View Full Version : Pheeling philosophical: Art or Accident
There was a thread a while back about what makes a "great" photo, started by MacAulay, I think, which seems to have disappeared. In it I argued (rather convincingly, I thought :) ) that a "great" photo is one that you (and possibly others) really like for some reason.
Now, in the course of my recent spate of photographic activity (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=6989) a couple of things have cropped up.
Let's say, hypothetically, that I shoot a scene, for whatever reason. Then, later, perusing the scan, I notice something which (maybe with a little crop) I think would make a good photo.
Then let's say (hypothetically again) I get the odd comment, like "genius" and "masterpiece" :)
Now, would this be Art or an Accident?
I've been trying to convince myself that a) at least my subconscious "saw" the potential at the time of the shot and that b) at least I have vision enough to recognize something good when I see it (later).
Would this be a bit like that guy who sploshes buckets of paint all over the floor and then calls it art? (He can call it whatever he likes - but other people seem to like it too.)
colin
sebastel
08-16-2007, 04:02
i do not see any contradiction between art and accident.
maybe this is because i see art as question of perception.
sebastian
I wouldn't say art and accident are mutually exclusive. It can be both. I've had pleasant surprises on many occasions, when I got something much better than I expected, or something interesting happened in a part of the frame I wasn't concentrating on when I was looking through the VF, leading to a different picture to the one I saw. I just keep quiet about it and pretend it was intentional :-)
Ian
Colin, your hypothosis on what makes a "great" image is entirely off the mark. Historically, a lot of great artwork that changed how art, music, writing, etc., was perceived, was vilified during the immediate lifetime of the creator. Many "artists" whose work was "publically" popular, are now largely forgotten. Take for example Van Gogh, he never sold a painting during his lifetime. Robert Frank's book the "Americans", was considered communist trash by all but a few. Now many people consider it a "bible". Just because an image is "liked" for some reason, doesn't make it great. It takes a dedicated lifetime of work, exploratiion, self discovery, a dedicated vision.
I wouldn't loose sleep over it. Maybe you can lower (alter? :p ) your expectations of what "art" is. :)
Keith, I respect you but...
Just because an image is "liked" for some reason, doesn't make it great. It takes a dedicated lifetime of work, exploratiion, self discovery, a dedicated vision.
Poppycock! It doesn't take all that at all. It takes marketing. Both Van Gogh and Frank became household names by proper marketing. Even today many people consider both artists crap, and I can blame them. I love Van Gogh (and being able to see much of his work whenever I want in real live, helps), and I enjoy some of Frank's work, but there's also a lot of crap among their (early and late) work.
IMO, Colin's premise of what makes "great" art is as valid as and artist's supposed importance.
I think I'm offended by your remarks about my work, Remy. ;)
Colin, there is no such thing as an accident, and luck favours the prepared.
Robert Price
08-16-2007, 04:54
What is art?!
That my friends is like argueing about religion and politics. Art is a very fluid "concept". Yes I said concept, the whole aspect of "art" is so dynamic that it can not be considered good or bad. Art, be it a painting, sculpt, photo, or crayon for that matter is subject to a persons feeling. As individuals we can appreciate all forms of art. But as a unit or group of people we can not.
Art reflects the time in society as well as the creators own life too. Most people do not take that into consideration either when judgeing "art". It is only when you can "see" the creators vision that you can truly appreciate, or detest, what they have created.
Most if not all Artist's spend their whole life seeking that one work that defines who they are, only to fail in their attempts at it.
What we as artist's create is ours, and ours alone. Sometimes we share what we think is good with others, what we think is "good". True art is neither, on purpose or an accident, it is a moment, a feeling, a desire, and a curse. It is what drives us to find that perfect piece inside of ourselves.
Colin, your hypothosis on what makes a "great" image is entirely off the mark. Historically, a lot of great artwork that changed how art, music, writing, etc., was perceived, was vilified during the immediate lifetime of the creator. Many "artists" whose work was "publically" popular, are now largely forgotten. Take for example Van Gogh, he never sold a painting during his lifetime. Robert Frank's book the "Americans", was considered communist trash by all but a few. Now many people consider it a "bible". Just because an image is "liked" for some reason, doesn't make it great. It takes a dedicated lifetime of work, exploratiion, self discovery, a dedicated vision.
I would look at the writings of Danto. He simple states that an artwork can only be judged in reference to an "art world." So, Colin is very close to the mark. (Naturally, there are many artists who were unpopular during their day and they remain so.) An artwork can only be viewed at a specific moment. We cannot see a Van Gogh in the year he created it, only in the cultural and social climate of now.
The value of a work of art is in the eye of the beholder. Whether that value is placed by a direct reaction or it is culturally or socially induced, does not really matter. "Art appreciation" is the intellectual understanding of an art work and so an emotional response in not required if you can "get your mind behind it."
I don't see why an art director or curator labeling a work "great" has any more significance of me labeling a work "great" - we are both valuing it because we "like" it. The process of that determination does not change the work's significance.
I doubt a lifetime commitment is needed. Frank's most significant work was in "Americans." He did that early in his carreer. His later work is dull in comparison. Does the value of an artwork decrease because the creator only made a few pieces? I don't think there is any evidence that supports that position, or at least there is evidence that contradicts that.
I've been trying to convince myself that a) at least my subconscious "saw" the potential at the time of the shot and that b) at least I have vision enough to recognize something good when I see it (later).
