Whatever happened to Camera-craft?

I was in London last year and visited the Photographers Gallery where there was an exhibition of Andy Warhol prints. I was massively disappointed. There were hundreds of prints stuck on the wall of random images taken all over the world of 'things' during his travels. On the whole, they were neither interesting in and of themselves, had no co-ordination and no context. They were random images of random things.

There was a section that included physically (hand) stitched identical images together, that was more interesting but personally I couldn't understand the context and therefore didn't 'like' for any reason.

I was left feeling nothing but slightly cheated. I then realised that I probably had been. Warhol hadn't taken most of these images with any intention of them being a part of any project as a whole. He might have taken them as an aide for future non-photographic projects or with the intention of selecting 50 in the future to actually say something or they were simply memories of his travels, I guess we'll never know.

What context there was seemed to be given to them by other people, many years after his death. Apparently he was an avid photographer and nearly always carried a camera around with him in later years. The fact they were an exhibition was purely and simply ONLY because HE had taken them. As a 'collection' they were poor in many respects, both artistically and aesthetically. (OK, one or two individual images might have been vaguely interesting but generally not).

Had the 'art world' and esteemed venue conned me? I felt so. Does it make me think all galleries and all the 'art world' con people. Of course not. There are good and bad in every walk of life. Photography is no different and not exempt. The only interesting thing (to me) about the Warhol exhib was that the images had been taken by Warhol. After that, I struggled. Even the pieces he had created with some 'artistic' notions didn't work for me but I recognise that might be different for others. I felt the 'exhibition' played on his notoriety and fame and made something out of nothing. I also felt that Warhol himself wouldn't have approved but hey, what do I know about him?

His photographic 'craft' was poor technically (as you might expect) and he was evidently much more interested in the world around him than shutter speeds or tack sharp focus (most of it was 'street' imagery) but it wasn't that that bothered me. I decided that the collection as a whole didn't tell me anything, either about him or the world as he saw it. The craft was irrelevant either way.
 
Interesting thread!

I should start with a brief explanation of my attitude to my photography. It's rather similar to my attitude to writing. In both writing and photography I was encouraged at an early age to suppose I had talent, that I might one day become a writer or a photographer. In my twenties I discovered that I was good at mastering the crafts but had nothing special I wanted to say. Over the decades I improved my skills, sold the occasional article, got paid for the occasional photographic assignment, and was invited occasionally to feature in small local exhibitions. I spent a lot more on my gear than I ever earned with it, however :)

I'm interested in what constitutes photographic art, but I have no artistic pretensions. I like to take good representational photographs of things I find interesting. I regard myself as a kind of thematic technically minded photojournalist. I like the problem solving aspect of photography. When I find something I want to photograph I like to take my time over it, think about viewpoints, composition, lighting. I have a scientifically minded pedant's liking for informative illustration. I seem to have developed a particular interest in spatial architecture, buildings, cityscapes, civil engineering, staircases, bridges, roadworks.

Pookeyhead said:
(in reply to my claim that better gear can make a shot more interesting)

I have not considered that, no... I've never seen your work. You could be right. I'd like to see how though. I can't imagine how gear, tripods etc. can make it more interesting.
Click to expand...

It can make it possible to take the shot in the first place. A simple example is lifting the camera several feet overhead in order to see over pedestrian barriers, the heads of a crowd, and so on. I also sometimes fail to get the shot I wanted because of some failure in skill or gear which means that the best I can get is an interesting postcard sized print. It would be a more interesting image in an A3 print, but going to that size reveals annoying noise, camera shake blur, pixellation artefcts, and so on. Then there's all the gear involved in studio lighting. Rembrandt's use of lighting in portraits is much discussed in painting textbooks, which suggests to me that his lighting is a relevant component of the artistic interest of his paintings. The "Rembrandt" lighting effects in studio photography are a well worn cliche in art college studio portrait photography courses, which suggests to me that studio lighting equipment and effects are of artistic interest in photography as well as painting.

Pookeyhead said:
Technically better perhaps, which is often good I agree... but the interest comes from what you shoot, and why you shoot it surely.. not from the gear used.
Click to expand...

