National Portrait Winner

Does not appeal to me to be honest, then again neither does the 2nd place bag on head.:shrug:

Then again what do i know:lol:
 
Both are well executed (the winner especially) but neither make me think 'WOW!'.

I also don't like the whole gumf behind the whole reason for taking the shots. Reasoning in terms of arty photography has never sat well with me, seems like it's all too contrived. I don't mind images being put into context, say somehing by Faye Godwin for example, but 'art' photography just seems as selfish and self-obsessed as modern sculpture and painting.

I take it that it was 'judged' by some arty types and not by Joe Public?
 
When i first saw the pic i thought it looked like a painting.

When i looked at the larger version,i thought 'that rooms a mess'.

Im sure 'joe public' wouldnt have voted for it :nono:
 
poor little kid left crying on the floor - whats all that about? Don't think I could sell many like that............
 
I think the bag on head is gash, but the winning shot is great, if not to my taste. I'm no good on painting periods/styles... but is it Botticelli I'm thinking of? I really think they've captured that style well, there's lots of details the more you look, but then the image on first impressions doesnt appear cluttered. The choice of model is perfect. I like!
 
Aye, it's art right enuff !
 
The director of the National Portrait Gallery Sandy Nairne said Davies' artwork was a "brilliantly imaginative portrait image".

Davies' portrait was based on the classic image of the Madonna and child and was also influenced by paintings by masters like Caravaggio and Titian.

If it was" based on" and " influenced by " how can it be imaginative.

Personally I think it looks like a 16th century painting.

Not impressed.
 
It doesn't do a thing for me, however I don't particularly like "posed" portraits of any type, but more to the point, imagine the likely outcry had that photo been taken by a man.
 
Chappers said:
If it was" based on" and " influenced by " how can it be imaginative.
Click to expand...

Because it's taken the style and influeneces of an old master and reworked them for the 21st century.
 
I love this kind of stuff - makes me really happy I'm not 'arty' at all :lol:

Without the explanation I'd just be left wondering what the Hell it's all about. Posh enough bed, crap building, sprogs everywhere and a naked lady :nuts::nuts::nuts:

As for the bag, well that's a worthy second place isn't it :cuckoo:

I appreciate that photography is an art form... but... what a load of ......... (feel free to insert your own derogatory word(s) here)


DD
 
I guess its a question of; do you want to understand art, so as to appreciate it, or could you not care less, which is just as understandable.

Personally the plastic bag shot nailed an idea for a type I was pondering... as I'd guess it did for many others. :shrug:

So for me its a very beautifully shot photograph, with great style, tones and yet conveys the point of its construction exactly, and is complemented in do this also by its good lighting textures, angles, finish and processing.

Lots of ways of taking that shot by any of us but you gotta have the idea, the technique and the method to pull it off, isn't that what makes good art?
 
I am not sure about the winning one. I wouldn't have picked it personally, but hey, what do I know?
 
"'Bag' was also a contender for the prize" says it all really...
 
Bag on head? Missed my chance with this one. Brit on holiday.

brit.jpg
 
inaneredstripe said:
arty farty opinionated judges.probably love mr hursts "sculptures" too.
does nowt for me.
4 babies+woman with t**s out.
nope. dont like it.
Click to expand...

Obviously you did not not understand the title!!!!!!
 
inaneredstripe said:
arty farty opinionated judges.probably love mr hursts "sculptures" too.
does nowt for me.
4 babies+woman with t**s out.
nope. dont like it.
Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol:

:agree:

:clap:

So that's the two paid togs (soz if there's others I don't know) who both don't get it. Perhaps there's one 'art' for art's sake and one art for the sake of making pennies?

DD
 
I'm with ya Dave, but I do get it.

I'm one for being a bit tickled by images that are labelled as 'art' or 'fine art' when in reality they are labored, unimaginative, contrived and then have disproportionate values or merits slapped on to violently force them into the said category.

The runner up image illustrates my feelings really. :cuckoo:
It's a joke. Just an attempt at lavishly manifesting when there is really nothing to exhibit.

"The artist said the picture was taken as a comment on the number of plastic bags he noticed being given away in New York shops."

