Henri Cartier-Bresson - useless out of focus junk!

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

06/16/2009 04:44:59 PM · #201

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I think I see the process slightly differently. Steve might have gone home and looked at his two dozen shots and decided this one captured the essence of what he wanted the best BUT, damn, that sign is annoying how it grows out of his head. However, the capturing of the intended essence is too well done and the picture can't be just discarded for that imperfection. In this case Steve chose the image but did not intend the sign to come out of his head (and wishes, if possible, that it might not).

Yes, but he might have gone home and looked at his images, come across this one and said, "What a truly wonderful, serendipitous capture this was!" and not considered any of it a 'mistake' or 'imperfect.'

K3Master

Pentax K-3

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

06/16/2009 05:41:29 PM · #202

Originally posted by smardaz:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

1. I don't consider DPC a place that advances the skill of photography.

going off subject but i have to completely disagree with that, i have seen so many people improve trmendously on this site by virtue of critiques and advice. myself included:

one of my first challenge entries:

one of my latest:

For you, and for every follow up that I know is coming (this is the first and only one I'm replying to though.)

DPC, itself, is not a place that advances photography skill. It's a contest site, and nothing more. What you take out of it and what you decide to teach yourself and learn from others is BESIDE that basic concept. DPC, as it stands, is NOT a photography school :) For every person that improves mightily because they've found the desire to by being a part of DPC, are others that pretty much go nowhere, nor care to.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

06/16/2009 05:44:06 PM · #203

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

3. There is no incorrect when it comes to aesthetics, since every human being is unique.

If you believe this, then you must believe that all ethics are subjective and that every human being, being unique, sees ethical issues in totally subjective light.

Actually, that's been proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt time and time again, in my experience through life.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

06/16/2009 05:47:59 PM · #204

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
1. I don't consider DPC a place that advances the skill of photography.

And as long as you feel that way, it will not be for you.

I think you'll find this opinion in the minority.

I am leagues more advanced as a photographer than I was before I got here.

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
2. I don't believe in aesthetic *skill*. I believe in the illusion of aesthetic ego.

Aesthetic skill is really just relevant experience. I can look at images much more skillfully to pick up on subtler aesthetics having become more acquainted with advanced skills pertaining to the usage of particular fundamentals as well as particular skills.

I don't even know what you mean by aesthetic ego.

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
3. There is no incorrect when it comes to aesthetics, since every human being is unique.

Roger that.......8>)

However, you can appreciate certain things that may be subtler once you've become accustomed to different types and styles of artistic endeavor.

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
4. DPC is a sub-culture. What does well here won't do well elsewhere, and vice versa, thus showing that subjectivity IS really all we have. We can be objective in our art within small arenas, but never, ever on a grand scale.

I disagree.......pretty much everything I've had that has scored above a 6 has gotten rave reviews elsewhere.

I will agree that some things that have done well elsewhere have gotten slammed here, but in most cases, it was exactly what we are talking about that got them killed here.

Technique, skills, details, composition, lighting, exposure.......every time I've had something that DID do well elsewhere that got slammed, was justified to a T by the comments.

Like it or not, the viewers and the voters DO have training and experience judging images. Though all of us hate the comment about a distractiomn, it's kind of rare that it doesn't have some merit, even though it may be nit-picking.

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
5. Ambition, art, and human endeavor are forces unto themselves, and are not reliant on outside judgment. If that were so, nothing would get done. We create because we must. For us. Sometimes, it furthers the rest of us, mostly, it does not.

Agreed.

BUT......if you offer your endeavors up for review, you have to accept that there will always be someone who will hack it to bits.

Sometimes that will be someone whom you feel eminetly qualified to do so.....8>)

This is why we can't have nice conversations ;)

You take things a little too literally.

Obviously I don't mean that something that does well here NEVER does well elsewhere, just that it won't necessarily. I figured most people would just get that.

