Other photographers pictures

[Phil V]

to be fair "I wouldn't pay 50p for it" is the same as "its not worth 50p " - For example having previously owned one I wouldn't give you 50p for a Peugeot partner van, but I clearly accept that the market determines that they are "worth" about £8k

likewise with the Gursky shot - I personally wouldn't pay 50p for it (well I would, but only so I could then sell it for £4M ) but that is a measure of its worth to me, not its intrinsic worth to the market.

I do struggle with how the market can feel that any photo is worth as much as £4M but that's a different discussion

A couple of points, you have already qualified your opinion of the Peugeot van, more than Dean has with the photo.
And it was $4million. I'm just pointing that out in case someone offers you it for £3.5 million and you think you can turn a quick profit.

It's value in the market is the only measure of it's worth. So saying 'I wouldn't pay 50p for it' is simply chest beating. Which is frankly laughable behaviour for a supposedly intelligent adult. It's failing to back down from comments like that which makes Internet forums entertaining though .

I have never understood why people cannot understand the difference between their taste and something's value. It's all part of the 'I'm entitled to an opinion' culture*. I can't see the point in £200 trainers, but joining a running forum just to slag them off would surely be the mark of an idiot. Why people believe that ignorance of art is a valid stance is just silly, it's fine to be happy in ignorance (as I am with running shoes) but I'd look like a fool holding it up as a badge of honour, which is what people do with art.

*whilst everyone is entitled to an opinion we're on the road to hell if we believe that all opinions are valid or equal.

 

[Phil V]

... and the blind insistence that some have made that the Gurzky shot is brilliant (as a fact rather than an opinion and anyone who disagrees must be wrong) is equally blinkered as insisting it is crap.
...

Just where?

David said Gursky was brilliant, but I don't think he said this particular piece was, and I can't see anyone else did. And it's not even relevant. If you step down a bit and read those defending 'art' you'll see they're trying (I can't see why, it seems a lost cause) to say that taste has b****r all to do with it's value. Whether you or I or David or Dean like it is immaterial. That's not how art works. If it was, the guy who painted the dogs playing pool would be more famous than Picasso.

 

[big soft moose]

It's value in the market is the only measure of it's worth. So saying 'I wouldn't pay 50p for it' is simply chest beating. Which is frankly laughable behaviour for a supposedly intelligent adult. It's failing to back down from comments like that which makes Internet forums entertaining though .
.

is that really true though ? Its the only measure of its financial worth (and the £4M figure was only such at the point of sale ... there's no telling what it's value in the market will be at some point in the future).

the issue here is conflating value with a measure of whether its a 'good' photo - not everyone derives their opinion on whether they like a shot from how much it will sell for.

and as to the "I wouldn't give you 50p" comment , obviously any of us would buy a £4M asset for 50p given the chance , but its clear that Dean meant "I'm amazed that anyone would pay £4M for a picture like that as I wouldn't give you 50p before its 'value' was first established"

 

[big soft moose]

that taste has b****r all to do with it's value. .

I think we all accept that - certainly that's pretty much what I just said in the post above (reversed - ie that just because it has a high monetary value doesn't imply that it is "good")

what some people seem to be saying is that its a good picture because its art - what I'm trying to get to the bottom of is why saying its art makes it a good picture , and what makes it art apart from Gurzky being an 'artist'

 

[Ed Sutton]

sometimes it is, and sometimes its because people are sick of all 'oh isn't it wonderful dahhhling' dross that gets talked about certain forms of 'art' - piling four tea bags on top of one another is not (imo) art - because it requires the skill of a four year old, and only becomes 'art' because people say it is (until the cleaners mistake the 'installation' for a rubbish and take it away)

The shot under discussion is a bit like the photographic equivalent of that - creating that shot would require only basic photographic and photoshop skills - you could do it easily and so could I (as could 99% of the forum) - so what makes it 'art' apart from Gurzky's name and the chatterati insistence that it is ?

I get really p***ed off with this idea that skill and craftsmanship are essential to make good art (or even good photographs) and that if a piece doesn't demonstrate these qualities it is somehow not art but junk a child could have made.

