iron shore gallery

I've got to wonder why, if you have "no intention of going professional," would you be "concerned that my photos will be copied and submitted for sale by someone?" Where is the damage?

I decided on white matting and a simple frame in this show Im in that is still hanging. Any opinions? http://www.smallaprojects.com/everypicture/haanel.html<div></div>

I agree with Dan... plus leveling, then cropping off the white.

Well there was Picasso? His influence could not be more profound, and far reaching.

 

Jackson Pollack's influence on the visual arts, and the persona of artists has been massive.

To my way of thinking, knowing why artists from the past are important, and why "people" believe certain objects are are seen as beautiful, and what beautiful means is crucial to making art.

 

I think that you can only get this knowledge, get "turned on" to Art, by other people. Art, photography, painting, sculpture, architecture, are languages, like music, or poetry... opera.

$40.00 an image. Don't think about time stuff, or "creative costs." Best to keep in simple. If they like your work, and want more it could be very lucrative at that rate. And if you get that first job, I'd suggest that you go out to the site several times to get different lighting... and look to get your photos when the houses are looking their very best, because if the houses sell in a timely way, then they will want you back.

My comment in this fine discussion would be that Art and aesthetics are two different animals. I have a keen sense of aesthetics (I believe). And I try to convey this in my work. But only time will tell if what I'm producing is Art. What isn't Art gets tossed out sooner or later.

Dan, my two cents in this conversation is that yes, you are a point and shooter. You become an artist when you are experienced... like Jimmy Hendricks said.

 

In these times when many were brought up with constant praise and pats on the head, and everyone is a winner, "what IS Art" has become a confused definition. If you want your point and shooting to become "Art," then you must know the history of what has gone before you, and what is going on NOW, and then add something.

>Outsider suggests a toothless rural type with calloused hands who has been working in isolation until discovered, maybe by some visual arts version of Alan Lomax (who 'discovered' many important blues musicians and brought their work to the Library of Congress).<

 

That's not what "outsider art" means. An outsider artist is someone who makes art without having been schooled, and who do not recognize their creations as art. "Outsider art" has no comparison at all with Indie music.

 

> The art school and museum/gallery establishment represents to me a money-making cluster dedicated to grooming rich patrons. <

 

And where would the world be with out rich art patrons? The Medici's, the Phillips, the folks at the Whitney, HBO? Your museum/gallery/patrons cabal is no different than the NBA or IBM. Get in there! Compete! Here come the Chinese, the Indians, and those darn Russian collectors.

Larry, I agree that everything exists in the now. And I enjoy and love photography, the history of photography, and making photographs.

 

Saying that "time is tearing away at the now," is my feeble attempt at being poetic.

 

>That sounds terribly gloomy. I don't see it that way at all. How can time tear away at the now when the now is the only time that ever exists? Everything else, past or future, is just imaginary.<

 

I agree. And when we are contemplating a photograph, we are gazing at a document about an event that happened in the past. There is an immediate nostalgic flavor about most photographs. The image pulls us back into the past. A time when the now was back then.

I suppose from now on, since digital photography and massive hard drives, everything that everyone does will be documented, and saved on hard drives somewhere. Our tracks and submissions here on PN may be read by eager students a hundred years from now, reorganizing the early days of the "everything is saved" era?

 

But when I was a boy, photography wasn't an Art form. It was a craft. Only family would take the time to look at old photos. There were photos in history books and the magazines. But few people saw aesthetic value there. They were historical documents.

 

The "craft" aspect of photography still lurks behind many arguments On Photography. Film versus digital. Documentary versus "artsy" photography, and what "tools" are "allowed" when using PhotoShop.

 

I suppose to me, photographs are still about time and how it is tearing away at the now.

My photographs are influenced by painters... Kurt Schwitters, Mark Toby, and the abstract expressionists, especially, Hans Hoffman, and Richard Diebenkorn... or so I imagine.

Michael R. Freemanprolific... thanks for your thoughts and reply.

