Will Thompson
Well Known Member
It is amazing how someone can complain about a photograph based on a list of equipment used without understanding the actual conditions of witch it was taken!
-
Please use real names.
Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed
Firstname Lastname
Register
We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know! -
Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!
Critique is Useless without understanding
- Thread starter Will Thompson
- Start date
Doug Kerr
Well-known member
Hi, Will,
If you were by any chance referring to my comments on your recent photo of the girl on the pedestrian overpass, my actual comments were all on the image itself, not prompted by the equipment list.
You did mention one piece of lighting equipment, one whose use I have often found (as you and I have discussed) to produce results that are not always desirable, so I made that connection.
Best regards,
Doug
It's hard to know where to start to critique that comment.
If you were by any chance referring to my comments on your recent photo of the girl on the pedestrian overpass, my actual comments were all on the image itself, not prompted by the equipment list.
You did mention one piece of lighting equipment, one whose use I have often found (as you and I have discussed) to produce results that are not always desirable, so I made that connection.
Best regards,
Doug
fahim mohammed
Well-known member
Hi Will,
1. List of equipment
2. Actual conditions of ( under ) witch ( which ) it was taken.
None of the above should enter into the discussion at all. Who cares!
It is the ' Photograph ' that matters. What within the ' Photograph ' matters is a different subject
for consideration.
I am with Doug here. It is difficult to begin to critique the above statement of yours. Maybe you have something else on your mind that I fail to comprehend.
Regards.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Will,
I know it's not a good feeling when someone says something harsh about one's work. That's happened to me too. However, I knew it was going to happen! It always hurts but brush it aside!
I admit, sometimes a comment seems heartless. However, we don't want a forum that has no real opinions. Read what I wrote about your picture. It's the balance of what everyone thinks that's the total feedback to how you presented the picture.
You did not introduce your picture enough to have folk understand why you use the ring flash and what effect you are going for. After all, a lot of folk neither understand nor appreciate that even smooth look. I happen to know that's a look you like! However, like Mark's "Reading of Reading" series, it is very worthwhile to let us know where you are going when the presentation breaks with tradition.
Asher
Doug Kerr
Well-known member
Hi, Asher,
I similarly find it hard to believe that Ben's comment to the effect that he didn't like the use of ring flash to be heartless.
Maybe it was Fahim's comment that he agreed with me that was heartless.
Maybe we are talking about a different movie altogether. There is often a serious lack of good target designation here. Friendly fire is often among the most tragic.
Best regards,
Doug
I find it hard to believe that my comment that the model's face looked "flat" would be considered heartless.
I similarly find it hard to believe that Ben's comment to the effect that he didn't like the use of ring flash to be heartless.
Maybe it was Fahim's comment that he agreed with me that was heartless.
Maybe we are talking about a different movie altogether. There is often a serious lack of good target designation here. Friendly fire is often among the most tragic.
Best regards,
Doug
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Doug,
That's the best statement so far! That some comment might be considered "Heartless!" is not necessarily a cognitive reaction after considered thought. Instead it's a reaction that erupts!
I feel for anyone who receives feedback that some aspect of the technique/picture lacking. However, we'd all be losers if we did not have an open forum allowing real critique and criticism. We're all traveling in the same "yellow school bus". We're a community of mutually concerned photographers. If we ever lose the clear response to photographs from experienced professionals, we'd have lost our purpose.
Ben was most generous sticking his neck out to declare the facial lighting is a problem. Likewise, Fahim is generous entering into the discussion in giving his own take on the very subject but assuring us that he expects tolerance to opposing views.
All these comments, together, form a multidimensional response that can be used versus the picture as shown with any context it has been shown with. Without your own reaction to the ring flash, the feedback would have been incomplete.
With your comment, there can be feeling of "heartless betrayal" from a friend. This reaction can "erupt", brushing aside thought. After all, the lighting is flat. But I come back to this with the retort that Will actually likes this. Now he has his reasons. I don't dismiss this. However no one should be surprised that reactions to the lighting would be swift.
Will,
When one shows a picture that we know goes against expectations, it's so helpful to get ahead of the curve by addressing the obvious departures one has included. Or at least, after presenting the picture, give an explanation of the choices.
I tried to do that with my recent constructed picture, a major enterprise, that I shared in draft form. Of course comments were all over the place. But among them were helpful reactions. It was put in "Riskit!" for that reason. Your bridge portrait is in "Photography as Art" which sets the bar very high. Art criticism is a far greater challenge than simply giving feedback and critique.
Forgive! The last think we want is to discourage honesty!
Asher
Doug Kerr
Well-known member
I suspect he likes it because it comes out of his ring light, which is way handy.
Best regards,
Doug
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
...... and it's connected to the camera and lightweight! The strength of the picture is the young fresh person of the model. That comes through clearly and that's what Will is illustrating with the very least effort possible. Read my comment here, after discussing it with him this morning. He's pretty candid!
