do to get the image he was looking for.
John,
But then you are defining a world in which there are no definitions. “Art” is, whatever you want it to be. “Is” means whatever you want it to be. A mad man may have his “Art” and you would call it art even though no one else in the world sees his scribbling as art.
lets say I’m trying to take a picture of a dog running down the road. I snap it, it’s done. It’s a dog running down the road. It’s blurred, over exposed, badly composed, out of balance in color and shapes, has no redeeming value on any scale, is flat, two dimensional, not dept or sense of anything. But I got what I wanted, a picture of my dog. Is that Art? Now lets say I call it Art and declare it’s exactly the composition I wanted and it gives me great pleasure as a work of art?
Is that now ART? I don’t think so. I think others ultimately must also be able to see and appreciate it as art or it’s NOT art. And from the viewpoint that others must also view it as art, we can then study what causes us as humans to see something as Art and to reject other offerings as “not being art”.
Art must be capable in my opinion of transmitting a message to others, make a connection on some level. If everyone looks at your picture and the most they get out of it is that it’s a dog on the road….it’s not really art. In visual arts something more must be communicated. If others cannot connect to your art or see it to be art at all, no one anywhere….I question whether it is really Art or of any value as art.
I can tell you that most of my pictures are NOT art and only now am I learning why I like certain pictures and what makes certain pictures so good and most of them so ordinary and artless. But if I were arrogant, I could tell you that everything I make is Art and by your definition, it would be.
hmmm abstract photography, interesting…
seriously though your saying that all “art” should be to another persons standards??? Heck most of the world’s most beloved art was thought to be foolishness until the person was dead!!! Many artists were thought to be crazy or obsessed. Also Art in it’s inception was never about money and should never be about money. it was meant to stimulate the mind and create freedom of expression. If you are truly an artist, you will generally be harder on yourself than those around you anyways. If through practice you arrive at the photo you mentioned above and truly meant to accomplish that feet, then yes it is art. defined as this. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium. weather it will sell has absolutely nothing to do with it, after all beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
That stump is a stepping stone into the picture. The foreground steps us in and points us to the magnificent background. It uses light & shadow, lines, shapes, depth, balance…that picture has a lot going for it. It appeals to the brain as it hits us on so many levels. It takes many of the traditional elements that the photographer has to work with and it presents them well. That stump and that mountain compliment each other, form some sort of a balance.
Art is for people. Someone who makes “Art” people can’t see or appreciate on some level, I would say is NOT making Art. Picasso was well collected and did well by the way. He only sold what he needed to, the rest he kept.
art that others can’t view in any form as art, is of little value. It expresses nothing to anyone, is desired by no one. Is appreciated by no one.
Why do we respond to Ansel Adams? To understand why an Ansel Adams photograph elicits a response from so many is to understand Art. Or at least to understand Good Art that was created to deliver that personal response. And what it comes down to in my opinion is the functioning of the human brain. How we see, how we perceive, how the brain seeks order and reacts to disorder, how it processes color, and so forth. It’s these commonalities in our brains and understanding them, I believe, that allows one to create good art.
The executive that selects a photo no one likes or can relate to on any level is not likely to have chosen well. As his ad campaign flops because he picked trash instead of art…I guess he can comfort himself by saying that HE sees it as art?
First off, I would not use Picasso as an example. He was bred into the arts. he kept most of his art to himself and burned it to stay warm, so I guess it wasn’t art, after all no one got to see it and no one ever will.
Ok I am not getting anywhere here. your opinion is exactly what it is. YOUR opinion! I gave you the literal definition of ART. Monetary worth has nothing to do with art. Art has to do with how it makes someone feel, i.e picasso’s blue period vs. his rose period.
And just so you know, the executive that I talked about was from Nike who has never had a campaign flop, I kinda think they know what they are doing….
Hey John - great post.
I went looking for Chase Jarvis’s post that you were talking about and couldn’t find it. I was curious to see the actual photos. Could you add the link?
As far as what art is or isn’t - that is a complex question, becoming even more complex since the addition of photography into the possible media - Art used to have functional uses such as documentation, and story telling. Expression had less to do with it. Since photography, however, the documentation is all done by photography, but that is not the only thing done by photography.
My take on art is anything that was intended to and creates an emotional response (well, maybe not as wide as that - but in that general area)Using artistic media.
Good job on the blog John. I didn’t realize Margaret Thatcher was a photographer. :) I agree with your philosophy on art being self defined. Thank you for the blog.
