View Full Version : What's the best ...?
Some philosophical discussion invited:
I've noticed that participants in this forum and many others frequently ask "What's the best camera/lens/developer etc" ...
I've also noticed the responses seem to divide into two camps. In one the response is another question - "What's the best for you? Go and experiment, see what works".
In the other, an unseemly row breaks out about whether this camera/film/lens or that camera/film/lens is any good. It often looks as though pistols at dawn are on the agenda.
Asking this question is quite seductive. Photography involves a lot of technical skill and advanced equipment. There is a strong sense (and a justifiable one) that there must be an optimum method for reliable and high quality results. I think this feeling strays over into the imaginative and creative end.
The implied question sometimes seems to be "what gear should I buy to make me a good photographer?" I think as soon as you ask it in this way, the answer can only be that one is chasing an illusion.
I think we'd all like to improve our photography (as well as our gear) so my final question:
What's the best way to become a better photographer?
What's the best way to become a better photographer?
It is a very good question and one I have asked myself. I have come to the conclusion, as crass as it may sound, that one has to simply 'be oneself'. Great work is the product not of great conscious toil but talent (and toil that follows and not leads!)I feel. Perhaps this is why great peolple often get worn out, without even knowing about it or having any choice in the matter. I guess we have to find a way of allowing whatever talent we have to be in charge of our photography rather than determination and ambition driving us towards more consciously determined and less original objectives.
I have come to the conclusion that the only chance I have of being a good photographer is not to try to be one, because that idea (of trying to be a 'good photographer') already suggests driving towards something already determined, known, extant. Such an objective surely diminishes the chance that I would have anything original and personal to offer.
I just want to do my thing, enjoy it and see what happens. Yes my photography is very important to me, but feel that I am more likely to achieve the objective by not having one...just doing what I love, what inspires me, what the inner me wants not the outer me!
Maybe the fact that I am even thinking about it means that my prospects are limited?
Read, experiment, take classes, delve into other forms of art, play with your kid, play with your partner, play with your friends, enjoy life, and shoot. :)
M4streetshooter
02-02-2007, 03:07
One way would be to....
leave the camera's at home.....make an appointment for your local museum at the Print and Picture department and go and look at images until your eyes hurt...then get some sleep and after doing this many times, images will start to appear in your head.....
then get your camera and make images.....
photography is about Seeing and Recording...
the camera knows how to Record....you have to do your part and learn not only how to See but how to Capture/Record with the camera to make the final image.....
I have an entire workshop about improving vision etc but there ain't enuff space here to post it....
I think there are three elements, all of which are important in my opinion. The first is technical skill - you know your equipment, you know how to expose for a given result and you can repeat this at will. The second is taking plenty of photographs, that is, practice, but also putting yourself in situations where there are photographic opportunities - if you stay at home most of the time, you are limiting yourself, unless you do some kind of studio work. The third element is developing an eye for a good image (not certain how far you can develop this if it is not already latent within you) - I think you can improve by looking at other's work and working with basic composition rules (guidelines).
The equipment you use does play a part, but in my opinion its about how seamless it is in use and that's mainly about ergonomics and reliability. However, if having brand X gives you a psychological boost, then that will also have a positive impact.
Just my 2 pennies worth.
BillRogers
02-02-2007, 03:25
Practice, practice, practice.
Practice, practice, practice.
I was gonna say that, but someone beat me to it. Lack of practice is my biggest issue. I see great potential photographs from time to time, but I don't have the technical skill and experience to capture these images as they should be captured. I envisioned a great image yesterday of a bunch of folks standing in line waiting for a bus- dramatic winter lighting, and a set designer could not have arranged the folks in such an interesting arrangement. I need to work on my exposure techniques and experiment with different films, and also learn to make the best use of my lenses in order to improve. Being primarily an SLR user, I am completely spoiled by using zoom lenses, and don't have a good feel about how to position myself for the best shots with a prime lens.
Finding the time to work on my technique is difficult, and setting aside time to do so is tough given the trade-offs of other priorities and preferences.
Great ideas and advice given so far!
-learn the technical and practise
-develop an eye by looking at art and life critically
-be yourself and have fun
Read, experiment, take classes, delve into other forms of art, play with your kid, play with your partner, play with your friends, enjoy life, and shoot. :)
Most importantly, shoot. Good or bad, guess or perfect plan, with time or in a rush, snap the shutter and sort out the results later.
Like learning music ... first, learn all the notes ... then start writing your own arrangements!
Taking photo's.
The more practice you have at anything, the more refined your methods become.
Of course, contact and critique from other photographers, strangers, etc help give you another outlook. Talking to more experienced photographers can help improve the skills and methods.
Well, I'd hope I've improved as a photographer over the past few years, and it's all down to that stuff above.
Formal tuition did nothing for me!
I agree with Turtle. I firmly believe that the camera and the subject are the enemies of the photographer. Both pose enormous threats to genuine creativity, which is nothing but the expression of the highest potential of the self. The former sustains the illusion that a particular means will produce results of a particular significance, and the latter that perceived reality exists or has meaning outside of the photographer.
Socrates gave us a one-word answer on exactly how to be a good photographer - arete (“virtue” and “quality”) - the realisation of intrinsic potential. Most photographs are meaningless because they are either imitations of photographs or pictures of things. Successful photography, like any art is never actually about the representation of objects, but rather the expression of our own meaning, vision, arete.
Which is why Duchamp’s “Fountain” will echo down the centuries and Tracy Emin’s bed is a pile of old blankets.
As always, knowledge of the self is the only knowledge that counts. One does not have to be “good” to be a good photographer, but a good photographer is necessarily virtuous in the Socratic sense. All photographs are self-portraits, so, I would say, the recipe for a good photographer is simply to think, learn, feel, dream and do as fully as is possible in every sphere, remembering that photography is merely the means, never the end. It’s a vision thing.
