A true artist needs no megapixels!

bruja · May 12, 2002

Hi Mike, I notice that you have very strong opinions about what "art" is NOT...so would you share with us what you consider "art" to be??

I think this discussion is worth pursuing. Our cameras are more than just tools to master technically, i believe they are perceptual extensions of our SELVES that we can use to touch others......

I've been occasionally touched, fr'instance, by a landscape or a cute animal in a zoo, but as I mature I find these topics safe, predictable, and boring....they do not challenge me as the VIEWER to move beyond my own limits, tho they may challenge a photographer to improve his or her "technique"....I would prefer not to get stuck there.

In fact, some of the greatest photos of all time, both artistic and in photojournalism, leave a lot to be desired on the technical side, yet stand the test of time in the impact they continue to transmit...why?? Because they transcend the frozen moment, and the limited perception of the retina > > > out. They are born in the gut, and speak to the guts and hearts of their viewers. Sometimes (God forbid) they even reach our intellects.

Please, since you feel so strongly, share with us what YOU consider to be good art -- or if it is even an issue, for you, in photography. Speaking for myself, it is the primary issue. My G2 is simply a tool, like a paintbrush. Avanti, Mike. bruja

Dave Mac · May 12, 2002

Check out this gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/gtdavemac/its_not_art

Folks, I made this gallery in about 5 minutes. These pictures are black and white, have different angles, and some of these are even NOT blurry!

I don't think that I have made 'art'. I think the point here is that lots of people seem to be going 'crazy' over the other dude's gallery. Even the title, "A true artist needs no megapixels" seems to imply that this guy is indeed a true artist.

I doubt that his intentions were to create true art. Neither are mine. I have other shots on my site that I DO think are great. Art? Well sure. But the term art is so overrated. People getting so much money to create these works of art nowadays and put them in a fancy gallery. Most of it is hype and elitism.

Now, let's calm down here. It's time to stop ogling over some blurry photos, worrying whether they are ture art, and get out there to take some photos!!!

yeah!

Gene Horodecki · May 12, 2002

I agree with you. Art is anything that invokes a reaction in the viewer. I've never, ever seen a photograph that I've reacted to strictly because it was sharply in focus. And color never matters unless you knew what the original subject looked like when the picture was taken.

Therefore, in art, camera quality is strictly incidental.

bruja said:
Hi Mike, I notice that you have very strong opinions about what
"art" is NOT...so would you share with us what you consider "art"
to be??

I think this discussion is worth pursuing. Our cameras are more
than just tools to master technically, i believe they are
perceptual extensions of our SELVES that we can use to touch
others......

I've been occasionally touched, fr'instance, by a landscape or a
cute animal in a zoo, but as I mature I find these topics safe,
predictable, and boring....they do not challenge me as the VIEWER
to move beyond my own limits, tho they may challenge a photographer
to improve his or her "technique"....I would prefer not to get
stuck there.

In fact, some of the greatest photos of all time, both artistic and
in photojournalism, leave a lot to be desired on the technical
side, yet stand the test of time in the impact they continue to
transmit...why?? Because they transcend the frozen moment, and
the limited perception of the retina > > > out. They are born in
the gut, and speak to the guts and hearts of their viewers.
Sometimes (God forbid) they even reach our intellects.

Please, since you feel so strongly, share with us what YOU consider
to be good art -- or if it is even an issue, for you, in
photography. Speaking for myself, it is the primary issue. My G2
is simply a tool, like a paintbrush. Avanti, Mike. bruja

Gene Horodecki · May 12, 2002

Man, you didn't take much time to think about the composition did you? It shows.

Dave Mac said:
Check out this gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/gtdavemac/its_not_art

Folks, I made this gallery in about 5 minutes. These pictures are
black and white, have different angles, and some of these are even
NOT blurry!

I don't think that I have made 'art'. I think the point here is
that lots of people seem to be going 'crazy' over the other dude's
gallery. Even the title, "A true artist needs no megapixels" seems
to imply that this guy is indeed a true artist.

