Do photo.net users have a very conservative attitude towards art?

jtk · August 16, 2009

"Abstract" isn't "modern" or somehow the opposite of "conservative."

IMO the most "conservative" stuff here involves obsession with blank-complected wannabe fashion models.

"... all they wanted from me was some assurance that the course would prepare them for a job." - Michael L.

Sounds like those inferior young beings wanted their teacher to lower himself to their miserable level.

Why was it so difficult for the "philosophy teacher" to demonstrate value in a vocational context?

There is no such thing as "philosophy in general" or such a thing as "art in general." Neither phrase even hints at a concept.

william l. palminteri · August 16, 2009

William, I have brought up and discussed texture in many of these threads. I find it an incredibly significant aesthetic aspect of photographs.

</blockquote>

Fred, you and maybe three other people actually discuss anything beyond what lens to use to photographe that texture, and if it's better to use a Nikon or Canon camera, then it gets right downto how to 'photoshop' it to make it look 'better' than Mother Nature intended.

Texture sure is an important component, but what I'm talking about here are the basic-basic fundamentals of placing one object in a frame, composing it within the frame, lighting it and photographing it to produce something more appealing than a snapshot done by your neighbor's kid, then placing a second object in the frame, rearranging both objects to be relevant to one another within the frame, etc.

It takes years to develop these fundamental, basic, elemental techniques to the point where they become instinct.

Bill P.

reza motaghedi · August 16, 2009

Patrick are you sure you are the only one here that knows about lighting, composition, form, color theory and those rules that you are talking about?

Rules are tools, they help you to get better photos but they should not limit you

And with respect to your other comment:

We live in an atmosphere of self important, self engrandized people who are so blinded by their own egos that they can't see their own faces for their nose. They can complain all day long that their images get low ratings or that they can't sell them or that not enough people like them

</blockquote>

"If I was concerned about being accepted, I would have been doing Ansel Adams lookalikes, because that was easily accepted. Everything I did was never accepted...but luckily for me, my interest in the subject and my passion for the subject took me to the point that I wasn't wounded by that, and eventually, people came around to me" Duane Michals 1966

iliafarniev · August 16, 2009

Basic woes and lamentations? Blame it all on society in general or individual shortcommings in audience? Why.

You artist - You do it!

Bean counters got it no better after all.

jtk · August 16, 2009

This, from Ilia's profile: "Let us also mention the personal development and possibilities of human communication. "

By contrast to Ilia's intelligent openness, most of the posts on this thread assert the superiority of the poster to the unenlightened masses.

That includes the OT, of course: Little is more "conservative" than to claim one is apart from the masses by virtue of "artistic" "rules."

reza motaghedi · August 17, 2009

That includes the OT, of course: Little is more "conservative" than to claim one is apart from the masses by virtue of "artistic" "rules."

</blockquote>

Photography is a profession similar to other professions. In medicine or accounting if you claim one method is better than others it doesn't mean you are humilliating others or they are inferior masses. But I don't know why some people think photography should be an exception. There are people here who want to block any exchange of idea on basis that it is patronizing or not politically correct or it is generalization or some people may get offended. That is why you do not see many threads in philosophy of photography forum. To be honest I don't see any reason to do self-censorship and I will post more threads like this.

Wouter Willemse · August 17, 2009

Wow... following the topic start, an abstract picture can be art, but a landscape cannot? And we're all visually illiterates, and once we dó see, we catch up to Modernism? If you happen to like pictures of landscapes, animals, people, your taste in art is conservative? Great artists do something completely different from others, and that makes them great? Any more assumptions, anyone?

"I like pretty pictures."

</blockquote>

The most sensible remark so far.

Please don't attempt what is art and what not, what is the proper development in art appreciation, if it requires originality or skill, and whether the majority can or cannot see "beyond pictures of flowers". I happen to love landscape pictures. I also love early medieval art and late romantic music - oh, no! those are not modernisms!! But it's not a "conservative taste" either, is it?

So interesting discussion, started from the wrong angle. Let's rephrase: could it be that people like landscapes, flowers and wildlife more than abstracts because they recognise the photographer's skill better in the former, rather than the latter? And because the former does not need interpretation, while the latter more or less asks for it, leaving those pictures more a puzzle to the intent of the photographer, while most people associate photography with a link back to reality? And that none of these considerations have to do anything with a taste in art in any shape or form?

luis_g · August 17, 2009

Wouter misquoted me with: "And we're all visually illiterates..."