I think.
Cheers, Ian
Spyderman
02-02-2007, 05:21
Finally a good question. Thank you lushd for starting this thread.
I agree with most of the things said here. I like street photography, but my biggest problem is getting close to people. So I'm trying... I put my 50 and 85 lenses away for a while to practice using 35 for peole. That forces me to get closer...
So maybe another advice is: find your weaknesses and do something against them!
M4streetshooter
02-02-2007, 08:42
One of the biggerst issues is, pre-conception. This attacks every facet of everything we do..., photographically, if your out making images....pay attention to the ones you don't make and less attention to the ones you do make...Why? Because the ones you make you can see later...the ones you didn't make...
well memory fades fast...but in those images are the truths about your trigger mechanisms. If you pay attention to those triggers, then in time you will find that you won't be repeating the same thing over and over....and even that's ok if you approach it from a different mindset....
After you have a body of work going, lay the images out....arrange them to what makes sence to you and look for the pivitol image that just...doesn't seem to fit....that image is the one that leads to a new approach or direction....after some time, your image laid out will look like a crossword puzzle......
more later...don
After a rather long lay-off from photography, except for holidays snaps, I am trying to get back in the swing of it.
I think making the gear (the film & the box it is in) do what you want, can be practised. Bulk-rolls and 35mm makes this economic, but I think that having one sort of film and clear aims to be achieved (eg. metering shadows maybe specifically with detail, or without detail, subject contre-jour or many other lighting styles, using motion or stopping motion etc etc) plus lots of notes, and thinking, will do that. It's just chemistry after all.
The artistic eye is where I have no clue about self-improvement - do art studies develop people, or lead to pre-conceptions ? I suppose that sort of area can be taught, but on ones own the necessary feedback is a bit absent - so then we have RFF !
And yes, my gallery here is still empty.... ;)
" What's the best way to become a better photographer?"
Shoot shoot shoot. Look at what the greats have done. Find inspiration in them. Shoot shoot shoot. Then shoot some more.
/Ira
Defining "good" photography is a problem for every photographer. Some appreciate grain. Some worry about focus. Some concern theirselves overly with composition. Light, Texture, Form, and personal self-expectation play a role, too. Do you plan your images beforehand? Do you look for particular images? Do "grab" shots dominate?
I think the above paragraph is indicative of the range of thought processes that go into "taking" a photograph. "Making" a photograph is a whole 'nother thing. How many manipulate the image beforehand. In the darkroom? In the computer? Lots of ways to practice this process of photography.
The diversity is part of the interest, eh?
Regards!
Don
Be true to yourself; follow your own vision. Take the pictures that you want to make.
You may never become famous, but it will have been better than spending your life trying to be something you are not (by imitating others.)
canonetc
02-02-2007, 18:19
Shoot until you realize you are wasting film, then shoot conservatively. Study the works of published "masters". Compare your compositions with theirs, but not necessarily the subject matter. Find a good mentor of "the Old School". Master the art of the completely manual camera, shoot with it often. Experiment with multiple formats (6x6 - 6x9 - 4x5). Discriminate between "shock-value" images and those that contain multiple levels of meaning. Reduce distractions. Watch less TV. Shoot a subject you normally have no interest in, or one that you outright dislike. Keep your camera with you at all times.
Chris
canonetc
George Bonanno
02-02-2007, 20:35
Shoot shoot shoot. Look at what the greats have done. Find inspiration in them. Shoot shoot shoot. Then shoot some more.
/Ira
I agree with Ira... "Shoot shoot shoot".
Keep in mind photography is a craft... not an art. If one gets into the mindset "photography is art"... then you are doomed.
Best,
George
I agree with Ira... "Shoot shoot shoot".
Keep in mind photography is a craft... not an art. If one gets into the mindset "photography is art"... then you are doomed.
Best,
George
I beg to disagree. Using a camera is - arguably - a craft (at the very narrowest definition), if one chooses to understand it simply as a matter of skill - a knack - and takes care not to insert film or look through the viewfinder. But any photograph possessing any meaning or significance whatsoever is necessarily a work of art: : "the expression or application of creative skill and imagination" (OED).
Cheers, Ian
I agree with Ira... "Shoot shoot shoot".
Keep in mind photography is a craft... not an art. If one gets into the mindset "photography is art"... then you are doomed.
Best,
George
George - that's a big statement! Could you say more? Why craft? Why doomed?
Best wishes
I agree with Ira... "Shoot shoot shoot".
Keep in mind photography is a craft... not an art. If one gets into the mindset "photography is art"... then you are doomed.
Best,
George
Sorry I cant agree with that, the technical side; the selection of the gear, taking, developing, and printing I can see would be improved with practise, so could be considered a craft, but I’m not sure the choice of subject, framing, and editing could be anything other than an art
My two cents is that there is no 'best' in anyting. The way you become a better photog is by improving the way you take photos. So if you like compositions then as written in all the very nice responses here shoot more and study the masters. If you want to find new way of creativity and subjects then go where you've never been before etc... All in all to become a better photog takes time as photography is a higly empirical art.
no_doubt_kit
02-03-2007, 07:00
stand and think before pressing the shutter
I believe photography is both craft and art; there being a huge difference in the balance of these two 'things' in different forms of photography. Photojournalism...advertising......street.....land scapes....industrial. Think about it. They are very different in this regard. Some alt processes to me are almost exclusively craft as I see a decreasing artistic component the more people get wrapped up in huge formats and obscure contact printing techniques. Some forms of photography are very conceptual and have almost no craft in them.
