Can you claim to be a great photographer when using modern high tech gear ?

One problem with 'the art world' that might not endear it to the general public is that a big part or offshoot of it has a commercial intent, even when the art itself might be serious, but the focus on the real meaning of anything gets befuddled. The trouble with commerce is that it's indiscriminate - it's just about selling. An art curator has a job that presumably they'd like to keep, so they're going to talk up what they've got or can get ... and yes a culture of gibberish arises.

You've always got to fight your own way through the defecatory stuff.

To me, if it reads as gobbledegook, it most likely is. But then one person's gobbledegook is another's sense - it depends where your thresholds are.
 
Last edited:
I've been considering some of Justin's comments about the prison camp images overnight. There was a picture of barbed wire with the background hidden in bokeh, about which he was becoming angry in the video due to what he perceived as trying to prettify the setting. Now for me, hiding stuff in bokeh is often a way of introducing mystery and reducing the elements of an image to make it more focussed and graphic - my reading of the image was that MK was applying his style of reducing a scene to its graphic parts while inviting the viewer to wonder about what lay beyond the wire. Justin likes images that are cluttered - sometimes overfilled - with stuff, and the photos of his own that he showed were similarly full of stuff. I wonder if he is someone that can't see beyond what's actually in a picture, and if it doesn't contain stuff then his own imagination is unable to supply whats missing?

Just a thought from someone who was recently called a literalist. ;)
 
ancient_mariner said:
I've been considering some of Justin's comments about the prison camp images overnight. There was a picture of barbed wire with the background hidden in bokeh, about which he was becoming angry in the video due to what he perceived as trying to prettify the setting. Now for me, hiding stuff in bokeh is often a way of introducing mystery and reducing the elements of an image to make it more focussed and graphic - my reading of the image was that MK was applying his style of reducing a scene to its graphic parts while inviting the viewer to wonder about what lay beyond the wire. Justin likes images that are cluttered - sometimes overfilled - with stuff, and the photos of his own that he showed were similarly full of stuff. I wonder if he is someone that can't see beyond what's actually in a picture, and if it doesn't contain stuff then his own imagination is unable to supply whats missing?

Just a thought from someone who was recently called a literalist. ;)
Click to expand...
The problem I have with the Kenna pictures of the death camp is (I think as Jones) with the visual aesthetic. They share a visual appeal with all his other picture, one which is slick. They're less about the death camps than Kenna's 'look' to my eyes. Kenna's look trumps his subjects every time. And that can become simple commercialism. Keep giving the punters what they expect. I wonder if there's a Kenna filter available on smart phones? If not he should get on the case!

I say 'look' as opposed to 'style' because I think a look is something based on technique. A 'style' is more about choice of subject and ways of framing than technical decisions. That's the way I think of it at any rate. Although there is probably a grey area.
 
Interesting read.

Could ask the same question about artists who use ready made paints, prestretched canvases, off the shelf brushes and so on. The artist still has to use the materials to make a great painting. Still needs to decide what the subject is going to be and how to capture the image they want to create.

If someone is creating truly great images, the set of tools they use to do that is academic. I don't think anyone looking at a rubbish image are going to say, well 'he' must still be a great artist because he grinds his own pigments and weaves his own canvas.
 
I have been cogitating on this and I think that this whole debate really boils down to the age-old art/craft debate. In fact I’d go further than that on reflection, and say that most, if not all of the “tensions” around discussing art in a photographic context on this forum essentially stem from the art/craft debate.

I suppose where I am coming from is for example, people often describe a custom car or a Samurai sword as a work of art but the art-world would describe those things as craft and that seems to be where things start to break down. Perhaps because of making this distinction, which goes against the common-sense view held by a lot of people, the art-world are branded as intellectual, high-brow and even sneering; I really don’t think they are or that that is their intent but it is may be how they come across.

