Board index ‹ Photography ‹ Artistic Questions ‹ Does anyone just take pictures of what they see?
sean_mcr wrote:Photography is not an art; Photography is a vehicle, it's not a destination; Some people are capable of using photography to create art but photography is nothing by itself. A photograph simply describes an event or place and its success depends on the photographers insight; That's where the art lies and both photoshop and the darkroom have been used to replace insight with contrivance.
It''s like trying to describe bad porn, it's not always easy to explain, but you know it when you see it
soenda wrote: In photography, those who work toward the most faithful, life-like reproduction of a scene are likely to be practicing the craft.
sean_mcr wrote:Mike
I never take a photograph with art in mind. I make no claims of art in my own photographs. Photography has given me a lot and I have given a lot to it, and yeah I care deeply about it and that will never change.
Ansel Adams loved those mountains more then he loved taking photographs of them. He simply used photography to point to something that he felt was of importance and value, something that he knew and understood. That more then anything else is at the heart of good photography and good photography doesn't have to be art to be good;
I'm really not trying to get on your goat (as us Irish would say)
"I'm not an artist, I'm a human being"
I'm sure you can guess who said that
Keep shooting
Sean
djwixx wrote:When did everything become so contrived? I've been put off photography because of a spate of anonymous comments I received essentially questioning why I bother. I bothered at the time because I enjoyed it irrespective of whether it was technically great or artistic or showed any merit. Now I find myself questioning the merits of every shot I take or even the scene I'm witnessing and whether the effort is worth it as it's likely already been done, or someone could else could do better. Why am I now questioning whether there should be an appeal to anyone else but me!!!??? Given the limited mindset of some I wonder how you become 'that' photographer without the steps required to get you there. Ultimately even the great photographers had to learn some of their craft along the way! I for one need to stop analyzing the whole thing and just get out there and take pictures, accept that the ultimate appeal may simple be to me and start making it fun, again if only for me.
Sean - I like the quote at the end of your posts (I think), but I have to question it. I can define depth of field, but how the hell do you define depth of feeling? It strikes me as another great line to quote, but when you ultimately analyze it means nothing and gets us back to the point that everything is simply subjective and what appeals to me may not appeal to you.
sean_mcr wrote:DJwixx
I hope Eugene Smith's own photograph explains his quote better then I ever could.
sean_mcr wrote: ... A photograph simply describes an event or place and its success depends on the photographers insight; That's where the art lies and both photoshop and the darkroom have been used to replace insight with contrivance. ...
sean_mcr wrote:Flickers two billionth photo http://flickr.com/photos/88646149@N00/2000000000/
Board index ‹ Photography ‹ Artistic Questions ‹ Does anyone just take pictures of what they see?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests