Fine Arts I Challenge: Juried Results

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

03/19/2010 03:42:17 PM · #176

I totally understand where you are coming from Steve. When I enjoy something I love to learn about it and explore it. One of these examples, like Jeb points out, is photography. What I'm trying to say is that one can pursue the endless knowledge of technicals and composition and lighting and become more and more "learned" in these areas without somehow possessing a stunted understanding of the art. Fine art (as we're calling it) is merely a different avenue to pursue. It isn't further down the same road and it isn't a better road to take.

Sure it's "easy" to take a composed, sharp photo. It's just as "easy" to take a blurry one (in fact, one would argue it's easier). Neither is the quality that people respond to. They respond to more within the picture.

I'll tell you what, perhaps we can have a little challenge here. I'll give you three challenges to ribbon with a sharp, well composed, color entry. At the same time I'll attempt to have one of three "fine art" photos accepted on 1x (ones I have not already taken). Do you think either of us could simply achieve this?

Message edited by author 2010-03-19 15:43:19.

Yo_Spiff

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

03/19/2010 03:51:44 PM · #177

Originally posted by pawdrix:

I'm merely referring to things that come to light with learning, acquired tastes...or acquired learning. That's NOT elitist...it's simply true.

I have to agree with this. When I came to DPC, I was blown away by some of the wow shots I saw others doing. Though they are still getting positive votes from me, I am less impressed by them than previously. Perhaps my senses have become dulled to awesomeness. At the same time, genres that I used to pass by are now getting a further look from me and I am seeing things differently.

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

03/19/2010 03:57:28 PM · #178

I'm not sure I quite know anymore what the point of this thread is, but ... the point Steve makes, that the appreciation of photography, just like the appreciation of music or of good food and good wine, is not something that necessarily comes naturally, but something we can work on, learn, improve - that's not at all an elitist attitude. On the contrary, it's a beautiful thing to say that should bring hope and joy rather than threaten.

It's like making good pictures. It isn't all that hard. You get decent equipment, you are at the right place at the right time, you follow the instructions, and, voila, you have a great shot just as great as all the other similar great shots. What's hard is to go beyond while still staying true to yourself. That's where the real learning is. It is the same in art appreciation. Anyone can appreciate a good shot. But it is possible, and fulfilling, and desirable, to go beyond and learn to see and appreciate things that aren't necessarily on the surface, that aren't just mass appeal and glossy perfection. Things with soul and spirit and a slow, lasting beauty, that we can feel and keep in our memory. That's not being elitist, that's growing as a person and as an artist.

It is very sad when people feel threatened by beauty or learning or simply by the enjoyment of different things.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

03/19/2010 04:00:49 PM · #179

Urs, I'm really rolling my eyes at you on that last line...

Louis

Nikon D800

03/19/2010 04:07:07 PM · #180

If you're not threatened, Jason, why are you suggesting that Steve is being elitist? As he pointed out, his approach is inclusive, not exclusive. You seem annoyed by the inference that the appreciation of photography that seeks to go beyond the technicals is an acquired skill.

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

03/19/2010 04:10:06 PM · #181

I'm not being exclusive either.

I came back to make sure Ursula knew I didn't mean that last post with anything but a :).

Ursula is one of the very few people that has shown success on both DPC and 1x which means she is able to bridge both genres. njsabs is one of the others.

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

03/19/2010 04:19:27 PM · #182

But we're not talking about different websites or about individuals, Jason. Steve said some very good stuff, and I agree with him. What he said was not elitist. Yet, you accuse him of that, twice, while at the same time saying that you "hate to" do so. If you hate to do it, don't do it.

As Louis puts it, Jason, you seem threatened by Steve's suggestion that art appreciation is an acquired skill. Why?

hihosilver

Nikon D200

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

03/19/2010 04:19:40 PM · #183

::Daintly nibbles on popcorn::

Ohhhh...this thread is better than an episode of my current favorite TV show...