In terms of photography, this debate and the video linked above, I am wondering if the Tomas Heaton type works are “craft” photographs, they are about the process and technique, an appreciation of the effort involved and a beautiful finished product. On the other hand the “art” photographs tend to use photography as a medium to convey a message, here the subject, emotion, message are what is important and the camera and photographic skill take a back seat to the meaning of the image.

For me there is plenty of room for both, I enjoy and appreciate a wide range of crafts and I enjoy the craft of photography, the gear, the lighting, the effort involved and I also enjoy and appreciate some photographic art. When considering the art I can put aside my craft photography sensibilities about sharpness and exposure and blown skies and look for the message that the artist wanted to convey and appreciate the image in a different way.

All that said, some of my favourite photographs are by Gregory Crewdson and that is perhaps because for me he successfully combines both worlds.
 
sirch said:
I am wondering if the Tomas Heaton type works are “craft” photographs
Click to expand...
Yes, they are hardly art! Art tells you something new, provokes you. His pics are just wallpaper.

This isn't just about photography - go up and down the country and you'll see little art galleries even in smallish towns and they'll be selling watercolour landscapes that all look the same - they're 'comfort food'.
 
Last edited:
At work I often have to hand my camera to novice interns (who have done photography at college) and they almost always struggle with it (D850) let alone produce decent pictures. Does that answer the question?
 
droj said:
Yes, they are hardly art! Art tells you something new, provokes you. His pics are just wallpaper.

This isn't just about photography - go up and down the country and you'll see little art galleries even in smallish towns and they'll be selling watercolour landscapes that all look the same - they're 'comfort food'.
Click to expand...

And it's probably that kind of dismissive attitude that causes the arguments and puts the art-world in a terrible light
 
It's not an 'attitude', I'm stating facts! If you are in denial about that, it's your problem not mine.
 
Having never eaten a watercolour landscape I can't comment on how comforting they are as food.
 
BADGER.BRAD said:
A random question really but if using the modern high tech camera with all it auto functions do you feel you can claim to have taken a great photo when the camera has done some of the work for you ? Is photography now just down to composition ? Would you say a photographer achieving a great result using a vintage film or glass plate camera is a better photographer as he has to judge light thus shutter speed aperture and focus ?

No shouting please
Click to expand...
Has it really?
I have to decide what needs to be in focus, the camera may be an aid in achieving said focus but not necessarily
I have to decide what part of the scene to expose for and if I want +/- compensation. The camera may give me some values that will work but not necessarily
I have to decide if I want a shallow DOF or not and If I need the shutterspeed to be fast, slow or if it doesn't matter
The camera cant tell if Im photographing a black cat in front of a white wall, A cyclist where I want to blur the background or a dancer Where I want sharp and soft to mix, when my kid slams his showel into the puddle of water and if I want all the droplets to be rendered pinsharp, if I want the picture to be painted with a flashlight or or or
When is the light just perfect for the mood I want my pic to show? Do I need a polarizer?
Etc. etc. etc.
 
Trouble with art is that it has no clear boundaries whereas craft does. That's art in the pure sense - In Victorian times, say, art was often a synonym for craft - these days, that's something of a legacy meaning. Craft is a foundation of art, not vice-versa.
 
soeren said:
I have to decide what needs to be in focus, the camera may be an aid in achieving said focus but not necessarily
I have to decide what part of the scene to expose for and if I want +/- compensation. The camera may give me some values that will work but not necessarily
I have to decide if I want a shallow DOF or not and If I need the shutterspeed to be fast, slow or if it doesn't matter
The camera cant tell if Im photographing a black cat in front of a white wall, A cyclist where I want to blur the background or a dancer Where I want sharp and soft to mix, when my kid slams his showel into the puddle of water and if I want all the droplets to be rendered pinsharp, if I want the picture to be painted with a flashlight or or or
When is the light just perfect for the mood I want my pic to show?
Click to expand...
Yes - all of this, which is outside any discussion of art / craft.
 
