Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
On Aug 16, 2012, at 22:58 , John Francis wrote: On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:51:58AM -0500, Walt Gilbert wrote: I hadn't heard that one before. Knopfler is almost as good a culture critic as he is a guitarist. Almost. I'm still trying to get my head around Knopfler's music being used for a Burger King commercial. Princess Bride? OK. But Burger King? There again, if The Who's back catalogue can provide theme music for a TV series, why shouldn't Dire Straits pick up a bit of extra cash? Even the Beatles and Pink Floyd are becoming affordable to be jingoeyed to sell products or background a TV series. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
On Aug 18, 2012, at 6:24 AM, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote: I also read recently about a critic who was asked what she thought of the exhibition, and replied I don't know - I haven't written my review yet. The mother of a friend of ours is an artist and gets invited to a lot of exhibition openings. I'm told she rates them by how many glasses of wine she has during the evening. A 1 means it's pretty good as she's too occupied with looking at the art to pay much attention to the drink. For bad exhibitions she tends to mingle and chat instead so she'll get through a few glasses. Cheers, Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
That is a very weird image . . . Dan Matyola http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:54 PM, kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote: What I mean is that given the same image - one by a 'name' and another by a 'no name', the 'name' will get the nod. I've seen this several times. It does not imply a 'no name' can't make it. Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: Jostein Øksne p...@alunfoto.no Subject: Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer - Original Message - From: kwal...@peoplepc.com A lot has to do with the photographer having a 'known' name. I've seen that one-liner so many times I've stopped believing in it. If it was true, new artists would not emerge at the rate it actually does. Jostein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
Wow. It's like the security line at the airport. On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Daniel J. Matyola danmaty...@gmail.com wrote: That is a very weird image . . . Dan Matyola http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:54 PM, kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote: What I mean is that given the same image - one by a 'name' and another by a 'no name', the 'name' will get the nod. I've seen this several times. It does not imply a 'no name' can't make it. Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: Jostein Øksne p...@alunfoto.no Subject: Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer - Original Message - From: kwal...@peoplepc.com A lot has to do with the photographer having a 'known' name. I've seen that one-liner so many times I've stopped believing in it. If it was true, new artists would not emerge at the rate it actually does. Jostein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
- Original Message - From: kwal...@peoplepc.com A lot has to do with the photographer having a 'known' name. I've seen that one-liner so many times I've stopped believing in it. If it was true, new artists would not emerge at the rate it actually does. Jostein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
I agree. The folllowing question is always: How did the name become known ? You have to be different, be remembered. This is not too difficult for a short time, but to be recognized for your work over a long periode there has to be something about it worth remembering. And them, in addition there is also the question who sees the work, or: to who do you show it. DagT Sendt fra min iPad Den 17. aug. 2012 kl. 09:24 skrev Jostein Øksne p...@alunfoto.no: - Original Message - From: kwal...@peoplepc.com A lot has to do with the photographer having a 'known' name. I've seen that one-liner so many times I've stopped believing in it. If it was true, new artists would not emerge at the rate it actually does. Jostein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
- Original Message - From: Larry Colen l...@red4est.com I find the whole question of what is art to be a form of mental wankage of the highest order. About the only question that makes any sense is does this person find that object, or action, beautiful, or artistic?. Good question, and good evasion of the problem at hand, if the more raunchy implications of mental wankage is ignored. :-) My reaction to the Eggleston exhibit a bunch of us went to in Chicago was that the vast majority of the photos there were no better than the vast majority of PESOs on the PDML. For that matter, you could have taken his 40 or so best, and put them up against the 40 or so in Augenblick, and the PDML work would have easily stood up in quality. Yes, we had 40 photographers versus one of him, but he covered 40 years, rather than just one from the PDML. As for someone like Peter Lik, just take it as a given that if he's considered a top level photographic artist, then I'd rather stay a photographic hobbyist. I think it was great to see so many of Eggleston's images together. What emerged was more than the sum of the individual images. Take series of pictures called election eve, for example. The individual pictures in that series I found to be badly composed and mere recordings of mundane places and objects of daily life. Together, they conveyed something about the mood on that particular night in American history to me. And maybe something about ordinary people's attitude to the whole election process? I dunno... But put together like that I found Eggleston's images to have far more power than I had ever expected from seeing individual pictures presented together with works of other photographers. They seemed carefully selected to be pieces in a bigger puzzle. Then take our PDML exhibit. Images produced by 40 minds, with 40 individual styles, ideas, techniques, etc., etc. Excellent imagery, and put together it spoke loudly of how much fun we have together on this list. Visitors to Dank Haus without any connection to PDML on the other hand, would probably start looking for connections between the images. Maybe to see some collective thought we wished to express beyond the obvious joy of exhibiting together. I'm not saying there isn't one. I just say the comparison is unfair. After discussing a few technical details with art photographers I really think that what separates an art photographer from a photographic hobbyist is merely marketing and a finely developed sense of pretension. It sure as hell isn't technical skill or quality of work. If you strike out finely developed sense of pretension, you're pretty close to that art photography lecturer from Gothenburg. She redressed marketing as catering to the right audience, and the importance of putting the work into a defined project with a defined idea or purpose. IIRC, the whole Eggleston exhibit was also organised so that images belonging to each of his projects hung together. Why do we always accuse art photographers of pretentiousness, btw? Seems like the law of Jante to me... Jostein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
