I'm not really interested in art which makes me feel uncomfortable. I would rather it made me feel good in some way.
Steve.
Then find art that makes you feel good. I think ghoti's point was, that some people judge the ART on whether the subject is one they feel strongly about or not. So, if you are sick of (for argument's sake) environmental issues, then all art that deals with that subject is bad art, You may not be interested in the subject, but that doesn't make it bad art, just as stuff that makes you feel good doesn't mean it's good art.
True, but if you're going to hoist it at least a few yards up you'll need a large monopod or adapted painter's pole; if you want a properly aimed shot you'll need some kind of remote viewing method or careful precalculation; then there's shutter speed and stability, and so on. A friend of mine built a gigantic wooden tripod which he laid out on the ground and then hoisted up with a rope. The camera settings and angle etc. all had to be precalculated and set in advance. In other words while a trivial enough and easily expressed general idea, if you want to do it well there are some technical problems which need to be solved by a mixture of special equipment and appropriate techniques.
Or these days... you could have just used a drone..
or one of these
I do get your point though. Are these camera skills, or just problem solving? If you fasten a top end Nokia Lumia to a blue tooth selfie stick... haven't you solved the problem? If you're in a large crowd as you said... you'll probably want to be working light.
It's enough of a specialised area of photography that one could easily devote 15 minutes to explaining the technicalities to a class, an hour if you wanted to include some practical exercises. That's why I used that example when asking you the question "How special does a special technique have to be in order to be special enough to be interesting and relevant to a discussion of artistic photographs using the method?"
And someone with a selfie stick will still get the shot you spent so much time planning
No matter how interesting the technique though, it would have no bearing upon whether the results are art or not. That would be determined by the subject, and why you're shooting it. Interesting is something else though... and I'm sure you can create interesting images with any technique, assuming it's not already been done to death... then it just becomes boring.
Of course. I'd expect a college course in portrait photography to show photographs or video of Rembrandt's studio, what kind of lighting the daylight provided in it, and give examples from his portraits.
It may be. It would be more useful to discuss what makes a portrait interesting and relevant though. I think students would be better portrait photographers if they understood issues of representation, and spent some time on their social skills so they can actually interact with whoever they're shooting. The problem is... well... not a problem, but the thing is, there are as many ways to take portraits as there any other kind of image making, so everything is relevant to a portrait photographer unless you are limited to a certain genre by your client base, such as social portraiture etc. With that, clients have expectations, and usually very narrow ones. Which is why social portraiture is not art either. It can be interesting, and I promise you, in a hundred years, very interesting.. but here and now, it's not art. Vernacular images rarely are. Which is why I would argue that someone like Henri Lartigue was not really an artist, or even a photographer. His images were historically interesting, and fascinating, but art?
Of course not. But I'd also expect a college course in portrait photography to show how to use studio lights, modifiers, reflectors, etc, to produce that kind of lighting. It's called "Rembrandt lighting", and is almost certain to feature in any class on basic studio portrait lighting setups. That's what I meant when I called it a cliche.
It can be a cliché, yes. It can be used to good effect too. That's not down to the technique itself, but who is wielding it, and why.
Of course. I wasn't suggesting that technique, or any technique, was in itself either necessary or sufficient to produce a work of photographic art. I was citing it as another example to consider when you answered my question about how special a technique had to be in order to be special enough to be interesting and relevant in discussions of art which used it. It has certainly been considered so by art critics and lecturers discussing Rembrandt's position in the history of portraiture. Nor was Rembrandt's use of lighting, which nevertheless art critics and art historians have written extensively about, and which is explained in detail in many college portrait photography courses. My reason for making these points is to explore your suggestion that technique would of course be interesting and relevant to a work of art if the technique was special enough. How special is special enough?
It's not whether it's special or not, but whether it's relevant or not. Using a technique alone doesn't create art.
These aren't camera skills though. Studio lighting is a different kettle of fish. However... when it comes to art, it CAN be irrelevant. None of this... no techniques make a photograph art or not. While it's nice to have both highly visible craft and artistic merit together, it's not necessary. Art is not always about technical skill.. it's just satisfying when the two come together.
Rembrandt lighting for the sake of it, will just be that.. nothing more. It doesn't make it art in itself. I've seen loads of really boring and pointless images taken with Rembrandt lighting. I've seen loads of really interesting and engaging images taken with quite crap lighting.
