Reading mode: Light Dark

An interesting conversation.

Go to last post
....because however polarised people's opinions of it are, the image is still the same image. If I like it, it's because of the way that my past experiences and prejudices shape the way I see the world. If you dislike it, it's the same thing.

There's an old Japanese proverb that sums it up for me: when he was asked about why he did his daily practice of several hundred sword cuts, a master swordsman said something along the lines of "One should not regard one's practice as if cutting wood for a fire. The cut is the fire". In other words, practice for the sake of practice rather than with an end result in mind. Seems to me that photography (as a hobby, or as art) is the same in many ways: it's really about the process of making the image (and the enjoyment of that) rather than the final result.

Or perhaps that's my excuse if the final results are bad. :)
 
Photosig (when it's up) is a funny and strange place. Pictures of naked women always get higher points than a good landscape. Just proves the internet is primarily filled with horny men.

Bill
Adam-T said:
There is a Prime example, even ignoring the "Club Elite" there who
vote for each others photos, you can submit a pic of a rusty Beer
barrel and get 100 thumbs, but submit a beautiful misty landscape
and get 3 !! - Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and it doesn't
just apply to Women - Photos too ! ..

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=27855

Click to expand...
 
alFR said:
Seems to me that
photography (as a hobby, or as art) is the same in many ways: it's
really about the process of making the image (and the enjoyment of
that) rather than the final result.

Or perhaps that's my excuse if the final results are bad. :)
Click to expand...
--

I think that the process should ultimately become intuitive. Then and only then can we start creating images.

I am still in learning the process.

Del Perena
 
Thomas Gardner said:
While out saving the world from insect invasions, I get the
pleasure of being able to sit at the kitchen table with my
customers. Just as I'm chatty here, I'm chatty there also:-) We
can all act surprised:-)

With that in mind, the conversation of photography came up; more
surprised faces:-) The customer and husband were both into
photography and been members of a San Jose camera club.

She commented about how she had submitted an image to the camera
clubs three judged at the monthly meeting and the short of the very
pleasant story, they ripped her image.

She took the same image and submitted it to a multi-state contest
and took best in show. Same image...... totally different results.

Now the point of this posting has to do with perception of an image
and your experiences with other people's reactions to your images
and what "really" is an excellent image!

Example for though; Duchamp's and "Nude Decending a Staircase".
This was clearly an avante garde image that introduced three
dimentional thinking into a two dimensional world of painterly art
that added the dynamics of movement to the image. By the
traditional thinking of the Photo-Realists of the time and the
Pointalists of the time this was some wacked out stuff.

http://www.beatmuseum.org/duchamp/nude2.html

Valid or invalid?

I posted an image here and it was shredded by the animals that live
in the zoo, but on photo.net it was well received and based on the
comments, some even enjoyed the photographic humor.

(Image/comment were posted as nothing more then a personal example.)

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1256675

What came out of the conversation this morning is that the
acceptance of an image is very dependent on the individual that's
looking at the image.

I went to a customer's art show and thought her images of "Women in
the Bible", done in acrylic were wonderful interpretations but
others I know, didn't like this sort of art. Does that make the
artist invalid because someone didn't like the images. Does it
make an artist valid because others do like the image?

Hence the question to be pondered by all the intellectuals and
non-intellectuals that poke around among these posts on this
forum.....

What constitues a valid image?

Is an image not valid if it doesn't get approved of by a panel of
camera club critics? Is a critique only valid if it's a tri-state
competition and the image gets at least an honorable mention? Are
all the other submitted images invalid that don't get so much as an
honorable mention? Is an image invalid if it doesn't pass muster
on dpreview.com but passes muster on photo.net?

What makes a valid image? Is it valid, only if it follows some
rule of composition? Is it valid only if the image has no
distractions in it, such as a piece of trash. How about, is it
valid only if the image has no negative space. What makes the
image valid, what constitues an invalid image.

Is it like the definition of porn? "I don't know how to define it
but I sure know it when I see it."

I hope you don't find the rambling to distracting as I wanted to
post the point of the conversation and get your indepth reaction to
the questions above as this ties into photography and what it is
your doing and validity of what it is you're currently doing today.
Click to expand...
--
A very interesting topic that for sure will have no resolution.

A parallelism: Tiger Woods wins World Class Golf events. He makes a lot of money and accolades worldwide. Joe Blow wins a local club tournament and buys beer and gets cheers from from golfing buddies (but may not get any from his wife). I am sure that both will be ecstatic within themselves at those moments.

Del Perena
 
alFR said:
....because however polarised people's opinions of it are, the
image is still the same image. If I like it, it's because of the
way that my past experiences and prejudices shape the way I see the
world. If you dislike it, it's the same thing.

There's an old Japanese proverb that sums it up for me: when he was
asked about why he did his daily practice of several hundred sword
cuts, a master swordsman said something along the lines of "One
should not regard one's practice as if cutting wood for a fire. The
cut is the fire". In other words, practice for the sake of
practice rather than with an end result in mind. Seems to me that
photography (as a hobby, or as art) is the same in many ways: it's
really about the process of making the image (and the enjoyment of
that) rather than the final result.
Click to expand...
That's my problem, I'm not a Japanese swordsman:-)

But that means I'm into photography for all the wrong reasons. I'm in it for the final image. I take many of my images to 11"17" prints, as a standard print size and some even are given the expensive, custom framing treatment.

This is the image that was framed this month. It received what I considered insultingly low scores. But the low scores didn't prevent me from liking the image and spending $230.00 to have the image framed.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1401902

This is the image that will be framed next and will hang on the office wall next to it. It too will cost a bundle to frame.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1401923

Here's the image of the series that received higher scores but won't get framed.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1401934

Those images that aren't framed, sit in a portfolio, in the service truck and are shared with my customers; sometimes a couple times a day:-)

So to me, the thrill, as a swordsman, which I'm not, is the thrill of getting the swing of the sword right and seeing the beauty and potential effectiveness of the motion and sharing the beauty of the motion with others.
 
Thomas Gardner said:
alFR said:
....because however polarised people's opinions of it are, the
image is still the same image. If I like it, it's because of the
way that my past experiences and prejudices shape the way I see the
world. If you dislike it, it's the same thing.

There's an old Japanese proverb that sums it up for me: when he was
asked about why he did his daily practice of several hundred sword
cuts, a master swordsman said something along the lines of "One
should not regard one's practice as if cutting wood for a fire. The
cut is the fire". In other words, practice for the sake of
practice rather than with an end result in mind. Seems to me that
photography (as a hobby, or as art) is the same in many ways: it's
really about the process of making the image (and the enjoyment of
that) rather than the final result.
Click to expand...
That's my problem, I'm not a Japanese swordsman:-)

But that means I'm into photography for all the wrong reasons. I'm
in it for the final image. I take many of my images to 11"17"
prints, as a standard print size and some even are given the
expensive, custom framing treatment.

This is the image that was framed this month. It received what I
considered insultingly low scores. But the low scores didn't
prevent me from liking the image and spending $230.00 to have the
image framed.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1401902

This is the image that will be framed next and will hang on the
office wall next to it. It too will cost a bundle to frame.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1401923

Here's the image of the series that received higher scores but
won't get framed.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1401934

Those images that aren't framed, sit in a portfolio, in the service
truck and are shared with my customers; sometimes a couple times a
day:-)

So to me, the thrill, as a swordsman, which I'm not, is the thrill
of getting the swing of the sword right and seeing the beauty and
potential effectiveness of the motion and sharing the beauty of the
motion with others.
Click to expand...
--I like those pictures! There are no wrong reasons to pursue an area of interest! Much like you, my photography makes me happy. I frame the pictures I like, show them to people who will likely enjoy them, put them on the web, and just enjoy being out there, getting better at what I like doing!

Ingrid
Carpe Diem
http://www.pbase.com/ingridw
 
IngridA said:
--I like those pictures!
Click to expand...
Thanks!
IngridA said:
There are no wrong reasons to pursue an
area of interest! Much like you, my photography makes me happy. I
frame the pictures I like, show them to people who will likely
enjoy them, put them on the web, and just enjoy being out there,
getting better at what I like doing!
Click to expand...
I must say, the process of getting better, I don't like that aspect of the process:-)

So now I have another attitude that needs working on:-)

I will like beating my brain up. I will like beating my brain up. I will like.....:-)
 
Del Perena said:
A very interesting topic that for sure will have no resolution.
Click to expand...
I must say that I've enjoyed the responses. Your response also adds a dimension to the equation that helps the individual see the reality of the issue.
Del Perena said:
A parallelism: Tiger Woods wins World Class Golf events. He makes a
lot of money and accolades worldwide. Joe Blow wins a local club
tournament and buys beer and gets cheers from from golfing buddies
(but may not get any from his wife). I am sure that both will be
ecstatic within themselves at those moments.
Click to expand...
It seems to be about recognition from your peers and maybe a few cocktails of celebration for the recognition.

