Composition and all that Arty stuff - discussion thread.

chauncey wrote in post #15528941
it's a photomerge...twin mulies and rays were both in one segment

"photo merge" . . .
Does that mean that the mulies weren't really there at the time you photographed the twin mountain ranges and the foreground habitat?

To me, "Art" happens when someone with a unique vision, message, or story to tell has the tools and skill to replicate what he sees/feels in a way that allows the viewer/reader/listener to experience the same thing.

For me, the transition from 'taking pictures' to 'photographic art' happens when you become educated enough to see things that other people miss, and you learn how to capture them so that the essence of what you see is transmitted to others. So while I may have once gone traveling and snapped pictures of the historical buildings I saw, now when I travel I look for things that are unique to my personal trip. A tourist might be taking a picture of a building while an 'artist' notices that there is a depressed man sitting on a bench among the tourists, and that there is real interest in the interplay between the happy tourists and the man. The artist will have the skills to capture that scene in a way that captures the emotion he felt when he saw it, so that when other people see that photo they feel it too.

I'm going to use a couple of paintings rather than photographs to make my point, so that we don't get bogged down in the technical details of the photographic process. To me, from an artistic standpoint they're the same thing - just a tool to capture an image that expresses something unique.

For example, look at this painting, called "Peasant Woman with three children at the window", painted in 1840 by Ferdinand Georg Waldmüller:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

sjones wrote in post #15530179
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.

I watched the whole of the video and must say that he presented a very sound argument and conclusion.

You need to watch all four videos I think, before you form a full opinion, as you only really considered a small part of his presentation.

Pericles77 wrote in post #15531122
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

Jasper by Pericles77, on Flickr

Really like this, the road leads the eye to the mountains and gives the message of a destination, they eye is kept in the frame because of the focus points.

I think because it invokes an emotional and spiritual response in me, it goes beyond a mere landscape.

Nice shot.

In this case, it means that this image is assembled from a series of five images taken as I panned from right to left, the mulies and "god rays" were present, at the time of shooting the series.
To be fair, I took several series with the intention of doing an HDR conversion during which the mulies decided to take their leave, along with the "god rays".

mtimber wrote in post #15531347
I watched the whole of the video and must say that he presented a very sound argument and conclusion.

You need to watch all four videos I think, before you form a full opinion, as you only really considered a small part of his presentation.

Yes, generally I would hear out a whole presentation before forming an opinion, but the basic introductory argument of the first video, which I considered the primary thesis, was so flawed, I was not compelled to continue.

This particular discussion is not necessarily new to me, and perhaps he takes a more objective tone in the following videos---or maybe he goes off in completely different direction from the first video.

This said, if his final conclusion places 'beauty' only in the realm of realism, and contends that abstract or modern art is only a device of the talentless and superficial, then there is nothing sound about his contention from where I stand.

In any event, as I said, if I'm going to dedicate any more time listening to this one person's opinion, I need to be convinced that there is an ounce of wisdom to be gained, and unfortunately, I did not detect this in his opening argument.

dhanson.....that was an excellent post, that is a great explanation of what an artist does and see's,your explanation of the paintings has helped me understand so much better than i did 15 minutes ago..
Thanks

dhanson wrote in post #15531282
To me, "Art" happens when someone with a unique vision, message, or story to tell has the tools and skill to replicate what he sees/feels in a way that allows the viewer/reader/listener to experience the same thing.

For me, the transition from 'taking pictures' to 'photographic art' happens when you become educated enough to see things that other people miss, and you learn how to capture them so that the essence of what you see is transmitted to others. So while I may have once gone traveling and snapped pictures of the historical buildings I saw, now when I travel I look for things that are unique to my personal trip. A tourist might be taking a picture of a building while an 'artist' notices that there is a depressed man sitting on a bench among the tourists, and that there is real interest in the interplay between the happy tourists and the man. The artist will have the skills to capture that scene in a way that captures the emotion he felt when he saw it, so that when other people see that photo they feel it too.

I'm going to use a couple of paintings rather than photographs to make my point, so that we don't get bogged down in the technical details of the photographic process. To me, from an artistic standpoint they're the same thing - just a tool to capture an image that expresses something unique.