That depends on who's looking at it. For the art critic at a photographic exhibition the interest is in the subject and context, the art critical narrative that can be derived from comparing it with similar work by other artists, with previous work by this artist, and so on. A fellow art photographer, perhaps a colleague or competitor, will in addition have technical interests, such as checking the reflections in the eyes of a studio portrait to see what kinds of lighting the photographer used.
Pookeyhead said:
I suppose there's an exception to this if you rely on special techniques or practices... in which case I would agree with you completely. Not seen your work though... does it rely on any special techniques? If so, is it the technique itself that's interesting, or does the technique add to my reading of the subject in some way?
Click to expand...

I do rely on special techniques. For example, I like to shoot portraits of flowers in their natural conditions, in the wild, in gardens, in greenhouses, etc.. Sometimes the light is poor, so I'll supplement it, with a reflector, an LED panel, or a flash. Sometimes the wind makes the flower swing about too much. I have a special flower steadying clamp which attaches to my tripod. From the point of view of the public this is uninteresting nerdy technicalities, to someone new to taking flower portraits these are interesting special techniques, but to a dedicated flower photographer they're the usual everyday stuff you have in your bag. How special does a technique have to be before it counts as special enough to be interesting? I argue that "special enough" depends too much on person, purpose, and context, for that question to be sensibly answerable in general.

I do agree with you that the interest does not derive from the gear, but from the subject and why I shot it. But that does not mean, or imply, that the gear is not of any interest, merely that it's secondary, contributory, and not necessarily essential. For example, cameras have a limited dynamic range, such as 12 stops, and a good quality photographic print a lot less, such as 7 stops if well lit, more like 5 in an averagely poorly lit exhibition. There are subjects, such as shooting from under a deeply shadowed bridge out into bright sunlight, where the dynamic range the photographer wishes to capture is more than even the camera can manage, say 16 stops. Back in the early days of film landscape photography some photographers preferred to use lenses with some bubbles in the glass to lower the contrast of the image to bring high contrast views within range of the camera. Dodging and burning during enlargement exposure brought the higher dynamic range of the film within range of the paper. Blending two different exposures handled cases where the dynamic range exceeded what the camera and film could do.

None of those techniques were of interest to the public visiting an exhibition of landscape photography. Nerdy technicalities. Some of it would have been of interest to fellow photographers, but just like some of the techniques of the Old Masters Hockney has rediscovered and described in "Secret Knowledge" some of it was considered by the artist to be a trade secret best kept secret. The fact that a technique is not much discussed, it all, in art history or art critical literature does not mean that it is ipso facto not of any interest or relevance to the artistic worth of the painting or photograph. It might, as Hockney argues in "Secret Knowledge", be of considerable interest and relevance.

Today HDR has got a bad name due to its abuse by the "Wow! Awesome capture!" school of photography. That's why some photographers who use it moderately and naturalistically prefer not to admit to having used it. It's a secret.

In sum I'm arguing that just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is the interest and relevance to the artistic image of the techniques used to produce it. What may not be "special" enough a technique to you to be of artistic interest and relevance may be special enough to another. Gear and technique may often in some contexts not be worth discussing, may be totally irrelevant, but that does not mean that in general gear and technique are of no artistic interest or relevance unless special. Because judgment of "special enough" depends on context, person, context, etc..
 
sirch said:
I don't get all this "is this art?" stuff. If a group of 5 year-olds get up on stage at school with recorders and play a tune, no one asks "is this music?" it might not be good music but it is music.

If I bind some paper with random words on into a book, no one asks "but is this a book?", you might not like the content but it is a book.

Essentially if it is created as art by an artist IT IS ART, it might not be any good, you might not like it. The debate is not about deciding what is art, we get to decide what we like and we get to add weight to the good vs bad debate.
Click to expand...
This kinda^
I don't understand when it comes to art that people who don't understand it feel that they must be the experts o_O. It's like a caveman not admiring a Ferarri because he can't drive and has no concept of what a beautiful machine it is. But then insisting that the owner must be a mug for wanting one, and insisting that his opinion is worth as much as anyone's on the subject. It's ludicrous.