To bad photography wasn't a spectator sport, we would have an excuse for more partying:-)

Hey did you hear! Del Perena's in a camera shoot out with Forrest over at the club house and their seeing who's camera's the sharpest. They're on their fifth lens and third body.

Final round today. :-) Awards ceremony tonight at the club house and shrimp on the barbi:-)
 
People take semester-long courses in college to debate the definition of art, and nobody has figured it out yet. As far as validity, I think that's an incorrect term. I think the artistic value of a photo is often very subjective, although standards for technical merits are almost uniformly accepted.

Take pictures, enjoy them, share them with those who also enjoy them, and ignore the naysayers because they don't know what they are talking about :) :)

-Yohan
Thomas Gardner said:
While out saving the world from insect invasions, I get the
pleasure of being able to sit at the kitchen table with my
customers. Just as I'm chatty here, I'm chatty there also:-) We
can all act surprised:-)

With that in mind, the conversation of photography came up; more
surprised faces:-) The customer and husband were both into
photography and been members of a San Jose camera club.

She commented about how she had submitted an image to the camera
clubs three judged at the monthly meeting and the short of the very
pleasant story, they ripped her image.

She took the same image and submitted it to a multi-state contest
and took best in show. Same image...... totally different results.

Now the point of this posting has to do with perception of an image
and your experiences with other people's reactions to your images
and what "really" is an excellent image!

Example for though; Duchamp's and "Nude Decending a Staircase".
This was clearly an avante garde image that introduced three
dimentional thinking into a two dimensional world of painterly art
that added the dynamics of movement to the image. By the
traditional thinking of the Photo-Realists of the time and the
Pointalists of the time this was some wacked out stuff.

http://www.beatmuseum.org/duchamp/nude2.html

Valid or invalid?

I posted an image here and it was shredded by the animals that live
in the zoo, but on photo.net it was well received and based on the
comments, some even enjoyed the photographic humor.

(Image/comment were posted as nothing more then a personal example.)

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1256675

What came out of the conversation this morning is that the
acceptance of an image is very dependent on the individual that's
looking at the image.

I went to a customer's art show and thought her images of "Women in
the Bible", done in acrylic were wonderful interpretations but
others I know, didn't like this sort of art. Does that make the
artist invalid because someone didn't like the images. Does it
make an artist valid because others do like the image?

Hence the question to be pondered by all the intellectuals and
non-intellectuals that poke around among these posts on this
forum.....

What constitues a valid image?

Is an image not valid if it doesn't get approved of by a panel of
camera club critics? Is a critique only valid if it's a tri-state
competition and the image gets at least an honorable mention? Are
all the other submitted images invalid that don't get so much as an
honorable mention? Is an image invalid if it doesn't pass muster
on dpreview.com but passes muster on photo.net?

What makes a valid image? Is it valid, only if it follows some
rule of composition? Is it valid only if the image has no
distractions in it, such as a piece of trash. How about, is it
valid only if the image has no negative space. What makes the
image valid, what constitues an invalid image.

Is it like the definition of porn? "I don't know how to define it
but I sure know it when I see it."

I hope you don't find the rambling to distracting as I wanted to
post the point of the conversation and get your indepth reaction to
the questions above as this ties into photography and what it is
your doing and validity of what it is you're currently doing today.
Click to expand...
 
Thomas Gardner said:
WalterK said:
I undeerstand and agree with your point of view. Perhaps a better
question should be: "What makes a criticism valid?"
Click to expand...
I think you painted the other side of the coin with your comment.
I like your comment about "What makes a criticism valid?" I like
to add, what makes the person critiquing the image valid.

It sort of like hearing someone talk about the meaning of a poem
and what the author was trying to convey.

So I asked the instructor what the meaning the "this" poem was.
She went way wide of the mark. How did I know:-) Trick
question.... as you guessed, I wrote the poem and knew my intent
when it was written:-)

So are the critiquers opinions valid in that do they know if the
image sucessfully conveys the meaning/intent of the artist?
Click to expand...
The art world is filled with a mixture of real and pretension. It reminds me of a customer I had a few years ago who needed help with designing a web site. He was a very interesting person who had a very keen mind and a serious message he wanted to get across to our nation about how to salvage our phony economy. This man was a nuclear engineer by profession, and born and raised in Texas. He didn't have an artistic bone in his body, but was in a gallery one day watching art patrons Ohhh and Ahhh over a large abstract oil. He listened to their "interpretation" of what they each thought the artist was trying to "say" and went home and thought about it.

He decided that since this oil was bringing an incredible price in this gallery, that he might just be able to get some of this action. He bought a book about oils - bought some huge canvas stock, a huge easel and began flinging and splashing in his "studio." When he was finished, he framed it with a beautiful, ornate hardwood frame and approached the gallery owner. They struck a deal (50/50) where the gallery would promote his "art" and they would split the proceeds down the middle. His first painting sold for $40,000 and whenever he needs a cash infusion, he paints another. He told me he hasn't a "clue" about what any of his paintings "mean", but he laughs all the way to the bank and loves to lurk about listening to people ascribe "meaning" to his works. He has learned that "big" is really important, and equates to "expensive," so his "art" is all very "big" and very "expensive."

Obviously, there are many true artists doing impressionism. But the bottom line is that there are many people with deep pockets who enjoy spending their money for "art" and pretending to be knowledgeable. They very much enjoy impressing their friends and others with their "collections" worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. They purchase their art from galleries which "promote" favored artists and have sweetheart deals with them. It's truly a win, win situation. As someone who makes their living in photography from these very galleries, I too smile all the way to the bank.

So, I believe it may be with photos. What appeals to one may have zero appeal to another. Recently one of my photos won acclaim at a prestigious online nature/wildlife magazine. Before it was chosen as the winner in the photo art category, the very first comment was from someone who absolutely "hated" it. This other photographer thought that I had submitted it in the wrong category and that I had "ruined" the photo by making "art" of it. Others, including the judges had differing opinions. I liked it, but then I'm not an artist and really don't claim any specific skills or knowledge in this arena. I guess the moral is that there is something for everyone, and our jobs as photographers is to find that match....

Lin
--
http://208.56.82.71
 
Thomas Gardner said:
Hence the question to be pondered by all the intellectuals and
non-intellectuals that poke around among these posts on this
forum.....

What constitues a valid image?
Click to expand...
See subject.

I have a similar story. When i was studying photography at Art Center in L.A., we had an assignment to photograph a musician fo an album cover. At the classroom critique, the instructor panned my photo, exclaiming it was a cliche and would not get a second glance in the record store.

After break, we had a guest lecturer, who was the head of the art department for a Greyhound and approved all media buys for them. He started by looking over the class photos from the perspective of a media buyer. After looking at all of them, he selected mine as the one he would buy. He felt that the musician in my photograph was having so much fun, he'd have to buy the album just to hear the music he so obviously enjoyed making. Since that time I've tried to keep all criticism of my photography in perspective.

I find criticism helpful when it points out elements that have gotten in the way of what I was trying to convey in my photograph. I'm now an amateur and love the luxury of only having to please myself.

Doug
 
Thomas Gardner said:
So to me, the thrill, as a swordsman, which I'm not, is the thrill
of getting the swing of the sword right and seeing the beauty and
potential effectiveness of the motion and sharing the beauty of the
motion with others.
Click to expand...
I think you're saying the same thing as me, really. :)
 
I usually read an entire thread before I add anything to the end. In this case, I didn't read any other responses so that my answer to your question wouldn't be affected by other answers. (So, sorry if it repeats anyone.)

I'm not sure about the word "valid," and criteria for evaluating artistic efforts (whether by those who are informed or uninformed in the art), are highly subjective, so it's difficult to pin down a standard. But I certainly do know how I react to a "good" photograph: I want to look again. And, sometimes, again and again...
Thomas Gardner said:
While out saving the world from insect invasions, I get the
pleasure of being able to sit at the kitchen table with my
customers. Just as I'm chatty here, I'm chatty there also:-) We
can all act surprised:-)

With that in mind, the conversation of photography came up; more
surprised faces:-) The customer and husband were both into
photography and been members of a San Jose camera club.

She commented about how she had submitted an image to the camera
clubs three judged at the monthly meeting and the short of the very
pleasant story, they ripped her image.

She took the same image and submitted it to a multi-state contest
and took best in show. Same image...... totally different results.

Now the point of this posting has to do with perception of an image
and your experiences with other people's reactions to your images
and what "really" is an excellent image!

Example for though; Duchamp's and "Nude Decending a Staircase".
This was clearly an avante garde image that introduced three
dimentional thinking into a two dimensional world of painterly art
that added the dynamics of movement to the image. By the
traditional thinking of the Photo-Realists of the time and the
Pointalists of the time this was some wacked out stuff.

http://www.beatmuseum.org/duchamp/nude2.html

Valid or invalid?

I posted an image here and it was shredded by the animals that live
in the zoo, but on photo.net it was well received and based on the
comments, some even enjoyed the photographic humor.

(Image/comment were posted as nothing more then a personal example.)

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1256675

What came out of the conversation this morning is that the
acceptance of an image is very dependent on the individual that's
looking at the image.

I went to a customer's art show and thought her images of "Women in
the Bible", done in acrylic were wonderful interpretations but
others I know, didn't like this sort of art. Does that make the
artist invalid because someone didn't like the images. Does it
make an artist valid because others do like the image?

Hence the question to be pondered by all the intellectuals and
non-intellectuals that poke around among these posts on this
forum.....

What constitues a valid image?

Is an image not valid if it doesn't get approved of by a panel of
camera club critics? Is a critique only valid if it's a tri-state
competition and the image gets at least an honorable mention? Are
all the other submitted images invalid that don't get so much as an
honorable mention? Is an image invalid if it doesn't pass muster
on dpreview.com but passes muster on photo.net?

What makes a valid image? Is it valid, only if it follows some
rule of composition? Is it valid only if the image has no
distractions in it, such as a piece of trash. How about, is it
valid only if the image has no negative space. What makes the
image valid, what constitues an invalid image.

Is it like the definition of porn? "I don't know how to define it
but I sure know it when I see it."

I hope you don't find the rambling to distracting as I wanted to
post the point of the conversation and get your indepth reaction to
the questions above as this ties into photography and what it is
your doing and validity of what it is you're currently doing today.
Click to expand...
--
jnat
http://www.pbase.com/jnat
http://www.photosig.com/userphotos.php?id=15366
 
Juli Valley said:
about all of the Impressionist painters who died in poverty.
Click to expand...
... and all the people who invented the Blues. And jazz. And Beethoven, for that matter. Music teachers like to talk about his fifth symphony being the best piece of music ever written ( which is a lot of hyperbole ), and he sold it for $20.
 
Doug MacMillan said:
After break, we had a guest lecturer, who was the head of the art
department for a Greyhound and approved all media buys for them.
He started by looking over the class photos from the perspective of
a media buyer. After looking at all of them, he selected mine as
the one he would buy. He felt that the musician in my photograph
was having so much fun, he'd have to buy the album just to hear the
music he so obviously enjoyed making. Since that time I've tried
to keep all criticism of my photography in perspective.
Click to expand...
Did you by chance get a poignant moment shot of your instructor as the guest lecture made his pronouncement? :-)

Loved the story:-)
 
jnat said:
I usually read an entire thread before I add anything to the end.
In this case, I didn't read any other responses so that my answer
to your question wouldn't be affected by other answers. (So, sorry
if it repeats anyone.)

I'm not sure about the word "valid," and criteria for evaluating
artistic efforts (whether by those who are informed or uninformed
in the art), are highly subjective, so it's difficult to pin down a
standard. But I certainly do know how I react to a "good"
photograph: I want to look again. And, sometimes, again and
again...
Click to expand...
I'm using "valid" in the sense of peer reviewed and a consenses approval of the image as being of high artistic quality; what ever that might be:-) This would be as opposed to a run of the mill, mooch image (snapshot) of something in the backyard.
 
Thomas Gardner said:
I'm using "valid" in the sense of peer reviewed and a consenses
approval of the image as being of high artistic quality; what ever
that might be:-)
Click to expand...
This usage negates my earlier post about "validity" as an inherent quality, ...and reduces it to an ex-herent opinion.

Getting the answer to your question as to what constitutes a valid image, with the usage you have chosen, becomes entirely dependant on the particular group of "peers'"doing the reviewing, and arriving at the consensus.

Different groups, ...different "validity" criteria.
Thomas Gardner said:
This would be as opposed to a run of the mill,
mooch image (snapshot) of something in the backyard.
Click to expand...
I concur, ...this type of "record" shot involves no creative effort to capture/present any sort of "interpretation" or unique vision, ...it is analogous to pressing the "record" button on an (audio) tape recorder. You have the microphone, the tape, and the sound, ...minimal "artistic" input from the button-pusher. "Valid" only as a record of the subject matter, with the quality of the recording being almost entirely left to the equipment.

Larry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top