Oh right, that explains it then, Perfectly. :cuckoo:

Does anyone remember that fish tank of wee that ended up being classed as 'fine art' and then displayed in an exhibition?

Similar to that, there was an incident over here involving an 'art' student driving around Helsinki on a pedal bike that had been 'transformed' into a papier mache vagina.
The student said that it was a statement of womanhood.
In a fine art auction the papier mache vagina bike sold for six figures.

Anyhoo, an image that requires any explanations from the author of what exactly the conveyance is supposed to be is not quite in fulfillment of it's purpose IMO.
An image should speak for itself, it's a visual, if it requires commentary to assist the understanding of it's purpose then it's something completely different.

Art with a capital F. :lol:

I find it hilarious. :lol:

"They display as much artisitic talent as a cluster of colour blind hedgehogs....in a bag."
 
DiddyDave said:
:lol::lol::lol:

:agree:

:clap:

So that's the two paid togs (soz if there's others I don't know) who both don't get it. Perhaps there's one 'art' for art's sake and one art for the sake of making pennies?

DD
Click to expand...

But then again Dave, paid pro-photographers have little, if not nothing, to do with art... Given the true definition of art.... They are by definition professional photographers, not professional artists that use photography.

And unfortunately for art, because it clashes with the intent ...artists do have to pay the bills too ..
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
But then again Dave, paid pro-photographers have little, if not nothing, to do with art... Given the true definition of art.... They are by definition professional photographers, not professional artists that use photography.

And unfortunately for art, because it clashes with the intent ...artists do have to pay the bills too ..
Click to expand...

Interesting - I thought I was creating art as commissioned by the client

So are artists who are commissioned not creating art then either?

Do you have to do it for love only for it to be art? And if so, doesn't it stop being art if you sell it for profit?

:thinking:

DD
 
Jayst84 said:
Sorry mate, but that's a pretty narrow way of looking at imagery, photography in particular.
Click to expand...

First of all, I'm not referring to photography in particular.

Front covers of national geographic don't have explanations do they?

What I'm saying is a great image doesn't require an explanation.

Call it narrow if you like. I call it simple.
 
Jayst84 said:
It's been a while since I looked at one, but I'm pretty sure they do. Pretty much all the shots inside tend to.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I have to disagree, a front cover of a magazine does not have an explanation of what it's supposed to be conveying.
It may have text but it's not an explanation and certainly not in the context of my points above.

If the author of the image has to be giving a narrative about their image then the image does not speak for itself.

Are you able to be present every single occassion whenever someone see's your images?
Are your images always going to have text to accompany them?
Why do they need text?
 
I think the winning image is lovely! I really like it a lot. Fantastic lighting and texture, and other elements of the image start appearing once you look a little closer. The bag portrait.. well, it's an interesting image but his "commentary on the number of plastic bags given out in new york" is a little desperate. Try a bit harder with that one, mate!
 
DiddyDave said:
Interesting - I thought I was creating art as commissioned by the client

So are artists who are commissioned not creating art then either?

Do you have to do it for love only for it to be art? And if so, doesn't it stop being art if you sell it for profit?

:thinking:

DD
Click to expand...

Well you are, kinda, Its a thin line... but its not about the money, its about the intent..

JMO.
But if your commissioned to construct something artistic for a client within your studio and, lets say, the client instructs a particular look, feel or loves your style, etc, then your being hired for your artistic photographic skills as a professional tog. ... You are producing something artistic, but its not actually true art.

That's very different from a professional artist hired to produce a piece of art for a client, using the medium of photography...which is, by definition of the original intent of the artist to produce true art, an actual piece of art.
This true art also applies to us all if we shoot a beautiful chosen scene or subject, constructed or not, by our own vision for our own vision, the intent to produce such an image makes it art...if we're dictated to in any way against our own vision then effectively the intent has gone and the photograph become artistic rather than art.

As I say its just my opinion and interpretation, I' sure many could describe the differences more clearly.

I do think you have to know what art is though yes ... how else can one understand other artists work, its not about love or money its about the initial intent. ... although the art marketing world make it appear otherwise...but and as I said, artists have to pay the bills.

This applies to street photography as well Dave, that's all about intent and little to do with technique, since every shot should be individual, then all street is art....kinda thing.

HTMSS :thinking:
 
Tomas Whitehouse said:
If the author of the image has to be giving a narrative about their image then the image does not speak for itself.
Click to expand...

I think that applies to a good photograph, but has little to do with good art. Much art is not easy to understand, so a big fat thesis on its meaning is always a blessing I find.
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
I think that applies to a good photograph, but has little to do with good art. Much art is not easy to understand, so a big fat thesis on its meaning is always a blessing I find.
Click to expand...

I can see and understand what you mean there. I do appreciate true art.
I suppose I have a problem with excuses that are masquerading as art.

I think I understand art but my opinion on the winning image and the runner up is that they are not art at all, merely an unsuccesful attempt that I find laughable and a little aggravating.

The runner up more so, when I see that 'Bag' image, the only positive comment I can make is that the lighting IMO isn't that bad.
The sentiment behind the image is hilarious and clearly has had no thought put into it whatsoever.

'Bag'.

Bag Of Arse.

Excuses masquerading as art.

The winning image is a little different, as mentioned:
Chappers said:
Davies' portrait was based on the classic image of the Madonna and child and was also influenced by paintings by masters like Caravaggio and Titian.

If it was" based on" and " influenced by " how can it be imaginative.
Not impressed.
Click to expand...

I agree, there has been no imagination involved, just replication and imitation of exisiting art.

Basically, for me, it's an attempt with a disproportionate value strapped to it and forced out then labelled as 'art'.

JMO
 
I'm with you on the masquerading side of art Tom, it can appear to look that way I agree... and I'm not altogether happy with the selective nature of the National Portrait people and judges either, but its there thing, and they do know their stuff... like there a bit of a rock when it comes to the art of the masters, there is certainly a huge weight of artistic reasons why that is so.

That bag shot is certainly constructed to be an Ironic image and make you grin, it does also make statements about global warming for me ...

'Just Like the plastic world we live in, clearly we'd rather fashion a new hat, than see the transparency of the error that is on our heads' ...kinda thing.
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
I'm with you on the masquerading side of art Tom, it can appear to look that way I agree... and I'm not altogether happy with the selective nature of the National Portrait people and judges either, but its there thing, and they do know their stuff... like there a bit of a rock when it comes to the art of the masters, there is certainly a huge weight of artistic reasons why that is so.

That bag shot is certainly constructed to be an Ironic image and make you grin, it does also make statements about global warming for me ...

'Just Like the plastic world we live in, clearly we'd rather fashion a new hat, than see the transparency of the error that is on our heads' ...kinda thing.
Click to expand...

Now that's a very interesting interpretation of the bag image and frankly has opened my eyes a little.
I don't know why but I have doubts whether the author had that point in mind upon creation of the image and maybe it's just your personal interpretation that has interested me and changed my view.
I can be guilty of jumping the gun when issues like this arise, it's just that there is so much bad and lazy excuses for art, a bewildered 'artist' coughs out something with little effort and then suddenly it can and will be classed 'fine art' kinda thing.
 
The hat of course resembling the bonnet that women wore during a time of the masters... and can be seen in many paintings

I know the artist intended it to cover his feelings about global warming, whether he decided on using a clear plastic bag on purpose, I've yet to know... I'm betting it was totally chosen for being clear, or just white ish (plain)... love to know what he actually thinks though..
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
The hat of course resembling the bonnet that women wore during a time of the masters... and can be seen in many paintings

I know the artist intended it to cover his feelings about global warming, whether he decided on using a clear plastic bag on purpose, I've yet to know... I'm betting it was totally chosen for being clear, or just white ish... love to know what he actually thinks though..
Click to expand...

Interesting. When you said:

Forbiddenbiker said:
'Just Like the plastic world we live in, clearly we'd rather fashion a new hat, than see the transparency of the error that is on our heads' ...kinda thing.
Click to expand...

I saw things differently, I too would like to know what the author intended :thinking:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top