I've been playing with cameras all my adult life, but my opinion of a decent monorail camera is worthless, I've never owned or used one, I have a basic grasp of it's functionality. I'd be an idiot to insist my opinion was worth as much as someone who had 20 years experience using several different models. Yet people who happily admit to knowing f*** all about art insist that they have a valid opinion on the subject anyway. And even when they read this, and it makes so much obvious sense, they'll still feel they're right. :banana:
 
so what you are saying is that art can be a load of rubbish - I get that!
 
chuckles said:
Damn... and I've binned loads like this!
Click to expand...


I never said it was good. :) There's always some howlers in everyone's back catalogue. I think it's weak as a concept, and the imagery doesn't really live up to the promise of the statement. It is art though, because it's led by a concept.. and idea, and been developed to achieve a goal beyond merely recording something for the sake of it. It's trying to make me think something. I just think it fails due to the imagery. It just doesn't do what he says it should be doing very well if you ask me.

BillN_33 said:
so what you are saying is that art can be a load of rubbish - I get that!
Click to expand...

Of course. What have I said in this thread that led you to believe that all art is good art? That's not what he asked me though.
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
so what you are saying is that art can be a load of rubbish - I get that!
Click to expand...
I don't think that's ever been contradicted.

if by 'a load of rubbish', you mean not to your taste
or if by 'a load of rubbish', you mean literally a pile of garbage can be 'art'
or if by 'a load of rubbish', you mean that a pile of art can be discarded

then all of those are possibilities ;)

Alternatively art can also be a thing of great beauty
or something that is to your taste
or something that also has intrinsic value

So good / bad, ugly / beautiful, cheap / expensive, rubbish / worthy they're all possible descriptions of art.

But if you have no interest in art, why would it matter? I have no interest in fishing, which strangely means I never feel the need to go on fishing forums to tell people how pointless their pastime is. ;)

Likewise I don't go into the wildlife or landscape sections to voice my opinion of the work there, I hang around the people section, the business section and the lighting sections, where I hope I can add to the debate and learn about things that matter to me.
 
chris malcolm said:
I'm interested in what constitutes photographic art, but I have no artistic pretensions. I like to take good representational photographs of things I find interesting. I regard myself as a kind of thematic technically minded photojournalist. I like the problem solving aspect of photography. When I find something I want to photograph I like to take my time over it, think about viewpoints, composition, lighting. I have a scientifically minded pedant's liking for informative illustration. I seem to have developed a particular interest in spatial architecture, buildings, cityscapes, civil engineering, staircases, bridges, roadworks.
Click to expand...

As I see it, all those qualities neither do, or do not make what you produce art. They're just ways of doing things. The art (assuming we're not discussing decorative art, which I think we've ruled out already) really comes from the concept and the reason for taking it, and how you then represent the subject and disseminate it.


chris malcolm said:
It can make it possible to take the shot in the first place. A simple example is lifting the camera several feet overhead in order to see over pedestrian barriers, the heads of a crowd, and so on. I also sometimes fail to get the shot I wanted because of some failure in skill or gear which means that the best I can get is an interesting postcard sized print. It would be a more interesting image in an A3 print, but going to that size reveals annoying noise, camera shake blur, pixellation artefcts, and so on.
Click to expand...

Surely any camera can be held overhead though, and anything from around 10MP upwards can produce a A3 print. I've shot stuff on 10MP cameras and printed at A3 before.


chris malcolm said:
Then there's all the gear involved in studio lighting. Rembrandt's use of lighting in portraits is much discussed in painting textbooks, which suggests to me that his lighting is a relevant component of the artistic interest of his paintings. The "Rembrandt" lighting effects in studio photography are a well worn cliche in art college studio portrait photography courses, which suggests to me that studio lighting equipment and effects are of artistic interest in photography as well as painting.
Click to expand...

A cliché in college courses? Really? :)

Rembrandt used daylight... so can you :) You don't need studio lighting for Rembrandt lighting if you want to do that Again though... Rembrandt lighting is just a technique, and has no bearing on whether an image is art. You can still take a load of meaningless rubbish with Rembrandt lighting.



chris malcolm said:
For the art critic at a photographic exhibition the interest is in the subject and context, the art critical narrative that can be derived from comparing it with similar work by other artists, with previous work by this artist, and so on. A fellow art photographer, perhaps a colleague or competitor, will in addition have technical interests, such as checking the reflections in the eyes of a studio portrait to see what kinds of lighting the photographer used.
Click to expand...

