[]Photographer []Artist []Cameraman (Check only one)

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by pico, Mar 17, 2007.

  1. Consider this staement from professor, artist, scholar and intellectual who does not practice photography,
    not really. He hasn't even the basic skills of focusing, selective focus, exposure. Most of his work won't
    even print But now he's a photographic critic and teaches the subject.

    When seeing some work which uses certain devices (vocabulary of photography) such as selective focus,
    selective exposure, attention to rare light, a certain moment and such he says, "The person who did that
    isn't an artist; he is just a good cameraman."

    Obviously my usual detachment came apart when I felt this in-person.

    So... I'm a cameraman. Beats being an artist.

    N'est pas?

    Thoughts.
     
  2. Artist that uses a camera to create my art. <BR> BTW, first I heard the term "cameraman",
    who made this statement?
     
  3. Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. :)
     
  4. The quote that you love to hate applies:

    "I am at war with the obvious."

    . . . . as opposed to shooting "mature" subjects.

    Having said that, I can't image why even the most insightful creative person wouldn't want to put his subjects in the best possible light, given a choice.

    I also wonder why you chose to quote someone who seems to lack even minimal craftsmanship, given that his sentiments have been expressed by others whom I suspect you would judge less harshly.
     
  5. "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."

    And thoise who can't do either well , apparently spend lots of time ranting anonymously on
    "philosophy of whatever" internet forums (re: the OP).
     
  6. Once I was studying with a sculptor who knew Picasso, Brancusi etc. back when. This was a long time ago and my teacher was 98 years old. Someone asked him what he thought of Brancusi. He answered " a good carpenter". This was pure jealousy. Brancusi was the single most influential sculptor of the 20th century, and my teacher certainly was not.
     
  7. (re: the OP)
    Ellis - With apologies for not being up on forum lingo - what's the OP?
     
  8. Ellis Vener
    And thoise who can't do either well , apparently spend lots of time ranting anonymously on "philosophy of whatever" internet forums (re: the OP).
    To the rest, "OP" means Original Poster. Ellis has made what I believe is a first in this forum: he has declared that someone here (me) as one who cannot photogaph or teach.
    Well, I've lots of photos online and elsewhere to prove I'm a lousy photographer. Have at it, Ellis. Make another first: rip 'em apart. Be specific. I know you can do it.
     
  9. That wouldn't be a first in this forum.
     
  10. When I read this:

    "He hasn't even the basic skills of focusing, selective focus, exposure. Most of his work won't even print But now he's a photographic critic and teaches the subject."

    ...All I could think was: "Who hired the guy?" If he's that incompetent he was probably happy to accept any job, so in a way, I can't blame the "teacher/critic" as much as the person who thought he was the right man for the job.

    (Incidentally most music critics are failed musicians.)

    It also took me back to my one and only photography course at a community college, back in the 70's when I was fresh out of high school. That "teacher" made everyone want to run, screaming from a dark room and never touch a camera again. Which is sad. Maybe it's the same guy.

    As for his comment: "The person who did that isn't an artist; he is just a good cameraman." Well, IMHO that's a very silly statement. Of course all photographers aren't "artists", nor should they be. A photojournalist comes to mind as a rather glaring exception and there are plenty of others, I'm sure.

    I kept stumbling over the word "cameraman" and when I Google the definition, I get "a photographer who operates a movie camera". Its synonym is "cinematographer". Perhaps someone could enlighten the said teacher/critic as to the difference because this is certainly the first time I've heard the word used to describe someone who performs still photography.

    Ergo, when this (relatively) hairless ape picks up his little box with a button on it that magically records a moment in time, I guess I'd have to call myself a photographer. I'd feel very pretentious (and rightfully so) to call myself an artist. In fact, I find that notion quite amusing!
     
  11. Seldom are great food critics also great cooks. This is true for nearly every form of criticism - the ability to critique effectively is seldom linked to the genius to perform that sort of work oneself.

    But when it comes to photography, if one is not a famous photographer with a respected body of work, one may not utter a word of criticism.

    Fragile egos. Sad.
     
  12. ...All I could think was: "Who hired the guy?"
    Once a person gets tenure, it doesn't matter.
     
  13. I kept stumbling over the word "cameraman"
    One who is competent with a camera, regardless of the cine precedence. Like this chap.
     
  14. But when it comes to photography, if one is not a famous photographer with a respected body of work, one may not utter a word of criticism.
    Ah, I am relieved of all responsibility. At last. Freedom. This will be my last post ever.
     
  15. Plenty of good teachers can also do: all my law professors practiced before and during their tenure. Medical professors likewise (so I understand)

    A good critic needn't be that good at the craft, but they should be out there trying, or at least should have been at some point. Otherwise, their "criticism" boils down to nothing more than "I like this, don't like that", in a flood of the current academic vernacular
     
  16. Jack,

    That's utterly untrue. It takes a completely different set of skills to make images than it does to criticize them. Very few people are talented in the former, and fewer still in the latter. Nearly no one is equally talented in both.

    Art criticism is a discipline - it is far more than "I like this, I don't like this." That is like saying a food critic is saying nothing more than "This food tastes good, this food tastes bad."

    No one likes to have one's work trashed - whether one is a chef, a photographer, a painter, or a horse breeder. But it makes one seem very small when one has to engage in pointing out the critics' lack of photographic abilities as a sop to their injured pride, as if that mattered in the slightest.
     
  17. A few random thoughts.

    "Those who can't, teach." Bollocks. Teachers should be and usually are competent at the craft.

    "But when it comes to photography, if one is not a famous photographer with a respected body of work, one may not utter a word of criticism." Szarkowski? Coleman? Most of the top photography critics, excepting Minor White, have not been great photographers.

    Pico was ambiguous in his OP: "But now he's a photography critic and teaches the subject." What's "the subject": photography or photography criticism? He strikes me as unqualified to teach the first, not necessarily the second.

    The food critic analogy seems apt to me. A good food critic should have eaten a lot of food, not necessarily cooked a lot. A teacher of chefs should have cracked a few eggs.

    [X] None of the above.
     
  18. OK, let's go with the food critic analogy. They DO say one chef's dish tasted better than another's. If they lack any culinary skill to tell me WHY one chef fell down on the job, it's just "I like"

    If an art critc lacks any experience in the medium, I don't much trust them to point out anything except some sort of academic consensus, or maybe an historical perspective or progression.

    I'll pay some attention, and don't just dismiss all criticism out of hand, but I do consider the source

    OT/BTW, Wig (may I call you Wig?) good point on the "understanding" the Ontario Co., NY shooter and the sheriff's office came to
     
  19. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    A few comments...
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.
    This is a trite saying and has very little basis in reality, particularly in the art world. Many who do art can't make enough money, especially if their art is truly innovative or they lack business skills. That doesn't make them good teachers, but they still teach. The trite saying is insulting to some of the best teachers I have had. That doesn't mean they all could do, but many did do.
    This is true for nearly every form of criticism - the ability to critique effectively is seldom linked to the genius to perform that sort of work oneself.
    This is very true, with one exception, which is literary criticism. The skills for criticism are very close to the skills required for writing. However, and this is a big however, there are certainly many people who are skilled in both. They are not mutually exclusive.
    They DO say one chef's dish tasted better than another's. If they lack any culinary skill to tell me WHY one chef fell down on the job, it's just "I like"
    This is just plain wrong. Good food critics don't just say "I like," they analyze the food. But one doesn't have to be a cook to understand that a dish is over-spiced, under-salted, falls apart, has no character, etc. One doesn't have to be able to fix these faults, just understand them. You don't have to know how to baste to tell that a turkey is dry.
    Great criticism isn't about how to expose/focus/etc better, it's about how the work translates when viewed. I've had a formal critique done by a person who never photographed, but did run a major photography gallery, and I've had some excellent critique from people who have been artists but know nothing about photographic process. I've had a great photographer just stutter when he tried to comment on my work, looking for words to explain what he was thinking. I had the feeling his knowledge of the process got in the way.
     
  20. Jack,

    Anyone can criticize, but that does not make them a 'critic'. A critic is trained, educated, and well-versed in subtleties and history of their field of criticism. A wine critic has a developed palette, an art critic has absorbed the history of art criticism and has a thorough understanding of where art is today.

    I agree that if a person criticizes your work and has no background as a critic, then their comments, perspectives, and conclusions may be suspect. Likewise, some critics have reputations for preferring one sort of work to another - no one said they were all impartial judges or that they were incapable of error.

    However, a 'Critic' (and let's use a "C" to distinguish between one who merely criticizes a work) does not have to have grown grapes or have paintings hanging at MoMA or have made a feature film or have several coffeetable books of photography out to be well-versed in their art, which is criticism.

    One makes a mistake if one feels that the discipline of criticism requires expertise in the art being criticized.

    A Critic might just as well complain that a photographer objecting to criticism had no chops as a critic, and therefore no standing to object.

    A photography Critic is not a photographer; a photography Critic is a Critic.
     
  21. The art of this life is to be who you are, not measure your success or failure on the view of others.

    Go shoot yourself with a smile Pico. With the camera..please.

    Entitle it, The Cameraman, and post.

    Thou Art Pico.
     
  22. Sorry Pico but a camera is really just a recording device so actually you are a recording engineer (as I guess most of us are lol)
     
  23. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    The art of this life is to be who you are, not measure your success or failure on the view of others.
    That is only true if a) you don't need to sell your art, and b) you don't care if you share your art with others. For many people, selling and sharing are major objectives and your success is very dependent on the view of others.
     
  24. On the other hand...the art of trying to sound clever is pretty much not sounding like somebody trying to sound clever whilst talking to someone.

    Woops!
     
  25. And so it goes.
    Claudia and Wigwam must be Vonnegut fans. ;-)
     
  26. "It really isn't art in the sense that it is the creation of something that never existed before . . ."

    What's the difference between creating something that never existed and capturing something that no one has ever seen before, or at least not in the same way?
     
  27. Tsk tsk Jeff. That's a bad word you wrote: dependent. To be dependent is to be bound to some idea or to prevailing tastes or what have you. For some, this is ok because they are seeking acceptance or approval from their peers. What this can ultimately do is distort whatever work they feel to be important to them which is another way of saying it is no longer truly their own work. I would bet that most great art became great because the artists decided to follow their instincs rather then be influenced by whatever the accepted norm was at the time. I cannot imagine anything worse then wondering about how a photograph will be recieved by others just prior to my pressing the shutter. Who can work with all those people looking over your shoulder and passing judgement?
     
  28. When seeing some work which uses certain devices (vocabulary of photography) such as selective focus, selective exposure, attention to rare light, a certain moment and such he says, "The person who did that isn't an artist; he is just a good cameraman."
    Actually he was right. Choosing a good camera angle/exposure/moment etc. and thinking you are an artist is a lot like mixing together hydrogen peroxide and potassium permanganate in a high school lab, watching bubbles appear, and thinking you are a scientist.
     
  29. If someone can point to 'the photograph', they are a photographer. If they point to the 'final product', the 'finished work', they might be an artist.
     
  30. "It really isn't art in the sense that it is the creation of something that never existed before . . ."

    It never was that way before, and it will never be that way again -- paraphrasing Heraclitus.
     
  31. I wanted to be a photographer and ended up a "reluctant" artist.

    Oh well-l :)
     
  32. "That's utterly untrue. It takes a completely different set of skills to make images than it does to criticize them. Very few people are talented in the former, and fewer still in the latter. Nearly no one is equally talented in both."

    I make art. I know why I make art. I don't critique art cause the process of critiquing art, requires one to "reveal" their personal bias'. Remember, there is no such thing as a valid critique as there's only the expression of one's bias'.

    I'd love to participate in a roundtable conversation of why a critic (with critic present) said what they said. Shades of philosophical past beginnings; "Why?" :) And the answer comes back, because it doesn't suit preconceived notions of how things are supposed to be. And where did these preconceived notions come from? :)
     
  33. "The person who did that isn't an artist; he is just a good cameraman."

    His bias may be showing. He may be denigrating "snapshot" photography; he may prefer photography where the photographer is more an art director in a studio or controlled location, where nothing is 'accidental' -- the way a painter sets up his subject in a studio, controlling all aspects.

    I have no objections to that. Actually, I prefer the subject of "Photography: is it Art?" to be confined to such situations and photography -- speaking as a snapshotting, grab-shotting, available light who never poses anybody or anything photographer.
     
  34. So who is the mysterious professor mentioned in the first post?
     
  35. I have troubled some here when attempting to make a distinction between a photographer and a guy with a camera. I don't think that's where this thread started, and I also don't think Ellis was talking about you, Pico. I think his "OP" referred to the fellow you described in the OP (opening post), not you, the "opening poster". Acronyms... not as good as real words.
    Regarding criticism, A legitimate critic will not just say "I like this, I don't like that". Instead they will say "I like this, I don't like that, and let me tell you why..." (apologies to Al Franken).
    A good critic will not use rules or preconceived notions, but comparative analysis, historical references, contemporary context and cultural predispositions, among other relevant considerations. Most of the critics whose work I appreciate are loathe to even use the words "good" or "bad" when speaking of an artists work. They may describe an certain technique as well or badly done, but good art can employ either, or both. Just as bad art can use good technique... or bad.
    I'm not sure why the opinions of people who have studied art and artists are dismissed as fatuous (or as evil conspirators with "those who can't"), just because they aren't "successful" at making art themselves (whatever "successful" means in the arts)... t
     
  36. "I don't critique art cause the process of critiquing art, requires one to "reveal" their personal bias'."
    ... and making art doesn't?
    " "Remember, there is no such thing as a valid critique as there's only the expression of one's bias'."
    Are you saying there is no such thing as a valid critique because critique is only the expression of one's bias?
    Because I don't remember that, or believe it. If this is what you believe Criticism to be, I understand why you don't like it... go find a dictionary... t
     
  37. wait, I found one for you that had this interesting usage note:<p>Usage Note: Critique has been used as a verb meaning "to review or discuss critically" since the 18th century, but lately this usage has gained much wider currency, in part because the verb criticize, once neutral between praise and censure, is now mainly used in a negative sense. <p>But this use of critique is still regarded by many as pretentious jargon, although resistance appears to be weakening. <p>In our 1997 ballot, 41 percent of the Usage Panel rejected the sentence "As mock inquisitors grill him, top aides take notes and critique the answers with the President afterward". <p>Ten years earlier, 69 percent disapproved of this same sentence.<p> Resistance is still high when a person is critiqued: 60 percent of the Usage Panel rejects its use in the sentence "Students are taught how to do a business plan and then are critiqued on it". Thus, it may be preferable to avoid this word. <p>There is no exact synonym, but in most contexts one can usually substitute "go over", "review", or "analyze".<p>Note, however, that critique is widely accepted as a noun in a neutral context; 86 percent of the Panel approved of its use in the sentence "The committee gave the report a thorough critique and found it both informed and intelligent"<p>... t
     
  38. "... and making art doesn't?

    Of course, "making art" represents any artist's bias', and that's okay but to critique a person's bias', via one's own bias' is as invalid as the day is long.

    "Remember, there is no such thing as a valid critique as there's only the expression of one's bias'."

    Are you saying there is no such thing as a valid critique because critique is only the expression of one's bias?

    In the simple, artistically speaking, yes.

    "Because I don't remember that, or believe it. If this is what you believe Criticism to be, I understand why you don't like it... go find a dictionary... t"

    No disrespect towards your above but irrespective of how you perceive my comment of there being no such thing as a valid critique, even your perception of my comment, is based upon how you've been taught to think, bias. Original thought, including that within my personal gray matter, is a rare animal indeed.
     
  39. Critiquing one's personal artistic efforts as opposed to what they think a panel was trying to convey, to me, are horses of a different color.

    "How do you think the Supremes will rule on today's presentations, based upon their combined line of questioning."

    Vs

    "What ever message the artist was trying to convey, the effort fell flat on it's face due to their use of color and space based upon what so-n-so was conveying during their period of artistic endeavors."

    It would be expected to critique a professional decision such as a hearing before the Supreme Court, prior to pronouncement but one can not, with validity critique an artistic endeavor based upon what you've been taught about anything unless the artist has specifically stated, this is "exactly" what I'm about; defined terms.

    Poetry is much the same as one can only interpret, accurately, poetry, based upon what the author states for the record as opposed to a personal interpretation of what was written, irrespective of how educated one is on the author's life and efforts.
     
  40. "wait, I found one for you that had this interesting usage note:"

    Thanks for the additional effort on your part, nice to read that the word usage is still in societal flux. :)
     
  41. Hypothetical critiques, hm?
    "to critique a person's bias', via one's own bias' is as invalid as the day is long."
    And loads of fun, I do it whenever I can. In fact, that's kinda what we do here every day, no? like right now, yes? Having invalid fun yet?... t
     
  42. ""making art" represents any artist's bias', and that's okay but to critique a person's bias', via one's own bias' is as invalid as the day is long."
    Your art (making pictures) is okay to bias personally, but someone else doing what they want to do (critical analysis, good or bad, like their opinion of your pictures ie: good/bad) is not? Laissez faire, bon ami... t
     
  43. "...but someone else doing what they want to do (critical analysis, good or bad, like their opinion of your pictures ie: good/bad) is not?"

    One is always welcome to critique another's artistic effort but the invalidity of the critique is based upon the understanding that it's of no merit due to the fact that it's based upon the reviewer's "opinion" or an artist's "opinion."

    Kinda like a rumor of a rumor if you will as it's all vapor of no bases, other than how they've been taught to critique.

    Example; someone can say what they will about one's efforts but the artist is a fool if they stop to read what other's have to say about what they're creating (assuming they've taken the time to master what they're about) as what the creator creates, is up to the creator, irrespective of what the critic has to write about their efforts. Live and die on it's merits, irregardless of the critics. How often have they been wrong? In this case, as examples, think Impressionists, Dadaists, Stieglitz, Fauves, Cubists, Surrealists, Diego Rivera, (My Fav) Eggleston, Diane Arbus, Sally Mann (another contemporary punching bag of mine), Clark and of course one can't leave out Serrano as just a few whom critics have panned over the last many contemporary decades.
     
  44. "...due to the fact that it's based upon the reviewer's "opinion" or an artist's "opinion.""

    ... based upon the reviewer's "opinion" of an artist's "opinion."

    Doh! :)
     
  45. I ask myself: What are the odds a professional critic would criticize my photographs? The answer I come up with is: none. Therefore, neither Art or criticism of Art it is of any interest to me insofar as my photography is concerned. It doesn't mean I'm not interested in my art, just that it is not such a big deal and I'm a lot happier making art without thinking about it and what it means, ir if it is any good etc.

    If I were to be so critiqued one way or the other, I suppose after the initial astonishment, I'd try to figure out how to make some money from the situation.
     
  46. "...due to the fact that it's based upon the reviewer's "opinion" or an artist's "opinion.""

    ... based upon the reviewer's "opinion" of an artist's "opinion."

    Oops! :)
     
  47. "...I'm a lot happier making art without thinking about it and what it means, ir if it is any good etc."

    How could one feel good about the process if they're worried about critics?

    "Oh my gosh, what will the critics think when I'm finished with the image making process, ready for display.

    Que Sera Sera

    http://www.lyriczz.com/lyriczz.php?songid=12960
     
  48. I can't find what you are quoting, Thomas... Is it from this thread?
    "What are the odds a professional critic would criticize my photographs? The answer I come up with is: none. Therefore, neither Art or criticism of Art it is of any interest to me insofar as my photography is concerned."
    So... not interested in what anyone else says about art, huh? Then why hang out here and talk with others about art? Why not stay on the digital darkroom forum and discuss color management and CCD vs CMOS?
    And you Thomas, if discourse about art is so invalid... why do you have over 2000 posts on photo.net... most of which are on this forum about the concepts underlying the ART of photography? Isn't this critical discourse that you indulge in... to an fairly astounding degree? Aren't you a critic, yourself? Expressing your academically inflicted opinions about art?... t
     
  49. WOW! my 3333rd post on photo.net. I gotta get a life :^)... t
     
  50. And just in case it was missed, I'm agreeing with you Don. :)
     
  51. Thomas, I think it would matter to some pros. If it is a matter of business and income, at least.
     
  52. "So... not interested in what anyone else says about art, huh? Then why hang out here and talk with others about art?"

    This is the Philosophy of Photography forum. My question would be why anybody else besides me hangs here.
     
  53. "I can't find what you are quoting, Thomas... Is it from this thread?"

    ""What are the odds a professional critic would criticize my photographs? The answer I come up with is: none. Therefore, neither Art or criticism of Art it is of any interest to me insofar as my photography is concerned.""

    Don E wrote the above.

    "Aren't you a critic, yourself? Expressing your academically inflicted opinions about art?... t"

    Trying to work with you, that's a yes and a no as my comments represent my bias' (value system, ethics and morality) and need to be taken as such; biased commentary which is as valid and invalid as the next person's critique. Just because I make comment, doesn't make my comments anymore or any less valid then the next person's as I'll be happy to be the first to condemn the validity of my own critique process; self-effacing.

    I live in an extremely pseudo, materialistic society and my comments reflect the offense I have (bias) of how soullessly and materialistically I see the artistic process, but that's openly, my bias; view. I live in a society that hasn't the ability to see past their egocentric needs; that's my bias and yes, this bias infects my critique of the art making process and the art establishment that I see; how ever small the bottle is which I live in.

    The point I'm trying to share in my above, yes I agree with you as to your view of my critique of the art establishment. I'm not in conflict with the critique process so much as I'm in conflict with the dishonesty (denial) of the critics and from whence their decisions truly come from; subjectivity.

    Again, I'm trying to work with you in my above, not against you.
     
  54. One way I've found to distinguish between critics and philosophers is that critics where blinders (as do some authors of a so-called philosophy of photography. They have their notions about photography and will exclude (negatively critique or outright dismiss) certain kinds of photography -- not to mention the kinds of photography they are unaware of. A philosopher has to consider photography period. The philosopher asks banal questions such as 'What is the photograph?" But this is very boring for egoists and photographers anxious to share their "personal" philosophy and their art.
     
  55. TG One is always welcome to critique another's artistic effort but the invalidity of the critique is based upon the understanding that it's of no merit due to the fact that it's based upon the reviewer's "opinion" or an artist's "opinion."
    Shorter is better. Try, "Criticism is worthless opinion" (in your opinion)
    Example; someone can say what they will about one's efforts but the artist is a fool if they stop to read what other's have to say about what they're creating
    Try, "Fools pay attention to others' impressions."
    How often have they been wrong? In this case, as examples, think Impressionists, Dadaists, Stieglitz, Fauves, Cubists, [...]
    That's the old "They laughed at (insert appeal to authority here)".
     
  56. TG I'm not in conflict with the critique process so much as I'm in conflict with the dishonesty (denial) of the critics and from whence their decisions truly come from; subjectivity.
    So your subjectivity is good while others' is not.
    Are you dizzy?
     
  57. August Pico was ambiguous in his OP: "But now he's a photography critic and teaches the subject." What's "the subject": photography or photography criticism?
    The ambiguity was not intentional. The person in question teaches photography appreciation, shows his/her photography and will likely have a show soon enough. However, artists do all kinds of things as exercises and we may over-value what a show really means. It might simply be a creative social opportunity in order to find friendly peers, critics, chats.
     
  58. "Shorter is better."

    For you it is, for me it isn't.

    Example; someone can say what they will about one's efforts but the artist is a fool if they stop to read what other's have to say about what they're creating

    "Try, "Fools pay attention to others' impressions.""

    No, try it just the way I wrote it, without your childish compulsive editing.

    How often have they been wrong? In this case, as examples, think Impressionists, Dadaists, Stieglitz, Fauves, Cubists, [...]

    "That's the old "They laughed at (insert appeal to authority here)"."

    I like it just the way it was written, without your immature and compulsive need to edit other's efforts.

    "So your subjectivity is good while others' is not."

    "Are you dizzy?"

    No, I'm not dizzy just because you don't have the ability to grasp the context of what I write.

    One comes quickly to realize that mostly, the best you got, is nothing. If it helps, this is the last time I'll respond to your intentionally disruptive trolls. I'll respond to serious comments (maybe) but will ignore personalized thread disruptive trolls of no thought (import) like your above.
     
  59. Clear thinking should lead to clear writing. You had an opportunity to respond in plain English, and chose instead to call names.

    More words does not equal more information.
     
  60. TG How could one feel good about the process if they're worried about critics?
    Perhaps much of making 'art' is not just fun, joy and giggles. Sometimes a person might have to make something that disturbs him in order to make his point through critics.
    And maybe, just maybe it's like making love - it ain't all about the maker.
     
  61. " "The person who did that isn't an artist; he is just a good cameraman."

    Obviously my usual detachment came apart when I felt this in-person.

    So... I'm a cameraman. Beats being an artist.

    N'est pas?

    Thoughts."


    Not to wax too too philosophical here, but as I look to the Subject:

    []Photographer []Artist []Cameraman (Check only one)

    Are you checking Cameraman? Or was your response: "So... I'm a cameraman" Socratic Irony?

    I should re-read the discussion, but did anyone note the Photographer choice? Cameraman and Artist seem to have got some attention.
     
  62. "So... I'm a cameraman" Socratic Irony?
    Yep. I'm just a camera with a guy stuck on the back. Nothing more and possibly something less!
     
  63. The complete version is: "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, write."

    I have the upmost repect for the few great teachers and writers I have the pleasure of encountering. But I love to use the above to slam the numerous miserable teachers and writers who should really be doing something else. But what else can they do?
     
  64. I am a photographer and an artist. I went to school and studied graphic design & illustration. I do photography for myself, not for anyone else. If other people like my photos, that's great. If not, well too bad for them. In my free time I draw, and in the past I've done some book covers and logos for companies.
    In art school I had some real jerk teachers, honestly. If you didn't do things exactly as they said, or used a technique they didn't like, they wouldn't give you a second look. If you sucked up to them or even worse copied them, they loved you to death. When I saw some of their portfolios I really wasn't impressed (not ALL my teachers were like that- a lot were really cool.)
    As for photographers critiquing my work, I won't take anyone seriously until I've seen some of their work. Any doofus can say whatever they want, but I've got to have proof that they know what they're doing & talking about or understand me, otherwise what they say just goes in one ear and out the other. For example being a camera collector and being a photographer can be totally different things.
     

Share This Page