Aesthetic ego is the belief that because you think it's pretty, everyone has to think it's pretty.

I don't feel anyone is more qualified than anyone else when they offer me critique/criticism. Perhaps I'm the only one on earth that does. Perhaps that's why I am so alone in my thought processes :)

pixelpig

Sony Alpha a55

Sony DT 1.8/50mm SAM

06/16/2009 05:50:39 PM · #205

Originally posted by posthumous:

K10DGuy,

The point is not to make fun of people's ignorance of a famous photographer. I wouldn't have recognized the photo either. But these people have set themselves up as arbiters of taste. Their specialty is photography... but they know nothing about photography or what makes a photograph good. The HCB photograph is just evidence toward that point. The criteria they use are arbitrary and wrong.

Now before you say that taste is subjective... why is it okay to have a site like dpchallenge devoted to advancing the skill of photography, but it's not okay to advance the skill of looking at photographs? In other words, esthetic skill. The thread in question is satisfying not because I like laughing at ignorant people, but because I like seeing ignorant people who act like authority figures get their comeuppance. Even more, I like seeing their incorrect rules of esthetics fall flat.

Do you know how hard it is to be a good musician if you're tone deaf? And yet we (dpc) expect people to improve as photographers without allowing any discussion of looking. It is always dismissed as completely subjective. Everything is subjective. Don't let that shut down discussion, or judgement. Because once you do that, then all ambition, all human endeavor, all art, comes to naught.

I think DPChallenge is not a site devoted to advancing the skill of photography so much as it is devoted to the skill of using the camera. According to me, not the same thing. But that explains the emphasis on such things as sharpness/saturation & the lack of interesting in "looking.' On the other hand, help with the camera gear is pretty easy to give/receive, while learning to look is something best done alone. I can talk about how I do it, but I can't teach someone else how to do it. You have to walk that lonesome valley by yourself.

Skip

Canon EOS-1D X

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM

06/16/2009 07:18:27 PM · #206

Who are you?

Why do you even bother to pick up a camera? What is your intention? Why a camera instead of brushes and paints? What is it that you want to record? What's your purpose for photographing anything? Would your time be better spent watching YouTube episodes?

Do you simply want to prove that you can masterfully control your camera's ability to capture light?

Do you simply want to prove that you can realize a vision or concept that you imagined?

Do you simply want to prove that you can extract image data from a digital file and manipulate it in such a way as to wow the crowd with your presentation skills?

What are you trying to do?

Are you recording or experiencing life?

What are you thinking when you head out with your camera? What are you thinking as you trek through the woods, up the rocks, down to the riverbank? What are you thinking as you shuffle down the street, under the overpass, through the concrete jungle? What are you looking for?

Are you looking to express yourself, or just to see what your camera can do? Do you really know what your camera can do? Do you really care what your camera can do? Does it matter?

And, when you get home, what have you got? Did you get what you were after? Was it worth it? Did you experience anything? Did you learn anything?

What matters to you? Do your images mean anything to you, or do you just want them to mean something to someone else?

And what are you going to do with the images you've captured? Are you going to share them? With whom? Why? What's the purpose of sharing? Why bother? Just who do you share with? Your mother? Your spouse? Friends and family? Complete strangers?

Do you care if anyone sees your works? Do you care what they have to say? Do you care if you have no impact on anyone?

Do the people you want to share with have the same interest as you? Do they see things the same way you do? Will they be able to see what you see? Will they get it?

Bottom line, it doesn't matter if you are shooting landscapes, animals, children, street scenes, what-have-you, if you don't know what you're doing or why your doing it or who you're doing it for, the odds are that your work will only randomly and inconsistently connect with anyone.

tnun

Ricoh GR III

Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] WR DC

06/16/2009 07:34:21 PM · #207

Sometimes I pick up the camera to try to answer some of

Skip's questions. For me there is no bottom anything. And I delight in random and inconsistent connections with people.