I doubt that his intentions were to create true art. Neither are
mine. I have other shots on my site that I DO think are great. Art?
Well sure. But the term art is so overrated. People getting so
much money to create these works of art nowadays and put them in a
fancy gallery. Most of it is hype and elitism.

Now, let's calm down here. It's time to stop ogling over some
blurry photos, worrying whether they are ture art, and get out
there to take some photos!!!

yeah!

Dave Mac · May 12, 2002

Malibuss66 said:
Man, you didn't take much time to think about the composition did
you? It shows.

What does composition matter. I told you... it's not art! Look at the title of my gallery... "its_not_art".

Oh well

Joshua Hoffay · May 12, 2002

if so, there are alot of coincidental "mistakes" that created appealing pictures. to call it random would be overlooking alot of things, in a large and silly way.

Mike Savad said:
Joshua Hoffay said:

well, anyway, i like this because this guy is finding good angles
and geometry with everyday boring items.

To be literal, this guy produces better looking compositions than i
do, to the extent that i can call him 'good'.

so why don't you like it?

Brian Schneider said:

Joshua Hoffay said:

that guy is good.

Click to expand...

You gotta be kidding right?
Thats the worst bunch of cr*p I'v ever seen

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

mostly because it's a collection of random blurred things around a
5 foot radius. quite frankly i don't think he meant it to be
artful. i think he pointed it and shot it at those angles because
that was the only way to hold the camera.

---Mike Savad

--
http://www.pbase.com/savad/

Brian D. Schneider · May 12, 2002

Edwaste said:
look at the rest of John Adler's website, you see that he has a
larger body of work beyond those webcam pictures. He's a very
original designer with some great work in his portfolio.

--
Where is it? all I can see is the fuzzy garbage.

Brian D. Schneider · May 12, 2002

Brian Schneider said:
Edwaste said:

look at the rest of John Adler's website, you see that he has a
larger body of work beyond those webcam pictures. He's a very
original designer with some great work in his portfolio.

Click to expand...

--
Where is it? all I can see is the fuzzy garbage.

--
Never mind, I found it.

That shows that he does have the skills to do better work. Some of those images are very good indeed.

Brian D. Schneider · May 12, 2002

Gio Biondani said:
Gio Biondani said:

the impressive part is finding something boring and making it
interesting.

Click to expand...

Can you explain me exactly what makes it interesting?

1) the blurring?
2) the crooked angle?
3) the fact that it's black and white?
4) all of the above?
5) none of the above?

Sorry, but my answer is 5. I don't think he found something boring
and made it interesting, I think he found something boring and left
it boring.

--Absolutly right. Some of the stuff on his site is very good, but not

that boring stuff we saw first.

graph (g3) · May 12, 2002

forget about chromatic abberations and blurriness....

You're one of the people who fails to see. dont go crazy trying to analyze the picture quality coz i dont know if you will be able to figure it out in your lifetime.for me those images are pleasing to look at. i call it art.... im not saying im an artist myself. i just appreciate those types of art. its the creativity that matters to me. i know how to draw, i can make any drawing as long as i have a picture of it but i dont consider myself an artist coz i lack creativity.

Gio Biondani said:
Gio Biondani said:

the impressive part is finding something boring and making it
interesting.

Click to expand...

Can you explain me exactly what makes it interesting?

1) the blurring?
2) the crooked angle?
3) the fact that it's black and white?
4) all of the above?
5) none of the above?

Sorry, but my answer is 5. I don't think he found something boring
and made it interesting, I think he found something boring and left
it boring.

--
Giordano Biondani
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=124997

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Canon s330, Canon s110, Olympus 340R owner
http://kaizenbiz.com/jush/pub/s330tests

Brian D. Schneider · May 12, 2002

Malibuss66 said:
Man, you didn't take much time to think about the composition did
you? It shows.

