No BS

[DougFord]

I agree with the poster that said music is the best.
But I gotta believe that painting, well real good paint'n anyway, is really, really hard. How intimidating is a blank canvas?
Come on now, photography is just photography.

[willie_901]

Bill,

Thanks for bring this essay to our attention.

I quit visiting TOP because some of the non-MJ posts make me physically ill. So I would have missed this excellent essay.

Thanks again

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Originally Posted by willie_901

Bill,

Thanks for bring this essay to our attention.

I quit visiting TOP because some of the non-MJ posts make me physically ill. So I would have missed this excellent essay.

Thanks again

What Non-MJ posts made you 'physically ill'?

[Teuthida]

Interesting, but he conflates two different criterion - public acceptance e.g. paintings sell for more and the mechanical/handmade argument - to make his point.

The first is specious, and actually argues against his premise: if ART is simply what sells for more, then the only criterion will be popular taste. Ergo, if the public accepts Salgodo's documentary work as ART, then it is, according to his unstated criteria.

[willie_901]

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

What Non-MJ posts made you 'physically ill'?

The pretentious, pompous posts.

[gdmcclintock]

"Photographic ort"? Seems as contrived as the conceptual art photography derided by the author.

[Dave Jenkins]

Originally Posted by willie_901

The pretentious, pompous posts.

Okay, but which/whose posts do you identify as pretentious and and pompous?

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Originally Posted by willie_901

The pretentious, pompous posts.

That didn't actually answer the question.

[jan normandale]

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

Bill, that essay was full of the same old tired arguments that were settled nearly a century ago, and the arguments showed a complete lack of knowledge of the history of art. Stieglitz will be forgotten. Sure. He only pioneered the idea of photography as art and the fact that he introduced Picasso, Marin, and many other painters to America means nothing too. He'll be forgotten.

Why Mike J. felt the need to publish that, or you to promote it, is beyond comprehension. There are a lot of people on RFF who absolutely hate the idea that photography can be art. In most cases, this is simply sour grapes from those who either have no talent, or who have failed to get any notice for their work. That's not the case for you, and Johnston has been a big promoter of fine art photography. The only explanation that I can think is that he often lets people write things he disagrees with to stimulate conversation, or to show a respect for other viewpoints. Some simply don't need rehashed.

I was going to write something about the piece by Camp but I think Chris has nailed it. I will add that a dismissive piece of less than 1500 words is a clear lack of discipline and shows little homework other than what is needed to reinforce the authors circumscribed opinion. This piece falls dramatically short by any standard.

[pggunn]

A very interesting article and one I'll have to spend more time thinking about, but here are a few quick impressions (author's quotes italicized)


The problem, from an artistic point of view, is that photography starts with an external point—a subject—and a mechanical capture, from which it can't escape.


Yes, usually photography starts with an external subject, but the best photography is subjective as well, and more about the photographer's internal response to an external subject, to the objective reality in front of him.


if you want to go looking for a true, lasting art in photography, you should look at things that can only be captured in an instant: an action, an event, a happening.


I think the author is much closer to the mark here. While I can appreciate good landscape and still life photography, it doesn't move me like good street photography or event photography, genres that capture fleeting juxtapositions, subtle expressions, the briefest of moments when the eternal flux is exquisitely balanced on the razor's edge (okay, enough florid prose. I guess the No BS title of this thread doesn't apply to me!) - in other words Cartier-Bresson's decisive moment, which he describes much better in his famous essay than I ever could.


In this type of photo I find a curious and wonderful mixture of art and serendipity and luck - as Bill put it so well, "We deal in a moment. A painter takes a little longer. In a sense, we are the sketch artists; they are the sculptors. It gets complicated. But I think much of the best of photography is somebody saying, “I saw something wonderful. Let me show it to you.”


On the other hand, I think photos will be regarded as the most important documents of our time, and that it’s in documentation that the true Ort of Photography lies.


I agree with this up to a point. When documentary photography is done well it becomes transcendent, but just as I'm not so sure there is a distinct line between fine art and commercial art, as the author asserts, neither is the line so easily drawn between documentary photography and art.

[CameraQuest]

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

Why Mike J. felt the need to publish that, or you (Bill Pierce) to promote it, is beyond comprehension.

Frankly Chris,

this statement of yours hits me as ridiculously pretentious, especially coming from a "fine art photographer" who uses a painting as his avatar. I must have missed the election in which it was it decided that YOU get to decide what is comprehensible for everyone else.

