Whatever happened to Camera-craft?

[chuckles]

Can you teach camera-craft? - Yes
Is camera-craft needed? Inferred answer - No.

Then we get the spurious argument/discussion/analogy of Range Rovers and Mercedes --- I'm truly lost and confused.

 

[BillN_33]

There's such a thing creative accountancy... which I'm sure you are aware of Are creative accountants born?

I realise that, I use and have used it often, personally and professionally, (it is what many clients, ask any Tax Accountant).

I'd written a paragraph to say why - but I carn't be bothered as it's Sunday - I'd say any artist is born with the "gifts" - they can be explained, (if that is a definition of taught), but cannot be given

 

[Pookeyhead]

We'll have no mischief here, this is a serious forum for serious people!


Steve.

into which unfortunately, we DO pass solids. (that will make no sense if you've not seen League of Gentlemen)

 

[chuckles]

I'd defy anybody with a mega-bugs, point-and-shoot, state of the art pile of kit to capture the necessary prop-blur of an aerobatic display of modern aerobatic aircraft to the point that it's both technically accurate and have artistic merit. Especially without BOTH an advanced level of camera-craft and an appreciation of the Decisive Moment!

To say otherwise is tantamount to absolute tosh!

 

[Steve Smith]

can you really get a degree in photography?

You can even get one in accountancy... and that's really just adding up and taking away!!


Steve.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Can you teach camera-craft? - Yes
Is camera-craft needed? Inferred answer - No.

Then we get the spurious argument/discussion/analogy of Range Rovers and Mercedes --- I'm truly lost and confused.

Simple really. Yes, camera craft can be taught.. of course it can. However, it's the easiest part of photography, and one becoming less relevant year on year as cameras become more sophisticated. Auto focus is almost perfect for most uses, meters are clever and able to expose accurately in scenarios that would have fooled systems from 20 years ago. Basically, sharp, well exposed and composed images are easy to take, which is why there are billions of them on the internet. It's easy. Which is my point. Why is so much importance placed on something to easy?

The car analogy is because people WANT a degree, but at the same time, they complain that degrees are too academic and don't include enough photo training. They want to be able to say they have one, but they want to earn one by just being technical. By definition, that's impossible. What they actually want is a HND, or perhaps, if being able to say "I have a degree" is so important to them (no idea why it should be) then why not take a BSc in Photography? Such courses exist. The analogy is simple. Person wants a BA (Hons) [Merc SLK] but is told by the college [dealer] that it's really not a great choice for their needs, and a range rover [HND] is more appropriate for their needs. However, customer likes the thought of the sexy, sleek, fashionable SLK and ignored the salesman. Then, when the SLK utterly fails to do what they actually need, they complain to the dealer. That would be ridiculous wouldn't it? However... that's what actually happens in education. People assume an honours degree is somehow the thing they really want.. need... the thing that will somehow get them somewhere, so they ignore the advice because they like the IDEA of it, but are not prepared to do what is actually required on that course.

It's not about the degree. It's about the work developed over those three years and what you end up being capable of doing. No one has ever asked to see any of my degrees, except the college itself for obvious reasons. As a photographer, no one, ever, has asked to see a piece of paper.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I'd defy anybody with a mega-bugs, point-and-shoot, state of the art pile of kit to capture the necessary prop-blur of an aerobatic display of modern aerobatic aircraft to the point that it's both technically accurate and have artistic merit. Especially without BOTH an advanced level of camera-craft and an appreciation of the Decisive Moment!

To say otherwise is tantamount to absolute tosh!

But pictures of piston aircraft at airshows HAVE no artistic merit. They may have technical requirements, but artistic merit? What artistic merit do they have?

As for technical skill.... it's called shutter priority All you need to do is work out what shutter speed you need, which can be done trial and error... and after an hour or so, you've got it. hardly demanding. I've only ever shot one air show, and I had that nailed in 10 minutes.

