squareframe Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 do oil, pastel, watercolour artists have similar discussions regarding equipment, 'glow', hyper-critical assessments of peer's works, less superciliousness to alternate points-of-view? or do they simply paint what they see and feel? are we photographers missing something here? is there a purity of form that we cannot embrace? I am not a painter, but these discussions leave me thinking about buying watercolour paints and brushes, and finding a more inert layer of expression ... perhaps this is a natural progression? perchance, our photography would improve and the forum would benefit from such explorations by us all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 It still comes down to light, composition & subject matter. I know talented painters who wish they could 'do' photography but feel that their artistic temperament precludes them from a technical activity! ("Oh I cant do that I dont even know which way around the lens has to go" etc etc) I wish I had the ability to understand light and colour in a more profound/spiritual way that artists seem to. It may improve my photography. Unfortunately, with my scientific/technical/IT background & education, I don't have that gift. It is interesting that some of the 'great' photographers started off in the surrealist art 'world' and then became photographers. (HCB, Bill Brandt, Lee Miller etc) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awahlster Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 I can solve your delima quite easy...... Turn off the computer easy as that! unless you tend to run into other leica owners every where you go the chances of ever having one of these type of discussions while you computer is turned off will go down dramatically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 One of my favourite artists 'photographs' her landscapes in textiles...(I have a couple on the wall)..... <a href="http://www.m-roberts.com/folio.html">click here</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Trevor, Check out this guy: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=977679 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 <I>do oil, pastel, watercolour artists have similar discussions regarding equipment, 'glow', hyper-critical assessments of peer's works, less superciliousness to alternate points-of- view?</I><P>Yes they do. So do cinematographers, sculptors, writers and calligraphers. But because photography has a lower threshold of acceptable basic craft, perhaps it is better to compare photography to another similarly "democratic" and art form -- playing the guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 I think the bitchy, nasty, dog eat dog, "notice me, not him" 'art' crowd of a few London art colleges would murder any number of their peers to get to an influential critic and his/her rich followers but outside of that particular 'Turner prize' media celeb crowd I expect things are a lot saner. However the proponents of all the post-war art world 'isms' and philosophies have been gleefully knifing each each for 60 years or more. (See Tom Wolfes 'The painted word' for an insight) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Thanks Rene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_shrader Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 I know this may be straying off topic a bit, but sometimes it seems as though artists are capturing the world in a "photographic sense" as well. When we think of art, I guess we rarely think of these types of works. See the attached photograph by a gentleman named William Fisk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scipc Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Artist talk far less than photographers. Jealousy/Fear. When I have talked shop with other painter friends around the country, we talked gear, techniques for cleanly applying paint, and the secret :) techniques of other artist, including the masters Sorolla, Cezanne, Monet etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 A potted little biography of one of the finest artists ever (just to give a flavour of one artists temperament)..... "In 1600 he was accused of blows by a fellow painter, and the following year he wounded a soldier. In 1603 he was imprisoned on the complaint of another painter and released only through the intercession of the French ambassador. In April 1604 he was accused of throwing a plate of artichokes in the face of a waiter, and in October he was arrested for throwing stones at the Roman Guards. In May 1605 he was seized for misuse of arms, and on July 29 he had to flee Rome for a time because he had wounded a man in defense of his mistress. Within a year, on May 29, 1606, again in Rome, during a furious brawl over a disputed score in a game of tennis, Caravaggio killed one Ranuccio Tomassoni." After the murder Caravaggio was banished from Rome. He fled to Naples and thence to Malta, where he sought admission to the Maltese Order of St. John. He was knighted, but soon afterward he was expelled from the order and imprisoned for attacking another knight. He escaped from the Maltese jail in October of 1608, and fled to Syracuse in Sicily. In 1609 he fled to Messina, then moved on to Palermo, then again to Naples, where he was attacked and wounded badly. In 1610, on his way back to Rome, he contracted a fever and died on the shore at Port' Ercole." "His short fuse and pathological need to seek violence and dispute landed him in trouble all his life. Oftentimes he abused and assaulted his benefactors. Consequently, he was frequently obliged to flee from one place to the other, and even his death was the result of a skirmish... This history of murder, assault and courting of violence would shame many a violent psychopath in a contemporary maximum-security prison." Sounds like the usual sort of regular Leica Forum member to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 In fact he would fit in rather well here. Tracy Emin (one of my favourite contempory artisits and yes I will defend it if anyone requires) once caused me to laugh by turning up on a late night TV Arts discussion show and shocking the assembled pontificating pseuds by announcing that they were a bunch of w###kers and that she felt pissed (drunk) and was ####king off to enjoy a nice cup of tea and chat with her old Mum. Quite right too. She would fit in here also. The 'Mad Slag of Margate' as she dubbed herself at one time. Go Tracy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deecy Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Picasso said, "I have discovered photography. Now I can kill myself. There is nothing more to learn." What the hell does THAT mean? Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squareframe Posted January 31, 2005 Author Share Posted January 31, 2005 I was referring to the equivalence of photo.net, perhaps as paintbrush.net or the Luminous-Canvas.com? unlike painting, sculpture, or playing guitar, piano, or cello, there is far less of ourselves residing within the artistic result. or is that true, necessarily, when the image is wholly borne from our unique perspective and interpretation? is the open-ended subjectivity what gives us license to so vociferously attack and defend? related to forum participation and contribution, our wanderings don't really advance the form nor hardly justify the energies expended. do they? my artist friends are very supportive of each other, and seem much more open to styles and issues in variance to their own. a photograph can be as intimate as a painting, it seems to me. what appears to be missing, is how we value and respect that notion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 <I>...related to forum participation and contribution, our wanderings don't really advance the form nor hardly justify the energies expended. do they?