Why do you need to see the potential at the time you took the shot?
You could go out and shoot random things and then go through the results and see if there's something you can make "art" from.
What I'm getting at is: does it really matter at what stage in the process the "vision" kicks in?
Isn't it the end result that counts?
Joe Mondello
08-16-2007, 05:31
My *best* "art" is generally accidental -- save for the part where I was there, with a camera and pushed that little button!
I always liked the statement “Art should be independent of claptrap” I think it was one of the early modernists said it
Frank; or everything is an accident, and some are lucky to be prepared?
:D Ok, let's try and be methodical here:
1. What is art?
2. Art and Accident need not be mutually exclusive
3. There are no accidents
4. Don't worry about it.
1. Keith, my original posting was a little more detailed than the result. Also, I didn't mean that great art was what the majority agreed on. I often don't agree with "the majority" (remember, for example, that half the population has an IQ of less than 100).
What I meant was that all you need is a group of people who agree that some work(s) are great. Then they can analyse them, try and find certain criteria which the works fulfill, look for other "great works", maybe try and create their own great works and, best of all, argue with other groups.
I have my criteria which have something to do with evoking certain emotions in me. I therefore think the National Geographic photo of the Afghan refugee (young woman) is great. You may agree, you may not - it doesn't matter.
It does matter where money is involved. And there I agree with RML. I heard something on the radio about the Basel Kunstmesse (Art Trade Fair?). There are lots of these, Cologne Fine Art is another one. I've never been to one, but it sounded like there was lots of stuff by wannabe artists with insane prices (It's expensive, so it can't be bad). The people who buy this stuff often do so on speculation. They wouldn't put it in their homes!
This only gets annoying when public money gets spent on the stuff (and if I don't like it).
2. Fair enough. But is "deliberate art" more artistic than "accidental art"? Is someone who can take a lump of rock and form it into a beautiful woman more of an artist than someone who picks up lumps of rock, chooses one and says "this one looks like a toilet"?
3. Hmmm. Well, I've got a soft release on my M7 and it's gone off by accident quite a lot. Oddly enough, non of the resulting shots have had anything good on them.
4. I don't :)
Why do you need to see the potential at the time you took the shot?
You could go out and shoot random things and then go through the results and see if there's something you can make "art" from.
What I'm getting at is: does it really matter at what stage in the process the "vision" kicks in?
Isn't it the end result that counts?
That’s the nub of the question really, which is greater art finding the shot on the contact sheet or setting up a tedious Adams style shot, both “art” in that they are man made do they both have the same value?
(remember, for example, that half the population has an IQ of less than 100)
Oh dear. Are you suggesting only "smart" people can understand art?
Why do you need to see the potential at the time you took the shot?
You could go out and shoot random things and then go through the results and see if there's something you can make "art" from.
What I'm getting at is: does it really matter at what stage in the process the "vision" kicks in?
Isn't it the end result that counts?
That’s the nub of the question really, which is greater art finding the shot on the contact sheet or setting up a tedious Adams style shot, both “art” in that they are man made do they both have the same value?
Yup. Pretty much exactly what I was going to say.
I'd like to think that I was a better artist than a well-trained monkey. (This statement in itself probably contradicts some of what I've been saying. But it's a complex topic. No reason to be consistent :) )
My answer to the question would be, "Yes, deliberately created art (with some prior vision) is harder and "better" than discovered art. Although the ability to see something good and isolate it afterwards is also valuable".
Actually the "seeing something good" bit, applied to street photography, is a question of speed. The "good" photographer can see it as it happens, the less good one only after peering at the scene a while. The very good photographer can anticipate and see what's going to happen.
colin
Remy, marketing came much, much later. Now, especially since the late 70's early 80's. marketing is as much an art as the art is. How much of this "art" will around in 20 years? Look what happened to much of the post-modernist artists of the 80's. So few of them are even around anymore or are making art.
Keith, I respect you but...
Poppycock! It doesn't take all that at all. It takes marketing. Both Van Gogh and Frank became household names by proper marketing. Even today many people consider both artists crap, and I can blame them. I love Van Gogh (and being able to see much of his work whenever I want in real live, helps), and I enjoy some of Frank's work, but there's also a lot of crap among their (early and late) work.
IMO, Colin's premise of what makes "great" art is as valid as and artist's supposed importance.
Yup. Pretty much exactly what I was going to say.
I'd like to think that I was a better artist than a well-trained monkey. (This statement in itself probably contradicts some of what I've been saying. But it's a complex topic. No reason to be consistent :) )
My answer to the question would be, "Yes, deliberately created art (with some prior vision) is harder and "better" than discovered art. Although the ability to see something good and isolate it afterwards is also valuable".
Actually the "seeing something good" bit, applied to street photography, is a question of speed. The "good" photographer can see it as it happens, the less good one only after peering at the scene a while. The very good photographer can anticipate and see what's going to happen.
colin
What if you find the discovered art more aesthetically appealing than the contrived? Is it still better?
(remember, for example, that half the population has an IQ of less than 100)
Oh dear. Are you suggesting only "smart" people can understand art?
:) Absolutely not. It was just a comment on majorities. As it happens, I don't even like the idea of understanding art, but that's just me.
The majority use digital cameras. The majority use Windows. The majority voted Bush (eek, political comment). The majority watch crummy TV shows.
