"Candid" (actually some random girl who I thought was hot)

Tom W wrote:
I suspect that hormones have something to do with this as well.

Good thread. Maybe there is room in the "images" part of this forum for those of us who strive merely for the perfect railroad image.

Any railroad image is by definition perfect already.

Just a cautionary tail...

"You may find in your lifetime that those who spend the most amount of time trying to define "art" in any way.. whether it is to pidgeon hole it or quite the opposite,.. are often the least equiped to grasp it's full breadth..... "

.... and of course in so saying the above., I have pidgeon holed myself as one of those least equipped to grasp....

Ahh well,. I was willing to make the sacrifice

I kind of like to where this thread has lead to. It really makes me take a step back and look and my views and opinions of photography and art as a whole.

I am not disputing the fact about pictures of attractive women being posted and receiving more hits than any other thread. The human body is an art form in itself, and so is properly represented in photography which respects it. What annoys me is the random snapshot taking of girls or parts of girls and then posting them on the web. I see this as a violation of those persons. The reason I say "snapshot" and not "picture" or "photograph" is because I see a snapshot as a thoughtless, quick photograph. Whereas a picture or a photograph requires some thought or artistic style, even if just a little bit. This is why I think these candid photos cannot be properly judged (nor should they be), as we are trying to, because it is all about the photographer's intention.

I am not calling anyone to stop posting any types of pictures, I am just communicating my point of view. I find that I am not offended very easily, and in fact I will still continue to look at all the candid photos of "girl on the street" and "juicy", simply because it wouldn't really make sense to not look at them.

Photography in and of itself is art... You're using various light sources to paint images on film, be it digital or mylar. The subject may not have artistic style, but that's a whole different thread...

I think that I am going to have to disagree with this. Photography is an art if you want it to be. The 7th grade student who takes snapshots of his or her friends for fun with their digital camera is making memories, not art. But then again, this is just my opinion.

http://www.art-forum.org/z_Witkin/gal​lery.htm

ok, here we go.....this could get messy. I just cant resist. Most people spend most of the time, somewhere in the middle. There inevitably are extremes, usually offensive to, and rejected by, those in the middle. Most of the images being discussed in this thread are definitely in the middle....still worthy of discussion, but clearly in the middle. How do we handle work on the extremes, at least in terms of content, but which display a high level of artistic merit (my question mark isnt working, seeÉ) So, I am curious how ppl in this thread react to the work of Joel-Peter Witkin. See link above, or type the name as a query in google. Betcha a lot of us cant help looking, and being haunted and provoked by the images, despite their unsettling, disturbing, and contorversial content. Is this spiritual pornography....is this the underbelly of the psyche. Does this resonate in some dark primordial way, and if so, can it be said to be great art, or do we reject it out of hand as too disturbing and not-in-the-middle-istic. ok..


Ray

Personally, I like the Witkin stuff. I don't find it shocking - it reminds me of a mix of Hieronymous Bosch and Simon Larbalestier. I think Mapplethorpe is more shocking for most people.

As for "snaps" not being "art".... Is this art? :

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

very, uhh, snappy.

Ray of light

This is an interesting thread. I’d like to add my take on this.

Going back to the original post;

“Getting thoroughly annoyed with these "candid" photos of random girls”….No, and to be honest there has only been one or two.

“Absolutely no artistic style or even photographic thought”…. You could say the same for some shots in every category.

“These childish posts simply pollute the environment.”….Some religious people might say the same of Charles, Jo3, Paul B or Frank's work, which I think is excellent work. However if we go right back to basics, what's the difference between sexy shots of women in the street with short skirts and sexy shots of women in the studio with no skirts. The only difference I can see is consent and quality.

On to the subject of taking shots of people without there knowledge.
As far as I’m aware it’s not illegal to take photos in a public place. Photographers have been taking pictures of people in the street since cameras were invented. Whether it’s moral to take and post a picture of someone that might be unflattering of whatever is another question.

And so to art.
Some shots might be artistic but is it art? I think there are very few true artists in photography. The great bulk of us might be described a technicians, and some great technicians. We choose a scene, compose a shot, determine the exposure, add supplementary lighting, perhaps introduce some filters, etc,etc and then press a button. Some artistic work might take place in Photoshop but the purists would put that down too.

So to some up.
I have no problem with candid street shots as long as the person is not being ridiculed or of school children etc.
Is it art. Well we all have our own opinions on what art is. For me it can be artistic but it’s not art.

I checked out Larbelestier....this is really outstanding work. It has a gentle sadness that isnt morose, and a great sensitivity to form and light. I am humbled yet again

Ray-o-gram

I think both Larbalestier and Witkin play round with some of the themes Man Ray was exploring, but both put their own twists on them

I first saw Larbalestier's work in the amazing Vaughn Oliver designs for 4AD Records like The Pixies, This Mortal Coil etc.

Larbalestier

Sorry, all the above is a bit off-topic...

Jyoti wrote:
As for "snaps" not being "art".... Is this art? :

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

To answer that, I will quote myself. Pay particular attention to the bolded:

So I guess I would answer your question by asking you if YOU think it's art. Because there is no formal definition to art, and even if there were, there are always exceptions. I'll just leave it at that.

You wont catch me arguing about what art is....it just keeps going around, and around......I like Duchamps approach....I dont think he really cared. I like the idea of the readymade. Find something, apply an idea to it, and voila, ART. Somewhere I saw a show of "found photos"...discarded snapshots which became much pithier (sp?) because they were discarded, and re.presented. Photos are like onions (Shrek 1)...they have layers.

Ray-o-hope

sorry....to answer ur question, I thinks it's art now, even if it wasn't at the time it was taken. Also, the presence of the cat in the background is very artistic. meow..