Someone tell me: Why?
gravy | 01/27/2005 @338 | edit post

Why do people love kitschy photography so much? Isn’t anyone sick of seeing pictures of sunsets, sunrises, flowers, furry animals and babies? And not only that, 90% of the time they’re centered! Could you possibly think of a more boring place to put your subject? These types of photos are a dime-a-dozen. They’re bland, boring and uninspired. You can walk into any drug store on the face of the earth and see at least fifty photos with that type of subject matter in the postcard section. You could never get away with photographs like that in an art school. You’d get laughed at, unless you found a spectacular new way to portray the amazingly ordinary. How do I know? Because I’ve seen it happen. First day of my advanced photography class my teacher said: “You can take photos of anything you want, I’m really flexible, and you can reason with me about almost anything…just please don’t take pictures of cats, dogs, babies, etc. They’re clichéd and rarely have artistic merit. So unless you do something really radical, please avoid them.” So is it just that people here have no idea what art is? I can guarantee you that I could upload the photographs of a well-respected photographer, and not only would hardly anyone here even know they were from a master, but they’d also almost assuredly score like crap. Why? Because they’re not of bunnies and waterfalls and rainbows. I’ve visited dozens of art galleries in NYC and I still have yet to see a display of fuzzy animals and sunsets. Please, someone tell me what the attraction is…

Re: Someone tell me: Why?
Andy--Jones | 01/27/2005 @360 | edit post

I don't think it matters how photograhs are taken or of what subject. As long as its good. Each to their own I say. As for the same old sunsets and puppies etc, I have to say that yeah they can become formulaic, but then the more surreal "arty" type photographs out there, from so called artistic visionaries, can be just as boring and predictable. In fact I think a lot of the more whacky and obscure stuff out there is a cover for the fact that some artists are crap. They can't draw or photograph the basic things in art so they make up a totally new artform and hope some pompous art critic will fall for it. I think art should be expressed in whatever form a person wishes to do so - be it cute, bland, extreme, surreal or whatever. I just don't think its anyones place to say what is right or wrong. Who cares. If I don't like something I don't like it. But plenty of people out there will like it. Art is like that. You can't please all of the people all of the time. But then, I am not a photographer and would probably be crap if I was. I am also not that good an artist, so I may be totally wrong. But it is my opinion...one, of which the art world is full to the brim with.

Re: Someone tell me: Why?
Andy--Jones | 01/27/2005 @371 | edit post

By the way, is an advanced photography class for those who couldn't get the grasp first time around? I am of course, joking.

Re: Someone tell me: Why?
rgyoung777 | 01/27/2005 @376 | edit post

Why? Quite simply, the more experimental stuff doesn't seem to do very well around here. I spent a semester of my advanced photography class in college photographing biological specimens in a dark Zoology lab with nothing but a flashlight for illumination. I trimmed down approximately 20 rolls of film down to 10 photographs to make up my final project portfolio. These 10 photographs are my personal favorites out of every single photograph I've taken, and they got me an "A" from a very picky photography professor. I posted three of them here on GFX to general disinterest, and low scores because the subject matter was "gross." I have since decided not to post this work here. That being said, whether you happen to feel that wildlife or nature photography is kitschy or not, or overdone or not, it is still a valid form of art, and can be done just as effectively as other genres. I love being out in nature, and going to zoos and recording what I see there in as artistic a manner as I possibly can. I pay attention to light, composition and mood. And, despite relentless urging by some here to center my subjects, I tend to leave them off center, with room to breathe. And boring, kitschy photographer that I am, I try to push myself a little bit further each time I go out with my camera in hand. I appreciate photography in all its genres, including those you seem to feel are devoid of meaning. So I post my wildlife photography here, and I work within that genre to push people outside their comfort zone a little, since my more experimental stuff wasn't getting any attention at all. One question. If you see a trend that you dislike enough to write a forum post, why not work to change it by submitting the sort of photography you enjoy looking at, instead of belittling the photographers who create photography that is distasteful to you? Or critique the "bigwigs" in the photography section and encourage them to branch out a bit? And honestly, since when is it valid to use what is being displayed in New York galleries as a completely accurate meter for what is art and what is not? I highly doubt that my photography project would ever be in a gallery, primarily because of the subject matter. [Message edited on 01/27 @385]

Re: Someone tell me: Why?
gravy | 01/27/2005 @392 | edit post

I would critique the “bigwigs,” as you call them, but that unfortunately just gets you branded as a “troll” by the collective hoard, as well as assuring that the next ten comments contradict you and tell the artist that their work is “Absolutely splendid! And that previous member must be blind!” As for submitting work that is enjoyable to me…I’ve tried it before, and it gathered as much of a response as I’m sure your “biological specimen” work did. And you can only do that for so long until you feel like you’re completely wasting your time. Last time I was in NYC I saw quite a lot of photographic work that wouldn’t be considered “beautiful” by the general public. There were photographs of dead animals, burning cars, and furniture sitting out in the middle of nowhere just to describe a few. And I never said it was a completely accurate meter. But I can’t remember any well-known artist of the past 100 years (not that I know of all of them) that had pictures of living furry woodland creatures, unless there was some alternative motive behind it.

Re: Someone tell me: Why?
Andy--Jones | 01/27/2005 @398 | edit post

I think you are thinking about this to hard. Sometimes people just want to see nice pictures. Some people want to see burning cats in tents. It doesn't matter. I am sure there is a site out there somewhere that caters for photos of dead mouse heads on finger tips, and I myself like twisted stuff like that, but this isn't really the site for that in my opinion. The same way deviant art isn't the site for completed drawings full stop.

Re: Someone tell me: Why?
Andy--Jones | 01/27/2005 @401 | edit post

Maybe you could get some people together and start a site for more of what you are looking for. Im sure it would be popular.

Re: Someone tell me: Why?
rgyoung777 | 01/27/2005 @403 | edit post

So your solution is to make an angry post that rather unfairly lambastes the majority of photographers on this site? Have you wondered why someone might post photographs of "furry woodland creatures"? Did it occur to you that perhaps there is something behind the photograph that is important to take note of? That, oh, I don't know, the photographer took them deliberately to convey a message, however subtle, to the viewer? I don't photograph animals just because they are beautiful. I photograph animals because they are something that won't be around forever, the way things are going. I take photographs of animals to remind people that there are other beings besides humans on this planet that are worth noticing. Nature photography brings a bit of nature to someone who might not get the chance to get out and see it themselves. The last time I checked, the artist's intent was just as important as the viewer's impression of the artwork. If you can't see past the subject matter to get at the heart of the artwork, then perhaps the things you learned in your advanced photography class haven't served you all that well. You can't think of any well-known nature photographers? What about Art Wolfe? Oh, and all of those National Geographic staff photographers... What a bunch of talentless hacks. [Message edited on 01/27 @407]

Re: Someone tell me: Why?
buse | 01/27/2005 @404 | edit post

people like those things. that´s why you find them on postcards everywhere. Just as people here tend to like a woman in a pretty dress with wings on her back, allways centered. Oh, and of course, something "sexy" allways get the attention as well. These things do well here, but don´t base your portfolio on them if you want to work professionaly

Re: Someone tell me: Why?
gravy | 01/27/2005 @406 | edit post

Nature photography and fine art photography are two totally different things. It’s the same as if you go to art school for painting and you paint a unicorn riding on a rainbow saddled by a pixie. You’d be out on your bum in no time. I never said I enjoyed the work of dead animals, just that those were the only types of animal photography that I saw in the galleries. I like pictures with people, but not your standard glamour shot photography of “Here’s Wendy in the sunset…isn’t she beautiful?” I like work that tells a story, or where you can imagine the story of the person you’re looking at. I like things that are left open to interpretation. Not work where the interpretation is shoveled at you with a backhoe. But most people don’t want to be bothered with interpretations or even looking at a photograph for more than 10-15 seconds. They want to look at it and say “Oooh. Pretttty.” And then jump on to the next work. People want to be entertained. They need bright lights and flashing colors. Egh…why do I bother… [Message edited on 01/27 @410]

