Composition and all that Arty stuff - discussion thread.

facedodge wrote in post #15528849
This is the idea I take exception with. I believe you can create a work or art without breaking any traditions. Technical expertise and understanding of the rules of composition will only help an artist express themselves.

This idea that art must forever be progressing, rebellious, and with the times is the cause for much of the lack of beauty we see today by work of the critically acclaimed. This of course doesn't mean all art has to be beautiful. Art can be dark and powerful. Art can be many things.

I have no interest in making a name for myself with art critics. I wish only to produce simple beautiful photographs that people enjoy viewing and I enjoy creating.

I'm not advocating getting rid of impressionism or abstraction. If used correctly, they are powerful tools in conveying what the artist intends. I do however, believe that abstraction or impressionism for it's own sake is a fraud and a crutch for the talentless.

The whole scene where you have to take the next step, to move past the pretty picture, is not a step I really want to take. I don't do this to be new, shocking, or critically acclaimed. I find a lot of that stuff to be pretentious nonsense.

I love photos that look just like the subject and I love photos where the photographer did something creative, like free lensing, or zooming/panning while exposing, or finding unusual perspectives so long as it compliments the subject.

The emergence of art where the subject is secondary, where it requires paragraphs to explain, where beauty take a back seat to "thought provoking".... is what I am worried about.

I don't think creative and traditional have to be mutually exclusive.

I am not arguing for the abstract etc.

sapearl wrote in post #15528851
That's very well stated Mark - I like it so much that I may steal it the next time I want to sound good during one of my judging critiques .

As many of us have previously stated here, the creative photographic process is a journey. It's affected by what we see in our own lives, as well as what we pereive in the work of others.

I work with several photographic and arts organizations in the city and I always tell photographers to visit a museum or gallery for both fun AND inspiration if they are looking for inspiration, or maybe feel stuck in a rut. And I don't advise them to look at photos. "Check out the master painters." Those are the guys who were studying the interaction of light and subject hundreds of years before folks like us came on the scene with our glass plates and digital media .

Gear collection - technique collection - light collection - artist.

I wonder if that is the natural progresssion?

I can appreciate what you guys are saying, but I think you are being too strict with your definition of photographic art to mean the point at which you transcend technique.

I know there is a ton of middle ground here between us and we are only arguing at the extremes. Perhaps a more apt question would be "when does a photograph become art?" We may be arguing only because we are applying different meaning to the same words.

facedodge wrote in post #15528849
This is the idea I take exception with. I believe you can create a work or art without breaking any traditions. Technical expertise and understanding of the rules of composition will only help an artist express themselves.

This idea that art must forever be progressing, rebellious, and with the times is the cause for much of the lack of beauty we see today by work of the critically acclaimed. This of course doesn't mean all art has to be beautiful. Art can be dark and powerful. Art can be many things.

I have no interest in making a name for myself with art critics. I wish only to produce simple beautiful photographs that people enjoy viewing and I enjoy creating.

I'm not advocating getting rid of impressionism or abstraction. If used correctly, they are powerful tools in conveying what the artist intends. I do however, believe that abstraction or impressionism for it's own sake is a fraud and a crutch for the talentless.

The whole scene where you have to take the next step, to move past the pretty picture, is not a step I really want to take. I don't do this to be new, shocking, or critically acclaimed. I find a lot of that stuff to be pretentious nonsense.

I love photos that look just like the subject and I love photos where the photographer did something creative, like free lensing, or zooming/panning while exposing, or finding unusual perspectives so long as it compliments the subject.

The emergence of art where the subject is secondary, where it requires paragraphs to explain, where beauty take a back seat to "thought provoking".... is what I am worried about.

I don't think creative and traditional have to be mutually exclusive.

The act of creating is the very meaning is characterized by originality and expressiveness; imaginative. But we were discussing art. The two can be exclusive. These issue were settled over a half century ago as it applies to photography and I didn't say that all work that fails into set rules can't be art .What I am saying is that art is beyond all of that and that most things created are not art. And if you can't tell your work from everyone elses then its probably not art because it is ordinary, it looks like everyone elses work and art as history has shown us is not ordinary.

while we're talking about run-of-the-mill landscapes...before I have this framed, gimme some C&C and would you crop it differently.

sapearl wrote in post #15528851
That's very well stated Mark - I like it so much that I may steal it the next time I want to sound good during one of my judging critiques .

