Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
How far can content and story carry a technically flawed photograph?
Page <<first <prev 10 of 10
Aug 30, 2019 18:32:12   #
srt101fan
 
Charles 46277 wrote:
srt10, I see your point-- the obsession with what others think can be a roadblock to talent. However, Aristotle said that we start any skill by training, or imitating masters (or any teachers). I agree with him on the psychology of it. And I think we never stop learning, so when we see the great work of others, the first thing we do is to try it out for ourselves. Soon we will apply these lessons to new applications or in new ways--creatively.

Creation myths or stories show humans are like their creator in that they too create--but unlike the supreme creator, we cannot make things out of nothing. Even the jazz musician who ventures off the track of a theme, ad lib, still begins with the theme itself--usually written by somebody else but always written down by somebody, perhaps the performer. Artists of all kinds begin by copying those they admire or the works they like. The freedom (and the art) of creativity begins only as we tire of imitation and seek to improve on it. When we can shoot a photo in any of the styles we have studied, as any of the great masters might shoot it, then we are free, applying creative interpretation to a scene. Just breaking rules is not in itself creative genius, but it is indeed genius to apply the rules of one style to the occasion of other content (as when one applies the art of photojournalism to the art of portraiture, etc.)

What I call graphic art (as opposed to photography proper) is a horse of a different color. People who construct pictures with their bare hands, so to speak (as when showing dolphins or dinosaurs coming out of the head of a boy who is daydreaming, or melt negatives on purpose, etc.) are making up images. There is a market for such things, especially in advertising but also in photo galleries. Sometimes graphic art and photography overlap, and sometimes they don't.

In photography, generally speaking, the content is primary because photographs are generally meant to present content rather than mere shapes and colors in abstraction. Even abstract art of all kinds still presents content--well or badly. But content cannot be presented without some degree of technical skill or technical equipment. When people with arthritis play the piano, the marvel is not that they can play well but that they can play at all.
srt10, I see your point-- the obsession with what ... (show quote)


Interesting thoughts, Charles. Your comment - "In photography, generally speaking, the content is primary because photographs are generally meant to present content rather than mere shapes and colors in abstraction" - reminded me of something I think about sometimes when people say they don't like abstract art because there is no familiar subject. Some sunset/sunrise pictures are almost completely abstract arrangements of shapes and colors. Could people like them as such or do they have to be able to relate them to sunsets/sunrises they have experienced and can have an emotional connection with? But that's a whole other subject.....

Reply
Sep 3, 2019 20:38:24   #
Bill P
 
There have been several of you that have stated in this and other threads, that no photo is good without technical perfection and critical sharpness. I went in to work today, and was reading the liner notes on a CD saluting Grant Green, by a fine jazz guitarist, Joshua Breakstone. This is his comment on playing and Green, which can equally apply to photography.

"At first I gravitated to players with more muscle than Grant. Over time, , though, my values changed as I came to understand the music more. How much technique does one need? Is it simply the case of the more the better? The answer, in my opinion, is that a player only needs the technique to say what he has to say. Grant's technique served himself well."

Reply
Sep 3, 2019 21:30:40   #
boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander
 
It basically comes down to the reason for the shot in the first place. If it's recording an event, the event is more important than the quality of the picture. if it is technically well done, more the better, but still the importance of shot is the recording of the event, regardless of its faults. So the best answer is "it depends" which is really impossible to judge. My .02

Reply
Page <<first <prev 10 of 10
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.