I love doing Street Photography but......

Not new.

 

What's not new?

Sand.

Water.

Light.

People.

Black and White photo posted online.

 

Do you know what it is?

I already asked you what is new.

Educate me.

If you know what it is how can it be new?

If I do not, that limits “new” to my experience, which I pointed out before was all anyone could truly claim as “new”.

Looks like light refraction.

Unless it is some post process.

Not new.

As I expected.

Educate me.

If you know what it is how can it be new?

If I do not, that limits “new” to my experience, which I pointed out before was all anyone could truly claim as “new”.

 

As I thought...

As I expected.

 

While not even understanding the circumstances of what's going on in the photograph, your judgement is still the same.

 

Curious...perhaps you have some interesting photographs to share requiring a modicum of creativity to be summoned up on your part?

As they used to say in the Saloons of my youth, "Take it outside."

Gents, give it a rest.

I asked you a direct question regarding your premise.

You have chosen not to give a direct answer to it.

I have posted many photographs.

Nothing new.

The creativity judgement of them is entirely up to you.

And that also is nothing new.

And now as requested, I’m Moving On.....

I simply find your photo neither new nor compelling.

You can't say your are "Moving On" and then take a final shot! Against the rules...

"There is nothing new under the sun....…" moving on'' .

 

Unless you have sat on the " font of all knowledge" like my mate Sandy, how can you possibly make such a generalized banal statement.

 

Our understanding of the Cosmos is infantile at the very best.

 

And yes the earth is flat ....a story that starts with " once a upon a time".

Street forum loves photos...join in.

Only kidding Sandy;)) Hey, you got the steak bit spot on.

As to fonts, Allen - real Ale, good liquor and conversation, the odd cigar - have sat at more than a few of those, several in Great Britain.

"There is nothing new under the sun....…" moving on'' .

 

Unless you have sat on the " font of all knowledge" like my mate Sandy, how can you possibly make such a generalized banal statement.

 

Our understanding of the Cosmos is infantile at the very best.

 

And yes the earth is flat ....a story that starts with " once a upon a time".

Again Allen, you are conflating what is new under the sun with personal experience of it, ascribing to my post something that was never said.

But for many that is the easy way out.

I thought I made it quite clear.

I repeatedly asked what was new other than the experience and have yet to receive an answer.

Do you know?

 

The general statement seems to elicit quite a bit of emotion from those who do not offer a specific rebuttal.

Funny, that.

 

For what it is worth, it is a quote.

I’ve made that clear before.

I thought most recognize it as Solomon.

I guess I assume too much.

Edited November 8, 2018 by Moving On

It also gives me a lot of vibrant opportunities to both capture and create a very alive and ever-changing world.

For context to the comment read the post directly preceding it.

It strikes me as a bit egotistical to use such a specific phrase to describe, if metaphor is what was intended, photographing that which is already created.

Photography being simply capturing a view.

Even today’s post processing is manipulation of previously written software.

Do they (creative photographs) reflect a new experience for some?

Absolutely.

Do they actually create anything new beyond that?

Not that I can tell.

The simple fact that art “represents” seems to confirm that.

Edited November 8, 2018 by Moving On

I simply took issue with the post conflating “capture” with “create”.

Lots of folks obviously view the two terms as interchangeable.

In this particular case it seems my post particularly rubs Californians the wrong way.

Another curiosity.

Edited November 8, 2018 by Moving On

Photography being simply capturing a view.

Many good photographers create a view. And not just through post processing.

The simple fact that art “represents” seems to confirm that.

A view held by Plato but not many other art thinkers since then, with some notable exceptions.

It also gives me a lot of vibrant opportunities to both capture and create a very alive and ever-changing world.

It strikes me as a bit egotistical to use such a specific phrase to describe, if metaphor is what was intended, photographing that which is already created.

I go out with people all the time and create scenes on the street to photograph. I'm doing something other than capturing that which is already created.

 

What happens on the street is not just my own new experience. It's the experience on and of the street itself. Each person out there is unique, unless one chooses to see them as a rehash of other humans that have come before them. Someone encountering someone or something new on the street, some new confluence of events like the one below, a sudden or even slow change in a neighborhood that gets documented, all of these are new under the sun. Sure, I suppose with a slavishly reactionary bent toward the world, one would say it's all just recycled molecules or elements, same old, same old.

 

Anyway, speaking of the Bible and the street ...

 

Edited November 8, 2018 by The Shadow

Thanks for the reply.

I understand and appreciate your point of view.

I just think the term “creativity” is much too broadly applied.

To the extent of rendering it meaningless.

I certainly understand the nature of the conveyance of impression vs. cold hard realism.

But you were correct to point out that distinction.

But even Impressionism conveys an impression.

 

As for the “not that I can tell”.

What would be the point of coming here if not to test my thoughts.

I just think the term “creativity” is much too broadly applied.

To the extent of rendering it meaningless.

I'm seriously curious about this, in part, because I agree. And, though I do think "creativity" is a word sometimes too easily bandied about, I still think it has important meaning and conveys something significant about art and some approaches to photography. I think it's often misapplied to post processing, especially bad post processing(!), but that's a topic I don't want to get into. I think there are creative photographers, currently and certainly in the past. For me, photographic creativity involves developing a personal voice/vision and seeing things in extraordinary ways, sometimes extraordinarily and unabashedly realistic and sometimes not realistic but instead with an inspiring take on what is possible.

 

By the way, I think there are important differences between "creativity" and "originality," though there are overlaps. So, when we're talking about whether there's something new under the sun, I think we're talking more about originality.

 

Something can be not so original but creative, such as remakes of old movies. Neo-classisism is not as original as it is creative. Kupka wasn't an original cubist, but he was a creative one. Inspiration and creativity, even if not necessarily newness, seem to go hand in hand.

 

When do you use the word "creativity?" Can you name some ways in which it's NOT used too broadly. I didn't think it was being used too broadly in this thread. It was used to describe some specific situations where street photos were more a matter of creation than capture (notwithstanding the fact that I think capture is an important feature of street photography but not a necessary or the only one).

In my view creativity implies considerable personal thought relative to the world around us.

There are all kinds of ways to view and arrange what is around us to convey those personal thoughts.

Like conversation, photgraphs are subject to interpretation that may or may not align with the thought behind the presentation.

There are obvious metaphors and not so obvious.

Artistic display is probably more subject to misinterpretation than speech because of less availability of context.

I think a lot of times people abuse this intrinsic quality to take a lazy shortcut.

Thoughtless imitation.

Technical laziness.

Taking the familiar narrow view of things.

It seems some never get over confusing parental praise of a young child’s crayola creativity on the refrigerator, with genuine thoughtful assessment.

 

For me the best art (Creative) photographs exhibit a “perfect” marriage of technical process with thoughtful, not entirely obvious metaphor.

The Lion of Lucerne comes to mind, and never fails to elicit emotion from me.

It is compelling visually on its own, but magnified immensely through it metaphor.

A very tiny portion of the photos I’ve taken come close to serving both aspects well.

For me it is much easier with words or a pencil drawing.

That is why I seldom take issue with a photograph here and tend to have most disagreements over words.

The recent debate over “The Americans” comes to mind.

Didn’t really see the controversy in those photos outside the context of the debate.

The vast majority of my photos involve documentary or personal sentiment photos.

I seldom use it as a means of communication.

I always thought it was presumptuous and pretentious the way people try to declare the meaning in another’s photograph when it is the type of photo that wasn’t obvious. Probably why I think conversations rather than declarations work well to follow photos as commentary.

Edited November 8, 2018 by Moving On

I, too, notice that a lot of "conversation" is fraught with not-so-veiled but cleverly plausibly deniable backhands, but I don't know how much relevance the art of conversation has to the art of photography. Anyway, agreed that misinterpretation of conversation can take place but think art is much more open to varying interpretations than conversation, so I think misinterpretation of art would be harder to assert or quantify.

 

As to The Americans, the controversy was stirred up by a particular member, who claimed there was a controversy about the photos not showing the America that he thought was implied by the title. The controversy had little to do with the photos themselves.

 

I make photos, among other reasons, as a means to express myself. I see it more as expression than communication, though the two are similar.

 

Speaking from my own experience, I love hearing the meanings people imbue my photos with. Some of those meanings people give are very imaginative, some are very far from what I thought of them but nevertheless valid if they're authentic, some teach me to see things I hadn't, some feel like they really miss the mark but are nevertheless appreciated. I've run into very few pretentious and presumptuous viewers of my photos. Most who've seen them seem very sincere and insightful in their reactions.

Nothing new under the sun refers to creation. That everything that will be created has already been created. Adaption is something else. We're always adapting things, rearranging things.

“Nothing new under the sun” does seem to refer to Genesis. I think The Creation gave us both creations and raw materials for more. Certainly, creation continues and is practiced in all sorts of ways by all sorts of beings and circumstances. New islands have been created by earthquakes. New ages have been created by ecological occurrences. New art is created daily, as are new human beings and animals. New photos are created all the time. New songs come out of a relatively few musical notes that are put together in limitlessly new ways every day. New styles of music are created regularly. New pots are fashioned from old clay. Creation is ongoing and abundant.

I, too, notice that a lot of "conversation" is fraught with not-so-veiled but cleverly plausibly deniable backhands, but I don't know how much relevance the art of conversation has to the art of photography

 

Let’s try an example.....

 

Asylum

 

See what I mean?

 

Without the title or contex of familiarity with your views, the picture has little meaning.

As a reply to the No Words thread it substitutes for a whole conversation as a backhanded slap.

( I’m not interested in that conversation itself, simply using your picture in its context to illustrate the point )

Edited November 8, 2018 by Moving On