I believe in classes in so far as I believe in learning techniques which help release your expression; whether these be darkroom techniques to enable a negative to be printed the way you feel it ought to be or simply to learn how to use equipment. Philisophical classes may also prove fertile in order to remove the obstacles to self-expression. I do believe however that a lot of classes revolve around imitation and pupils actively seek to become better imitators. I also believe that a lot of instructors and so called 'experts' stifle creativity and are full of it! Most famous artists/photogs would be shot to pieces by many instructors who have a generic multi-point 'good photo' template etched into their minds. The same comment applies to some clubs, where a couple of veterans dictate how things should done and you either learn from them or leave.
I had a dark year when I tried too hard. I then stopped giving sh!t and my photography improved. I should add that when I speak of originality I am not talking about fadish work. I think there is huge scope in doing things done before (its hard not to) but with your own insight and your own spin. I cannot see street work ever becoming overdone as societies change. I cannot imagine landscape work ever dying as it too changes along with our relationship with it. If you can speak to people thru your work through a tired genre I would say that the success is even greater.
I think there is a good argument for an element of isolation when it comes to improving your work, once you are confident you have decent basic skills. I have maintained for a long time that I will never enter a photography competition as I do not feel that success or failure tells me whether I am growing or not. Great art or photography is not the same as nice wallpaper. Most people will never connect with it!
I am curious but unfazed by what people think. If I did get too concerned, I would undoubtedlty be a more frustrated, worse (in my eyes) photographer than I am at present. Frustration and disappointment at not recieveing praise in a club/class assignment or a competition is all too likely to lead to one identifying only the means to produce work that pleases the judges.
I like to sell prints once in a while. I could not give a toss if 100 people walk past a print I love and look blank. Its the one person who ignores every other print on the wall and lis captivated by the one the other 100 have ignored is the one who matters. That one person is the reflection of me, an individual. I don't expect everyone to be just like me, so I should not expect them all to like my work. I am sure that the more widely appealing your work is, the less time each person spends looking......there is a balance I am sure.
Practice, yes, sort of. But I would take it further and say 'do what you want and lots of it regularly'. If you are going out practicing there are already a whole load of preconceptions in your head, "today I will practice..."
Simon Larbalestier
02-03-2007, 07:11
Be true to yourself - develop your own personal vision over a period of time and don't compromise.
Buy the equipment that works for you and spend as much time as you can observing the world around you and decide what it is you want to communicate with your photographs - the rest i think is simply time and experience.
To be able to connect with a wider public and develop a professional reputation can depend a lot on who you meet in life and at what point. A good agent/gallery can make all the difference but you have to have the personal vision and a strong body of work from which an agent or gallery can begin to promote you.
Lots of good advice. Here's a practical one:
After you click the shutter, take a few more. Kneel down, move closer, farther, move around the subject. You may be surprised.
If you look at your contact prints and you find you are just taking one shot snaps of each subject, you are probably missing a lot.
retrocam
02-03-2007, 07:59
For me, it's to learn the technical stuff first. Then learning the look/style I like best and practice, practice, practice.
As mentioned in this thread, it's being true to yourself.
Also, shoot pics that please you and not others - if they don't like your stuff, it's their problem and not yours. Of course, things may be different if you're shooting for a client. But see, how else will a person develop a personal style if he/she goes on pleasing other people?
markinlondon
02-03-2007, 08:04
Thanks. Donald, for such a thought provoking thread.
I tend to think of photography as a blend of art and craft. The operation of the camera, processing of the film and production of the final print are all within the category of crafts. The finished photograph may be considered art. I feel the same way about music, playing an instrument is a craft that can be learned, what comes out may be considered art.
In both cases, photography and music, whether the end result is art is a decision for the audience not the artist.
Actually, I think "art" and "craft" are synonyms. One could argue that prior to the industrial revolution, no-one saw a difference. After that, we have a false division between high culture (art) and low culture (craft). Photography so obviously straddles both that it played a significant part in the ultimately unsuccessful 19th century attempt to resolve this miss-perception. The wonderful thing is that successful photography actually demands we ignore such distinctions. The realised photographer is back with Durer, Cellini and Michelangelo in a union of spirit, hand and eye: a wholeness which is really quite rare in contemporary western culture.
Cheers, Ian
What I've been doing is browsing the RFF Galleries and Flickr then going out and trying to duplicate particular photos that I like. Of course, with photography, you can't really duplicate a shot but I try to get the same type of composition and, more importantly, the feel of the photograph. Its somewhat like a beginning musician playing covers I guess. I'm hoping that eventually I will stop emulating and start creating photographs on my own.
In addition, I've been reading anything I can get my hands about photography techniques and also looking at photographs done by great photographers.
I remembered this thread when I saw Rich's video, 94114 (http://www1.webng.com/0007/project/).
I guess to be a good photographer, you need not only a good eye, but you need to shoot with your heart. Your photos need to be about something, to mean something, and convey something to the viewer. It's not just shooting random photos. It's definitely not about how well the photo showcases your lens' fingerprint. It's about what is in the photo.
Sometimes we all lose track of this, in all this gear lust. Thanks, Rich.
dazedgonebye
02-03-2007, 20:05
How Do You Get to Carnegie Hall?
A young person, holding a violin case, stops a passing cab in New York city and asks the driver, ‘Can you tell me how to get to Carnegie Hall.’
The cabbie, without hesitation, quips, ‘Yea, practice.’
George Bonanno
02-03-2007, 23:37
As I interrupted the invitation it was to give an unemotional response.
A big statement... it was not ! It was a personal, practical suggestion on my part.
So, ya want to be an artist. Start with a blank canvas and paint. Start with a block of granite and chip away.