For example, look at this painting, called "Peasant Woman with three children at the window", painted in 1840 by Ferdinand Georg Waldmüller:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

This looks almost like a photograph, because the painter had real skill and he had the eye to correctly capture the quality of light and shape that made this scene special. So what makes this 'art' instead of just a family picture?

First, the composition is fantastic. Framing the painting inside a painting is interesting. Look at how the children are arranged. The brother and sister in the corners are facing in, the little child and the mother facing out. The proportions are great. The picture seems in balance. Even the fact that the children are weighted to the left of the picture is balanced by the hinged door on the right. Everything looks to be exactly in the right place.

Then there is the quality of light. You can just feel the warmth of the sunshine - and the oppressive darkness inside the house. It's beautiful. But the light itself tells a story: The mother is back in the shadows, the children are straining into the light, looking out, curious. Their faces are lit up.

The expressions of the subjects: The boy manages to look a little impish, the older girl is looking at her brother with a knowing smile. The artist captured all the little details that bring a scene to life. The mother has a weary look about her, but there's also contentment there. Think about the squalor and life of hard work and misery these people were born to. They have every right to be despondent, but they're not. They've found a way to enjoy life in the midst of hardship, and the artist captured that.

The technical ability of artist is incredible, but that's not what matters. There are a million painters with good technical skills. What matters is that his ability gave him the tools to capture what he saw, and to give the viewer the vision he had. Another artist might have seen the same family in a different way, perhaps when they were working or fighting or something, and painted them as such to show the hardship of life. This artist is more optimistic - he looked at these people and saw triumph of spirit over condition, and captured that. So when you look at this painting, you're also looking a bit into the soul of the painter, because of what he chose to paint and how he chose to paint it.

In comparison, look at this one, called "Tired of Life", by Ferdinand Hodler:

This was painted in 1892, and is a painting of five old men the artist saw sitting outside a home for paupers. You can imagine there were scenes like this all over the place in the 19th century. Most people would have walked right on by, perhaps averting their vision. The artist had the 'eye' to see something significant here, and spent the time to capture it.

The composition is good. The man in the middle is flanked by men with black hair, with gray haired men on the end. There are several progressions of age and sickness and attitude moving from the center to the left and right. He posed the man in the center with his arms down, and the rest with their hands folded in the laps. It gives the picture some interesting symmetry. The man in the center is almost completely uncovered, while the others have full robes. Visually it's balanced and interesting.

You have to see this painting to really appreciate it, because it's huge. It fills most of a wall. It's almost life-sized. And the museum (the Neue Pinakothek in Munich) cleverly put it near the exit, when you're starting to feel a little tired yourself. You come into the last gallery, and here are these five old gents staring at you.

The composition makes the painting pleasant and balanced and all that. But the art comes from the depth of emotion and feeling the artist captured. Look at those old gents. Those men are done. Ravaged by lives full of disappointment, pain, and failure, they are penniless and sick. They have no loved ones, no money, no home. Life kicked them in the teeth, and now they just want out. But being old men, they're too tired to do anything but just sit and wait. The middle one may have tuberculosis - all of the artist's siblings and his parents all died of tuberculosis as I recall, so you can imagine what he was feeling when he painted these people.

But then look at the first guy on the left. He's sitting a little straighter than the others. His hair is freshly cut. He's looking the painter straight in the eye. His skin doesn't have the sickly yellow tone of the three next to him. He's even got a slight look of calm anticipation to him. You get the sense that maybe this guy's got a round or two of fight left in him.

The guy on the right is also staring at the painter. But his eyes are a little wild, with maybe some anger in them. Or fear. Whatever it is, he looks a little shell-shocked, like he doesn't know what hit him.

Have a look at the painting in terms of progression of life from the men on the outside to the man in the center. On the far left, the man still looks determined. But the person to his right looks like a similar man, but with the determination replaced by disappointment and failure. He looks like what the man on the left might look like if he had a little less strength of character, or perhaps after being kicked by life a few more times. The man in the middle is near death - the end result of that progression.

The man on the far right looks angry. Maybe a little aggressive. He doesn't think life has treated him fairly. Perhaps he's annoyed at having to pose for the artist. Now, the man to the left of him looks like the same kind of person, except his anger has turned into bitterness and resignation.