Message edited by author 2009-06-16 23:35:15.

jaysonmc

Nikon D200

Nikon MF 105mm f/2.5 AIS

06/16/2009 07:47:29 PM · #208

I take my camera with me when I leave the house for the same reason I take my wallet.
And I push the shutter button the same reason I take out the cash at the store.

But other people are different.

Some people like HCB, Hewitt, Elliot, Watson, Adams, Leibowitz, and on and on and on
Some people like

Joey Lawrence,

scalvert,

Judi, and on and on.

Personally, I don't relate to any of the above, nor do I pretend to - artist and non-artist alike; but all of them have something wonderful to offer in truly unique ways.

06/16/2009 07:59:31 PM · #209

In the OP, the underlying premise was, at least as I interpreted it (and exaggerating for effect) that people did not like the photo should change their opinion of it upon learning it was by HCB, or that they clearly did not "understand" what they were looking at, they possess "unsophisticated taste" and "what a buncha rubes!" In my opinion this is flawed premise on so many levels that it would take too long to list them.

When presented with a photograph, there are a myriad number of ways to see it, to look at it, to take it in, to assess it, to explore it, to decide its value to one's self.

This can range from the 1.7 second view and stab the "5" key during voting, to an instant like for the subject (any image, photographic or live, of a dog that lands on my wife's retina triggers pure childlike joy), the instant dislike of same, the appreciation of form, texture, light, composition, tonality, color or lack thereof, or a complex combination of all these and more. When some speak of a "trained eye" it does sound a bit pretentious to my ears, but I think the essence of what is really meant is the development of these additional ways of experiencing an image. Some photographers see form, texture, light and tone as of primary interest, and may take photographs of mundane objects/subjects (old dry wood, for example) because the light and textures sing to them. Those who primarily see the object do not enjoy the image, perhaps. Neither is Wrong, Neither Needs To Be Taught To See. It is an extraordinarily personal thing, what one values, and seldom is constant. It is extraordinary hubris to presume to tell someone what they should value.

Luminous, textured, lovely formed black and white images make my neurons do an especially happy dance, often without regard to the subject of the photograph. Some tack sharp color or b/w images do it for me, some gloriously blurry images of any tone/color do the same. Some don't. They are my neurons, not yours. They dance to different music than yours. This is Wonderful!!

It is perfectly acceptable, even welcome and useful, to describe what makes an image of value to ourselves, without attempting to impose it as "right-minded" or "sophisticated" or somehow better or more evolved.

It is quite common, in my experience, that some photographers appreciate one image more than another because they understand the technical complexity, the difficulty involved, the craftwork of the image. Another viewer may appreciate the same image even more with no concept of the effort involved, but upon a simple pure experience of the image itself. So what? Neither is more "sophisticated" than the other, neither's opinion is intrinsically more worthy than the other. The creator of the image may value one opinion more than the other--but it is an application of his/her own values to their opinions, not something that is intrinsically a part of the viewers' opinions. If I get a comment here from someone whose work I value, I am likely to give their comment more weight than a comment from someone whose work bores me. That is the nature of things.

So, when telling others that THEY need to learn to see better, use caution. Your vision may be more tunneled in nature than you think, with all your lifelong biases and predispositions filtering your interpretations: imposing those on others is unwarranted, but opening your own mind to attempt to see something the way They see it might teach you something, you might find a new way to see... If you want to. But there is no need.

DPC has a wonderful variety of photographers, visions, technical-skill levels, specialists, generalists, dabblers, and dedicated purists. One can learn some technical skills here if one wants, or get exposed to a variety of ways of seeing and pick up one or two new ways onself, if desired, when the time is right, if the image(s) sing to you. One can measure scores to the 3rd decimal place, and chart one's progress against such a standard, analyze statistical trends in voting, count Canon vs Nikon owning ribbon winners....

It's all here in some form, to some degree.