Whenever I find a really nice café, restaurant, cute little shop or whatever, that I really like - you can be pretty sure that a year later it will have ceased to exist because the majority go to Starbucks.
colin
PS. We could start a topic on intellectual, cultural and artistic elitism, but that would have to go in Off Topic - and not in this thread.
What if you find the discovered art more aesthetically appealing than the contrived? Is it still better?
:) Well, this actually happens quite a lot:
I've had pleasant surprises on many occasions, when I got something much better than I expected, or something interesting happened in a part of the frame I wasn't concentrating on when I was looking through the VF, leading to a different picture to the one I saw. I just keep quiet about it and pretend it was intentional :-)
Two points.
1. This is actually what has happened to me. Probably happens a lot - and you can't tell from the end result.
2. Why does iml "just keep quiet about it and pretend it was intentional" ?
Sooooo,
from the viewer's perspective I suppose it doesn't matter. From the artist's perspective I think its a point of honour and pride.
colin
Alternative NPC reply:
(remember, for example, that half the population has an IQ of less than 100)
Oh dear. Are you suggesting only "smart" people can understand art?
Marlin: Do you want this anemone to sting you?
Nemo: YESS!
:D
colin
Would this be a bit like that guy who sploshes buckets of paint all over the floor and then calls it art? (He can call it whatever he likes - but other people seem to like it too.)colin
Jackson Pollock worked for years and years on this 'accident'.
I believe there are no accidents.
Things/accidents/whatever-you-want-to-call-it occur all the time, everytime. But unless one is ready, they will go by un-noticed.
Being ready means, being there. Being in the moment. Being able to actually notice/see/realize/capture those accidents.
Getting ready requires dedication, hard work and some (more or less) talent.
Yes, somebody simply can get lucky. But the more one works on their passion, the more often one gets lucky.
Robert Price
08-16-2007, 06:42
Jackson Pollock worked for years and years on this 'accident'.
Elephants can paint too. I would rather have a canvas full of paint by an elephant before I would even call most of Jackson Pollock's work art.
http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/
At least you expect crap from an elephant.
:eek: :) :D
The majority voted Bush (eek, political comment).
Not the first time around. But we should not go there...
Elephants can paint too. I would rather have a canvas full of paint by an elephant before I would even call most of Jackson Pollock's work art.
http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/
At least you expect crap from an elephant.
:eek: :) :D
So you agree with Colin that art is just what you like?
:)
EDIT
Sooooo,
from the viewer's perspective I suppose it doesn't matter. From the artist's perspective I think its a point of honour and pride.
colin
If the artist is proud and honorable is his print of greater artistic value than a scoundrel's? What I’m getting at is; the artist and the artists’ methods don’t matter if the observer is unaware of them, it's the viewers prejudices that ascribes any value judgments like greatness
Robert Price
08-16-2007, 06:51
So you agree with Colin that art is just what you like?
Of course, Art is what a person likes. I buy art for me, not because a critic tells me it is "great art". I make art because of me, not because I have a book of art that tells me how to do it.
HA HA HA HA!
And stupid people don't know art, They get their art off the rack from Ikea.
(there is sarcasim here)
To further muddy the waters.
Art, in its basic form, is something created by a person to stimulate other humans in some way. And, yes, some artists use elephants and monkeys to make their art, but there's still the human element of picking the pile of dung or feces flung at the canvas.
How you get to the finished art is really only of concern to the artist. The person you are stimulating with your art likely doesn't care whether you deliberately composed the picture or accidentally snapped it when you tripped on a crack in the sidewalk.
Remy, marketing came much, much later. Now, especially since the late 70's early 80's. marketing is as much an art as the art is. How much of this "art" will around in 20 years? Look what happened to much of the post-modernist artists of the 80's. So few of them are even around anymore or are making art.
de Vinci's success came in part from his great success at marketing himself. Art movements and genre were a product of marketing - pre-Raphaelites, for example. It has even happened within phtography - the New Objective and the f/64 Group were "marketing" and neither style/group were together very long. Just because "marketing" is a rescent term does not mean it never existed.
I don't think you can value art because a particular form is no longer practiced nor the practitioners are no longer working in the field.
Jackson Pollock worked for years and years on this 'accident'.
That's the guy. Actually, I looked some of his stuff up on Google. Some of it I quite liked. But then, the paint was not applied randomly. I also saw pictures of him painting. This is one of those things where you might say "Hah! I could do that!". Well then, do it! It's often not quite as trivial as you might think.
As it happens, I have done paintings a bit like this. I took a large sheet applied a layer of white acrylic paint and poured some black acrylic from a foot up, but not randomly. There were paint paths and lots of drops and splashes. Then I asked a byestander what she thought it was. She wasn't sure, but she was trying to fit something to the stimulus.
Then I made some swooshing swipes with a spatula and her jaw dropped :)
I believe there are no accidents.
Things/accidents/whatever-you-want-to-call-it occur all the time, everytime. But unless one is ready, they will go by un-noticed.
What about my softrelease induced shots, many of the lenscap? I'd call them accidents.
But the more one works on their passion, the more often one gets lucky.
I think we're agreeing most of the time. The better you are, the less film you waste AND the more good shots you get.
colin
from the viewer's perspective I suppose it doesn't matter. From the artist's perspective I think its a point of honour and pride.If the artist is proud and honorable is his print of greater artistic value than a scoundrel's?
Well, no, not from the viewer's perspective. That's what I said.
But for the artist it might make a difference. Why else the Don't Crop idea?
colin
Well, no, not from the viewer's perspective. That's what I said.
