If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
birds | James Nagler | Digital Photography | 14 | March 4th 11 09:40 PM |
birds | tony cooper | Digital Photography | 0 | July 9th 10 04:41 AM |
T-BIRDS LOVE THE 20D ! | Annika1980 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 13 | November 26th 06 09:35 PM |
T-BIRDS LOVE THE 20D ! | Annika1980 | Digital Photography | 2 | November 23rd 06 03:20 AM |
BIG BIRDS LOVE THE 20D ! | Annika1980 | Digital Photography | 1 | November 21st 06 06:59 AM |