To paraphrase (wildly) C.S. Lewis: The House of God (or Art, or Photography, or Aesthetics...) has many rooms, each with different decor, style, mood. You are free to wander in and out of the rooms at will, find the one(s) which suit you the best, and to linger in any room as long as you like. The Rule of the House is this: You Must Not Disturb The Other Guests, You Must Not Insist That Your Chosen Room is the Only Good Room, You Must Not Look Down Or Belittle Those Who Have Chosen Other Rooms.

Some of us don't appreciate being told what to like, or that because we don't like something we must have lower quality taste, or less educated eyes. Others of us will drink that kool-aide in order to be "accepted" into the "higher" classes. I guess that is a value choice, too.

I would much rather hear WHY and HOW YOU like something than be told that I should like it because of this or that. The former is enthusiasm, which can be contagious, even if not convincing. I can like that the image works for you, even if it does not work for me. I can take delight in my wife's delight at dog pictures--and occasionally I will see a dog image that sings to my senses, delights me directly. I might suddenly see the image you take delight in, in a new way, and find my own connection to it (or not). Telling me why I should like it, or that I am somehow lacking because I don't like is condescending, presumptious, and coercive--unwelcome, unconvincing, unpleasant, and bound to leave a bad taste.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/16/2009 08:09:26 PM · #210

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

5. Ambition, art, and human endeavor are forces unto themselves, and are not reliant on outside judgment. If that were so, nothing would get done. We create because we must. For us. Sometimes, it furthers the rest of us, mostly, it does not.

art is purely subjective and cannot be judged. that opinion holds a great deal of weight, as it is held by many terrible artists all over the world.

zxaar

06/16/2009 08:21:53 PM · #211

Originally posted by chromeydome:

well since i wrote OP, i would clearify a bit.

There was some more part to OP other than HCB, that you did not carefully read.

Originally posted by zxaar:

Its sad to see that people give so little importance to composition.
Most of photogs are worried about sharpness and noise of photo.

and

Originally posted by zxaar:

I remember once i posted an image of 1x for others to view and discuss, thinking that it is rare thing to see. It was about famine in bengal. Around three million people died in that. And all these guys could talk was how bad the photo was.

In this part, i mentioned about a picture related to some event.
About this even:
1. roughly 3million people died.
2. Anything regarding what happened is rare to find. So any picture sort of thing is difficult to find to even look at.
3. Historically very important picture.

What was response (even though gravity of pciture was mentioned in OP), most of the response i got was that -
1. why picture is too blurry.
2. if i scanned it or captured it, i did too shabby job.

my reaction was you guys are nuts, you can not think beyond sharpness and focus of picture.

And this was theme of OP.

06/16/2009 08:25:29 PM · #212

To roughly quote Ray Bradbury--I can't lay my hands on the book right now:

Isn't that the thing? To go around and look out at the world through the other person's eyes? To say "So that's how you see it?! Well, isn't that interesting! I must remember this!"

Why else would we ever look at someone else's photographs?

06/16/2009 08:39:33 PM · #213

Originally posted by zxaar:

Originally posted by chromeydome:
In the OP, the underlying premise was, at least as I interpreted it (and exaggerating for effect) that people did not like the photo should change their opinion of it upon learning it was by HCB, or that they clearly did not "understand" what they were looking at, they possess "unsophisticated taste" and "what a buncha rubes!" In my opinion this is flawed premise on so many levels that it would take too long to list them.

well since i wrote OP, i would clearify a bit.

There was some more part to OP other than HCB, that you did not carefully read.

Originally posted by zxaar:

Its sad to see that people give so little importance to composition.
Most of photogs are worried about sharpness and noise of photo.

and

Originally posted by zxaar:

I remember once i posted an image of 1x for others to view and discuss, thinking that it is rare thing to see. It was about famine in bengal. Around three million people died in that. And all these guys could talk was how bad the photo was.

