Up-and-coming photographers (BBC)

for the hype to be featured on BBC you would expect something to make you stand back from the screen and go WOW!

I see better work day in day out on here tbh.
 
Bit disappointed but not that surprised by the Central St Martins lot. It's not particularly exciting or interesting. Couldn't give two hoots for technical proficiency so it's not that but it really doesn't stand out as being particularly innovative or challenging -- but it's a degree show I guess so what people 'in the know' will be looking for is potential.

There's some decent 'art' photography on at the Host Gallery's summer show at the minute - details here.
 
I liked the asian lady one and also liked the idea of the clowns one, however I thought my 12 year old brother could do better :)

The problem is with these kind of things is that photos get picked because of their 'art' factor, which usually means that unless your some pompous art critic it means absolutely sweet FA to you.
 
jamiestone said:
Art certainly does create discussion - but does that mean it is art?

Personaly I think it is, all photography is - just at very different levels!
Click to expand...

I tend to think discussion about whether something is art or not is pretty pointless, I prefer to just accept anything can be art, and then spend my time deciding whether or not I like it/think it's any good :thumbs:
 
Hey guys, sorry to be out of touch in such a great discussion! I somehow can't access the forum from my home computer for some reason?

Anyway, it's a great discussion and it's nice that the heat levels have come down a little (from me too!).
 
i think the text adds some impact to the pics, for some not for all. it depends on the picture and how good it is to match the writing and vice versa. i liked 1 and 9 the most, 4 is interesting also, but the rest are ok. the ribbon pic is, maybe just being artistic, but i dont see any reason to have a text under it. 3 and 5 arent nice at all, and the last one doesnt make sense
 
i think photography is art, because its not only about the picture itself, but also its meaning, and what comes after the post editing. fixing the colors, effects etc.... and comingup with a final image that presents what u wanted in it. isnt it similar to a drawing drawn by an artist?
Even taking a picture of something very simple, and boring, but adding text to it, and making people think about the object in the picture and relate it to someting meaningful is art in my opinion.
 
bakedbeans said:
Hey guys, sorry to be out of touch in such a great discussion! I somehow can't access the forum from my home computer for some reason?

Anyway, it's a great discussion and it's nice that the heat levels have come down a little (from me too!).
Click to expand...

[off topic]
Yeah there is an ongoing problem for some people (me included). Is your ISP Orange?

[on topic]
It is a good discussion, and agree with you that it would be good to get more varied comment on the photo's in the forum. It's pretty easy to tell whether something is sharp, correctly exposed etc. But it is difficult to say why you actually like something or why something is good art/photography over and above its technical execution.
 
Yeah, I'm on Orange! I can ping and traceroute but I suspect it's a DNS problem? Have you got more information?
 
Fragglerock said:
Somewhere out there in internet land (see edit) there is a collection of well renowned famous photographs with "out of focus" "whites burned out" type comments for each of them. Extremely funny and apt.

The "turds" reaction to these images is amazing considering the plaudits given to some fairly average pictures on this forum. What if these people come and find your discussion, hardly "the most friendly forum on the net" is it!

Anyway this set is maybe speaking to all who try and communicate through forums and the like, what do you think of these?

http://www.csm2009photography.com/Photography_CarolineBriggs.htm



edit
The great photos with crit are here.
http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html
Click to expand...

The photos in the first link are pretty good, however the comment that goes along with them really riles me. The photos are really nice in their own right, however the comment just brings the pretentious rubbish out in the open, and comments like that are exactly why so much of the art world is way "over the heads" of the ordinary person.

There is no reason for photos to not have comments and reasons behind them, in fact some of the best photos I have taken i've written about them when presenting them on here, however they should still be interpretable to an extent without it. You also have the way the comment is written, and that one is a prime example of what alienates the "art world" from the normal person IMO.

(I don't quite mean it to be written as harsh as I have but can't express it any other way).

As for your second link, I have to say I find a lot of apparently stunning photos by famous artists well, rubbish. A photo doesn't need to be technically perfect, however it still needs to be good enough without necessarily having a comment explaining why IMO. Background is no substitute for a poorly taken photo!

AlexW said:
I don't know, I'm liking these two very different sets quite a lot:

http://www.csm2009photography.com/Photography_KateHenderson.htm#nogo
&
http://www.csm2009photography.com/Photography_PaulVickery.htm#nogo
Click to expand...

I really like the first set, beautiful photos, and the second set, although not completely my cup of tea is good as well. Both these however still have the (nowhere near as bad) pretentious comments explaining them, but both don't need them, they are pretty much understandable without needing to read about them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top