Be careful when quoting, please. I typed: "Most people are visual illiterates..."

There's a vast difference between your version and mine.

Read the reviews on PN sometime. You'll see what I mean. People can't describe what they see, or what it is they feel about it, let alone why.

Wouter also misquoted me on this: "...once we dó see, we catch up to Modernism?"

In reality, I typed: "Those with a little education are catching up to Modernism."

...and I never typed a word about landscapes vs. abstracts, thank you.

What great artists do is produce art that is unforgettable, but not always readily understood. Look at photo- history and you will see that many of the most famous photographers that ever lived were initially maligned/condemned as hacks, or worse, by the public and most critics, too.

We seem to be at least partially genetically hard-wired to like landscapes, valleys with streams running through them, animals, grassy plains, physical beauty, etc. They're natural patterns that ensure our survival as individual and a species. And it goes beyond that, to the Golden Mean, Fibonacci series, musical harmonics, even animal husbandry. And we also learn patterns that we find beautiful, interesting, sensuous, parallel to the organs of perception and more.

Don't kid yourself: Practitioners, experts, & the educated, in any field, be it the PC industry, RC planes, physics, philosophy, religion, photography, etc, all breathe rare air.

BTW, abstractions (and art in general) are not necessarily puzzles with one solution, but perhaps open-ended to a plurality of interpretations.

steve_swinehart · August 17, 2009

I was looking at the top rated photos and noticed a trend which was majority of photos classified as bird photography, landscape, nude and nature had a very high ratings but abstract photos had lower rating. Similarly any photos which looked classical had higher rating compared to those which were on modern side.

</blockquote>

For the most part, the Critique forum is about producing photographs that are readily and easily recognized as being a "good" photograph because they emulate images that have been deemed good in the past. If you secretly posted a photograph by someone like William Eggelston, Stephen Shore or Lee Friedlander they'd probably get low marks too as their photographs are not about easily recognized, conventional subjects and composition.

In this country (you can figure out where I live, I'm sure) educational institutions, generally speaking, are no longer concerned with traditional liberal arts education, preferring instead to offer vocational training, so fewer and fewer people each year develop the ability to tackle complex concepts like art.

</blockquote>

To blame this and lament that this is due to public education or because people want skills to get a job is a real stretch. That's the easy answer as it eliminates personal responsibility. Self education is still possible and if you're really interested in any subject you can easily avail yourself of the public library or any of the number of websites selling books.

Can we conclude that photo.net users are very conservative in terms of art and even when they like something modern it is a sort of cliche modern?

</blockquote>

Using the Critique forum alone as a basis for your assumption and to make such a sweeping generalization isn't a valid. If you participate in the Philosophy forum for any length of time you will find out that there are people who think about art and photography and are very articulate in their points of view. You will also find people with art backgrounds that can discuss any type of art you'd like to discuss.

I find that most photographers have little to no artistic training and are typically consumed by the 'magic' of the perfect lens that would give them that award winning photo.

</blockquote>

Then you must not associate with creative photographers - as the ones I know have art backgrounds and many have MFA's. We don't discuss lenses or equipment as, for the most part, that's not germaine to the work itself.

So interesting discussion, started from the wrong angle. Let's rephrase: could it be that people like landscapes, flowers and wildlife more than abstracts because they recognise the photographer's skill better in the former, rather than the latter? And because the former does not need interpretation, while the latter more or less asks for it, leaving those pictures more a puzzle to the intent of the photographer, while most people associate photography with a link back to reality? And that none of these considerations have to do anything with a taste in art in any shape or form?

</blockquote>

For the most part I would agree with this idea - but, if you go to large format photography sites you will find people who like Brett Weston. However, I find it interesting that while they readily discuss Brett Weston they never mention Aaron Siskind. Both being photographers who produced black and white abstract photographs. So I'm unsure whether they're appreciating Weston for his work or craftsmanship.

randall ellis · August 17, 2009

To blame this and lament that this is due to public education or because people want skills to get a job is a real stretch.

</blockquote>

I've worked in education for over 20 years and I have to disagree with you here. If you can show me that indeed modern education does teach students to be critical thinkers, to do more than regurgitate rote concepts verbatim for standardized tests, and has not eliminated large numbers of classical degree programs in favor of vocational training 'degrees' I would be happy to review your sources.

That's the easy answer as it eliminates personal responsibility. Self education is still possible and if you're really interested in any subject you can easily avail yourself of the public library or any of the number of websites selling books.

</blockquote>

Personal responsibility seems a popular catchphrase these days... I agree generally with your statement that a person can further their own education through self study, but only to a certain degree. Without the ability to debate ideas with others who are open minded enough to be able to think critically, thereby introducing previously unconsidered concepts and viewpoints, a persons ability to expand their understanding is limited by their own experiences, their own point of view. We need the ability to see through the eyes of others in order to expand our own vision.

And, while I also agree that one cannot blame society as a whole for the condition of any given individual, that is not what I was trying to say in the statement you quoted. I have personally seen very few students graduating from public schools, or private for that matter as I've worked in both settings, who can effectively debate ideas at any level. The Chronicle for Higher Education is replete with examples of this, and it comes up regularly in many scholarly publications as well. The onus is certainly on the student to get what is available from any given education, but they can only learn with the skills that they are given. If we do not give them the skills required to advance themselves, how can we blame them for their resulting condition? If we do not challenge them to develop the desire to further their own education, how can we expect them to do so?

- Randy

sobeystudio · August 17, 2009

Reza-

I think "conservative" is a strong word for what really is an issue of being comfortable and understanding of art in its many various forms. To understand a lot of what constitutes abstract art requires quite a bit of historical knowledge, along with art history knowledge and technical knowledge as well. Most of what is considered art here on PN isn't what is considered art in the art world, however strange that may sound. There has to be context and this forum is very difficult to get that across. Also, just because something is abstract, doesn't mean it's art. That may sound a bit strange coming from me, an abstract artist, but its true. Its got to have a basis, structure that supports the abstract nature. That being said, most people hear just don't have the background to appreciate abstract photography in the same way you may, but they aren't conservative necessarily. Secondly, you should be more careful in your use of words, especially considering the topic- "modern" is a BIG word in the art world and you just throw it around like you know something. Next time use the word contemporary.

jtk · August 17, 2009

Again, this thread is mostly about how much superior one group imagines it is to other groups.

Formal training in "art" abounds, but isn't common among fine photographers...and it doesn't necessarily make them superior to other photographers..just different, sometimes more boring. Photography does encourage self-education.

"Composition," "texture," and awareness of graphic design have little to do with photographic merit...they're easy, not necessary, nothing more than "conservative" standards unless there's more to see.

++++++++++++

The above doesn't apply to Steve S, who wrote:

"I find it interesting that while they readily discuss Brett Weston they never mention Aaron Siskind."

Yes....probably because Siskind, if known at all, is known for what superficially appears to be extreme austerity (as is Avedon, in his way). Weston's work is easier to appreciate. To me they're equals, though Weston's prints are compelling as objects, perhaps because they seem more "antique.". Most photographers that know Siskind's name think of tattered posters on walls, peeling paint...perhaps unaware of his more-easily-appreciated work...and they may be afraid of his politics or, as likely, may be uneducated because they've studied slices of his "art" rather than the photographer.

jtk · August 17, 2009

...the "antiques" I was thinking are the old man's work. The son's work is fine enough, but I don't recall much of it. There's nothing wrong with a son following in his father's footsteps... but I don't think Edward Weston followed in his own footsteps...he went in new directions.

Did Brett have as much life as his father did ? Poets? Dancers? Revolutionaries? Putain?

kludge · August 17, 2009

First, don't conflate "abstract" with "modern", or "modern" with "edgy". They're not the same things at all. Abstract art has actually become a pretty conservative form, because it can decorate without making strong emotional/social statements - see the lobby of any hotel for examples. Art can be realistic and still edgy, or abstract and conservative.

Second, photography as a medium lends itself to realism, moreso than painting or mixed-media. Painters strive for the realism that comes naturally to photos, and photographers (sometimes) strive for the imagery of painting. Much "modernist" thought in visual arts comes from painting and mixed-media, which have fundamentally different strengths and limitations from photography. So a bent towards more realistic-representational and less modern-abstract makes total sense in the photography world. And since this site consists of photographers commenting on other photographer's work, their own tastes come into play. Imagine a paint.net, and you'd see abstracts doing well, and realism doing poorly in the eyes of peers.

Here's where loaded language comes into the game... this thread conflates "realistic" with "conservative", and "abstract" with "edgy". That's simply not the case.

And finally, consider that the response to art happens in (at least) two dimensions - emotional and intellectual. The "modern" folks make the elitist mistake that being hard to understand means it's better art. Nonsense. The traditionalists, on the other hand, are prone to indulging in emotional junk food. Kittens, smiling babies, barns by the pond in the sunset, topless anorexic chicks - these get an immediate reaction, but rarely more than sentimentalism or animal grunting. Art is not and should not be a choice between sneering and sappy.

When I see a photograph, I want to FEEL something, something more than base lust or comfort. And I want to THINK, something more than proving I read some movement's manifesto. Artists that can do that matter to me. The rest? Bleh.

AndyMiller · August 18, 2009

"I take photographs of what I like- if someone else likes them - That's a bonus".

This has been my signature statement for many years. Art, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder and for me, Photo.Net is a reflection of the many diverse people and cultures from around the globe who make up its membership. I have been happily snapping away for 55 years and I have no deadlines to meet, no clients to satisfy apart from myself. Yes, I am also a bit of a "gearhead" - I use what for me are the best tools - Nikon D3; D700 and an IR converted D100 plus numerous Nikkors. Why? because I have been using Nikons for over 30 years and am comfortable with them. I also use a Top of the range Apple Mac and 26 inch screens, Photoshop CS4 and an Intuos Tablet to edit my pictures. My pictures here get very little viewing, and from the statistics have never been rated - I don't know how to get them rated and I'm not really bothered. I think I have about four comments on them, and one of them is from a friend. These pictures represent "MY ART" and whether it's Classical or something else - does it matter as long as through sites like this I'm able to share with others? I know some of my pictures are far from Classical and may be thought way over the top. So What? They are mine. For me, one of the greatest gifts a photographer can possess is to "See beyond the image" - what do I mean? I mean to look at scene of object and draw out of it something intangible through recording or manipulating the resultant photograph that stirs the viewer and makes him or her think about what they are looking at or see it in a new light.

I wish that more people would take pictures of what they like and regard any comments or praise as a bonus. Photography is an art form in itself, but nothing kills it faster than a technically perfect shot without a soul.

Wouter Willemse · August 18, 2009

Luis G, my apologies for misquoting, I was overstating some points (on purpose) and it is unfair to "almost quote" indeed since it's too much aimed at one person. Which was not the intention at all, I just disliked the overal tone of the discussion from the topic start on. So nothing personal, my sincere apologies if it did seem like that.

Also for raising the impression that abstract pictures might have one closed possible outcome - not what I intended. It was more an idea as to why people have more difficulties liking those, because they require more effort from the viewer.

The angle that education and educating minds to be critical has something to do with it - I don't believe so. Up to some 60 years ago, critical minds were not wanted at all in schools and universities, since churches dominated the education. With the "liberation" from that, the 60s and 70s should have brought on a great deal of curious and sharp minds. But I can't really say it is the case (although I can be considered too young to really judge it). At least, I see no proof.

I do think the easy access to nearly any type of information (mass media) has induced a certain mental laziness. TV, internet especially - you don't need imagination or an original mind to gain insights, it is already there for the taking. Ready to be repeated, rather than as a spark for new thoughts. Which is, I think, the main reason people rate abstract pictures lower - they require effort and a lot of people are not used to photos that require effort (photography being a medium that is very much associated with "what you see", not "what you think you might see").

Even with that notion, I still do not believe this is the sole reason of what was originally discussed here regarding conservative taste in arts. Those with genuine interesting insights regarding arts (or visual media, design and so on) are rare. In that respect, I have to agree with the remark that practitioners, experts, & the educated, in any field, breathe rare air. It does sound more snobbish than I like, but I'll live with that. In a way, this very forum is proof of it - not nearly as crowded as the "technology forums". But anyway, it makes the number of people who will and can see things in abstract photos less numerous, and the few then who will look at them will tend to be quite critical - so lower ratings. I still would not want to link this to "taste in art in general", though.

tonmestrom · August 18, 2009

Photography is an art form in itself, but nothing kills it faster than a technically perfect shot without a soul.

</blockquote>

These however aren't mutually exlusive. First and foremost photography is a craft and every artist who is worth his or her salt makes sure they know their craft. As for the rest sure, doing what you like is paramount but every artist seeks recognition. If not, why pester other people with what you produce?

Photography isn't elitist, nor is art. Nor is having studied art, reversing such an argument notwhitstanding. That's why I don't believe this to be true:

"Again, this thread is mostly about how much superior one group imagines it is to other groups"

It's merely what one wants to read into it.

luis_g · August 18, 2009

Ton Mestrom typed:

"That's why I don't believe this to be true: "Again, this thread is mostly about how much superior one group imagines it is to other groups"

It's merely what one wants to read into it."

....how one projects his own consciousness onto others.

tonmestrom · August 18, 2009

is it?

luis_g · August 18, 2009

I meant to preface that with "or...". The point is that the same person said it twice in this one thread, and has said the same exact thing several times in others. A repeating thing like that usually has more to do with the world-view of the person doing the finger-pointing than anything else. In case you hadn't noticed, attributing base motivations to others is also a time-honored PN mode of ad hominem attack (even the moderators do it).

Like you, I don't believe the accusation you quoted to be true.

tonmestrom · August 18, 2009

Thanks Luis for clarifying because I wasn't sure how to interpret your comment. Asking never hurts.

patrick j dempsey · August 18, 2009

Reza, I certainly don't think I'm alone! And I don't view an art education as a series of "rules" to be followed. That is exactly one of the misconceptions that I'm talking about. People who's art education comes from casual glaces at art forums or from casual conversations with trained artists get this nutty idea that the "rule of thirds" is actually a Rule. Heck, there are even people who went to "good" schools who come out clinging to that idea! What an art education should teach, whether bought from a large institution, or gleaned from well-written Library books for free, is that creating art is fundamentally an experiment in human psychology and that there is a long an established history of how humans react to certain images. One can choose to ignore that history and attempt to forge new ground, but I honestly don't feel like humans have changed that much in 5000 years and at the end of the day, after all of that work in forging new ground, one looks back to discover that he has simply reinvented ground covered long ago and far away. Subjects may change, but some of the basics have been around since the beginning. If that is a conservative view, then mark me up me up in the conservative camp, and place all of the assertions that come along with it on me for all I care.

Does that make trained artists "superior" to non-trained artists? Well, I suppose for people who spend their whole lives worrying about superiority, then there is always going to be something threatening to compare themselves to. The current social trend seems to be that people not trained in art are often very vocal in asserting the idea that trained artists are sell-outs, elitists, snobs, or are generally oppressing them. Sure there are snobs and elitists in the art community... and there are snobs and elitests at punk shows and tractor pulls too. There are snobs and elitists in every walk of life, from the richest to the poorest.

william l. palminteri · August 19, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=408763">Randall Ellis</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 15, 2009; 04:45 p.m.

In this country (you can figure out where I live, I'm sure) educational institutions, generally speaking, are no longer concerned with traditional liberal arts education, preferring instead to offer vocational training, so fewer and fewer people each year develop the ability to tackle complex concepts like art.

</blockquote>

Randy, the trend I see here in America is that with budget cutbacks in the local school systems across the country, the music and art programs are the first to go, usually without so much as a whimper.

But don't even THINK about cutting back on that uniform budget for the football team !

Boolah Boolah, Uggah Uggah, Push 'em back, Push 'em back , Waaaaaay back !

Bill P.

william l. palminteri · August 19, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3937630">Ton Mestrom</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 15, 2009; 08:10 a.m. As far as the aesthetics of light, form, composition and such are concerned that requires some basic knowledge and understanding and given the variety of people here I'm not sure everyone here has that to the same degree or may even be remotely interested in discussing that.

</blockquote>

Ton, you're too kind ! From what I can see, there's not even a forum here to discuss anything remotely concerned with the fundamentals of graphic art.

There are lots of top notch photographers on this site who´s work you´ll never find there simply because they don´t enter the rating game....

I don't enter "Photo contests" either. The thought of some self-righteous twenty-five year old kid telling me what's what is just, well, let's just say........

Bill P.

reza motaghedi · August 19, 2009

At the end of the day, this is all a semantic debate. Nobody can give criteria that a style of photography is better than others. But certainly, like it or not, everything around us is subject to the rule of supply and demand. Although there are certain rules that create certain psychological effects. Relation between lines, spots and surfaces in a frame whether they are straight, oblique or curved, their location and relation to each other may give you a sense of stability calmnes or excitement unpredictability,or unstability and so on and so forth. But even a very effective photo in any sense, if taken over and over and over for millions of times, it would lose its popularity and value. It would just be a copy paste of someone else work. It may look beautiful to someone who has not seen many photos. But those who have seen a bit more have a right to say that this photo is not original or not as good as a photo which is strong AND original.

Sign In

Do photo.net users have a very conservative attitude towards art?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in