In this part, i mentioned about a picture related to some event.
About this even:
1. roughly 3million people died.
2. Anything regarding what happened is rare to find. So any picture sort of thing is difficult to find to even look at.
3. Historically very important picture.

What was response (even though gravity of pciture was mentioned in OP), most of the response i got was that -
1. why picture is too blurry.
2. if i scanned it or captured it, i did too shabby job.

my reaction was you guys are nuts, you can not think beyond sharpness and focus of picture.

And this was theme of OP.

my apologies--I was remembering the "link" in the OP, and perhaps some of the subsequent posts'.

zxaar

06/16/2009 08:44:00 PM · #214

Originally posted by chromeydome:

my apologies--I was remembering the "link" in the OP, and perhaps some of the subsequent posts'.

no need to apologize, this thread mainly roaming around HCB and what you said. Nothing wrong, its just a discussion. Everyone and everyview is welcome.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

06/16/2009 09:29:56 PM · #215

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
5. Ambition, art, and human endeavor are forces unto themselves, and are not reliant on outside judgment. If that were so, nothing would get done. We create because we must. For us. Sometimes, it furthers the rest of us, mostly, it does not.

art is purely subjective and cannot be judged. that opinion holds a great deal of weight, as it is held by many terrible artists all over the world.

Of course it can be judged--and it IS judged all the time, in a variety of ways against innumerable standards. These judgements can be useful, meaningful, valuable, & even valid---to those who suscribe to the particular set of "standards" against which the judgements are made....

To non-subscribers, those judgements may have little, no, or even negative value.

"violates the rule of thirds" pops into mind.....

Message edited by author 2009-06-17 01:34:57.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

06/16/2009 10:13:33 PM · #216

Originally posted by dahkota:

That's probably what happened. I've never thought of Steve valuing technical matters, especially the insignificant, over substance and meaning. That's what craftsmen and laymen do.

Message edited by author 2009-06-17 04:23:06.

mgarsteck

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

06/16/2009 10:30:37 PM · #217

I know for me, photography has been the only medium that has allowed me to express myself outwardly. I've tried playing guitar and even though I still play, I am not able to express myself like I can with a camera. I've tried a whole lot of other things and it never has worked out.

I put my soul in my pictures if you will. I dont always do my best when I do a photo but that isnt nearly as damaging as when I throw out a beautiful photo that touches the lives of other people simply because it wasnt "compositionally correct".

Someone commented on my last photo that my photo was bringing them to tears and that meant the most to me, even though I scored low. Again, I think I only take a bad photo when I worry only about the aesthetics instead of shooting from the heart.

For me, photography is a window to my sould and allows me to see myself as I see the rest of the world.
When you see a picture of mine, its not a picture, its a portrait of my own soul being interpreted. May I never forget that.

FireBird

06/16/2009 10:49:28 PM · #218

I really liked the original example by

pawdrix

Here's my take on how it might look with the equipment and
film of the day. And maybe just a lil crop. :)

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

06/17/2009 05:58:31 AM · #219

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by yanko:

That's probably what happened. I've never thought of Steve valuing technical matters, especially the insignificant, over substance and meaning. That's what craftsmen and laymen do.

Interesting comment....

Generally, calling someone a craftsman, at least here in the US isn't derogatory.

They generally possess skills, techniques, and a mindset that elevates them above people who merely go through life eking out an existence.

I'd call Ansel Adams a landscape craftsman......8>)

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

06/17/2009 06:25:33 AM · #220

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by yanko:
I've never thought of Steve valuing technical matters, especially the insignificant, over substance and meaning. That's what craftsmen and laymen do.

Interesting comment....

Generally, calling someone a craftsman, at least here in the US isn't derogatory.

They generally possess skills, techniques, and a mindset that elevates them above people who merely go through life eking out an existence.