Bill Pierce is an internationally successful photographer and writer. Until you attain such success, I think there is more than a good chance there is a lot you can learn from him, ie comprehend what you do not now comprehend.

Stephen

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Originally Posted by CameraQuest

Frankly Chris,

this statement of yours hits me as ridiculously pretentious, especially coming from a "fine art photographer" who uses a painting as his avatar. I must have missed the election in which it was it decided that YOU get to decide what is comprehensible for everyone else.

Bill Pierce is an internationally successful photographer and writer. Until you attain such success, I think there is more than a good chance there is a lot you can learn from him, ie comprehend what you do not now comprehend.

Stephen

I don't care who he is, even the accomplished can do dumb or incomprehensible things, and it being still a free country, I have the same right to say so that Camp had to write his essay and that Bill had to promote it.

I did the painting I use as an avatar. Let me repeat. I DID THE PAINTING I USE AS AN AVATAR. I'm a classily trained artist. I can paint, draw, sculpt, and do graphic printmaking. I CHOOSE to do photography as my main form of art. I like photography. No, I LOVE photography.

I am constantly amazed by the number of photographers who seem to have little respect for the medium, who don't seem to even like it. There seem to be a LOT who really wanted to be painters, but lacked talent, so they do photography. Their bias toward painting holds even as they've taken up another medium, which they have to constantly run-down as 'inferior' to painting. Instead of running down photography, they need to look in the mirror.

Like I said, this debate was settled a nearly a century ago. You want to talk about prestige? The Museum of Modern Art, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Art Institute of Chicago, and countless other art museum around the world have been displaying photography as ART for decades now. THEY know better than you, or Bill Pierce, or John Camp.

[Teuthida]

When all is said and done, it's pretty simple. It's ART if people think its ART irrespective of what you think about it.

Did Atget consider himself an ARTIST? No. Do we? Yes.

I've sold both My paintings and my photographs in ART galleries. That means it's ART and apparently I'm an ARTIST.

[Bill Pierce]

[quote=Chriscrawfordphoto;1751123]I don't care who he is, even the accomplished can do dumb or incomprehensible things, and it being still a free country, I have the same right to say so that Camp had to write his essay and that Bill had to promote it.

Chris -

I don’t take offense at what you said. I think the whole thread has been interesting, and it wouldn’t be if we all agreed. Our opinions are probably considerably more complex than we can express in short text messages. And all of us have a lot more to do in a day than sum up the world of art in 200 words or less. But I do enjoy it when an occasional “art” argument replaces the more popular discussions on the machinery that we use.

[Teuthida]

Originally Posted by CameraQuest

Frankly Chris,

this statement of yours hits me as ridiculously pretentious, especially coming from a "fine art photographer" who uses a painting as his avatar. I must have missed the election in which it was it decided that YOU get to decide what is comprehensible for everyone else.

Bill Pierce is an internationally successful photographer and writer. Until you attain such success, I think there is more than a good chance there is a lot you can learn from him, ie comprehend what you do not now comprehend.

Stephen

The presumptions in that statement are off the chart. With all due respect, given as much as I know about you, I could just as well dismiss your opinion as that of a hack gearhead who simply parrots "recognized authority's" opinions.

[Pablito]

Originally Posted by Teuthida

Interesting, but he conflates two different criterion - public acceptance e.g. paintings sell for more and the mechanical/handmade argument - to make his point.

The first is specious, and actually argues against his premise: if ART is simply what sells for more, then the only criterion will be popular taste. Ergo, if the public accepts Salgodo's documentary work as ART, then it is, according to his unstated criteria.

yeah, the piece is rhetorically flawed.

[Pablito]

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

Like I said, this debate was settled a nearly a century ago. You want to talk about prestige? The Museum of Modern Art, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Art Institute of Chicago, and countless other art museum around the world have been displaying photography as ART for decades now. THEY know better than you, or Bill Pierce, or John Camp.

But the article was not about whether photography is art. That is not the debate that is presented...

[doolittle]

Originally Posted by Bill Pierce

But I do enjoy it when an occasional “art” argument replaces the more popular discussions on the machinery that we use.

'Tis true. I always wonder if there are painter forums where they discuss different easels and brushes.

I was in Paris recently on vacation. I didn't get to take too many photos, but I did manage to bring the family along to a Diane Arbus exhibition in the Jeu de Paume. They had a huge body of her work on display and it was sublime.

I also managed to get a good look at two Albrecht Dürer engravings at the Petit Palais, it was inspirational too.

I feel lucky to have been able to see both these wonders.

