thank you

[ciicada]

I love you all, thank you for your comments.

 

It is the not simply the subject of the photograph that concerns me,

it is the artistic content and intention that I find disconcerting.

Some of you may find these comments to be controversial, since 90% of

you are guilty of this. The art of photography is not a result of

what will simply amaze or please the eye, it must ultimately please

the soul. Aesthetics and originality are products of this. Going out

and shooting pictures of birds because "they look cool" or "because

it's hard to do" do not qualify as art. Art must comment on the human

condition and most of all, the expression of the artist. Do these

bird photographers "feel like a bird"? I think not.

 

Art is something insatiable and intangible, and is therefore

difficult to describe. However it is doubtful that these

reproductions of birds are produced for litte more than attention.

The actual result is a bastardization of what was once a beautiful

picture of a bird drowned by millions of immitators.

 

Of course, I was being facetious when I suggested a picture of a dog

or a cat; no offense was intended. In truth, I don't give a s%#t

about how many bird pictures there are, I just hope that the art is

genuine.

 

Best to all.

Pat

 

P.S. I am currently an amateur photographer. I am considering to put

up some of my own pictures, but I have delayed to do so because I

don't give a fcuk what anyone else thinks of them or if anyone sees

them, because they are my own art. But if any of you wish to see them

just ask and I'll go buy a scanner and upload them.

 

Thanks again for your comments.

[johncrosley]

There has been much 'grousing' about those who have posted 'bird pictures that have dominated the TRP in the past, but some of those photos were absolutely stunning.

 

However, because there were so many of them, and because pelicans, however rare, became common currency on Photo.net, the score of '7' for originality became a little 'much' and the tendency of members to rate the same for 'originality' as they did for 'aesthetics' caused some members' scores to become more than a little overblown.

 

Just because I seldom shoot birds doesn't mean I don't envy or admire those who have shot them and posted some of the most remarkable bird photos, and I don't denigrate them one bit. They were, and have been, however, shot principally for the thumbnail format of Photo.net, which meant that the subject usually filled the frame which guaranteed easy viewing in a 'gallery' and thus easy acceptance by the largest number of viewers, but that's endemnic to Photo.net -- something built in to the format.

 

(likely this discussion will disappear when a moderator gets to your post, but I thought it deserved a reasoned response.)

 

John (Crosley)

[keith turrill]

I think that in another posting several months ago that some of the bird photography was seasonal. Trust me, in another month you will be absolutely sick of flowers, insects, and small land animals. I would also recommend that you follow your own advice and don't buy a scanner to post any of your work.

 

Regards,

 

Keith (Immitator of Birds and Bugs)

[r_e]

I am a rat. Look at the birds in the stomach of my cat ... RE

[cappoldt]

"The art of photography is not a result of what will simply amaze or please the eye, it must ultimately please the soul."

 

-Doesn't the fact that each soul is different also account for which subjects please whom? "The art of photography," I'd say, is interpretive. Your opinion is welcome, Patrick, but it's just that....an opinion. Wouldn't you say?

 

"Going out and shooting pictures of birds because "they look cool" or "because it's hard to do" do not qualify as art. Art must comment on the human condition and most of all, the expression of the artist."

 

-What is this "art must..." stuff? Are Adams' landscapes commenting on the human condition? Are all wildlife photographs, images of animals that "look cool" to be dismissed, too? Is a fine image of a cheetah, well-composed in its natural habitiat in golden morning light, the image technically flawless not an expression of the artist, the photographer? Is it not able to move the soul, to bring an enriching experience to the viewer, especially if they don't live on the African plains? Again, maybe it won't budge YOUR soul an inch - but you can't make blanket statements as to what photography is valid and what isn't in regards to "art" and "soul-moving."

 

 

"Do these bird photographers "feel like a bird"? I think not...it is doubtful that these reproductions of birds are produced for litte more than attention. The actual result is a bastardization of what was once a beautiful picture of a bird drowned by millions of immitators."