Re: Someone tell me: Why?
rgyoung777 | 01/27/2005 @415 | edit post

Obviously, we disagree on that. The line definitely blurs with photographers like Ansel Adams, in my opinion. Why do you believe that nature photography can't be art photography? Can photojournalistic photography be art photography? I've got to say that the things I learned in my advanced photography class are definitely applicable to the things I choose to photograph today. But really, this isn't about what is art and what is not, right? This is about what you like to look at, and your dismay with the fact that it is, unfortunately, underrepresented here. Perhaps you could have said that without belittling other photographers here. If a photograph makes someone take notice of something they hadn't seen before, or gets them to see things differently, what does it matter if it's a not a human subject? Like I said, if your preconcieved ideas about interesting and proper subject matter keep you from really looking at something, then they are doing more harm than good. I know it's hip and edgy to say that nature photography is kitsch and trite, and write the whole genre off as bland and uninteresting, but exsclusivity of that sort is totally counterproductive to art as a whole. [Message edited on 01/27 @801]

Re: Someone tell me: Why?
Andy--Jones | 01/27/2005 @418 | edit post

I think you are being a little stuck with your "elitist" view. If you can't see the whole picture then you have missed the point of art. And if you look harder on this site, like look at the artists who haven't had as many votes you may see some stuff that will surprise you. There is nothing worse than a snobby artist.

Re: Someone tell me: Why?
CityRose | 01/27/2005 @419 | edit post

I understand where you're coming from, Jude. I personally don't like "I'm going to go kill myself" or "I'm angry inside" photographs, but there are many other aspects of fine art that I do quite enjoy. As you said, these are the sorts of things you see in galleries. That said, postcards need to be created by someone, and I don't know too many people who would favour photos of burning cars hanging up in their living room. There's a place for everything, just about. The issue of photography has been discussed many times in the forums, but please (to everyone), try to stop this from becoming any sort of argument. As for 'centered' and 'mediocre' photographs, people are learning, just like how young painters will learn. Instead of letting the suject completely bias your opinion on the final image, help them see how they could have technically bettered the shot. You can also encourage them to be more experimental, rather than telling them that's what they should be doing to make things a more valid art form. I hope that puts some things into perspective- I know some of your frustration, but try to stay a good critic despite. I hope that helps. ^_^

Re: Someone tell me: Why?
gravy | 01/27/2005 @430 | edit post

I’m not writing-off nature photography as a whole. Just the “BANG it’s a kitty cat, or a flower, or whatever!” type of photography that we’re neck-deep in at GFX. I wouldn’t even group you in that category personally, I would put you somewhere right on the edge. You generally choose more interesting compositions than most people, and seem to have the knowledge of photography that most of these snap-shot artists lack. Honestly though, I really don’t think people do think about the meaning behind their photos very much. I think they go outside and see a flower and think, “Hey, a flower! I’ll take a picture of it, because everyone loves flower pictures!” and yet another macro flower picture is born. If that’s not mindless, then I don’t know what is. It doesn’t have to be a photograph of a person either. I’ve seen plenty of intriguing photographs of scenery that wasn’t a sunset or sunrise. Heck, I’ve taken pictures of scenery, and I’ve even taken pictures of flowers…but I try and have a meaning behind them. And I don’t think it’s snobby to want people to have a purpose behind their work, other than “Here’s yet another picture of mundanity (I made that word up).”

Re: Someone tell me: Why?
Basil | 01/27/2005 @579 | edit post

I think this could be summed up easily.. 1. most people here are not classicly trained... so to them/us a centered shot of a squirrel is an accomplishment.. I dont have a lick of training .. but I have fun photographing things even dead animals ... didnt know that was trendy... 2. as wierd as this may sound.... this site is just a game really.. I am pretty sure most of the views are from members.. because its kinda hard to navagate this site... I mean if I wanted to see some fantasy art I would goto Digitalart.org.... or great photos.. I would goto photo.net.. just because they are easy to navagate.. 3. who cares?, I doubt a rant is going to change the opinion of the people..

Re: Someone tell me: Why?
BaronImpossible | 01/27/2005 @586 | edit post

Artwork should be judged on its individual merits. I'm a fan of all artwork that SAYS something to me. At the same time as I see a lot of meaningless images of babies and flowers and fairies, I also see a lot of people trying to be hip and "original" to cover up gaps in their ability, like, "I know, instead of learning the craft I'll just take a close-up b&w photo of some random piece of debris and dismiss anyone who criticises it as a philistine who doesn't understand real art." Most people don't want to go down in history as artistic innovators and pioneers, they just want to produce art others can enjoy. (Unfortunately, I'm not one of them so I'd better stop posting here and get practicing )

Re: Someone tell me: Why?
buse | 01/27/2005 @593 | edit post

You know, ther´s a difference between a photoalbum and a portfolio.

Re: Someone tell me: Why?
MsMichelleLynn | 01/27/2005 @606 | edit post

Art is a very subjective term. What is one person's art might be meaningless to another. Many thought that Picasso's works were trash, and that can be said for many artists whose works now demand great respect and large dollars at auction. I produce many wildlife photos in portrait form. That means the image is centered. My goal here is to provide viewers with a close-up of the animal so that fine details will be seen. These details are rarely seen by most in nature. The photograph serves a purpose. A photograph does not necessarily have to be "artsy" to be a high quality piece of work. Not all of the work here has that goal in mind. If you were to open a National Geagraphic magazine, there are many close-ups of animals which are simply meant to show great detail in the animal itself. Macro photography is a good example. In insect macro for instance, our goal is not always to provide a "pretty picture" per say, but to provide an unusual view of something that many take for granted. I have posted several photos here which I consider my favorites that suprisingly did not perform well here (if one considers votes performance). I am sure that many people loved these artworks but to many, the subject matter might not have captured their interest. Again ... subjective. So to jump to a statement that most of the photography here is overdone or not art is simply subjective on your part. You have every right to have your opinions as do we all. But, to attempt to make your opinion a factual statement I don't think is quite fair. [Message edited on 01/27 @611]

Re: Someone tell me: Why?
nomaD42 | 01/27/2005 @635 | edit post

Well, I can see by the great art that you have posted here in GFX that you are truly a wondrous and magnificent artist and none here are worthy of appreciating it. Generally if one is to put down the works of the masses, then he should have something to back himself up with. As for me, I had worked for nearly 15 years as a professional photographer and I have known many great photographic artists in that time, and though the vast majority of photographs shown here would never hang in the galleries of NYC, does not lessen their importance in the world of photography. I have taken many thousands of photos that would never be seen in a gallery, in fact many would never even be worthy of display here, yet, that does not diminish the importance of why they were taken or for the client or purpose for which they were taken. As for nature, wildlife, cutesy, photos being boring and trite, I would have to disagree. Every form of art has a certain niche marketplace and I have seen many photographers bang out a healthy living on this trite, boring genre. In fact there are many 'boring and trite' photos on this site that I thoroughly enjoy looking at, because they have something to say to me. I don't prejudge a photo, or piece of art, based on its subject matter, I look into the image and why it was taken. Yes, there are many images on this site, and every other site featuring photos, that are technically or 'artistically' flawed, but that does not diminish their validity. I have seen many images that break the 'rules' of art that go on to win juried competitions, and I have seen many technically and artistically flawless images get laughed out of these same competitions. Like several have said, art is in the eye of the beholder. If you don't care for the art and the photography that is displayed here, then there is no one forcing you to stay and look. There are many pieces of art here that I, personally don't care for, and those I just look at and move on. I will not berate or belittle a person because they are not producing art that appeals to me. What I am basically saying is that everyone comes here to show what they feel is artistic to themselves, if someone else likes it then that is great, if someone doesn't like it, then that is great as well, it only means that people have different tastes in art. Tolerance and measure will make us all better artists, we all have much to learn from each other, lets teach and evolve, rather than destroy and decimate. Just my 2 pennies. I like bunnies and kitties