So you say. Whereas I claim on te other hand that while it is possible for an excellent photography critic to be ignorant of and uninterested in the technicalities of photography, that such ignorance and disinterest is not a virtue.
I would suggest that if an art critic spends time being so critical of such things, they're not really an art critic. They're judging a photograph for technical prowess, and they're probably a photographer. An art critic doesn't necessarily have to be a photographer. It's probably best if they're not in some cases, othrwise they get distracted by stuff like this. You or I may pick up on such things, but if it's meant to be art, then it's meant to be seen by a wider audience, not just other photographers, and who in the general public will be interested in what kind of lighting was used?
I agree with all of that. What I disagree with is your attempt to use such observations as grounds for supposing that to a critic of photographic art ignorance of the technicalities of photography is a virtue. I suspect the reason you're tempted to draw such a conclusion is because so many photographers think that better photographic gear will turn their photographs into art.
That's not why I think that at all, no. It's neither a virtue, or a handicap... it's just not relevant. It would only be of interest to another photographer, and if it's intended for public display in a gallery, then how many of the people who see it would be interested?
To other photographers, and to friends and family, but not as art, because as I've emphasized, I don't claim ever to have produced a work of photographic art. It's not something I'm aiming for. I do occasionally get contracts to shoot the work of local artists, but not because they think I'm an artist, just because they think I'm good at that kind of documentary work.
Documentary? If you're just literally photographing/flat copying artwork, then that's not documentary either. It's just using your camera as a recording device, especially if they just literally want a photographic copy of the artwork as if it had been scanned. To be a documentary, you'd need to be shooting a great deal more about them, their practice, and how they work, live etc.
The idea that difficult esoteric techniques add to the value of art, whereas when technology makes the previously difficult easy that devalues it, is an issue decided by the fashions of the art market rather than anything to do with the inherent artistic value of the work.
I disagree, yet agree at the same time.. LOL. I can understand the argument that automation is making the skills themselves less valuable, yes, but at the same time, this is why I think the art world is right for no longer paying attention to things that no longer require skill or thought. It has NEVER rewarded pure technical skill alone... not for a very long time, but especially now, when digital has made such things so easy.
If a technique is difficult and esoteric, then fine... use that well in a relevant way, and yes, it adds interest, but what are we talking about here? Rembrandt lighting? Cameras on poles? None of this alone makes an image interesting if what you're pointing the camera at has no relevance, or inherent interest. Without any of that, it's a mere technical exercise, and they're always boring. Like water drops with coloured liquids etc. What's the point? Seen one, you've seen them all. I don't care how much time or skill is needed... it's a waste of time and skill if you ask me, because we've all seen it a million times already.
Good point, and not just art, but also just simple interest. I'm sometimes asked why I'm bothering to take a photograph of something ugly, or why I'm passing up the opportunity to photograph something beautiful.
I hope you told them why
Agreed. I want my photographs to be interesting, in the sense that looking at them will raise questions in the viewer's mind which will lead them to consider the image more carefully.
That's purely down to what you're photographing and why. Make it look nice as well and it MAY add something, but ultimately, it's about what you shoot and why.
In a previous post you said that while that was generally true, a sufficiently special technique would be of artistic interest. By citing a few examples, including Hockney's "Secret Knowledge" about the techniques of the Old Masters in painting, I tried to get an answer from you about how special the technique would have to be. It looks to me as though you've come round to saying that no technique, however special, is of artistic interest. I disagree, as I think Hockney does. I'm not saying that a disinterest in the technicalities is a barrier to proper appreciation of the significance of the art. As you've pointed out, some notable writers on photographic art such as Sontag & Berger have had little interest in the technicalities. It's like the question of whether a knowledge of the artist's biography and place in the history of art relevant to an appreciation of their work. These are different stances in the philosophy of art.
I think in order for it to be of artistic worth in itself, it would have to be something that challenged my sense of reality in some way, so what I'm looking at makes me think of the subject in a totally different way. Having said that.. the subject of the image would still be very important, and would have to be relevant. A technique can be interesting in and of itself, but I'm not convinced it can actually BE art... not now.. not when we're so saturated. I know photographer artist called Layla Sailor, who is doing some interesting things with holograms, and yes, it's interesting, but without the subject matter, isn't it more of a scientific experiment?
You could argue that some of Malovich's paintings are technique alone.... and Id agree... to an extent...
What may be helpful here, as I suspect your idea of technique and mine could be different, is to post an example of what you feel is technique being the reason for artistic merit. We very well could just be at cross purposes here.
