Is it so different? You must have heard term 'Sunday painter. People who go to night school classes to learn to paint in watercolour or oil to make paintings that are not art. They have as little interest in Emin or Wallinger as some here are professing to have in Adams. Although they may know a little about Renoir. All they wish to do is to paint nice pictures. They have no ambitions or pretensions beyond that.
Nope... not different at all, but what IS different is the vehemence with which the wider interest in photography is dismissed as elitist by some in this thread. "Sunday Painters" as you refer to them will not for one minute think that someone in their intent forum discussing the merits of admiring and being influenced by the work of Tracy Emin is elitist. I reckon they'd actually KNOW it was a good thing to do, but simply can't be arsed. I find it very hard to believe that someone who paints would actually think that studying art was a bad thing... whether it was for them or not. In here though there is a strong opinion by some that studying the work of acknowledged greats is actually a complete waste of time and will have no affect on their ability to be photographers. If you aren't actually that bothered, and just want to take "nice" pictures, then fine.. but just admit it, as some in here have, and I respect that actually. It's the ones who argue against what is patently obvious: That studying more widely, and being influenced by a diverse range of artists will broaden your appreciation of the medium, and make your own work more diverse. It happens whether you like it or not... rather like living for a very long time in a certain place will probably affect your accent. Some however, if they try to resist their change of accent, will retain their old one. In the case of photography, it's the resistance that puzzles me.
In all hobbies there are those who strive to be as good as they possibly can and to immerse themselves in it's history and more, and those who do it for the simple pleasure of doing it. There is an undeniable pleasure in just pressing a button and hearing the the shutter fire. That you can also make a picture while doing that is almost a bonus!
Absolutely! That's what got me interested when I was about 8! I quickly wanted more from my images though. Even if someone doesn't want more from their images though, that's also fine. I just wish they'd admit it. Instead of saying "I've no great interest in photography, I just like taking pictures" they'll strenuously argue that all this talk of art, and history, and being influenced by those greater than yourself is just elitist clap trap.
I guess what I am saying is that I can see both sides of this debate. Although I couldn't conceive of wanting to plough a lone furrow to make photographs that are nothing more than 'nice pictures' without really challenging myself, and to learn nothing of the history, theory or philosophy of photography, I can understand that that there are people who want nothing more than that from their hobby.
It's easy, that's why. It's reassuring too. If you practice the same skills over and over again, you get very good technically. It;s not quite so easy to come up with original imagery, and it's harder still to develop a unique style that is recognisably yours. So you dismiss all of that as unimportant and fall back into your comfort zone where your peers will congratulate you on your work. Never underestimate the power of positive praise... justified or not.
Trying to turn them from what could be termed 'pleasure photographers' into 'serious photographers' is likely an unwinnable battle.
Maybe. I must admit, if at interview a prospective student can't list a photographer who influences them, or explain why they took any of their images, they are highly unlikely to be granted a place on the course. I'd recommend a HND or Foundation Degree instead as they are more vocational.
Just because their aspirations appear, to you, to be extremely limited doesn't mean that they do not get satisfaction and enjoyment from taking photographs, and from trying to improve their photographs within their own terms of reference.
I'm not suggesting they don't get pleasure from it. I'm just wondering HOW their photographs will improve. Most likely the improvement will be technical in the main, if not in total. That's actually enough for some people, and that's perfectly fine. I have no argument with that. But to suggest that's all you need to if you wish your work to progress on any other level (which some in here are doing) is far less likely.
Where this disparity of approaches to photography stem from is the very simplicity of the medium. No matter how you approach photography all there is to it is; frame, expose, print. (In terms of film, that is. Digitally the last becomes upload I suppose!) The level of thought you put into those three elements is purely a personal choice. As is what you do with the results.
No.. those three steps are the physical steps you go through. If you ask me, it's: Conceive idea, research/decide how you wish to interpret that idea, frame, expose, print. Without those first two steps, you're clearly just walking around with a camera until you see something that for some reason appeals to you... and then you record it. I think most people, even the hobbyists, do at some level preconceive their ideas.
For me it is this simplicity that is the greatest strength of photography. With photography being a (the?) most egalitarian medium I think people should be allowed to pursue it in any way they choose, rather than having one set of values pushed down their throats as The Set Of Values which must be followed.
They aren't values though.. not really. I'm just suggesting that people are not closed minded enough to reject the idea of seeking out new ideas from looking at the great wealth of stuff that's gone before.... and yes, they will be new ideas if you assimilate them into your own work. I'm not suggesting people copy other work.
Most people do not like being told what they ought to do. A more subtle approach to encourage a broadening of outlook might be to make gentle suggestions for work to be viewed, books to be read, in order that enlightenment might be follow.
Well... in my professional capacity, I don't often meet any resistance to new ideas, and on the rare occasions that I do, I'm kind of professionally obliged to bite my tongue and nurture people through it. Eventually though, if they just resist the syllabus of the degree course, they'll have to leave as it's not the course for them. We can't rewrite a course for one person.
This is an internet forum though, and I'm here voluntarily, and (within the rules set down by the forum) can pretty much voice my opinions as I see fit. When an idea I put forward is met with disdain and hostility, then I'm under no obligation to be subtle whatsoever. I'm not actually that bothered if the people reacting badly to what I say believe me or alter their behaviour. What does bother me though is the silent majority who read threads and don't take part. I'm very concerned about them, as I've seen first hand, time and time again how creativity has been effectively and completely killed in beginners by people who have this "Art is just so much BS.. you don't need it to be a photographer" attitude.
Rather than castigate people for not knowing who a photographer is, or not wanting to know, a few
links might be in order to challenge people's views of what photography, and art, can be.
I've never castigated anyone for merely not knowing anything. I've expressed my surprise several times, but I don't believe I've ever castigated anyone for merely not knowing. People who defend this attitude of "Art is BS" are another matter however.
Seriously... you're posting link sot Keith Arnatt in here to make this point? Where's your subtlety you were referring to?
If I was trying to wean photographers of the prescriptive by introducing artists they may not have experience, I don't see how having to defend an artist who photographs dog turds, and post-it notes is a great place to start
I love Keith Arnatt, but he may be too much, too soon for some people.
