Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_Nowak
Yep, it's a bytch, but that's the way it works. Photography is a communication medium. No communication... no value.
Methinks you vastly underrate the average public.
I must admit to being curious about your elitist viewpoint. But then, you are probably an "ARTIST." Since I don't make any such claim, I'd probably not understand it if you explained it.
Damn shame you have to live and deal with hillbillies and uncultured zombies.
Oh, and I'm a teetotaler, but my hillbilly friends sip aged Kentucky bourbon or Jack Daniel's fine product, not beer...
|
No I'm not
"ARTIST" , at least I don't consider myself one, nor do I consider most of my work
"ART". I, like Glenn, am primarily a whore - you pay me and I go. Sometimes I don't operate that way, but that is mostly because there are projects that interest me, mostly documentary, that I can't get paid for (or paid very much for), so that I do on my own dime - such as when I went to sub-saharan Africa to document human rights abuses. Or when I went to Venezuela to document the plight of students and artists in that country and to retrieve the work of a historically important Ukrainian artist.
In fact, I'm often the one on other fora, defending the glamour shooter to the art/fashion oriented shooters and for whatever reason they happen to listen. I think that is because I do have a pretty firm grasp of art and culture in general. I do not look down on glamour as a pedestrian art form only appreciated by the great unwashed. I consider it to be a historically rich form of art that is actually quite difficult to do well. I wrote a rather long post on the subject (
http://www.glamour1.com/forums/main-...manifesto.html) which defends it as an art form, and yet still calls for some quality in this area. The reason that glamour (and internet glam in particular) is often looked down upon in professional circles is not that others hate glamour, but because so much of it is done so poorly.
This site is a perfect example. Look at what gets kudos. Most of it, sucks, from a photographic standpoint, the only redeeming quality seems to be the naked chick, which is apparently enough for most who comment. That's fine, but it's not for everyone.
You wrote:
Quote:
|
Yep, it's a bytch, but that's the way it works. Photography is a communication medium. No communication... no value.
|
I agree with this, but only to a point. In Aristotle's treatise on communication he describes how there are three key areas to be considered - the speaker, the message and the audience. In this he supports your viewpoint, in that, it makes no sense to talk above your audience as that simply leads to bad communication and, in such instances, the fault of miscommunication lies with the speaker. However, he also goes on to discuss how not all messages are meant for all audiences. Perhaps a speaker does not wish to dumb down his message so that it is understood by the lowest common denominator? What if the message is targeted to a particular group, with particular beliefs and ideologies? In such a case, is it not appropriate to structure the message in such a way that it is understood and appreciated by those you are targeting? And if this is true, why should you (as speaker, or even you as bystander) care if anyone else understands the message or not.
This is actually a key to fashion photography which is often misunderstood. We had a debate here on the subject but a few refuse to believe it.
FASHION is elitist. By fashion, I do not really mean, overpriced mall brand garbage catering to the suburban middle class (although they also apply some of the same principals) but real fashion. It is elitist by design and so are the ads and the editorial spreads which represent it. The hillbilly is not supposed to "get it", and if they do, those producing the content have failed. If you disagree with this, I would argue that you should spend sometime hanging out with those in fashion, as you will then see their utter disdain for all who fall outside their circle of exclusivity.
To say all of this implies that I fully embrace that level of elitism, and I don't - at least not fully. If I did, I would be shooting different content. But I do understand it and appreciate it and do shoot some personal work which reflects that - which is something that I suppose all artists, or at least all involved in the arts, should do. I have spent fairly large portions of my life earning my living through the creative arts, mostly music, in my younger days. I spent my entire life perfecting that craft and developing artistry, so excuse me if I feel that the work of some is intrinsically better or more valuable artistically than others based on their level of musicianship as, say, an instrumentalist. Jerry Garcia may be fun, but he's no Joe Pass or Yo Yo Ma...
Now, having said all of this, it matters not if you consider yourself an artist or a craftsman or even a whore. Glenn mentioned the mix of art and science. I tend to think of it as art and craft. From my perspective true art can only flow from true craft. This is not a unique viewpoint, nor is it one that all agree on, it is simply the school of thought that I ascribe to. The first thing anyone should be focusing on, regardless of genre, is craft and that is where critiques are appropriate. Who among us can critique the artistic vision of another? We really can't. But if someone is learning the craft of photography, and is clear in what they were trying to accomplish, then yes, we can critique those aspects of craft that they were working on. Lighting ratios, for instance. If the poster says they were going for a blown highlight look and references an example, then we can critique how well that was achieved and, if it wasn't, what that person might do in the future to make it better. If on the other hand, he wasn't going for that look, and still blew the highlights, then we can instruct him on how to bring the latitude of his set/lighting into range with his film/sensor and how to better meter a scene to avoid that mistake in the future. Craft, is the only area where critiques, as a form of learning, are valuable.
This is where images, even if they are only in a portfolio, are of value. Yes, anyone can tell me that I blew my highlights, but once you go beyond that to offer information that is actually of value, the instruction part, then it is nice to know your qualifications for offering that instruction. In the world of visual arts, those qualification are represented by our portfolios. Are you, or are you not, someone whose instruction I, or others, should be listening to?
This even applies to the more artistic side of things, when they are to be used on a commercial level. My point to Glenn about a Playboy submission addresses this. He might look at an image where the highlights are REALLY blown and suggest that you get them under control if you want to submit to Playboy - and show an image which demonstrates how they like their highlights (slightly hot, but not too much). Now, you and he can argue all day long that the only thing that matters is if the "public" likes it. But that's not true at all. If you are interested in submitting to Playboy (just to continue the example) then it only matters if their photo editor likes it - full stop. Your opinion means nothing, as does mine. The opinion of the general population means even less. You are shooting to appeal to a specific individual whose job it is to understand what appeals to their core buying demographic. So again, in this area, the qualifications of the person giving the advice comes very much into play. Glenn's advice in this area would mean a great, great deal, another's advice would be meaningless - even if the advice was similar.
As far as "underrat[ing] the average public" goes, I guess I do and I feel justified in that. When I see Orchestras, ballet companies, theater troupes and even museums closing left and right around this country and yet Nascar can't keep up with the demand for seating, yeah, I suppose I don't see much of cultural worth... Perhaps when you look around you see something different.
Google
IP: 66.18.61.18
Linear Mode
