"Arty" vs "Gimmicky" ???

[darkman]

I know this has been beaten into the ground, but recent posts and events got me thinking about it again.

Recently I took a pics at my sister-in-laws 40th birthday. To have fun I did blurry shots, with and without flash tecniques etc. Strangely, my arty friends REALLY liked these shots! To them this was arty and creative. I was even told by a friend who's a photography teacher that I'm throwing my "best stuff away."

Now, I don't get it!!! Please help? The best I can figure is that I have a technical background. For every shot I did, I can come up with a million variations. Whereas, my non-technical (OK arty) friends don't "see" it like this. IOW, I think I'm having fun with technology and they think it's being creative, breaking the rules, or thinking outside the box etc; or just plain being arty. Partially, I think I'm visualizing these effects based on my techno knowledge and they see it as serendipitous, new. Thus, creative. Am I right?

Please give me your thoughts and comments,

Mike

You can see for miles standing on the shoulders of giants.

[Sebastian]

Mike,

They're the same thing.

[another view]

Partially, I think I'm visualizing these effects based on my techno knowledge and they see it as serendipitous, new. Thus, creative. Am I right?

I agree. You know from experience what's going to happen when you do slow sync, etc. You think that this is a situation where it could look really cool. If you've done enough of it (I haven't), you can probably predict how long you want the shutter speed to be and how to move the camera during the exposure to get the results you want.

Just because someone hasn't seen a shot like this before doesn't make you any less creative.

[pnd1]

Darkman,

The techniques you use - no matter how you characterize them -- should have a purpose. In photography, all form must function as expression, or you will simply be using effect for the sake of effect.

So if those blurry shots make those people seem to be moving more quickly, and if that is the idea you are trying to express, the technique works. But making people appear blurry just because it is different, becomes just another eye-catching trick or gimmick.

Ultimately, we should always ask ourselves what we are trying to say or express with our pictures, and then use our choices in light, time, and space to make it happen. Blur is one of our many choices in time -- make use of it for a purpose. For example, in this shot I made of Russian Dancers, I wanted to capture the tremendous energy they were putting into their performance.

http://www.pbase.com/image/20798795/large

I used a slower shutter speed. Instead of freezing the moment, I blurred it. My form, based here on blurred people, has a function. It captures the essence of this dance.

Hope this helps,

Phil

[darkman]

What I'd like to know is why my "arty" friends seem to think these type shots, as _more_ arty or creative? Whereas, I just find them to be fun shots more analogous to caricature.

My goal at the party was some fun shots showing a party mood. They were intended and done by me Based on reactions to them, they worked.

So why do (some) people seem to find shots like this _more_ arty than other shots? My conjecture was either they like the unknown or unexpected results of them or that it's something they don't fully understand and, thus, see it as more creative. Why would they see this as more creative than "straight" photography?

In other words, I see fun (or gimmicky), caricature type photos that capture a mood and they see something very arty and creative. I'd like to hear insights on this aspect of it.

[ACArmstrong]

Speaking as someone who's been art and around artists my entire life, let me say that "artsy" people WANT to see art. I know that sounds stupid, but it makes sense if you think about it. Our lives are about our perception of reality. Our perceptions are based on our experience, and our experiences bias our future perceptions. For example, people who do woodwork notice the craftmanship of the chair sitting in the window, while a general passerby might just notice a chair in the window. It's the same with artists - we've been trained to try and define and interpret art for much of our lives, so we're looking for it. When we see a blurry photo, our past experience of definition and interpretation biases our current perception. In other words, we see it as art - not a blurry photo, and somehow - in our eyes - it makes it a better photograph.

My head hurts now. Stop it.

[adina]

Then they may think they are arty photos because they think they are supposed to think that.

For example. I love b&w. Just about anything I shoot for me I convert to b&w, unless there is a really good reason to leave it color. Why do I love b&w? It's more me, more my style.

Some people think b&w is strictly for fine art type stuff. Why on earth would you want a picture of your kid in b&w? Wouldn't you lose so much detail (color)? Look at that really neat SpongeBob shirt! That would look much better in color (frankly, I don't think they ever look good!)

So for them, anything in b&w is automatically going to fall into an "arty" catagory, as opposed to maybe just family photos. Whereas for me, 90% of my family photos are b&w.

Same goes with blur. If it's something out of the ordinary for someone, they are more likely to comment on it.

So the blurry photos maybe are preconcieved as arty photos, whether or not you intended them to be something more than just playing around.

