Composition and all that Arty stuff - discussion thread.

ok, sorry, you guys are right of course, the tilt does increase the dynamics, I worded it incorrectly, I meant it has this underlying principle apart from just being a compositional technique.

ziemowit wrote in post #17140693
ok, sorry, you guys are right of course, the tilt does increase the dynamics, I worded it incorrectly, I meant it has this underlying principle apart from just being a compositional technique.

Exactly it is just another visual tool you can use....

...

OhLook wrote in post #17138531
Did you miss this in one of Z's posts?
I take "uniquely believe" to mean: find and use something that no one else (that you know of) has found and used. So, yes, an artist who "has nothing unique to say" (Gene, your words) can be called dishonest by this definition, but it's not the common meaning of the word.

But that's getting into being unique simply for the sake of being unique. Which can absolutely be more dishonest that doing something that is incredibly cliched.

You are aware that people come up with ideas independently, right?

Whether we're being honest or unique or not, art is about communication. And communication breaks down if there are not shared ideas, rules, languages, experiences, or whatever. People have to be operating under at least some similar common ground or else the viewer has absolutely no basis for saying how good or bad the art is. That being the case, the existence of such a common ground necessitates that a lot of identical things will HONESTLY be created by different people with them having no contact. I'm most familiar with this with regards to inventions and scientific theories...two people working on the same common ground (but unaware of each other) independently and HONESTLY come up with some truly original groundbreaking solution to life's problems. Only it CAN'T be unique, because people are operating under the same common ground (which also has to be the case if my art is supposed to be understood by anyone). Anything that you're thinking about, someone else has probably thought of it too. This is precisely why you'll hear about things like some scientist working his ass off on a project and then going to patent his invention and finding out that someone else (who he never even knew about) got there and patented it first.

we are still talking about dofferent things here, and I can't seem to able to explain myself well enough I think.

Science to personal expression? I'm sorry, there is a math, physics and chemistry component to photography but it's on the technical side of the coin. None of us live in a bubble and we are all influenced by everything around us. I know my work is influenced by movies, literature, music, paintings and other photographers but I still have a way of expressing my feeling about things in a way that is mine. Learning to see is the hardest part of this thing. It is easy to be an imitator but hard to find your own path. I think it was Haas that said something like, and not 100% sure if he said it and I am paraphrasing, I would rather make an image that looks like mine that the maybe the masses don't get than make images that look like everyone else's image that everyone loves. I agree. Not trying to be different just photographing the natural way I see. My next exhibit is in May 2015 and will be titled Spontaneous Relationships and that is really what my work is about. That moment when things like foregrounds /backgrounds/subjects/​photographer to subject/tones/shapes come together, sometimes humorous but always spontaneously and they happen in a split second. One fraction of a second those relationships are there and a fraction of a second later they are gone forever. Has this type of work been done before? Absolutely, but I know I have captured moments that have never been captured before and maybe in a way that is unique to me and the way I see those moments.

I say just create from your heart and soul. Don't worry so much about whether or not it's been done. Do it honestly. Not for praise, not for shock, not for money, not for fame but only for you and the way you feel about what you are photographing. If you do this I have a feeling in the end it will all work out.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17143982
Science to personal expression? I'm sorry, there is a math, physics and chemistry component to photography but it's on the technical side of the coin. None of us live in a bubble and we are all influenced by everything around us. I know my work is influenced by movies, literature, music, paintings and other photographers but I still have a way of expressing my feeling about things in a way that is mine. Learning to see is the hardest part of this thing. It is easy to be an imitator but hard to find your own path. I think it was Haas that said something like, and not 100% sure if he said it and I am paraphrasing, I would rather make an image that looks like mine that the maybe the masses don't get than make images that look like everyone else's image that everyone loves. I agree. Not trying to be different just photographing the natural way I see. My next exhibit is in May 2015 and will be titled Spontaneous Relationships and that is really what my work is about. That moment when things like foregrounds /backgrounds/subjects/​photographer to subject/tones/shapes come together, sometimes humorous but always spontaneously and they happen in a split second. One fraction of a second those relationships are there and a fraction of a second later they are gone forever. Has this type of work been done before? Absolutely, but I know I have captured moments that have never been captured before and maybe in a way that is unique to me and the way I see those moments.

I say just create from your heart and soul. Don't worry so much about whether or not it's been done. Do it honestly. Not for praise, not for shock, not for money, not for fame but only for you and the way you feel about what you are photographing. If you do this I have a feeling in the end it will all work out.

That's it. Do it honestly. All you can do is what you like and what feeds your soul. It won't necessarily be what feeds everyone else or maybe it is, doesn't really matter.

Clean Gene wrote in post #17143519
But that's getting into being unique simply for the sake of being unique.

That's not what I meant.

Yes. One of my earlier posts acknowledged that they do.

Not so analogous. Science and invention involve creativity, as art does, but much of what goes on in science excludes subjectivity in a way that art doesn't. Scientific findings are replicable.

I'll try a different kind of explanation. If you've ever been in love, you may recognize this experience. There are times at the early, unrealistic stage when you're with your loved one and the rest of the world drops away. Other people recede in importance; the two of you exist more fully than anyone else. Even the person's name is profoundly meaningful; other people's names are mere strings of letters. This state of mind is, obviously, something you created. You and your partner aren't objectively the center of the universe, it only seems that way to you.