 

[ghoti]

I think we all accept that - certainly that's pretty much what I just said in the post above (reversed - ie that just because it has a high monetary value doesn't imply that it is "good")

what some people seem to be saying is that its a good picture because its art - what I'm trying to get to the bottom of is why saying its art makes it a good picture , and what makes it art apart from Gurzky being an 'artist'

Not really. I think people are saying that "it's crap" and backing that up with "it doesn't obey the rule of thirds and has dull colours" is inadequate and ignorant criticism.

 

[Phil V]

the issue here is conflating value with a measure of whether its a 'good' photo - not everyone derives their opinion on whether they like a shot from how much it will sell for.
...

But that's the premise that Deans ire is driven by.

I literally don't care what the painting is worth, or who bought it or how much it's lauded, I don't particularly like it. No'one else here appears to either, but that doesn't make it valueless.

Attacking the art establishment is fine, if you know what you're talking about, but attacking them from a position of ignorance is daft. And attacking them from a position of wilfull ignorance is a sign of stupidity.

 

[big soft moose]

I get really p***ed off with this idea that skill and craftsmanship are essential to make good art (or even good photographs) and that if a piece doesn't demonstrate these qualities it is somehow not art but junk a child could have made.

we're going to have to agree to disagree on that point because I get really p***ed of with the idea that skill and craftsmanship aren't required to make good art or good photographs - certainly I accept that a photo can be well executed but still be crap on account of lack of vision , but by contention is that a good /great photo requires both mastery of the craft and the artistic vision.

A piece that doesn't demonstrate any craftsmanship isn't (imo) art - because it could have been made by a child... if we accept otherwise we come to the point where everything is art if someone says it is, and its any crap shot can be excused by saying "oh but its art" - go too far down that road and no one need bother acquiring any actual photographic skills, because hey everything art.

 

[Blank_Canvas]

It's really simple. A man was obsessed with capturing a view of the Rhein. He couldn't because all this stuff was getting in the way. So he removed it in order to capture the real essence of the scene his imagination saw. Simple as that. There is no verbage. Concept.. solution... statement. Quite simple. How is that of less value than a baby in a basket?

And not only that, he managed to get the horizon level too !

 

[dean messenger]

sorry but how is it chest beating.. total and utter rubbish.. its a simple statement of fact that for me the image has no worth in my eyes, I thought this was supposed to be a "photography" forum yet it seems the whole defence of the image is based around the artistic value in the eyes of a very small minority of peopl who have more money than sense and buy images like these purely based on the artist themselves and not the content. and my comments are based on the photographic content of the image.
I am not an art critic and feel no need to be.
seems the argument here consists of being called idiot, stupid, ignorant, myopic, uneducated, foolish, and more.. all of which negate your arguments to the level of bullying with no valid reason as to why the image is any good on a photographic level.
that has been clearly stated by me that photographically i find the image poor and yet the only forthcoming return is the vale based on the artist and not the work,
so instead of the tiresome and frankly pathetic insults and name claling you could actually come back with a valid point as to how this is a good photo? without all the deep and maningful artworld BS that seems to be the only repsonse

 

[big soft moose]

Not really. I think people are saying that "it's crap" and backing that up with "it doesn't obey the rule of thirds and has dull colours" is inadequate and ignorant criticism.

but so far you haven't given any sound rebuttal as to why its not crap except to say that its 'art'. That's basically what I'm asking why in your opinion is this a great shot (ignore for a moment it being taken by a name artist and sold for £4M , imagine we were talking about an identical shot taken by a member here). I understand the reasoning you've explained behind the takers concept, but as regards the actual execution of the picture what makes it 'good' in your opinion

 

[ghoti]

but so far you haven't given any sound rebuttal as to why its not crap except to say that its 'art'. That's basically what I'm asking why in your opinion is this a great shot (ignore for a moment it being taken by a name artist and sold for £4M , imagine we were talking about an identical shot taken by a member here). I understand the reasoning you've explained behind the takers concept, but as regards the actual execution of the picture what makes it 'good' in your opinion

I don't think it is particularly "good". I think it's an interesting picture. It doesn't overwhelm me.

 

[Ed Sutton]

A piece that doesn't demonstrate any craftsmanship isn't (imo) art - because it could have been made by a child... i

But it couldn't. Well it could - accidentally, without any idea behind doing it. That's the difference. There are skills required to make art, but they aren't necessarily craft skills, they are intellectual skills.

 

[big soft moose]

But it couldn't. Well it could - accidentally, without any idea behind doing it. That's the difference. There are skills required to make art, but they aren't necessarily craft skills, they are intellectual skills.

I agree - but my point is that both are required for a good picture (or indeed any good art)

intellectual skills without craft skills lead to a nice concept let down by poor execution ( or in some cases poor execution being explained and excused by pseudo artistic waffle - not that i'm saying that's the case with the picture at hand)

craft skills without intellectual skills lead to a boring concept, technically well executed (or in some cases the plagiarism of someonelse's nice concept, betrayed by a lack of originality)

to create great art I'd say you need the intellectual skills to develop a great concept, and the craft skills to execute that concept superbly

 

[droj]

It's value in the market is the only measure of it's worth.

No, Phil, that's not the whole truth - it only expresses the simple monetary worth. There is also the independent and more complex matter of cultural worth.

There are skills required to make art, but they aren't necessarily craft skills, they are intellectual skills.

Again, only part of the story. You have discounted non-intellectual intuitive skills ...

 

[ghoti]

I agree - but my point is that both are required for a good picture (or indeed any good art)

intellectual skills without craft skills lead to a nice concept let down by poor execution ( or in some cases poor execution being explained and excused by pseudo artistic waffle - not that i'm saying that's the case with the picture at hand)

craft skills without intellectual skills lead to a boring concept, technically well executed (or in some cases the plagiarism of someonelse's nice concept, betrayed by a lack of originality)

to create great art I'd say you need the intellectual skills to develop a great concept, and the craft skills to execute that concept superbly

Given that it is a conceptual photograph in the minimalist style, what would you have done to improve it technically?

 

[big soft moose]

Given that it is a conceptual photograph in the minimalist style, what would you have done to improve it technically?

well personally I wouldn't have set out to take that photo to explore the concept of unindustrialisation of a landscape - if that was my concept I'd have gone somewhere where the river resembled how the unindustrialised rhine would appear ie swampy, unmanaged, wide meandering channel etc (maybe the wilder upper reaches of the danube or dneiper) and then photoshopped that into the foreground of the rhine shot , as a counter point to the industrial backdrop.

that aside assuming for whatever reason I was taking the rhine shot, I would have waited for a better sky , so as to show the power of nature as a counterpoint to the industrialised man made landscape below.

if on the other hand I wanted a purely minimalist conceptual shot about shape and form (leaving aside the concept about unindustrialisation ) I would have shot it as a long exposure and converted to black and white to remove any distraction from the shape and form. ... however as the shape and form concept has been done to death already I probably wouldn't have bothered as it would hardly be original

 

[Ed Sutton]

to create great art I'd say you need the intellectual skills to develop a great concept, and the craft skills to execute that concept superbly

I agree that both are required, but perfection is overrated, IMO. A great concept poorly executed is better than a poor concept well made. What was it Ansel Adams said?

Again, only part of the story. You have discounted non-intellectual intuitive skills ...

Not discounted, neglected. I'm a great believer intuition trumping intellect - if it looks right, it is right.

 

[big soft moose]

I agree that both are required, but perfection is overrated, IMO. A great concept poorly executed is better than a poor concept well made. What was it Ansel Adams said?
.

That sounds more like Patton ( a good plan violently executed now beats a perfect plan in 6 weeks time). I pretty much agree with you , although it does depend how poorly executed

 

[Ed Sutton]

I was thinking of:
"There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept."

 

[Lindsay D]

.... we come to the point where everything is art if someone says it is, and its any crap shot can be excused by saying "oh but its art" - go too far down that road and no one need bother acquiring any actual photographic skills, because hey everything art.

... and that is exactly what has driven the modern art market. If a major gallery or well-known art critic endorses something then that is generally sufficient for it to be accepted as a high-value piece. If any of us here were to stack a pile of bricks in our backyard and try to call it art, chances are we'd be ridiculed. But put that same pile of bricks into a well known gallery, perhaps with a particular name attached to it, and it will be seen very differently. The emperors new clothes? In many cases, yes. This will always be at odds with the many other art forms which have required a very high level of technical ability and which may not achieve the same financial status, perhaps because the artist was not as controversial, or because the piece appealed a little less to the critics.

 

[dean messenger]

skills required to make art.. sorry but wasnt so long ago a 3 year did a painting of green and brown streaks and then added some green splodges on it. essentially a childs view of trees. somehow this attracted the attention ( through whatever way shape or form ) of the artworld. and it was applauded for its outstanding level of detail and understanding blah blah blah ( typical geekspeak from the art world ).. and sold for several thousand pounds.

another example here of a two years tomato ketchup pictures
http://www.neatorama.com/2007/12/11...etchup-paintings-fooled-the-art-world/#!5fs5T

wheres the skill in that.. the only skill required is fooling the artworld and that clearly doesnt seem to be to hard.
look around google and you'll find lots more stories of similar. be it artwork or photographs
http://www.artsumo.com/blog/post/4/They_Paid_What_Top_10_Absurd_Paintings_that_Sold_for_Millions/

seems that the only skill involved in may of these is the ability to make those with money believe that what you have created by giving it some background story and conceptual meaning gives it a value way beyond the norm.

 

[big soft moose]

. If any of us here were to stack a pile of bricks in our backyard ...

I did that - but I called it a BBQ instead

it would be interesting to be able to jump a few hundred years into the future and see how much of this 'art' still endures and has the same monetary value ... in the same way that old masters do today ... my guess would be not much

 

[Lindsay D]

Dean, here's the thing - we have to understand that there are people out there who will consider those pieces very appealing, for all sorts of reasons which any other individual may or may not comprehend. We may or may not regard those people as gullible, or lacking in sense or judgement, however to the buyer the work is not 'crap' but a unique possession which gives them pleasure or satisfaction. I saw some paintings on the news last year which I think had been created by elephants - by no stretch of the imagination where they competent paintings, but they were certainly unusual in their execution.

 

[dean messenger]

think the biggest issue here is sepearting photography from art. sure photography is an art form but there seems to be two ends of the scale one from the art world genre and one form the photographic genre.
and on the final note.. banksy anyone?
a graffitti artist with politcal comedic comments in hes work or a charlatan whos managed to fool the world?
no need to answer on that one as its a whole new debate!

 

[big soft moose]

. I saw some paintings on the news last year which I think had been created by elephants - by no stretch of the imagination where they competent paintings, but they were certainly unusual in their execution.

My mate chris has one of those on his wall - his wife bought it in Thailand while they were on honeymoon , for the baht equivalent of £4.50 - it's a memory , and a conversation piece but no one has ever suggested that its art.

 

[Lindsay D]

Dean, I think Banksy is technically and artistically very clever, and he is (or was) a very good businessman. I don't think it's a whole new debate, I think the way the (modern) art world exists is broadly same irrespective of the genre under discussion. My feelings on the matter are very simple - any given piece is worth what somebody is prepared to pay for it, irrespective of how we may judge it. That judgement is often passed by critics associated with galleries and the art media and to a degree an art buyer will be led by that. I have gone to modern art galleries and I have been confronted by paintings with devastating impact, stunning technical execution (brushwork etc) and considerable visual power. I have moved into the next room and I have seen the cliched pile of bricks which may carry a higher pricetag. I might find it laughable, but there is someone out there who will disagree and I will not argue with their own thoughts and feelings.

 

[Lindsay D]

My mate chris has one of those on his wall - his wife bought it in Thailand while they were on honeymoon , for the baht equivalent of £4.50 - it's a memory , and a conversation piece but no one has ever suggested that its art.

I think when elephants first started painting they carried a much higher pricetag, sounds like they lost their credibility a bit!

 

[big soft moose]

I would guess the market trunked when owners realised it was something any dumbo could do

I seem to recall a zoo somewhere selling finger paintings done by a gorilla or some such last year as well

 

[Blank_Canvas]

I like it because it's essentially made a mundane everyday view interesting, he has had a concept, an idea in his head and composed the image. It shows structure.... to me anyway. It's going to mean different things to different people. I don't see 'Art' here or need to put a label on it. It's an image to provoke thought and comment and from that perspective it's worked.

If I can use this photograph of Titanic's slipway to illustrate my point; some people will like it, some people will hate it but that's the subjective nature of photography anyway, but the real point is this - perhaps the mid-ground looks a little unbalanced ?, Does that even matter ? On the right hand side are four distinct bands of grass. This is to represent in order of number, the crew, 1st class, 2nd, 3rd and 4th class passengers that died. This is the real reason for the memorial, but you would't necessarily know that if you hadn't visited Belfast or someone hasn't told you.

Now, using a 200mm lens I tried to photograph these alternating bands of grass standing slightly just above ground level. I had a structured 'sandwich image' in my head of the juxtaposition of alternating grass, tarmac and finally the sea. Unfortunately, because of the compression effect of the hills and ship and railings it didn't work for me. You could argue the fact that I could have removed all this in photoshop, but I didn't have the time or inclination. Had I pursued this and produced the image that I conceived, no doubt someone would of said it was crap, ill thought out and pointless, probably nobody would of made the connection of the grass bands representing 1st, 2nd,3rd and 4th class passengers. Would I have put that up on my wall, probably - My Grandfather, George Newman was a 3rd Officer (Engineer) on Titanics sister ship Olympic which was built where those green patches are.

So, we sometimes look, but we don't always see or understand - nobody says you have to.............

 

[big soft moose]

Dean, I think Banksy is technically and artistically very clever, and he is (or was) a very good businessman. I don't think it's a whole new debate, .

I tend to agree - although I'm less keen on the criminal damage element of graffiti art - theres also an interesting question about who owns the intellectual rights to the image if person a paints it onto the property of person b without permission

 

[dean messenger]

so then that begs the question when does a photographic image become art?
when its lauded by the art world and bundled with a high price tag?
arent images that are seen in national geographic or winners of the POTY equally worthy . this has been my whole point. that the rhein shot on a purely photographic level doesnt warrant any plaudits. as a photograph it has very little in it that i personally see as worthy to even give a second look and i can look on flickr and find a thousand images that to me are far superior.
ans urely this whole thread was started in regard to photographs and quality of them and not artists worth.

 

[Steve]

I agree - but my point is that both are required for a good picture (or indeed any good art)

intellectual skills without craft skills lead to a nice concept let down by poor execution ( or in some cases poor execution being explained and excused by pseudo artistic waffle - not that i'm saying that's the case with the picture at hand)

craft skills without intellectual skills lead to a boring concept, technically well executed (or in some cases the plagiarism of someonelse's nice concept, betrayed by a lack of originality)

to create great art I'd say you need the intellectual skills to develop a great concept, and the craft skills to execute that concept superbly

I agree with the basis of this but the two are not treated equally on this forum.

The former is derided by forum members as lacking technical excellence with no consideration of the artistic intention.

The latter is applauded by forum members for having technical excellence with no consideration of the lack of artistic intention.

I seem to recall Matisse's cut outs were derided as lacking in skill and as could have been done by a child.
Our art teacher years ago gave the class some scissors and paper to make our own cut outs. They all looked terrible as we lacked the understanding of space and the necessary vision to make it work. We had the craft skills to neatly cut the paper and the gluing skills to neatly attach them to the paper, but we didn't have his vision.

How much skill or craft in cutting out shapes and sticking them on paper? Not much? So it cant be great art?

But to me, I love Matisse's cut outs and would gladly them on my wall.

 

[Lindsay D]

I tend to agree - although I'm less keen on the criminal damage element of graffiti art - theres also an interesting question about who owns the intellectual rights to the image if person a paints it onto the property of person b without permission

Yes, the premise behind public graffiti is that it's a (selfish) cultural and societal statement. I know that we don't have any right to attach something to somebody's wall or fence (private property) without permission, or paint the side of a neighbour's fence which faces into our land, so I would've thought those laws would stand when it comes to graffiti - in that the person doing the painting would be obliged to return the fence or wall to its previous state. They would own the rights to the painting they had created of course, but I think they would still have to make good if ordered to.

 

[Ed Sutton]

so then that begs the question when does a photographic image become art?
when its lauded by the art world and bundled with a high price tag?
arent images that are seen in national geographic or winners of the POTY equally worthy .