Stephen; Although I respect your right to your opinion, I disagree with your position on the definition of art. I think that anything that requires creativity on any level is an art in itself. A photographer is still a photographer irregardless if their work is really good or not. If you consider human creativity throughout history, our “art” is defined by architecture, language, etc. Art has a much deeper meaning than headless sculptures, and paintings of clowns crying. You’re always going to get people that point at things and say “that’s art” or “that’s not art” yada yada. This is just a way for people to qualify something they find pleasing (or not). It’s much like when the locals claim Budweiser is “real beer” or Chevys are “real trucks” etc.
Blacksmiths were considered artisans, and blacksmithing is considered a “lost art” like many others. There is an “art” to the way the landscapers trim the hedges, and in the way a mason builds a brick wall. I consider what I do (mechanical design) an art.
With the Ansel Adams example, the leading lines, balance, etc. of this photograph is really how you individually interpret the image. This doesn’t necessarily mean these things are what Mr. Adams had in mind when he created the photograph. He may have just had a thing for stumps.
My two centavos.
Flop the photo of Thatcher was taken by Lord Lichfield, who also photographed the Queen and many other important people of that era.
Thanks for the conversation guys. Gives one things to think about.
I spent the morning shooting a bird and figuring out the limits of my present zoom lens! Thank goodness nature finally provided some better light today.
John, I didn’t say the actual campaign did flop did I? How could I possibly know as you never revealed the details?
But if an executive picks trash because he sees it as Art, and as in your example others looking at it do not see it as Art and his choice doesn’t fly with them….whose definition of Art works best? If his campaign was a huge success, then maybe he has a better handle on Art then you do? After all, marketing does not have to be ART. Maybe he knew that the shot he was after was the least artistic but the most marketable for some other reason? Maybe he knew his AUDIENCE better than you?
You are arguing for a very broad, unlimited,anything is Art definition. If the entire world and all that’s done in it is “art” then I would say that I’m after a very narrow and restricted version of Art in what I do. I want that which others can also see as having value, view, respond to on some level, in some way acknowledge the picture is effective or interesting, or in some way artistic, well composed or framed. Thus, studying what others do, what others have learned, how we as people think and view the visual world…lends to what I want to do.
I cannot agree that everything is art or that anything anyone wants to call Art is art. But I can agree that the definition can be as broad as YOU care to make it. I prefer a more narrow definition. And perhaps that’s part of the game. You cannot impose your view of Art on me and I cannot impose my view of art on you.
Agreed Steven,we can not change eachothers minds and I am not neccissarily saying that anything can be art. what I am saying is that art is a very broad subject that no one person or group can pin point. As I said before, A true artist is alot harder on them self than other people would be, and they should be. As in the case of michelangelo, who would scrap a complete work of Art, for having a very minor flaw, often in his own mind. That is a True artist to the piont of obsession. In photography it is much the same. We usually will shoot hundreds of photos and only come up with one or two that we, the artist, feel is acceptable in what we were trying to acheve. I suppose that was what I was trying to put into words the whole time. hopefully that clairifies my point of view.
wow all i can say about all of that is.
HEAVY. LoL . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teasing
I’ve just joined this site and it looks great.
This weekend the reason we’re going to London is to go to an exhibition of one of my favourite photographers. I’m sure a lot of people won’t understand my choice but that’s what makes us all different. I’m going to the Annie Leibovitz - A Photographer’s Life - exhibition. To me she takes fantastic and amazing portraits, there appears to be an awful lot of trust between her and the people she photographs because certainly some of the photos are unique and sometimes bizarre and the famous people who are having their photos taken must trust her an awful lot. I’m so excited to go to this exhibition that I can’t wait to be there.
Drops, I wish I could squeeze into your suitcase and go with you! Have a great time!
Flopster the exhibition was fantastic, out of this world :o) I just stood in awe at what I saw :o)
<a href="http://www.photo-print-on-canvas.com">Canvas pictures</a>
Since the advent of photography, it has been negated by most as an artform with the ludicrous thought that all you have to do is aim the camera and push the shutter, photography is always mentioned as being separate from art.
The reality is that photography is as much an artform as painting or any other form of expression or communication.
In many ways, photography and painting are very similar, in other ways they are very different. Both have their inherent challenges, but photography can be as difficult as painting and sometimes more so. Each is a two dimensional creation, each uses composition and design and each takes varying amounts of time to create. Like painting, photography is a very lonely, solitary profession, only one person at a time can create a photograph, only one person at a time can look through the viewfinder, only one person at a time can make the final print with all the decisions that entails.