The closest photo images I ever viewed as being art were Rayographs by Man Ray. And they were intended to weaken the photographic character of photographs.
With photography, you, your camera and film are just recording (stealing) reflected light from two and three dimensional objects. Nothing more and a lot less.
Best,
George
With photography, you, your camera and film are just recording (stealing) reflected light from two and three dimensional objects. Nothing more and a lot less.So, George, are you saying photography is not art and has never been?
OK everyone - I want to ask more questions. We all know a "good" photograph when we see one.
What is a "good" photograph?
Why are we unable to take one every time we release the shutter when we seem to know the rules?
I agree with Ian. The pleasure and frustration of photography (indeed of being human) is one's success or otherwise in sharing a vision. A great photograph connects people.
George Bonanno
02-04-2007, 00:19
Dear Doug,
It seems you nailed me down. Yes, that is exactly what I am saying (said). Photography has not, is not, and never will be art.
Best,
George
telenous
02-04-2007, 01:48
An aside on the craft vs art question.
Everyone seems to agree on that photography is a craft (lets leave vague for the moment the precise meaning of 'craft'). But not everyone agrees on that photography is an art. The reason for this divergence of opinion seems to me to be that (a) some craft is not art, and, (b) all art is some sort of craft. As a result, it seems that art is a subset of crafts. Where by the term 'craft' one usually means 'an activity that involves skill in making things by hand' (I 've just checked my Oxford Dictionary, that's what it says) - and where one can be sufficiently relaxed about the precise reference of the term 'things' and the requirement that these things are made precisely and exclusively by hand. More controversially, by 'art' I understand that sort of craft which is designated as such, first by some sort of consensus on the part of the (artistic) authorities and the public, and then by a historical accident or precedent.
All photography is craft. Some (a little) of it is also art. The crucial step is that someone (not just the photographer) is willing to designate it as art and (perhaps even more crucially) that someone is willing to give it public exposure as such. The more a particular exhibit generates 'artistic' interest, the more it acquires the status of one.
Simon Larbalestier
02-04-2007, 02:25
With photography, you, your camera and film are just recording (stealing) reflected light from two and three dimensional objects. Nothing more and a lot less.
Best,
George
Well i've never seen this way but i guess we are all different.....
Simon Larbalestier
02-04-2007, 02:32
What I've been doing is browsing the RFF Galleries and Flickr then going out and trying to duplicate particular photos that I like. Of course, with photography, you can't really duplicate a shot but I try to get the same type of composition and, more importantly, the feel of the photograph. Its somewhat like a beginning musician playing covers I guess. I'm hoping that eventually I will stop emulating and start creating photographs on my own.
I just don't understand this methodology how can emulating the works of others even down to the "feel" of the photograph ever advance your own personal vision
Maybe i missed something along the road in the last 20 years but surely you have enough about you to make your own statements about life using a camera without the need to emulate others.....?
All photography is craft. Some (a little) of it is also art. The crucial step is that someone (not just the photographer) is willing to designate it as art and (perhaps even more crucially) that someone is willing to give it public exposure as such. The more a particular exhibit generates 'artistic' interest, the more it acquires the status of one.
To my surprise, I partly disagree. We may now have a rather narrow, socio-economic definition of art, but that reflects a debased use of language. If one looks in old texts one finds not "art" but "the art" - art was (I would say is) the process of creation, the doing, not the done - something which lies in the individual, not the public realm. The thing created is simply a result of that process, whose value lies precisely in the personal vision Simon describes. Intriguingly, looking yet further back, we find that the word art derives from (Latin ars) simply meant "skill in joining together", exactly as Donald says.
So - perhaps a "good photograph" is one which joins people together, effectively communicating personal vision and experience.
Cheers, Ian
Simon Larbalestier
02-04-2007, 05:11
So - perhaps a "good photograph" is one which joins people together, effectively communicating personal vision and experience.
Cheers, Ian
Ian i like this definition - well reasoned. I think also a "good" photograph is one which touches, moves and inspires people. It may also have the potential to act as a catalyst.
Pherdinand
02-04-2007, 08:24
What's the best way to become a better photographer?
SHoot, shoot and shoot.
And read stuff written by photographers you like, try to familiarize with the idea they had in their head. In addition, if you read their stuff, you might get a hint about how much film they "wasted"to get that one single famous shot.
Pherdinand
02-04-2007, 08:27
Oh and something else. Try to get out with the camera with a well defined plan in your head, a plan not for shooting "something that pops up" but for a few specific photographs, a theme that interests you and a theme that you know something about, or you want to know something about. This will help in consistency and in creating a good base of your work instead of having 37 different random shots on every roll.
EDIT: I see the suggestion of "shooting for your own pleasure not to satisfy others" . This comes up quite often in such discussions, the idea of you being the only one that should lkike your work.
On one hand I couldf agree...you HAVE to like what you do... On the other hand, if you do not care about anybody else's oppinion, it has the risk of becoming an introverted activity, an intellectual masturbation if you pardon me the expression. A l'art pour l'art. Now, some people are perfectly fine with practicing such a hobby, but it certainly does no good to your social life, to your popularity and to your self confidence if any of these things matter to you at all.
telenous
02-04-2007, 08:58
To my surprise, I partly disagree. We may now have a rather narrow, socio-economic definition of art, but that reflects a debased use of language. If one looks in old texts one finds not "art" but "the art" - art was (I would say is) the process of creation, the doing, not the done - something which lies in the individual, not the public realm. The thing created is simply a result of that process, whose value lies precisely in the personal vision Simon describes. Intriguingly, looking yet further back, we find that the word art derives from (Latin ars) simply meant "skill in joining together", exactly as Donald says.
So - perhaps a "good photograph" is one which joins people together, effectively communicating personal vision and experience.
