Can't take a bad picture.

To Rodeo's original question, not tricks. I call them a good start. Taking and processing a photograph has the same relationship to "proper" technique as playing music. Technique alone can make you competent, but it doesn't always make the thing pop. I find seeing the lines and angles of things is generally a good thing to be aware of and often a part of making an interesting photo. In fact being aware of the formal aspects, tone, color/bw, placement and organization of things in the picture can alone be a great subject for photos and help one to create some kind of story and/or mood, dissonances, resonances etc which I think are important. Knowing the standard methods for achieving good composition can support ones work, but if that becomes a photogapher's criteria for their photographs, it can quickly kill the life out of your photographs. You see it all the time whereI properly composed, "perfect" picture in every formalistic way is just boring.

Since there's been a discussion of quotes, didn't someone famous once say "Don't let the rules keep you from doing what's right" or something like that? and the "Rules??? We don't need no stink'n rules!" (metaphor for badges).

But I do appreciate it when someone maybe didn't take the most interesting picture, but understand lighting, and comp, at least there not just scattering poorly lit and composed photos. Whether you know rules are not, almost every good photo will have an interesting composition don't you think?

Edited November 3, 2020 by http://www.photo.net/barryfisher

Don't let the rules keep you from doing what's right

Good one. Searched but couldn’t find a source.

 

Came across this, though. Good to have a sense of humor.

 

“There are three rules for writing a novel. Unfortunately, no one knows what they are.”

—W. Somerset Maugham

Rules or no rules ? Most famous Art Work in museums have been critiqued by experts. The people that critique these works of Art are professionals who follow certain guidelines. Photography is considered a type of Art so photographs can be and have been critiqued the same way famous pieces of Art. You can go to any museum and ask the clerk for the official critique on a certain piece of Art. Now there is nothing wrong with doing your own thing. Back in the 1980's a so-called famous Artist had an exhibition where an upside down crucifix was placed in a glass filled with urine. He called this a work of Art ! He was doing his own thing ! Unfortunately they almost ran him out of town.

 

Many photographers trip, or sneeze, or cough and unintentionally set off the shutter, the result they call Art ? The truth is, since it was unintentional it was a mistake not a work of Art. Back in the 1970's when "Modern Art" was the big thing, a group of people decided to perform an experiment. They invited a bunch of so-called " Modern Art Experts" to an exhibition in NYC. The experts were astonished by some of the works there. Some were eager to dig into their deep pockets. None of the paintings displayed the Artist's name. At the end of the exhibition the hosts announced that a group of Chimpanzees from the local zoo had actually painted the paintings...

 

Rules are meant to be broken no doubt, but in photography it depends on the Genre(Category). In some areas of photography like, documentary, portraits, journalism, sports, forensic, there is little wiggle room for braking rules. Other areas such as Fine Art, Abstract, Street, etc. allow some rules to be bent, but up to a certain extent.

Edited November 3, 2020 by hjoseph7

I don't buy this mechanical view of art at all. Nature produces art, because that's what we appreciate when we take photos of it. Art is anything that humans choose to label as art. So yes, chimps can produce art, and art can be entirely unintentional. Your definition is way too limiting. Art is probably perceived only in the human mind, although animals are sentient too, so maybe they appreciate it too.

I don't buy this mechanical view of art at all. Nature produces art, because that's what we appreciate when we take photos of it. Art is anything that humans choose to label as art. So yes, chimps can produce art, and art can be entirely unintentional. Your definition is way too limiting. Art is probably perceived only in the human mind, although animals are sentient too, so maybe they appreciate it too.

What a bunch of baloney...

 

Art definition(Webster Dictionary)

1. 
   The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
   

Unfortunately, Webster often took himself way too seriously and things like "art" and "love" can't quite be grasped in a straightforward dictionary definition, which I suspect Webster was smart enough to know.

 

Anyway, here are some better takes on art than stodgy old Noah Webster, IMO. [i'm narrowing it down to three faves in hopes that Ludmilla won't suffer a Sam-induced quotation heart attack!]

 

Art is the lie that enables us to realize the truth.

—Pablo Picasso

If you want to really hurt you parents, and you don't have the nerve to be gay, the least you can do is go into the arts.

—Kurt Vonnegut

Art is what you can get away with.

—Andy Warhol

Trying to define art inevitably ends in Stale-mate. Sam's quotes suggested to me... it's interesting to consider how art defines you. Edited November 3, 2020 by inoneeye

Well this has been.... I can't say enlightening... not sure entertaining would qualify either. BUT perusing the thread has given me time to think up an (kind of an answer anyway) answer to Joe's original question.

 

"Are compositional tricks part of my armory?" Well to that I might have to answer YES, even if I don't really fully comprehend what it is I'm doing with photography. The way I see it, I want to shoot things that I like to shoot, my way. If my particular take on, or way of seeing a subject doesn't jibe with the prescribed formula for a photograph then oh well. I DO absolutely know that I don't always want my stuff to look like everyone else's and often enough I find myself at car or motorcycle events with a pile of other photographers who are all pretty widely recognized for whatever it is they're doing! The last thing I want is for anyone to think I'm copying them.

What (I THINK) I've done is gain a loose and vague understanding of the "rules" of composition and taken that combined with what some of the folks who particularly like or love me have said is a "good" or "natural" eye for composition- and shoot merrily away to my own delight. Rules? You tell me, I've posted plenty of my photos here. As for "keepers", I always get half or more shots I like out of every roll of film I shoot. Often enough I've posted these- only find nobody else likes them. Ah well, however dodgy my "process" is, at least I feel like I'm learning.

 

I'm totally flying by the seat of my pants, I admit it. I've gotten smacked down a few times lately, shooting "slide" or color reversal film especially, and slower ISO films. Sometimes I'm just happy if a whole roll comes out well exposed! I've gotten a lot better at seeing thru a viewfinder, but still working on that. Meanwhile I'm having fun, and feel like I'm actually getting somewhere.

 

BUT as for any of this in what anyone else is doing? I say each to their own. From what I've seen in photography, tho there may be rules aplenty, there's also plenty of people who have made some amazing photographs with or without the rules as their hard, fast guideline. OTOH you can't break the rules of you don't know what they are!

"The way I see it, I want to shoot things that I like to shoot, my way." & "I'm flying by the seat of my pants,..."

I think it is reflected in some of your work... i like that. and yeah you seem to be discovering your tricks.

OTOH you can't break the rules of you don't know what they are!

Agreed. That would be one point in favor of exploring what comes naturally as an individual before taking on outside guidelines.

Webster definition is nonsense, or rather it is only part of what art is. I guess you have to define it someway, but that's just way too limiting. I would define it more like art is something the human mind considers to be pleasing, interesting, or stimulating but usually has no other purpose. This is not perfect because plenty of useful things are also works of art. I think Warhol's definition is very good. Art is anything you think it is.

interesting to consider how art defines you.

The artist’s reflection runs up against the lexicographer’s stricture.

i like that. and yeah you seem to be discovering your tricks.

I agree completely with the idea that there are no true rules. But some photographic characteristics and parameters clearly please more people than others - creators and viewers alike. And we all tend to see things as we prefer them to be, which often results in an occult sameness that can stifle our creativity if we let it. Tricks that creep into a large proportion of our output can be beneficial if they cater to a specific audience or market - so periodically refreshing one’s eyes is essential for most of us, to avoid a bit of staleness.

 

Most of the artistic greats in any field resort to cliches of their own making at times. Oscar Peterson was one of the most imaginative and talented musicians ever - but on occasion, perhaps when tired after 5 gigs a week in 5 different states or countries or when under the weather, his improvisations defaulted to a step above scales (albeit very well chosen and played scales). And he’d blow through amazingly intricate solos at lightning speed seemingly to finish the tune but with little or no inspiration apparent.

 

When all is said and done, it’s neither what you do nor how you do it - it’s how you balance the two.

You forgot

I wonder what gave you the false notion that I forgot it. Actually, I don’t.

You don’t what?

I don’t really wonder what gives you the false notions you have, in this case that I forgot Warhol’s statement about art being what sells.

Didn't you read my post? I limited my post to 3 in the hopes of not getting a rise out of you. I admit total and complete failure on that score. And, though you may, I don't consider it the most important quote about art ever and since it was MY post I chose to leave it out, but certainly didn't forget it, as it was among the several that I originally thought of. Anything else vital you want to question me about on the subject?

it’s the most important quote about art, ever.

Most broad generalizations put me off, and I'm more than a bit short of agreeing with you on that point. But Warhol's is certainly an important observation - and it's the reason I said above that "[t]ricks that creep into a large proportion of our output can be beneficial if they cater to a specific audience or market". Fortunately, many "tricks" like insightful vision, stunning composition, technical expertise, a sense of humor, deep knowledge of the craft, etc appeal to many audiences and markets - critics, buyers, fans, sponsors, etc. As the beneficiaries are often quite disparate in both how and why the benefits accrue, it's not surprising at all that one group may be offended by the same "trick" that brings another great joy (or riches or fame).

 

There's room in the world for all of us.......and our opinions.

Actually, I will say a few words about the Warhol quote, "Art is what sells."

 

First of all, though I too thought it was a Warhol statement, I just did a google search and couldn't find a citation that he actually did say it. Maybe I was up too late last night! But let's take the quote itself and also assume he may have said it.

 

Warhol's art was concerned with consumerism so it makes sense he'd say such a thing. I tend to take what Warhol says as much as satire as literally, but there's probably good reason to see it as at least somewhat literal while also seeing it as tongue-in-cheek. That was often his tone of voice in many of the things he said and did. In any case, I think it's cool in the context of who he was and the art he made.

 

It's insightful, IMO, especially as it relates to what I think of as "the art world."

 

But there's also an unfortunate cynicism about art and artists that has taken hold in certain circles. So, it's a quote I'd use sparingly and only in certain contexts and with somewhat limited reach. Not something I think gets to a terribly deep understanding of art itself. And I never got the impression Warhol was searching for deep truths about art, though I appreciate him for what he did and for directing our attention to certain things.

 

In any case, there are so many quotes about art that I like more than that one.

We have art in order not to die of the truth.

―Friedrich Nietzsche

I tend to take what Warhol says as much as satire as literally

...as do I his art. You can't paint a picture of a soup can without healthy appreciation of satire and irony. I don't know if he ever said that art is what sells, but he did say a few other things in the same vein: "Art is what you can get away with" and "It’s not what you are that counts, it’s what they think you are" are a close second and third on my all time great sayings list to Paul Newman's profound utterance as Harper in the movie of the same name: "Cream and bastards rise".

 

We might all benefit (both individually and collectively) from closer adherence to another Warhol profundity: "I think everybody should be nice to everybody".

We might all benefit (both individually and collectively) from closer adherence to another Warhol profundity: "I think everybody should be nice to everybody".

Though I think that one probably has both a literal and satirical note to it as well! ;)

Lukas & Norma Desmond did in 2012

Nature and Art

Lukas & Norma Desmond did in 2012

I resemble that remark! :)

I've taken many well-exposed, perfectly focused but regretable shots.

I have the opposite problem, memorable shots, poorly focused and exposed.

I wonder if anybody did calculate percentage of the famous artists that did not "create" buy-able art/style in the beginning of their career.

 

Cheers.