Last edited:
droj said:
Yes, they are hardly art! Art tells you something new, provokes you. His pics are just wallpaper.

This isn't just about photography - go up and down the country and you'll see little art galleries even in smallish towns and they'll be selling watercolour landscapes that all look the same - they're 'comfort food'.
Click to expand...

Would you consider Constable's landscape paintings art? I'm not comparing Heaton to Constable, I'm just curious as to whether you feel that they tell you something new or provoke you in any way in order to qualify as art by your definition
 
BADGER.BRAD said:
A random question really but if using the modern high tech camera with all it auto functions do you feel you can claim to have taken a great photo when the camera has done some of the work for you ? Is photography now just down to composition ? Would you say a photographer achieving a great result using a vintage film or glass plate camera is a better photographer as he has to judge light thus shutter speed aperture and focus ?

No shouting please
Click to expand...
i the modern age are there any great drivers / chefs (because they make amazing pots pans and cookers these day), or for that matter any thing where there is a linkage between person and machine / equipment?
 
Mumbles said:
Would you consider Constable's landscape paintings art? I'm not comparing Heaton to Constable, I'm just curious as to whether you feel that they tell you something new or provoke you in any way in order to qualify as art by your definition
Click to expand...
If it was produced now, then possibly not. However, at the time it was produced then it almost certainly did have a message which the artist wished to get across. That made it art and now it is part of art history (so qualifies on that level).
 
Last edited:
Mumbles said:
Would you consider Constable's landscape paintings art?
Click to expand...
Yes but they are quite historic now (still valid, though) - and it wouldn't be art to copy them. Copying is craft, not art.

Sorry Brian, I must've been typing as you were posting.
 
Last edited:
Back when I worked for Systime (a computer company) I thought their MK10 VDU board was a work of art (it was IMO gorgeous to look at) and I think it was actually exhibited somewhere... so I can definitely see how craft veers in art and IMO that's even more true with items more obviously made to look at, touch, hear or taste. What others think is to a large extent irrelevant and the debate will go on forever but it's my wall / sideboard / mantlepiece and I'll decide what's displayed on it :D but I wouldn't give a pickled shark or an unmade bed viewing room.
 
woof woof said:
I thought their MK10 VDU board was a work of art (it was IMO gorgeous to look at) and I think it was actually exhibited somewhere... so I can definitely see how craft veers in art and IMO that's even more true with items more obviously made to look at, touch, hear or taste
Click to expand...
To be decorative alone isn't true art - art must have meaning to be worthy of the term. And neither should it be judged by the same criteria as something that's merely decorative. An artist is not an artiste.
 
Last edited:
And a PS to that...

Is a cave painting "Art"? Was it created to be a piece of art or was it meant to be a depiction of a hunt for training purposes? I think the "meaning" aspect is pretty useless as a deciding factor or even a contributing factor as each person viewing must make their own mind up. I might see art are where drog sees a tool that has no meaning in any artistic sense and even if it's nice to look at it's therefore not art. I suppose the intent of the creator is one classification but I don't see an unmade bad as any art I'm interested in or give any value to.
 
woof woof said:
A MK10 (or anything else) may have zero meaning to you but I'd say you lack insight and vision.
Click to expand...
I didn't say that the MK10 couldn't be art, Alan! Not since Duchamp showed a urinal, etc.

Oh - cave paintings, very much so. The ones I've seen pictures of have been marvellously expressive distillations - still masterful after thousands of years.
 
Last edited:
droj said:
To be decorative alone isn't true art - art must have meaning to be worthy of the term. And neither should it be judged by the same criteria as something that's merely decorative. An artist is not an artiste.
Click to expand...

Who gets to be the judge of whether a piece of work has meaning or not though? The creator of the work themselves? You? Me? A gallery curator? What if the meaning isn't obvious to you but I can find some meaning in it? That would make it art to me but not to you. I think your definition of art is too narrow and fraught with problems in using it to define what is art.
 