On Aug 17, 2012, at 1:53 AM, Jostein Øksne wrote: I think it was great to see so many of Eggleston's images together. What emerged was more than the sum of the individual images. Take series of pictures called election eve, for example. The individual pictures in that series I found to be badly composed and mere recordings of mundane places and objects of daily life. Together, they conveyed something about the mood on that particular night in American history to me. And maybe something about ordinary people's attitude to the whole election process? I dunno... But put together like that I found Eggleston's images to have far more power than I had ever expected from seeing individual pictures presented together with works of other photographers. They seemed carefully selected to be pieces in a bigger puzzle. Then take our PDML exhibit. Images produced by 40 minds, with 40 individual styles, ideas, techniques, etc., etc. Excellent imagery, and put together it spoke loudly of how much fun we have together on this list. Visitors to Dank Haus without any connection to PDML on the other hand, would probably start looking for connections between the images. Maybe to see some collective thought we wished to express beyond the obvious joy of exhibiting together. I'm not saying there isn't one. I just say the comparison is unfair. Interesting. You must have a much more educated eye and a more cultured palette than I do. I've noticed that in almost any artistic endeavour, people's tastes tend to change the more that they learn. I was unable to appreciate the exhibit as a whole because I couldn't get past my being underwhelmed by so many of the individual photos. After discussing a few technical details with art photographers I really think that what separates an art photographer from a photographic hobbyist is merely marketing and a finely developed sense of pretension. It sure as hell isn't technical skill or quality of work. If you strike out finely developed sense of pretension, you're pretty close to that art photography lecturer from Gothenburg. She redressed marketing as catering to the right audience, and the importance of putting the work into a defined project with a defined idea or purpose. IIRC, the whole Eggleston exhibit was also organised so that images belonging to each of his projects hung together. Why do we always accuse art photographers of pretentiousness, btw? Seems like the law of Jante to me... I had to look up the law of Jante. Actually, it's not art photographers per se, but artists as a whole. It seems that most serious discussion of art by artists sounds like a pedantic critique of Vogon poetry. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
Jostein Øksne wrote: From: kwal...@peoplepc.com A lot has to do with the photographer having a 'known' name. I've seen that one-liner so many times I've stopped believing in it. If it was true, new artists would not emerge at the rate it actually does. I think Ken's right. The new artists get their reputations and make their names by breaking the conventions and defying the definitions of the known artists. Then the new artists become known artists and the next generation comes along and starts the cycle again. Whenever I read these definitions of fine art or just art I think of Susan B. Anthony's comment on religion: I distrust those people who know so well what god wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. The definition always coincides with the definer's work and I don't believe for a moment that the artist decided on the definition first and then created art that met its criteria; the art comes first and the definition is added post hoc. -- Mark Roberts - Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
- Original Message - From: Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com I think Ken's right. The new artists get their reputations and make their names by breaking the conventions and defying the definitions of the known artists. Then the new artists become known artists and the next generation comes along and starts the cycle again. That argument is biting its own tail, since no artist has a known name before they make themselves a reputation. :-) The rate at which new names become established these days continue to amaze me. Maybe I'm just getting old. Jostein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
The internet is this nearly universal gallery for images. It's so much easier to get you pictures out there and somebody's work is bound to arise from the melee. The trick will increasingly be to stay relevant as an artist; bloggers/critics may dominate more. After all, lots of folks have a few good shots in them. We could be heading into an age of many great images and few stars. On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Jostein Øksne p...@alunfoto.no wrote: - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com I think Ken's right. The new artists get their reputations and make their names by breaking the conventions and defying the definitions of the known artists. Then the new artists become known artists and the next generation comes along and starts the cycle again. That argument is biting its own tail, since no artist has a known name before they make themselves a reputation. :-) The rate at which new names become established these days continue to amaze me. Maybe I'm just getting old. Jostein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
Den 17. aug. 2012 kl. 15:01 skrev Jostein Øksne: - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com I think Ken's right. The new artists get their reputations and make their names by breaking the conventions and defying the definitions of the known artists. Then the new artists become known artists and the next generation comes along and starts the cycle again. That argument is biting its own tail, since no artist has a known name before they make themselves a reputation. :-) The rate at which new names become established these days continue to amaze me. Maybe I'm just getting old. Jostein And there are so many trying to break conventions and defying the rules that the method above doesn´t work. You have to have something more than that to get known and be remembered. DagT -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