As many of us have previously stated here, the creative photographic process is a journey. It's affected by what we see in our own lives, as well as what we pereive in the work of others.

I work with several photographic and arts organizations in the city and I always tell photographers to visit a museum or gallery for both fun AND inspiration if they are looking for inspiration, or maybe feel stuck in a rut. And I don't advise them to look at photos. "Check out the master painters." Those are the guys who were studying the interaction of light and subject hundreds of years before folks like us came on the scene with our glass plates and digital media .

And all trough history they have been writing the language.

facedodge wrote in post #15528933
I can appreciate what you guys are saying, but I think you are being too strict with your definition of photographic art to mean the point at which you transcend technique.

I know there is a ton of middle ground here between us and we are only arguing at the extremes. Perhaps a more apt question would be "when does a photograph become art?" We may be arguing only because we are applying different meaning to the same words.

I don't think anyone has actually attempted to define art.


Its a bit like two painters.

One paints a picture.

The other copies that picture.

Which one was the artist?


The one who expressed himself originally.

The most difficult thing, is to move from reproduction to expression, for any photographer, including myself, I feel...

chauncey wrote in post #15528941
while we're talking about run-of-the-mill landscapes...before I have this framed, gimme some C&C and would you crop it differently.

it's a photomerge...twin mulies and rays were both in one segment

Chauncey a bit glowy at the area between the two ranges. Tone that down a bit and bring the foreground up if you can.

facedodge wrote in post #15528933
I can appreciate what you guys are saying, but I think you are being too strict with your definition of photographic art to mean the point at which you transcend technique.

I know there is a ton of middle ground here between us and we are only arguing at the extremes. Perhaps a more apt question would be "when does a photograph become art?" We may be arguing only because we are applying different meaning to the same words.

Actually we are being quite the opposite and saying rules don't matter but understanding the language and learning to become fluent in it does matter.

What we like and dislike is very subjective but what is or isn't art is a bit more objective and we do have a couple thousand years and 180+ years of photography to help us understand it all. There are many artist whose work I might dislike but I can understand why it is considered art.
A little something else to read if you are interested.
http://char.txa.cornel​l.edu/language/introla​n.htm

airfrogusmc wrote in post #15528984
Actually we are being quite the opposite and saying rules don't matter but understanding the language and learning to become fluent in it does matter.

What we like and dislike is very subjective but what is or isn't art is a bit more objective and we do have a couple thousand years and 180+ years of photography to help us understand it all. There are many artist whose work I might dislike but I can understand why it is considered art.
A little something else to read if you are interested.
http://char.txa.cornel​l.edu/language/introla​n.htm

Just because you don't need to follow the rules to be an artist doesn't mean by following the rules or using a formula based on the rules for your work instantly make it's void, invalidated, and stricken from the world of art.

Chefs follow recipes, musicians use scales and metronomes, writers follow rules of grammar and structure. We both agree that learning the language, as you put it, is important. I disagree at the presumption that once you become fluent in the language, you no longer need the formula.

I'm a structural engineer by profession (perhaps one of the reason we can't seem to come to head on this) and I understand the science behind my formulas. That doesn't mean I have to recreate it every time when trying to do something simple.

Sometimes, as photographers, the "art" is staring us in the face and all we have to do is know how to capture it. Sometimes, using the useful formulas we have at our disposal helps us remove the distractions that would keep the viewer from immediately seeing it.

facedodge wrote in post #15529114
Just because you don't need to follow the rules to be an artist doesn't mean by following the rules or using a formula based on the rules for your work instantly make it's void, invalidated, and stricken from the world of art.

Chefs follow recipes, musicians use scales and metronomes, writers follow rules of grammar and structure. We both agree that learning the language, as you put it, is important. I disagree at the presumption that once you become fluent in the language, you no longer need the formula.

I'm a structural engineer by profession (perhaps one of the reason we can't seem to come to head on this) and I understand the science behind my formulas. That doesn't mean I have to recreate it every time when trying to do something simple.

Sometimes, as photographers, the "art" is staring us in the face and all we have to do is know how to capture it. Sometimes, using the useful formulas we have at our disposal helps us remove the distractions that would keep the viewer from immediately seeing it.

