- Messages
- 8,090
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Conceptual Art does not need to be a thing at all.
and help to keep the site free for all
RPS distinctions
- Thread starter PHOTONA
- Start date
- Messages
- 8,090
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Art does not need world salad to justify it.
- Messages
- 8,090
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Most of what you have written so far explains why we disagree on the value of conceptual Art. You think it has advanced art, I think it has held it back.
It has certainly made it less appealing and communicates less, to more people. Which must be retrograde...
As I mentioned earlier all art,by default, contains concepts. I would prefer art to concentrate on communication. Be it emotion, feelings, concepts, memory, entertainment, beauty, education enlightenment or whatever. Art that doe not communicate is nothing.
that's correct and it can communicate the vision /idea without a representation at all. Both visually appealing and not, or non existent at all as 'a thing' as you said (finished art object) could be classified as conceptual art as the name suggests
- Messages
- 1,745
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
What an absolute load of rubbish and clear that you have never viewed a successful MPAGB entry. We had two MPAGB's in my club both of which had FRPS as well and they both claimed that FRPS is easier. You are not taking account of what standard they are expecting for the single images. For MPAGB each image will need to be of a standard that will win an award in an International Salon. You think 20 international awards is easy?
Dave
- Messages
- 8,236
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
I don't think conceptualism has 'advanced' art, I think it has added a new form of art. Artificial Intelligence will do the same. Where we differ is in what we think art is or should be.
I have been involved with photography since the early 1960's, so by my reckoning I am into my 7th decade . When I look back at some of the black and white pictures that were produced by photographers who have passed away and who I knew at club level (and above) the standard of their traditional work all done by hand in a darkroom with film, chemicals, a timer, dish heater, and few extras such as an enlarger (or two) the standard of work and understanding of composition, light and shade leaves the modern day photographer ....errr.....in the shade. They produced their work with a passion and commitment without resorting to multi metering cameras. In fact a good number of those I am thinking about didn't even use a meter at all. it was all down to their intimate knowledge of how things worked and what they could do with what they had and got on with it.
This long running argument has gone well past the stage of which is best film + darkroom, or memory card + printer. I use both and yes sometimes I make a gaff of it with film and digital but I know what I actually prefer doing the most and it isn't when I am sitting in front of a VDU. Digital has gone a long way in getting people interested in photography, but they are, I suggest lacking a certain something, could it be they are never satisfied with what they produce and spend even more money on newer and 'better' equipment only to never realise they are almost certainly non the better off for it.
Those folk I was referring to in the 1st paragraph knew their subject possibly better than the expression 'intimately'. They were masters of the art and didn't need to fire off thousands of frames in a few months hoping they may get something worth while. It is progress, if you can call it that, but for me it does leave a chill down my spine and I sometimes shake my head in disbelief when I think of some of the dross which is the results of their efforts.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 8,090
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Without the learning process shooting off thousands of images, only accumulates dross. There is nothing scientific or artistic about it
- Messages
- 10,050
- Edit My Images
- No
I was around at much the same time and have to disagree.
While it was obvious that much care with dodging and perhaps potassium ferricyanide, was used, such pictures told us little about the subject or why it was worth recording. At the same time, there were several, indeed many, photographers coming along, who injected a different approach into most types of photography. While they were capable of getting a well exposed and composed image. these newcomers would throw the rules overboard, in order to get the image which told the story, be it news, advertising, architecture or whatever else they wanted to show their audience.
- Messages
- 25,776
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
I have to say I concur with @AndrewFlannigan
My memory only goes back to the 70’s
But back in those days if you could guarantee images that were in focus and more or less correctly exposed, you could get a job as a ‘professional’.
The difficult bit back then was the technical, and your average club photographer, like your average newspaper tog or social photographer had little need for creativity. It was all about getting the maths right.
What passed for ‘social photography’ in the 60’s and 70’s was utter garbage compared to what’s expected nowadays. The very busy local pro who took both my sisters wedding photos in the late 70’s simply couldn’t get hired nowadays. What he did would be done better by the brides mates on their phones.
- Messages
- 8,090
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
There is a problem of perception here... Wedding photography like cruise photography was very much looked down upon by other photographers in those days, very few had any photographic training and fewer still had studied photography at college or had any examined qualifications.
However it was a good secondary income. Which I took advantage of myself for a number of years.