What kind of photographic exhibition are we talking about here. At camera club level I doubt it will be an art critic. An art critic at an exhibition would probably not really be too concerned with technical stuff like reflections in eyes etc, because it's of no importance to the work's artistic value. I can promise you, a decent art critic will not be looking in reflections to see what lighting ha been used. A decent art critic probably wouldn't know any way. You don't need to be a photographer to judge photography at that level. Some of the most poignant and well celebrated writings on photography were written by non-photographers. The technical really has nothing to do with what makes it art or not.


chris malcolm said:
I do rely on special techniques. For example, I like to shoot portraits of flowers in their natural conditions, in the wild, in gardens, in greenhouses, etc.. Sometimes the light is poor, so I'll supplement it, with a reflector, an LED panel, or a flash. Sometimes the wind makes the flower swing about too much. I have a special flower steadying clamp which attaches to my tripod. From the point of view of the public this is uninteresting nerdy technicalities, to someone new to taking flower portraits these are interesting special techniques, but to a dedicated flower photographer they're the usual everyday stuff you have in your bag. How special does a technique have to be before it counts as special enough to be interesting? I argue that "special enough" depends too much on person, purpose, and context, for that question to be sensibly answerable in general.
Click to expand...

I see what you're getting at, but ultimately non of that effects whether it is art or not. You're just discussing techniques. More in keeping with the original thread subject though, these are valued photography skills that extend beyond the camera itself, and are the type of things that DO add value to an image, and the things that can not be automated. In that respect, I agree with what you're saying. These are the skills that automated camera will never replace: The creative use of technique to achieve results outside of the camera.

chris malcolm said:
I do agree with you that the interest does not derive from the gear, but from the subject and why I shot it. But that does not mean, or imply, that the gear is not of any interest, merely that it's secondary, contributory, and not necessarily essential.
Click to expand...

It's not really of any interest to the viewer though. It;s interesting to you as the creator of the image, and it MAY be interesting to another technical minded photographer, but it's not really going to be of interest to anyone else. Do you only show your work to other photographers?



chris malcolm said:
None of those techniques were of interest to the public visiting an exhibition of landscape photography. Nerdy technicalities. Some of it would have been of interest to fellow photographers, but just like some of the techniques of the Old Masters Hockney has rediscovered and described in "Secret Knowledge" some of it was considered by the artist to be a trade secret best kept secret. The fact that a technique is not much discussed, it all, in art history or art critical literature does not mean that it is ipso facto not of any interest or relevance to the artistic worth of the painting or photograph. It might, as Hockney argues in "Secret Knowledge", be of considerable interest and relevance.
Click to expand...

I see the point, but while many artists rely on techniques to develop a way of working, ultimately, art has transgressed that now. As we live in an age that allows almost anyone to produce pretty stunning imagery with not really much effort... perhaps a few month's practice, then then such things are far less valued in contemporary photographic art. Contemporary photography is more concerned about the use the medium is put to, rather than celebrating technical prowess. It's nice when the two come together, but that's not always necessary, or even desired.

chris malcolm said:
Today HDR has got a bad name due to its abuse by the "Wow! Awesome capture!" school of photography. That's why some photographers who use it moderately and naturalistically prefer not to admit to having used it. It's a secret.
Click to expand...

Nah... PROPER HDR has never looked cheesy. It's just that amateurs seem to think tonemapping = HDR when it doesn't. Never mind, Photoshop CC now allows proper HDR processing. I posted a tutorial somewhere on here.. can't remember now. Basically you can not tell it's an HDR unless you look critically and realise that it has captured things that are not really possible. It looks completely normal though.


chris malcolm said:
In sum I'm arguing that just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is the interest and relevance to the artistic image of the techniques used to produce it.
Click to expand...

Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but beauty has nothing to do with art. The interest in the work is subjective too.. as are the techniques used.. to some. However, You can take ultra traditional images of steam trains, and it will be interesting to people who like steam trains, but it doesn't make it art because you can find people who are interested in it. Contemporary conceptual photography requires some kind of enquiry, and use of the medium to study, challenge or discuss something. That's what people who like art also want. The ability to spend some time thinking about the work... sometimes having to put some effort into getting it all straight in your mind. That smack in the face you get from "wow" photography doesn't quite satisfy when you've seen so much of it.




chris malcolm said:
What may not be "special" enough a technique to you to be of artistic interest
Click to expand...

