Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS News & Rumors Photography Industry News 
Thread started 12 Apr 2014 (Saturday) 15:34
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Renowned Photographer Jeff Mitchum's Masterpiece "Third Day" Sells For $1.8 Million

 
this thread is locked
edge100
Goldmember
1,920 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Apr 17, 2014 10:12 |  #91

Shadowblade wrote in post #16840829 (external link)
Maths is objective and practical. It has proofs and practical applications which are useful both in our day-to-day lives, as well as in engineering, medicine and all the other things that make modern living what it is.

Art is subjective. It has no practical purpose beyond being decorative. If it's ugly, it's no decorative and I don't want it hanging on my wall. If it requires education in a certain way of thinking (that aligns with the way of thinking of self-designated 'experts' in art) and can't be immediately appreciated by anyone looking at it, then it's pointless.

You can also teach a baby to speak Klingon. That doesn't make it any less pointless.

Wow. This is a stunning dismissal of the last 600 years of artistic endeavour. I'm going to bow out now, so far apart are our opinions on this matter.

Art is SO much more valuable than you give it credit for.


Street and editorial photography in Toronto, Canada (external link)
Mirrorless: Fujifilm X-Pro1
Film: Leica MP | Leica M2 | CV Nokton 35/1.4 | CV Nokton 40 f/1.4 | Leitz Summitar 50 f/2 | Canon 50 f/1.2 LTM | Mamiya 7 | Mamiya 80 f/4.0 | Mamiya 150 f/4.5 | Mamiya 43 f/4.5
How to get good colour from C-41 film scans (external link)

Digitizing film with a digital camera (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 400
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 17, 2014 10:12 |  #92

edge100 wrote in post #16840816 (external link)
It most certainly *can* make it good. The subjective ugliness of something is just it's facade.

How can it make it good?

If a piece can't stand on its own merit, it's worthless, except perhaps as a historical or intellectual curiosity.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 400
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 17, 2014 10:15 |  #93

edge100 wrote in post #16840837 (external link)
Wow. This is a stunning dismissal of the last 600 years of artistic endeavour. I'm going to bow out now, so far apart are our opinions on this matter.

Art is SO much more valuable than you give it credit for.

I just don't see the point if it doesn't beautify or entertain.

It's not like it has a practical application - it doesn't make vehicles move faster, let us build taller buildings or stronger bridges, or cure a disease. It just sits there. If it can't even look good, then what's the point of having it?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,323 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 5709
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Apr 17, 2014 10:15 |  #94

What about an artist that is trying to show the ugliness of something like W.Eugene Smith did with his body of work on the Japanese fishing village Minamata? It was important for him to show the world how the Chisso Company poisoned the waters that these people were eating the fish out of. It was causing all kinds of health issues and horrible birth defects. So this work can't be art because it aint pretty? It was meant to be ugly and it changed that situation. Isn't that a situation where art is at it's best? To inspire change?

What about the portrait of the N@zi industrialist Krupp taken by Newman where he made him look like satan? It ain't pretty but it showed Krupp for what he was. So because it ain't pretty according to whoever it can't be art?

So I would argue that if the intent is to show something to the world and make them think then intent is extremely important to art. Doesn't mean that I don't like the work of Adams or Elliot Porter but it does mean I fond value in the work of Witkin or W.Eugene Smith or Newman.

The world or art would be pretty shallow if pretty was the only means of expression.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jetcode
Cream of the Crop
6,234 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2009
Location: West Marin
     
Apr 17, 2014 10:16 |  #95

Shadowblade wrote in post #16840829 (external link)
Maths is objective and practical. It has proofs and practical applications which are useful both in our day-to-day lives, as well as in engineering, medicine and all the other things that make modern living what it is.

Art is subjective. It has no practical purpose beyond being decorative. If it's ugly, it's no decorative and I don't want it hanging on my wall. If it requires education in a certain way of thinking (that aligns with the way of thinking of self-designated 'experts' in art) and can't be immediately appreciated by anyone looking at it, then it's pointless.