 

[BillN_33]

You can even get one in accountancy... and that's really just adding up and taking away!!


Steve.

It's not, it is "counting" beans

must be new then - there never was when I "went to school"

is there a degree in "painting"

 

[BillN_33]

It's easy. Which is my point. Why is so much importance placed on something to easy?

I wish - small bird images are NOT easy

 

[chuckles]

But pictures of piston aircraft at airshows HAVE no artistic merit. They may have technical requirements, but artistic merit? What artistic merit do they have?

As for technical skill.... it's called shutter priority

Just as Pointillism has no place in a Rembrandt gallery? Why not try to be objective for once and not reduce things to argumentative, subjective opinion all the time?

 

[chuckles]

I see you've edited this since I replied

 

[Pookeyhead]

I see you've edited this since I replied

Yeah, I do that... not because of your reply though.

Pointillism is a superb example of how technical skill can create something unique, and of value, and if applied well can still be art. Art is not necessarily about the craft skills on display and certainly not BECAUSE of craft skills. Pointillism for the sake of Pointillism is just as lacking in artistic merit as any other medium done just to show off craft skills. Rembrandt? Well.. the point is... no one would produce work like that any more and expect to be taken seriously as an artist. We've moved on. Rembrandt is obviously still regarded as a master of that particular period of art history, but it's art history. There's still stuff to learn from it, but its history. If I was a painter now, and all I did was work derived from old masters styles, and had no real reason for doing so, my work would quite rightly be dismissed as derivative, technique driven tosh. Yet amateurs still churn out the same old tropes all the time and complain when people call it derivative tosh.

Do something different then!

 

[chuckles]

But pictures of piston aircraft at airshows HAVE no artistic merit. They may have technical requirements, but artistic merit? What artistic merit do they have?

As for technical skill.... it's called shutter priority All you need to do is work out what shutter speed you need, which can be done trial and error... and after an hour or so, you've got it. hardly demanding. I've only ever shot one air show, and I had that nailed in 10 minutes.

You've never met a true 'airhead' have you?

Art and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I've met people who don't like Van Gogh's "Rest from Work" because it's not patch on his "Sunflowers"

10 minutes - what took you so long? With education, and photographic experience you could've achieved it in 1 minute!

 

[Pookeyhead]

I wish - small bird images are NOT easy

no.. it required knowledge of the species and habitat... patience, and the right gear. I'm not saying it's easy.. I'm saying photographically it's pretty easy, and ultimately, luck has as much to do with it as anything else.

 

[BillN_33]

I'm as bad as anybody - but it would be great to get this thread into some kind of constructive, balanced debate that is useful to all ......... I know that's "rich" coming from me ....... but most of my posts do start out with an element of "jest" - I know that I do not use "smilies" but that's me, I just don't understand them........... I'll always throw in what is judged to be the odd "dig" - but I'll now chose a funny face thing when I do

Clear simple language would be good ........ try to educate, step by step

Art _ I love Oil Refineries - started when I worked in the Gulf in the early 1970's - they are works of art - the steelworks in Sheffield in the 60's/70's were almost as good

 

[chuckles]

no.. it required knowledge of the species and habitat... patience, and the right gear. I'm not saying it's easy.. I'm saying photographically it's pretty easy, and ultimately, luck has as much to do with it as anything else.

Patience ---- that'll be the Decisive Moment thing then!

 

[Pookeyhead]

You've never met a true 'airhead' have you?

Art and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I've met people who don't like Van Gogh's "Rest from Work" because it's not patch on his "Sunflowers"

10 minutes - what took you so long? With education, and photographic experience you could've achieved it in 1 minute!

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, of course, but you are making the mistake that art=beauty, so finding something beautiful means you've found art.

You mention people "liking" things. What has "like" got to do with art?

So if it only takes one minute.... where's the skill? That's my point. It takes one minute if someone had the benefit of being told what speeds to use for what point of the display. It takes longer than one minute though... as there's then other things to work out. Fixed pitch prop or not?


At the end of the day... there's no artistic merit in airshow images. They're a record. They can look impressive, and if you like planes... sure, they're enjoyable to look at, but they have no artistic merit.

 

[chuckles]

I'm as bad as anybody - but it would be great to get this thread into some kind of constructive, balanced debate that is useful to all ......... I know that's "rich" coming from me ....... but most of my posts do start out with an element of "jest" - I know that I do not use "smilies" but that's me, I just don't understand them........... I'll always throw in what is judged to be the odd "dig" - but I'll now chose a funny face thing when I do

Clear simple language would be good ........ try to educate, step by step

I'm trying Bill

 

[Pookeyhead]

Patience ---- that'll be the Decisive Moment thing then!

No.. because no one who takes "bif" images will fire off one shot only.

 

[chris malcolm]

I'm a great fan of all that modern digital technology has brought to photography. It's what brought me back to photography as a hobby after giving up on film, which I developed and printed myself, because it became too expensive and time consuming.

There are two aspects of camera craft in which I'm notably deficient. The first is with catching those unexpected transient photo opportunities that I miss so many of. I'm learning habits of having the camera very quickly accessible and in a good general purpose mode. The second is getting depth of focus right with portraits of still subjects such as flowers. I usually want a nicely blurred background and as much of the flower as possible in very sharp focus. My guesses about aperture are heading the right direction but often wrong. I need to spend much longer with the camera on a tripod doing DoF previews and chimpings.

Those are far from the only deficiencies in my camera craft. I mention them because both of them involve me learning new skills in taking the shot, in preparing for the shot, and in post processing. They both involve me exploiting the latest camera technology, deciding on and acquiring new accessories and learning how to get the best from them, and learning new post processing skills.

In other words, my hopefully improving camera craft involves all the latest gear I can afford to get my hands on, combined with experimenting, learning, devloping skills, etc..

 

[Pookeyhead]

I'm a great fan of all that modern digital technology has brought to photography. It's what brought me back to photography as a hobby after giving up on film, which I developed and printed myself, because it became too expensive and time consuming.

There are two aspects of camera craft in which I'm notably deficient. The first is with catching those unexpected transient photo opportunities that I miss so many of. I'm learning habits of having the camera very quickly accessible and in a good general purpose mode. The second is getting depth of focus right with portraits of still subjects such as flowers. I usually want a nicely blurred background and as much of the flower as possible in very sharp focus. My guesses about aperture are heading the right direction but often wrong. I need to spend much longer with the camera on a tripod doing DoF previews and chimpings.

Those are far from the only deficiencies in my camera craft. I mention them because both of them involve me learning new skills in taking the shot, in preparing for the shot, and in post processing. They both involve me exploiting the latest camera technology, deciding on and acquiring new accessories and learning how to get the best from them, and learning new post processing skills.

In other words, my hopefully improving camera craft involves all the latest gear I can afford to get my hands on, combined with experimenting, learning, devloping skills, etc..

Does all that make your images more interesting?

Stuff like depth of focus/field will be taken care of when light field recording becomes more mainstream. You'll be able to adjust your aperture and focus post-process. No big deal. It won't make your images more interesting or relevant though.

 

[Steve Smith]

As a photographer, no one, ever, has asked to see a piece of paper.

As an electronic and mechanical design engineer, no one has ever seen any of my qualifications either. And I only have O and A levels. I was offered a degree place but decided that it wasn't relevant to what I wanted to do.

Simple really. Yes, camera craft can be taught.. of course it can. However, it's the easiest part of photography, and one becoming less relevant year on year as cameras become more sophisticated. Auto focus is almost perfect for most uses, meters are clever and able to expose accurately in scenarios that would have fooled systems from 20 years ago.

Whilst what you say is entirely correct, If I could only use modern auto everything cameras, I don't think I would bother with photography as it would have no interest for me. I prefer to manual focus and expose then develop the film and print without a computer involved. I even make cameras sometimes.