As to the style of the photographs , it was Joe public that demanded all the set pieces and groups , and woe betide the photographer who misses out great aunt gert and put her in the wrong groups. It was entirely a different world.
I always took a few more reportage style shots, but they were never shown in albums, which only contained formal shots.
I did one extremely up market wedding with another local photographer that started 7 am and went on to the early hours next morning. We took a staggering number of films on our Rolleiflexes and had a runner to take them back to the studio for processing and printing they were brought back for display after the banquet.. and again later that evening.. such goings on were rare in the late 60's but we still has to shoot all the conventional groups for the album.
At my own wedding in 1960 the photographer took all the shots on 5x4 film on an MPP press camera, and managed to get every one slightly out of focus. He only took 24 shots. Which probably means he only had a dozen double dark slides.
The range finder or cam probably needed adjusting.
In those days most professionals could work very quickly with press style cameras, and many had learned how to use them in the armed forces during the war where they had been the norm.
Most were very proficient photographers indeed, and were well trained.
Last edited:
With the advent of the wedding photographer who's mantra was or seemed to be shoot everything and they will be a few OK (ish) pictures. My son got married in 2007 and he hired a photographer who turned up with a posse of 'little helpers' (I think they were University students) at least one of whom did not even appear know how to turn the camera on. They came equipped with Canon pro models. (I am not sure what they were) fitted with enormous zoom lenses which to be honest, struck me as vulgar and quite unnecessary and I think they were used to give the impression they knew what they were doing.
Following the ceremony a few days later they e mailed him well over 500 images the majority of which were appalling! There were ones that were out of focus, camera movement, under and over exposed and to cap it all the fundamental error of not getting the essential group of family and friends which they had asked for. The bill for this debacle was in excess of £500 and a bit more.
My son and his wife refused to pay what they had asked and it went to the Small Claims Court and the photographer mostly lost out. The bill was reduced to £150 which was paid. The photographer had also made a fundamental error of suing them because my Daughter in Law was/is a qualified practising solicitor something which it was obviously not known before hand. With her knowledge she was able to present a case to the court which satisfied them of the grievance they had with the shoddy unprofessional work and results.
Give me an old style photographer any day who knows his job inside out and delivers what was asked
Following the ceremony a few days later they e mailed him well over 500 images the majority of which were appalling! There were ones that were out of focus, camera movement, under and over exposed and to cap it all the fundamental error of not getting the essential group of family and friends which they had asked for. The bill for this debacle was in excess of £500 and a bit more.
My son and his wife refused to pay what they had asked and it went to the Small Claims Court and the photographer mostly lost out. The bill was reduced to £150 which was paid. The photographer had also made a fundamental error of suing them because my Daughter in Law was/is a qualified practising solicitor something which it was obviously not known before hand. With her knowledge she was able to present a case to the court which satisfied them of the grievance they had with the shoddy unprofessional work and results.
Give me an old style photographer any day who knows his job inside out and delivers what was asked
- Messages
- 10,050
- Edit My Images
- No
This is correct, however, in "the provinces", you either produced an acceptable product or you went out of business fast.
Oddly enough, I did have an examined qualification: a Grade 1 CSE for Photographic Art! I was in the second tranche to take the examination, my then best friend having taken it the previous year, with the same result. I can't say it gave me any tangible benefit and I've long since lost the pretty printed certificate.
- Messages
- 8,090
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
This is correct, however, in "the provinces", you either produced an acceptable product or you went out of business fast.
Oddly enough, I did have an examined qualification: a Grade 1 CSE for Photographic Art! I was in the second tranche to take the examination, my then best friend having taken it the previous year, with the same result. I can't say it gave me any tangible benefit and I've long since lost the pretty printed certificate.
School exams barely counted for anything in the professional line. I took art with church architecture, at O level as an out of school hours subject, and it was by far the longest exam, I hour exam on the Architecture, and two four hour exams on the art. It might have helped me get into art college to study photography, I really don't know if they even cared what you got at O level. As long English and maths was among them. I lost all my papers when working in Spain in the late 50's including my army discharge papers. I served as a 3 year regular, not national service.
Strangely, Brian Epstein of Beatles fame was an Art Class mate for a year, before he left the school. WE were equal first at Art that year. He was excellent a fashion drawing but otherwise a bit backward. He was in a different house, so we never met outside art classes.
Last edited:
yes, it was everything about thoughtful approach. They knew what they were doing. People do produce rubbish nowadays, mainly (if you look at the percentage).They are driven by the number of followers and likes on instagram or facebook.
- Messages
- 10,050
- Edit My Images
- No
So, people who put their pictures on Instagram or Facebook are producing rubbish and, by inference, the people who like those images are somewhat stupid?
A little harsh, surely?
- Messages
- 4,688
- Name
- droj
- Edit My Images
- No
That's a very blanket assessment. Are you p***ed? Rubbish has always been in the mix, in any era. A constantly alert, enquiring eye is worth far more than glib assertions.
Garry Edwards
Moderator
- Messages
- 12,700
- Name
- Garry Edwards
- Edit My Images
- No
I remember it well. My boss at the time, W.D. Emmanuel, wrote the main textbook for it and Wallace Heaton (he was one of the directors there) sponsored the course at the London College of Printing, and he got me a place there. At that time there were just 15 places a year and wannabe photographers used to queue around the block to get on the waiting list . . .
All just forgotten history now, but that really was a course worth doing, unlike almost all of the courses available today.
C&G eventually became completely devalued by the introduction of a "Leisure" version and then got devalued again when it became available as an online course in, I think, about 2008 - yes, I know that I wrote that course, but it was still pretty poor, I did it to the standard they required
Yes I had not even taken into any consideration the praise sought by the self 'look how good I am' promotion seekers.
No I would never call people I didn't know stupid, that could amount to verbal abuse and may warrant an unwanted response. I may think that they are disillusioned in what they see as wonderful imagery, but is in my eyes dross. Thinking is entirely different to saying. But there again images uploaded onto social media platforms are in the main memories of happening in someone's life or of those with whom they have a relationship no matter how tenuous. For instance my partner's daughter and son in law have just had an addition to the family. Lovely pictures of the little mite, but hardly what I would call outstanding.
Also I am not saying, it is all of a poor standard, but some the people I know, or don't know. do sometimes hit the jackpot with something outstanding, but what percentage of the total is the truly outstanding work?
Last edited:
It could be said that in todays understanding, people may 'think' they know what they are doing, but are they not actually 'thinking' because whatever device they use attempting capture the picture of a lifetime, does not actually involve any human thinking processes, that is done for them by the electronics. Hence they continue to think look how good I am.
- Messages
- 10,050
- Edit My Images
- No
My counter argument to that would be that all beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
The picture, which you find "outstanding", the person (metaphorically or otherwise) standing next to you will dismiss as "boring" and of course, vice versa.
- Messages
- 10,050
- Edit My Images
- No
Yet, many of us, who started in the days of film, strove to create that very condition.
We didn't want think about the mechanics of making a good image but concentrated on getting the image we wanted without reference to the technicalities.
ancient_mariner
Moderator
- Messages
- 25,048
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
To borrow a sentiment from PhilV, I have a few cameras, but not one of them has taken a picture on its own. Also a picture shot with manually set exposure, manually focussed and shot on film which is then printed and processed by hand has no more value than a picture shot using auto-exposure and AF on a digital camera. However one requires a lot more investment of time and effort.
- Messages
- 3,625
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
And the investment in time and effort needed by the photographer in terms of purpose, intent and vision, subject understanding, and empathy, and awareness of light, composition gesture and timing, remains the same.
Indeed,a bit of electronic assistance, might actually give the photographer a bit more time, to put a bit more effort into the more important aspects of making good photographs.
ancient_mariner
Moderator
- Messages
- 25,048
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
In the 80's I was approached by someone at work whose 16 yo daughter wanted to become a model, and would I take some pictures she could show to others. So mum, daughter and I went to the local park where I used a Lubitel TLR for the shoot. It would have been a lot easier and possibly more spontaneous if I'd had my A7III instead of an all manual camera, not to mention showing the pictures after to the client.
- Messages
- 3,625
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
In many respects, digital has replaced one set of skills with another, with the new skills requiring a different type of learning. e.g. which exposure and AF mode and combination of modes will be the most effective in a particular circumstance so I can concentrate on making the photographs, and not be distracted by the mechanics of getting the focus and exposure right. But you still need to say technically alert to circumstances changing during the shoot , which mean you need to rethink those initial "auto" settings.
For my main photography, the most efficient approach is still manual exposure and manual focussing rather than fiddling around with all the technological options.
But for my bird photography, I'm using all the technological help the camera can give me. Along with function keys and other customisation options set up so I can instantly switch between settings.