But for the artist it might make a difference. Why else the Don't Crop idea?
colin
What if the viewer is "educated" or "sociallized" with the "don't crop" aesthetic? Can technical issues be relavant to the viewer. I think this is where the simply "liking" an image idea does not go far enough. There can be other factors influencing the viewers judgement.
What if the viewer is "educated" or "sociallized" with the "don't crop" aesthetic? Can technical issues be relavant to the viewer. I think this is where the simply "liking" an image idea does not go far enough. There can be other factors influencing the viewers judgement.
So for an uneducated viewer the artists’ methods are irrelevant, whereas to an educated viewer the way the artist produced the art has a value?
Well, no, not from the viewer's perspective. That's what I said.
But for the artist it might make a difference. Why else the Don't Crop idea?
colin
Should the artist have any say in the appraisal of his own work?
If the answer is no then it’s of no matter what the artist thinks
As you already did one crop when you framed the shot why should that one be OK and one later not be? I don’t see the difference
As you already did one crop when you framed the shot why should that one be OK and one later not be? I don’t see the difference
Exactly. For the viewer it makes no difference (larger grain, but it could just be a grainier film?).
For the artist it means the difference between being a "good" photographer who saw the image the instant it was taken and framed accordingly and being a "less good" photographer who can't see the image and react that quickly.
Of course, even HCB couldn't swap lenses or change location instantaneously :)
Anyway, I need some fresh air. Have fun, everyone...
colin
Dektol Dan
08-16-2007, 08:51
Photographers collect accidents. Editors make them into art.
So for an uneducated viewer the artists’ methods are irrelevant, whereas to an educated viewer the way the artist produced the art has a value?
Why not? Here is a whole forum focusing on photographs made by rangefinders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparrow
So for an uneducated viewer the artists’ methods are irrelevant, whereas to an educated viewer the way the artist produced the art has a value?
Why not? Here is a whole forum focusing on photographs made by rangefinders.
.
but that means the photographers’ methods have a value independent of his print? Difficult concept
I'm liking this thread. :)
but that means the photographers’ methods have a value independent of his print? Difficult concept
Why? You agree that folks differenciate between black and white and color, or film and digital (I assume you have heard about that ;) ). Why not other methods. It is simply a matter of value to the viewer. I value the work of photographers that do not crop.
Do you appreciate rangefinder photography?
Why? You agree that folks differenciate between black and white and color, or film and digital (I assume you have heard about that ;) ). Why not other methods. It is simply a matter of value to the viewer. I value the work of photographers that do not crop.
Do you appreciate rangefinder photography?
yes; but each of those have a direct impact on the print, what’s suggested here is that a well crafted shot of a lens cap has more value than an ill crafted one by virtue of how it was made, or am I not understanding?
If you see an image you like then discover it’s a crop do you then like it less:confused:
My appreciation of the RF camera is in its product not its process, is that perverse? Is it simply a totem for you?
yes; but each of those have a direct impact on the print, what’s suggested here is that a well crafted shot of a lens cap has more value than an ill crafted one by virtue of how it was made, or am I not understanding?
If you see an image you like then discover it’s a crop do you then like it less:confused:
My appreciation of the RF camera is in its product not its process, is that perverse? Is it simply a totem for you?
Well, a black print of the inside of a lens cap is not my thing. but... And this is not a black and white issue where a technical aspect will be the only factor in enjoying or appreciating the work. And yes, if I do find out an image has been cropped a little disappointing. A great moment captured in a frame and needs no further refinement is amazing to me. Kind of like hearing a recording of a great musical performance only to find out the timing and pitch was changed because the musican did not get it right. I still enjoy it, but a little magic is lost. (And that is my personal taste.)
Personally, I don't care what camera was used to take an image. However, I have had the experience of people who do favor images from certain camera types.
In his classic book on the workings of the creative mind Interviews with Francis Bacon, art historian David Sylvester shows that accident is indeed a not uncommon ingredient in how an artist "chooses" a particular path to expression.
I think art is whatever someone calls art. But that in itself says nothing about whether it's any good or not, those are two separate questions.
As far as photography goes, IMO the only thing that matters is the image, how the photographer got there is less important to anyone except the photographer themselves, except in the case of avowedly documentary photography, which by definition should not be the result of a pre-planned setup.
Having said that, I think how the photographer herself chooses to make an image should be important to them, which is why, personally, I'm against very heavy cropping, it just feels wrong to me so I don't do it. I think, in the case of street and candid photography, it violates my sense of what gives that genre its edge and point. More minor cropping is something I do more frequently, to remove something from the edge of the frame, or to make a square composition out of a rectangular neg, or vice-versa. I have no problem with that, and regard it as a normal part of RF and prime lens shooting, where frameline accuracy is imprecise and it isn't always possible to get in the precisely right position for the shot.
Ian
...As far as photography goes, IMO the only thing that matters is the image, how the photographer got there is less important to anyone except the photographer themselves, except in the case of avowedly documentary photography, which by definition should not be the result of a pre-planned setup...
I agree!
Shots made for news documentaries (the Lebanon-and-PhotoShop cloning incident comes to mind) need to be unstaged, but remember that the prize winning shot of the Vietnamese girl covered in napalm originally had a wider frame, showing half a dozen photographers trying to get a shot similar to the prize winning one.
Had it not been cropped, it would certainly not have won, maybe wouldn't even been published by the World Press organisation, since it so clearly shows the perverseness of news photography.