Cheers, Ian
Ian,
You make a sound point (and one which, to be honest, I hadn't thought of). Shifts in language meaning are not unusual, perhaps (almost certainly I now think) 'art' is one of them. Interestingly, the very word for 'poetry' in classical (but also modern) Greek ('ποίησις") is etymologically related to the verb "ποιώ", i.e. to make, to create. It is telling that there is no connotation other than the very act of creation in that word.
On the other hand, our present understanding of the word 'art' seems to be induced by a certain socio-economic practice; a practice perhaps foreign to other cultures and without universal application across time and place.
Best,
Well, now *that* is the question isn't it..
It *all* begins with the idea.
Work from the idea, your idea, whatever that may be, truthfully and sincerely, sacrificing all else for the original idea (and that can be difficult).
Everything else will fall into place.
People discuss buying gear, GAS attacks, etc. when they have no idea what they really want, or are about?! Do they know exactly why they are buying "more" for?
The *idea* selects the gear, selects the medium, developer, selects the method of final display, etc.
To find the "idea" is the trick. Originality.
*Note: not for the faint of heart. Stop now if not interested in "more"**
Tell me one thing you say or do that is uniquely your own and has never been said or done before? Not a lot...
We are all copiests and reflections of our environment, friends, family, what we see, etc.
Yes, yes, it has all been done before, and "everything is art therefore nothing is art", etc....
What I am talking about here is that thing that is genuinely yours.
You will go through Hell to find your truth, your voice.
That I feel is what your real question is. (I may be wrong)
I do not care how old you are, it is never too late and you are never too old to begin a journey. In fact, the older the better, you have already learned a lot from living.
But it is, as they say, difficult to teach an old dog...don't allow ingrained habits stop you from breaking any walls within your head/heart. the older people become the more shallow the attempts it seems...
Deal with your past. Understand it.
Find your idea ..no matter how immature it may at first seem, and work without getting sidetracked or losing your way towards that thing that originally motivated you.
Your first attempts at originality will be like baby steps. Don't be embarrassed. they are genuine, and that is what you are after.
In photography it is so easy to copy other's ideas.....don't do it.
Likewise, studying and understanding the craft is very important. how others have done it and do it, etc...
As odd as this is to say (as we do not know one another), please trust me on this.....do not study anything too much.
I am a studier/researcher by nature. I want to know and learn everything, details, dates, you name it...to no end.
IT WILL PARALYZE YOU.
Studying anything too much, even analyzing too much your ideas, will render them sterile and dead.
Feelings, genuine feelings count far more. A look at all the great artists and and all the dilettantes will instatnly reflec this.
These fleeting brilliant ideas we have during the day that we wished we could remember later and write down....GET A NOTEBOOK. CARRY IT WITH YOU ALWAYS.
And personally, I never forget the average viewer.
Art/expression/ideas are intended to be shared. We are already egotistical..all artists are..it is about us after all. We are trying to understand ourselves in relation to all else!
Art is a bridge between the creator and the viewer. I feel it is always a challenge above all to create that bridge as the human mind is very complex and our ideas likewise can be.
Contemporary art is a perfect example. I used to think they were such charlattans, what is this sillyness?!
Serioulsy, study modern art movements, it will expand your mind tremendously...photography and contemporary art go hand in hand.
I know people who practiced traditional painting and moved onto installation art. Many photogs as well...Allow yourself to learn and understand it..whether you agree or not I fel it will help assist growth and originality more than ANYTHING else.
You are not wasting time studying photog. You will always use it no matter where it takes you.
Just remember to listen to what your blood is whispering to you. It is so easy to push away thoughts, your gut. Dont be afraid if it takes you away from photography.
When we invest so much time in something we are so afraid of making a change due to the time invested...even if in our heart we know the change is the right one and will encourage growth.
Anyway, it is strange how we must reach the complete bottom to then *shoot* upwards afterwards....you will probably find that too..if you choose to continue...and others here I am sure can certainly relate.
Best
D
Demian - one word: BRAVO!
All the best, Ian
Sigh - Demian - if I had taken one picture that had the exquisite composition, tone, colour and light of the painting in your avatar ...
Now about this vision thing; I agree wholeheartedly with you. A good picture is one powered by a vision and that communicates enough of the vision to allow others to share it in some way.
But my enquiry is not over. How do you put that vision and the clues to sharing into your picture so someone else will get it?
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/next-level.shtml
dazedgonebye
02-04-2007, 13:36
Dear Doug,
It seems you nailed me down. Yes, that is exactly what I am saying (said). Photography has not, is not, and never will be art.
Best,
George
I could easily be convinced that I have never produced "art" with a camera, and I'm certain that a large majority of people out there clicking away have never produced art, but to make the statement you've made....sorry. Can't go with that.
I have no doubt that YOU've never experienced a photograph that you considered to be art, but I think that is a personal experience that very few here will say they share.
EDIT: I see the suggestion of "shooting for your own pleasure not to satisfy others" . This comes up quite often in such discussions, the idea of you being the only one that should lkike your work.
On one hand I couldf agree...you HAVE to like what you do... On the other hand, if you do not care about anybody else's oppinion, it has the risk of becoming an introverted activity, an intellectual masturbation if you pardon me the expression. A l'art pour l'art. Now, some people are perfectly fine with practicing such a hobby, but it certainly does no good to your social life, to your popularity and to your self confidence if any of these things matter to you at all.
There is commercial art, where the artist needs to please others, but IMO, the really great art that has been done comes purely from the artist's heart with no attempt whatsoever to please someone else. This is not masterbation! Or maybe it is, and it is very "good" and it is recognized as Art.