For example being able to rely on AI bird eye detection, (most of the time) now allows me to concentrate on what the bird is doing, and how, compositionally, it's interacting with the background, This is big improvement compared to the olden days, when nearly all my attention was devoted to trying to keep the bird in focus.
You may subscribe to that theory as is your right, but where is the satisfaction that you get when you have more input to the result than just pressing a few buttons? It may be expedient if there is a set time to get results and you are working to a schedule (or are being lazy, plus the latter needs a little bit of skill).
Think of, as a comparison the analogy of a table or other piece of furniture bought as a flatpack from the likes of Ikea, Then look at a table or other piece of furniture crafted by your hand with the perfect joints, and the wood is solid wood, not chipboard with a veneer of plastic over the top; all assembled with the use of a screwdriver and an allen key. You can stand back and say 'I made that' with certain degree of pride and ultimate satisfaction.
Yes they do the same task as required but I know which I would prefer,
Last edited:
- Messages
- 10,050
- Edit My Images
- No
I'll guess that this is the same argument that some sketchers and painters made in the 19th century, when those new fangled light tight boxes came along.
Photography is a communications mediium. So far as I can tell, apart from a tiny fringe, what matters is the message. How you got there is almost always irrelevant to the audience.
I'd agree with that Taking from Rodinal's analogy if I buy a table does it matter to me if the cabinet maker used a hand saw or power tools / jigs to cut the wood ?
I understand it may give more satisfaction to the creator but to the end user they're looking at the result
- Messages
- 8,236
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
The irony being that photography was invented so that those who couldn't master the craft of drawing could make a likeness from nature.
I also find it interesting how many photographers (including notable ones) started out as painters.
- Messages
- 3,625
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
I think some are looking at this from a different perspective.
You seem to be focussing on the satisfaction a photographer gets from the "process" of making photographs with the emphasis on the technical.
Others are focussing on the satisfaction of making pictures (the "product") that achieve and communicate specific intellectual and/or emotional messages.
Last edited:
So far from the truth. It is a different medium. However I must agree that there are some that started using photography because for some reason they didn't manage with other mediums.After all it is all about the message. Is the photography about the likeness and recording the reality? For me not. For those who are interested in documentary photography, or nature or commercial photography etc etc it is.
Last edited:
ancient_mariner
Moderator
- Messages
- 25,048
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
I understand the preference for the how, rather than the what, if the how is your thing. Having done things both ways, the all manual was an interesting learning opportunity particularly when I went on to shoot weddings with an all manual outfit, but not something that validated what I did.
If you enjoy the craft behind making a picture then that's great, but it's important not to see those who use more automated tools as inferior.
I would say that this crosses the line between personal preference and putting down those who work differently, and will create more heat than light.
If you enjoy the craft behind making a picture then that's great, but it's important not to see those who use more automated tools as inferior.
I would say that this crosses the line between personal preference and putting down those who work differently, and will create more heat than light.
- Messages
- 8,236
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
Not far from the truth at all. Photography WAS intended to make 2D visual representation easier than by using a pencil. 'Drawing with light' might be a clue there.
That it has become a different medium is true, but a different matter.
- Messages
- 10,050
- Edit My Images
- No
It seems generally agreed that the development of photography was driven by the desire to provide a more accessible means of recording people and places.
The camera obscura was originally developed as a tool to make painting and sketching more accurate and more accessable to those with limited abilties in those skills. Its earliest use can be traced back to around 1,000 years before Christianity appeared and it was in European use by the middle of the 16th century.
As early as 1717, Johann Heinrich Schulze was experimenting with combining light sensitive chemistry with the camera obscura to "paint with light". By 1800, Thomas Wedgewood and Humphry Davy were looking for a way of making such images permanent but with no real success. Nicéphore Niépce carried the technique forward but it was Louis Daguerre who made photography both technically reliable and commercial.
Such evidence points to photography being an extension of the paint and pencil methods of capturing images, rather than a seperate technology.
Ok., that's a theory, you are right. If you look at this from a practitioners point of view as I've done (draftsman and a photographer) it sounds really irrelevant bearing in mind how in practice both processes are different, the way you observe the picture develop for example in a darkroom and the way you draw is very relevant but not the execution itself.
I find limitations in both mediums, trying to combine both is another level.
And once again it is about technical aspect of photography, not a message itself.
Last edited:
and once again if you put it into contemporary context not that many photographers were starting from drawing or sketching