Apart from fixing a shot, or staging a news shot, anything goes, as far as I'm concerned. AND we (meaning photographers in general and media businesses in particular) do need to make the public aware that the fact that it's a photo does not mean it depicts the truth.
There's something about this No Cropping business that I don't understand.
If one frames and composes the shot so that it is just as one wants it to be, i.e. one knows precisely what the image is at the moment one depresses the shutter, then surely every single shot one takes should be a Good One. If not, why bother to take the picture?
As I've said, I have to take the shot in less than a second (including raising and lowering the camera). I look through the finder for a lot less than a second (usually).
I can't do much more than try to make sure that what I'm after is somewhere within the frame! The framing/composition comes before the shot - you should see me running around in front of where I think the subject is going (without looking at the subject). :)
If I need to crop in order to focus on the subject, or even on something I didn't even notice when taking the shot, well, then I will. I prefer not cropping, but only because it reduces the quality.
colin
If one frames and composes the shot so that it is just as one wants it to be, i.e. one knows precisely what the image is at the moment one depresses the shutter, then surely every single shot one takes should be a Good One. If not, why bother to take the picture?
But there's a lot of experimentation involved, especially in b&w. When I take a picture, even if it's framed just as I want it to be at the time, I'm often not sure how it will look as a b&w photograph, or with the DOF I've chosen, or with the motion blur I'm trying to achieve, or with the exposure I've chosen, or even if the framing will make sense as a picture rather than as a moment in reality. A lot of my stuff is quite abstract, and how it looks in reality and how it looks as a photograph are quite different.
Quite often something I assume at the time will not be very good turns out to be the best thing on a roll, and vice-versa.
I regard street photography as a form of documentary photography, and therefore think heavy cropping violates my own sense of what's right to do. Others can make their own decisions. You get some good results, if it works for you and you're happy doing it, then stick with it, I'm not trying to prescribe what anyone else does. And, as, Johan points out above, every rule has exceptions, the famous Vietnam picture is a good example.
Ian
All very interesting, as someone who makes a living as a designer its always helpful to how people view artwork, or even how they define art.
Finder’s considered appreciation, where things he knows about the artist or his methods influences his view of its value is fascinating, almost “Performance-Art” fixed in the print, or Cubist outlook to photography, a sort of adult Cognitive Reality. It fits in with Ian’s idea that the artist’s knowledge of how it was produced informs his valuation of his own work the question is should it effect other the viewers’ valuation?
The cropping thing; I’ve always had the view that “what they don’t know can’t hurt them” however on 135 anything above 10-15% starts making me nervous about quality anyway.
Anyone here feel like an artist in a group in a Parisian café? :)
It fits in with Ian’s idea that the artist’s knowledge of how it was produced informs his valuation of his own work the question is should it effect other the viewers’ valuation?
I don't know if there's any "should" involved.
Is Mozart's music any different if you know that he wrote perfect, correction-free manuscript first time? Or that Paganini was playing the violin in a concert, one string broke, and he just carried on playing (compensating using the other strings)?
My appreciation for their genius increases, and maybe my enjoyment too - maybe because I concentrate more on the music.
A photograph also becomes more interesting if the photographer writes a bit about the circumstances it was taken in.
So, I think it just does affect the viewer's evaluation.
colin
Anyone here feel like an artist in a group in a Parisian café? :)
colin
No it’s 10:30 in the morning and I’m sober……….sadly
:)
I don't know if there's any "should" involved.
Is Mozart's music any different if you know that he wrote perfect, correction-free manuscript first time? Or that Paganini was playing the violin in a concert, one string broke, and he just carried on playing (compensating using the other strings)?
My appreciation for their genius increases, and maybe my enjoyment too - maybe because I concentrate more on the music.
A photograph also becomes more interesting if the photographer writes a bit about the circumstances it was taken in.
So, I think it just does affect the viewer's evaluation.
colin
So I, as a photographer, can gain more enjoyment from your photographs? Simply by virtue of knowledge and training. If that’s the case how would you react if your favorite Mozart correction-free manuscript was discovered to be a fake by one of his students and how would it alter your appreciation of the actual music
So I, as a photographer, can gain more enjoyment from your photographs?
That would be dangerous. This is why I try not to say too much about them.
If that’s the case how would you react if your favorite Mozart correction-free manuscript was discovered to be a fake by one of his students and how would it alter your appreciation of the actual music
It would be very sad and I would stop listening to music and take up photography instead.
Write then. In affect I think its thyme to find a caffè and go and take some pixies.
colin
There's something about this No Cropping business that I don't understand.
If one frames and composes the shot so that it is just as one wants it to be, i.e. one knows precisely what the image is at the moment one depresses the shutter, then surely every single shot one takes should be a Good One. If not, why bother to take the picture?
As I've said, I have to take the shot in less than a second (including raising and lowering the camera). I look through the finder for a lot less than a second (usually).
I can't do much more than try to make sure that what I'm after is somewhere within the frame! The framing/composition comes before the shot - you should see me running around in front of where I think the subject is going (without looking at the subject). :)
If I need to crop in order to focus on the subject, or even on something I didn't even notice when taking the shot, well, then I will. I prefer not cropping, but only because it reduces the quality.
colin
This is my thing on shooting full frame - the no cropping issue.
Careful composition does not mean the image is good, just framed well. It certainly does not guarantee a great image.