Again as I said in previous post I never said that images that fall into the rules can't be art. Many are but that alone will not make it so. In fact following formulas for success usually leads to failure because by its very nature its not creative. I think finding your way of seeing will be more instrumental in helping you create and become an artist because if your work looks like everyone elses then chances are its not art and if you follow the same formulas that everyone else is following, as Weston pointed out, it can only become cliche and thats not special at all. Anyone can do that and as we see, they do.

facedodge wrote in post #15528575
Thank you. I will watch that video. In return I will share a video of my own that I believe elaborates my point.... though I no longer think we are arguing at polar opposites.

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=qGX0_0VL06U

Nice link, some great observations in there.

Allen...those ranges are 8 miles apart and the sun was hitting those in the distance and not the closer ones. Do you still think that I should tone it down a bit?

facedodge wrote in post #15528575
Thank you. I will watch that video. In return I will share a video of my own that I believe elaborates my point.... though I no longer think we are arguing at polar opposites.

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=qGX0_0VL06U

Could only watch the first part of the video, as the commentator was remarkably tendentious and a bit loose with the anecdotal evidence, cherry picking, and straw man arguments.

For one thing, the whole notion that a strict divide exists between modern and classical (realism) art was inflated. Don't get me wrong, maybe in the artistic academic quarters, debates rage, but among the hoi polloi, lines of interests are far more porous or vague.

Classical art has not been publicly ostracized, as it is abundantly represented in museums. If anything, over the last four or so decades of my life, it's been modern art, particularly abstract, that has drawn ridicule, not realism. To be sure, some of the criticism is legitimate, but I can't account for curator tastes, nor the pretension and politics that permeate much of the art world. Still, these longstanding problems do not negate the overarching value of modern art.

Not sure where Impressionism falls into his scheme of things, but it's usually viewed as more on the modern than on the classical side, yet despite this, numerous people on this planet find it quite "beautiful." He seemed to play on extremes a bit.

I like some of Picasso's work, even if it skirts the conventional definition of beauty. In fact, many of the modern paintings displayed to somehow expose their fallacy were in fact pretty stunning as far as I was concerned. People like different things, and I certainly hope no one is trying to impose some totalitarian notion of what proper art should be.

Which brings up the issue of technique. What's good is good, irrespective of how it got there. I'd rather listen to the questionably talented New York Dolls than ELP, even though in terms of craft and musicianship, ELP was far superior. ELP was also far more pretentious…you see, complexity can often be more self-indulgent than simplicity.

It's not a matter if the subject is a shadow on the sidewalk or a mountain in the distance. A trillion photos taken every second across the globe these days; everything has been photographed. Yet, I still see great photos of flowers or even weddings (weddings of strangers about whom I care little). So I have to question why do I like Adams when I have little interest in landscape, or Nick Brandt when my interest in wildlife is equally subdued.

There are, for me, elusive issues of art involved in these enquiries, and yes, while a grammar exists, there is another transformational component that pushes these works above the norm, irrespective of the medium used, irrespective of the subject matter. It's not a case of trashing all rules for its own sake, after all, Adam's and Brandt's photos are fairly traditional, and I agree, we don't need to grab for extremes to make a point.

At this stage, I'm not going to get into when photography as a whole becomes art, because the semantic debate that will invariably ensue detracts from the importance of the aesthetic. The aesthetic is the art, even if the photograph aims to be art or not.

Yes, there are many inherently beautiful objects in the world---the art in front of our faces---but, assuming we can even detect them (a skill within itself), capturing it with literal intent and technical perfection does not always guarantee successful rendering, just as applying enhancement or the abstract does not always connote pretentiousness. True, creativity can of course coexists with the traditional, but likewise, thought provoking is not mutually exclusive from visual captivation. There is room for all in photography, and dismissing one to defend another just digs up a lot of hypocrisy.

The rules exist, in part, to help underpin and expand the vision, whereby, after time, they operate subconsciously; they don't dictate, they don't intrude, they merely, perhaps in an engrained fashion, facilitate interpretation, even if such interpretation flout these very rules.

Just joining this thread. I feel somewhat comfortable taking standard landscape-type shots (though there's always room for improvement!), but one of the things I want to learn is to be able to take more "artsy" kind of shots.

This first one is one of my typical, straight-up landscapes. In this particular instance, my father and I were driving through the Canadian Rockies at sunset on a long, deserted highway. When we went over a particular bend, I saw this view, and said somewhat casually: "I wish I could just plant my tripod in the middle of the road here and take a shot." The old man immediately slammed on the breaks and this is the result. I didn't know then, and still really don't know now, why some consider it to be good from a composition/art standpoint, but here it is:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR