The process of photography

[Hamster]

Ah, but art is not just about the obvious. It's like a cryptic crossword, and the subtle clues and the ability to trace them to the answer are what differentiates someone who truely understands the art at the deeper artistic level, and someone who is looking at the alleged artwork and wondering why the hell its so special. Or so it appears to me, as the person looking and art and sometimes wondering how it qualifies. I can see the point being made about how I don't properly understand and therefore my appreciation is limited to an incomplete and superficial level. But really, I CBF trying to understand all the in jokes and subtle nuances, so I'll leave that to the "true" officianados.

[bobt]

Ah, but art is not just about the obvious. It's like a cryptic crossword, and the subtle clues and the ability to trace them to the answer are what differentiates someone who truely understands the art at the deeper artistic level, and someone who is looking at the alleged artwork and wondering why the hell its so special. Or so it appears to me, as the person looking and art and sometimes wondering how it qualifies. I can see the point being made about how I don't properly understand and therefore my appreciation is limited to an incomplete and superficial level. But really, I CBF trying to understand all the in jokes and subtle nuances, so I'll leave that to the "true" officianados.

I agree that art is nuanced, and there are subtleties involved. However, I also think that a sizable chunk of those elements are fabricated and artificially manufactured. Those "true" aficionados are accepted by society with an unhealthy level of gullibility and a lack of questioning. We are conditioned to assume that they know what they're talking about. I don't think that is always the case and so I still believe that a lot of art is crap masquerading as something it's not. It's not unlike people who have a religious belief telling me that there is a God and that I should just accept that because they say so. I need more than that in either case. (Can of worms provided at no extra cost. )

[The dingo]

Among us common people, art does seem a strange and mysterious animal. Perhaps it's like seeing an abominable snowman. Do they really exist for us to see in the first place? If so who knows what they look like?

Art has has a long history. That in itself is worth investigating. Photography has a shorter history but just as fascinating. Art photography is a hybrid of both histories, starting with the imitators of the 1840-60 who used the traditional methods of subject and composition to compose their photos. But even Talbot in his book 'Pencil of Nature' could not foresee what people would do in the name of photography. He was happy to invent the calotype process which was the basis for all analogue mages until the digital age, but he was also content to allow people to decide for themselves what they did with it.
what followed was a rash of 'schools of thought', individual styles, applications and inventions that changed the way we see photography.
we are not at the end of that path yet. People are always pushing the envelope. Innovation either dies a quick death or outlives us all. That's not to say we reject it first hand. Just because we don't see the sense in it to don't like it or think it's silly or it doesn't fit with any individual taste or ideals doesn't mean that it has no value or shouldn't be posed as a photograph.
people have been producing images without cameras for almost 200 years. The very first image I ever produced was my hand on blueprint paper exposed to the sun, not much different to what Wedgewood produced in 1800.
As for it being art, well there's a long list of things that are used to decide that, none of which include any of us liking it or thinking it isn't. We need to leave these things to those who appreciate all factors, whether we like it or not. Just as I wouldn't ask my wife to decide which photos on display at a Brassai exhibition are art and which are not, nor would I contradict the person who put the photos there in the first place.
What I might do is ask why; i.e. Learn to understand and appreciate what is there.

art isn't just in the eyes of the beholder, nor is beauty, truth or the price of eggs. We have a right to an opinion and we have a right to speak that opinion. The problem comes when the opinion is as worthless as the persons perception of the art they are viewing. Ignorance can be bliss but it also, when spoken loudly, shows a great deal of ignorance on the subject at hand.
now, don't get your knickers in a knot. If someone asked me about cars or boats or birds or babies I could give my opinion and it would not only show my ignorance and stupidity for saying such a thing, my opinion would be considered worthless among those who know more than I do.


Cheers
tom

[ameerat42]

Judging the worth of opinions is indeed a dark art

[The dingo]

Judging the worth of opinions is indeed a dark art

Its probably wise for most of us to put aside out opinions on art and concentrate on the process of photography. Whether it's a snapshot of the kids, a 20m Gursky or a picture of my colon, there is always a purpose in mind for the photograph and a process to get it.

By examining each dimension of the process and understanding how each is achieved, we can get closer to our purpose.

although aesthetics is up there with the most popular (at least with the trillion or so photos taken in the last year) there are many other purposes that the photographer might have in mind.
The purpose is usually established before the photo is taken and forms the IDEA.
Other purposes might include DESCRIPTION, EXPLANATION, INTERPRETIVE, ETHICAL AND THEORETICAL.
Any single photo might have a multitude of purposes.
This is often a good starting point for assessment and analysis of a photo. It might involve a discussion or at least an investigation of the photographer since it was their idea in the first place.

perhaps this was the thinking behind the 'Portrait of my Grandmother' photo. Both interpretive and theoretical purposes might apply here.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree that art is nuanced, and there are subtleties involved. However, I also think that a sizable chunk of those elements are fabricated and artificially manufactured. Those "true" aficionados are accepted by society with an unhealthy level of gullibility and a lack of questioning. We are conditioned to assume that they know what they're talking about. I don't think that is always the case and so I still believe that a lot of art is crap masquerading as something it's not. It's not unlike people who have a religious belief telling me that there is a God and that I should just accept that because they say so. I need more than that in either case. (Can of worms provided at no extra cost. )

how do you tell the real ones from the bull#######s, bob?
they don't wear T-shirts to identify themselves.
The only way I can see is to know at least as much, if not more than they do. Then you can ask questions they can't answer.

- - - Updated - - -

On the other hand, one can become so involved with the philosophical aspects that one forgets the underlying aim of taking photographs, and this aim is different to each of us.

Its more theoretical than philosophical, bob. You're right in saying there are different reasons for taking pictures. What if your aim is lousy? And what are the aims for you? Wouldn't that be good to know so we could gain more from your images.

[bobt]

how do you tell the real ones from the bull#######s, bob? they don't wear T-shirts to identify themselves.
The only way I can see is to know at least as much, if not more than they do. Then you can ask questions they can't answer.

A distinctly odd way of looking at the world if you ask me. You presume that those making these artistic assessment know more than the rest of us, which is only partly true. They know more of the theory, but that theory is based upon the perceptions of an artistic community which sets the parameters used in determining what is artistic and what is not. My comparison with religion is not far off the mark here because both religion and fine art are based on the perceptions of a group of "believers" (for want of a better word).

All you have done, thus far, is to recite the equivalent of extracts from the Bible, but you assume that the "Bible" of art is based on fact rather than opinion. You fall into the same trap as do religious people by assuming that it is lack of knowledge or lack of understanding which causes me to view that "award winning" image as crap, but you have totally dismissed the proposition that it might actually be crap. If we adopted your position, we would believe all those who professed to have greater knowledge in virtually anything, simply because we did not have their depth of understanding. There is a difference between "knowing something" and "believing something". Trust me, T-shirts are not always necessary to separate purveyors of absolute codswallop from the rest of us!

[Hamster]

A distinctly odd way of looking at the world if you ask me. You presume that those making these artistic assessment know more than the rest of us, which is only partly true. They know more of the theory, but that theory is based upon the perceptions of an artistic community which sets the parameters used in determining what is artistic and what is not. My comparison with religion is not far off the mark here because both religion and fine art are based on the perceptions of a group of "believers" (for want of a better word).

All you have done, thus far, is to recite the equivalent of extracts from the Bible, but you assume that the "Bible" of art is based on fact rather than opinion. You fall into the same trap as do religious people by assuming that it is lack of knowledge or lack of understanding which causes me to view that "award winning" image as crap, but you have totally dismissed the proposition that it might actually be crap. If we adopted your position, we would believe all those who professed to have greater knowledge in virtually anything, simply because we did not have their depth of understanding. There is a difference between "knowing something" and "believing something". Trust me, T-shirts are not always necessary to separate purveyors of absolute codswallop from the rest of us!

There's always this to fall back on.

https://youtu.be/lu3VTngm1F0

[The dingo]

A distinctly odd way of looking at the world if you ask me. You presume that those making these artistic assessment know more than the rest of us, which is only partly true. They know more of the theory, but that theory is based upon the perceptions of an artistic community which sets the parameters used in determining what is artistic and what is not. My comparison with religion is not far off the mark here because both religion and fine art are based on the perceptions of a group of "believers" (for want of a better word).

All you have done, thus far, is to recite the equivalent of extracts from the Bible, but you assume that the "Bible" of art is based on fact rather than opinion. You fall into the same trap as do religious people by assuming that it is lack of knowledge or lack of understanding which causes me to view that "award winning" image as crap, but you have totally dismissed the proposition that it might actually be crap. If we adopted your position, we would believe all those who professed to have greater knowledge in virtually anything, simply because we did not have their depth of understanding. There is a difference between "knowing something" and "believing something". Trust me, T-shirts are not always necessary to separate purveyors of absolute codswallop from the rest of us!