You can also teach a baby to speak Klingon. That doesn't make it any less pointless.

I disagree. Art is a path of personal expression which has plenty of personal value far beyond aesthetics. And that's what separates the men from the boys. People don't go to a concert to hear notes they go to listen to human beings create sound. The interaction between audience and performer is not mechanical and secondary it is primary for all parties before a single note has sounded. The same holds true with art even though we are not witnessing the art being created in real-time. In fact with art there is a level removed from the personal essence of the artist which is often deduced through their work. Frida Kahlo used a lot of symbology to tell stories of her life through her art. Diego Rivera on the other hand painted magnificent masterpieces of simple folk subjects.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 400
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 17, 2014 10:21 |  #96

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16840852 (external link)
What about an artist that is trying to show the ugliness of something like W.Eugene Smith did with his body of work on the Japanese fishing village Minamata? It was important for him to show the world how the Chisso Company poisoned the waters that these people were eating the fish out of. It was causing all kinds of health issues and horrible birth defects. So this work can't be art because it aint pretty? It was meant to be ugly and it changed that situation. Isn't that a situation where art is at it's best? To inspire change?

What about the portrait of the N@zi industrialist Krupp taken by Newman where he made him look like satan? It ain't pretty but it showed Krupp for what he was. So because it ain't pretty according to whoever it can't be art?

So I would argue that if the intent is to show something to the world and make them think then intent is extremely important to art. Doesn't mean that I don't like the work of Adams or Elliot Porter but it does mean I fond value in the work of Witkin or W.Eugene Smith or Newman.

The world or art would be pretty shallow if pretty was the only means of expression.

The subject can be ugly, desolate or barren. The work itself must be aesthetically pleasing. Newman's photo of Krupp is aesthetically pleasing, in terms of composition and lighting. It can stand on its own right, even if you didn't know who Krupp or the ****s were.

If you're trying to document something or spread a message, that's journalism or an editorial piece, not necessarily art.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,323 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 5709
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Apr 17, 2014 10:22 |  #97

Shadowblade wrote in post #16840840 (external link)
How can it make it good?

If a piece can't stand on its own merit, it's worthless, except perhaps as a historical or intellectual curiosity.

This is exactly what is wrong with photography today and why understanding history is so important.

man you would dismiss all of those great photo essays in the 30s 40s and 50s in Look and lIfe magazine or any exhibit at any gallery or the work of great photographers like Duane Michals because they all used words and multiple images to express their vision.

Step outside that cave brother. There is a beautiful amazing world out there with all of it being expressed not just the pretty whatever that means....




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,323 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 5709
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Apr 17, 2014 10:24 |  #98

Shadowblade wrote in post #16840865 (external link)
The subject can be ugly, desolate or barren. The work itself must be aesthetically pleasing. Newman's photo of Krupp is aesthetically pleasing, in terms of composition and lighting. It can stand on its own right, even if you didn't know who Krupp or the ****s were.

If you're trying to document something or spread a message, that's journalism or an editorial piece, not necessarily art.

Actaully it's not petty lighting but lighting made to make him look like a monster or satan. Thats according to Newman.

So now you are saying that the great documntarty work is not art :lol::lol:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 400
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 17, 2014 10:24 |  #99

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16840872 (external link)
This is exactly what is wrong with photography today and why understanding history is so important.

man you would dismiss all of those great photo essays in the 30s 40s and 50s in Look and lIfe magazine or any exhibit at any gallery or the work of great photographers like Duane Michals because they all used words and multiple images to express their vision.

Step outside that cave brother. There is a beautiful amazing world out there with all of it being expressed not just the pretty whatever that means....

I can appreciate history. I can appreciate aesthetically-pleasing works or objects.