Now imagine a parallel in photography. You're preparing to photograph something. You give the scene your full attention (okay, your equipment and technique necessarily get some attention, too). As you take in the scene perceptually and contemplate it, the world of other photographers becomes irrelevant because what's important at the moment is your involvement with what you see. (A lot of things become irrelevant, which is why, if taking pictures in public, I have to remind myself that if I step back, I should look around first to avoid crashing into someone or falling off the curb.) The resulting images will incorporate something of the way your mind works because they'll come from the mental process that you engaged while producing them. You recorded what seemed important to you about what was in your visual field. The next person would have done it differently.

^^^^ what an supurbly amazing piece of art!
I will have to look up Alexey Titarenko
i learn something new each day...and I love it

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17143982
Science to personal expression? I'm sorry, there is a math, physics and chemistry component to photography but it's on the technical side of the coin. None of us live in a bubble and we are all influenced by everything around us. I know my work is influenced by movies, literature, music, paintings and other photographers but I still have a way of expressing my feeling about things in a way that is mine. Learning to see is the hardest part of this thing. It is easy to be an imitator but hard to find your own path. I think it was Haas that said something like, and not 100% sure if he said it and I am paraphrasing, I would rather make an image that looks like mine that the maybe the masses don't get than make images that look like everyone else's image that everyone loves. I agree. Not trying to be different just photographing the natural way I see. My next exhibit is in May 2015 and will be titled Spontaneous Relationships and that is really what my work is about. That moment when things like foregrounds /backgrounds/subjects/​photographer to subject/tones/shapes come together, sometimes humorous but always spontaneously and they happen in a split second. One fraction of a second those relationships are there and a fraction of a second later they are gone forever. Has this type of work been done before? Absolutely, but I know I have captured moments that have never been captured before and maybe in a way that is unique to me and the way I see those moments.

I say just create from your heart and soul. Don't worry so much about whether or not it's been done. Do it honestly. Not for praise, not for shock, not for money, not for fame but only for you and the way you feel about what you are photographing. If you do this I have a feeling in the end it will all work out.

There are not enough paths for everyone to get their own. Paths overlap, converge, and diverge all the time.

I never said that there was a science to personal expression. Those were your words, not mine. But if you're not working under some kind of common framework, then you can not accurately critique it. Cultural, symbolic, and linguistic systems influence how people think, and one cannot properly judge art without having some common understanding of such contexts. You can't have it both ways. If two people walking on the same path causes you to say that they are being dishonest or untrue to themselves, then you're dismissing the very frameworks that allow people to make INTELLIGENT criticisms of art in the first place. The very act of saying "that work is bad, and doesn't work" assumes the presence of a common working "language". And such commonalities NECESSITATE a large degree of overlap, otherwise there would be zero incentive for the artist to attempt to communicate with an audience.

OhLook wrote in post #17144337
That's not what I meant.
Yes. One of my earlier posts acknowledged that they do.
Not so analogous. Science and invention involve creativity, as art does, but much of what goes on in science excludes subjectivity in a way that art doesn't. Scientific findings are replicable.

I'll try a different kind of explanation. If you've ever been in love, you may recognize this experience. There are times at the early, unrealistic stage when you're with your loved one and the rest of the world drops away. Other people recede in importance; the two of you exist more fully than anyone else. Even the person's name is profoundly meaningful; other people's names are mere strings of letters. This state of mind is, obviously, something you created. You and your partner aren't objectively the center of the universe, it only seems that way to you.

Now imagine a parallel in photography. You're preparing to photograph something. You give the scene your full attention (okay, your equipment and technique necessarily get some attention, too). As you take in the scene perceptually and contemplate it, the world of other photographers becomes irrelevant because what's important at the moment is your involvement with what you see. (A lot of things become irrelevant, which is why, if taking pictures in public, I have to remind myself that if I step back, I should look around first to avoid crashing into someone or falling off the curb.) The resulting images will incorporate something of the way your mind works because they'll come from the mental process that you engaged while producing them. You recorded what seemed important to you about what was in your visual field. The next person would have done it differently.

Everyone "does it differently" whether they're trying to or not. There are people who actually pore over scientific data in order to determine the exact logistics of Ansel Adams' photographs so that they can "shoot their own Ansel Adams photo". And even then, it's still not the same.

And that's the rare exception. Most people who get accused of copying are not going to such lengths. Is the result different? Yes, it's absolutely different, unless one chooses to just willfully ignore the differences and place all emphasis on the commonalities. If that applies to flat-out plagiarism, then it absolutely applies to the majority of photographs. Every time I walk out my front door, the world looks "different".

Less talk, more photos.

Clean Gene wrote in post #17151389
There are not enough paths for everyone to get their own. Paths overlap, converge, and diverge all the time.

If you are true to yourself you will find your path and be able to express your voice if you have one. It starts when you come to a realization that is is not about the single image but bodies of relating images and you start seeing visual relationships in your work and play on those relationships.

Again you know you are starting to get somewhere when other people start saying they recognize your work without seeing your signature.

Are you in your work?

Clean Gene wrote in post #17151400
Most people who get accused of copying are not going to such lengths.

I see a lot of threads on forums like "let's see your ________ method" or "how can I take a picture like this." And then when everyone is shooting with the same equipment and following the same rules all the work starts looking the same. You see one guy make one really pretty picture and suddenly there are 50 people trying to recreate the same image. They ask questions like what lens and camera did you sue and what shutter speed and f/stop did you use. Rarely any questions about why did you take that photograph? How does it fit with your other photographs?