Your photog does it matter much with others?

Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by RaymondC, Dec 23, 2020.

  1. I recognize I'm a "non-photographer" as I am only interested in taking pictures. This has been liberating. Thx.
     
    Robin Smith likes this.
  2. Clearly I should have said "one" or the "photographer", as Sam thought I was addressing him in particular.
     
  3. You were addressing photographers who photograph uninteresting subjects and conflating that with photographers who would choose to make uninteresting images. I was merely trying to clear that up. It's not a matter of who you were addressing so much as the substance of what you were saying.
     
  4. " It's not a matter of who you were addressing so much as the substance of what you were saying" Sam.

    I would have thought both have equal relevance.
     
  5. Let me ask you something I consider relevant, Allen, and that was what we were discussing. Do you think one can make an interesting photo of an uninteresting subject?
     
  6. To me it means that a photograph has an intrinsic value (i.e., compositional elements) separate from its subject.
    I can, for instance, consider a photograph compelling of an unremarkable rock that I wouldn't give much or any thought to as I walked past it, and I often find such a photograph more interesting than one of an interesting person I could engage for hours of discussion with that was photographed poorly.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2021
  7. I think the obvious answer is yes! But I suppose we then have to debate whether a given object is interesting or not. ;-)
     
    tonybeach_1961 likes this.
  8. Thanks. Me, too.
     
    tonybeach_1961 likes this.
  9. Ha! Great! Just noticed this. There's a current thread in which Lewis Baltz is brought up, someone who declared himself not to be a photographer.

    In response, I quipped ...
    Funny things is, calling myself a photographer has been liberating in my own life, especially because I define myself as a photographer by both my photographing and my photographs, both of which I feel free to do and make however I want. Before I became a photographer, I was a typographer, which came with a lot of rules, a lot of fulfilling of the needs of others, a lot of self compromise, and also a good amount of fun and creativity thrown in. But "photographer", for me, is a very liberating appellation, regardless of what others may attribute to the term or think it must mean.
     
    David_Cavan likes this.
  10. I was referring to Karim's distinction between photographers and non-photographers. In the past I've responded the same way to distinctions made about 'artist' and 'non-artist' photographers.

    I take a photo because I want to see what captured my attention. Being concerned about the "technical aspects of photography", artistry, or even of being a photographer is unnecssary and irrelevant to taking pictures, at least for me.

    Regards.
     
    David_Cavan likes this.
  11. Aha! I get it. Thanks.

    In response to Karim, I’d still say I’m a photographer, being a little tickled by “photographer” meaning something different for me. It’s kind of cool knowing that part of my being a photographer is being a non-photographer ... according to some! A welcome contradiction in terms. The moral of the story? Just as “whether my photography matters” doesn’t concern me much, neither does how others define “photographer.” And I, with tongue in cheek, wonder whether the photos of “non-photographers” are tinted with dada, even though they might have to deny that which would, in a sense, assert it. :):)
     
    David_Cavan likes this.

Share This Page