I can appreciate that these things are useful for professionals and Mr and Mrs Joe Average alike... but they're not for me.

Does all that make your images more interesting?

And to borrow your question and aim it at me... probably not for anyone else, but it makes it more interesting for me and that is my reason for doing it.


Steve.

 

[BillN_33]

As an electronic and mechanical design engineer, no one has ever seen any of my qualifications either. And I only have O and A levels. I was offered a degree place but decided that it wasn't relevant to what I wanted to do.


Steve.

we Accountants are different - never trust anyone - I even had to show my O level paper in Art and my birth certificate

 

[chuckles]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, of course, but you are making the mistake that art=beauty, so finding something beautiful means you've found art.

You mention people "liking" things. What has "like" got to do with art?

So if it only takes one minute.... where's the skill? That's my point. It takes one minute if someone had the benefit of being told what speeds to use for what point of the display. It takes longer than one minute though... as there's then other things to work out. Fixed pitch prop or not?


At the end of the day... there's no artistic merit in airshow images. They're a record. They can look impressive, and if you like planes... sure, they're enjoyable to look at, but they have no artistic merit.

Like has EVERYTHING to do with Art!

My wife prefers to walk through a gallery by herself, immersing herself in her own experience and personal enjoyment of the Art. It's an arrogance to inflict my opinion (or anybody else's) on her individual connection with the artist. I very much respect that. Educators would do well to include that in their diatribes when forcing ideas and notions upon students.

I minute was with respect to you.... everybody else it takes longer!

 

[Pookeyhead]

As an electronic and mechanical design engineer, no one has ever seen any of my qualifications either. And I only have O and A levels. I was offered a degree place but decided that it wasn't relevant to what I wanted to do.



Whilst what you say is entirely correct, If I could only use modern auto everything cameras, I don't think I would bother with photography as it would have no interest for me. I prefer to manual focus and expose then develop the film and print without a computer involved. I even make cameras sometimes.

I can appreciate that these things are useful for professionals and Mr and Mrs Joe Average alike... but they're not for me.




Steve.

That's because for you it's about materiality, which is one aspect of the artefact that in itself can give it artistic merit.

 

[BillN_33]

the best thing about most Art Galleries is leaving - the last I went to was the David Hockney Exhibition - I walked out after 10 minutes ....... i took a few images of the outside which were OK, so all was not lost

IMVHO, of course

 

[chuckles]

No.. because no one who takes "bif" images will fire off one shot only.

I do... and I have the Metadata to prove it!

 

[Pookeyhead]

Like has EVERYTHING to do with Art!

My wife prefers to walk through a gallery by herself, immersing herself in her own experience and personal enjoyment of the Art. It's an arrogance to inflict my opinion (or anybody else's) on her individual connection with the artist. I very much respect that. Educators would do well to include that in their diatribes when forcing ideas and notions upon students.

Nah.... there's tons of stuff I like that's not art, and tons of stuff I dislike immensely but have to acknowledge it's artistic brilliance. I'm not saying anyone is WRONG for going to a gallery and just liking what they see. Art is to be enjoyed, but at an aesthetic level, those who go along to merely enjoy looking at art are only really looking at the surface, the craft, and reacting to it visually, not intellectually. I'm not saying that's wrong, but LIKING something doesn't make it art.

I don;t force anything upon students Barry. What makes you think I do? I would make it clear to students however that whether you LIKE something is utterly irrelevant That's not forcing an opinion, it IS educating them about art. FORCING my opinion would be me telling them WHAT to like. You're making the mistake of thinking I'm here in this forum as an educator.

I minute was with respect to you.... everybody else it takes longer!

I must be a slow learner then Either way... you get my point.

I do... and I have the Metadata to prove it!

Isn't that just adhering to a way of working that's not relevant, and doing so for no reason though? Wouldn't your chances of getting the shot increase exponentially if you used a fast continuous way of shooting? Does anyone appreciate the image more because you took only one shot? If so, what are they admiring, the image, or you? If THAT'S the case, which is more important to you?