It's almost like the two sides show a progression to the middle of different aspects of human character in a deeply unfair world. The angry passionate ones turn bitter and resentful, then die. The quiet determined ones become disappointed and apathetic, and then die.

Am I reading too much into it? Perhaps. But that's okay. Great artists create paintings of such emotional depth and complexity that they can open the door to multiple interpretations.

To me, this is what separates art from mere technical prowess. Any painter with the right skills could have painted one of these men and accurately captured the detail in his face. But an artist looks for something deeper and more complex, and tries to capture it in a way that the viewer feels what he felt.

Contrast that with the first painting, and think about what you know about the artists and what kind of people they are. You get the sense that the first artist is an optimistic man who sees the beauty of the human spirit and devotes his painting to it, while the second one may be more cynical, or perhaps just more in tune with hardship and pain. Both left something of themselves on the canvas, along with the subject.

As photographers, we can do the same. Don't just try to take a picture of something in a way that makes it look pretty, or balanced. Take pictures of things that evoke something special in you, and take them in a way that helps evoke that same feeling in the people who look at it. If you're taking a portrait photo, don't just light the person up to make them look pretty - try to capture something that tells the viewer who that person is, or that captures the circumstances of the person's life.

Good wedding photographers will pose a couple in good light and make them look good. Great wedding photographers are capable of capturing the love between the two people. Really great ones can capture the nature of the relationship and make you understand what the couple sees in each other.

Good landscape photographers can photograph pretty landscapes and compose them nicely, so the viewer can see what he saw. Great ones will make you feel what it's like to be there - the shivery cold of a winter scene, the power of a storm about to the ravage the land, the complexity of the ecosystem, or whatever it is special that he sees and feels is worth capturing.

A good street photographer will capture an event. A great one will capture the spirit of the event or interesting interplays of light and shape that he can see and most other people can't, and by capturing it in a photo allow the viewer to temporarily have the eye of the artist. And so it goes.

Sorry for the long-winded message!

First anything created commercially and I mean that in terms of anything created to make money and wedding photography is in that description is rarely art.

Arguably the greatest street photographer of the 20th century Bresson only used subject matter as visual elements. He say the frame in terms of shapes, lines, tone to support form.

Heres what he had to say and more important its what his work was about and show in his work. Obvious subject matter was not the subject but his work and the reason he was considered probably the greatest was mush more than the obvious. The more you look at his images the more you see in them because they are not about the obvious as you've suggested. They have real staying power and even more important they all look like Bresson photographs.
"For a subject to be strong enough to be worth photographing, the relationship of its forms must be rigorously established. Composition starts when you situate your camera in space in relation to the object. For me, photography is the exploration in reality of the rhythm of surfaces, lines, or values; the eye carves out its subject, and the camera has only to do its work. That work is simply to print the eye’s decision on film." - Henri Cartier-Bresson

"To me, photography is the simultaneous recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the significance of an event, as well as of a precise organisation of forms which give that event its proper expression. I believe that through the act of living, the discovery of oneself is made concurrently with the discovery of the world around us which can mould us, but which can also be affected by us. A balance must be established between these two worlds- the one inside us and the one outside us. As the result of a constant reciprocal process, both these worlds come to form a single one. And it is this world that we must communicate. But this takes care only of the content of the picture. For me, content cannot be separated from form. By form, I mean the rigorous organisation of the interplay of surfaces, lines and values. It is in this organisation alone that our conceptions and emotions become concrete and communicable. In photography, visual organisation can stem only from a developed instinct." - Henri Cartier-Bresson

To many time when speaking of something good many get caught up in the misconception if its hard to create and/or takes a great deal of technical skill to create it must be good. Some things that are like very technically sound are good but if thats all there is to the work then its a good technical exercise but that is not enough to make it good. This was part of a real argument a century ago of why a photograph can't be art. Thank god for the straight movement and the move away from pictorial photography which gave photography a real legitimate place as an art. I think Bresson also address the technique issue very well indeed.
"I’m always amused by the idea that certain people have about technique, which translate into an immoderate taste for the sharpness of the image. It is a passion for detail, for perfection, or do they hope to get closer to reality with this trompe I’oeil? They are, by the way, as far away from the real issues as other generations of photographers were when they obscured their subject in soft-focus effects." - Henri Cartier-Bresson

And a good quote about art from Adams
"(Art) is both the taking and giving of beauty; the turning out to the light the inner folds of the awareness of the spirit. It is the recreation on another plane of the realities of the world; the tragic and wonderful realities of earth and men, and of all the inter-relations of these." - Ansel Adams

haters gonna hate

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

WOW I don't even know where to start with this.

