norters said:
I'll bow to your superior experience.
I didn't feel the need to know the story behind any of the images, and I'm not too fussed who produced the images. I compliment the photographer on taking a nice picture because I like the picture. Should any of the pictures have been taken by somebody famous would it have changed the images in any way to make it better or more valuable? Not to me. If there was a story behind the images would they be better to me? I doubt it.
MWHCVT said:
Pookeyhead said:It's not whether they agree with me that's the issue. It's whether they agree with what would appear to be facts. The vast majority of artists, photographers, musicians, in fact all creative people at the top of their game DO allow themselves to be influenced by others, and DO draw their inspiration from those that have gone before. You'll really, really struggle to find a famous musician, who when asked what influences them would say, "Nothing, I don't listen to anyone else's music". Just unthinkable. Even if they aren't doing it to consciously influence themselves, they'll be doing it because they love music. The end result either way is that they are being influenced whether they like it or not. So when they come to write a piece of music themselves, they have more raw material to work with - they have more tools in their box so to speak.
Photography is the only medium I know that seems to have a fairly large component of followers that seems to WANT their chosen medium to NOT be art, and who don't want to look at others' work, and don't spend lots of time looking at the work of others. I simply can't understand how anyone can profess to love photography, yet have no interest in it.
So I'm narrow minded for suggesting that a photographer, or indeed any artist, should spend lots of time looking at and studying their chosen medium? I see.. and it's not narrow minded of you to suggest that you shouldn't, and just ignore the whole world of photography and take your own shots? One of those opinions is narrow minded, yes.
I am repeating myself here.. rather a lot, because you clearly haven't read the whole thread, and I am also aware of the irony of someone who hasn't read the whole thread calling me narrow minded
Yeah yeah.. I'm arrogant.... for suggesting that people involved in a creative medium should widen their horizons and allow a greater sphere of influence into their lives. How arrogant of me
But it's not "learning" we're talking about. You "learn" the mechanics of photogaphy... f-stops, apertures, exposure, metering etc.. yes, because these are mechanical and physical processes. You don't "learn" creativity though, you develop it. Creativity needs feeding with ideas and thoughts, and if you just live inside your own head, you just repeat the same images over and over again.
Of course, but some want to be influenced by the WORLD, not just their immediate surroundings. The more things you are influenced by, the more diverse your work will be.
Some can, yes, other work needs to part of a b****r set of images. I don't know why you are asking that actually. I'm talking about how looking at as much work as you can by other assists is a great thing, and that being influenced by more stuff gives you more ideas, and makes you more creative. No one is suggesting you need to know the artsist's influences. I was suggesting you need to know WHY he took it sometimes.
Some images are just eye candy. Some images are taken for a reason because the artist wants to say something. The former is just something pretty to look at. The latter doesn't have to be.
Why the attitude? If you have greater experience, then share your wisdom with us.
Not just to be an "artist" no, just to take great photographs that are original and creative instead of the same stuff over and over again.
That's just ignorance talking, sorry, it just is. You blithely say "The art world" as if it's this collectively dumb group mind that you can hoodwink easily. The "Art World" you refer to isn't though, it's made up of other artists, it's made up of gallery curators, art critics, art historians, art professors... in short, people who have spent their whole lives dedicated to art. So, what qualifies you to come along as just dismiss it? Could it be you just don't understand? Is the thought of you not understanding something so abhorrent? I'm not saying you have to LIKE it... and if you don't understand something then you probably won't like it. I don't like football, but I'm well aware that it's probably because I don't really understand it. I understand the rules of the game, sure, but I don't understand the massive following.. I don't understand what it's all about. Unlike you though, I'm not going to dismiss it as BS... because that would be ignorant of me. Millions of people follow the sport with passion, so clearly there's something going on there I'm not party to... I accept that. Why can't you accept that clearly there's another side to photography, and art in general that you don't get, and leave it at that? Why trash it as BS? However, again, the irony is that one one hand you blithely dismiss the entire art world as BS, and on the other accuse me of narrow mindedness.
AI agree.. it's not worth the money if you are talking about the fact that it's a piece of paper/glass/wood whatever, no, but if it's worth it to collectors of art, so what? Stop basing your idea of worth on whether you LIKE it or not.
So.. that's stuff you like. Stuff you aspire to and stuff that no doubt influences your own work. Not a great deal of difference between influenced by stuff on 500PX and stuff hanging in a gallery really is there. So if you are willing to be influenced by this, why not by someone who is acknowledged to be the best? I'm not talking about Adams now either. There are people out there taking stuff better than this, but unsurprisingly, they're not on 500px. My question is why go out of your way to avoid one body and range of work, and be wholly accepting of another? The only difference between looking at 500px and looking at, let's say a Burtinsky exhibition, is one is taken by your peers and one is taken by someone "arty farty".. so you dismiss the arty farty out of hand.
You don't need to know.. no. The reason was "I wanted to photograph the Aurora, or I wanted to photograph the sunset". Fine. I still think you're blinkering yourself to a wider world you dismiss as trash because you don't like it. You're dismissing the work of others that DO have something to say because you think it's pretentious. What's wrong with the viewer having to think a little?
Probably.
At the end of the day.. do what you want. There's no escaping the fact though, that in every other creative endeavour it's just a natural process that creatives seek out influences from everywhere around them, not just their contemporaries, but from the past, and certainly from those deemed to be the best in their field. Photography (especially the hobbyist element) however seems to eschew the best in their field as BS and instead turn to their fellow amateurs for succour and influence... and then accuse anyone who disagrees as arrogant. Am I the only one who sees the irony in that?
Each to their own.
LOL.. and now come the personal attacks.
Yes, I teach photography. So of course, in THIS forum, that means I DON'T know what I'm talking about.
norters said:
MWHCVT said:You know what it's probably not the forum it's more likely that you've got a foul attitude and believe that what you say is gospel, if you were not so arrogant in you approach I suspect maybe you'd find the forum a little more receptive to you point of view....
Why? Because nearly every post of his that I've read has come across arrogant and close minded that why
Edit: sorry Kelly we cross posted
Yes, I teach photography. So of course, in THIS forum, that means I DON'T know what I'm talking about.
It's not whether they agree with me that's the issue. It's whether they agree with what would appear to be facts. The vast majority of artists, photographers, musicians, in fact all creative people at the top of their game DO allow themselves to be influenced by others, and DO draw their inspiration from those that have gone before. You'll really, really struggle to find a famous musician, who when asked what influences them would say, "Nothing, I don't listen to anyone else's music". Just unthinkable. Even if they aren't doing it to consciously influence themselves, they'll be doing it because they love music. The end result either way is that they are being influenced whether they like it or not. So when they come to write a piece of music themselves, they have more raw material to work with - they have more tools in their box so to speak.
Photography is the only medium I know that seems to have a fairly large component of followers that seems to WANT their chosen medium to NOT be art, and who don't want to look at others' work, and don't spend lots of time looking at the work of others. I simply can't understand how anyone can profess to love photography, yet have no interest in it.
So I'm narrow minded for suggesting that a photographer, or indeed any artist, should spend lots of time looking at and studying their chosen medium? I see.. and it's not narrow minded of you to suggest that you shouldn't, and just ignore the whole world of photography and take your own shots? One of those opinions is narrow minded, yes.
I am repeating myself here.. rather a lot, because you clearly haven't read the whole thread, and I am also aware of the irony of someone who hasn't read the whole thread calling me narrow minded
Yeah yeah.. I'm arrogant.... for suggesting that people involved in a creative medium should widen their horizons and allow a greater sphere of influence into their lives. How arrogant of me
But it's not "learning" we're talking about. You "learn" the mechanics of photogaphy... f-stops, apertures, exposure, metering etc.. yes, because these are mechanical and physical processes. You don't "learn" creativity though, you develop it. Creativity needs feeding with ideas and thoughts, and if you just live inside your own head, you just repeat the same images over and over again.
Of course, but some want to be influenced by the WORLD, not just their immediate surroundings. The more things you are influenced by, the more diverse your work will be.
Some can, yes, other work needs to part of a b****r set of images. I don't know why you are asking that actually. I'm talking about how looking at as much work as you can by other assists is a great thing, and that being influenced by more stuff gives you more ideas, and makes you more creative. No one is suggesting you need to know the artsist's influences. I was suggesting you need to know WHY he took it sometimes.
Some images are just eye candy. Some images are taken for a reason because the artist wants to say something. The former is just something pretty to look at. The latter doesn't have to be.
Why the attitude? If you have greater experience, then share your wisdom with us.
Not just to be an "artist" no, just to take great photographs that are original and creative instead of the same stuff over and over again.
That's just ignorance talking, sorry, it just is. You blithely say "The art world" as if it's this collectively dumb group mind that you can hoodwink easily. The "Art World" you refer to isn't though, it's made up of other artists, it's made up of gallery curators, art critics, art historians, art professors... in short, people who have spent their whole lives dedicated to art. So, what qualifies you to come along as just dismiss it? Could it be you just don't understand? Is the thought of you not understanding something so abhorrent? I'm not saying you have to LIKE it... and if you don't understand something then you probably won't like it. I don't like football, but I'm well aware that it's probably because I don't really understand it. I understand the rules of the game, sure, but I don't understand the massive following.. I don't understand what it's all about. Unlike you though, I'm not going to dismiss it as BS... because that would be ignorant of me. Millions of people follow the sport with passion, so clearly there's something going on there I'm not party to... I accept that. Why can't you accept that clearly there's another side to photography, and art in general that you don't get, and leave it at that? Why trash it as BS? However, again, the irony is that one one hand you blithely dismiss the entire art world as BS, and on the other accuse me of narrow mindedness.
AI agree.. it's not worth the money if you are talking about the fact that it's a piece of paper/glass/wood whatever, no, but if it's worth it to collectors of art, so what? Stop basing your idea of worth on whether you LIKE it or not.
So.. that's stuff you like. Stuff you aspire to and stuff that no doubt influences your own work. Not a great deal of difference between influenced by stuff on 500PX and stuff hanging in a gallery really is there. So if you are willing to be influenced by this, why not by someone who is acknowledged to be the best? I'm not talking about Adams now either. There are people out there taking stuff better than this, but unsurprisingly, they're not on 500px. My question is why go out of your way to avoid one body and range of work, and be wholly accepting of another? The only difference between looking at 500px and looking at, let's say a Burtinsky exhibition, is one is taken by your peers and one is taken by someone "arty farty".. so you dismiss the arty farty out of hand.
You don't need to know.. no. The reason was "I wanted to photograph the Aurora, or I wanted to photograph the sunset". Fine. I still think you're blinkering yourself to a wider world you dismiss as trash because you don't like it. You're dismissing the work of others that DO have something to say because you think it's pretentious. What's wrong with the viewer having to think a little?
Probably.
At the end of the day.. do what you want. There's no escaping the fact though, that in every other creative endeavour it's just a natural process that creatives seek out influences from everywhere around them, not just their contemporaries, but from the past, and certainly from those deemed to be the best in their field. Photography (especially the hobbyist element) however seems to eschew the best in their field as BS and instead turn to their fellow amateurs for succour and influence... and then accuse anyone who disagrees as arrogant. Am I the only one who sees the irony in that?
Each to their own.
LOL.. and now come the personal attacks.
Yes, I teach photography. So of course, in THIS forum, that means I DON'T know what I'm talking about.
Thanks Gramps.