But time is not the factor in framing an image well. Henri Cartier Bresson has written on this. And that is the challenge for me as a photographer. To have everything on the beam where it comes together in a single instant, is in my view, the magic of photography. It also requires you to be there. When you don't have a second chance to fix things up, you really need to be on the ball. I guess this type of photography is the closest photographers come to performance. If you are performing well, then something good will happen. If you put yourself out there, you will get something back.
Then to see that special image, that is the iceing on the cake. I rarely feel those images are mine. They are more of a gift. I am grateful for those moments.
The problem with HCB is is that he shot loads and that we are seeing minuscule amounts of it. HCB also didn't do much of his own printing, so how much of his work was actually cropped and/or staged, if not a total crap shoot? I've been trying to read "HCB and the artless art" for quite some time now and as far as I can tell it's BS. These are wonderings [i[after[/i] the fact, a poor stab at legitimising one's photography. IMO HCB understood his own ways of shooting as little as we do, but that he simply fell for the trap set by all his admirers asking how he came to his photos. Decisive moment? BS. There are too many moments in a second, and each is different. HCB just picked one such moment (out of the dozens he probably shot). What I'd want is to see all of his contacts. Only then we can see for ourselves how great he was, or whether he was little more than a monkey with a typewriter.
This is my thing on shooting full frame - the no cropping issue.
Careful composition does not mean the image is good, just framed well. It certainly does not guarantee a great image.
But time is not the factor in framing an image well. Henri Cartier Bresson has written on this. And that is the challenge for me as a photographer. To have everything on the beam where it comes together in a single instant, is in my view, the magic of photography. It also requires you to be there. When you don't have a second chance to fix things up, you really need to be on the ball. I guess this type of photography is the closest photographers come to performance. If you are performing well, then something good will happen. If you put yourself out there, you will get something back.
Then to see that special image, that is the iceing on the cake. I rarely feel those images are mine. They are more of a gift. I am grateful for those moments.
So that leads us to the conclusion, the answer to the OP, that the full frame un-cropped image is in fact accident whereas the considered cropped image is, by definition, art
Welsh_Italian
08-18-2007, 04:14
An interesting discussion - thanks to all who have contributed.
I'm not an expert in this by any means, but I am trying to learn about these things.
From what I understand, a lot of the reasons why art is considered great is because of its context. For example, Raphael's "the nymph Galatea" is considered a great work of art because of the novel composition and arrangement of the figures which previously had been static and symmetrical. There is a symmetry in Raphael's work, but he still managed to produce a balanced work that also pointed to the subject of the piece. It was conventional in that the arrangement and composition was pleasing, but it was novel because the figures looked more "real" than any artist had produced before.
Likewise, Carravagio was considered a great artist because he didn't like the pursuit of perfection in his subjects - he painted famous figures in an even more realistic way (like his "Doubting Thomas" where an apostle - previously depicted as perfect was shown as a surprised old man - an ordinary human like he was).
Comparing both pieces, Raphael's work looks fake and unrealistic (particularly those Dolphins!), but these were painted years before, so Carravagios work represents a new development in art.
But the search for novelty can be a waste of time too. I'm sure there are artists who did "new" things that are now working at real jobs with their art forgotten. Art is full of trends as anything, but great art can survive them better.
I guess this means that for me, context is important to the work, but not necessary. Let's face it, if HCB had existed later and only produced his work now, he wouldn't get anywhere today (remember the Flickr discussion where someone put his "Mario's bike" up and was criticised because it wasn't sharp enough?) but at the time, his work represented a new approach to photography in the sense of social realism. Now, it would be derivative and people would say, "so what? It's all been done before." I still think that his work is good because of his composition, but from what I understand, his work was cropped an awful lot.
To me, it doesn't detract from the art. The final result in terms of its context is enough, but every artist uses their tools to their best ability to produce the work that they think is best. I'm happy to crop to produce what I think is a better picture, but whether I'm right is an opinion that everyone is entitled to have.
Of course, when a keeper comes up perfectly framed from development, it's wonderful!
So that leads us to the conclusion, the answer to the OP, that the full frame un-cropped image is in fact accident whereas the considered cropped image is, by definition, art
How? I frame when I take the picture. Your conclusion is not logical.
The problem with HCB is is that he shot loads and that we are seeing minuscule amounts of it.
Why is this a problem?? This is true for most photographers.
HCB also didn't do much of his own printing, so how much of his work was actually cropped and/or staged, if not a total crap shoot? I've been trying to read "HCB and the artless art" for quite some time now and as far as I can tell it's BS. These are wonderings [i[after[/i] the fact, a poor stab at legitimising one's photography. IMO HCB understood his own ways of shooting as little as we do, but that he simply fell for the trap set by all his admirers asking how he came to his photos. Decisive moment? BS. There are too many moments in a second, and each is different. HCB just picked one such moment (out of the dozens he probably shot). What I'd want is to see all of his contacts. Only then we can see for ourselves how great he was, or whether he was little more than a monkey with a typewriter.
Except for a few examples falsified by Magnium Photos AFTER his death, his uncropped work is easy to spot - they are printed with a full-frame border.
Certainly you passionately dislike Cartier Bresson. Did you know him personally? Most artist's statements are inadequate. Why not just enjoy his work for what it is rather than what Cartier Bresson says it is.