Lets deal in reality and history. Photography was born in 1826/1827 with the first photograph that was fixed on in other words made permanent. Photographs were made prior to that they just had discovered a way to fix the image and keep it from fading to nothing.

Photography took several decades to become wide spread. Now many art historians feel the in and around the 1860/70 it had become pretty wide spread and was know for it ability to make a faithful rendering of the subject which include correct foreshortening and perspective. That sent shockwaves through the established art world. Now a machine could do in an instant what it took some painters years to master.

Well some of the more flexible and forward seeing among the painters realized that they were now free to not paint total reality but they could now paint how they felt or say something. These were the impressionist and they were scorned in the beginning.

That lead to post (and this is way over simplified but for the sake of time and space) impressionism, modernism, dadaism expressionism, abstract expressionism ( the first major American art movement) pop art etc.

Now this guy and I didn't watch the entire piece but I could see already that he was attacking abstract work much in the way the art of its day was attacked in the degenerate art exhibit in Germany. (google it) or here
http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Degenerate_art

It seems he doesn't like anything thats not obvious and he wants to rewrite history. Kinda like again the degenerative art exhibit. And again I will say he has a right to like and dislike whatever and that is very subjective but what is or isn't art can be decided on by some objectivity and usually it part of that has to do with seeing some of the artist in the work.

facedodge wrote in post #15532171
haters gonna hate

I can see that in that video.

And theres not much I hate. I can like a lot of things but what I like or dislike may and in many cases may not be art. I like pretty sunsets and dogs and clowns but show me one of those images that even give me a slight glimpse at the creator like an Adams landscape or a Newman portrait or a Robert Frank image or an abstract Siskind. I love all or that work and I also love impressionism, post impressionism, classical realism, renaissance, abstract expressionism and a lot of work in most major movements. THeres always something that can inspire and open the mind just a little more.

I was sitted in my car in a parking lot while looking at the sunset from a distance. Then looked at the building behind me and saw the sunset reflection on the window, grabbed my camera zoomed in to this window and wallah the photo was made.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/77917205@N08/8​330084961/

Pericles77 wrote in post #15531122
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

Jasper by Pericles77, on Flickr


This next shot is my first attempt at something a little more artsy. I took it on my way home from work in Beijing with my just-acquired 70-200 4.0 IS. I've seen dozens if not hundreds of similar electrical messes here in China, but I feel the dull gray color of the buildings in the background better serves the subject than some of the other examples I have seen. No rule of thirds here, but slight framing with the posts on the bottom and right sides. Unfortunately the main post is slightly off center, but there's no way I could fix that without cropping the other two posts.

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

Tangled by Pericles77, on Flickr

So what I'm doing now is looking at more non-landscape photography, increasing awareness of my surroundings when I'm walking around town in Beijing, and trying to see things in my head how they might appear in a photograph. Judging by most of the shots in this thread, I've still got a ways to go, but it's all part of this wonderful journey!

The last one is very chaotic. Could be a great peice in a larger grouping addressing the chaotic living environments if thats case. Many of the more successful images using power lines and poles have been a bit more graphic in the fact the lines and the poles are import visual elements.

Theres a pretty famous Eggleston that uses them very effectively. Lets see if this link works. Its the peaches image.
http://www.google.com …mocratic.html%3​B600%3B419

08photog: Thank you very much for the kind comments. Much appreciated.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #15532132
First anything created commercially and I mean that in terms of anything created to make money and wedding photography is in that description is rarely art.

