Can you tell?

[john_macpherson]

"There are three categories of photographers in my opinion amateurs taking snapshots, professional commercial photographers and lastly artists."

 

....and the interesting thing is Jennifer that one person can be all of these, in the one day, believe it or not, and depending on their ability they could do it all with a digital compact camera.

 

THAT'S the wonder of photography, and it's got nothing at all to do with degrees, universities, and established theories.

 

But it's got everything to do with inspiration, imagination and application.....but hey YMMV

[gatorgums]

The professional photographer is more lucky than the amateur...

[saskphotog]

You can't tell.

 

Way too many undefined terms and irrelevant tests make the question meaningless.

[jgalyon]

Ellis Vener, Jun 19, 2007; 01:27 p.m.

 

A really good world class graphic designer once told me "Everyone can take one great photograph. A talented professional's real trick that does is doing it repeatedly, even when under pressure."

 

A great quote Ellis. From time to time I've offered a word of caution to members who openly state they are "newbies", because by stating such they automatically prejudice large numbers of photographers who whether consciously or subconsciously put up a mental block to the very concept that a novice could produce a photograph of value. Of course I believe that skewed perspective comes in degrees. A hypothetical viewer might(for instance) give the newbie a 6/6...but a 7/7 might be garnered by the same photo if produced by a photographer that is recognized as a well respected professional. It reminds me of how people often view luxury automobiles. If it's a BMW...most people consider it not just desirable because of it's overall quality, but because of it's aesthetic beauty. IMO some BMWs are beautiful autos...some aren't. If we didn't know it was a BMW...and placed a Ford emblem on it...would we still see it as beautiful? Too often we see things as beautiful because there is a consensus that tells us it is so. I believe it is a phenomenon that is common with the novice and the professional alike. hope this made sense and has some relevancy to the topic...for it is extremely late and my coherency is slipping...

[jennifer_durand]

Don't be fooled......a newbie to Photonet doesn't automatically mean they are new to

photography.

 

I found an interesting quote too which you may want to comment on :

?Amateur photographer?s clubs are places where one gets high on the structural complexities

of cameras?they produce more and more redundant images?their actions are automatic

camera functions.?

[al_kaplan1]

There's more to it than just the talent involved in getting an image into the camera on whatever storage method chosen, film or digital. Artists to me are those people who want to present "a work of art", a finished work. With photography that would be a framed print. Galleries and museums don't display negatives and CD's, nor do people want to buy them to hang on the wall.

 

The process isn't complete until the artist is satisfied with the finished work.

[jgalyon]

Good point Jennifer.

[john_macpherson]

Jennifer, with respect, your quote is complete nonsense. Source?

 

If you believe it's true then I guess you'll believe it applies to Photonet, which I suppose would qualify as an 'amateur photographer's club'.

 

Is that what you are implying?

[jennifer_durand]

John Mac Pherson

 

This passage comes from Vilem Flusser's book Towards a Philosophy of Photography

pp 58. I would be interested in comments from forum members on this subject.

[john_macpherson]

Still nonsense I'm afraid.

 

Do you agree with this quote?

[jennifer_durand]

The book is interesting and some of what Flusser says makes sense. Only time and history

will tell what becomes accepted. When someone like Flusser makes these contentious

statements he is IMO trying to start a debate where people do examine their motives and

practices in photography.

 

I thought, this being a philosophy forum, people would want to discuss comments like this.

[jgalyon]

unfortunately some too many people come here to try to "one up" anything anyone says. lots of egotistical so-called photographers who many times never post a photo but use this site as a platform by which to tell everyone else that they don't have talent, skill, or taste...and to attempt to prove that they (the eggheads) are the most intelligent people in the room. saying this...i'm sure they will be flushed out like roaches when the lights come on...and we'll get an ear full. so what...i've heard it so many times before.

[john_macpherson]

Interested if you would consider these images the work of an 'artist', or a 'relatively talented amateur' ? (They are all by the same person)<div></div>

[john_macpherson]

And this<div></div>

[john_macpherson]

And this one<div></div>

[jennifer_durand]

The above images do not have titles, dates or credits. Unless one knows the source one

cannot tell if this was made as art or not. There are a number of photographers (artists)

who

have worked in this way. There are many amateur photographers who do the same. Who is

to

tell?

 

"Still nonsense I'm afraid".

 

Vilem Flusser is a well known writer on photography. You could say you disagree and say

why you disagree. Many of us would be interested in your full considered reply.

[john_macpherson]

They have titles.

 

What difference would a date make?

 

Or indeed a credit.

 

It seems that unless you know the source you are incapable of making any kind of value judgment? How odd.

 

What difference would it make to the work, and your consideration of it, if it was (quote) "made as art".

 

 

Is it really a matter of 'intent', and, irrespective of the outcome, primarily a matter of whether the intent is to 'be an artist' that determines whether it's good or not? Hmm.

 

Nice sidestep.

 

"Still nonsense I'm afraid" ?

 

"Many of us would be interested" ? Plural? Wow, I'm flattered - are you some kind of amateur photographer's club? :-)

[john_macpherson]

Why do I think the Flusser quote is nonsense?

 

Because as you say "Vilem Flusser is a well known writer on photography". But he's not, so far as I'm aware (and could be completely wrong), a photographer - and that's important.

 

I disagree with Flussers stance towards the value of 'amateur' imagery, and his apparent disdain for "snapshots". As you previously noted "Only time and history will tell what becomes accepted", and it's been my experience that so-called 'snapshots' can have huge historical value. Free, for the most part, from artifice and in many ways 'honest' and unpretentious they can provide great insight into people's lives and can tell us a lot about our recent social history.

 

These so-called 'redundant' images have value, at least to the makers, and in the longer term, perhaps even greater social/historical value to wider society. I guess the point I'm making is that work undertaken without 'intention' can be as valuable as any documentary/journalistic/experimental work.

 

Whether or not these images attain the status of art/documentary is another matter altogether.

 

But as these observations are being written by someone with no formal training in creative/philosophical/experimental writing I guess I'll just have to come to terms with simply being an idolator.....

[mark_satola1]

For every "Lee Friedlander, Alexander Rodchenko, Paul Strand, Ansel Adams, William

Eggleston," there is a corresponding legion of hacks who managed to trudge their way

through to the completion of a university program. If you have the sort of talent found in

those artists that Ms Durand has cited, a fine arts education can only enhance it; it cannot

confer talent and vision upon someone who doesn't already possess it. But I believe that

talent and vision can thrive without the presence of a higher degree. This is not to say that

a lack of formal education equates with a lack of a thoroughgoing knowledge of the

history and theory of one's field.

 

It's rather like the Cowardly Lion in "The Wizard of Oz," whose courage was plainly proven,

but who only lacked a "Testimonial."

[snakecharmer]

No...unless the look of the photo is so fresh and unpretentious that you could never imagine it hanging on the wall of any place you have ever visited. Sometimes that can give me a strong hunch.

But I can generally tell if an amateur has an extraordinary amount of potential. For instance, I saw a photo of a cobweb today on pnet. It was really a pretty bad photo, but I could see that the photographer was experimenting and learning by the fact that a fast shutter speed was used to darken the background, while flash was used to illuminate the cobweb. On a lark, I viewed the person's portfolio. Only one other photo, but the lighting was spot-on and the composition rather nice.

[saskphotog]

So, Jenny, if I managed to find a couple of photographs in my collection that had whatever you have decided is "spot-on" exposure and rather nice composition, you would conclude I have an extraordinary amount of potential?

 

Really? Couldn't anyone who has shot a couple of thousand images find such shots? And exactly what is "spot-on exposure" and "rather nice composition"?

 

As I said before here, way too many undefined terms for any meaningful resolution of the question.

[jtk]

Larry, nice onions. Spot-on :-)

[jennifer_durand]

Judging photographs on the web is difficult and I'm not sure one can really say how

experienced or good a photographer is from what is on Photonet and other sites. Blurr and

soft focus is recognised as a legitimate way of dealing with images as is scratching

negatives

and using filters and vaseline on the lens etc. One cannot tell what the photographer had

in

mind when they took the photograph.

 

The obvious clues such as good composition, lighting and using the rule of thirds is not

reliable benchmarks for experience or lack of experience either as so many photographers

bend the rules, use flat lighting and put the horizon line in the centre of the image.

 

One may look at the less obvious such as no subject not defined, skew horizon

lines or anything that jars ones sensibilities. Even that's not a dead cert.

[john_macpherson]

Jennifer: in another thread you said...

 

"Should we be so naive as to believe everything we see in photographs? Should we just acknowledge the photograph as a "nice picture" and enjoy it at face value, nothing more."

 

and in this thread:

 

"The obvious clues such as good composition, lighting and using the rule of thirds is not reliable benchmarks for experience or lack of experience either as so many photographers bend the rules"

 

So back to the three images I posted earlier. I am genuinely interested in you bringing that critical eye to bear on these images, and your consideration of them. I'll happily share the details, but I am interested in your opinion first. It may take this discussion in a slightly different but (IMHO) equally valid direction, that I'm interested to hear comments/experience/observations on. And no, it's not any kind of unfair set-up to make you squirm.

[jennifer_durand]

John MacPherson the question in this thread reads "How can you tell that a photo was

taken by an artist, and not by a relatively talented amateur?"

 

My simple answer to this is you can't.

 

There is no point goading me into saying whether an artist or a relative amateur has made

the images above. I have said before one needs to know if the image was made by an

artist for the purpose of art it is then art. If the images were made by an amateur or taken

by an artist but not meant to be art then it is not art.

 

Without knowing the background to these images one cannot say what these images

represent. Artists and professional photographers take good and bad photographs and so

do amateurs.