Photography: Artist vs technician

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 08:33:12 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> If you want to be a 24/7 artist, then you better make it palatable to
> the public so they buy it.

I don't think you've thought this through, Alan.

There are many "publics". Most of them don't buy art. I can't
read minds, so maybe those who say that a "Voice Of Fire" is made
out of contempt for the buying public are right. But I don't think
so. I think works like that are made with a different buying public
in mind, the gatekeepers: the gallery owners and critics and
curators, etc.

The flap over "Voice Of Fire" is not so much a fight between the
artist and the public as it is between the general public and the
art gatekeepers.

Of course the gatekeeping classes are not unitary either -- what
wins friends at New York's Museum of Modern Art may fall flat on
the Lower East Side, and vice versa. And different groups/cliques/
movements gain and lose power over time. I don't follow the art
world, but just from brushing against it on occasion, I can tell
that it's full of politics which look VERY petty to an outsider.

Finally, don't forget that a lot of the art world's funding comes
from a few very rich families, through philanthropic foundations.
So don't assume that in the absence of government participation,
artists would be forced to appeal to the masses. It doesn't work
that way and it never has.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ben Rosengart wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 08:33:12 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>If you want to be a 24/7 artist, then you better make it palatable to
>>the public so they buy it.
>
>
> I don't think you've thought this through, Alan.
>
> There are many "publics". Most of them don't buy art. I can't
> read minds, so maybe those who say that a "Voice Of Fire" is made
> out of contempt for the buying public are right. But I don't think
> so. I think works like that are made with a different buying public
> in mind, the gatekeepers: the gallery owners and critics and
> curators, etc.

See note below.

> The flap over "Voice Of Fire" is not so much a fight between the
> artist and the public as it is between the general public and the
> art gatekeepers.

Agree. Nonetheless, those gatekeepers are either Canadian government
employees paid with my taxes, or "board" members who are not accountable
to how the money is spent.

>
> Of course the gatekeeping classes are not unitary either -- what
> wins friends at New York's Museum of Modern Art may fall flat on
> the Lower East Side, and vice versa. And different groups/cliques/
> movements gain and lose power over time. I don't follow the art
> world, but just from brushing against it on occasion, I can tell
> that it's full of politics which look VERY petty to an outsider.

Oh Yes!!

>
> Finally, don't forget that a lot of the art world's funding comes
> from a few very rich families, through philanthropic foundations.
> So don't assume that in the absence of government participation,
> artists would be forced to appeal to the masses. It doesn't work
> that way and it never has.

I agree and I have no objection to philanthropic support. That is a way
of private "buying" of art. I certainly object to governements buying
"art" like "Voice of Fire", and I wouldn't be surprised if the US
government who owned the piece at the time, lobbyed hard to dump it on
unsuspecting Canadians at an unmodest profit. In Canada the Feds and
Prov governments fund a lot of art.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

> You describe the difference between 'art' and 'craft'. One can
> certainly learn 'craft', but 'art' comes from some other part of the brain.

If only the distinction were so clearly...
I'm afraid in actual practise things are quite a bit more complex and
interwoven.

Ton

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Mr. Mark <e.cartman@southpark.com> wrote:

> "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
> > that attracts people with different leanings?
>
> IMO this is one of the more interesting observations I've read in this
> group. And the answer is yes. My collection of friends who are very into
> photography come from all different backgrounds and each of them has their
> own expressive style - some would even say that they don't have an
> expressive style because saying things like that sound artzy to them and
> they don't want to be considered artzy.

Agreed. I think most of us will recognize themselves anywhere in the
equation between me and my wife, both fervent photographers. With me,
the emphasis has always been on taking the right shot the right way,
requiring as little post-processing as possible. It's been like that in
the dark room era and is still true in the digital domain. For her,
taking the shot is "just" the beginning of things and she regularly
spends days "in" Photoshop perfecting the vision she had in mind.

Ton

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> Women (female mammals, actually) have a better color sense than do
> males. That said, this is a trainable talent. Go shopping for paint
> for a room and start paying attention to the slight differences. You
> will learn to distinguish them. Learn some language and you will do
> better.

Agreed 100%. Language is an important tool in learning to make
distinctions and being able to verbalize/memorize them. Philosopher
Martha Nussbaum did some research into the matter of gender and found
that whereas relational/emotional subjects are discussed in detail with
little girls, they are often dealt with in short hand in the interaction
between parents and their young sons.

