Technical aspects and opinions of art/photographs

I really appreciate the comments.

Keep in mind, this thread was not directed at what goes on at DPR. I started the thread as a general discussion toward Art, technique, and whether or not good technique is a requirement of good art.

An artist needs to be a good enough craftsman to get his or her vision into their art. In some cases that requires enormous technical skills and in others it requires only adequate technical skills and in other cases probably less.

For Ansel Adam's lanscapes to come to life the way they did required enormous technical chops. For Cartier Bresson's street shots to work required mostly an amazing eye and competent exposure (and competent processors back at the newspapers darkroom - he didn't do his own processing).

For Segovia to get his classical guitar artistry across, he needed incredible technical proficiency. For Neil Young to play a blazing electric solo over Crazy Horse required only an adequate craftsman but a totally fearless and committed artistic vision. Pete Townsend was once quoted as saying that to the extent his guitar playing was ever considered good it was because of the enormous technical frustration he had trying to get the music from his head out through the guitar. He never felt he succeeded, but the effort more often than not resulted in something pretty great, if not exactly what he was after. Robert Johnson was one of the most primitive guitarists I've ever heard, but his artistic vision was so strong he created an entire genre of acoustic blues, from which electric blues, and later rock and roll, sprung. Al DiMeola is as technically proficient a guitarist as you'd ever find, but I seriously doubt he'll ever be remembered as an artist.

Or compare the piano playing of Thelonious Monk and Oscar Peterson - one a virtuoso who's music probably won't live on all that long - the other a fairly rudimentary pianist who's music will be remembered fondly for a LONG time.

So the art is all that matters in the end. Whether it comes from incredible technical mastery, barely adequate technical proficiency, or even a highly frustrated technician with an artistic vision that couldn't be denied. Art matters. Craft sometimes helps, but occasionally may even hinder. What would Townsend have played if he had the chops to get across what he heard? It might have been as brilliant as Hendrix or it might have been as maudlin as DiMeola or Alvin Lee, who could both play a zillion mph but got so caught up in THAT part of it that they never really got around to the music.

-Ray
 
An artist needs to be a good enough craftsman to get his or her vision into their art. In some cases that requires enormous technical skills and in others it requires only adequate technical skills and in other cases probably less.
-Ray

this makes a lot of sense to me, seems like an elegant way to combine all the valid views we've seen here. Nice examples also :)
 
Yeah these technical guys make me cringe.

Not sure of this helps, but it always makes me smile every time I read it. As it does provide some perspective on art and techno critics alike.

That is freakin' HILARIOUS! I'd never seen it bfore. Thanks SO much for pointing it out. Its book-marked for future perspective checks...

-Ray
 
That is freakin' HILARIOUS! I'd never seen it bfore. Thanks SO much for pointing it out. Its book-marked for future perspective checks...

-Ray

My absolute pleasure mate!! It came to my attention a few years ago when a similar debate was brewing and bubbling over on another forum. I revisit every few months or so myself for a stocktake.
 
Yeah these technical guys make me cringe.

Not sure of this helps, but it always makes me smile every time I read it. As it does provide some perspective on art and techno critics alike.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

So, the burning question is, if Cartier-Bresson was such a craftsman, wouldn't the man in fact be in focus? :tounge in cheek:
 
This is exactly what I'm talking about.

So, the burning question is, if Cartier-Bresson was such a craftsman, wouldn't the man in fact be in focus? :tounge in cheek:

Mate I feel your pain, I really do! Again I've entered this debate in the past and have now walked away convinced that there's no telling these sort of guys. Then again I pity the fact that the greatest thrill of their life might be comparing how the Leica 35/2 vs. the 35/1.4 renders a brick wall at 200%. I concede it's "different strokes for different folks" and all, but I (personally) am in this game for the complete opposite. And there's no telling the guys on the other side of the fence otherwise.....but again that's just from my experience and my level of patience with folks of that persuasion.

Be keen to know how the linked TOP article is received by your present panel though.....wasn't appreciated when it was trotted it out in the similar debate we had a few years ago (y)...wish I could find that thread now.
 
While the online photographer article is good fun to read, it is also interesting food for thought.

If the same people had been told they were critiquing a famous image by a famous photographer, would their critique have been any different? I would bet that it would be, which is wrong IMHO. If you think an image is "wrong" for some reason, finding out that it was taken by HCB (for example) shouldn't make it right. The assumption that everything that comes from a particular source is good is a priceless asset for any person or company, and only exists because of our tendency to make associations such as this. It's everyone's right to critique someone else's work that has been placed in the public domain regardless of how well regarded they are, since it is popular opinion that ultimately decides success or failure.

Photography is an artistic medium that transcends technical perfection. I would argue that no one has truly perfected photography, and that includes the early masters. The reason the early masters are famous is because they got the closest before anyone else did. A question that I find intriguing is: If any of the famous photographers from yesteryear were born decades later and had to swim amongst the millions of photographers (both amateur and professional) active as a result of the digital age, would they still have achieved great notoriety?
 
The hardest thing in photography and art for that matter, is recognizing your own work. It's easy to offer critique to another be it constructive or not. It's not so easy to look in the mirror. This is where ones own truth lives.

When I do sessions with shooters, I ask for contact sheets only. This clearly shows the map of how the shooter thinks. Looking at a single image and picking it apart, that's the easy way out. Seeing how someone thinks is much more important. The technical end is learned and the visual is felt. The 2 polar opposites come together to make the statement the shooter strives for. Questioning those 2 elements and seeking the answer is what makes a devoted participant in any art form.
The masters recognize this and do this all the time. The results are what makes a master.

I don't find the humor about the masters funny at all. I consider the source and feel saddened that those images and creators are treated in such a sad manner.

Don
 
hmm ... well ... I think it usually proves rather problematic when we consider that some things are beyond humour, that certain things are not permitted to be laughed at .... plus I suspect that the linked blog (and my own contribution with the HCB image earlier in the thread) are trying to point up the ludicrous nature of applying these "Photography 101" rules to very fine or even great images ...
 
While the online photographer article is good fun to read, it is also interesting food for thought.

If any of the famous photographers from yesteryear were born decades later and had to swim amongst the millions of photographers (both amateur and professional) active as a result of the digital age, would they still have achieved great notoriety?
Of the interesting points you raise, I find this one the most compelling and unsettling. I spend my share of time on internet photo forums. I see a lot of pretty mediocre photography. But I also see an unexpected amount of what I consider very very very good photography - artistically (and as good as it needs to be technically). I think its hard to know a modern day master while the process is running because you might see a few brilliant shots mixed in among a lot of very very good shots and you may have a higher opinion of someone's work the first time you see it than after you see a lot of it. When there's so much "good" photography available, sometimes its difficult to sensitize yourself to the point that you can readily pull out the really great photography. So there are probably a few masters floating along in the same river with a lot of us who are several/many steps below that level, but its often tough to spot the great ones due to the sheer volume. Probably after a 20-30 year retrospective of one's work is put together would the best of the best really rise to the top. So, who knows how many greats are out there who will never be appreciated, even if they're trying hard to be. And then there may be a few more Vivian Maier stories out there too - people who lived to shoot but didn't have any desire to put their work out there for public scrutiny. I don't know - its a different world - it always is - and somehow the cream usually manages to rise to the top.

I don't find the humor about the masters funny at all. I consider the source and feel saddened that those images and creators are treated in such a sad manner.

I didn't think the humor was aimed at the masters in ANY way in that piece Don. It was all pointed at the inane comments that frequently come up in a lot of internet critiques of photographs and how badly treated even acknowledged masterpieces would likely be if exposed to some of today's internet C&C forums. Which is part of Nic's point raised above. I thought it was pretty funny, but only reflected well on those masters because I got to see those photographs again, which is never bad. And had a laugh over how some people would probably treat them - not a laugh at the work in any sense.

-Ray
 
Paul, no offense, maybe this is all to important to me.
It is and I am fully aware of this. To each his own.
I feel the way I do because I support my stance in this manner.
I certainly do not impose my feelings on anyone else and am open to a wide range of views.
This stance just works for me and the history I follow.
Don
 
A friend of mine never takes her camera out of Auto and frequently shows me photos I'd have loved to have taken. It ain't all about the camera...
 
When it comes to critics remember the words of Brendan Francis Behan

"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how it's done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves."

Now I am off to do some art, no mater how humble it is!
 
Back
Top