Painting starts with a blank canvas, a palette of paints, a brush, and the artist’s skill. Painting requires the artist to create or copy from life, or from his/her imagination. A painter is free to choose which elements in the world excites him and which will be used or discarded from the paintings.
The photographer is challenged by the entire world. Photography is a process of selection and elimination much more than painting. One cannot move a tree that is in the way, so one has to use the viewfinder to find and select the best composition to include the tree in the picture. It’s also a process of waiting for the right thing to happen, as in reportage, for the animal to make himself seen as in wildlife, waiting for just the right light as in nature.
Photography is a process of creating the light with artificial means if it’s too dark or when shooting in the studio. It’s a process of interacting with models and actors to achieve a look, a feeling, an emotion. It’s a process of looking for the unusual, from point of view to detail, of being aware of all the things in life that we pass by every day and making the viewer notice them. A wall is not a wall, it’s brick and mortar, it’s stucco and graffiti, it’s tiny insects who make their homes in the nooks and crevices, it’s the mountain for a vine to climb, it’s the prop for a man to lean on… and on and on.
All aspects are inter-dependent on each other. A teacher of mine once said, "photography is one thousand little easy things, but you have to be on top of all of them at the same time, miss one and there goes the shot."
Just like in painting, only the imagination limits the scope and just like in painting, the photographer who can and does create the entire scenario by starting with a blank background and adding and arranging props and or models/actors to create and illustrate his idea.
In fact, some feel, and I’m one of those, that just like in painting, the purest creations are those done in that manner, starting from scratch and creating the entire photograph or painting from the mind.
Painting requires technical dexterity to draw with a pencil, paint with a brush, mix the colors so that they emulate the ones from real life, or to form a shape on the canvas. Photography requires technical expertise in a more technological manner, chemistry, physics, as well as manual dexterity for focusing, camera angle, changing aperture, etc.
Responsibilities are different as well, photography is perceived as reality, the cliché: "the camera does not lie", gives people expectations that the photographer must deal with. Painters are expected to "invent" or create the world in which they work.
Photography should be considered as a three phased process:
1. Taking or "making" the picture.
I want to emphasize the idea that "Amateurs TAKE pictures, pros MAKE them", particularly in the arts. Unless the photographer makes his own prints hands on, he is not an artist, but a commercial photographer.
2. Developing the film.
There is much control in chemistry, it is agreed that the technology of color film processing is so refined as to require most photographers to have color film developed by labs, but there is more variety of film/developer combinations in black and white that require the photographer to keep control of that aspect of the work. For example, contrast, tonality and grain are affected not only by the chemistry, but by the temperature of the chemistry, the amount of time in the developer, the agitation during development, etc.
Digital photography is no different except that with the computer and the software available, the photographer now has not only all the time in the world to “expose” the print, but he has a multitude of effects that he did not have in the traditional “wet” darkroom.
It must be said that most of those effect should be left alone, they do not all enhance a picture and many detract from it and are responsible for some photographs these days being all technique and no aesthetics.
3. Printing.
There is no question that whether black and white or color, an artist MUST print his/her own work. Only in commercial photography is the use of a lab or assistant acceptable. The decisions as to what and where to dodge and burn in, crop, color filtrations, whether overall or selective, all must be made by the photographer. When printed by the photographer, each print, no matter how careful the photographer is, will have subtle differences which make each an "original" image.
There are many mechanical devices that make processing the color print as simple as inserting the paper at one end and taking it out dry at the other. With these technologies, such as the various computerized printing processes, it’s possible to make a first print with all the decisions named above, then save the results in a file and print as many as desired with each print being "identical". The result is no longer an original or multiple print, but falls under the category of reproduction. The criteria for "reproduction" being that the work has been done once, sealed and delivered, and each succeeding print is nothing more than a duplicate of the first one. There is no more creative input from the photographer.
The same reproduction issue can be said for the use of labs or computers and inkjet printers, up to the point where the photographer "OKs" the final print, the prints can be considered originals. The moment he "OKs" the final print, the moment the information is recorded and sealed on disk or in a file, the succeeding prints will be duplicates or reproductions. The comparison analogy to other printing processes is that the negative or transparency (slide) is considered as the "plate", and the print is the finished product. Without the print, the negative is useless, cannot be read or interpreted by the eye, is too small to see properly and cannot be sold… how would it be viewed? Therefore, the negative is one half of the photograph, the other half being the print. Once there is an original, all copies of it are reproductions.
One must not forget that as much creativity, and as many decisions go into the films development and the printing process as in the taking of the original negative. Ansel Adams put it another way, relating it to music: "The negative is the score, the print the performance".