Ton

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

tonmaas@xs4all.nl (Ton Maas) wrote:

>Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> Of course there is a wide range of visionary abilities, just as there
>> is a wide range of technical abilities. Not every great artist is
>> both a great visionary *and* a great technician.
>
>Also there are periods in which technical abilities are appreciated more
>or rather less. Take the golden age of oil painting versus the
>expressionists and impressionists of the nineteenth century. Most of the
>latter's work wasn't exactly made with a long life span in mind. An art
>conservation specialist once told me that he and his colleagues feared
>the time in which 20th century artworks will have to be preserved. Works
>with markers on paper are nightmare to them.


It's already a problem with 1960s and 1970s acrylics, which are
deteriorating extremely rapidly unless professionally conserved.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote:

> Uh Oh!! I think you've opened a pandora's box as to what is *reality*.
> One might argue that using a faster film is a *breach* of reality.
> While some might argue that the PP that how a technician interprets
> colours while printing colour negative film is alteration of reality.
> Also, the colours captured on film are function of the chemical used
> and the colours/light captured on a CCD/CMOS are a function of the
> various algorithms used by the manufacturer (even RAW images). So PP or
> no PP, an image is the photographer's interpretation of reality, IMHO.

That's arguably true, but the fact of the matter is that things are
compicated rather than made easier with the development of manipulative
tools. The anthropologist Gregory Bateson once observed that actors tend
to have very special psychological problems, relating to the fact that
they have to learn how to lie on a nonverbal level. This leads their
real life partners to distrust their emotional integrity and ultimately
makes them distrust even themselves. In his view, the fabric of
communication is based on the shared notion that we should't tamper too
much with the nonverbal aspects of it.

For this reason he was quite outspoken against the pragmatic use of his
ideas. Take, for example NLP. It's a technique that can work wonders for
you, but imagine both parties in an exchange both master it. Could
easily lead to an arms race of sorts 🙂

Ton

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Mike Henley <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote:

> I disagree here, and this is something that I've read books about
> lately; as I said in my other post in this thread, art had been
> formalised since antiquity and it has its conventions and language, and
> those from a background of "fine arts" are well versed in them. What
> you're referring to as being in the eye of the beholder is more
> accurately referred to as "taste". Someone knowledgeable in "fine arts"
> will appreciate the artistic merits of a piece or art, not matter what
> his tastes are. The chances are though that the more you know about
> fine "art", the more "refined" your taste becomes. To use the wine
> analogy again, if you're knowledgeable enough about wine you'll
> appreciate the subtleties in the taste of a "fine wine", and appreciate
> it as a no-mediocre-thing and the work of a master winemaker, whether
> you like its taste or not.

Gregory Bateson, the British anthropologist and biologist, observed - in
his great article called "Style, Grace and Information in Primitive Art"
- that Balinese painters use skill or "technique" to convey to the
viewer that what he or she sees, isn't trivial or coincidental, but
rather purposive and "intended". It works however both ways. The viewer
too needs to be skilled in order to be able to perceivie the artist's
skill.

Ton

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Ton Maas wrote:
> Mike Henley <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I disagree here, and this is something that I've read books about
>> lately; as I said in my other post in this thread, art had been
>> formalised since antiquity and it has its conventions and language,
>> and those from a background of "fine arts" are well versed in them.
>> What you're referring to as being in the eye of the beholder is
>> more
>> accurately referred to as "taste". Someone knowledgeable in "fine
>> arts" will appreciate the artistic merits of a piece or art, not
>> matter what his tastes are. The chances are though that the more
>> you
>> know about fine "art", the more "refined" your taste becomes. To
>> use
>> the wine analogy again, if you're knowledgeable enough about wine
>> you'll appreciate the subtleties in the taste of a "fine wine", and
>> appreciate it as a no-mediocre-thing and the work of a master
>> winemaker, whether you like its taste or not.
>
> Gregory Bateson, the British anthropologist and biologist,
> observed -
> in his great article called "Style, Grace and Information in
> Primitive Art" - that Balinese painters use skill or "technique" to
> convey to the viewer that what he or she sees, isn't trivial or
> coincidental, but rather purposive and "intended". It works however
> both ways. The viewer too needs to be skilled in order to be able to
> perceivie the artist's skill.
>

Communities expend resources in the physical trappings of "Justice" so
subjects see it as serious business: nearly all Court functions could
be accomplished in bare auditoriums. The existence of oak panelling
and robed practitioners is part of the background lending poignance to
appreciation of the "art" of Justice.