Mumbles said:
Who gets to be the judge of whether a piece of work has meaning or not though? The creator of the work themselves? You? Me? A gallery curator? What if the meaning isn't obvious to you but I can find some meaning in it? That would make it art to me but not to you. I think your definition of art is too narrow and fraught with problems in using it to define what is art.
Click to expand...
As I said, the boundary of what is and what isn't art is diffuse - the edges of the category are blurred, and that's in its nature. I'd say that we largely intuit what is or isn't art, though reason may also be employed. And for a given work, a consensus might arise that supercedes individual subjectivity. Note that you have to have a certain sensibility to be capable of making the judgement though, and the judgement to be valid should also be free of commercial taint.
 
Last edited:
droj said:
Not art as I know it. Low grade commercial art at best. Embarrassingly gruesome, actually, and very lightweight.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps you don't have "a certain sensibility to be capable of making the judgement" :)
 
droj said:
I find that an astounding remark. Especially on a photography forum!
Click to expand...
I agree . Does he just format the card before he goes anywhere near a computer or just leave the card out of the camera altogether
 
woof woof said:
And a PS to that...

Is a cave painting "Art"? Was it created to be a piece of art or was it meant to be a depiction of a hunt for training purposes? I think the "meaning" aspect is pretty useless as a deciding factor or even a contributing factor as each person viewing must make their own mind up. I might see art are where drog sees a tool that has no meaning in any artistic sense and even if it's nice to look at it's therefore not art. I suppose the intent of the creator is one classification but I don't see an unmade bad as any art I'm interested in or give any value to.
Click to expand...
Cave paintings art? Naah they were sketches made in the morning when planning the hunt of the day. :)
 
And this is why discussion on art almost always fail on here, because the people who want to discuss it aren't allowed to do so without others coming on and dismissing the whole thing as crap. The reverse rarely, if ever happens. It is very unusual for those who would be interested in art discussions telling those who produce decorative work that it is pointless, while the opposite happens virtually every time.
 
Bythesea said:
telling those who produce decorative work that it is pointless
Click to expand...
It need not be pointless, but it remains just ... decorative.

Art is available to all, but for some reason those who can't understand it are easily threatened by it and sometimes have to make a noise in response.

soeren said:
Cave paintings art?
Click to expand...
Tongue in cheek, Soeren? They're superb art, wish I could do half as well.
 
Bythesea said:
And this is why discussion on art almost always fail on here, because the people who want to discuss it aren't allowed to do so without others coming on and dismissing the whole thing as crap. The reverse rarely, if ever happens. It is very unusual for those who would be interested in art discussions telling those who produce decorative work that it is pointless, while the opposite happens virtually every time.
Click to expand...
If that one was aimed at me. What definitions of art has been discussed here?
Was one of them intent, artistic intent?
What if those cave paintings was just sketches made in planning or describing a hunt or..... Are they still art?
Is the definition not in the eye of the beholder? Eg the MK10 thing. Functionality design beauty combined into........ a work of art. The everyday stuff made/designed in a way that makes you stop, wonder, think, reflect see and see new perspectives, possibilities.
If something moves me, take its place in my mind, make me stop look and wonder no art expert shall tell me it's not art, that it's to trivial or not of good enough quality I say it's art.
The cave paintings? I got a story out of them. They made me think how why what, were they a story or the schematics made when planning the big hunt. So does it matter?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
droj said:
It need not be pointless, but it remains just ... decorative.

Art is available to all, but for some reason those who can't understand it are easily threatened by it and sometimes have to make a noise in response.


Tongue in cheek, Soeren? They're superb art, wish I could do half as well.
Click to expand...
It's just that caves are so hard to come by ;)
 
droj said:
I answered the question. Does honesty hurt?
Click to expand...

