Whatever happened to Camera-craft?

[Pookeyhead]

Individually they are just simple shots (but still well taken) but as a set they work , and collectively do provide a hook to pull people into the blurb - that being the intriguing question of why someone has taken a load of shoes - the blurb then works by providing a sensible answer.... if the blurb instead went off on the well worn track of "ever since I was a student i've been fascinated by the paradigm of human existence"... it wouldn't work as it would just be pretentious drivel instead of an intelligent answer to the question the set poses. (and while anyone could have taken the shots the vision to see them as a way of telling a poignant story isn't something anyone could have come up with)

Now you're getting there .... So essentially you do indeed recognise that what makes a great set, or a great photograph, or a great story, or even.... ready for this?... great ART, is not necessarily the visible craft skills on display at all, but the purpose the images have been put to. Yes?

What i mean by polishing a turd is where you get a weak shot with no particular merit and the "artist" trying to use the tired drivel route as a way of explaining that the reason his work is out of focus and badly exposed is because you know art yah... not because hes a crap photographer or anything.

You need to recognise that the best statements are in plain English, and just explain the work. "ever since I was a student i've been fascinated by the paradigm of human existence" doesn't even make sense as a sentence, so I'm sure you'd never actually see it unless the following sentence explained what that paradigm indeed was. There is a real tendency in these threads to trot out the most absurd examples of bad art, and bad explanations of that art as somehow representative of what contemporary photography is all about. Sure, you get arty-b******s statements... so what? There's good and bad examples of everything.. from art to birds on twigs. So long as we have a yardstick to measure it by, all is well. The dissonance comes about when people who don't have the yardstick try to be art critics because on occasion, they simply don't understand the register of language used. Art is an academic process to some, and if you're the type who spends most of their time reading Derrida instead of Practical Photography, you're bound to use a certain turn of phrase. It's no different from lawyers speaking legal mumbo jumbo to the man in the street, or a theoretical physicist doing the same.

I think a great deal of artist statements are derided without having them read properly because the language is a barrier to some. It's for this reason I rarely use anything other than plain English. I've never been that bothered about playing that game though, and while I can use a specific register of language to engage one audience, I believe you can do so without alienating another.

 

[big soft moose]

Now you're getting there .... So essentially you do indeed recognise that what makes a great set, or a great photograph, or a great story, or even.... ready for this?... great ART, is not necessarily the visible craft skills on display at all, but the purpose the images have been put to.

Possibly - although for something to be great rather than mediocre requires skills as well as purpose of vision - if you look at the shoes although it looks simple all are shot from the same angle, with a consistency of lighting and exposure, all have sufficient Dof to be sharp, and are not suffering from camera wobble etc ... ie this was not the work of a chimp with a P&S so craft skills were important too.

End of the day someone with only wonderful techical skills or only wonderful artistic vision is limited in their capacity to deliver, you need both to create great art

 

[ghoti]

What i mean by polishing a turd is where you get a weak shot with no particular merit and the "artist" trying to use the tired drivel route as a way of explaining that the reason his work is out of focus and badly exposed is because you know art yah... not because hes a crap photographer or anything.

I don't see that you're arguing against anyone here. I think you're arguing against a position you've created yourself.
Nobody is saying everything presented as art is good or worthwhile. Attaching a deeper meaning to a work might make it art (if done earnestly) but not all art is good and I don't think anyone is saying it is. Yes, there's lots of garbage art.

It's not "art good; pretty pictures bad". They're two different things and not really comparable. The problem is that some people who aren't interested in art (nothing at all wrong with that) seem to react badly to anyone who says they're not altogether turned on by looking at pretty landscape pictures (or whatever). Like if you say the photography of Lik doesn't interest you and you'd rather investigate stuff with more substance then you're a pompous charlatan.

 

[ghoti]

Some people love looking at dramatic landscapes and get some fulfilment from that, others don't find them fulfilling. Neither party is necessarily wrong or better informed.