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

03/19/2010 04:22:54 PM · #184

Originally posted by hihosilver:

::Daintly nibbles on popcorn::

Ohhhh...this thread is better than an episode of my current favorite TV show...

:) It is! Isn't it? I respect anyone who can nibble daintly :)

Stagolee

Kodak Easyshare C180

Canon EF 50mm f1.2L

03/19/2010 04:24:52 PM · #185

Wow....Jason that's big call to say that Steve's post could be interpreted as elitist but I suppose it's all about how you interpret things.

I find those continues religious threads of yours as being very elitist...maybe that's because I don't won't to understand what you are preaching, I'm not saying that you don't want to understand Steve's point of view or can't but you might want to think about it.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

03/19/2010 04:35:02 PM · #186

Why do these things so quickly become personal? I completely fail to understand. I'll just stop. It isn't worth it if people are incapable of discussing something without thinking I'm threatened or mad or anything of the sort. (I annoyed now, but that's different.)

So carry on...

Louis

Nikon D800

03/19/2010 04:40:10 PM · #187

Because one party or the other makes it personal. You're simply being asked to explain your characterization of an adroit post as "elitist". If you can't do so, fine, but don't complain when asked to support what you've said.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

03/19/2010 04:42:47 PM · #188

I'd have to agree with Steve's point of view. Steve put it his way; I'd put it like this:

(Fine) art, ideally, serves

â�¢ to exhilerate
â�¢ to stimulate awareness
â�¢ to preach dissociation as a way to enable a more inclusive way of seeing
â�¢ to kindle resentment against evil (in its broadest sense)

The difference between what Steve and most of us call "fine art" and the stuff that isn't can be measured by

â�¢ the degree of energy (emotional, mental or physical) it radiates
â�¢ the (emotional, mental or physical) charge it is capable of injecting
â�¢ the (cultural) range of that energy

If we'd narrow the field and talk about, say, literature, we could ask for the difference between "poetry" and "prose".
If we charged our prose, I'd say we'd have more "heat" and that, I believe, is exactly the process and effect of poetry deep down in the petro-chemical jungle of it all, no?

Message edited by author 2010-03-19 17:28:54.

hihosilver

Nikon D200

03/19/2010 05:26:02 PM · #189

Originally posted by ursula:

It's like making good pictures. It isn't all that hard. You get decent equipment, you are at the right place at the right time, you follow the instructions, and, voila, you have a great shot just as great as all the other similar great shots. What's hard is to go beyond while still staying true to yourself. That's where the real learning is. It is the same in art appreciation. Anyone can appreciate a good shot. But it is possible, and fulfilling, and desirable, to go beyond and learn to see and appreciate things that aren't necessarily on the surface, that aren't just mass appeal and glossy perfection. Things with soul and spirit and a slow, lasting beauty, that we can feel and keep in our memory. That's not being elitist, that's growing as a person and as an artist.

Of all the posts I read here today, this one made the most sense to my insensible brain. Here's why:

Although anyone with a handy well-fed pocket book may go out and buy the best equipment, hire the best teachers, travel to the most ideal locations, and have some measure of success and enjoyment, the artist's skill in photography, literature, music, or __________ must ultimately be EARNED through sheer and complete immersion into the art form (some times to the exclusion of all else). Only then, will the product of the art form EMERGE with the classical staying power to be enjoyed by multiple levels of understanding and appreciation.

For this reason,

Ursula's own work has the ability to transcend many levels of understanding and appreciation. She immerses herself completely in the art form and produces a product that may be appreciated and respected by plain people like myself as well as others with a much higher variance of sophistication.

Ultimately, such genuine works of art become in a sense...classical, influential, and unhindered by course changes of the times and opinions.

Poor Jason...You all shouldn't step so hard on his kitty cat's tail. He is genuine in all his beliefs, and we should all treat him...genuinely.

