Does a photo need to say something?

[darkman]

Cite your source. Show some articles that back up your opinion that something is not art unless it is deemed "quality" by general or peer consensus. Give me a dictionary or encyclopedia entry that backs up your definition of art.

I've been followig this thread. While it's somewhat comical, I do agree with WillCAD. IMO, Ronoco is confusing comercial success and winning contests as the measure to whether a photo is art or not.

We could go on with examples or definitions. Was Picasso making art ONLY because he WAS a master draftman? Thelonious COULDN'T have been making music by creating DISSONANCE. Wasn't it Renoir who was asked to LEAVE the ART SCHOOL because he wasn't a good enough draftsman?

I know a lot of people who probably like the work I get paid for better than my creative work. To me that means nothing. If I'm not being paid, I need to please myself. Not a judge or a client.

I quit the local club a couple of years ago because ALL they cared about was the "contest." Moreover, the contest awarded portrait 101 (watch those catchlights!) and rule of third landscape photo's. Strangely, the work awarded the highest wasn't usually what the artist judging would do; except when pleasing a client.

Cheers.

[Ronnoco]

I've been followig this thread. While it's somewhat comical, I do agree with WillCAD. IMO, Ronoco is confusing comercial success and winning contests as the measure to whether a photo is art or not.
Cheers.

First of all, being picky, that is Ronnoco with 2 ns. and no I am not confusing commercial with 2 ms success and winning contests with whether a photo is art or not. You weren't reading carefully. I indicated several times that commercial success and winning contests were just two examples of recognition that suggested quality work and possibly art. Other examples include getting published in a quality magazine or newspaper with a large readership, being asked to present at a conference of professionals, being asked to teach a course in photography, winning a photo contract based on your portfolio versus several others who present theirs, etc. There are all kinds of examples, that recognize quality photo work as a possible art form on a less subjective basis than personal delusion.

Ronnoco

[darkman]

Other examples include getting published in a quality magazine or newspaper with a large readership, being asked to present at a conference of professionals, being asked to teach a course in photography, winning a photo contract based on your portfolio versus several others who present theirs, etc. There are all kinds of examples, that recognize quality photo work as a possible art form on a less subjective basis than personal delusion.

Ronnoco

I agree with what PJ said about levels of art. Maybe this is the point you're tyring to make?

However, teaching courses, getting published in mags and newspapers, getting a job based on portfolio, and catching typo's, reckognizes that you're compentent photographer and perhaps more importantly, you can sell yourself. Or like many "known" photographers, has someone else sell them. There are local photograhers that have made a name for themselves that I'm flabergasted by the (poor) quality of their work. Yet, they meet this criteria. There are also people who sell work based on their name even though they haven't produced anything decent in some time.

I've done all the above, consider myself an "artist," but realize there are people out there doing absolutely amazing creative photography well above what I'm doing (IMO).Yet, that doesn't mean they've met the above criteria of art by being published/reckognized etc. It doesn't mean that he could do what I do either.

A very successful product photographer once told me as long as you're shooting for someone else (to make money), you're not creating art. This guys work is amazing and I'm sure you've seen it. It's the work he does for himself that may never get reckognition, or seen by the masses, that he deems as his art work. (btw, I don't necessarily agree with his pov - his commercial work is awesome in every aspect)

IMO, the criteria you list has to do with being commercially successful, and not necessarily have to do with creating a high level of art.

[Ronnoco]

For Photographic Composition:

www.photoinf.com

Ronnoco