Can you claim to be a great photographer when using modern high tech gear ?

Giles2373 said:
For me its not about the art itself that gets people annoyed but the critique of art and the patronising approach that can be portrayed to those who are accused of not being able to understand art as they've not studied it, or the exponents of the art being discussed.
It seems some have to shout that they understand art and can see it where others cant and gain a level of self-importance doing so and following that comes the psychophant agreeing with them. That I believe is what riles so many as if one disagrees then one is just uneducated and in a lot of cases "wrong". Similar to religion in a lot of ways but perhaps not as harmful on a global scale!
Click to expand...

I can honestly say that I have never experienced or witnessed that. Most galleries I have been to or show work in are run by quite normal and generally engaging people who just happen to sell or are passionate about art. I honestly don't think it exists as much you think it might. I know galleries can be intimidating places, particularly commercial galleries but that is largely down to the believing the above to be true. I go to quite a few exhibitions for major artists at large public galleries and have never once encountered any thing like you describe either. There are usually associated talks with big shows, which will no doubt get into much greater detail but you don't have to go to these - it's just a case of walking around a gallery looking at art.

If you see art discussed and critiqued on TV, then yes, it usually is in depth but art is a huge subject, and whilst one person may find it pretentious others find it interesting. C'est la vie!
 
The Afghan girl has to be my 'favourite' photograph of all time - it is absolutely incredible! Her eyes draw you into the picture and are 'the window of her soul' - every time I look at it I try to work out her thoughts and conclude different thoughts on each occasion.

The Saigon Execution is another favourite and an incredibly powerful image, an absolute classic of Photo Journalism.

The starving Child & Vulture; not seen before but another great capture a very moving and disturbing image that I find quite upsetting.

After saying the above all of these images, in a way are quite disturbing and can be very negative; whilst great photographs I am not sure if i would class them as 'art' that i would like to consume on a regular basis?
 
Last edited:
Fraser Euan White said:
After saying the above all of these images, in a way are quite disturbing and can be very negative
Click to expand...
I'd say seminal and maybe salutary rather than negative. They need to be seen.
Fraser Euan White said:
I am not sure if i would class them as 'art' that i would like to consume on a regular basis?
Click to expand...
Well you don't have to have them on the wall - but in a book, maybe, or just to have seen them and remembered them.
 
droj said:
No - I usually can find consensus! Not obviously with everyone, but with other people who are interested in art (or music) and have a depth of engagement with it.

Depends how you define pleasure ... you might get pleasure from something that is mere decoration or entertainment and not necessarily art. So pleasure isn't a defining principle.
Click to expand...
Earlier you mentioned 'mere pleasure' and now 'mere decoration'. Why is either inimitable to being art? If art does not give me pleasure, it is pointless (unless you are a masochist, of course). A lot of art exists just as decoration - the Lindisfarne Gospel and the Book of Kells spring to mind - they are still art and more artistic than two blue buckets.
 
John I was trying to give a reference to the fact that there are levels in art, rather than all art being lumped together as equal.

A Rembrandt or a Picasso is more rewarding than a William Morris wallpaper, no matter how much you might like William Morris's walllpaper.
 
I suppose the other way of looking at the original question is...

‘Who is claiming to be a great photographer’?

I don’t believe I’ve seen that claim from anyone.

In fact great photographers are exceedingly rare, although it’s a matter of personal taste.

Do we need a companion thread... Who are the great photographers?
 
Phil V said:
I suppose the other way of looking at the original question is...

‘Who is claiming to be a great photographer’?

I don’t believe I’ve seen that claim from anyone.

In fact great photographers are exceedingly rare, although it’s a matter of personal taste.

Do we need a companion thread... Who are the great photographers?
Click to expand...

Well great at photographs or great at making a living from it. I would say the greats are those in the former category whose photos are still talked about through time. In which case I guess Adams, Cartier Bresson, Klein for starters.
 
Phil V said:
I suppose the other way of looking at the original question is...

‘Who is claiming to be a great photographer’?

I don’t believe I’ve seen that claim from anyone.

In fact great photographers are exceedingly rare, although it’s a matter of personal taste.

Do we need a companion thread... Who are the great photographers?
Click to expand...
I can honestly sat im a lousy Photoshop.
 
droj said:
John I was trying to give a reference to the fact that there are levels in art, rather than all art being lumped together as equal.

A Rembrandt or a Picasso is more rewarding than a William Morris wallpaper, no matter how much you might like William Morris's walllpaper.
Click to expand...

No you have simply made a subjective opinion and stated it as fact, nothing more. That is why some are called elitist they simply do not want to accept that it is just opinion and not quantifiable.
 