</I><P> No, they don't. <a href = http://www.liquidgeneration.com/quiz/rocker_quiz.asp>here is a better short term time waster than this forum</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 <I>What the hell does THAT mean?</I><P>It means you need to have your sense of what is and isn't an ironic statement upgraded. It might also help to know who Pablo Picasso was or what his contribution to art is and the context of the times in which he lived and worked so you can understand his joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rod g. Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 By nature painting is a pretty lonely persuit Daniel, go into it knowing that at least. The art world is top heavy with poseurs and wannabees, I doubt you'll find much refuge there. I always think it's funny when people remember Picasso and Warhol quotes like they mean something, if there is meaning it's because someone's found an application after the fact. "Artistic temperament" is often just bad behaviour, drugs and alchohol, insanity, anti-social tendencies, insecurity or showmanship redefined. The painter Rafael is remembered as being a really sweet guy, so what unless he's coming to dinner. Only the work really matters in the end but people continue to pay good money for sizzle. Know your tools and materials, reach high and remain critical, ignore the buzz, have the occasional epiphany and keep going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith_laban Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 <a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p>Why the hell should the medium being used make any difference whatsoever? Take my word for it, artists are bastards too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deecy Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Ellis: I'm not so sure it was a joke. Ironical yes, when you consider it in the context of Picasso's work - especially his late paintings, but very possibly self-directed, perhaps exactly because of the stuff he was cranking out then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squareframe Posted January 31, 2005 Author Share Posted January 31, 2005 > Why the hell should the medium being used make any difference whatsoever? you tell me keith. what artist forum resonates with 'your work sucks, and you suck cuz you think my work sucks'? what forum discusses 'glow' or other artistic parameter and degenerates to a shouting match as displayed here this weekend? thanks Ellis ... I feel validated as a true-rocker now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 First you ask a question you admit you don't know the answer to, then appear to go and assume you know the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennis_couvillion Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 "...perhaps it is better to compare photography to another similarly "democratic" and art form -- playing the guitar." LOL. Right on the money. Step outside and throw a rock in any direction and you're liable to hit either a photographer or guitarist. ;>) Seriously... just from what I've seen I think there is more mutual respect in the artist community, regardless of genre, perhaps because of a mutual appreciation of the talent (and the poverty) that goes with being an artist. Any disagreeableness among artists, at least from what I've seen, is probabaly related more to simple personality conflicts than anything else. Among professional photographers there may be more competition than anything else. From what I've seen most pros are "multi-genre" if you want to call it that... their personal work may differ from their professional work, or they experiment with different styles and formats. But you don't see a lot of disagreeableness between genres. With that said, however, everyone has different tastes... P.S. to Trevor: Before passing judgment on poor Carvaggio you might want to consider whether Romano Tomassini needed a good killing. ;>) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squareframe Posted January 31, 2005 Author Share Posted January 31, 2005 Ray, et al, I don't have the answers. please, point me to a non-photography artistic forum that exhibits the behaviours shown here. I don't like the guitar-player analogy .. no one asks for degrees, credentials, or years-of-service when the chops are there. I think it is related to the easy admission into the photography fold, where little if anything must be invested to participate. I've gone into Guitar Showcase and heard twenty kids all playing the lead break of 'Stairway to Heaven'. no one is critical .. even though it might sound like fingernails-on-a-chalkboard. everyone understands what it took .. just to get to that point. I'm not sure photographers, especially on this forum, have that level of awareness. it's open to discussion. I don't care how you spin it, the discussions over the weekend are an embarrassment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul t Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 For a great portrait of an artist a la Caravaggio, check out the autobiography of Benvenuto Cellini. It's the most fascinating account you'll ever read about making a living as an artist in the Renaissance. <p>It's inspiring and frequently hilarious. Cellini was a sculptor in Florence, the generation after Michelangelo. He works mainly for one of the Medicis, the Grand Duke Cosimo, but has problems with the Duke's wife - the duke will like something, the wife will complain about some niggling detail. She even takes bits off his sculptures to use them as decorations around the house. Cellini has constant arguments with his fellow artists - there's a hilarious account of an argument with a rival sculptor called, I think, Bandinelli, where Cellini compares the musculature of Bandinell's Hercules to a bag full of walnuts, to his face, in front of the Duke. He gets involved in a war, or two. And it has an almost mystical story of the creation of one of his great works - the perseus and medusa, which at the time was the biggest casting ever attempted in bronze; it used to stand by Michaelangelo's David - which modern science pretty much proves was correct. Oh, and along the way, he bumps off a few rivals too, but gets the Pope to pardon him. <p>Above all, it's a book that tells you that things never change - you need unlimited belief in yourself, unlimited ambition, and you have to bite your tongue when you're dealing with clients. And their other halves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennis_couvillion Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Daniel: I agree with some of what you said... One of the things that irritates the hell out of me, but I've kept quiet, is when some poor bastard has invested $6,000 in aN M7 and Noctilux and, like an excited little kid, posts a picture of his kid's recital... only to have some smart aleck trash it. Why not give the guy encouragement? Sure the shot may be crap but one day the light bulb may go off and the guy figures out what to do. I'll tell you what else bothered me. Last week there was a thread about Family of Men 2. Nice work in my opinion. Why was it necessary for people to disparage the project because it was Leica oriented. Some of us gave hearty congrats while others derided the project. Stupid and uncalled for... This weekend was an embarrassment and I'm sorry I was at the center of it. But this is the internet. It's a free for all... it ain't about art, or glow or anything else... I don't want to say anymore about this weekend but I'd be happy to discuss it with you by e-mail. Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now