Did that make sense?

adina

[darkman]

Then they may think they are arty photos because they think they are supposed to think that.

adina

Hi Adina,

I think you said that very well! I struggle with this "concept." Especially since I just consider myself a "technician." Chip Simon, a well know advertising photographer (think of those wild bacardi adds, or chip simon uses bogen tripods, etc), told me he that he doesn't consider himself an artist either, and also views himself as a good technician.

The flip side is I view "creative" anolagous to "arty." Thus, I see amazingly creative stuff that Chip does. Similarly, I see art in beatifully made furniture; as another example. Yet, this furniture maker probably views himself, like how I view myself, a master craftsmen. Not an artist.

Therefore, the idea that something is more "arty" than something else seems ridiculous to me. I don't feel I'm being any more creative playing with my flash unit than alligning the elements to make a beautiful landscape. Some people do, which is still confusing to me

Thanks for replying, Mike

[pnd1]

And thank you, Mike, for sharing these ideas on art and craft with us. I wish more photographers would discuss things like this. Are photographers primarily artists or craftspeople? Since art is defined in the eye of the beholder, there can be no final answer to this question. We do know, however, that because photography was originally designed as a scientific process, its early practitioners considered themselves as craftsmen. But eventually artists adapted the medium to their own needs as well and art and craft merged into the medium we know today.

I consider photographic artists as people who consciously use their craftmanship to express their own feelings about what they see, and often provoke an emotional response and perhaps even thought in the minds of those who look at their pictures.

Craft can be viewed as more precise and somewhat more pragmatic than art. Yet it is no less (or no more) important. A photograph that is perfectly exposed to capture a full range of light and shadow, is tack sharp, well balanced in terms of color, and cleanly and clearly composed, is usually considered a well crafted picture. Yet I have also seen deliberately underexposed, or softly focused images, that were also considered as well crafted. Either may, or may not qualify as art -- depending upon both the photographer's intentions, and the context and understanding of those who look at them.

I think it would be a mistake to compare art and craft in terms of value. I think we need to integrate them as much as we can. Art made without careful attention to craft can often be difficult to appreciate. And craft that denies the possibility of art can shortchange itself, and can diminish its potential to bring meaning to others.

The term "creative" is often applied to art. To me, creativity is the force behind the freshness of an idea or concept. Our creativity also helps us to find new solutions for old problems, something that craftsmen do very well. I think the term "arty," on the other hand, is often used to define attempts at art that we have difficulty understanding. We use "arty" as shorthand for acknowledging our appreciation of artistic form for its own sake, yet somehow we just can't put our finger on why we like it, why it works, or what it says.

Both photographic art and craft require some degree of education, training, and experience. Personality and even genetic inheritance can also play a role in how we approach our imagery. I think both art and craft also require considerable passion and dedication, risk-taking, and the ability to tolerate frustration.

Ultimately, both successful art and craft requires some knowledge, context, and understanding on the part of the viewer as well.

It is no accident that some of the photography's greatest artists were also magnificent craftsmen. Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Alfred Stieglitz, Minor White, Henri Cartier Bresson, and many others have combined their craft with important ideas that continue to resonate.

You seem to be arguing that both photographic craft and art require skill and creativity. I agree with you on that. As a teacher of photographic expression, I am happiest when I am breaking down the walls that some have tried to build between art and craft.

Phil

[Mig]

Very eloquent post Phil. I've been checking out your site and I just wanted to let you know how glad I am that you've joined PR. It looks like you've got a lot to bring to the site, and as someone who still has a lot to learn, I'm very excited about that.

Danielle

[darkman]

Phil,

That was an amazing responce. You summed up clearly and concisely what I was struggling to get out of me!

I really appreciate that you took the time and effort to that.

Mike

[another view]

Phil, excellent response. I had a minute to look through your gallery on pbase, and was very impressed with what I saw, especially Gallery 4 with Details. I'll be sure to check out the rest in more detail.

Welcome to the site!

[pnd1]

Thanks, Another View, Mike, and Danielle,

I appreciate your welcomes, and am glad you found my post and my galleries of interest. John recently contacted me and invited me to review the new Leica Digilux 2 and also participate in these forums. I'm delighted to find the level of discussion well worth whatever time it takes to participate.

I'll do whatever I can to be of help -- teaching photographic expression has been my thing for more than 30 years, and I get great pleasure out of sharing what I've been able to pick up along the way with all of you via these discussions, and also in my pbase instructional galleries --which I am constantly expanding. I welcome your comments there as well. Thanks again, and keep asking good questions!

Phil