I guess this means that for me, context is important to the work, but not necessary. Let's face it, if HCB had existed later and only produced his work now, he wouldn't get anywhere today (remember the Flickr discussion where someone put his "Mario's bike" up and was criticised because it wasn't sharp enough?) but at the time, his work represented a new approach to photography in the sense of social realism. Now, it would be derivative and people would say, "so what? It's all been done before." I still think that his work is good because of his composition, but from what I understand, his work was cropped an awful lot.
And if we existed in his time, would we think he was just an untalented nut? Could we appriciate his work?
It was cropped, but I don't think that much. He was also one of the first to limit editors from editing photographer's by not allowing them to crop an image from what the photographer wanted to show.
How? I frame when I take the picture. Your conclusion is not logical.
“Then to see that special image, that is the iceing on the cake. I rarely feel those images are mine. They are more of a gift. I am grateful for those moments.”
I read this sentence to mean you didn’t feel wholly responsible for the results
So that leads us to the conclusion, the answer to the OP, that the full frame un-cropped image is in fact accident whereas the considered cropped image is, by definition, art
How? I frame when I take the picture. Your conclusion is not logical.
I think he meant, when the un-cropped image turns out to be not only well framed and well composed but also "good" as well, then that is an accident.
You said, earlier
Careful composition does not mean the image is good, just framed well. It certainly does not guarantee a great image.
Because I had claimed (provocatively) that if the photographer knows exactly what the shot will look like (composition wise) at the time he took it, surely it must be a good shot. If it weren't he shouldn't waste the film.
Clearly this isn't the case. I think it is a question of time available. Do you decide whether a photo is good within a fraction of a second? Well, maybe yes. But deciding whether a differently framed shot might be better takes longer (for me).
I think there is something in criticising "I never crop. I only take properly framed shots." It gives the impression that one has a magic ability to instantaneously analyse the scene. Maybe some do have that ability. But why then publish only 1 % of your shots? What was wrong with the other 99 % ?
And we're back to the very first post: If only a tiny fraction of your work is great. Wouldn't you call these fortunate accidents? I think an artist (especially a great one) should have a significantly higher hit-rate than a button-pressing monkey. And maybe he does.
colin
“Then to see that special image, that is the iceing on the cake. I rarely feel those images are mine. They are more of a gift. I am grateful for those moments.”
I read this sentence to mean you didn’t feel wholly responsible for the results
Yup. I feel the same way as Finder (sort of). When I have a good shot, I also sometimes feel it wasn't mine - because I don't feel I could reliably, by my own ability, just go out and get another.
It is luck, in my case, that the situation occured and that I managed to get it on film. Requiring then that I also happened to be in precisely the right location is pushing luck a little far.
I was just hoping that I have some sort of photographic ability other than recognising something I like from the scans :(
All these Close up Candid Street shots, are taken in the centre of Munich, in summer. Munich has a lot of pretty girls and we have a lot of tourists here too. Ever more Arabs for some reason, loads of beautiful Italians (the border is around 2 hours away), Russians, Bulgarians, Japanese even Americans. Thousands and thousands of people walking around in the heat.
I predict a sharp drop in output come the winter :)
colin
“Then to see that special image, that is the iceing on the cake. I rarely feel those images are mine. They are more of a gift. I am grateful for those moments.”
I read this sentence to mean you didn’t feel wholly responsible for the results
Have you ever taken a picture of a person who does not like having their picture taken? You can frame, focus, and expose very well, but yet the image is just not captivating. I did nothing wrong. Yet with someone open, there is a much greater chance that it will work.
There are also moments that happen at a particular time and place. I did not make those moments. I was just there with a camera.
Naturally, I can mess up the photography part. Also, that photography is more intuitive than rational. I am always amazed when it comes together. There is no reason why a photograph should be simply a copy of reality without any other value. Somehow I cannot say it is all me when I get a strong image.
I think he meant, when the un-cropped image turns out to be not only well framed and well composed but also "good" as well, then that is an accident.
You said, earlier
Because I had claimed (provocatively) that if the photographer knows exactly what the shot will look like (composition wise) at the time he took it, surely it must be a good shot. If it weren't he shouldn't waste the film.
Clearly this isn't the case. I think it is a question of time available. Do you decide whether a photo is good within a fraction of a second? Well, maybe yes. But deciding whether a differently framed shot might be better takes longer (for me).
I think there is something in criticising "I never crop. I only take properly framed shots." It gives the impression that one has a magic ability to instantaneously analyse the scene. Maybe some do have that ability. But why then publish only 1 % of your shots? What was wrong with the other 99 % ?
And we're back to the very first post: If only a tiny fraction of your work is great. Wouldn't you call these fortunate accidents? I think an artist (especially a great one) should have a significantly higher hit-rate than a button-pressing monkey. And maybe he does.
colin
When you are shooting, you are doing that. The value judgement of the image of whether it is "good" is made later.
You could say great basketball players arejust luckier than the rest of us. Is their split second performance just acidents? They do miss the hoop.
I don't call my good work "accidents," I can them "gifts." But the shooting is not random. Like an athlete or dancer, the photographer also trains and develops his/her skill.
But now we are getting into just what I think I do. For any hypothosis to be valid, it must cover more than my opinion.
Bike Tourist
08-18-2007, 05:20
Art or accident?
Well, someone once said that if an infinite number of monkeys were given typewriters, one of them would write King Lear.
I would add that that's what actually happened.
Have you ever taken a picture of a person who does not like having their picture taken? You can frame, focus, and expose very well, but yet the image is just not captivating. I did nothing wrong. Yet with someone open, there is a much greater chance that it will work.
There are also moments that happen at a particular time and place. I did not make those moments. I was just there with a camera.
Naturally, I can mess up the photography part. Also, that photography is more intuitive than rational. I am always amazed when it comes together. There is no reason why a photograph should be simply a copy of reality without any other value. Somehow I cannot say it is all me when I get a strong image.
Then we have a consensus of three, as that’s how I feel, I take pride in the technique and in being in the best position to make the shot, but I find the picture in the back of the camera, is that an accident?
As for people who don’t like their photo taken; my daughter is an expert in spoiling the shot, I get extra lucky sometimes
http://bp3.blogger.com/_U-t2tGr6I1A/RsbyKhzpBzI/AAAAAAAAAMM/jYKW0w97W5k/s400/test52+copy.jpg
antiquark
08-18-2007, 05:35
If only a tiny fraction of your work is great. Wouldn't you call these fortunate accidents? I think an artist (especially a great one) should have a significantly higher hit-rate than a button-pressing monkey. And maybe he does.
colin
That's like saying a painter should have no need for a sketchpad.
Anyways, look up Garry Winogrand. He was one of those guys who took dozens of pictures of a single scene.
This just shows that editing is a crucial part of photography.
Just for fun I went through a catalog of a body of work Cartier Bresson that was sold to a collection in Japan. 15 of the images do not show a full-frame border. One of those I know not to be full frame - Gare St.-Lazare, Paris 1932. Whether all of them are not, I have no idea. But it is stll not a bad number considering it is out of 411 photographs.
One of those I know not to be full frame - Gare St.-Lazare, Paris 1932.
BTW, that is the one Magnum Photos starting placing a fake full-frame border around after Henri's death.
BTW, that is the one Magnum Photos starting placing a fake full-frame border around after Henri's death.
:D I'll try that. I wonder if anyone will notice if my pics are not in 2:3 format :)
colin
:D I'll try that. I wonder if anyone will notice if my pics are not in 2:3 format :)
colin
Now, when we’ve sorted out the art/accident thing, you have to go and bring up integrity
:D :D
The problem with HCB is is that he shot loads and that we are seeing minuscule amounts of it. HCB also didn't do much of his own printing, so how much of his work was actually cropped and/or staged, if not a total crap shoot? .... What I'd want is to see all of his contacts. Only then we can see for ourselves how great he was, or whether he was little more than a monkey with a typewriter.There was an HCB exhibit in NYC in April called Scrapbook and in it you could see how really, really good his developer/printer (Pierre Gassmann?) was. Also there were contacts in the scrapbook and some of them were quite mundane, there is a thread here at RFF about the exhibit in which someone comments that it was a relief to se that HCB was "human" after all. Josef Koudelka felt that HCB would never have allowed that exhibit if he had been alive. The catalog of the exhibition is called simply Scrapbook and is published by Thames & Hudson.
Why is this a problem?? This is true for most photographers.
True. However, HCB's fame to a great extent exist of the idea that he only needed a single shot to create a "masterpiece". And that simply isn't true.
Except for a few examples falsified by Magnium Photos AFTER his death, his uncropped work is easy to spot - they are printed with a full-frame border.
What does that make of all those prints without the full frame border?
Certainly you passionately dislike Cartier Bresson. Did you know him personally? Most artist's statements are inadequate. Why not just enjoy his work for what it is rather than what Cartier Bresson says it is.
I didn't know him personally. I did see his work up close and personal in an exhibition with photos selected by HCB personally as his best work. Most of it was boring at best. There's so much more better work out there by people before and after him (Lartigue for one, Winogrand for two, and so on). IMO HCB is heavily overrated and I think there are others who deserve much more attention and recognition than HCB.
Also, HCB didn't do just "artist statements". He wrote and talked extensively of his views. These thoughts and views are now by many considered similar to the revelations of a prophet. For me they're a load of hogwash, mostly because they don't make any sense, still don't come close to explaining anything, and (because of their influence) are limiting our views of what is acceptable or not (like cropping).
There was an HCB exhibit in NYC in April called Scrapbook and in it you could see how really, really good his developer/printer (Pierre Gassmann?) was. Also there were contacts in the scrapbook and some of them were quite mundane, there is a thread here at RFF about the exhibit in which someone comments that it was a relief to se that HCB was "human" after all. Josef Koudelka felt that HCB would never have allowed that exhibit if he had been alive. The catalog of the exhibition is called simply Scrapbook and is published by Thames & Hudson.
I'm waiting for that exhibition to come to Holland one day.
To be honest Remy, you don't have to wait for the exhibit. The exhibition in New York was quite poorly presented and all you really need is the book. Although I like HCB I have to say that the Scrapbook exhibit was completely upstaged by a Martin Munkacsi exhibit in the same building. The Munkacsi pictures were stunning.
andrealed
08-21-2007, 13:05
Just for keeping the thread alive:
I love cropping, and I love shooting with 120 film, because I know it will allow me to get far more keeper from 12 shot than from a 35mm roll (with a good quality). And, sometimes, to get 2/3 different pictures from the same shot.
I really feel to be more "artsy" when I try different crops than when I shoot.
Shooting is the ordinary, mundane part of the job (I just have to be sure to get focus, time DOF and aperture right..and to find good subject, not easy..I admit...). The artsy part of the job, the most amusing, comes later, when I see the scans and when I switch my enlarger and my radio on.
Everyone is different.
ciao
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.