Re: Someone tell me: Why?
kittyKat | 01/27/2005 @655 | edit post

Come on now! how can you even have conversation here when I see this? ------------------------------------------- http://gravy.gfxartist.com/ If you've come here just to check to see if I have any work uploaded so that you can come back and say some immature version of: "Oh yeah! You don't even have any work published!" Please, grow up. ------------------------------------------ If you think a majority of the photos are junk here at GFX. Then YOU show us what isn't junk Mr. Pro! Come on, step up to the plate and post something don't be afraid we wont bite

Re: Someone tell me: Why?
skulpturro | 01/27/2005 @659 | edit post

The very fact that I am tolerated here demonstrates Nomad42's points. And I DO bite.

Re: Someone tell me: Why?
yerffej | 01/27/2005 @661 | edit post

Of course we bite!And who doesn't like gravy?.....mmmmmmm....gravy. [Message edited on 01/27 @662]

Re: Someone tell me: Why?
emarts | 01/27/2005 @674 | edit post

Okay, I understand you want to draw the line between snapshot and photo. So does everyone else here. Many here, myself included are budding photographers, learning how to take a good picture. You should learn how to critique. If you are attending an art school that laughs at other people's work, ep. those who are learning, then you are going to one of those hip, artsy-fartsy schools, that someone of my low caliber wouldn't want to be associated with. I agree that there are alot of so-called "uninspired" work here, but this is a place to learn. But there's just as many uninspired critiques as well. If you have a passion for art, then you would want to help others develop theirs. I personally invite you to my gallery and make comments on my photos. I'd appreciate it.

Re: Someone tell me: Why?
Phryneas | 01/27/2005 @732 | edit post

Sunsets and animals don't have to be a bad subject. In fact, they're great to do some basic work to begin with - I myself got hooked to photography with a sunset photo I took. I have posted more photos, got good constructive critique and I think I improved. I'm still photographing animals. I don't think animals are easy to capture or just "cute" - they are great to get used to your camera, to get a perfect control of your focus and when you really want to capture something that's worthly of publishing, it's not less work than every other photo. It's even more difficult - your subject moves. With a human model, you can say "please go back a step", you can't do that with for example a dog. You missed the opportunity and you have to be better next time to get the expression. Futhermore, not all dog photos - to stick on that subject - are useless or boring. There are dog sports as well as human sports, photos of human sports can be everything - documenting, stunning, award-winning; same goes for animal sports. This just to defend those people here who do stunning animal photography - and, of course myself as I intend to publish some more dog photos in the future. But you're right in the points concerning composition and technical side - but that's nothing to start a forum thread on, that is something to comment on! Most likely, the "beginners" taking the shots that you don't like won't read all through the forums. But they will read the comments - so give them tips on compositions and encourage them to do more where they will read it - in comments on their photos! [Message edited on 01/27 @734]

Re: Someone tell me: Why?
Kurlowski | 01/29/2005 @234 | edit post

You are radical my friend. You are being extremly suggestive and your sterotyping the photographers here at GFX.

Re: Someone tell me: Why?
AkunaStyle | 01/30/2005 @133 | edit post

I'm pretty new here and I've scrolled through a lot of art and critiques ... I find it funny to see such criticism from a person who signed up to a site for artist and have nothing to show.