--
Frank ess

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 19:09:08 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>Also, not all art is 'enjoyable'. I saw a painting many years ago that
>>was an abstract, labeled 'crucifiction'. Looking at the painting was
>>literally painful. Almost everyone who looked at it seemed repulsed,
>>and uncomfortable. I sincerely hope I NEVER lay eyes on it again, but I
>>am grateful for the experience. That was ART.
>
>
> Ah, now I get it. Your characteristic overquoting isn't the
> result of laziness or not having time to trim. You're an artist!
>
>
My quoting is due to wanting to avoid confusion, and the lack of time
for editing every reply.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:d8bv4s$k26$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Today, the artist would probably create a sculpture of a Koran
>>> sitting in a toilet bowl.....:^)
>>>
>> No, THAT would cause riots, and violence, with the artist being
>> marked for death. Recall Simon Rushdie?
>
> Getting OT here, but part of the issue with the VM/condom is almost
> cynical comedy (condomy?) wrt the Catholic Church' wide use of icons and
> images. All despite clear instruction in the Old Testament regarding
> graven images.
>
> Desecration of the code (Bible, Koran) is a form of book burning and an
> attack on religious beliefs and freedom of expression. It is no surprise
> that it would cause strong upset amongst the faithful.
>
> Salman Rushdie did nothing wrong, of course. He played at the edges of
> questions of faith and illustrated the tension of a person wrt their faith
> (IIRC). Honest writing that did not attack Islam, but put questions to
> it. Islam is very intolerant of questioning the faith... and this will
> eventually result, as it did for the Christian faith, in a reformation and
> an outbreaking of intelligence in the leaders of the faith ... in 500 or
> 1000 years or so.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan

I wonder how many millions of people will die before THAT "reformation" is
complete............

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:d1uia19q509mhkssai99fccd8me7vem1cu@4ax.com...
> "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>But surely darkroom work is a part of photography....
>
> Yes, of course. I greatly enjoy working in the darkroom.
>
>>At least, in the past
>>this was true. My dad spent many hours in the darkroom striving for good
>>print quality. The film was just the beginning of his photographs.
>
> But you have to start with a good photo. You cannot make a silk purse
> out of a sow's ear. At least not with my darkroom skills ... ;-)
>
> If you want to do some abstract art that's based on a photo, that's
> fine. But once the non-photographic aspect(s) begin(s) to dominate,
> it is no longer photography.
>
Yes. - It seems to me that a lot of, "abstract photographic art" is just bad
photography. But then, so is a lot of abstract painting.....Unfortunately,
being on the, "outside" as it were, my opinions don't seem to count for
anything. And some of the people whose opinions DO count, control the
taxpayers money.......

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:m7uia19mjuopduool4m5isl9u5tkahfqg3@4ax.com...
> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>> Stacey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure it is but there is a lot of "subjective quality" factors that
>>>> these
>>>> people ignore when doing a "review" of equipment. Everything doesn't
>>>> boil
>>>> down to something scientifically measureable and I've seen them go as
>>>> far
>>>> as saying if they can't measure it with their toolkit, then it doesn't
>>>> exist. Bokeh is a prime example of a thing some "techies" claim doesn't
>>>> exist.
>>>
>>> "Bokeh" is something difficult to quantify
>>
>>Which is why many techies downplay it's importance. They can't measure it.
>
>
> Some techies even use stupid names for it, like "Schmuckle", to
> demonstrate their contempt for something they simply cannot
> understand.
>
> ;-)

Well, I thought this way until someone (you, I think) pointed out to me that
the lens designers can actually design good bokeh into their lenses. That
puts a whole new aspect on it........

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3gsqq4Fe3dirU3@individual.net...
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
> > Stacey wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Sure it is but there is a lot of "subjective quality" factors that
these
> >> people ignore when doing a "review" of equipment. Everything doesn't
boil
> >> down to something scientifically measureable and I've seen them go as
far
> >> as saying if they can't measure it with their toolkit, then it doesn't
> >> exist. Bokeh is a prime example of a thing some "techies" claim doesn't
> >> exist.
> >
> > "Bokeh" is something difficult to quantify
>
> Which is why many techies downplay it's importance. They can't measure it.
>
>

I'm a techie and I don't downplay it's importance. Nice bokeh is important
to me which is why a couple of months ago I posted samples from the same
lens, one with ugly bokeh and the other with nice bokeh. I may not be able
to quantify it but I sure care about it.

Greg

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 16:36:04 -0500, Ron Hunter had the Galt to
wrote:

>> Ah, now I get it. Your characteristic overquoting isn't the
>> result of laziness or not having time to trim. You're an artist!
>>
>>
> My quoting is due to wanting to avoid confusion, and the lack of time
> for editing every reply.