Neither did John Alder

Brian D. Schneider · May 12, 2002

And your travelogue photos are up there with Michelangelo,

Edwaste said:
Raffaello, and
so on...

--
I think a better comparison would be Weston or Adams, Nice work Geo.

Gio Biondani · May 12, 2002

Edwaste said:
And your travelogue photos are up there with Michelangelo,
Raffaello, and
so on...

No, of course they're not. However, I never claimed I was an artist, did I now? I just said that the guy shooting blurry black and white pictures of the phone keypad isn't an artist either.

--
Giordano Biondani
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=124997

Gio Biondani · May 12, 2002

It's not enough to invoke a reaction in the viewer. If I take a picture of somebody who fell off the roof of some building, it will invoke plenty of reaction, in the guts and elsewhere, but it's not art.

Art is about conveying a feeling or message, yes, but it must also be masterfully crafted. And it must be something that people WANT to look at, even if the feeling it conveys is negative. So, it must be in some way pleasing to the eye. Of course, achieving all that is not easy. That's why there aren't many true artists around.

Malibuss66 said:
Therefore, in art, camera quality is strictly incidental.

bruja said:

Hi Mike, I notice that you have very strong opinions about what
"art" is NOT...so would you share with us what you consider "art"
to be??

I think this discussion is worth pursuing. Our cameras are more
than just tools to master technically, i believe they are
perceptual extensions of our SELVES that we can use to touch
others......

I've been occasionally touched, fr'instance, by a landscape or a
cute animal in a zoo, but as I mature I find these topics safe,
predictable, and boring....they do not challenge me as the VIEWER
to move beyond my own limits, tho they may challenge a photographer
to improve his or her "technique"....I would prefer not to get
stuck there.

In fact, some of the greatest photos of all time, both artistic and
in photojournalism, leave a lot to be desired on the technical
side, yet stand the test of time in the impact they continue to
transmit...why?? Because they transcend the frozen moment, and
the limited perception of the retina > > > out. They are born in
the gut, and speak to the guts and hearts of their viewers.
Sometimes (God forbid) they even reach our intellects.

Please, since you feel so strongly, share with us what YOU consider
to be good art -- or if it is even an issue, for you, in
photography. Speaking for myself, it is the primary issue. My G2
is simply a tool, like a paintbrush. Avanti, Mike. bruja

Click to expand...

--
Giordano Biondani
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=124997

mike savad · May 12, 2002

composistion?

dude, he did it in like 5 minutes to prove a point.

he created the same pictures as that other guy, by pretty much pointing shooting, that's it. for both this and the first one, there is no composistion.

---Mike Savad

Malibuss66 said:
Dave Mac said:

Check out this gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/gtdavemac/its_not_art

Folks, I made this gallery in about 5 minutes. These pictures are
black and white, have different angles, and some of these are even
NOT blurry!

I don't think that I have made 'art'. I think the point here is
that lots of people seem to be going 'crazy' over the other dude's
gallery. Even the title, "A true artist needs no megapixels" seems
to imply that this guy is indeed a true artist.

I doubt that his intentions were to create true art. Neither are
mine. I have other shots on my site that I DO think are great. Art?
Well sure. But the term art is so overrated. People getting so
much money to create these works of art nowadays and put them in a
fancy gallery. Most of it is hype and elitism.

Now, let's calm down here. It's time to stop ogling over some
blurry photos, worrying whether they are ture art, and get out
there to take some photos!!!

yeah!

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/savad/

Gio Biondani · May 12, 2002

For one thing, you are not in a position to say what I will or won't figure out in a lifetime.
For another thing:
1) do you think that art = creativity? is that all? nothing else?

2) what is so creative about that load of pictures? that they are black and white? now, that's REALLY creative... that they are crooked? now, that's REALLY DOUBLE creative.

