birds

"Peter" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
"Peter" wrote:
"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 07:31:18 -0700 (PDT), in
, Val
Hallah wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...-new-book.html

Amazing images, but a bit garish for my taste, more science than art.


I am trying to craft my comment, artfully.

Science is certainly on of the uses of photography. While there may very
well be art in a science shot, the lack of art does not make it an
uninteresting shot.

I think the shots were excellent if considered as an
accurate representation
of the birds involved.


Perhaps it's my hangup. I like to see some blurring to indicate motion.

In certain contexts, that certainly is reasonable. That
just wasn't the context intended for those images.

I was talking with a young lady a few days ago about
photography and art, and when I suggested to her that
the concept (which she very clearly understood) of an
image as a medium to communicate a message to a viewer
was something many photographers did not understand, and
that I was pleased to see that she did understand it...

She responded by sayng, "But I'm not a photographer! I'm
an artist who uses photography."

(I found your comments from here down to be very
interesting!)

Sounds like the typical comments of some of the fine art photographers I
know. INterestingly, females and gay photographers have made similar
statements. The straight photo artists I consider themselves to be
artist-photographers, as opposed to artists who use photography as a medium.
I wonder if its simply a different way each views themselves. Indeed several
very successful fashion photographer friends of mine, who are definitely
straight, simply consider themselves as good photographers, not artists.
Yet, I consider them to be excellent artists.

I certainly think most photographers are artists; but
actually her point was very well taken because she is
more correctly referred to as a "intermedia artist".
Nobody calls her a photographer as such. She
*occasionally* uses photography, more often video, but
sometimes neither, as her medium.

The above is said simply as my observation. It is not intended to disparage.
Perhaps the observations of others differ.

Your examples are just as interesting as mine, and
significantly different because apparently above all
they are "photographers" in that is *the* medium they
work with.

One of her most recent shows, which is now on tour, was
15 images of herself, all distinctly different, all with
a white background, and very similar in many ways to the
bird images cited above. (Incidentally, the 15 images
were very carefully planned, and shot using 4x5 sheet
film.)

http://ericalord.com/section/22658_Un_Defined_Self_Portrait_series.html

For a very different view (my art, as opposed to her's) of
just who she is,

http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson/gallery2/d3s_5221.s.jpg
http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson/gallery2/d3s_5504.s.jpg
....

Fascinating that she views herself so completely different from the way you
have portrayed her.

Isn't that true! Except, I don't think any of her
images were ever intended as what she "views herself".
That's missing the point of her art. The statement she
made was you can't just look at someone and tell what
they are, and that is in particular true if your
"look" is the slice of reality that one photograph
represents (but even that was just an abstraction for
people assuming they know what someone is by a label,
such as "half breed" or "Native").

She made no effort in any of the 15 images included in
her exhibit to show an accurate representation of
the subject of the image. On the other hand, I spent a
day and a half getting to know her before I even made
the first exposure! Then I spent a whole day firing
away hoping to get just 3 or 4 that matched my
visualization of an image that is an "accurate
representation". Just keep in mind that it doesn't
necessarily represent *her*, so much as it represents
the mental image that exists in my mind of what she is.

Incidentally, I don't see my placement of color and
light in an image as the "art" that I produce. I am
very much a craftsman at that. My "art" is seeing what
a person is in graphical terms, and using my craft to
portray it. (Which explains why I shoot people and
animals, and think landscapes, still lifes, and most of
all sunsets are very booring.)

But then, I am not a psychologist.

They don't do "art", right?

Or, do they... :-)

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)