I'd call Ansel Adams a landscape craftsman......8>)

Actually, your comment is equally revealing, because it illustrates how you have excised a certain part of Yanko's statement and used it to make a point he did not make; it leaves us wondering whether you really believe Yanko thinks Steve doesn't value craftsmanship, or whether it's just what YOU believe, ot what the heck?

Because here's what Yanko REALLY said: that he doesn't think Steve values technical matters OVER substance and meaning: and he said by implication, that the line between craft and art might be drawn in precisely that area. I think it's a very valid thought. But I don't think it leads to what you have apparently concluded, that Yanko looks down on craftsmen.

And, for the matter of that, there have of *course* been great artists who are also masters of their craft, tons of them. Your "landscape craftsman", AA, fits that category nicely. HCB, on the other hand, does not; he didn't even do his own printing, for the most part. So he's got the srt part, but not the craft part.

R.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

06/17/2009 09:11:01 AM · #221

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

No, I kind of thought that Richard lumped craftsmen and laymen into the same category.

Originally posted by yanko:

I've never thought of Steve valuing technical matters, especially the insignificant, over substance and meaning. That's what craftsmen and laymen do.

Isn't that what he said?

And you know that I've worked with my hands and restored cars for most of my life; where do you think my opinion of craftsmen might be?

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Because here's what Yanko REALLY said: that he doesn't think Steve values technical matters OVER substance and meaning: and he said by implication, that the line between craft and art might be drawn in precisely that area. I think it's a very valid thought. But I don't think it leads to what you have apparently concluded, that Yanko looks down on craftsmen.

Again.....

Originally posted by yanko:

I've never thought of Steve valuing technical matters, especially the insignificant, over substance and meaning. That's what craftsmen and laymen do.

I definitely think that Steve DOES value substance over details.....I don't think that was in question.

But that's what Richard's comment conveys to me; that he doesn't necessarily view craftsmen as more than laymen.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

And, for the matter of that, there have of *course* been great artists who are also masters of their craft, tons of them. Your "landscape craftsman", AA, fits that category nicely. HCB, on the other hand, does not; he didn't even do his own printing, for the most part. So he's got the srt part, but not the craft part.

R.

See, for the direction that HCB took, he was most definitely a craftsman......his vision, and the message that he was trying to convey turned out to be so effective that an entire genre is attributed to him. How does that not make him a master of his craft?

Once again, lines are being confused IMO......attention to detail is not necessarily mutually exclusive to craftsmanship and/or art.....anyone who knows what a Stradivarius is knows that. But in HCB's style, it's irrelevant. In some cases, it's not only irrelevant, it's impossible. How can you possibkly BE effective at street photography and be concerned about technicals? Not to mention that often the flaws are as much a part of the composition for its aesthetic value anyway?

Cooking for instance.....yeah, you have to have the right ingredients, but in all too many cases, you can use the same exact measurements and get completely different results. It takles the artist/craftsman/chef.cook to meld the right measures to achieve that perfect result.

Like the stir-fry leftovers I'm having right now for lunch......it just worked out differfently than it did the last time.....and I can't tell you exactly why, but it's good and I left things out 'cause the vimmen's bitched about the last batch. And I'll keep experimenting 'til I get it right for them! They did like it much better this time. LOL!!!

And of course, this is all my uneducated, Philistine opinion because I have *ZERO* education & training.....so I'm not qualified to do anything *but* voice an opinion, and that'd be of dubious value......8>)

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

06/17/2009 09:12:57 AM · #222

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by dahkota:
Yes, but he might have gone home and looked at his images, come across this one and said, "What a truly wonderful, serendipitous capture this was!" and not considered any of it a 'mistake' or 'imperfect.'

That's probably what happened. I've never thought of Steve valuing technical matters, especially the insignificant, over substance and meaning. That's what craftsmen and laymen do.

That's a pretty weak statement Yank. The artists and the masters value BOTH. It's not like an artist now has license to take lazy photography and forget the rules of composition and lighting. The artist or master knows when to break them or knows when the substance shines through the imperfection, but the rules are still considered. I think you were making that point, but the idea that the artist or master somehow does not "value technical matters" is hyperbole.

Message edited by author 2009-06-17 13:13:59.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

06/17/2009 09:35:54 AM · #223

Originally posted by chromeydome:

...To paraphrase (wildly) C.S. Lewis: The House of God (or Art, or Photography, or Aesthetics...) has many rooms, each with different decor, style, mood. You are free to wander in and out of the rooms at will, find the one(s) which suit you the best, and to linger in any room as long as you like. The Rule of the House is this: You Must Not Disturb The Other Guests, You Must Not Insist That Your Chosen Room is the Only Good Room, You Must Not Look Down Or Belittle Those Who Have Chosen Other Rooms.

Some of us don't appreciate being told what to like, or that because we don't like something we must have lower quality taste, or less educated eyes. Others of us will drink that kool-aide in order to be "accepted" into the "higher" classes...

That's a very nice idyll, many times removed from the bloodied battlefields of Bohemia. It is one thing to draw one's views on the matter from an aerial image and quite another to have to engage in hand-to-hand combat for sheer survival.

Addendum:

It is true that we all come to this debate from different points of view and with degrees of experience, but isn't any general statement like a cheque drawn on a bank? Its value would depend on what is there to meet it.
I may say something well and true at age twenty. At fifty I would expect to be able to say it again, but with conviction. The difference would be not in the words alone but in the respective degrees of energy or heat with which it is delivered.

I think we should consider this before dismissing some statements as high-brow or condescension. Many committed artists feel that their work provides a definite social function. People further removed from the action often criticize them for merely and parasitically entertaining themselves in a world that need not bother with kulchur. When times are hard, money for art is usually the first cut. To the man with the easel it is an insult that the production of Hummers and absentee-owned condos is considered more vital than the emotional and intellectual state of his fellow citizens. To him, the insult is personal, its effect existential and, possibly, deranging.

To expect a nice, accommodating discourse on the aesthetics of crocheting patterns from him, is, I'd say, likely to garner a response akin to Bertrans de Born's

I will come armed upon Baiart, and if I find there
that fat-bellied Poitevin,
He shall see how my steel cuts.

I will make bran-mash of his brains, mixed
with the maille of his armor.

Message edited by author 2009-06-17 15:03:25.

dahkota

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

06/17/2009 09:56:04 AM · #224

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Hmmm...I think, only my opinion of course, is that the unwritten comparison is between artist and craftsman, not craftsman and layman. Craftsman and layman were lumped together, separate from the implied artist. You are looking at the craftsman as artist. Not quite the case, at least in this discussion.

A friend of mine was an excellent musician. I would not ever call him an artist though - he never wrote his own music, content with playing other people's work - the work of artists. Not saying craftsmen don't create here, I am only using this example to show the distinction sometimes drawn between the two.

Some people here think, when discussing education, that only formal education counts. Also, seemingly not included, is the education received by doing, under the tutelage of another. I am sure Bear can attest to the volumes of knowledge and learning attainable with this kind of education, particularly under a master. DPC provides an education in producing digital images. It excels at teaching how to produce a commercially viable image. Do not discount this education. I think though, what is missing from the 'coursework' so to speak, is learning outside the DPC box - viewing and discussing masters of the craft and their technique (Ansel and HCB to name two), viewing and discussing art in general, and viewing and discussing aesthetics (sorry - they are not subjective). I for one have the benefit of going somewhere else for that as I think it is very important to a well rounded photographic education (if you will). Also, there are many threads and many groups within DPC that do the same. Not every utilizes them and mores the pity for them, but they are available. All this is education of a sort.

Anyway, this has been an interesting conversation, in my view, if only because I often get trapped in a bubble of my own making and it is good to see what other people think and believe...

dahkota