Did you capture it to show people how beautiful it was? Often yes. I have a website, social media, I don't keep all my images on my HD for just me to see.
Did you capture it to remind yourself how beautiful it was? Probably not - I have a visual memory. I like to look back and just sit there looking at my prints, or on my screen and go "ah" that was nice. I look at them and bring back memories of being there at that time and the feeling of freedom then is a lovely one.
Did you capture it to show others how good you are at capturing beauty? Not actually sure. I like to think I am proficient but its not a primary factor. A commercial factor may enter my mind to win a competition or make saleable prints, but its not a primary one.
Did you capture it to create decoration to a space that needs beauty? I l have big walls and like pretty pictures on them. I have crap eyes so have a few printed 24 x 16. Look great.
Why did you feel the need to capture it? Did you just happen to pass by and notice it, or was this a planned photographic outing? If the latter... did you actually plan to go out and capture beauty?
I know I photograph what I find attractive. I certainly don't waste my HD space with what I deem to be crap. Its a combination for me, I like the outdoors, but I put myself in the outdoors when they look their best and tend to yield a camera then - I don't like dank grey days, they depress me. I don't like the hard harsh light you see midday but the richer, softer hues of the early morning and late evening. I love seeing a day start and end. I like still water, its amazing to look and is a calming beautiful presence. I would plan to be out and about in conditions that would yield that rather than dull choppy condtions
To be honest, you have to plan it. Who on earth carries a tripod, grad filters, a biggish camera and expensive lens if they aren't planning on taking pictures that day.
Listen, I have a tedious dull monotonous job I hate, I need to have something to get away from it all. Photography and the great outdoors it is.
So your motivation is escapism then. I get that.. but then wouldn't just being there be enough reason? As you plan it carefully, then the activity of landscape photography is actually the motivation.
All of this is great... all valid reasons... and probably quite common. The problem... no.. too strong a word... the issue is when you then post them up for others to look at and effectively go "ta dahhh"... and expect a response. We can all appreciate the beauty of the scene in the image, yes, but what are you looking for in crit? What can anyone say other than "That;'s nice"? You're technically competent, you have good equipment, and you use it well. What are you seeking from crit? Technical improvement? Surely you're into the realms of diminishing returns with that now. I find it hard to technically criticise your work, as technically it's superb, so what are you looking for? Is it recognition of that skill? If so.. just publish it and be damned. How would you like your work to get "Better" and what do you think is lacking from it now? Technically... you've got a great deal to be proud of, so why keep chasing technical crit when you're better than most of the people critting the work?
Also some photographers (and artists generally) are given to speaking the kind of cobblers found on that link steve posted earlier.
So you did read it then... that was the link I posted
Fine... then Pete... I'm not sure why you're engaging in this... it's pretty much. You call others arrogant, yet dismiss the opinions of those who spend their lives exploring and researching such subjects. There's part of me that wants to suggest you dismiss it so you DON'T have to engage with it in your work, and therefore reduce your work to mere technical competence, because that's very easy to achieve, and easy to gain recognition for. I could be wrong of course... but it crosses my mind.
semantics - i'm interested in carrying out the pursuit , i'm not interested in pulling apart the motivations of why i'm interested in the pursuit - this is talk photography, not talk psychology. Take for example football as a metaphor... David Beckham is presumably interested in football , but his intent in being the best possible player is to work as a team to put the ball in the back of the net as many times as possible. In after action review the team will look at how the match went, who did what , why and what good have been done better because this is useful to scoring more goals in their next game ... what they won't do is spend a lot of time contemplating why success in football involves scoring goals, or whether they should try to score goals in the first place. My view of crit is the former, you seem more interested in the latter
Based on the premise that photography is just technical though.. that's the problem. It's clearly not. As for the football analogy, I can imagine that understanding David Beckham's motivation for wanting to score as many goals as possible would be highly relevant to coaching him to do better, wouldn't you? You can either just keep telling him to score more goals, or you can motivate him better by understanding why he wants to be the best goal scorer, and focus his attention on his... goals (meaning his personal ambition.. not balls in the net). Yes.. there will be a LOT of psychology employed in motivating players Pete... a lot I would imagine. It's a high stakes endeavour with obscene amounts of money involved. I bet there's a great deal of discussion in board rooms in David Beckham's absence that addresses such stuff. It;s easy to say he wants to be the best.. we all do, or would like to be, but there will be drivers behind why any individual wants to be best, and they'll be different for each person: More money, more sex, more recognition, making parents proud, making a point, fulfilling insecurities... the list will be as long as there are people to fill it.
Understanding why you feel driven to do something is a very valuable discovery to make.
what is fascinating here david, is that you don't know me at all, and you have a very blinkered view ... for the sake of clarity I'm not anti 'art' at all , I am opposed to the verbal masturbation that goes on about art - the sort of sunday broadsheet analysis of artists work which adds nothing to the greater understanding and brings up meanings which the artist may never have intended in order to make the reviewer sound clever.
No.. I understand you quite well.. or at least this aspect of you... the rest, you're right... I've no idea who you are.
Why is it so important to you to dismiss what you insist is masturbation, and furthermore, what makes you so sure it IS masturbation. How does this effect you, and what you do? You seem highly motivated to dismiss it, so why is that? Is it academic interest? A result of having your own work criticised in such a way? What?
And that is generally the reason why you'll find me in these threads - originally i was interested in the question Daryl posed, but when the thread got hijacked into yet another discussion of whether photography has to mean the communication of deep meaning, someone has to have the courage of their conviction to tell everyon that the emporer is indeed naked , rather than engaging in an analysis of how wonderful his clothes are.
What makes you so sure the emperor is naked though? You can't say something is cobblers without saying why it's cobblers. Many of us are trying to explain why it's not, but you just reply by saying it;s cobblers. It would be nice if you could explain WHY it is. At least we could actually have a conversation about it. As it stands.. it's almost impossible, and makes us wonder why you're here. Yep.. you think it's cobblers.. great.. can't really respond without seeming repetitive though unless you give a reason as to why you think that. Would you dismiss the work of Feinman, Bohr or Planck because you merely think quantum physics is cobblers? If so, you can't just stand up and say it's cobblers and be taken seriously.
I actually agree with you on a lot of points re critique (vis a vis the woman who looked like a cheap prosiitute) , but the problem as ever is the way in which that point was made - if its made crassly and blunty with a '"she looks like a cheap whore" I'm right and you're wrong listen to my wisdom approach', thats going to turn the OP off and cause the argument you describe - made with more tact and sympahy with finding out why she had been photographed as she had before prejudging the same point could have been made in a way which might actually have been taken on board and above all been constructive and helpful.
As I thought.... your problem is with me... not what I'm saying. How I'm saying it is the problem. You simply dislike the way I go about business. Fine... but it doesn't mean what I'm saying is any less valid for it's delivery.
I absolutely agree with you that too often critque becomes a p***ing contest between critiquers , but my final point on this to you would be (As clarice starling says to hanibal in silence of the lambs) "do you have the courage to turn the peircing intellect on yourself" and examine why your critique so often leads to that kind of p***ing contest ?
All the time Pete. People misunderstand me. I just call it as it is. I'm not really interested in skirting around the issue, and I feel some things are better just laid bare. As you say yourself Pete
"someone has to have the courage of their conviction" and as a result you launch into scathing, insulting commentary about various artists, people, genres, and professions. You do so without a moment's hesitation as to how those comments may be received. Yet you criticise others for doing the same thing. Is it time to turn the piercing intellect on yourself Pete? Or do you think it's OK to launch into derogatory, cutting hyperbole when the person isn't actually present to defend themselves, but somehow reprehensible when others speak plainly of others when they are indeed present to defend themselves? Personally I find the latter far more agreeable.
As usual... an interesting discussion is descending into a personal battle of wills between you and I. I've no interest in any of that though, so you may as well stop. Either start explaining your standpoint, or stop just saying this is all cobblers and start saying why it's cobblers.