Phil V said:
I can confirm you’re a lousy typist :LOL:
Click to expand...
And I can honestly say I hate the spellchecker in my phone :)
Though the one in the tablet is even worse.
Ok I am also a lousy photographer
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bearair said:
Quantify the word rewarding in the context of your statement.
Click to expand...
Quantify? It's not about quantity, it's about the qualities of something. You can't take a ruler to it.
 
droj said:
Quantify? It's not about quantity, it's about the qualities of something. You can't take a ruler to it.
Click to expand...

An objective perspective is one that is not influenced by emotions, opinions, or personal feelings - it is a perspective based in fact, in things quantifiable and measurable. A subjective perspective is one open to greater interpretation based on personal feeling, emotion, aesthetics, etc.

And there you go, that is why you have a subjective statement. Now there is nothing wrong in my opinion with making a subjective statement as long as people understand that it is just opinion, not a fact.
 
When I see qualities in something (like a photograph or a painting), it's not measurable! However it is describable, just as I did about the buckets. Not that my description was exhaustive, but I perceived something that was there and described it. My perceptions will undoubtedly be shared by others (including, presumably the curator of photography at the Tate when that work was acquired, so are not mine alone - they must be inherent in the work.
 
droj said:
When I see qualities in something (like a photograph or a painting), it's not measurable! However it is describable, just as I did about the buckets. Not that my description was exhaustive, but I perceived something that was there and described it. My perceptions will undoubtedly be shared by others (including, presumably the curator of photography at the Tate when that work was acquired, so are not mine alone - they must be inherent in the work.
Click to expand...

No; qualities 'seen' in a photograph can be 'culture induced' - although you think you do not have bias you do; we are humans and as animals we all have behaviour traits. 'Trends' in art also display these traits and people that follow a 'subject' quite often think in similar ways, due to what has been publicised about the artist etc.

I can guarantee if i put that picture in an album with 100+ pictures taken by 8 year olds, and you were told these are the pictures taken by class A you would not have picked that picture out as being special - you have done so because you have knowledge of the artist.
 
Last edited:
droj said:
When I see qualities in something (like a photograph or a painting), it's not measurable! However it is describable, just as I did about the buckets. Not that my description was exhaustive, but I perceived something that was there and described it. My perceptions will undoubtedly be shared by others (including, presumably the curator of photography at the Tate when that work was acquired, so are not mine alone - they must be inherent in the work.
Click to expand...
No you are just being subjective again, you did not show anything in the the buckets proved that there must be an inherent quality in the work you gave your opinion on them, that was all. As for using the curator of photograpy, that is just a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority. The first thing on the way to elitism is the idea your opinion on subjective discussions is fact. IMHO obviously!

One of my favourite interests is philosophy, and just like in art some philosophers refuse to accept that the entire subject is nothing more than opinion.
 
Bearair said:
... nothing more than opinion ...
Click to expand...
The funny thing is that I do consider my perceptions about the image to be objective (though as said, non-exhaustive). I'll reflect on what you've said ... but might continue to be stubborn.
 
Fraser Euan White said:
we are humans and as animals we all have behaviour traits
Click to expand...
Each of us inhabits a time & a cultural landscape, and indeed I didn't come acrosss that image in isolation, so who knows for sure? But I would like to think that my perceptive faculties would've distinguished the picture from the company you suggested. I also assume that another person from my time and culture could've described it in very similar terms to mine.

Perhaps we should attempt to ask Peter Fraser himself?
 
Last edited:
droj said:
The funny thing is that I do consider my perceptions about the image to be objective (though as said, non-exhaustive). I'll reflect on what you've said ... but might continue to be stubborn.
Click to expand...
You have every right to continue to think as you wish, but it will not make it fact, and that is not a subjective opinion but a measurable fact.

The only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing. Socrates (in his humble opinion)
 
Last edited:
droj said:
Each of us inhabits a time & a cultural landscape, and indeed I didn't come acrosss that image in isolation, so who knows for sure? But I would like to think that my perceptive faculties would've distinguished the picture from the company you suggested. I also assume that another person from my time and culture could've described it in very similar terms to mine.

Perhaps we should attempt to ask Peter Fraser himself?
Click to expand...
So you are just looking for confirmation bias?
 
droj said:
Ah, but I know something!

Of course, there's nothing like it!
Click to expand...
So you think you no better the than the father of modern philosophy(notice my appeal to authority) perhaps you do, but it is only your opinion!

Of course there is nothing like confirmation bias it massages the ego!
 
Fraser Euan White said:
Steve; can I ask why the photo confirms I like the technology of Photography but have little interest in the Art?

I entitled the the Photo 'A refreshing tipple' as i was hoping to convey the fact that I find JD a refreshing drink and the 'shower of water' was hopefully to give the impression of refreshment. I have obviously 'missed this' completely?

Thanks

(Apologies - I realise this is not a critique area but it may help me understand where I am going wrong.)

Anybody; please feel free to comment.
Click to expand...

Hi Fraser, I'd be happy to try. First I'll say that I think we all have an artistic side. It's really just an attitude. I suspect that you can be quite artistic in your work (something to do with motor racing?), but you see the drivers as the artists so you can't be one. This is guesswork so tell me if I'm wrong.
Anyway, the whiskey. Well, it seems as though you've just followed instructions. Do you really see whiskey as just a refreshing drink? Even the whiskey advertisers are more creative than that. Technically, the photo is good, but I expect you know that, it just says nothing of interest.
What is interesting is that you would select that photo as an example of your photographic art. A photo that is just an assay of the craft. Why not something that you really feel strongly about? Maybe that is whiskey, but not that photo.
 
Fraser Euan White said:
Steve; can I ask why the photo confirms I like the technology of Photography but have little interest in the Art?

I entitled the the Photo 'A refreshing tipple' as i was hoping to convey the fact that I find JD a refreshing drink and the 'shower of water' was hopefully to give the impression of refreshment. I have obviously 'missed this' completely?

Thanks

(Apologies - I realise this is not a critique area but it may help me understand where I am going wrong.)

Anybody; please feel free to comment.
Click to expand...
I think subconsciously you were aware of the fact Whisky means the Water of Life, by using water in the picture you have also emphasised the fact it JD is made in a "dry county". Its a stunning piece of social commentary exposing the hypocrisy of producing Whisky in a county it cannot be drunk in, indeed denying the very life giving water essential for life. Well done sir for this remarkable piece of art for those of us educated enough to understand its "meaning";)
 
Bearair said:
I think subconsciously you were aware of the fact Whisky means the Water of Life, by using water in the picture you have also emphasised the fact it JD is made in a "dry county". Its a stunning piece of social commentary exposing the hypocrisy of producing Whisky in a county it cannot be drunk in, indeed denying the very life giving water essential for life. Well done sir for this remarkable piece of art for those of us educated enough to understand its "meaning";)
Click to expand...

Roger - you read my mind better than me :LOL:
 
Bearair said:
You have every right to continue to think as you wish, but it will not make it fact, and that is not a subjective opinion but a measurable fact.

The only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing. Socrates (in his humble opinion)
Click to expand...

But if you know that you now nothing then you know something! (My wisdom! :LOL:)
.
 
petersmart said:
But if you know that you now nothing then you know something! (My wisdom! :LOL:)
.
Click to expand...
Which is why to paraphrase Socrates he said I know, I know nothing which makes me just a little bit more knowledgeable than you. (in his humble opinion of course!)

Then we can get on to the sceptics who claim that we cannot even know that we exist, hence my signature with therefore removed.:naughty:
 
Bearair said:
I think subconsciously you were aware of the fact Whisky means the Water of Life, by using water in the picture you have also emphasised the fact it JD is made in a "dry county". Its a stunning piece of social commentary exposing the hypocrisy of producing Whisky in a county it cannot be drunk in, indeed denying the very life giving water essential for life. Well done sir for this remarkable piece of art for those of us educated enough to understand its "meaning";)
Click to expand...

My head hurts! - I'm going for a drink! :LOL:
 
Yes this does seem to have gone from the OP question to amateur philosophy
 
ancient_mariner said:
Have a look through the images on TP, then come back and tell us if you think expensive digital cameras will always take great photos. ;)
Click to expand...

This.

I love this site, but damn...
 
Bearair said:
I think subconsciously you were aware of the fact Whisky means the Water of Life, by using water in the picture you have also emphasised the fact it JD is made in a "dry county". Its a stunning piece of social commentary exposing the hypocrisy of producing Whisky in a county it cannot be drunk in, indeed denying the very life giving water essential for life. Well done sir for this remarkable piece of art for those of us educated enough to understand its "meaning";)
Click to expand...
You can drink in Lynchburg. Trust me. I have. There are limitations on sale and Sunday's are off limits. I don't quite see the hypocrisy. There's a part of me that respects people's wishes to keep one day special every week.

Top-tip: Do not go on the distillery tour on a Sunday.
 
Fraser Euan White said:
I can guarantee if i put that picture in an album with 100+ pictures taken by 8 year olds, and you were told these are the pictures taken by class A you would not have picked that picture out as being special - you have done so because you have knowledge of the artist.
Click to expand...
@Fraser Euan White, I'm sorry that you're unable to discern what countless others have in this particular artists work. But I'd implore you not to denigrate his work. I would however, encourage you to curate an album of photographs taken by eight year olds such that you're able to prove your narrow minded hypothesis.
 
adrianday said:
You can drink in Lynchburg. Trust me. I have. There are limitations on sale and Sunday's are off limits. I don't quite see the hypocrisy. There's a part of me that respects people's wishes to keep one day special every week.

Top-tip: Do not go on the distillery tour on a Sunday.
Click to expand...
I think you missed the point or are being wilfully ignorant, but either way never mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top