No, I don't think so. Previously you said that you don't trim
because you are such a prolific poster (in this and other
newsgroups) that you don't have sufficient time to trim. My point
is that when I encounter one of your 2 or 3 line replies tacked onto
the end of a 200 line post, there can be confusion trying to figure
out which part of the quote your reply is in reference to. And the
time wasted trying to locate it is multiplied by the number of
people reading your replies. As I see it, that's a very selfish
attitude to take, caring little about how you inconvenience others.
Unfortunately, the "me" decade, where the Golden Rule doesn't apply,
has lasted far longer than 10 years. I'll bet Ayn Rand is looking
down on you with a proud smile on her puss.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Ton Maas" <tonmaas@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:1gxy1g8.pdvwk4rt310dN%tonmaas@xs4all.nl...
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> You describe the difference between 'art' and 'craft'. One can
>> certainly learn 'craft', but 'art' comes from some other part of the
>> brain.
>
> If only the distinction were so clearly...
> I'm afraid in actual practise things are quite a bit more complex and
> interwoven.
>
> Ton

Yes. I personally see no distinction at all. It is strictly (to me) a matter
of definition. Human beings choose to call some disciplines, "art", and
others, "craft". There is no inherent difference between someone who enjoys
making little statues or boxes out of wood, and someone who sculpts little
figures out of clay. Yet we call one an artist, and the other a
craftsman.......

 

[Confused]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> 1. bling bling
> n. synonym for expensive, often flashy jewelry sported mostly by
> African American hip-hop artists and middle class Caucasian
> adolescents.
>
> v. to "bling-bling;" the act of sporting jewelry of a highly
> extravagant gaudy nature.
> n. "Man, I gots tha bling-bling, yo."
>
> v. "Damn Johnny, you sure be bling-blinging it tonight!"
>
> http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1471629/20030430/bg.jhtml?headlines=true
>
> If I recommember correctly, the context was Upgrading Cameras as
> adornments for neck-hanging.

Got it.

If you're hip it's cool to wear bling. But if you're not hip then
wearing bling makes you a bling-bling, which in turn makes you a
target for a good bitch slapping. ;^)

Jeff

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 16:36:04 -0500, Ron Hunter had the Galt to
> wrote:
>
>
>>> Ah, now I get it. Your characteristic overquoting isn't the
>>>result of laziness or not having time to trim. You're an artist!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>My quoting is due to wanting to avoid confusion, and the lack of time
>>for editing every reply.
>
>
> No, I don't think so. Previously you said that you don't trim
> because you are such a prolific poster (in this and other
> newsgroups) that you don't have sufficient time to trim. My point
> is that when I encounter one of your 2 or 3 line replies tacked onto
> the end of a 200 line post, there can be confusion trying to figure
> out which part of the quote your reply is in reference to. And the
> time wasted trying to locate it is multiplied by the number of
> people reading your replies. As I see it, that's a very selfish
> attitude to take, caring little about how you inconvenience others.
> Unfortunately, the "me" decade, where the Golden Rule doesn't apply,
> has lasted far longer than 10 years. I'll bet Ayn Rand is looking
> down on you with a proud smile on her puss.
>
If you have trouble deciding what I am replying to, then feel free to
NOT read my posts. Believe me, I can live with that.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 21:51:52 -0500, a cranky Ron Hunter wrote:

> If you have trouble deciding what I am replying to, then feel free to
> NOT read my posts. Believe me, I can live with that.

You make it difficult for everyone (not just me) to follow some of
you posts. Not all. Not most. But a good number of them. Maybe
you don't want to change because you resent being told what to do.
But whatever the reason, you still appear to have an attitude of
doing what's most convenient for yourself, and others be damned.

As for not reading your posts, you've said that before, and it's
not hard to figure out why. I assume that you recall where that
led.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 21:51:52 -0500, a cranky Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>If you have trouble deciding what I am replying to, then feel free to
>>NOT read my posts. Believe me, I can live with that.
>
>
> You make it difficult for everyone (not just me) to follow some of
> you posts. Not all. Not most. But a good number of them. Maybe
> you don't want to change because you resent being told what to do.
> But whatever the reason, you still appear to have an attitude of
> doing what's most convenient for yourself, and others be damned.
>
> As for not reading your posts, you've said that before, and it's
> not hard to figure out why. I assume that you recall where that
> led.
>

I VERY rarely read posts with 200 lines, and even more rarely reply to
them, so I can't see that what you complain about is valid. As I have
said before, I don't have time to delete every non-essential word in a
post before replying. I also feel that doing that often leaves one
confused as to what the OP said. I MUCH prefer that those who reply to
my posts NOT cut them as they are usually quite concise, and snipping
will likely change the meaning.

But, as I said, no one forces you to read my posts.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net