I strongly disagree with this. Some of the greatest artists who ever lived did it to make money. There's nothing about 'commercial' work that prevents you from incorporating art into it. Yousef Karsh did portrait photography for money. Does that mean he didn't create art at the same time? Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel on a commission from the Catholic church, and so did Da Vinci when he painted The Last Supper. Does that mean it's not art? Many artists did their greatest works to put food on the table.

I think the 'commercial work / art' divide is a complete fiction, often served up by those who consider themselves artists but who either have enough wealth or patron funding to not need the money, or who can't find people to buy their work, or by those who disdain 'crass commercialism' because it doesn't fit in with their worldview or politics. They style themselves as being above all that. I'm not pointing at you here - I don't know you and wouldn't dream of trying to assess your motivations.

Of course there are times when commercial work will not be 'art'. Sometimes you just have to do a job and get it done quickly and efficiently, and all that matters is that it be professional in quality. But there's nothing about accepting a commission or charging a fee that means you cannot create art. If a couple is willing to spend enough money and have the patience, a great wedding photographer can certainly create art out of their wedding photographs.

dhanson wrote in post #15532381
08photog: Thank you very much for the kind comments. Much appreciated.

I strongly disagree with this. Some of the greatest artists who ever lived did it to make money. There's nothing about 'commercial' work that prevents you from incorporating art into it. Yousef Karsh did portrait photography for money. Does that mean he didn't create art at the same time? Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel on a commission from the Catholic church, and so did Da Vinci when he painted The Last Supper. Does that mean it's not art? Many artists did their greatest works to put food on the table.

I think the 'commercial work / art' divide is a complete fiction, often served up by those who consider themselves artists but who either have enough wealth or patron funding to not need the money, or who can't find people to buy their work, or by those who disdain 'crass commercialism' because it doesn't fit in with their worldview or politics. They style themselves as being above all that. I'm not pointing at you here - I don't know you and wouldn't dream of trying to assess your motivations.

Of course there are times when commercial work will not be 'art'. Sometimes you just have to do a job and get it done quickly and efficiently, and all that matters is that it be professional in quality. But there's nothing about accepting a commission or charging a fee that means you cannot create art. If a couple is willing to spend enough money and have the patience, a great wedding photographer can certainly create art out of their wedding photographs.

Well you would be wrong . You can disagree all you want and then we agree to disagree. An artist if indeed he is an artist creates because he has to and he does it honestly. Now many do sell work but the money wasn't the motivator the work was. When you create for money then that drives the vision. When you work for others they are the one you have to satisfy or you don't wrk. Their desires and collaborations drive the vision. That doesn't mean I don't create good work for my clients it just mean its not art because I'm not driving the vision. The clients and money are even though most of my client come to me for the way my work looks. And if you read what I said, I said rarely. Sometimes a photographer can create art when doing a commercial assignment but it is truly rare. And the label art doesn't define whether the work is technically good or even visually good. You can do very good work for a client and its OK ts not art. Its what it is a job. I work professional to feed my family and i love it but I do my own work because thats for me only. My professional work pays the bills and feeds the family. My personal work feeds my soul. I have had some success with my personal work but not near enough to give my family the standard of living that my professional work give.
Adams said a "great photograph is an honest expression of how the photographer feels about he world in it entirety." Weston had this to say and I agree except i don't hate the professional work. If I hated it I wouldn't do it. Heres what he said"When money enters in, - then, for a price, I become a liar, - and a good one I can be whether with pencil or subtle lighting or viewpoint. I hate it all, but so do I support not only my family, but my own work." - Edward Weston

You are confusing what is good or you think is good with art. Something can be great and not be art. I wouldn't be still in business if I didn't deliver a very strong product to my clients and on occasion I may have created a piece for them that shows some of me and my views on life but that is very rare and most of what I create is for my clients is not art but that doesn't mean I don't think it is very, very good or that because its not art thats in some way a negative.

This is one piece I think I would have created for myself at the time and reflects my views of respect I have for those that have worked hard all their lives. So maybe its art. I donno and to be honest I don't really care what its labeled. I leave that to history and those that label those kinds of things but is an honest rendition of the way I felt about this retired nurse and if you look there is visual language in this. It was part of a series and it sort of defines my style of portraiture whether its in the studio or environmental or street portraits.