[Brian Sweeney]

If this forum was about painting, and I was a painter, I'd be mixing my own paints.

http://larrybatesstudio.blogspot.com...oil-paint.html

And Planar vs Sonnar would get replaced by egg tempura vs oil vs Tessars -I mean Water Color.

http://www.renaissanceconnection.org...n_art_oil.html

TOP posts a lot of articles. While he was writing "Why I hate Infrared" in the early 90s, I had Kodak make a Digital IR camera. The article is what it is: opinion, and does not hold true for everyone.

On the article about Art Photography, the bottom line seems to be based on the observation that people pay more for paintings than for photographs.

[Pablito]

Originally Posted by Brian Sweeney

If this forum was about painting, and I was a painter, I'd be mixing my own paints.

http://larrybatesstudio.blogspot.com...oil-paint.html

And Planar vs Sonnar would get replaced by egg tempura vs oil vs Tessars -I mean Water Color.

http://www.renaissanceconnection.org...n_art_oil.html

TOP posts a lot of articles. While he was writing "Why I hate Infrared" in the early 90s, I had Kodak make a Digital IR camera. The article is what it is: opinion, and does not hold true for everyone.

On the article about Art Photography, the bottom line seems to be based on the observation that people pay more for paintings than for photographs.

.....great to mix your own paints, grind your own pigments, but you have to be super careful as some pigments (cadmiums, lead...) very toxic.

....the difference between Planar and Sonnar cannot really be compared to the difference between egg tempera and oil. The difference between the two painting mediums is FAR greater than the difference between the two optics.

[ColSebastianMoran]

Bill, I appreciate your point of view, and glad that you post here.

I didn't like this article. He says, "If a photo is going to be art, then it must of of a unique moment..." He seems to be saying that it can only be art if a work is unique and no similar piece could be produced in the future. Sorry, but I just don't buy that, and I don't think it applies to most of what we respect as art. I studied with people who were really serious about their photographic art, and they have my respect.

As for photos we'll remember in 100 years, I can think of many that might qualify.

(Chris, you speak in a different voice, also much appreciated. About this article, I agree with you.)

This is surprising to me; MJ has certainly published a lot of great material, and I usually appreciate his site.

[Brian Sweeney]

Originally Posted by Pablito

.........the difference between Planar and Sonnar cannot really be compared to the difference between egg tempera and oil. The difference between the two painting mediums is FAR greater than the difference between the two optics.

Tell that to the optical engineer that designed the two different optics, and they would disagree with you. Completely different design philosophy, and very different results in the image. So once again, opinions that do not apply to everyone. Certainly not to me.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

[quote=Bill Pierce;1751140]

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

I don't care who he is, even the accomplished can do dumb or incomprehensible things, and it being still a free country, I have the same right to say so that Camp had to write his essay and that Bill had to promote it.

Chris -

I don’t take offense at what you said. I think the whole thread has been interesting, and it wouldn’t be if we all agreed. Our opinions are probably considerably more complex than we can express in short text messages. And all of us have a lot more to do in a day than sum up the world of art in 200 words or less. But I do enjoy it when an occasional “art” argument replaces the more popular discussions on the machinery that we use.

Thanks Bill. I didn't mean what I wrote as a put-down on you, but a response to the head bartender's assertion that a famous/important person cannot be questioned.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Originally Posted by doolittle

'Tis true. I always wonder if there are painter forums where they discuss different easels and brushes.

Yes, there are, and yes painters talk about stuff like this. I laugh everytime some photographer trots out that tired old argument.

I spent my years in art school listening to professors, several of them with national reputations, talking about the differences between different brush types (eg. sable, nylon, hog bristle), different brands, etc. Many watercolorists won't touch anything but a Windsor-Newton Series 7 brush, and those brushes are EXPENSIVE. I remember we were only allowed to use certain paint brands because some are made for professionals, while others are 'student grade'. We were not allowed to use student grade paint. The professors made it clear that we were learning to be professionals and needed to use professional paint, brushes, canvas, etc. I still have my set of Windsor-Newton professional watercolor paints, which cost me about $300 back then!

[Steve M.]

At some point (pretty quickly) all the intellectual time wasting and ego shoving doesn't go anywhere. There are people that create, and people that critique. An image works, or it doesn't. Really, it's a visual thing, not a verbal thing. There's nothing to figure out, and has nothing to do w/ the medium. Trust me, people that actually care about the creating of "art", and there is no definition of that, aren't sitting around talking about it. They're busy doing it, and if someone likes it or dismisses it, it's of no concern.