What I can't do is call an aesthetically-boring, poorly-executed or technically flawed piece 'art' simply because it's historically significant or because a famous person painted it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,323 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 5709
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Apr 17, 2014 10:25 |  #100

jetcode wrote in post #16840854 (external link)
I disagree. Art is a path of personal expression which has plenty of personal value far beyond aesthetics. And that's what separates the men from the boys. People don't go to a concert to hear notes they go to listen to human beings create sound. The interaction between audience and performer is not mechanical and secondary it is primary for all parties before a single note has sounded. The same holds true with art even though we are not witnessing the art being created in real-time. In fact with art there is a level removed from the personal essence of the artist which is often deduced through their work. Frida Kahlo used a lot of symbology to tell stories of her life through her art. Diego Rivera on the other hand painted magnificent masterpieces of simple folk subjects.

:D:D agree!!!!!!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 400
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 17, 2014 10:27 |  #101

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16840877 (external link)
Actaully it's not petty lighting but lighting made to make him look like a monster or satan. Thats according to Newman.

So now you are saying that the great documntarty work is not art :lol::lol:

The quality of the lighting is great. It's dramatic.

I can't say the same about the lighting in that photo of a guy jumping over a puddle on an overcast day.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,323 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 5709
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Apr 17, 2014 10:29 |  #102

Shadowblade wrote in post #16840878 (external link)
I can appreciate history. I can appreciate aesthetically-pleasing works or objects.

What I can't do is call an aesthetically-boring, poorly-executed or technically flawed piece 'art' simply because it's historically significant or because a famous person painted it.

But what happens in 5 years when suddenly you see all of the things you hadn't seen because of lack of knowledge or lack of looking and suddenly the cave is behind you and you suddenly see that all the repeating shapes and geometry in Bressons work or the real meaning of a Siskind or suddenly understand that Witkins biggest influence was Giotto. It's a big world out here and the cave is open.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,323 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 5709
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Apr 17, 2014 10:32 |  #103

Shadowblade wrote in post #16840881 (external link)
The quality of the lighting is great. It's dramatic.

I can't say the same about the lighting in that photo of a guy jumping over a puddle on an overcast day.

Did ya see all the repeating shapes? Can you find the arrow? The beautiful composition? It's not a portrait and the guy is only part of the entire image. clue (look hard in the background) and then ask yourself how difficult it is to see all of the that in a moment and then have the reflexes to capture it. Did you watch the Meyerowitz piece that I posted?

I would argue that the light was perfect for that moment and that image....

try this...
http://erickimphotogra​phy.com …about-street-photography/ (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
edge100
Goldmember
1,920 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Apr 17, 2014 10:34 as a reply to  @ airfrogusmc's post |  #104

If you want to learn more about this specific photograph, here is a good place to start:

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=YxMBp4Ef3ek (external link)


Street and editorial photography in Toronto, Canada (external link)
Mirrorless: Fujifilm X-Pro1
Film: Leica MP | Leica M2 | CV Nokton 35/1.4 | CV Nokton 40 f/1.4 | Leitz Summitar 50 f/2 | Canon 50 f/1.2 LTM | Mamiya 7 | Mamiya 80 f/4.0 | Mamiya 150 f/4.5 | Mamiya 43 f/4.5
How to get good colour from C-41 film scans (external link)

Digitizing film with a digital camera (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 400
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 17, 2014 10:35 |  #105

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16840886 (external link)
But what happens in 5 years when suddenly you see all of the things you hadn't seen because of lack of knowledge or lack of looking and suddenly the cave is behind you and you suddenly see that all the repeating shapes and geometry in Bressons work

So? There are repeating shapes and geometry - so what? If the work doesn't beautify, or if it doesn't instantly speak to a lay viewer, what's the point of it?

or the real meaning of a Siskind

So what if his work was supposed to mean something? A sign that says 'Don't feed the bear' also means something. That doesn't make it a work of art.

or suddenly understand that Witkins biggest influence was Giotto. It's a big world out here and the cave is open.

In what way does it matter that his biggest influence was Giotto? His biggest influence could have been his dog, and the photos would have been no different.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

52,515 views & 0 likes for this thread
Renowned Photographer Jeff Mitchum's Masterpiece "Third Day" Sells For $1.8 Million
FORUMS News & Rumors Photography Industry News 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is kbcl0ttery
844 guests, 232 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.