Personally I'd just do what gives me the best chance of getting the shot I require.

 

[chuckles]

the best thing about most Art Galleries is leaving - the last I went to was David Hockney Exhibition - I walked out after 10 minutes ....... i took a few images of the outside which were OK, so all was not lost

I struggled with the Picaso Museum in Barcelona, but the Musee d'Orsay had me spell-bound - I was disappointed when it closed.

 

[Pookeyhead]

IMVHO, of course

Acknowledged

 

[Steve Smith]

That's because for you it's about materiality, which is one aspect of the artefact that in itself can give it artistic merit.

Possibly. However, there is a proportion of photographers, especially amongst the grey bearded, large format types, who substitute method for artistic value.

Using an old process on a fully manual camera and spending a lot of time setting up doesn't mean that the resulting image is going to be better than that of someone passing by who snaps it on their i-phone in two seconds.


Steve.

 

[BillN_33]

I struggled with the Picaso Museum in Barcelona, but the Musee d'Orsay had me spell-bound - I was disappointed when it closed.

there are places that really impress you emotionally ....... but that's different ........ most are outdated and to me irrelevant ........... maybe I need to spend more money to get into the "right" ones

The Fink in NY was OK ......... but the other one round the corner was a bit like an expensive department store ......... I prefer churches ........ because of their history, (both the good and the bad) ........ maybe it is just that I can understand them more

 

[Pookeyhead]

Possibly. However, there is a proportion of photographers, especially amongst the grey bearded, large format types, to substitute method for artistic value.

Using an old process on a fully manual camera and spending a lot of time setting up doesn't mean that the resulting image is going to be better than that of someone passing by who snaps it on their i-phone in two seconds.


Steve.

Exactly the points I'm raising in here, yes. Camera skills are irrelevant. Necessary at times, but irrelevant when it comes to appreciating the image.

 

[chuckles]

Nah.... there's tons of stuff I like that's not art, and tons of stuff I dislike immensely but have to acknowledge it's artistic brilliance. I'm not saying anyone is WRONG for going to a gallery and just liking what they see. Art is to be enjoyed, but at an aesthetic level, those who go along to merely enjoy looking at art are only really looking at the surface, the craft, and reacting to it visually, not intellectually. I'm not saying that's wrong, but LIKING something doesn't make it art.

I don;t force anything upon students Barry. What makes you think I do? I would make it clear to students however that whether you LIKE something is utterly irrelevant That's not forcing an opinion, it IS educating them about art. FORCING my opinion would be me telling them WHAT to like. You're making the mistake of thinking I'm here in this forum as an educator.




I must be a slow learner then Either way... you get my point.




Isn't that just adhering to a way of working that's not relevant, and doing so for no reason though? Wouldn't your chances of getting the shot increase exponentially if you used a fast continuous way of shooting? Doesn't anyone appreciate the image more because you took only one shot? If so, what are they admiring, the image, or you? If THAT'S the case, which is more important to you?

Personally I'd just do what gives me the best chance of getting the shot I require.

I can't imagine your opinions differ much from what you've proffered on this, or other, forum! Forcing an opinion to like something is just the same as suggesting/forcing what not to like! Same result, different logic.

Surely, in a Gallery at least, objects exist as Art, therefore it is there to be liked or disliked - the two are inextricably linked. The connection, be it esoteric, academic or intellectual is immaterial - it is an object that the Artist has exhibited over which to opine or simply enjoyed.

No one is saying you're here as an Educator to these fine boards but you can't escape your background.

Frankly, I don't get your point!

All you seem to have done is confirm my original premise - camera-craft is disappearing (good or bad). Many of the opinions of others have also confirmed this to me.

 

[Steve Smith]

Camera craft is disappearing generally. I think the point David is making is that for most purposes, that doesn't really matter.

It's a bit like being able to drive a modern automatic car without needing to know how gearboxes, clutches, automatic chokes, etc. work.