Well, I guess tomorrow I'll take some black and white pictures of my backyard, make sure they're nice and blurry and crooked, and I'll be A REAL ARTIST!! WOW!!
Reckon they'll do a gallery on me in some museum?

graph110 said:
You're one of the people who fails to see. dont go crazy trying to
analyze the picture quality coz i dont know if you will be able to
figure it out in your lifetime.for me those images are pleasing to
look at. i call it art.... im not saying im an artist myself. i
just appreciate those types of art. its the creativity that matters
to me. i know how to draw, i can make any drawing as long as i have
a picture of it but i dont consider myself an artist coz i lack
creativity.

Gio Biondani said:

graph (g3) said:

the impressive part is finding something boring and making it
interesting.

Click to expand...

Can you explain me exactly what makes it interesting?

1) the blurring?
2) the crooked angle?
3) the fact that it's black and white?
4) all of the above?
5) none of the above?

Sorry, but my answer is 5. I don't think he found something boring
and made it interesting, I think he found something boring and left
it boring.

--
Giordano Biondani
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=124997

Click to expand...

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Canon s330, Canon s110, Olympus 340R owner
http://kaizenbiz.com/jush/pub/s330tests
--------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Giordano Biondani
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=124997

Brian D. Schneider · May 12, 2002

graph110 said:
forget about chromatic abberations and blurriness....

You're one of the people who fails to see. dont go crazy trying to
analyze the picture quality coz i dont know if you will be able to
figure it out in your lifetime.for me those images are pleasing to
look at. i call it art.... im not saying im an artist myself. i
just appreciate those types of art. its the creativity that matters
to me. i know how to draw, i can make any drawing as long as i have
a picture of it but i dont consider myself an artist coz i lack
creativity.

Typical "artist" statement. If I don't like something "I" fail to see?

YOU don't see garbage when it's in front of you.

graph (g3) said:
Gio Biondani said:

graph (g3) said:

the impressive part is finding something boring and making it
interesting.

Click to expand...

Can you explain me exactly what makes it interesting?

1) the blurring?
2) the crooked angle?
3) the fact that it's black and white?
4) all of the above?
5) none of the above?

Sorry, but my answer is 5. I don't think he found something boring
and made it interesting, I think he found something boring and left
it boring.

--
Giordano Biondani
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=124997

Click to expand...

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Canon s330, Canon s110, Olympus 340R owner
http://kaizenbiz.com/jush/pub/s330tests
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Brian D. Schneider · May 12, 2002

Gio Biondani said:
For one thing, you are not in a position to say what I will or
won't figure out in a lifetime.
For another thing:
1) do you think that art = creativity? is that all? nothing else?
2) what is so creative about that load of pictures? that they are
black and white? now, that's REALLY creative... that they are
crooked? now, that's REALLY DOUBLE creative.
Well, I guess tomorrow I'll take some black and white pictures of
my backyard, make sure they're nice and blurry and crooked, and
I'll be A REAL ARTIST!! WOW!!
Reckon they'll do a gallery on me in some museum?

You might be on to something Gio. Do you think if enough of us take grainy fuzzy crooked pictures the "artists" wil start to take sharp well exposed travalog pictures just to be different?

Gio Biondani · May 12, 2002

Hey... that gallery is great! the pictures are black and white, and they show everyday objects under a new, refreshing, unconventional perspective! some of them are even a little blurry, no doubt to show the contradiction between reality as we perceive it and reality as it is!

I especially like the one with the coin standing among the other coins not standing. It's brilliant! There must be a hidden but very profound meaning in that, but, alas, I'm too stupid to get it...

And I like the one with the roll of toilet paper in it... the roll is half used, and that is no doubt a metaphore showing how art, and life in general, sometimes are not what we would like them to be. Brilliant!

You're an artist! even better than the other guy... but, then again, he doesn't have a G2...

Dave Mac said:
Check out this gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/gtdavemac/its_not_art

Folks, I made this gallery in about 5 minutes. These pictures are
black and white, have different angles, and some of these are even
NOT blurry!