Good work arising from the melee is not at all certain. An opinion expressed in the film PressPausePlay is that we may be entering a new Dark Ages culturally. The thought is that one result of the democratized, uncurated morass of creative output we have today is that it would be unlikely for a Bach or Da Vinci to be noticed today, buried anonymously somewhere on the web. It's never been more affordable or simpler to create a film, music, visual art; and everyone feels he or she's an artist. Sadly, not everyone has talent. Like it or not, art is an elitist endeavour. PressPausePlay is 1 hour 20 mins, but is a good view. https://vimeo.com/34608191 On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Steven Desjardins drd1...@gmail.com wrote: The internet is this nearly universal gallery for images. It's so much easier to get you pictures out there and somebody's work is bound to arise from the melee. The trick will increasingly be to stay relevant as an artist; bloggers/critics may dominate more. After all, lots of folks have a few good shots in them. We could be heading into an age of many great images and few stars. On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Jostein Øksne p...@alunfoto.no wrote: - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com I think Ken's right. The new artists get their reputations and make their names by breaking the conventions and defying the definitions of the known artists. Then the new artists become known artists and the next generation comes along and starts the cycle again. That argument is biting its own tail, since no artist has a known name before they make themselves a reputation. :-) The rate at which new names become established these days continue to amaze me. Maybe I'm just getting old. Jostein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
DagT wrote: Den 17. aug. 2012 kl. 15:01 skrev Jostein Øksne: - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com I think Ken's right. The new artists get their reputations and make their names by breaking the conventions and defying the definitions of the known artists. Then the new artists become known artists and the next generation comes along and starts the cycle again. That argument is biting its own tail, since no artist has a known name before they make themselves a reputation. :-) The rate at which new names become established these days continue to amaze me. Maybe I'm just getting old. And there are so many trying to break conventions and defying the rules that the method above doesn´t work. You have to have something more than that to get known and be remembered. Well of course. These may be *necessary* conditions but they certainly aren't sufficient! Some talent is needed, too. WHat may be the most vital element is being in the right place at the right time with the right product. Tapping into the unconscious zeitgeist, as it were. The DaVinci Code certainly didn't sell millions of copies because it's good writing. -- Mark Roberts - Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
I didn't say good work would rise up, I said something would rise up. ;-) It was a very deliberate choice of words. On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Bruce Walker bruce.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Good work arising from the melee is not at all certain. An opinion expressed in the film PressPausePlay is that we may be entering a new Dark Ages culturally. The thought is that one result of the democratized, uncurated morass of creative output we have today is that it would be unlikely for a Bach or Da Vinci to be noticed today, buried anonymously somewhere on the web. It's never been more affordable or simpler to create a film, music, visual art; and everyone feels he or she's an artist. Sadly, not everyone has talent. Like it or not, art is an elitist endeavour. PressPausePlay is 1 hour 20 mins, but is a good view. https://vimeo.com/34608191 On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Steven Desjardins drd1...@gmail.com wrote: The internet is this nearly universal gallery for images. It's so much easier to get you pictures out there and somebody's work is bound to arise from the melee. The trick will increasingly be to stay relevant as an artist; bloggers/critics may dominate more. After all, lots of folks have a few good shots in them. We could be heading into an age of many great images and few stars. On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Jostein Øksne p...@alunfoto.no wrote: - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com I think Ken's right. The new artists get their reputations and make their names by breaking the conventions and defying the definitions of the known artists. Then the new artists become known artists and the next generation comes along and starts the cycle again. That argument is biting its own tail, since no artist has a known name before they make themselves a reputation. :-) The rate at which new names become established these days continue to amaze me. Maybe I'm just getting old. Jostein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
What I mean is that given the same image - one by a 'name' and another by a 'no name', the 'name' will get the nod. I've seen this several times. It does not imply a 'no name' can't make it. Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: Jostein Øksne p...@alunfoto.no Subject: Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer - Original Message - From: kwal...@peoplepc.com A lot has to do with the photographer having a 'known' name. I've seen that one-liner so many times I've stopped believing in it. If it was true, new artists would not emerge at the rate it actually does. Jostein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
From: Bruce Walker On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Bruce Walker bruce.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Don?t get me started on naked chicks on train tracks *Cough* http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidpinzer/7793543784/ Well, it's Friday and no one's watching anyway. Yes, this is one of my Flickr contacts. I have aspirations of high pretentiousness. NSFW, btw. I think you got a couple of ringers in there. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Walt Gilbert On 8/15/2012 10:06 PM, John Sessoms wrote: From: knarftheriault ...which exactly why I shy away from silly discussions about what art is. The word is practically meaningless due to people like that gallery owner. I will, however, happily participate in a Who is Art? discussion. Clearly the answer to the latter is Garfunkel. cheers, frank I would have thought it would be Carney. I was thinking Vandelay. Last night I dreamt I went to Vandelay again B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
Between us duffers, I have to share some thoughts I've had on that art-thingy this summer. It's going to be a bit long, but I hope it's worth your time. Some of you may have noticed that the PESOs I posted this summer was from Northern Norway. I have spent all together five weeks on two trips up there, some of the time in company of people who actually make a living from art. I was lucky enough to corner two of them for a serious talk about the very subject. The first one was Ann Eringstam. Apart from being quite successful with her photographic art, she's also lecturing photography at the university in Gothenburg. She had a lot to say about photography as art. One thing she emphasised was that real art photographers stands apart from those who exhibit their best-of photos in a nearby café or a local sales gallery. Not by the quality of their work, but in the purpose. She also said that most artists worked in very confined projects, started out with an idea and then sought the photos to convey that idea. She has a website, btw: http://www.anneringstam.com/Ann_Eringstam/Works.html I had the conversation with Ann in a small town called Svolvær in Lofoten. The Lofoten archipelago is like a magnet on both true and wannabe artists, and is crowded by tourists nearly all year. The number of galleries and cafés with exhibited fine art is downright huge. With Ann's words still echoing in my head it was quite a disappointment to look at them. It reminded me of a signature line someone in this group used ages ago: [...] nice picture. Now show me a thousand words. The second artist was Norwegian photographer Rune Johansen. His approach to photography as art was less deliberate. It's art if you think it is, he said. But it has to tell the audience something. Preferrably something about themselves, but it can be any sort of message really. As long as there is one. Rune wasn't always a photographer. He was a telecom bureaucrat for a living, but lived for art photography, as he put it. When he took the plunge, he was enrolled in a government funding arrangement for artists, ensuring him a minimum income. For the record, the subjects of his images are the things he finds around himself. In his neighbourhood, in local culture. He had a huge success with a book called hiv mannskjiten in Norwegian, and All that glitters in English: http://turl.no/l7v ). He's portraying people and their livelihoods in Northern Norway. He's also been to Dakota and Montana to portray Americans of Norwegian ancestry, but I don't think that book has been translated. My own thoughts after these meetings is that the common denominators for photography as art seems to be these things: Firstly that you have some message you wish to convey, using photography as a tool. Your success as an artist will ultimately depend on your skill at communicating that message. Secondly that you cater to an audience that has the openmindedness to take in your message. Displaying your imagery in places that have to market themselves as exhibiting fine art may miss the target audience. Thirdly, that artists manage to finance their projects up front, before the images are even created. Sales are just bonus. This may be a unique thing for Scandinavia because of the way governments work up here, but scholarships could work the same way in the rest of the world I guess. And last but not least, that art photographer as a carreer is a narrow niche and certainly not for us duffers. Jostein :-) - Original Message - From: Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com According to the woman who owns the gallery, photography is not art. She's a bitch. Truth is, it is easier for galleries to sell big mark-up sculptures and paintings than photographs. Photos still elicit a thought I can do that! unless looking at a master's work. By masters, I mean those willing and able to travel to where masterful photos can be taken. Frequently off the beaten path. They know their equipment so well, the final product can hold even duffers like me in respect, if not awe. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
From: Bob W From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Walt Gilbert On 8/15/2012 10:06 PM, John Sessoms wrote: From: knarftheriault ...which exactly why I shy away from silly discussions about what art is. The word is practically meaningless due to people like that gallery owner. I will, however, happily participate in a Who is Art? discussion. Clearly the answer to the latter is Garfunkel. cheers, frank I would have thought it would be Carney. I was thinking Vandelay. Last night I dreamt I went to Vandelay again B http://instantrimshot.com/index.php?sound=rimshot -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
On 8/16/2012 10:20 AM, John Sessoms wrote: From: Bob W From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Walt Gilbert On 8/15/2012 10:06 PM, John Sessoms wrote: From: knarftheriault ...which exactly why I shy away from silly discussions about what art is. The word is practically meaningless due to people like that gallery owner. I will, however, happily participate in a Who is Art? discussion. Clearly the answer to the latter is Garfunkel. cheers, frank I would have thought it would be Carney. I was thinking Vandelay. Last night I dreamt I went to Vandelay again B http://instantrimshot.com/index.php?sound=rimshot I had to look that one up. I really should read more. -- Walt -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
Well, for whatever it's worth, the gallery owned by the woman who told me photography is not art is the kind of place that sells framed prints of The Singing Butler. Instant culture of the variety Mark Knopfler so aptly summed up: And then you get an artist says he doesn't want to paint at all He takes an empty canvas and sticks it on the wall The birds of a feather all the phonies and all of the fakes While the dealers they get together And they decide who gets the breaks And who's going to be in the gallery http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wefT_t2lHU From: Jostein ?ksne Between us duffers, I have to share some thoughts I've had on that art-thingy this summer. It's going to be a bit long, but I hope it's worth your time. Some of you may have noticed that the PESOs I posted this summer was from Northern Norway. I have spent all together five weeks on two trips up there, some of the time in company of people who actually make a living from art. I was lucky enough to corner two of them for a serious talk about the very subject. The first one was Ann Eringstam. Apart from being quite successful with her photographic art, she's also lecturing photography at the university in Gothenburg. She had a lot to say about photography as art. One thing she emphasised was that real art photographers stands apart from those who exhibit their best-of photos in a nearby caf? or a local sales gallery. Not by the quality of their work, but in the purpose. She also said that most artists worked in very confined projects, started out with an idea and then sought the photos to convey that idea. She has a website, btw: http://www.anneringstam.com/Ann_Eringstam/Works.html I had the conversation with Ann in a small town called Svolv?r in Lofoten. The Lofoten archipelago is like a magnet on both true and wannabe artists, and is crowded by tourists nearly all year. The number of galleries and caf?s with exhibited fine art is downright huge. With Ann's words still echoing in my head it was quite a disappointment to look at them. It reminded me of a signature line someone in this group used ages ago: [...] nice picture. Now show me a thousand words. The second artist was Norwegian photographer Rune Johansen. His approach to photography as art was less deliberate. It's art if you think it is, he said. But it has to tell the audience something. Preferrably something about themselves, but it can be any sort of message really. As long as there is one. Rune wasn't always a photographer. He was a telecom bureaucrat for a living, but lived for art photography, as he put it. When he took the plunge, he was enrolled in a government funding arrangement for artists, ensuring him a minimum income. For the record, the subjects of his images are the things he finds around himself. In his neighbourhood, in local culture. He had a huge success with a book called hiv mannskjiten in Norwegian, and All that glitters in English: http://turl.no/l7v ). He's portraying people and their livelihoods in Northern Norway. He's also been to Dakota and Montana to portray Americans of Norwegian ancestry, but I don't think that book has been translated. My own thoughts after these meetings is that the common denominators for photography as art seems to be these things: Firstly that you have some message you wish to convey, using photography as a tool. Your success as an artist will ultimately depend on your skill at communicating that message. Secondly that you cater to an audience that has the openmindedness to take in your message. Displaying your imagery in places that have to market themselves as exhibiting fine art may miss the target audience. Thirdly, that artists manage to finance their projects up front, before the images are even created. Sales are just bonus. This may be a unique thing for Scandinavia because of the way governments work up here, but scholarships could work the same way in the rest of the world I guess. And last but not least, that art photographer as a carreer is a narrow niche and certainly not for us duffers. Jostein :-) - Original Message - From: Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com According to the woman who owns the gallery, photography is not art. She's a bitch. Truth is, it is easier for galleries to sell big mark-up sculptures and paintings than photographs. Photos still elicit a thought I can do that! unless looking at a master's work. By masters, I mean those willing and able to travel to where masterful photos can be taken. Frequently off the beaten path. They know their equipment so well, the final product can hold even duffers like me in respect, if not awe. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
The appeal of that painting is a mystery to me. Dan Matyola http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:39 AM, John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com wrote: Well, for whatever it's worth, the gallery owned by the woman who told me photography is not art is the kind of place that sells framed prints of The Singing Butler. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
I hadn't heard that one before. Knopfler is almost as good a culture critic as he is a guitarist. Almost. As to the notion that photography is not art, it strikes me as something that could only be said by someone too stupid to operate a camera. -- Walt On 8/16/2012 10:39 AM, John Sessoms wrote: Well, for whatever it's worth, the gallery owned by the woman who told me photography is not art is the kind of place that sells framed prints of The Singing Butler. Instant culture of the variety Mark Knopfler so aptly summed up: And then you get an artist says he doesn't want to paint at all He takes an empty canvas and sticks it on the wall The birds of a feather all the phonies and all of the fakes While the dealers they get together And they decide who gets the breaks And who's going to be in the gallery http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wefT_t2lHU From: Jostein ?ksne Between us duffers, I have to share some thoughts I've had on that art-thingy this summer. It's going to be a bit long, but I hope it's worth your time. Some of you may have noticed that the PESOs I posted this summer was from Northern Norway. I have spent all together five weeks on two trips up there, some of the time in company of people who actually make a living from art. I was lucky enough to corner two of them for a serious talk about the very subject. The first one was Ann Eringstam. Apart from being quite successful with her photographic art, she's also lecturing photography at the university in Gothenburg. She had a lot to say about photography as art. One thing she emphasised was that real art photographers stands apart from those who exhibit their best-of photos in a nearby caf? or a local sales gallery. Not by the quality of their work, but in the purpose. She also said that most artists worked in very confined projects, started out with an idea and then sought the photos to convey that idea. She has a website, btw: http://www.anneringstam.com/Ann_Eringstam/Works.html I had the conversation with Ann in a small town called Svolv?r in Lofoten. The Lofoten archipelago is like a magnet on both true and wannabe artists, and is crowded by tourists nearly all year. The number of galleries and caf?s with exhibited fine art is downright huge. With Ann's words still echoing in my head it was quite a disappointment to look at them. It reminded me of a signature line someone in this group used ages ago: [...] nice picture. Now show me a thousand words. The second artist was Norwegian photographer Rune Johansen. His approach to photography as art was less deliberate. It's art if you think it is, he said. But it has to tell the audience something. Preferrably something about themselves, but it can be any sort of message really. As long as there is one. Rune wasn't always a photographer. He was a telecom bureaucrat for a living, but lived for art photography, as he put it. When he took the plunge, he was enrolled in a government funding arrangement for artists, ensuring him a minimum income. For the record, the subjects of his images are the things he finds around himself. In his neighbourhood, in local culture. He had a huge success with a book called hiv mannskjiten in Norwegian, and All that glitters in English: http://turl.no/l7v ). He's portraying people and their livelihoods in Northern Norway. He's also been to Dakota and Montana to portray Americans of Norwegian ancestry, but I don't think that book has been translated. My own thoughts after these meetings is that the common denominators for photography as art seems to be these things: Firstly that you have some message you wish to convey, using photography as a tool. Your success as an artist will ultimately depend on your skill at communicating that message. Secondly that you cater to an audience that has the openmindedness to take in your message. Displaying your imagery in places that have to market themselves as exhibiting fine art may miss the target audience. Thirdly, that artists manage to finance their projects up front, before the images are even created. Sales are just bonus. This may be a unique thing for Scandinavia because of the way governments work up here, but scholarships could work the same way in the rest of the world I guess. And last but not least, that art photographer as a carreer is a narrow niche and certainly not for us duffers. Jostein :-) - Original Message - From: Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com According to the woman who owns the gallery, photography is not art. She's a bitch. Truth is, it is easier for galleries to sell big mark-up sculptures and paintings than photographs. Photos still elicit a thought I can do that! unless looking at a master's work. By masters, I mean those willing and able to travel to where masterful photos can be taken. Frequently off the beaten path. They know their equipment so well, the final product can hold even duffers like me in respect, if not
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
On Aug 16, 2012, at 2:38 AM, Jostein Øksne wrote: My own thoughts after these meetings is that the common denominators for photography as art seems to be these things: Firstly that you have some message you wish to convey, using photography as a tool. Your success as an artist will ultimately depend on your skill at communicating that message. Secondly that you cater to an audience that has the openmindedness to take in your message. Displaying your imagery in places that have to market themselves as exhibiting fine art may miss the target audience. Thirdly, that artists manage to finance their projects up front, before the images are even created. Sales are just bonus. This may be a unique thing for Scandinavia because of the way governments work up here, but scholarships could work the same way in the rest of the world I guess. And last but not least, that art photographer as a carreer is a narrow niche and certainly not for us duffers. Jostein :-) I find the whole question of what is art to be a form of mental wankage of the highest order. About the only question that makes any sense is does this person find that object, or action, beautiful, or artistic?. I have on occasion, read various artists statements, and for the most part they seem to fall somewhere between marketing gibberish and adolescent braggadocio. I can't figure out who they are supposed to impress, much less fathom who would take them seriously. For that matter, it often seems that the further along the spectrum towards fine art something is considered to be, the further removed from being something that a normal person would consider interesting or attractive. My reaction to the Eggleston exhibit a bunch of us went to in Chicago was that the vast majority of the photos there were no better than the vast majority of PESOs on the PDML. For that matter, you could have taken his 40 or so best, and put them up against the 40 or so in Augenblick, and the PDML work would have easily stood up in quality. Yes, we had 40 photographers versus one of him, but he covered 40 years, rather than just one from the PDML. As for someone like Peter Lik, just take it as a given that if he's considered a top level photographic artist, then I'd rather stay a photographic hobbyist. After discussing a few technical details with art photographers I really think that what separates an art photographer from a photographic hobbyist is merely marketing and a finely developed sense of pretension. It sure as hell isn't technical skill or quality of work. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
Larry's comment modified a little... Case in point - Thomas Kinkade -p On 8/16/2012 7:27 PM, Larry Colen wrote: I really think that what separates ...art ...from a ...hobbyist is merely marketing and a finely developed sense of pretension. It sure as hell isn't technical skill or quality of work. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- Being old doesn't seem so old now that I'm old. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
A lot has to do with the photographer having a 'known' name. Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: Larry Colen l...@red4est.com Subject: Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer On Aug 16, 2012, at 2:38 AM, Jostein Øksne wrote: My own thoughts after these meetings is that the common denominators for photography as art seems to be these things: Firstly that you have some message you wish to convey, using photography as a tool. Your success as an artist will ultimately depend on your skill at communicating that message. Secondly that you cater to an audience that has the openmindedness to take in your message. Displaying your imagery in places that have to market themselves as exhibiting fine art may miss the target audience. Thirdly, that artists manage to finance their projects up front, before the images are even created. Sales are just bonus. This may be a unique thing for Scandinavia because of the way governments work up here, but scholarships could work the same way in the rest of the world I guess. And last but not least, that art photographer as a carreer is a narrow niche and certainly not for us duffers. Jostein :-) I find the whole question of what is art to be a form of mental wankage of the highest order. About the only question that makes any sense is does this person find that object, or action, beautiful, or artistic?. I have on occasion, read various artists statements, and for the most part they seem to fall somewhere between marketing gibberish and adolescent braggadocio. I can't figure out who they are supposed to impress, much less fathom who would take them seriously. For that matter, it often seems that the further along the spectrum towards fine art something is considered to be, the further removed from being something that a normal person would consider interesting or attractive. My reaction to the Eggleston exhibit a bunch of us went to in Chicago was that the vast majority of the photos there were no better than the vast majority of PESOs on the PDML. For that matter, you could have taken his 40 or so best, and put them up against the 40 or so in Augenblick, and the PDML work would have easily stood up in quality. Yes, we had 40 photographers versus one of him, but he covered 40 years, rather than just one from the PDML. As for someone like Peter Lik, just take it as a given that if he's considered a top level photographic artist, then I'd rather stay a photographic hobbyist. After discussing a few technical details with art photographers I really think that what separates an art photographer from a photographic hobbyist is merely marketing and a finely developed sense of pretension. It sure as hell isn't technical skill or quality of work. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
On Aug 17, 2012, at 3:51 AM, Walt Gilbert ldott...@gmail.com wrote: I hadn't heard that one before. Knopfler is almost as good a culture critic as he is a guitarist. Almost. He has a new album coming out soon. I pre-ordered a copy a few weeks ago :) Cheers, Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:51:58AM -0500, Walt Gilbert wrote: I hadn't heard that one before. Knopfler is almost as good a culture critic as he is a guitarist. Almost. I'm still trying to get my head around Knopfler's music being used for a Burger King commercial. Princess Bride? OK. But Burger King? There again, if The Who's back catalogue can provide theme music for a TV series, why shouldn't Dire Straits pick up a bit of extra cash? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
From: knarftheriault I thought that Fine Art is art that is created primarily for the purpose of being sold... Cheers, frank According to the woman who owns the gallery, photography is not art. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
So how did I get a Bachelors Degree in Fine Art Photography in 1970? On Aug 15, 2012, at 11:38 , John Sessoms wrote: From: knarftheriault I thought that Fine Art is art that is created primarily for the purpose of being sold... Cheers, frank According to the woman who owns the gallery, photography is not art. She's a bitch. Truth is, it is easier for galleries to sell big mark-up sculptures and paintings than photographs. Photos still elicit a thought I can do that! unless looking at a master's work. By masters, I mean those willing and able to travel to where masterful photos can be taken. Frequently off the beaten path. They know their equipment so well, the final product can hold even duffers like me in respect, if not awe. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
Addendum: Most, if not all major museums of ART hold vast collections of photographs they drag out to show. Many of them have some part of their collection on display in other museums around the world. Here in Seattle, there are several galleries devoted only to photography. On Aug 15, 2012, at 11:38 , John Sessoms wrote: From: knarftheriault I thought that Fine Art is art that is created primarily for the purpose of being sold... Cheers, frank According to the woman who owns the gallery, photography is not art. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
I saw a photography exhibit at the MFA (Museum of Fine Art) in Boston, and it was as moving as any work by one of the old masters. They had a copy of Eggelston's tricycle, and it's amazing in person. If anyone has a chance to, you really should go to a good museum and look at all the art. On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com wrote: Addendum: Most, if not all major museums of ART hold vast collections of photographs they drag out to show. Many of them have some part of their collection on display in other museums around the world. Here in Seattle, there are several galleries devoted only to photography. On Aug 15, 2012, at 11:38 , John Sessoms wrote: From: knarftheriault I thought that Fine Art is art that is created primarily for the purpose of being sold... Cheers, frank According to the woman who owns the gallery, photography is not art. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- David Parsons Photography http://www.davidparsonsphoto.com Aloha Photographer Photoblog http://alohaphotog.blogspot.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
...which exactly why I shy away from silly discussions about what art is. The word is practically meaningless due to people like that gallery owner. I will, however, happily participate in a Who is Art? discussion. Clearly the answer to the latter is Garfunkel. cheers, frank What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. -- Christopher Hitchens --- Original Message --- From: John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com Sent: August 15, 2012 8/15/12 To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer According to the woman who owns the gallery, photography is not art. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
From: knarftheriault ...which exactly why I shy away from silly discussions about what art is. The word is practically meaningless due to people like that gallery owner. I will, however, happily participate in a Who is Art? discussion. Clearly the answer to the latter is Garfunkel. cheers, frank I would have thought it would be Carney. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
On 8/15/2012 10:06 PM, John Sessoms wrote: From: knarftheriault ...which exactly why I shy away from silly discussions about what art is. The word is practically meaningless due to people like that gallery owner. I will, however, happily participate in a Who is Art? discussion. Clearly the answer to the latter is Garfunkel. cheers, frank I would have thought it would be Carney. I was thinking Vandelay. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
...of Vandelay Industries... LMAO Cheers, frank What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. -- Christopher Hitchens --- Original Message --- From: Walt Gilbert ldott...@gmail.com Sent: August 15, 2012 8/15/12 Subject: Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer I was thinking Vandelay. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
One man's Fine Art is another man's CRAP. If you want to call dead leaves Fine Art, it's OK by me, but I may or may not agree. Now...about those naked chicks on the train tracks. -p On 8/14/2012 9:28 AM, Bruce Walker wrote: Zach Arias has been on a roll answering good questions with practical advice on his QA blog. But he really steps out on a limb with this one I think. And oh dear please…. please. For the love of all that is good and holy about photography… please don’t be the “fine art” photographer that shoots flowers, and dead leaves, and macro shots of bark, and hang them in your local coffee house. You know what I’m talking about. Photo 101 assignments passed off as “fine art”. Ain’t nothing fine art about that stuff. Fine. Call me a jerk. You know what I’m talking about. Canoes on a lake. A bike leaning against a red door with a little green ivy sneaking in the corner. An old mailbox on a dusty road. A model mayhem beauty queen wearing a Victorian dress and a German gas mask… in a cemetery. A coffee cup on an old book. An HDR’ed lighthouse at sunset. An HDR’ed macro shot of your cat’s eye. Don’t get me started on naked chicks on train tracks or laying on rocks. I resemble that remark. :-) http://zarias.tumblr.com/post/29385173306/can-i-be-a-fine-art-photographer-gallery-circuit-and [Not safe for those with high blood pressure who are easily offended.] -- Being old doesn't seem so old now that I'm old. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