No, I was just making a point in a lighthearted way, that art is entirely subjective, it really is in the eye of the beholder because it's about an emotional response that anyone can have to a piece of work, like woof woof's MK10 for example. Your comment about requiring a certain sensibility just reeks of elitism, as if only certain people are able to determine what is art and what is not.
 
droj said:
I find that an astounding remark. Especially on a photography forum!
Click to expand...

........you may find it extraordinary but the hobby of photography interests different people in different ways.

I work with Motorsports as a day job and love the physics/mechanical engineering of the sport, however cars and driving have absolutely no interest to me whatsoever; so much so that i always say to people that if I won the lottery rather than choose a car I would hire a chauffeur to drive me about.

Physics and mechanical engineering are what excites me; admiring the craftsmanship and working out what makes things work and how they work holds a fascination. I love watches; in their purest sense the watch only tells the time, just like pressing the shutter button records an image, but take the back off a nice mechanical watch and I could sit for hours just staring at it and appreciating what is happening in there and how parts have been designed/engineered to work together to 'tell the time'.

Ed Sutton said:
Hmm. Well. Not everyone wants to make pretty postcard pictures.:exit:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdaxV2ieZgY
Click to expand...

See, to me it was at this point the thread became a complete 'turn off'. In no way is this a criticism of the post/poster as I can clearly see why to others, who are interested in photography, would find it very interesting but I really just don't 'get it'.

Likewise your posts, again I am not being in anyway critical of them and anyone who spends the time to reply in such a thoughtful way should be applauded for their contributions but I really just can't make sense of what you are trying to say/convey - it is, as you say; 'gobbledegook'.

I'm a firm believer that certain people have an 'arty' brain and others have a 'scientific brain' with an overlap in the middle. I remember I was s*** at English Literature at school and hated it; in my 'O Level' exam I distinctly remember a question 'What thoughts do you think the author was trying to convey in this passage and what do you think he was thinking about in writing it?' My reaction was 'what a f*****g stupid question - I don't know, I wasn't there; he could have been thinking about shagging his wife for all I know!' (.........and wrote those exact words on the exam paper - I got an F in that subject).

I don't know......in my brain 2+2 = 4; it either has to be right or wrong. I hate objective answers that are neither right or wrong but the 'feelings' of a person.

Please don't take this the wrong way @droj - it really isn't meant to be 'having a go at you' - your posts clearly convey to me I haven't got the slightest artistic bone in my body and hence, as long as the final image is well exposed, composed well, and in focus I consider the image to be successful; if I had lots of fun getting to that image then all the more enjoyment for me out of my photography :)

droj said:
The main dialogue is about purpose and integrity ...
Click to expand...

droj said:
One problem with 'the art world' that might not endear it to the general public is that a big part or offshoot of it has a commercial intent, even when the art itself might be serious, but the focus on the real meaning of anything gets befuddled. The trouble with commerce is that it's indiscriminate - it's just about selling. An art curator has a job that presumably they'd like to keep, so they're going to talk up what they've got or can get ... and yes a culture of gibberish arises.

You've always got to fight your own way through the defecatory stuff.

To me, if it reads as gobbledegook, it most likely is. But then one person's gobbledegook is another's sense - it depends where your thresholds are.
Click to expand...

droj said:
Trouble with art is that it has no clear boundaries whereas craft does. That's art in the pure sense - In Victorian times, say, art was often a synonym for craft - these days, that's something of a legacy meaning. Craft is a foundation of art, not vice-versa.
Click to expand...

droj said:
To be decorative alone isn't true art - art must have meaning to be worthy of the term. And neither should it be judged by the same criteria as something that's merely decorative. An artist is not an artiste.
Click to expand...

droj said:
As I said, the boundary of what is and what isn't art is diffuse - the edges of the category are blurred, and that's in its nature. I'd say that we largely intuit what is or isn't art, though reason may also be employed. And for a given work, a consensus might arise that supercedes individual subjectivity. Note that you have to have a certain sensibility to be capable of making the judgement though, and the judgement to be valid should also be free of commercial taint.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top