I know this for sure: If an artist follows his vision and creates works purely from the heart, he has a very small chance of becoming recognised/famous. If an artist produces works with the intent of pleasing others, he has no hope of this, because his work will lack the depth of personal conviction.
I believe in this so strongly Pherdinand, that I would not hesitate to have it written on my headstone.
In a related fashion... when does an artist become an artist?
Is my work art because I'm an artist, or am I an artist becaise my work is art? And what if I deny being an artist or deny my work is art? Doesn't it mostly depend on the viewer/audience/buyer/gallery/etc to "decide" what is or isn't art and who is or isn't an artist?
In a related fashion... when does an artist become an artist
This is merely what I think. As human beings we are locked inside ourselves, limited, contained. When we bring that inside out, to manifest in the exterior world, we begin to work in the sphere of art, albeit in the very broadest sense. When we make something tangible it breaks the barrier between the self and not-self. They become one, hence to that degree we are all artists unawares.
But perhaps awareness is the point. I think that anyone who has ever worked creatively, be they knitter, sculptor, gardener, mechanic or Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, will have experienced that moment of absolute focus where self and not-self vanish and there is just perfect unity and the work in hand, which joyfully pours from the source of ones’ being. At that all too brief moment, I would say, one becomes an artist.
Cheers, Ian
Pherdinand
02-05-2007, 01:42
I know this for sure: If an artist follows his vision and creates works purely from the heart, he has a very small chance of becoming recognised/famous. If an artist produces works with the intent of pleasing others, he has no hope of this, because his work will lack the depth of personal conviction.
I believe in this so strongly Pherdinand, that I would not hesitate to have it written on my headstone.
Frank, it's fine whatever you believe in, I believe in the thing I wrote though :)
ANyway - about what you know "for sure"- history gave us plenty of artists who worked to please the people paying them, and created work like the Mona Lisa, the chapel of Sixtus, the pyramids, or the photo of the D-day. Of course, they were (might have been) working from the heart, but this does not conflict with the intention of pleasing others, imo.
And i also did not mean that you have to be some kind of fashion follower. I just say, it helps if you consider what people around you might prefer. It's more on the level of: you have three good ideas, they are equally appealing to you, so you go on first with the one that might appeal to some kind of "public" the most. I say nothing wrong with that.
Pherdinand
02-05-2007, 01:50
In a related fashion... when does an artist become an artist?
Is my work art because I'm an artist, or am I an artist becaise my work is art?
I think this is like the chicken and egg "problem". WHich, i heard, was solved lately, but who cares about chicken and eggs anyway, it's the symbolic problem what matters ;)
I think everybody has to decide him/herself on being an artist or not. If he will be considered an artist in hundred years or not, that's a different matter, there we don't have a word. But if I say i'm an artist, who are you to say I'm a loser. Just like I also can write crappy stories and say I am a writer, and I'm sure my mom will like them:D
Bertram2
02-05-2007, 02:06
What's the best way to become a better photographer?
The "shoot-shoot-shoot" thing won't lead you anywhere. Too many prove it, their stuff still looks like the crap they have started with 40 years ago.
First of all you must be able to forget your own greatness and then to learn, from others and the from poor and faulty results you produce yourself, in a dialectical process. This is the decisive basic condition on which some people , in a second step, can build up their own evolution of craft and art.
And never forget the point of true mastership is at infinite.
Regards,
bertram
telenous
02-05-2007, 03:00
In a related fashion... when does an artist become an artist?
Is my work art because I'm an artist, or am I an artist becaise my work is art? And what if I deny being an artist or deny my work is art? Doesn't it mostly depend on the viewer/audience/buyer/gallery/etc to "decide" what is or isn't art and who is or isn't an artist?
This question is analogous to the Socratic question on piety in Plato's Euthyphro. Socrates asked whether pious acts are pious because they are preferred by the gods (for current purposes, we may substitute the gods with social acceptability). Or the gods prefer them because they are pious?
Such dilemas can be solved by deciding what is the direction of explanation. Personally, I favour the view that the artist is coming before the work of art. If it was the other way round, then there could be works of art that were created in the absence of a specific artist (e.g. by Nature). Some people will obviously say that Nature is artistic, but the lack of intention seems to me crucial in resisting the point. Could there be though an artist who has never created (nor ever will he) a work of art? Difficult question, and one that can be answered in the affirmative only if we accept that the potential to do art is sufficient for someone to be thought of as an artist.
This question is analogous to the Socratic question on piety in Plato's Euthyphro. Socrates asked whether pious acts are pious because they are preferred by the gods (for current purposes, we may substitute the gods with social acceptability). Or the gods prefer them because they are pious?
Such dilemas can be solved by deciding what is the direction of explanation. Personally, I favour the view that the artist is coming before the work of art. If it was the other way round, then there could be works of art that were created in the absence of a specific artist (e.g. by Nature). Some people will obviously say that Nature is artistic, but the lack of intention seems to me crucial in resisting the point. Could there be though an artist who has never created (nor ever will he) a work of art? Difficult question, and one that can be answered in the affirmative only if we accept that the potential to do art is sufficient for someone to be thought of as an artist.
I’m more comfortable with Gautier’s “Art for the art's sake" independent of either creator or critic
Vagabond
02-05-2007, 03:44
Great thread with some excellent points. Much of this is covered in the book "Art & Fear" by David Bayles & Ted Orland. I picked up a copy after seeing it mentioned somewhere here on RFF. A very worthwhile read.
To illustrate my point, I'm thinking of artists like van Gogh who did not sell a painting while he was alive (I guess no one liked his work) but then became famous after his death.
Pherdinand
02-05-2007, 07:31
that's not completely true, Frank, he did have people who liked his work, and he worked for people through his brother Theo... anyway, of course there are examplkes who prove your point, as there are counterexamples too.
Well okay Pherdinand, you go ahead and make pictures to please other people and encourage others to do the same, and I'll go ahead and make pictures that please myself and encourage others to do so. That seems to be our disagreement. I'm okay with agreeing to disagree with you.
Gabriel M.A.
02-05-2007, 07:47
Like learning music ... first, learn all the notes ... then start writing your own arrangements!
lol -- I thought it was "learn the notes, then, forget the notes".
Pherdinand
02-05-2007, 07:49
Well okay Pherdinand, you go ahead and make pictures to please other people and encourage others to do the same, and I'll go ahead and make pictures that please myself and encourage others to do so. That seems to be our disagreement. I'm okay with agreeing to disagree with you.
me too:)Life would be terrible if we'd all agree.
Gabriel M.A.
02-05-2007, 07:51
he did have people who liked his work, and he worked for people through his brother Theo... anyway, of course there are examplkes who prove your point, as there are counterexamples too.
tsk tsk tsk. You mean to say something can't be summed up in a bumpersticker sentence? Unpossible! ;)
There are always exceptions to the rule, of course. It's just scary for some people to get out of their box, and outside of the box things are scary. And you know what the innate reaction to fear is: anger.
Just nod, Pherdinand!
tsk tsk tsk. You mean to say something can't be summed up in a bumpersticker sentence? Unpossible! ;)
There are always exceptions to the rule, of course. It's just scary for some people to get out of their box, and outside of the box things are scary. And you know what the innate reaction to fear is: anger.
Just nod, Pherdinand!
Gabriel I'm guessing you are referring to me in your quote.
I find that great truths can often be summed up in "bumpersticker sentences": Treat others the way you wish to be treated, for example.
Scary for me to come out of my box, I'm afraid so I react with anger? Are you in an altered state of consciousness or something? That's just a bizzare statement to make.
Pherdinand and I had a disagreement where he suggested that being true to yourself as a photographer was like masterbation and a bad idea. He felt it was more important to please others. See post #46. I tried to explain my view.
Have you got anything to add?
Bertram2
02-05-2007, 08:24
I agree with Ira... "Shoot shoot shoot".
Keep in mind photography is a craft... not an art. If one gets into the mindset "photography is art"... then you are doomed.
Best,
George
The original question has been:
What's the best way to become a better photographer?
If photography is art or not might be another discussion. Not for me tho.
Because there is no art. There are artists only. No matter what tool they use.
bertram
Pherdinand
02-05-2007, 08:28
"where he suggested that being true to yourself as a photographer was like masterbation and a bad idea"
no no no
my bad; i guess i did not express myself clearly
I have nothing against being true to yourself (whatever that might mean). I just don't see the conflict between pleasing yourself and pleasing others too. Or, considering the oppinion of others about your work. I don't see why trying to please tohers would be less important than pleasing you. And completely ignoring it, i don't think it is a good idea.
That's what i was referring to.
Art has no utility. If a thing has utility, then its not art. Therefore, a chair or a vase is not art, but it can be considered beautiful, displayed and not used, but its not art. If you make a portrait of someone (painting or photography) who wants the portrait as a memory for themselves, friends, family etc then that is not art. If you hire a model and shoot/paint portraits of someone who is not "known" and display it without reference to the individual, then that is art. (a probelm arises when you use such a painting or photograph to hide a rip in the wallpaper for then it has utility and can no longer be considered art :) )
Pondering the distinction between art and craft is an unnecessary diversion from the achievement of one's photographic goals :bang:
Gabriel M.A.
02-05-2007, 08:43
That was clear to me, Pherdinand. Only thing I have to add is I was addressing you, nobody else.
Gabriel M.A.
02-05-2007, 08:51
Art has no utility. If a thing has utility, then its not art.
<snip>
Pondering the distinction between art and craft is an unnecessary diversion from the achievement of one's photographic goals :bang:
That's also not true. All art has a use. The "Ancient Greeks" didn't just have art for art's sake, but to exhalt those ideals which they thought were "worthy" of exhaltation.
*All* art has had a use, be it to decorate, worship, or simply to be.
All art, by definition, is an expression from the human being. It's just that some are better than most at their chosen "area", and that focus tends to muddy the view of what "Art" is.
Photography is not an art in of itself, but is an art medium. Anything can be an art medium. But just because of that, not all photography can be art. And because you can point to photography that isn't art, it doesn't hold true that Photography isn't Art.
The square root of 4 is 2, and the square of -2 is 4. Applying the same logic for -2 in a linear fashion just leads to confusion and bitter students staring blankly at the blackboard.
Yes, yet another (dumb) analogy. :o
That was clear to me, Pherdinand. Only thing I have to add is I was addressing you, nobody else.
Gabriel,
It would be more honourable IMO, to address statements about someone, to them directly, not publically addressed to someone else.
If you have anything to say about me, please do so directly. Snide, sideways comments are cowardly.
"tsk tsk tsk. You mean to say something can't be summed up in a bumpersticker sentence? Unpossible!
There are always exceptions to the rule, of course. It's just scary for some people to get out of their box, and outside of the box things are scary. And you know what the innate reaction to fear is: anger.
Just nod, Pherdinand!"
Art has no utility. If a thing has utility, then its not art.
Like Gabriel, I believe this is absolutely wrong. The "art for art's sake" argument has never borne scruitiny. If we concentrate only on so-called "fine art" we find that it has always served a didactic, spiritual or social purpose, even if simply to exalt the mind and senses. Art is profoundly useful, hence it exists at the earliest stages of human culture: as someone once observed "without vision the people perish".
Cheers, Ian
lol -- I thought it was "learn the notes, then, forget the notes".
I prefer "La vraie musique est entre les notes".
:)
I want to know more about this "vision" thing.
Modern society reveres characters like Van Gogh, who pursued a vision of painting without much regard to his career or health. His near contemporary, Picasso, was equally visionary and is revered as perhaps the greatest western artist of the 20th C. He died a multi-millionaire celebrity but never lost his drive to create.
Joshua Reynolds, today regarded as one of the finest English painters of society portraits, ran his studio like a factory. Assitants painted the backgrounds, trees and anatomy of the sitter. Reynolds nipped in at the last moment and completed the painting and was famous for being able to knock off a picture in a few minutes.
He said, at a Royal Academy lecture that "invention, strictly speaking, is little more than a new combination of those images which have been previously gathered and deposited in the memory."
These three men are all regarded as artists. Were all three the same? Did they all have the same drive and purpose? If you have a vision as a photographer, is that enough to make you an artist? Can you be an artist without an inner vision?
Does the artist control the meaning and interpetation of his or her work?
Of the 3 men that you mention, I know which 2 I respect more as artists! This is the point I've been trying to make. It is the visionaries that create art, not those who create to please others to become wealthy. Art should not be done for profit, it should be done because that is what is exploding in your head that needs to be released.
Dramatic, but trying to make my point.
Hi Frank and all - I should say (as I do to my students, I work in adult education) that I'm asking questions out of curiosity. I don't know the answers.
I would vote for Picasso and Van Gogh too. I take pictures because they knock on the inside of my head and demand to be let out. There's not many greater pleasures than when someone looks at one of mine and sees the same thing I do. Like Jocko implied, its a moment when all the existential angst melts away and I know I can communicate. If I just had the vision on its own but didn't know how to communicate or couldn't communicate it I might go a bit mad.
I want to know more about this "vision" thing. Can you be an artist without an inner vision?
That is the question! I think we are broadly faced with two different ideas of "the vision thing" - personal vision as either a unique expression of the individual ego or as a stream from a higher, common source. Both - I believe - are ways of understanding the same reality.
It's intriguing that William Blake - an absolutely unique talent - whom Wyndham Lewis (I think rightly) dubbed "THE English Artist", hated Reynolds for exactly the reasons you outline. Yet surely Reynold's achievement was to communicate his vision to others: We say Wren built St Pauls. We know he didn't lay a single brick, but he built it all the same. Blake was incomparably more profound, Reynold's more accessible - but both were genuine artists. In my completely irrational opinion, "inner vision" - Imagination - is part of the intrinsic potential of human nature, like the heartbeat or digestion. It is both universal and individuated. It is the essence of the self and thus of art - so the answer would have to be no, you could not - but nor could you be human:)
Cheers, Ian
My feeling is that it is all about getting pleasure....and giving ...
I need to feel emotion, the urgent pressure to take pictures; it can be looking at your white cat jumping on your bed or water and sky after the rain,...
And then having a camera you are very familiar with.
I feel the greatest pleasure with Ikoflex IIa- tlr for landscapes and contax RX slr shooting ferias in Spain.;)
Gabriel M.A.
02-05-2007, 10:37
I prefer "La vraie musique est entre les notes".
:)
Never heard that one before! Mais c'est vrai, d'habitude. :)
Gabriel M.A.
02-05-2007, 10:56
If you have a vision as a photographer, is that enough to make you an artist? Can you be an artist without an inner vision?
Does the artist control the meaning and interpetation of his or her work?
As I see it, to answer each question: Not necessarily / It's possible / It happens.
Ian brings up an interesting point, and you may think this is not related at first: who really is the maker, the "doer" of Art? Do you have to literally get your hands dirty, so to speak, or not lift a single finger, and still be creative?
Ideas are powerful. Art, evoking ideas, is often more powerful than that which simply is what it is and nothing more. For example, the tired Exhibit A: the Mona Lisa. Technically it is full of "flaws" and perfections. It has ideas executed and suggested. It is red herring and compass. Exhibit B: Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup can. It is what it is, and nothing more, yet it leaves you as the viewer to decide whether what you're seeing is Art or merely a can of soup. It is direct and elusive too. Technically it is full of "flaws" and perfections. As an idea, it still stands on its own. The debate on whether it's art or not, that work is left to us (to those that care, anyway).
The mastermind and the executioner, that's what photography as Art usually shows you. And like all living things, you may be focusing on one thing, but there are many pieces building the collective work, just like an organism. Most concentrate on the eyes, the face, and this is what the "main works" tend to be (as I see it). It is rare to see only one work and one work only as output from an artist. The artist strives to express him or herself, until they're satisfied (which is hardly ever the case) or until they're ignored by his or her public. There are artists whose public are only themselves.
This quest for "improvement" usually leads to seemingly pointless questions such as "what is the best fork for eating sweet peas?" Who cares, just grab the peas, some say. Use a knife, that's always worked for me, would say others. If the question is simply for attracting attention, then it's merely an exercise in egoism. Some people are better at it than others, and they have chosen their medium.
Of the 3 men that you mention, I know which 2 I respect more as artists! This is the point I've been trying to make. It is the visionaries that create art, not those who create to please others to become wealthy. Art should not be done for profit, it should be done because that is what is exploding in your head that needs to be released.
Dramatic, but trying to make my point.
Yet Picasso made tons of work just to please his buyers, and became a multi-millionaire.
And that Joshua guy, he just extended what Rembrandt already did (any many of his contemporaries). Even in Da Vinci and Michelangelo's time this production-line kind of working is established and accepted. Heck, it was the sign of an accomplished artist to have such a work(sweat?)shop! And we can go back even further to Roman and Ancient Greek times, and perhaps even further, to see similar practises.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.