 

I've taken the time to photograph birds at least once every two weeks for the past six months. Why? Because I like birds. I like being outside. Further, I'm trying to take attractive photographs of them as a project for ME, to collect as many images of local species as I can. It's a challenge. Do I "feel" like a bird? Of course not. I also don't feel like a cheerleader when I'm photographing them in a parade, nor would I likely feel like a naked woman, a bowl of fruit in a still life, or a tree if I were shooting them, either. But I do relish in noticing bird behaviors, their habits, and their different songs. Their personalities. To be frank, after a week of the grind in the office, my soul is more at peace as I'm there alone with them, enjoying photography and just watching them, than at any other time, lately.

 

Now, if I can walk away from that with a nice pic, I'm proud of myself, sure. But what's NEVER crossed my mind is a thought like "Hey, I think I'll bastardize today," or " Boy, I'm yearning for some attention on the Internet - think I'll post a blue jay I shot yesterday."

 

Once I was in an art gallery with my girlfriend, and we came across a 10'x20' canvas, painted black. I had one eyebrow up in true John Belushi fashion, and looked at her, curious as to her own reaction to the piece. She started snickering at my expression, and said, in a comical pompus voice, "Chris, open your MIND."

 

Point is, I didn't have to like that black canvas. You don't have to regard bird photography as art. But one thing you might consider as your experience grows a tad is to be aware that your perceptions are unique from the person standing next to you. It's your right to be judgemental, but one thing I feel I can say for certain is that it's going to impede you more than it's going to help you grow.

 

Now that all that is said, I should ask you, as I'm not really sure why you're posting this here in the Site Feedback forum? Are you proposing that the site admins delete all the nature and wildlife photographs? Or, are you just against the birds? Either way, I fear your case may need a little more in the way of "argumentive evidence."

 

John's post above is pretty dead-on, too.

[cappoldt]

Tweet, tweet tweet, tweet. Tweet. TWEET?! Chirpity, tweet chirp.

[melody1]

I know what ART is.

 

First : That statement contains so much pretention. No ONE person sets the criteria for art. Art is not always an expression of the producer's emotions, or a statement of feeling.

 

How can art be intangible? Perhaps a response to the piece you are experiencing is intangible, but the artwork itself is tangible. You seem to be using someone else's vocabulary.

 

Does photography have to be 'art'? No. There are so many facets and niches to photography, and I see no reason to demean those that you do not find compelling. By taking such a closed view of photography as only 'art,' you give no credibility to advertising, photojournalism, portraiture, scientific photography, and multitudes of other fields. You assume the only reason to press the shutter on your little camera is to 'comment on the human condition.'

 

Patrick, open your eyes. I don't know if you noticed, but you are on 'photo.net,' not 'art.net,' or 'photoart.net.' The world of photography is so much bigger than you give credit.

[keith turrill]

If it wasn't for Art, any child with the name Arthur would be nicknamed Bubba or Doofus.

[jnicholson]

Did you get all the pigeon droppings off your car? John, Chris, Melody, very well put. Kieth, I've already tried making that argument.

 

Gotta go process some new bird pics. Western Tanagers ... hard little buggers to catch.

[laurie_m]

Patrick, If you really believe your argument, don't buy a scanner. As a matter of fact, you might want to sell your camera. Since, in your own words "I don't give a fcuk what anyone else thinks of them or if anyone sees them". Why not just compose the image in your mind and save the hassle of capturing it and printing or posting it.

 

I have never met an "artist" that didn't care if anyone saw his or her work. What's the point of expressing one's vision if, to no one else but one's self? Kind of pointless don't you think?

[kathywilson]

Ahhhh, the old "What is Art?" argument. Art is, what art is. It is moving, emotional, meaningful, captivating, immoral, sexy, ugly, dreadful, souless, trash, treasure and right there in the middle of "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." I'm outside taking a photograph of a wide open space instead of yet another day cooped up in an office I hate, with ppl I hate, doing a job I hate, for not enough money and far too much time out of my life. I slip the bonds of my employment and get outside to landscape that speaks to me of God, of heart and soul, and feel some of the peace I can't get enough of during the rest of my life. And somewhere along the way I thought it might be nice to share what speaks to me of Other things. The argument has been offered that there's no originality in shooting birds or landscapes or flowers, and to some extent I agree with that. A tree is a tree, a bird a bird, a mountain yet another mountain which could be anywhere on earth. But just like the ancient cave-dweller who finger painted animals on his walls.... it means something to the artist, and it means something to quite a few of the observers. That you are not one of them makes it no less art, and does not silence the fact it speaks of, and to, the human condition. It's why those cave paintings are so interesting thousands upon thousands of years later. Why there are posters, post cards, books about them. Why most native societies at some point in their history revered mountains, trees, birds, foxes, bears. It's why a hawk flying sends a chill down the spine, why a pattern of feathers, a song in the woods makes the heart beat a little faster and drives someone to spend a fortune in equipment and time to sit outside in a blind for hours on end in order to catch that ineffable *something* in action. If that's not Art, I don't know what is.

[knicki____]

Holy smoked turkeys..I thought I stumbled into the philosophy forum. Dont mind me while I stumble about and try and figure what in the world this post is doing here.

 

I will differ from the others. Buy a scanner, a real good one too so you cant blame anything on a crappy scan. Scan your images post em and lets see you walk your talk.

 

Sign me who doesnt shoot birds but finds the post lacking in humility and sense.

 

Knicki

[wilsontsoi]

"Art must comment on the human condition . . . "

 

IMO, this is one of the most narrow-minded definition of art I've come acrossed.

[cappoldt]

Still waiting for an answer to my questions, Patrick me boy.

 

Do you have a point here for the Site Feedback admins, or are you just enjoying a little mayhem?

[johncrosley]

As the first commentator to reply to this somewhat narrow-minded post, I note that some significant portions of my portfolio are devoted to photographs that might be taken as 'comments on the human condition' yet I highly admire some of the wonderful bird shots that have been posted and only wish I had the talent and the ability to have taken them as well as the patience.

 

For some of the best bird photographs posted it has taken the photographer admirable ability at reading complex lighting, stunning ability to capture rapidly moving subjects and keep them in focus and then fill the frame and edit the best of the best and post them.

 

Bravo to those who have done so, from one who has made more than a large share of photos that might be said to 'comment on the human condition'.

 

Who is it to define my 'art' for me, or to say that because of what photographs I take that I'm creating 'art' while others are not (certainly my ratings don't show it . . . whereas the bird photos . . . . well . . . )?

 

Patrick Y -- please do buy a scanner, or just take your film to any photo processing that has a machine that can scan your film directly to a disk -- you don't even need a scanner.

 

If your photos are good - whether or not they comment on the human condition - you'll get instant feedback and nobody will remember this post.

 

Fair warning: Little is more humbling usually than a first post on Photo.net when you think you have some talent and your photo reveals otherwise.

 

John (Crosley)

[ciicada]

A reasonable response has been posted but is apparently unfit for public viewing according to the administration of this site.

[cappoldt]

Golly Patrick - when you wrote that some of us here that use this site are "less than human," that just may have been part of the issue that had the thread deleted. . . Ya think?

 

Too, stiiiiiillllllllllllll waiting - do you have an answer as to why you even posted this?

 

Hm. I have a simply fine idea. Want a free scanner?

[bw]

Patrick, You've really put a cat among the pigeons ;)

[andre_mcnichols]

It may not be relevant to this particular forum but it's a fun reading! I have no definition of art and I don't pretend to be an artist. What I know however is that bird photography is a lot of hard work. If someone buys expensive equipment and spends countless hours using that expensive equipment to spy on birds in the hope of getting the perfect shot they have every reason to be proud when they finally get the shot they wanted. I don't know if bird photography can be called art but it's certainly extreme sport!