I find no techniques to be of artistic interest because techniques alone have no bearing on a work's artistic value. What you DO with it is what makes artistic interest. A technique is just a technique.
 
Last edited:
Laudrup said:
Why?
Click to expand...


I've explained thoroughly in this thread already, and in post #330

Now can you please tell us why you think it's NOT art?
 
Pookeyhead said:
I've explained thoroughly in this thread already, and in post #330

Now can you please tell us why you think it's NOT art?
Click to expand...

I think I've been following all this (been busy so not easy to capture it all).

So, I'm looking for context, right? I see none :muted: :muted:

Pookeyhead said:
It just doesn't do what he says it should be doing very well if you ask me
Click to expand...

Where does it 'say' what it should be doing?
 
chuckles said:
I think I've been following all this (been busy so not easy to capture it all).

So, I'm looking for context, right? I see none :muted: :muted:
Click to expand...

It's not overly evident, no. Which is why I think it's weak. The statement is clear though. Just not convinced the images do that statement much justice the more I look at it.

Laudrup asked if it's art... not is it good art.



chuckles said:
Where does it 'say' what it should be doing?
Click to expand...

In his statement that's with the image.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
In his statement that's with the image.
Click to expand...

Ah... I was under the impression the 'statement' should be within the image (context - which is how I tried to position it) - it shouldn't need explanation. In that regard I see it as no different than the African/Kenyan image. In fact, that one is more powerful and says Art more than the (albeit declared, weak) Burtynsky ;)
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but beauty has nothing to do with art. The interest in the work is subjective too.. as are the techniques used.. to some. However, You can take ultra traditional images of steam trains, and it will be interesting to people who like steam trains, but it doesn't make it art because you can find people who are interested in it. Contemporary conceptual photography requires some kind of enquiry, and use of the medium to study, challenge or discuss something. That's what people who like art also want. The ability to spend some time thinking about the work... sometimes having to put some effort into getting it all straight in your mind. That smack in the face you get from "wow" photography doesn't quite satisfy when you've seen so much of it.
Click to expand...

Is all this posturing by art-speakers desperate to be taken very seriously with the visual theories and jargon (oh so much jargon) really necessary? Browsing through some I'm sick of it already. Why the insecurity?
 
Laudrup said:
16 years old and this is as relevant today as ever:

http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/art_bollocks.asp
Click to expand...


You're making the assumption however that all artist statements make no sense, or are designed to beguile. What about the ones that just simply explain what's what. That arty b****x too?

This one is better though :)

http://www.artybollocks.com/


The fact is, I don't think you're actually read enough artist statements to actually know a good one from a bad one.

Laudrup said:
Is all this posturing by art-speakers desperate to be taken very seriously with the visual theories and jargon (oh so much jargon) really necessary? Browsing through some I'm sick of it already. Why the insecurity?
Click to expand...

Explain insecurity.
 
Last edited:
The vast majority of statements simply just explain what's going on. Many are written in a register of language that is tailored to an audience, but then again, all industries have a register of language... legal, scientific, botanic... nothing new there. The fact is, some people are just too thick to understand them.

I do agree that some are just arty b****x though... I'll happily give you that. They usually accompany pretty dire examples of art though... or undergraduate work desperate to try and play a game they don't quite get yet.

Personally I write mine in plain English. I don't see why art should alienate people.
 
personally ever since i was a student I've been fascinated by the exploration of writing utter crap, with influences as diverse as Thomas Hardy to the Tory party manifesto my work travels from the conceptual to the mundane and provides a counter point to the paradigm of insecurity that transcends our modern times
 
big soft moose said:
personally ever since i was a student I've been fascinated by the exploration of writing utter crap, with influences as diverse as Thomas Hardy to the Tory party manifesto my work travels from the conceptual to the mundane and provides a counter point to the paradigm of insecurity that transcends our modern times
Click to expand...