Why does it matter? As I said earlier, there is more than one 'photography' and the standards of each photographic realm aren't always transferable to another.

this has been my whole point. that the rhein shot on a purely photographic level doesnt warrant any plaudits. as a photograph it has very little in it that i personally see as worthy to even give a second look...

Try forgetting that it's a photograph (which is moot given the level of manipulation) and judging it on a purely photographic level - that's not how it was made to be seen.

Gotta fly, pics to make.

 

[big soft moose]

I agree with the basis of this but the two are not treated equally on this forum.

The former is derided by forum members as lacking technical excellence with no consideration of the artistic intention.

as it should be - artistic intention is not a substitute for ability to execute - but too often people argue that for example " oh that blur was intentional" when it is patently obvious that it really resulted from poor execution or understanding... I can't think of any examples where something genuinely so artistically ground breaking that it would transcend the lack of ability in execution has been posted for critique.

The latter is applauded by forum members for having technical excellence with no consideration of the lack of artistic intention.

.

that's not so - lots of pictures have been critiqued as technically good but boring - and lots of crit is given that points out that a good shot needs both

 

[ghoti]

so then that begs the question when does a photographic image become art?
when its lauded by the art world and bundled with a high price tag?
arent images that are seen in national geographic or winners of the POTY equally worthy . this has been my whole point. that the rhein shot on a purely photographic level doesnt warrant any plaudits. as a photograph it has very little in it that i personally see as worthy to even give a second look and i can look on flickr and find a thousand images that to me are far superior.
ans urely this whole thread was started in regard to photographs and quality of them and not artists worth.

All photography, with the arguable exception of technical imaging, is art.

Talking of POTY competitions. What do you make of 2012's LPOTY winner? It lacks vibrant colours, isn't really composed on thirds, has an overcast sky etc...

http://www.take-a-view.co.uk/images/2012winners/AP_0009243_ButterworthS.jpg

 

[Phil V]

so then that begs the question when does a photographic image become art?
when its lauded by the art world and bundled with a high price tag?
arent images that are seen in national geographic or winners of the POTY equally worthy . this has been my whole point. that the rhein shot on a purely photographic level doesnt warrant any plaudits. as a photograph it has very little in it that i personally see as worthy to even give a second look and i can look on flickr and find a thousand images that to me are far superior.
ans urely this whole thread was started in regard to photographs and quality of them and not artists worth.

But surely Dean that's the point. This thread was started as a discussion of commercial portrait photography that lacked evidence of basic technical ability. Far from what you turned it into.

You brought up the subject of 'art' and after all the posts to the contrary you're still confusing your taste with worth. Your taste is irrelevant and this isn't an insult, but when it comes to art, your opinion isn't really worth much (just like mine). And whether even someone who is qualified likes it or not, is still irrelevant to it's value. If I want to see great photographs, I wouldn't go looking on Flickr, or 500 pixels or whatever, I'd visit a gallery.

 

[big soft moose]

Talking of POTY competitions. What do you make of 2012's LPOTY winner? It lacks vibrant colours, isn't really composed on thirds, has an overcast sky etc...

http://www.take-a-view.co.uk/images/2012winners/AP_0009243_ButterworthS.jpg

to be honest I'm surprised that won (although the various things competition judges do no longer surprise me - remember the year a shot of a gorilla in a zoo won the WPOTY ? - but you are way off on the not following compositional rules thing , it has a strong diagonal divide, key elements are on thirds and so forth.

to me that looks like a classic case of formulaic following of compositional rules without really thinking about what the overall vision is - in short an example of technically correct but boring

 

[Steve]

as it should be - artistic intention is not a substitute for ability to execute - but too often people argue that for example " oh that blur was intentional" when it is patently obvious that it really resulted from poor execution or understanding... I can't think of any examples where something genuinely so artistically ground breaking that it would transcend the lack of ability in execution has been posted for critique.



that's not so - lots of pictures have been critiqued as technically good but boring - and lots of crit is given that points out that a good shot needs both

Think we will disagree over the first part. I'm not excusing poor technical ability and trying to pass it off as artistic intention, but someone whose artistic vision overrides the technical considerations or their skill/ability level.

As for the second, I'm not sure if 'lots' of technically perfect but dull photos are criticised. A few maybe, but I don't see it happening often in the threads I look at.