Asher
fahim mohammed
Well-known member
Yo Bro Asher, why does it not seem strange to me that 75% of the people articipating in this thread are those that might need geriatric care sooner than later.
Why not let Will get on using whatever he sees fit to post more of these youngsters for us seniles. Then we shall have endless things to talk about.
But please Will, not in art! I can't take shocks at my age!
Take care pal.
Why not let Will get on using whatever he sees fit to post more of these youngsters for us seniles. Then we shall have endless things to talk about.
But please Will, not in art! I can't take shocks at my age!
Take care pal.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Circumstances and technical matters in successful photography.
Fahim,
Hold on one moment! Your recent remarkable picture taken in the center of a crossing, wife waiting for you and with a camera that wouldn't grab focus, depended on all those particulars! Any single one of them missing would have changed the photograph. The very conflict and fast adventure the picture brings to us only occur at the confluence of impulse, circumstances and camera capabilities and limitations.
Context matters too! That's why all the museums invest in a years preparation of an exhibit, even of well know masterpieces. Why? Because circumstances and context are the framework in which art is considered. It's predecessors, sponsors, patrons, competitors and the very material used, all have a bearing on our appreciation.
Asher
Fahim,
Hold on one moment! Your recent remarkable picture taken in the center of a crossing, wife waiting for you and with a camera that wouldn't grab focus, depended on all those particulars! Any single one of them missing would have changed the photograph. The very conflict and fast adventure the picture brings to us only occur at the confluence of impulse, circumstances and camera capabilities and limitations.
Context matters too! That's why all the museums invest in a years preparation of an exhibit, even of well know masterpieces. Why? Because circumstances and context are the framework in which art is considered. It's predecessors, sponsors, patrons, competitors and the very material used, all have a bearing on our appreciation.
Asher
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Pictures do indeed, in the end, "have to stand on their own", but we need to come to your picture sufficiently prepared, unless of course it's just obvious beauty, a Chateau, a marvel or a tragedy.
Of course, a picture with zero impact is not excused by explanations of the circumstances. The content, however can always overcome all esthetic or technical considerations. A fuzzy angled odd colored picture can be a winner despited no redeeming artistic value! After all, if it's the arrest of Michelle Obama on shoplifting, (a most unlikely event, of course), it wouldn't matter what the camera or technique was. That would be the "money" shot!
Asher
Of course, a picture with zero impact is not excused by explanations of the circumstances. The content, however can always overcome all esthetic or technical considerations. A fuzzy angled odd colored picture can be a winner despited no redeeming artistic value! After all, if it's the arrest of Michelle Obama on shoplifting, (a most unlikely event, of course), it wouldn't matter what the camera or technique was. That would be the "money" shot!
Asher
Rachel Foster
New member
Well, criticism. I had my share of it. In fact, I've had far more than my share of it and for that I am truly grateful. When I remember what I was doing when I first landed on OPF (didn't know my aperture from my ISO!) and how far I've come, I am deeply grateful. I have read and considered every comment on a photo that I have posted. Did I follow each bit of advice? No, I tossed a lot of it, to be frank. BUT I did think about each point and consider how I could address it in my work so that it would still be MY work, but better.
I think one needs to remember that getting a critical comment is in itself praise for the image. We don't waste time on images or photographers in whom we see no merit or promise. That, taken with the knowledge that it's up to us to sift through the feedback and then use the helpful bits, makes criticism much easier to take.
I think one needs to remember that getting a critical comment is in itself praise for the image. We don't waste time on images or photographers in whom we see no merit or promise. That, taken with the knowledge that it's up to us to sift through the feedback and then use the helpful bits, makes criticism much easier to take.
fahim mohammed
Well-known member
Unless there is special purpose, a viewer should be least interested in what equipment was used to take
a photograph. It is like asking what the thickness of brushes were that were used by Vermeer. He used what was necessary. Researchers and students might be. But the viewer is not.
Whether it was raining/snowing outside when a commercial shoot was completed is irrelevant to the
purpose. It might have made the shoot more costly or difficult. But a consumer viewing is neither concerned nor should be. It basically is the photographer's problem to negotiate issues that might interfere
in getting his job done.
The context of a photograph depends on the purpose of a photograph. Photographs of the human dead
on their own might or might not indicate where an incident had taken place. It is necessary to establish context in such photographs. Forensic photography usually needs context.
A mother feeding her child stand on its own. No context is necessary unless the circumstances are other
than normal.
a photograph. It is like asking what the thickness of brushes were that were used by Vermeer. He used what was necessary. Researchers and students might be. But the viewer is not.
Whether it was raining/snowing outside when a commercial shoot was completed is irrelevant to the
purpose. It might have made the shoot more costly or difficult. But a consumer viewing is neither concerned nor should be. It basically is the photographer's problem to negotiate issues that might interfere
in getting his job done.
The context of a photograph depends on the purpose of a photograph. Photographs of the human dead
on their own might or might not indicate where an incident had taken place. It is necessary to establish context in such photographs. Forensic photography usually needs context.
A mother feeding her child stand on its own. No context is necessary unless the circumstances are other
than normal.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
"A picture speaks for itself " applies just to beauty, horror, forensics & the like!
For sure, forgetting the actual pose and clothing, just on the lighting, this wouldn't work for any of Ben Rubinstein's wedding clients. Not that they's know why, but they'd for sure feel that the picture didn't work for them. The lighting is not what they expect.
As I said before unless one has a picture of inherent beauty, such as mother nursing her child, sunsets or some such or else Versailles or mountain ranges and clouds that are messages from the heavens, all work needs context. Art goes beyond beauty. Art depends on culture and connections and therefore we need education. So an introduction is always helpful.
Still, anything that has beauty or horror and/surprise may very well stand on it's own. But photography and art covers much more than these postcard or newspaper headline images.
It might be that we are very educated and therefore can immediately appreciate the intents and gifts of all the art we see. I consider myself well-travelled and pretty educated and well-read in photography subjects, and yet often have to look up material to really appreciate a photographer's work.
I'd recommend folk the following:
Consider that a picture occurs in several stages:
The last is so often overlooked! Folk somehow think that the camera should produce a picture that they conceived with no further work. While that can occur, it is a limiting feature of photography that works best for vertical markets, postcard and natural beauty, sentimental scenes, news events and forensic work. More creative work requires creative work.
Look at two recent threads. Large cats: There's natural beauty! Almost all pictures can be submitted work without much or any introduction. Mention of lens used is only to help others. For the picture of a person, however, as art, it's so much harder. Even with context, there's a huge struggle! Will's much debated the picture of a girl on a bridge proves this point. Had it been introduced as a quick photograph to meet the minimal needs of a model building her first portfolio, then all the technical considerations, (that would be out of place at a wedding shoot or portrait), might be put aside.
In the same way, in a scientific or police, documentary or insurance photograph, no one ever complains that the composition is not pleasing!
Without context, we have no ideas which of a myriad of factors are relevant to that photographer's purpose and client.
Asher
However, to get the full benefit of your picture, the richness of it, your explanations was especially helpful. Similarly, to approach Will's recent picture of a pretty girl with a tattoo posing on one knee in a covered freeway overhead bridge, does require context to know whether or not it meets the requirements for its purpose.
For sure, forgetting the actual pose and clothing, just on the lighting, this wouldn't work for any of Ben Rubinstein's wedding clients. Not that they's know why, but they'd for sure feel that the picture didn't work for them. The lighting is not what they expect.
As I said before unless one has a picture of inherent beauty, such as mother nursing her child, sunsets or some such or else Versailles or mountain ranges and clouds that are messages from the heavens, all work needs context. Art goes beyond beauty. Art depends on culture and connections and therefore we need education. So an introduction is always helpful.
Still, anything that has beauty or horror and/surprise may very well stand on it's own. But photography and art covers much more than these postcard or newspaper headline images.
It might be that we are very educated and therefore can immediately appreciate the intents and gifts of all the art we see. I consider myself well-travelled and pretty educated and well-read in photography subjects, and yet often have to look up material to really appreciate a photographer's work.
I'd recommend folk the following:
Consider that a picture occurs in several stages:
- The prepared mind, open to new experience
- The eyes to notice an opportunity to be exploited
- The mind to build imaginative images
- Externalizing that by the means of a limited instrument, the camera
- Using that to make a particular presentation that has your own fingerprints on it
- Finally present it to the world in a way that maximizes it's potential for appreciation, part of which is the courtesy of giving context.
The last is so often overlooked! Folk somehow think that the camera should produce a picture that they conceived with no further work. While that can occur, it is a limiting feature of photography that works best for vertical markets, postcard and natural beauty, sentimental scenes, news events and forensic work. More creative work requires creative work.
Look at two recent threads. Large cats: There's natural beauty! Almost all pictures can be submitted work without much or any introduction. Mention of lens used is only to help others. For the picture of a person, however, as art, it's so much harder. Even with context, there's a huge struggle! Will's much debated the picture of a girl on a bridge proves this point. Had it been introduced as a quick photograph to meet the minimal needs of a model building her first portfolio, then all the technical considerations, (that would be out of place at a wedding shoot or portrait), might be put aside.
In the same way, in a scientific or police, documentary or insurance photograph, no one ever complains that the composition is not pleasing!
Without context, we have no ideas which of a myriad of factors are relevant to that photographer's purpose and client.
Asher
fahim mohammed
Well-known member
Asher, you, me and others have their own views on photography in general and what might
constitute a ' good ' photograph. You have elucidated certain of the considerations that are
significant to you. Me, and others might or might not necessarilyagree with some, part or all of your points of view in this regard.
Just like yourself, I have formed my own conclusions as to what might constitute a ' good ' photograph. Just as I have my own views of what I consider to be ' art '.
My opinions are also based on reading, travel, experiences of different cultures and invariably shaped by my environment and my education.
I am sure others have also arrived at their conclusions following the same or similar thought and experience processes.
Views and opinions might and invariably shall differ, due to each ones individuality and circumstance. There might be agreement too on certain points of view.
It is for each one of us to respect the others view point. Not force it on the rest. Is one better than the other. You might believe yours is; as much as I believe mine to be.
To co-exist amicably with our differences is what it should be all about.
Regards.
constitute a ' good ' photograph. You have elucidated certain of the considerations that are
significant to you. Me, and others might or might not necessarilyagree with some, part or all of your points of view in this regard.
Just like yourself, I have formed my own conclusions as to what might constitute a ' good ' photograph. Just as I have my own views of what I consider to be ' art '.
My opinions are also based on reading, travel, experiences of different cultures and invariably shaped by my environment and my education.
I am sure others have also arrived at their conclusions following the same or similar thought and experience processes.
Views and opinions might and invariably shall differ, due to each ones individuality and circumstance. There might be agreement too on certain points of view.
It is for each one of us to respect the others view point. Not force it on the rest. Is one better than the other. You might believe yours is; as much as I believe mine to be.
To co-exist amicably with our differences is what it should be all about.
Regards.
Jerome Marot
Well-known member
That is the catch: we are not discussing what is a good photograph. We are discussing what is a good critique.
Joke aside, I think that this whole thread is a storm in a teacup. Someone took a picture of a young lady and used a ring light. Someone else noted that the light was flat. Big deal: ring lights are designed to give a flat light. That is their very purpose.
Now, what do we do? If we want to shoot young ladies, we can either use a different light (e.g. a front light, a reflector on the side and maybe a bit of backlight in the hair... classical portrait light) or design the picture so that a flat light is the best choice (just have a look at the ring light manufacturer website for ideas of glamour ringlight shots). What else?
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
That is the catch: we are not discussing what is a good photograph. We are discussing what is a good critique.
Exactly, Jerome,
My point is that we get better critique if we know more about the context: intent, circumstances and purposes especially! A catalog picture has to be looked at in one way and a news photo in another. The picture of the girl on a bridge was presented as "Art". That creates new unique demands in critique, (feedback directed to the photographer), and criticism, (hopefully, knowledgeable and probing, discussing the photograph as "a work of art".
Actually, art, as part of a personal plan, occurs if and when the picture reaches the potential the artist imagined. When the artist is satisfied the work is indeed "art" for that artist. To be "ART" for the rest of us, it has to command attention, continued interest, significance, loyalty and value to be treasured and kept. As long as someone collects it, it has a start on that path
Fahim,
A Jerome points out, my remarks didn't try to define any concept of what makes a good picture, rather the steps in making a picture, the last one of which is presenting it to the world adequately. Of course we have mutual respect for different opinions. More importantly, I treasure the differences. That's what makes for better insight as we get views from alternate perspectives.
BTW, this little discourse shows the sensitivity folk can have to even mild feedback. We just have to deal with it!
Asher
Doug Kerr
Well-known member
Hi, Jerome,
The connection with the ring light was collateral.
I was giving a critique of a photograph, not a tutorial on lighting practice.
If I had commented that in a picture "there was an awful lot of motion blur (probably due to the 1/8 second shutter speed)", a counter that "well, what would one expect with a shutter speed of 1/8 second" is not helpful.
Best regards,
Doug
Indeed, but my comment that the face seemed flat was not intended to be "note here how the use of a ring light produced a flat appearance". It was that the lighting on the face was flat, which I didn't find attractive.
The connection with the ring light was collateral.
I was giving a critique of a photograph, not a tutorial on lighting practice.
If I had commented that in a picture "there was an awful lot of motion blur (probably due to the 1/8 second shutter speed)", a counter that "well, what would one expect with a shutter speed of 1/8 second" is not helpful.
Best regards,
Doug
fahim mohammed
Well-known member
I disagree. We are discussing a photograph or rather whether a ring light should/should not have been used. Whether the use of that particular equipment for the purpose could have been better used or should it have been used at all. But a ring light to replace a car's headlights?
We are also discussing the ' flatness ' cause by that particular type of lighting on that particular
photograph in question. And I have made my views obvious on that type of photography.
I also posted a link to what constitutes, for me, exemplary portraits.
Just because a critique was given on a particular photograph and then another thread was
initiated having a direct bearing and referencing that particular photograph..we are discussing the photograph.
Not, as Doug, correctly points out lighting techiques. It is very rare, if not impossible, for someone
to ask for lighting techniques in a ' photographic ' forum other than to light a ' photographic ' subject.
Designing lighting for the kitchen or an OR is not directly relevant in a ' photographic ' forum. Lighting the kitchen or an OR for photographic purposes is.
Me, I am clear. The two threads under consideration are one and the same. One begot the other.
That is simple enough for me.
We are not discussing ' critque '.There is whole thread devoted to that. I did not contribute to it.
It might be useful for people to read that thread. Also to evaluate their rsponses to criticism and what they professed there.
But " Photography as Art ' is about photography and its art form ( whatever that means ).
The OP posted a photograph and asked for criticism. It would appear it was not to his liking.
A thread was subsequently by the initiated by the original poster in a forum category that has to do with photography and art, which was irrelevant under this category.
Asher he should know the folly of that. And I am surprised that you too went along.
Now you and, at least one other person, comes up with the remark that it is not a ' photograph' we are discussing.
In that case you or the mods should have moved it to the relevant section. You ( all of us included ) have had enough time for that.
Regards.
I shall post some photos. I might get lucky if someone find time from here to have a look at them.
We are also discussing the ' flatness ' cause by that particular type of lighting on that particular
photograph in question. And I have made my views obvious on that type of photography.
I also posted a link to what constitutes, for me, exemplary portraits.
Just because a critique was given on a particular photograph and then another thread was
initiated having a direct bearing and referencing that particular photograph..we are discussing the photograph.
Not, as Doug, correctly points out lighting techiques. It is very rare, if not impossible, for someone
to ask for lighting techniques in a ' photographic ' forum other than to light a ' photographic ' subject.
Designing lighting for the kitchen or an OR is not directly relevant in a ' photographic ' forum. Lighting the kitchen or an OR for photographic purposes is.
Me, I am clear. The two threads under consideration are one and the same. One begot the other.
That is simple enough for me.
We are not discussing ' critque '.There is whole thread devoted to that. I did not contribute to it.
It might be useful for people to read that thread. Also to evaluate their rsponses to criticism and what they professed there.
But " Photography as Art ' is about photography and its art form ( whatever that means ).
The OP posted a photograph and asked for criticism. It would appear it was not to his liking.
A thread was subsequently by the initiated by the original poster in a forum category that has to do with photography and art, which was irrelevant under this category.
Asher he should know the folly of that. And I am surprised that you too went along.
Now you and, at least one other person, comes up with the remark that it is not a ' photograph' we are discussing.
In that case you or the mods should have moved it to the relevant section. You ( all of us included ) have had enough time for that.
Regards.
I shall post some photos. I might get lucky if someone find time from here to have a look at them.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Critique is useless without understanding!
Fahim,
For sure the author of this thread refers to his experience here. Then, I discussed with wisdom of his placement of his picture of a girl on a bridge in "Photography as Art". Simply put, it troubled me that this picture had not been prepared with effort and focus that justified that forum. To me, at least, this was a mistake. Furthermore, to post pictures without context and have it left unexplained is neither fair on the image or on us. If someone posts an enigmatic image without introduction then subsequently, this can be corrected after seeing how we react. That is also a fair process.
That post is on it's own. This is a new topic. Here we discuss the concept of critique done in the absence of understanding, a charge that Will makes. That's a valid complaint, but who's at fault? The response is really simple, "Introduce the limited purpose of your work!".
Let's leave beauty, awe, amazing and horror aside. These need little to no help in conveying the message, feelings and ideas intended. Here's an iconic example of a picture that cannot be fully understood without an introduction. This is not a marginal concept! Instead, it's the often essential final step in making a shot into a photograph that we can experience, sharing a gestalt of the emotions and value of the scene. It's a wise person who sends his precious child off on a journey with careful handover.
Asher
Fahim,
For sure the author of this thread refers to his experience here. Then, I discussed with wisdom of his placement of his picture of a girl on a bridge in "Photography as Art". Simply put, it troubled me that this picture had not been prepared with effort and focus that justified that forum. To me, at least, this was a mistake. Furthermore, to post pictures without context and have it left unexplained is neither fair on the image or on us. If someone posts an enigmatic image without introduction then subsequently, this can be corrected after seeing how we react. That is also a fair process.
That post is on it's own. This is a new topic. Here we discuss the concept of critique done in the absence of understanding, a charge that Will makes. That's a valid complaint, but who's at fault? The response is really simple, "Introduce the limited purpose of your work!".
Let's leave beauty, awe, amazing and horror aside. These need little to no help in conveying the message, feelings and ideas intended. Here's an iconic example of a picture that cannot be fully understood without an introduction. This is not a marginal concept! Instead, it's the often essential final step in making a shot into a photograph that we can experience, sharing a gestalt of the emotions and value of the scene. It's a wise person who sends his precious child off on a journey with careful handover.
Asher
fahim mohammed
Well-known member
Thank you Asher. I shall leave it at that. But not before offering my sincere thanks for referencing
my image. It was very kind of you.
My thanks to all those who contributed too. Otherwise, there would not have been an exchange
of views.
Best regards.
my image. It was very kind of you.
My thanks to all those who contributed too. Otherwise, there would not have been an exchange
of views.
Best regards.
Doug Kerr
Well-known member
Hi, Asher,
To me, almost all photography is art. As with all art, some of it is "better" than others, always of course under some set of criteria. Like all art, some is more suited to certain objectives than others. Is a wraparound on a van featuring garish images of a radio station's star DJs art? Absolutely.
Is a primitive photo of a wide-eyed urchin painted on black velvet and offered for sale on the hood of a 1980 Chevrolet art? Is the design of the 500-type telephone set [Henry Dreyfus] art? Absolutely. Is the design of the 702-type telephone set ("The Princess") [not Henry Dreyfus - the Bell System was trying to show that they were not dependent on him for telephone set designs] art? Absolutely. Worse art to me than the former, but that's just me.
It's no accident that the original images from which printed circuit board layouts used to be generated were called "art masters".
So I think the existence of a forum section entitled "photography as art" is a cruel hoax.
I think I understand the intent, which is perhaps to deal with photography that somehow aspires to some plane of "artistry" that my images of cranes putting up transmission towers might, or might not, attain.
We talked for a while here about what "fine art" meant; my own take was that is was only assuredly the name of a department of various universities (to be distinguished, as Will Thompson said, from "industrial arts" - but only organizationally).
Now another thing altogether might be "good art" or "great art".
Well, I'm going back to my cosines, and the wonderful art of Egide Walschaerts' locomotive valve gear. Before I go, in that vein, I present this:
Jack Delano: Mrs. Viola Sievers, one of the wipers at the roundhouse,
giving a giant "H" class locomotive [4-8-4 - "Pacific" class]
a bath of live steam; Clinton, Iowa, April 1943
Her aim, at the moment of the shot, was just to the rear of the expansion link.
Now is this art, or what‽ (Including the photograph!)
This particular locomotive was the next-to-last of the series, built in 1929. They had 76" diameter driving wheels. No locomotives of this type are believed to still exist.
Best regards,
Doug
I still have trouble with the conceit that there is photography that is somehow qualified (under some criteria) as "art" and the rest is not.
To me, almost all photography is art. As with all art, some of it is "better" than others, always of course under some set of criteria. Like all art, some is more suited to certain objectives than others. Is a wraparound on a van featuring garish images of a radio station's star DJs art? Absolutely.
Is a primitive photo of a wide-eyed urchin painted on black velvet and offered for sale on the hood of a 1980 Chevrolet art? Is the design of the 500-type telephone set [Henry Dreyfus] art? Absolutely. Is the design of the 702-type telephone set ("The Princess") [not Henry Dreyfus - the Bell System was trying to show that they were not dependent on him for telephone set designs] art? Absolutely. Worse art to me than the former, but that's just me.
It's no accident that the original images from which printed circuit board layouts used to be generated were called "art masters".
So I think the existence of a forum section entitled "photography as art" is a cruel hoax.
I think I understand the intent, which is perhaps to deal with photography that somehow aspires to some plane of "artistry" that my images of cranes putting up transmission towers might, or might not, attain.
We talked for a while here about what "fine art" meant; my own take was that is was only assuredly the name of a department of various universities (to be distinguished, as Will Thompson said, from "industrial arts" - but only organizationally).
Now another thing altogether might be "good art" or "great art".
Well, I'm going back to my cosines, and the wonderful art of Egide Walschaerts' locomotive valve gear. Before I go, in that vein, I present this:
Jack Delano: Mrs. Viola Sievers, one of the wipers at the roundhouse,
giving a giant "H" class locomotive [4-8-4 - "Pacific" class]
a bath of live steam; Clinton, Iowa, April 1943
Public domain
Her aim, at the moment of the shot, was just to the rear of the expansion link.
Now is this art, or what‽ (Including the photograph!)
This particular locomotive was the next-to-last of the series, built in 1929. They had 76" diameter driving wheels. No locomotives of this type are believed to still exist.
Best regards,
Doug
Jerome Marot
Well-known member
Not being american, I had to search what those handsets looked like. Interested readers will find the answer here:
http://www.arctos.com/dial/
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
What does "Photography as art" forum hope to offer?
Doug,
The work is indeed qualified for "Photography as Art" if that's where the photographer wishes to post! My reticence was from Will's admission that he was being lazy and that's why there was no lighting nor post processing to the level he's capable. In my individual opinion, that it's not fair to himself or to those of us who are going to devote energy to this work. That's a subjective opinion and since it's merely that, I had to defer to Will's choice.
Doug,
Like walking up the steps of a court of justice, (looking up above seeing the symbols of the scales carefully balanced), is no assurance that justice will be served and delivered. However, it's more like a wish, a hope and a prayer!
"Photography as art" is designed to address pictures the photographer believes can command territory beyond their own experience as art. So these pictures should get critique, the kind of helpful feedback we expect on the making of the picture based on the creator's intent, context and purpose.
If possible, more formal "art criticism", is a welcome contribution by anyone who can invest the needed effort. Art criticism is far more difficult for us! While critique is directed in a helpful practical way mainly to the artist, criticism is supposed to be impartial. It's meant not necessarily nor primarily for the artist, but for the rest of us.
Art criticism, as a discipline, requires more knowledge of art, literature, history and esthetics than just those basic requirements for an effective picture addressed in "critique", (the constructive feedback we attempt to give to the photographer: choice of subject, lighting, timing, composition, what's excluded, how things are ranked and shown, post production and so forth).
Art criticism is a more scholarly approach. It goes further, but in the process, is not necessarily an advocate for the work. Art Criticism benefits from an understanding of the body of that particular artist's works and key influences and cultural dependancies. Art criticism might place the work in the context of other works and even it's significance to our ways of formulating ideas, ways of stimulating emotions and thought, of thinking, of our very views of art and even our culture and civilization.
I'm not addressing "fine art" here, we can deal with that in another discussion. I'm just addressing the purpose of our forum, "Photography as Art". It's give folks a chance, in a safe place, to test out their work as if it was being offered to a larger art world where works that command sustained interest and draws a following earns ranking high enough to have our society want to save and collect it. No one is deciding what is good art. We can however give out feelings as to whether or not the photographer's personal art also works to draw others in to an extent that would justify dedicated wall space to it. Occasionally, there might be a response that references the work to art we already know about. If that happens it's a treat.
Nevertheless, Doug, like walking up the steps of a house of justice, passing through the doors does not imply a deserving case nor a fair consideration.
Asher
Doug,
The work is indeed qualified for "Photography as Art" if that's where the photographer wishes to post! My reticence was from Will's admission that he was being lazy and that's why there was no lighting nor post processing to the level he's capable. In my individual opinion, that it's not fair to himself or to those of us who are going to devote energy to this work. That's a subjective opinion and since it's merely that, I had to defer to Will's choice.
That might be so but the range of territory that most such art influences is limited and/or transient. Successful art commands and gathers attention and a need save it for the future.Doug Kerr said:
Doug Kerr said:
Doug,
Like walking up the steps of a court of justice, (looking up above seeing the symbols of the scales carefully balanced), is no assurance that justice will be served and delivered. However, it's more like a wish, a hope and a prayer!
"Photography as art" is designed to address pictures the photographer believes can command territory beyond their own experience as art. So these pictures should get critique, the kind of helpful feedback we expect on the making of the picture based on the creator's intent, context and purpose.
If possible, more formal "art criticism", is a welcome contribution by anyone who can invest the needed effort. Art criticism is far more difficult for us! While critique is directed in a helpful practical way mainly to the artist, criticism is supposed to be impartial. It's meant not necessarily nor primarily for the artist, but for the rest of us.
Art criticism, as a discipline, requires more knowledge of art, literature, history and esthetics than just those basic requirements for an effective picture addressed in "critique", (the constructive feedback we attempt to give to the photographer: choice of subject, lighting, timing, composition, what's excluded, how things are ranked and shown, post production and so forth).
Art criticism is a more scholarly approach. It goes further, but in the process, is not necessarily an advocate for the work. Art Criticism benefits from an understanding of the body of that particular artist's works and key influences and cultural dependancies. Art criticism might place the work in the context of other works and even it's significance to our ways of formulating ideas, ways of stimulating emotions and thought, of thinking, of our very views of art and even our culture and civilization.
I'm not addressing "fine art" here, we can deal with that in another discussion. I'm just addressing the purpose of our forum, "Photography as Art". It's give folks a chance, in a safe place, to test out their work as if it was being offered to a larger art world where works that command sustained interest and draws a following earns ranking high enough to have our society want to save and collect it. No one is deciding what is good art. We can however give out feelings as to whether or not the photographer's personal art also works to draw others in to an extent that would justify dedicated wall space to it. Occasionally, there might be a response that references the work to art we already know about. If that happens it's a treat.
Nevertheless, Doug, like walking up the steps of a house of justice, passing through the doors does not imply a deserving case nor a fair consideration.
Asher
Doug Kerr
Well-known member
Hi, Jerome,
Thanks for the nice reference. The reference to Dreyfuss' work is apt.
Just to slightly correct some of the discussion there, re the 202-type set for example. The apparatus code series 202 referred to the entire telephone set - mounting ("base"), handset, and cords. The code D1 referred not to the shape of the base but rather to the mounting itself as a module of the telephone set ("telephone set mounting D1"); of course, the D-series mountings were oval.
Similarly, the B1 telephone set mounting was a portion of the 102-type telephone set, of course, the B-series mountings were oval.
Further, the base portion of the 302-type telephone set was (for the common configurations) an H1 telephone set mounting.
People were often confused by the fact that only the code for the mounting ("D1)") was stamped on the mounting (sounds fair enough). Nothing on a 202-type telephone set said "202" - for one thing, what kind of 202 it was depended on the specific type of handset with which it was equipped.
The assignment of separate codes to the mounting was not carried into the 500-series. And they had the code for the entire set (except for the color suffix) stamped on the bottom (e.g., "500D").
Best regards,
Doug
Thanks for the nice reference. The reference to Dreyfuss' work is apt.
Just to slightly correct some of the discussion there, re the 202-type set for example. The apparatus code series 202 referred to the entire telephone set - mounting ("base"), handset, and cords. The code D1 referred not to the shape of the base but rather to the mounting itself as a module of the telephone set ("telephone set mounting D1"); of course, the D-series mountings were oval.
Similarly, the B1 telephone set mounting was a portion of the 102-type telephone set, of course, the B-series mountings were oval.
Further, the base portion of the 302-type telephone set was (for the common configurations) an H1 telephone set mounting.
People were often confused by the fact that only the code for the mounting ("D1)") was stamped on the mounting (sounds fair enough). Nothing on a 202-type telephone set said "202" - for one thing, what kind of 202 it was depended on the specific type of handset with which it was equipped.
The assignment of separate codes to the mounting was not carried into the 500-series. And they had the code for the entire set (except for the color suffix) stamped on the bottom (e.g., "500D").
Best regards,
Doug
Doug Kerr
Well-known member
Hi, Asher,
Now is that a gallery of fine art or a fine gallery of art?
The rest of your post, incidentally, is quite valuable.
Best regards,
Doug
That's really good - clean and meaningful. Why doesn't it say that "over the door" rather than that thing about a "fine art gallery"?
Now is that a gallery of fine art or a fine gallery of art?
The rest of your post, incidentally, is quite valuable.
Best regards,
Doug
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
""Photography as art" is designed to address pictures the photographer believes can command territory beyond their own experience as art."
Thanks Doug,
It's been a learning process. I was challenged to deal with a picture that unexpectedly appeared where a serious lot of thought and consideration is required. Art Criticism is not a casual reading of the obvious.
It made me think what or real purpose is and now I think it's clarified. The sign will appear over the door, below Dante's warning,
Asher
Thanks Doug,
It's been a learning process. I was challenged to deal with a picture that unexpectedly appeared where a serious lot of thought and consideration is required. Art Criticism is not a casual reading of the obvious.
It made me think what or real purpose is and now I think it's clarified. The sign will appear over the door, below Dante's warning,
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here!
Asher
Last edited:
Doug Kerr
Well-known member
Hi, Asher,
I find every day in my writing that nothing makes me so well think about something as trying to express it to others.
Best regards,
Doug
Indeed. As is so often the case, the job of the machinist is not only to think about the shaft but to think about the lathe as well.
I find every day in my writing that nothing makes me so well think about something as trying to express it to others.
That sounds excellent!
Best regards,
Doug
Last edited by a moderator:
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Doug Kerr
Well-known member
It's an interesting quotation. Dante's original text (Italian) was:
Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate
of which the most literal translation to English is:
"Abandon all hope, ye who enter"
In Cary's famous translation (1814) it was:
"All hope abandon ye who enter here."
the initial word order perhaps to be considered more "poetic" and the latter part more typically idiomatic (the "here" expolict).
The surrounding context is very interesting, and pertinent (again the Cary):
Through me you pass into the city of woe:
Through me you pass into eternal pain:
Through me among the people lost for aye.
Justice the founder of my fabric mov'd:
To rear me was the task of power divine,
Supremest wisdom, and primeval love.
Before me things create were none, save things
Eternal, and eternal I endure.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
Such characters in colour dim I mark'd
Over a portal's lofty arch inscrib'd:
Whereat I thus: Master, these words import.
Through me you pass into eternal pain:
Through me among the people lost for aye.
Justice the founder of my fabric mov'd:
To rear me was the task of power divine,
Supremest wisdom, and primeval love.
Before me things create were none, save things
Eternal, and eternal I endure.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
Such characters in colour dim I mark'd
Over a portal's lofty arch inscrib'd:
Whereat I thus: Master, these words import.
Best regards,
Doug