That http://www.artybollocks.com/ ? or home grown? :)
 
nah that was my own work - all beit inspired by the arty b*****ks meme

Joking aside I tend to subscribe to the view that a photo thats intended to transmit a message should do so through its own visual power not by accompanying text
 
big soft moose said:
nah that was my own work - all beit inspired by the arty b*****ks meme

Joking aside I tend to subscribe to the view that a photo thats intended to transmit a message should do so through its own visual power not by accompanying text
Click to expand...

No... I disagree. A nice landscape needs no words, no. Not everything is that simple though.

Using something of my own as an example,

View attachment 40378

I really think that needs some words to fully explain it. I don;'t think the work has a problem because of that.
 
definitely

but it doesnt speak to me as a photo with meaning
 
....furthermore.. does it take anything away from the image if you do understand the meaning AFTER reading the words?
 
On the subject of the presence/absence of statements, I always liked this famous image:

sternfeld.pumpkin1.jpg


I don't know if I consider it art or not. It's an interesting image on a few levels. As far as I'm aware it has been offered with no statement by the photographer. There is an immediate reading of the scene which seems dramatic and maybe even shocking. Then if you know what's really going on it becomes sort of humorous because your initial shock is subverted (isn't that how most humour works). But I'm not sure if the photographer left out a statement in order to mislead (in which case it would not be art in my mind) or if it was done with an honest smirk, knowing how the viewers' initial reactions could be subverted by further understanding (in which case I would say it's a great example of art). As far as I'm aware the photographer has, when questioned, been completely upfront about the reality of the scene when asked (but I could be wrong); so I tend to lean to the latter interpretation. The image wouldn't really work with a statement, the viewers need to find the punchline themselves.

*Mods: I've posted the image under the understanding that fair commentary presents no copyright issues, but I won't be offended if you want to change the image to a link.
 
Last edited:
Ahhh... Mr Sternfeld. No.. that one needs no words, no.

I don't think it's a better image than one that does though. It's just different. Good documentary images sometimes need no words.

Words and images can be a powerful combination. As I posted earlier... the "A picture speaks a thousands words" argument is a double edged sword.
 
something like
Pookeyhead said:
Why not? Maybe it's because I've not given you the words yet?
Click to expand...

if it needs the words to speak - then its not doing its job as a photo to convey meaning (IMO of course)
 
Pookeyhead said:
Ahhh... Mr Sternfeld. No.. that one needs no words, no.

I don't think it's a better image than one that does though. It's just different. Good documentary images sometimes need no words.

Words and images can be a powerful combination. As I posted earlier... the "A picture speaks a thousands words" argument is a double edged sword.
Click to expand...
It's not a good documentary image, though, because most people's direct reading of what the image portrays is incorrect. Intentionally so, I think. But it is, to my mind, a great image.
 
simonblue said:
Some believe because they have a camera they are artists,some believe they are just photographer :)
Click to expand...

Some, yes.

Most people who decry art are just fearful of it though... or don't understand it, or are jealous of it. Some genuinely don't give a s**t. Peopel are people.

My advice is.. if you don't have any truck with art, then get the truck out and leave it to those that do. We don't turn up at your camera club and start trying to throw our weight around do we?


big soft moose said:
something like


if it needs the words to speak - then its not doing its job as a photo to convey meaning (IMO of course)
Click to expand...

Sorry... but that's just a very narrow minded view, and one that limits the potential of photography. You speak as if words and image have no business interacting. Words and pictures together can be very powerful, more powerful than either alone could ever be. Do you deny this is possible?
 
big soft moose said:
something like


if it needs the words to speak - then its not doing its job as a photo to convey meaning (IMO of course)
Click to expand...
What meaning does the image of the house burning while the fireman buys pumpkins convey?
I think this one is strange because it DOES need explanation to work, but, also, for it to work the artist cannot provide them.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Sorry... but that's just a very narrow minded view, and one that limits the potential of photography. You speak as if words and image have no business interacting. Words and pictures together can be very powerful, more powerful than either alone could ever be. Do you deny this is possible?
Click to expand...

no I agree that words and pictures can have a synergistic effect when they both have latent power , but if one is worthless without the other it might as well not exist as it brings nothing to the 'partnership'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top