I don't think that I have made 'art'. I think the point here is
that lots of people seem to be going 'crazy' over the other dude's
gallery. Even the title, "A true artist needs no megapixels" seems
to imply that this guy is indeed a true artist.

I doubt that his intentions were to create true art. Neither are
mine. I have other shots on my site that I DO think are great. Art?
Well sure. But the term art is so overrated. People getting so
much money to create these works of art nowadays and put them in a
fancy gallery. Most of it is hype and elitism.

Now, let's calm down here. It's time to stop ogling over some
blurry photos, worrying whether they are ture art, and get out
there to take some photos!!!

yeah!

--
Giordano Biondani
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=124997

mike savad · May 12, 2002

bruja said:
Hi Mike, I notice that you have very strong opinions about what
"art" is NOT...so would you share with us what you consider "art"
to be??

I think this discussion is worth pursuing. Our cameras are more
than just tools to master technically, i believe they are
perceptual extensions of our SELVES that we can use to touch
others......

I've been occasionally touched, fr'instance, by a landscape or a
cute animal in a zoo, but as I mature I find these topics safe,
predictable, and boring....they do not challenge me as the VIEWER
to move beyond my own limits, tho they may challenge a photographer
to improve his or her "technique"....I would prefer not to get
stuck there.

In fact, some of the greatest photos of all time, both artistic and
in photojournalism, leave a lot to be desired on the technical
side, yet stand the test of time in the impact they continue to
transmit...why?? Because they transcend the frozen moment, and
the limited perception of the retina > > > out. They are born in
the gut, and speak to the guts and hearts of their viewers.
Sometimes (God forbid) they even reach our intellects.

Please, since you feel so strongly, share with us what YOU consider
to be good art -- or if it is even an issue, for you, in
photography. Speaking for myself, it is the primary issue. My G2
is simply a tool, like a paintbrush. Avanti, Mike. bruja

there is no one true definition that one can call true art. art is how you perceive it as a viewer. or as the person creating it. as an artist, in terms of photography, one has to see things that other's do not see. a shadow or a play of light, a shape, etc. all could be considered art. art can be defines as something different, out of the ordinary.

anything can be called art. it's a personal taste. creativity is a different matter, and too hard to describe. but one knows if its creative, it will be different from the others. for a picture, at the very least a non creative picture would be someone pointing standing next to a sign or in front of the object their looking at. a creative version would be to include the sign with the rest of the picture.

for instance, we visited a train yard. out of pure coincidence, there was a witch hazel factory, on top was a witch riding a broom. i thought it would be creative if i got down on the ground and included both things in the picture. i think it came out pretty good, this was when i was around 12 though, and i try to do other things. - for me, photography, though i've been doing it as a while, is not my true art talent. my main talent, when i have the the time is stained glass. http://www.geocities.com/Paris/1141/ this is my main site, when geo allows people to go on.

to be an artist is to push yourself beyond others. to do something different. but not just any different, to do things that other's cannot do or think of doing. the original picture in question all looked liked test shots to me, arranged in a gallery. the second link to the colored ones showed more creativity, like the one with the bum. it's different, it could be considered art.

art could also be defined as putting one's own spirit in their own work. photograhy it's a little tricky (unless you count a kirlian photo as the spirit part). you go to a gallery, a big white canvas, a red dot, i'm sure everyone has seen something like this near them. is it art? no way, why would that be art? well because the guy called himself an artist, and he got some so called "art expert" to explain the meaning behind the painting. and voila, art! the white represents the emptiness in today's society, the red reperesent the one hope, but through anger. the boldness of the the line represents a foward motion, blah, blah, blah... in reality the paint fell off the table, and now it's on the wall for 10 grand.

---Mike Savad

--
http://www.pbase.com/savad/

A true artist needs no megapixels!

Active member

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Well-known member

Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Active member

Active member

Veteran Member

Active member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Active member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts