Graffiti on Trains #52

To see more of my photos of "Graffiti on Trains " Go to

http://robvalineimages.com/-/robvalineimages/gallery.asp?cat=57210

 

Comments Welcome.

Without the graffiti it would be a very uninteresting shot. So the graffiti is the subject. But the graffiti is someone else's creativity (I hope) and criminal act and all you are doing is recording it and publicising it. I don't see anything of your vision or interpretation here.

Well Ken, If you don't see anything of my interpretation, maybe you didn't look hard enough. Perhaps you should have taken the time to click on the link and view my web gallery. As they say, Seek and Ye shall find. This is what is posted on my web site about the graffiti photos in my gallery.

 

These are shots of Graffiti on Trains (Railroad Cars). Although I don't support vandalism of any kind, you have to admit that whether you love it or hate it, that this is a form of self expression and therefore an art form and some of these are actually pretty cool. One of the things I like about Graffiti is that it is art for arts sake. The people who did these more than likely didn't reap any rewards for what they did and didn't expect to. They did it for the shear joy of creating art or being creative. Sort of like when cave men started painting in caves.

Rob,

 

I agree the art is attractive.

 

My point is that the art is not yours and all you are doing is recording someone else's work without applying any 'art' of your own (in this shot - I haven't checked the rest of your portfolio yet). A giant photocopier could have made this image (well, you know what I mean!).

 

There's a moral question about whether by publicising graffiti art you are encouraging others to go and do likewise (although perhaps not nearly so well), but you seem to have answered that one for yourself, to your own satisfaction. I suspect that the owners of graffiti'd railroad cars may not agree with your conclusion, though!

 

As to the motivation of graffiti artists I'll leave that question to sociologists (and other 'ist' professions). I rather think some of it may be about perceived self-esteem, but that's just my personal semi-raw thought.

 

(added later)

 

I've now looked at your website, and I have to say that all the shots I've seen are straightforward 'recordings', where you have added little vision in the photographic process. It's as if I wandered around an art gallery and taken square-on shots of art hanging on the walls, then presented them here asking for feedback.

 

What's more much of the graffiti you've recorded is plain old tagging with quite a low degree of creativity.

 

Oh well - you did ask for comments!

well... i guess the train is somebody's else creativity too:):):)...b.

Well Ken, I have to disagree with you. First of all you have an awful lot to say for a guy who has a whopping total of 18 photos in his portfolio. Did you know that I have over 1500 on my web site ? Anyway, Aside from that. I'm not the only photographer who shoots graffiti or trains. A photographer's job is to record what he or she sees. If a photographer photographs a murderer, It doesn't mean he or she committed a crime. I photograph graffiti on trains in the most artistic way possible. I use a Contax G2 rangefinder camera which is the most advanced rangefinder camera on the planet. It uses Zeiss lenses which are razor sharp. The rangefinder design has no mirror in the body. This allows the lens to be closer to the film providing much sharper images than an SLR. I also use Fuji slide film. Usually Provia 100F for fine grain or Velvia 50 for maximum saturation of colors. I use a Nikon Coolscan V ED to scan and adjust the images and photoshop Elements 2.0 to size the images for the Internet. I use a Slik Sprint Pro tripod to insure a stable sharp image. If you fail to see the professional experience that I've shown in recording these images, maybe it's because of your own lack of experience and professionalism. Quite frankly, you sound like a jealous amateur. I guess you have a right to express your opinion, even it is off target.

"A photographer's job is to record what he or she sees."

 

That's where we part company. For me the art of photography is interpreting what you see, not recording it. Recording is the job of an archivist.

 

I have recorded plenty of art - one of my jobs is photographing art for inclusion in gallery catalogues, but I wouldn't dream of posting them here as my own work - and I consider doing that as recording, not photography.

I try not to leave a comment in someone's portfolio unless I have something constructive to offer or I think their work is particularly good. That's just me. I can see that there are people on photo.net that will leave positive or negative comments whether they are constructive or not. That's because absolutely anyone can become a photo.net member if they're willing to pay the 25.00 fee. There's no qualifications. I mean you don't have to own an art gallery or be an expert to be a member or to give critique. On the other hand there are many professionals on this site as well. So, It's a mixed bag. You never know what people are going to say. You do have a right to your opinion and I have a right to mine. One thing I've learned over the years in photography is this, 10 people can look at a scene and see 10 different things and if they're photographers, they would most likely be more than willing to argue about it.

Ken, It can also be said that the landscapes you photographed in your portfolio are God's creativity. You merely recorded it. You're not the artist.

"It can also be said that the landscapes you photographed in your portfolio are God's creativity."

 

Only if I believe in God!

 

Let's agree to disagree. Best wishes.

Tell it to the Munn, who is a know-best. Nearly all the "critiques" he gives are a diss of the photographer. He even dissed Ernst Landgrebe. Every point you made to him is right on. Nice shot here and a good composition! By the way, if you get bored with any of your photographic equipment, please do let me know. :)

 

Regards, Maria