You seem to have a bit of a hang-up on the religion thing, bob. As they say in the movies "let it go". Stay with the photography. Its better for you and at least you get a result.

Try reading a few critiques from reputable critics. You might start with anything written by John Szarkowski. He might be talking crap to you but he did it for 35 years running the photography galleries at Moma. He's also a photographer, although his type of photography might not suit you.

You might also try Terry Barrett's Criticising Photographs. Its a good place to start if you're interested in learning how critics work.
I'll expand the list for you as we go along with the conversation. I'm sure you're the sort of bloke who is open to new ideas and learning.

I admit we are a long way from fact here. Facts are unchangeable. Considered opinion is based on fact but can be altered as we learn more and establish more facts. Belief is something else entirely. It has no basis in fact.
Considered opinion is also tested by peers and is open to change. We only need to steep ourselves in history and see how that happens. We don't deny history, but we might be open to different interpretations depending on what we know at the time and what the 'experts' accept as probable. We can look at the change in attitude over the past 200 years regarding the acceptance of photography as an art form. That doesn't mean all photographs are art.
I've just returned from Zurich and had an opportunity to view the photography archives in the Kaus Museum. 30 000 images of some of the most famous photographers who have lived. 50 years ago they never had one photo in their archives.
Somewhere along the line, someone needed to decide what is worth keeping. Who would you choose to make the decision, Bob?

[Cage]

The purpose is usually established before the photo is taken and forms the IDEA.
Other purposes might include DESCRIPTION, EXPLANATION, INTERPRETIVE, ETHICAL AND THEORETICAL.
Any single photo might have a multitude of purposes.
This is often a good starting point for assessment and analysis of a photo. It might involve a discussion or at least an investigation of the photographer since it was their idea in the first place.

perhaps this was the thinking behind the 'Portrait of my Grandmother' photo. Both interpretive and theoretical purposes might apply here.

Tom, without getting too heavily involved in semantics, it seems that Portraiture is the act of creating a Portrait.

Merriam-Webster defines a portrait thus:

Definition of portrait

1... picture; especially : a pictorial representation of a person usually showing the face

2... a sculptured figure : bust

3... a graphic portrayal in words

The other dictionaries all more or less follow the theme that a portrait is a recognisable interpretation of the subject.

The artist, Justine Varga, was quoted as saying ... "She was quite bemused that I asked her to inscribe on the negative and basically spit on it," she said. "You know, she's my grandmother. She's not really into that sort of thing."

Her winning entry, Maternal Line, may have 'artistic merit', but I fail to see how it can be considered a portrait, and one that can be identified as a representation of her grandmother, without an accompanying description. Surely Photographic Portraiture doesn't need an addendum to tell the viewer what they are looking at.

Or am I missing the plot here ?

[bobt]

You seem to have a bit of a hang-up on the religion thing, bob. As they say in the movies "let it go". Stay with the photography. Its better for you and at least you get a result.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the use of analogous references in support of similar situations. Rather than adopting a somewhat paternalistic standpoint, perhaps you might consider the validity of such comparisons rather than assuming that I have a "hang up". I do not.

The rest of your message is equally paternalistic and so I shall ignore your efforts to "educate" me. I do not need or seek such an education.

So .... returning to the central premise of my views, I will continue to believe that:-

(a) Determining whether or not someone's work is "art" is a subjective process. There are many "grey" areas which contain creations which may or may not be regarded as art.
(b) There is no definitive empirical method of determining whether these "grey" works are indeed art, and therefore they will remain subject to the general "the eye of the beholder" rule. Even "experts" will differ as to whether something is legitimate "art".
(c) There are vastly differing views both within and outside the art world as to what might properly be construed as having artistic merit. Some of those views hold greater weight than others, and what is considered artistic will vary from culture to culture and through different historical periods. Unlike you, I do not believe that all works which have met with a judge's approval are necessarily worthy of being "winners" as in the case of that piece of scratched film.

Finally, my experiences over many years have lead me to the view that pomposity is no substitute for wisdom; paternalism is no indicator of superiority, and condescension suggests an imperfect understanding of others. When I encounter these qualities, I tend to discount those views in favour of more balanced and reasoned perspectives.

[Ionica]

Tom, without getting too heavily involved in semantics, it seems that Portraiture is the act of creating a Portrait.



The artist, Justine Varga, was quoted as saying ... "She was quite bemused that I asked her to inscribe on the negative and basically spit on it," she said. "You know, she's my grandmother. She's not really into that sort of thing."