 

I didn't "get it." I thought that the "anonymous raters", were not subscribers. I thought they were totally anonymous viewers who were not paying or submitting photographs, or even that they, the "anonymous" had other ways of entering the ratings game that I didn't get. It wasn't until I read Matt Laur's explanation that the light went on. Blame it on Aspergers. :)

 

Thanks again,

mike

Josh Root... thanks for replying. I didn't know that past history of PN. That makes me feel better.

 

When I first came here, I did go to the rate photos all the time for the first few weeks. And I rated the photos on the scale as I saw them from 1 to 7. When you just romp through that never ending book, many times I had to wonder why? Why would anyone want to know if this photo of their family dog, out of focus, and without a thought of lighting, or setting, is beautiful and original? But, the truth is, when they look there... they see beauty.

 

I've learned a great deal about "what others see" from participating here. Thanks again for your insight.

 

mike

Thanks Matt. That does make it clear... duh. Im so dense when it comes to getting around this site.

 

It is also true though that what ratings I have given are on my main f0rtylegz page at PN for all to see. If I did give out all 1's for example, then those ratings would be clear to anyone who visited my page. So... the ratings thing isn't really anonymous... anonymous :) But I can see now how the system is supposed to work.

 

I guess it is going work for my just to rate and comment on photographs that I like.

Who are the "anonymous raters?" Why would someone who doesn't post their work

here be interested in going through submissions and leave a ratings?

 

How does one get to be an "anonymous rater? If I log onto PN from another

computer without logging in, can I be "anonymous?"

 

Why does PN use these non-members (non-PAYING) participants to have the power

over what is featured?

 

I've never received a 3 or a 4 even from a member, but "anonymous" has peppered

my submissions and most other "experimental" and "abstractionists" mercilessly

with 3's and 4's.

Lex (perpendicularity consultant) Jenkins... thanks for encouraging me to comment. When I looked at my older submissions here, I was surprised to see many thoughtful and encouraging comments, which in turn led me to many fine photographers. Ive started to reply to them.

 

Then I looked at the comments on my portfolio... Ive never even looked there before... I was delighted to see so many kind words there too, and I have a whole new list of artists to explore, and leave my own comments. Thanks!

PhotoShop Elements is a good program for the money. Most all of the tools from PhotoShop are there in one form or another. It deals with RAW files... it just takes practice... and reading the darn directions.

I think the "aesthetics" and "originality" categories are confusing too.

 

When I first came here I looked at many photographs in the "rate photos" forum, and gave out some twos and threes. I don't do that any longer. If the photograph is beautiful, then it is a 6 or 7. If I think that the composition, or lighting, or focus, could have been a little better then it is a 6. If all that looks good to me, then it is a 7. I don't open or grade photographs that aren't beautiful to my eye.

 

It turns out that we all think our photographs are beautiful, and 6's or 7's.

I never thank folks just for commenting on my photographs. That's really brown-nosing I feel. But I usually go to their portfolio, and look through, and try to say something that makes sense.

How do I remove a photograph completely from my gallery? Probably I am having a

spell of computer blindness... but, I can move them, but not delete.

<div></div>

I'm very glad to see these lucid posts about the rating system. It is as others have said, a system that gives Protection to people who abuse it. And it makes the rating system, and the critique forum useless.

 

So what is the point in participating here?

Horst, I have had that happen to me since I have joined also. Last week I uploaded a photo, and had a 3/3 within seconds of posting. It was in the middle of the night. 90% of my submissions have 3/3's before any other ratings arrive. I posted this in a thread below, wondering if there were bots involved, and got the same shrugs, and encouraged that the system is fine. I think it is creepy, and I'd bet dollars to donuts that these are bots in action.

 

I've never had 3's removed either? What's that all about?

 

Nice photo btw!

I appreciate the feedback. It all makes good sense. I guess I was a little surprised how quickly the 3 came after I had posted.

 

I've taken to only rating or commenting on photographs that I like.