Steve.

 

[Laudrup]

? I think you'll need to explain that one.

Wouldn't surprise me if someone's doing that there, but what's that got to do with me? However, have you seen the graduate work we "churn out"? Clearly you haven't.

Who cares about Gursky or Lik though.. especially Lik. I'm talking about every other artist out there who earns a living from what they do. Every industry will have it's celebrities who just happen to become a marketable commodity. Would you describe all writers as talentless hacks just because E.L James is so terrible, yet so popular? The fact is, you don't know what you're talking about. You have an opinion. You can't seriously hold Gursky up as representative of a typical artist... not if you want to be taken completely seriously. He's a celebrity. All fields have their celebrity, and it doesn't necessarily follow that they are the best at what they do. Is E.L James a good example of the best writing available at the moment? Is all writing a cynical attempt to make money from celebrity because one of the worst books ever written has made a fortune? Happily... Gursky is at least talented, unlike that idiot who wrote 50 shades... which, if you read it, you'd realise is probably the worst book ever written. I don't hear you accusing the publishing industry of making money out of idiots. Or TV, or the Movie industry... or even non-lens based art... but photography? Sure.... that's just selling crap to idiots. Hmmm... Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Your problem though, is you actually have no idea what you're talking about.

Whether you like it or not.... camera skills are not what makes a great image. Camera skills are quickly becoming redundant. I reckon in 10 years, the only hard skills you'll still need are lighting skills, as that's the only thing impossible to automate.

Anyone who relies on "camera" skills at the moment, will therefore become redundant themselves as more and more of us can achieve the same results without them.

You were the one who brought Gursky up as an example of an artist not me. The most expensive photo ever <cough> sold wasn't 'innovative' or 'did something' like you stated it had to. Market effectively and create false value and you could sell a messy, unmade bed. Creative industries can sell almost anything if they get gullible enough people to buy into the Emperor's New Clothes. In film Adam Sandler is worth $300 million and he wouldn't be believable playing himself in his own life story, Thomas Kinkade was worth about $70 million, so why should photography be any different in fleecing people? I bet Lik could sell 50 Shades of Dog s*** and people would look pensive and furrow their brow in his bright galleries whilst he tittered in the background pricing up a new Mercedes. I don't blame him though. I would be an artistic sell out immediately if I was in that field, no sour grapes from me, I'd milk you all dry and release 1000 'limited edition' Dog s*** prints for the rest of the market whilst I was at it. The Wildean adage of when rich people get together they talk about art and when artists get together they talk about money applies.

I don't think camera skills mean that much either. There is a digital avalanche of brilliant pictures, everyone has a camera now and almost everything is being recorded. I read an article in Vanity Fair interviewing Robert Frank and he said:

“There are too many images,” he said. “Too many cameras now. We’re all being watched. It gets sillier and sillier. As if all action is meaningful. Nothing is really all that special. It’s just life. If all moments are recorded, then nothing is beautiful and maybe photography isn’t an art anymore. Maybe it never was.”

I can't say I I disagree.

 

[chuckles]

I've got a lawn to cut! :brb:

 

[BillN_33]

I've got a lawn to cut! :brb:

B_B_Q for me

but I'll be back

 

[Pookeyhead]

I can't imagine your opinions differ much from what you've proffered on this, or other, forum! Forcing an opinion to like something is just the same as suggesting/forcing what not to like! Same result, different logic.

I've never once tried to tell people what they should or shouldn't like Barry.... not in here, or anywhere else. I may give my opinions on what others like, but not once have I tried to tell people what they should like. It would be impossible. You like what you like. My standpoint is that liking something doesn't make it art. Of that I AM insistent, yes. Once you understand that, it makes you look at your work work in a different way. I had a student obsessed with light painting. All he wanted to do was spin wire wool, and wave LEDs on bicycle wheel around. Ultimately, that would be a dead end in terms of him being successful on the degree programme. You must see that yes? He can't get a degree in spinning wire wool, and the resulting images would not really be good enough no matter how skilfully done. (We're getting back to this not understanding what a degree is, yet still wanting one).