Bruce Walker wrote: Zach Arias has been on a roll answering good questions with practical advice on his QA blog. But he really steps out on a limb with this one I think. And oh dear please . please. For the love of all that is good and holy about photography please dont be the fine art photographer that shoots flowers, and dead leaves, and macro shots of bark, and hang them in your local coffee house. You know what Im talking about. Photo 101 assignments passed off as fine art. Aint nothing fine art about that stuff. Fine. Call me a jerk. You know what Im talking about. Canoes on a lake. A bike leaning against a red door with a little green ivy sneaking in the corner. An old mailbox on a dusty road. A model mayhem beauty queen wearing a Victorian dress and a German gas mask in a cemetery. A coffee cup on an old book. An HDRed lighthouse at sunset. An HDRed macro shot of your cats eye. Dont get me started on naked chicks on train tracks or laying on rocks. What pretentious twaddle. Fine Art is just art that is created primarily for aesthetic purposes. In other words, not Applied Art: creations that, while they do have aesthetic appeal as a goal, are made primarily for a practical purpose. Any photograph that is made as art (as opposed to, I dunno... rolling up and swatting flies) is Fine Art. The design of the Marc Newson Pentax K-01 is Applied Art. The cute kitten photos you take with it are Fine Art. Whether or not either one is any *good* is a separate and unrelated question. :-) -- Mark Roberts - Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts Bruce Walker wrote: Zach Arias has been on a roll answering good questions with practical advice on his QA blog. But he really steps out on a limb with this one I think. And oh dear please.. please. For the love of all that is good and holy about photography. please don't be the fine art photographer that shoots flowers, and dead leaves, and macro shots of bark, and hang them in your local coffee house. You know what I'm talking about. Photo 101 assignments passed off as fine art. Ain't nothing fine art about that stuff. Fine. Call me a jerk. You know what I'm talking about. Canoes on a lake. A bike leaning against a red door with a little green ivy sneaking in the corner. An old mailbox on a dusty road. A model mayhem beauty queen wearing a Victorian dress and a German gas mask. in a cemetery. A coffee cup on an old book. An HDR'ed lighthouse at sunset. An HDR'ed macro shot of your cat's eye. Don't get me started on naked chicks on train tracks or laying on rocks. What pretentious twaddle. Fine Art is just art that is created primarily for aesthetic purposes. In other words, not Applied Art: creations that, while they do have aesthetic appeal as a goal, are made primarily for a practical purpose. Any photograph that is made as art (as opposed to, I dunno... rolling up and swatting flies) is Fine Art. The Fine / Applied art distinction is traditionally shown as a continuum and the points are marked with the medium, not the use to which it's put. So painting and sculpture are traditionally placed at the Fine Art end, Monuments and Architecture fine, but not quite so fine, and stuff like Industrial Design at the Applied Art end. In this schema Photography is at the Applied Art end of the spectrum, but it's not quite so hideously common and nasty as Industrial Design. Even within those points on the continuum there are distinctions, so oil painting is finer than watercolour, for example, and master drawings are finer than preparatory sketches. Now, Moses didn't bring this down from Mount Sinai (or should that be Mount Fine-ai?). The whole exercise is culturally determined and in our culture no-one gives a toss about categories like that except, apparently, Fine Art Photographers, but in the good old days of Academies which could make or break your career, it mattered a great deal to people. The design of the Marc Newson Pentax K-01 is Applied Art. The cute kitten photos you take with it are Fine Art. Whether or not either one is any *good* is a separate and unrelated question. :-) Under the aforementioned schema your kitten photos are more Applied Art than Fine Art, whatever their quality. In any case, I think most people know exactly what he means by his comments, and I suspect you do too. Whenever I hear the phrase Fine Art Photographer I reach for my Browning, to paraphrase Hermann Goering, because I know I'm going to get a lot of imitation Ansel Adams and Minor (very minor) Whites. And especially when I hear the phrase Fine Art Nudes I know I'm in for a lot of boring, worthy, dull, black white crap that bends over backwards to be as unexciting as possible, but is probably very well printed on Bohemian crystal glass by some obscure method that fell out of use in 1857 because it poisons the village if you're a bit careless, and involves rare minerals only available from a single mine in the Eastern Urals. B -- Mark Roberts - Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Bruce Walker bruce.wal...@gmail.com wrote: ... Don’t get me started on naked chicks on train tracks or laying on rocks. I resemble that remark. :-) You do? -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi gdigio...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Bruce Walker bruce.wal...@gmail.com wrote: ... Don’t get me started on naked chicks on train tracks or laying on rocks. I resemble that remark. :-) You do? Well, not that *specific* part of his remarks. Although on a spectrum from David Bowie to Hulk Hogan I'm closer to the Bowie end, I've never been mistaken for a chick nor have I been photographed naked on train tracks or rocks. Yet. I don't expect there's much of a market for that product anyway. -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
I thought that Fine Art is art that is created primarily for the purpose of being sold... Cheers, frank What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. -- Christopher Hitchens --- Original Message --- From: Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com What pretentious twaddle. Fine Art is just art that is created primarily for aesthetic purposes. In other words, not Applied Art: creations that, while they do have aesthetic appeal as a goal, are made primarily for a practical purpose. Any photograph that is made as art (as opposed to, I dunno... rolling up and swatting flies) is Fine Art. The design of the Marc Newson Pentax K-01 is Applied Art. The cute kitten photos you take with it are Fine Art. Whether or not either one is any *good* is a separate and unrelated question. :-) -- Mark Roberts - Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Fine art vs portrait photographer
on 2012-08-14 21:07 knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote I thought that Fine Art is art that is created primarily for the purpose of being sold... yep - you pays the fine, you gets your art -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