Well, that's my two cents...back to your regular viewing program...;-)

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

03/19/2010 09:21:22 PM · #190

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

What I'm trying to say is that one can pursue the endless knowledge of technicals and composition and lighting and become more and more "learned" in these areas without somehow possessing a stunted understanding of the art. Fine art (as we're calling it) is merely a different avenue to pursue. It isn't further down the same road and it isn't a better road to take.

I'm not so sure about "Fine Art" because the term is meaningless to me. But if we're talking about art, then hell yes it's further down the same road. As I say time and time again on this site and am almost universally ignored, technicals are essential to art. Technicals are the technical decisions you make for your art. If you have no art, then you have no technicals. Why? Because without art, you have nothing to guide your technical decisions. Making something sharply focused is merely an exercise. When you are making technical decisions in order to create art, then you are really being technical. Until that point, you're only practicing.

And you're absolutely right that it's elitist. Art isn't doing its job if it doesn't get accused of elitism and being a hoax. Everybody talks about how pretty Monet's water lilies are... a hundred years after he paints them.

Art is an elitism created in the minds of people who have better things to do. But art is merely a reaching for the spirit. Some people have sports, some have drinking, some have church and some have art. They're not mutually exclusive, but they all fulfill the same thing. If I told a football fan that so-and-so was a "technically good" running back because he had the fastest time in the 50 meters, he would laugh in my face. But every day on this site I read people say that photographers are technically good because they know how to focus a camera and light a model like a can of peaches. Puh-lease.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

03/19/2010 09:37:01 PM · #191

I think I thought more about things and wanted to make sure people weren't thinking that I was [putting down a genre (ie. "fine art") but rather sticking up for another genre.

Certainly I agree with everybody else that some shots can be souless and have little meaning or impact to them. But what I think I'm reacting to is the implication (or at least the projection by myself) that sharp, well composed photos, by definition do not have soul or impact. That it is only by the process of the appreciation of "fine art" that such qualities may or can exist.

If that's not what people have been implying, then we have no disagreement. In these posts I've been careful NOT to talk down "fine art", but I was rather defending traditional photography.

Does that help?

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

03/19/2010 09:47:02 PM · #192

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I think I thought more about things and wanted to make sure people weren't thinking that I was [putting down a genre (ie. "fine art") but rather sticking up for another genre.

What's the name of that genre you're sticking up for?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Certainly I agree with everybody else that some shots can be souless and have little meaning or impact to them. But what I think I'm reacting to is the implication (or at least the projection by myself) that sharp, well composed photos, by definition do not have soul or impact. That it is only by the process of the appreciation of "fine art" that such qualities may or can exist.

If at the end of the day all you have is a sharp, well composed photo and nothing else then the only impact it will have is among the uninitiated.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

03/19/2010 09:49:30 PM · #193

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think I thought more about things and wanted to make sure people weren't thinking that I was [putting down a genre (ie. "fine art") but rather sticking up for another genre.

What's the name of that genre you're sticking up for?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Certainly I agree with everybody else that some shots can be souless and have little meaning or impact to them. But what I think I'm reacting to is the implication (or at least the projection by myself) that sharp, well composed photos, by definition do not have soul or impact. That it is only by the process of the appreciation of "fine art" that such qualities may or can exist.

If at the end of the day all you have is a sharp, well composed photo and nothing else then the only impact it will have is among the uninitiated.

I dunno. Lot's I guess. Landscape photography. Macro photography. I don't know if you want to call those genres like "fine art" photography, but they probably qualify.

As to your second statement, I of course agree (or wasn't that obvious).

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

03/19/2010 09:52:25 PM · #194

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think I thought more about things and wanted to make sure people weren't thinking that I was [putting down a genre (ie. "fine art") but rather sticking up for another genre.

What's the name of that genre you're sticking up for?

I dunno. Lot's I guess. Landscape photography. Macro photography. I don't know if you want to call those genres like "fine art" photography, but they probably qualify.

Like what Don said, lose the "fine" part. There's art and there's not-art. What you listed off can fall into either group.