Over the three years, not once did I try to stop him doing this. Not once. What I did do however, was help him find an application for it, and stop him doing it for the SAKE of doing it, as that is a dead end. He ended up putting those skills to brilliant use on a range of projects. One was superb, and a great study on how we use light psychologically. He shot spaces that ordinarily would be utter no go, fearful places, and transformed them with light into places that you would actually want to be in. The point of the work was looking at our fear of darkness, and how we've been conditioned to react to light in many ways. Even how orange light provoked strong negative emotions even though there's no pathological reason for it, simply because we now feel orange light is the colour of the urban environment due to SOX and SON lighting being so prevalent. In short... he was STILL doing what he wanted to do, and what made him happy... and work he LIKED, but he was now doing it with purpose, with thought... he was now a critically thinking practitioner, and not some knob waving LEDs around for the benefit of Flickr. His work was accompanied by a well written, academically sound, and well researched dissertation that gave a great deal of weight to it, and it was well received by academics and non-academic alike. We get many like him, and ultimately, they realise that what they are doing at the end of the degree is so much more fulfilling, and useful, and usable than what they came in with. That's what a degree is for. If all you wanted to do was spin wire wool when you came in, and spin wire wool when you left, what exactly is the ****ing point in those three years? So no.. I don't FORCE anyone to do anything Barry, but if all you expect of educators is to roll over and let students do what they want, how they want to, what exactly would be the point in that?

THAT'S what we do Barry. Not that you'd know what we do, as like so many, you probably don't really make an effort to find out. Those that can do, and those that can't teach probably.... right?

Surely, in a Gallery at least, objects exists as Art, therefore it is there to be liked or disliked - the two are inextricably linked. The connection, be it esoteric, academic or intellectual is immaterial - it is an object that the Artist has exhibited over which to opine or simply enjoyed.

Correct... but you don't have to like it to appreciate it as art, and you don't have to appreciate it as art to like it. Furthermore, liking something doesn't justify it as art.

No one is saying you're here as an Educator to these fine boards but you can't escape your background.

It's a job.. not a "background" My "background" is a photographer.

All you seem to have done is confirm my original premise - camera-craft is disappearing (good or bad). Many of the opinions of others have also confirmed this to me.

Mission accomplished then... but then we moved on to something else... it happens.

You were the one who brought Gursky up as an example of an artist not me.

No. I brought him up as an example of someone who could feed a family of 4.

Market effectively and create false value and you could sell a messy, unmade bed. Creative industries can sell almost anything if they get gullible enough people to buy into the Emperor's New Clothes.

Really? You're going the "emperors new clothes" route? Jesus.. at least try to be original with your b******s. You have no idea what you're talking about. You're just so entrenched in your views you're incapable of seeing any other viewpoint. There's absolutely NO point in talking to you until you actually make the effort to do anything other than rake up the same old tired crap over and over again.

I'm also wondering why you used the Frank quote, as I don't believe he's saying anything I've not already said in here. He's wrong about it being art though. The fact is, it can be so many things, as it's the result of a mechanical and optical process and not one of dexterity and imagination alone. That's not to say imagination is not required. However, some of the best images are purely observational in nature, and Frank is a perfect example. He also famously said "I've seen America, and I don't like what I see" so set about showing everyone else with a camera. My point is... camera skills had nothing to do with that.

NO one takes Lik seriously.

 

[XA2inmypocket]

Camera craft is disappearing generally. I think the point David is making is that for most purposes, that doesn't really matter.

It's a bit like being able to drive a modern automatic car without needing to know how gearboxes, clutches, automatic chokes, etc. work.


Steve.

Yeah, but Steve, some of us still like to drive the old cars, oil leaks and all, don't we? Camera craft will not be totally dead for a long time.