Her winning entry, Maternal Line, may have 'artistic merit', but I fail to see how it can be considered a portrait, and one that can be identified as a representation of her grandmother, without an accompanying description. Surely Photographic Portraiture doesn't need an addendum to tell the viewer what they are looking at.

Maybe this picture needs a thousand words.

[The dingo]

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the use of analogous references in support of similar situations. Rather than adopting a somewhat paternalistic standpoint, perhaps you might consider the validity of such comparisons rather than assuming that I have a "hang up". I do not.

The rest of your message is equally paternalistic and so I shall ignore your efforts to "educate" me. I do not need or seek such an education.

So .... returning to the central premise of my views, I will continue to believe that:-

(a) Determining whether or not someone's work is "art" is a subjective process. There are many "grey" areas which contain creations which may or may not be regarded as art.
(b) There is no definitive empirical method of determining whether these "grey" works are indeed art, and therefore they will remain subject to the general "the eye of the beholder" rule. Even "experts" will differ as to whether something is legitimate "art".
(c) There are vastly differing views both within and outside the art world as to what might properly be construed as having artistic merit. Some of those views hold greater weight than others, and what is considered artistic will vary from culture to culture and through different historical periods. Unlike you, I do not believe that all works which have met with a judge's approval are necessarily worthy of being "winners" as in the case of that piece of scratched film.

Finally, my experiences over many years have lead me to the view that pomposity is no substitute for wisdom; paternalism is no indicator of superiority, and condescension suggests an imperfect understanding of others. When I encounter these qualities, I tend to discount those views in favour of more balanced and reasoned perspectives.

You might have lost the plot a bit, bob.
Ive got no beef with you or your views. Someone else mentioned art, not me. I just started a conversation about the processes of photography. Your the one who's been name calling. I'm just offering some assistance in some areas you and others might be interested in.
if you don't like the conversation, change channels and let someone in that might have something constructive to say.

opening a channel for discourse is what we do here, right? Well, I'm doing my bit.
so, go shout at your dog or your missus. Leave the rest of us to talk quietly among ourselves.

xx
tom

[I @ M]

Could I politely ask that posters in this thread play nicely amongst themselves and behave with a level of dignity befitting their respective ages.

[Cage]

...... and behave with a level of dignity befitting their respective ages.

Well I'm a cranky old fart at times as I don't tolerate fools gladly, but I'm unsure of the appropriate level of dignity for a 76 year old.

[The dingo]

Could I politely ask that posters in this thread play nicely amongst themselves and behave with a level of dignity befitting their respective ages.

Bob and I can look after ourselves Andrew. He's a big boy now and so am I. We don't need a baby sitter. Besides, dignity will get us nowhere.

[ricktas]

opening a channel for discourse is what we do here, right? Well, I'm doing my bit.
so, go shout at your dog or your missus. Leave the rest of us to talk quietly among ourselves.

xx
tom

I am confused here.

You opened a channel for discourse.. and that is what you got.

Just cause others offer up alternative viewpoints to your own, you tell them to go shout at their dog or missus? Surely any decent discourse would allow all the varying opinions to be expressed freely. After all, is not your viewpoint nothing more than your opinion? Or did I miss the news, where you walked on water?

I find this attempt at discourse, being stifled by opinion that appears to pretending to be fact. As for talking quietly, you seem to be shouting down any other point of view, so perhaps that is why others are whispering?

[ricktas]

For all those playing along at home. The Dingo has sent us a request to close his account as he feels he would have better conversations with his 6 year old grand-daugher than he does with us. So I have closed his account, as requested, and I wish his grand-daughter all the best for the future, with eyes open to all the opinions and points of view that her future may contain.

[Cage]

For all those playing along at home. The Dingo has sent us a request to close his account as he feels he would have better conversations with his 6 year old grand-daugher than he does with us. So I have closed his account, as requested, and I wish his grand-daughter all the best for the future, with eyes open to all the opinions and points of view that her future may contain.

Why am I not surprised ?

[Tannin]

It's a shame. Tom demonstrated a great ability to stimulate fresh thought and discussion, unfortunately not matched by much ability to share in it constructively or follow up points raised in a consistent and logical way rather than just an argumentative one. Why am I reminded of a certain tennis player?

(Edit to fix a typo.)

[jim]

^ Spot on. A shame, he has both interesting ideas and interesting photographs to share. And personally I quite enjoyed his combative style, but it was always going to end in tears.