 

[big soft moose]

Attaching a deeper meaning to a work might make it art

nope - shooting a work with the intent to show deeper meaning yes , but shooting a crap shot then later attempting to attach a deeper meaning doesn't make it art

It's not "art good; pretty pictures bad". They're two different things and not really comparable. The problem is that some people who aren't interested in art (nothing at all wrong with that) seem to react badly to anyone who says they're not altogether turned on by looking at pretty landscape pictures (or whatever). Like if you say the photography of Lik doesn't interest you and you'd rather investigate stuff with more substance then you're a pompous charlatan.

The problem in my view is a) the conceit that pretty pictures arent art , and b) therefore condemning people like Lik as not being artists just because their work is pretty (although to be fair i'm not that enamoured of the Lik shot - Joe Cornish's Antelope Canyon is imo substantially superior). Not all art has to have a worthy (and wordy) meaning some just speaks for itself.

 

[big soft moose]

Some people love looking at dramatic landscapes and get some fulfilment from that, others don't find them fulfilling. Neither party is necessarily wrong or better informed.

life would be very boring if we were all the same

 

[ghoti]

nope - shooting a work with the intent to show deeper meaning yes , but shooting a crap shot then later attempting to attach a deeper meaning doesn't make it art

I'd agree to an extent. That's why I added "if done earnestly".
But you have to give the benefit of the doubt. If it seems like hastily cobbled together, ill-conceived nonsense then nobody is saying you can't dismiss it as crap.

 

[Steve Smith]

I think a great deal of artist statements are derided without having them read properly because the language is a barrier to some.

I like reading the artists' statements in galleries. They are often an art in themselves.

And why do 90% of them state that the artist is exploring/experimenting with line, colour and form?


Steve.

 

[Ed Sutton]

And why do 90% of them state that the artist is exploring/experimenting with line, colour and form?

Because the other 10% are interrogating them.

Can anyone tell me when artist statements became de rigueur?

 

[big soft moose]

this is from a real artists statement - not the arty b*****ks generator

My artwork takes a critical view of social, political and cultural issues. In my work, I deconstruct the American dream, fairy tales, nursery rhymes, and lullabies that are part of our childhood and adult culture. Having engaged subjects as diverse as the civil rights movement, southern rock music and modernist architecture, my work reproduces familiar visual signs, arranging them into new conceptually layered pieces.

you what ?

He continues

Often times these themes are combined into installations that feature mundane domestic objects painted blue, juxtaposed with whimsical objects, and often embellished with stenciled text. The color blue establishes a dream-like surreal quality, suggests notions of calmness and safety, and formally unifies the disparate objects in each installation

f*** knows how mundane domestic objects painted blue take a critical view on social, political, and cultural issues or deconstruct the american dream etc - which illustrates a classic problem with the pretentious statement ... you can tell us that your work explores social political and cultural issues , but that doesnt actually mean that it does, if that exploration isn't apparent to the viewer.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Possibly - although for something to be great rather than mediocre requires skills as well as purpose of vision - if you look at the shoes although it looks simple all are shot from the same angle, with a consistency of lighting and exposure, all have sufficient Dof to be sharp, and are not suffering from camera wobble etc ... ie this was not the work of a chimp with a P&S so craft skills were important too.

But still essentially something absolutely anyone on this forum could have done though.

I don't see that you're arguing against anyone here. I think you're arguing against a position you've created yourself.
Nobody is saying everything presented as art is good or worthwhile. Attaching a deeper meaning to a work might make it art (if done earnestly) but not all art is good and I don't think anyone is saying it is. Yes, there's lots of garbage art.

This^

I'm not defending bad art and I'm not being negative against good decorative art. I'm saying that anyone who suggests art is bad because it's not decorative, is totally missing the point of art.

And why do 90% of them state that the artist is exploring/experimenting with line, colour and form?


Steve.

Because perhaps... they are?

Because the other 10% are interrogating them.

Can anyone tell me when artist statements became de rigueur?

Anyone who went to Format this year, and visited the quad gallery will testify why having an exhibition without text panels is an exercise in frustration. You just had no context for the work, and it was hopeless! Bad, bad, bad idea, and ruined it.

They've always been essential. They're not a fashion, or a fad, they give the work context and meaning when it's not always obvious... like with Jensen's shoes on the previous page. Writing them is also a measure of how you understand your own work. If you can't write one.. and I mean genuinely.. not some sarcastic attempt to ridicule (I'm looking at you Pete), then you probably have no idea what your own work is actually about. Either that, or it's just a picture that needs no explanation because it really doesn't have anything to say or do.

this is from a real artists statement - not the arty b*****ks generator



you what ?

He continues



f*** knows how mundane domestic objects painted blue take a critical view on social, political, and cultural issues or deconstruct the american dream etc - which illustrates a classic problem with the pretentious statement ... you can tell us that your work explores social political and cultural issues , but that doesnt actually mean that it does, if that exploration isn't apparent to the viewer.

Oh Pete.... you're doing it again. You're deliberately going out of your way to showcase the most ludicrous examples. We can all do that with anything if we wanted to. It's NOT representative Pete, and you know it.

For every howler you post in here I can past 20 that are just well written explanations of the work.

 

[Pookeyhead]

nope - shooting a work with the intent to show deeper meaning yes , but shooting a crap shot then later attempting to attach a deeper meaning doesn't make it art



The problem in my view is a) the conceit that pretty pictures arent art , and b) therefore condemning people like Lik as not being artists just because their work is pretty (although to be fair i'm not that enamoured of the Lik shot - Joe Cornish's Antelope Canyon is imo substantially superior). Not all art has to have a worthy (and wordy) meaning some just speaks for itself.

I don't condemn Lik's stuff for being pretty. I condemn his stuff because it's s**t.

 

[big soft moose]

Oh Pete.... you're doing it again. You're deliberately going out of your way to showcase the most ludicrous examples. We can all do that with anything if we wanted to. It's NOT representative Pete, and you know it.

I googled artist statements and that was the first one to come up

other examples included

I think of my installations as unfinished inventories of fragments: objects, drawings, paintings, photographs, and other inventions. They are improvisational sites in which the constructed and the ready-made are used to question our
making of the world through language and knowledge. My arrangements are schematic, inviting the viewer to move into a space of speculation. I rely on our desires for beauty, poetics and seduction.

The work thus far has used the frame of the museum to propose a secret history of modernity, and in the process, point to stereotypes of difference, which are hidden in plain sight. I have found the histories of surrealism and minimalism to be useful in the rearranging of received ideas. The objects I make are placed in the canon of modernist art, in hopes of making visible what is overlooked in the historicizing of the artist. This project has always been grounded in pleasure and aesthetics.

(personally I always relied on eight pints of kronenburg for seduction as a student - but hey I didn't do creative arts)

and

Knitting is my key to the secret garden, my way down the rabbit hole, my looking glass.

Hand knitting started it. From the beginning the process of transforming string into cloth has struck me as magical. And, over the years, that magical process has had its way with me, leading me from hobby to art. Knitting fills me with a sense of accomplishment and integrity, and has proven a most amenable vehicle for translating inner vision to outer reality.

I knit from the inside out. Though I work quite deliberately, consciously employing both traditional and innovative techniques, my unconscious is the undisputed project manager.

The concrete, repetitive nature of this work frees my imagination and provides many opportunities for happy accident and grace to influence the finished product.

THe third one isnt quite as bad as the other two but could be translated as "i like to knit"

The thing is, David , that these are from a serious site offering inspiration and guidance for students in how to write their artistic statement - so you may say that this pretentious b*****ks isnt representative of anything, but others patently feel that they should form the template for how artistic statements should be written

 

[Pookeyhead]

These statements are offered here in isolation though, without the images they were written for, so while you may find fault with the register used, for all we know, they may actually be pretty astute if only we could see the images they were intended for. Why are you posting only half the equation?

The thing is, David , that these are from a serious site offering inspiration and guidance for students in how to write their artistic statement

A crap one perhaps. You found something on the internet, so it's true? Brilliant. I can find terrible technical tutorials also... so that means all technical tutorials are bad?

Seriously Pete.. you're so biased now, you're not even trying to be objective.

 

[Pookeyhead]

And another thing... the two most ardant detractors of art in this thread, not only seem totally and unreasonably biased, but I'm getting tired of reading the opinions of those that absolutely never actually do any work themselves.. art or otherwise.

I've always maintained that to have your opinion respected, you not only have to demonstrate knowledge in a subject, but also a facility and capability.

Why should anyone respect the opinions of those that admit to having no great interest in art, and never actually post any work they produce? Where's the credibility for your standpoint? All that's left is opinion. They're like arseholes. We all have one.

 

[big soft moose]

Seriously Pete.. you're so biased now, you're not even trying to be objective.

and you are so entrenched you aren't able to be objective either - I get that you think artistic statements are an essential - but my view is the diametric opposite, statements are (imo) only required to explain sets where the context is not apparent (as with the shoes), they are not essential for sets that speak for themselves, nor are they a magic bullet for transforming a mediocre image into amazing art.

 

[big soft moose]

And another thing... the two most ardant detractors of art in this thread, not only seem totally and unreasonably biased, but I'm getting tired of reading the opinions of those that absolutely never actually do any work themselves.. art or otherwise.

I've always maintained that to have your opinion respected, you not only have to demonstrate knowledge in a subject, but also a facility and capability.

Why should anyone respect the opinions of those that admit to having no great interest in art, and never actually post any work they produce? Where's the credibility for your standpoint? All that's left is opinion. They're like arseholes. We all have one.

I can't speak for Loudburp (I think hes a troll too - that's one point where you and I are in agreement) but I do a considerable ammount of art - mostly circular or elipsoid and made of wood... I have never felt the need to write a statement to explain any of it (on the whole people experience turnery through the tactile sensations of picking it up and handling it - it doesn't translate well to the internet)

Photographically speaking I have never claimed my work is art - basically I do weddings because people pay me , and I do landscape and wildlife because i feel like it. I don't generally post much for critique because there are too many idiots in the crit forums, and I don't agree with your basic tenet that people have anything to prove - Fora are designed for the exchange of opinions - All that has ever been is opinion.

Also I never said I ha no great interest in art - I have a substantial interest in propper art (grand masters etc) - I have no real interest in a lot of the dross that people attempt to pass off as art these days

 

[Pookeyhead]

and you are so entrenched you aren't able to be objective either - I get that you think artistic statements are an essential - but my view is the diametric opposite, statements are (imo) only required to explain sets where the context is not apparent (as with the shoes), they are not essential for sets that speak for themselves, nor are they a magic bullet for transforming a mediocre image into amazing art.

You're wrong. No image speaks for itself. We've been through this (Ut). You bring your own meaning to teh image. That in itself is not a bad thing BTW, but if it's important that the audience infer the same meaning as you intend ,then you need words.

I've never once suggested that all images need words Pete. Not once. Only when you need the viewer to think what you want them to think. If what you want is to let the viewer form their own meaning, then you'd actually be better off having none.

No one has suggested that words can transform a mediocre image either.. not once. You've taken it upon yourself to be evangelising about something that no one disagrees with.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Photographically speaking I have never claimed my work is art -

never seen anything you've ever shot.. ever.

basically I do weddings because people pay me , and I do landscape and wildlife because i feel like it. I don't generally post much for critique because there are too many idiots in the crit forums, and I don't agree with your basic tenet that people have anything to prove - Fora are designed for the exchange of opinions - All that has ever been is opinion.

Also I never said I ha no great interest in art - I have a substantial interest in propper art (grand masters etc) - I have no real interest in a lot of the dross that people attempt to pass off as art these days

Biased much? LOL

You know what you like and everything else is dross. That pretty much sums you up Pete.

 

[big soft moose]

These statements are offered here in isolation though, without the images they were written for, so while you may find fault with the register used, for all we know, they may actually be pretty astute if only we could see the images they were intended for. Why are you posting only half the equation?
.

Because I can't find the art concerned on line - that first one, which you claim is not representative is Johnathon H dough , who appears to be widely quoted as an example of a great artistic statement ... but the art itself doesn't appear to be out there (google brings up a lot of images but they are all other peoples art)

 

[big soft moose]

never seen anything you've ever shot.. ever.

you clearly haven't looked very hard - mind you ive never seen you post for crit outside of the project threads

You know what you like and everything else is dross. That pretty much sums you up Pete.

says the man who describes Lik's shot as s*** because it doesn't fit with his preconceptions - you know that parable about removing the beam from your own eye....

 

[Pookeyhead]

you clearly haven't looked very hard - mind you ive never seen you post for crit outside of the project threads

Huh.. I've only just had those threads moved into there Pete. They were in a variety of forums prior to yesterday, ranging from Landcape to people and portraits. Some probably still are.

says the man who describes Lik's shot as s*** because it doesn't fit with his preconceptions - you know that parable about removing the beam from your own eye....

No... I describe Lik as s**t, because it's s**t. There's loads of decorative landscape work I like, and admire. I have no preconceptions. He's just s**t.


Anyway... time I put you back in your box. I should have kept you in there.

 

[big soft moose]

No... I describe Lik as s**t, because it's s**t. There's loads of decorative landscape work I like, and admire. I have no preconceptions. He's just s**t.
.

In your opinion - but of course you are incapable of realising that your opinion , just like everyone elses is just your opinion, not a fact ... which is what makes your gibe at me so ironic

not to mention the teddy throwing that you indulged in when various people dared to suggest that the camera craft on display in merfolk was very very ordinary and basic , and let down what should have been a great project.

(oh and finally - we aren't "all made of stars" the calcium, iron etc in our bodies comes from the earths crust where its been since the big bang, it has bugger all to do with decaying nova's )

 

[Pookeyhead]

(oh and finally - we aren't "all made of stars" the calcium, iron etc in our bodies comes from the earths crust where its been since the big bang, it has bugger all to do with decaying nova's )

Pete.... The earth was not created in the big bang. That was 13.8 billion years ago. The earth is a mere 4 billion years old? You think there was a big bang, and out pops all the planets and stars, ready to go?

You're funny.

 

[Musicman]

Pete.... The earth was not created in the big bang. That was 13.8 billion years ago. The earth is a mere 4 billion years old? You think there was a big bang, and out pops all the planets and stars, ready to go?

You're funny.

Quite

Any element heavier than Hydrogen or Helium is synthesised in stars from those building blocks.

Elements heavier than iron are created during the last few seconds of a supernova event, which is why they are pretty rare.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Quite

Any element heavier than Hydrogen or Helium is synthesised in stars from those building blocks.

Elements heavier than iron are created during the last few seconds of a supernova event, which is why they are pretty rare.

Not all stars form enough iron to stop fusion either, and these go on to fuse silicon and start a whole new neucleosynthetic process that results in nickel, and lighter atomic weight materials, but still heavier than iron.

When hydrogen runs out it starts fusing helium into carbon.. which is very common indeed in the universe, but that's the start of the process. Everything from carbon onwards is the start of a star's death. Next is carbon into oxygen... and it works it's way through heavier elements. Iron is the end of that scale, yes, as iron can not be fused into anything heavier in normal stellar fusion, but particularly massive stars can create massive iron cores, but still carry on the carbon cycle for hundreds of years, but eventually, even these massive stars will get enough iron in their cores to stop fusion, and then during the supernova of such massive stars, the force of the shockwave through the stellar mass can actually fuse much heavier elements, and that theoretical limit of iron fusion in stars goes out of the window. If you think about it, it has to, or we'd have nothing with a heavier atomic weight of iron. During the last few seconds of a stars life (assuming it goes nova) is where iron fusion happens, and we get all the rest of the goodies... uranium, plutonium, gold... all these rare and atomically heavy metals. Which is why they are rare. A lot of the rarer transuranium elements are only created in these very explicit circumstances.

That's not the end though.. gold and a few other heavier elements for instance - they can also come from the moment of collision of immensely dense neutron stars, or from the gamma ray bursts of such events... so even after stars have technically died, they still keep on giving



...but yeah.... we're all made of stars dude.

 

[sirch]

From what are cameras crafted? Stars!


... at least we are nearly back on topic

 

[Byker28i]

Anyone who went to Format this year, and visited the quad gallery will testify why having an exhibition without text panels is an exercise in frustration. You just had no context for the work, and it was hopeless! Bad, bad, bad idea, and ruined it..

This. The main exhibition was missing so much information that if you didn't go knowing that it referenced other work then it lost all meaning. Very brief pieces of info if any at all, but the whole exhibition referenced earlier work. It felt like it was presented for insiders only, for those in the know.

Imagine a whole wall of work without explanation

But then you had the up the stairs exhibits which were well presented, informational, although not enough of the series, at St Walburgs church was excellent as were the other buildings/displays/exhibition areas, so there was no excuse.

 

[chuckles]

Pete.... The earth was not created in the big bang. That was 13.8 billion years ago. The earth is a mere 4 billion years old? You think there was a big bang, and out pops all the planets and stars, ready to go?

You're funny.

Goodness how does Art and Cameracraft fit into this... have I turned over two pages? I'm all for digression but - sheesh!

 

[stevewestern]

I have not read the thread but need to get something off my chest..It may be slightly off topic as well, but at least it is vaguely linked to the first post..!
A couple of days ago I was at a local church for a kids performance of drama, poetry etc. The primary school I take a few pictures for had asked me to go along to take a few pictures of pupils performing.
I asked the organizers if it was OK for me to do so, and they agreed, but without flash, and as long as I was sympathetic to the children and parents watching and the usual stuff about not posting pictures on social media etc. No problem.
My camera is mirror-less, so fairly quiet, but I tried to restrict my snapping to moments when there was a little noise from the stage and upped the ISO to 1600 - 1/100 at f3.2 .
Then along came the 2 local press photographers, who stomped about, flashes flashing, shutters clunking and with no respect at all for anyone.
I know they have to get a shot, but conditions were clearly not so difficult.
This is in my mind is at least as bad if not worse than the whole machine-gun thing and seems to indicate a lack of empathy and possibly skill

 

[DerekL]

It certainly indicates a lack of manners.

 

[stevewestern]

It certainly indicates a lack of manners.

Agreed.

 

[chuckles]

Hmmm... I consider that an article of Basic Cameracraft

 

[Pookeyhead]

Goodness how does Art and Cameracraft fit into this... have I turned over two pages? I'm all for digression but - sheesh!

Pete thought it would be clever to mock one of my artist statements, but actually just ended up showing his massive ignorance.

 

[Pookeyhead]

But then you had the up the stairs exhibits which were well presented, informational, although not enough of the series, at St Walburgs church was excellent as were the other buildings/displays/exhibition areas, so there was no excuse.

Yeah.. seemed to be just QUAD. It p1$$ed me off no end I can tell you!

 

[Byker28i]

And yet wander up the stairs and there was some great stuff, just because of room the were three or four images from the set. It left you wanting more, but maybe that's the point.
Glad I went up Friday night and stayed over for the weekend. Even two days wasn't enough to see everything I wanted to see.

 

[Pookeyhead]

And yet wander up the stairs and there was some great stuff, just because of room the were three or four images from the set. It left you wanting more, but maybe that's the point.
Glad I went up Friday night and stayed over for the weekend. Even two days wasn't enough to see everything I wanted to see.

The best stuff was upstairs, yet it was so poorly advertised that hardly anyone went up there. A great shame.

 

[Byker28i]

However a great place to visit and see. I'll definitely go again.

 

[Steve]

Possibly - although for something to be great rather than mediocre requires skills as well as purpose of vision - if you look at the shoes although it looks simple all are shot from the same angle, with a consistency of lighting and exposure, all have sufficient Dof to be sharp, and are not suffering from camera wobble etc ... ie this was not the work of a chimp with a P&S so craft skills were important too.

End of the day someone with only wonderful techical skills or only wonderful artistic vision is limited in their capacity to deliver, you need both to create great art

I think the art referred to here is wonderful. But cant really agree that the artist needed wonderful technical skills to create it. No camera wobble? Sufficient dof? Consistent exposure? Hardly technical excellence...more week one of learn to use your SLR.

The photographer may, and probably does possess technical skills way in advance of mine. But such skills were not necessary to create this great work of art.

 

[jerry12953]

Technical excellence in art photography.....?

It sometimes seems to me that so called, and very sought-after, art photographers deliberately renounced technical excellence and were successful for that very reason. It seemed to give them extra cred amongst the gullible ones........