Photography. Art or Crap?

[Lara]

I doubt Irakly is a whiner :P His work is amazing.

I'm all for the new forum even if it's just for me to view and not post!

[Spike]

IMO, his post was whiney. Whining has nothing to do with the quality of his photography. I'm all for him moderating a new forum. I can just see it now - all bloody boring photos will be deleted on sight!

;)

Spike

I doubt Irakly is a whiner :P His work is amazing.

I'm all for the new forum even if it's just for me to view and not post!

[Lara]

"I can just see it now - all bloody boring photos will be deleted on sight!"


lol, Nahhhhhhh.

I think we do need to give something new a chance.
Initially Irakly's post was kind of a shocker to me, but after reading it over a few times, and talking it over with a few people, I think we would benefit from peaking more interest in diversity. This may be just what PR needs.

The way I look at it, if you're interested in a new forum, you go to it. If you are not, you don't. Simple as that.

[Elysian]

I've been a moderator of a photoshop board for years and I've visited many other related boards. Every now and then people would ask how to do the most common things like how to remove a background, which tools to use, how to correct a color cast, etc. Several times I've noticed that some members got annoyed (you heard them thinking; "Oh no, not another amateur!") or accuse others of being lazy or advice them to make use of the help or a search engine. Even on a Photoshop board you can't create some elite board in which all these annoyances are avoided, because these forums are impossible to moderate without stepping on people's toes.

That's why we have paid memberships like they have at NAPP (National Association of Photoshop Professionals). A user who just wants to create a banner for his crappy home site is not going to spend $99 for their membership and this is probably the only way to solve the annoyances that some of the more experienced users feel they have to deal with.

Hodgy somehow confirmed this in his post:

If you find that the images here are not giving you a "wow" factor, then visit another forum. I am a member at a few pay forums that are 100% professional photographers and the images that I see there are just awe inspiring."

I'm also a bit confused. Here we have a member who's complaining about the crap he's seeing and we assumes that once we create a new forum that he will see more great photographs. Be honest, who believes that this is going to happen?

A new forum will invite people to talk more about the creative part of photography than they do now? I have my doubts.

Now I have a question; how are we going to moderate this forum?
What are the moderating criteria that we're going to use, because otherwise you can bet on it that it will just turn into a 'Critique Forum II'.

Let's say that this new forum is going to be a success and that most experienced photographers prefer this forum over the current critique forum and show up less in the old critique forum? Is that going to help those who need help the most, read "beginners"?

I agree, it's always a good idea to try new approaches, but I think that there are other things we should focus on that are a lot more useful and trust me, I already have one idea (one moderator already knows), but I still need some time to work out the small details.

And to go back to that photoshop forum where members complained about beginners asking the same questions over and over; I didn't whine like some of the others, but I wrote some 20 sticky threads that answered these most common question. That's how you should approach things like this, but not by closing your eyes and thinking that a new forum will solve everything.

If I don't like the photographs of some people, then I try to tell them how they can improve, but geeeeez, I'm not going to ask for a photography art gallery or forum to fulfil my personal needs.
If I want to post about art in photography, then I talk about it. I really don't need a special forum for that. Neither did KellyBean and look how many reactions she got in her thread.

[Lara]

Elysian, a lot of us have benefitted from the "how to" posts that you and many others have posted, myself included. My point is, why not have something new in addition to what we already have. People who have been helpful to beginners and intermediates enjoy, and I dare say feel a sense of accomplishment in "teaching", as they rightly should. I don't think a single new forum will take away from that. I truly believe these people will continue to be our guides.

I honestly don't think the possibility of adding a new forum to the existing ones will cause a problem.
Should there be comment to these photographs? I don't know. Should it be just a showcase? maybe.

I guess what I am trying to say is there is room for diversity. It shouldn't affect or bother the people who are not interested, and it should give the people who are interested something they have been looking for in PR forums. I am sure John will agree, there are no intentions of taking away what PR already has.

This is solely my opinion, so guys and gals, please continue to post your thoughts.

[Liz]

I think Elysian brought up some excellent points. I agree with some of his concerns including the following quote from his post:

"Now I have a question; how are we going to moderate this forum?
What are the moderating criteria that we're going to use, because otherwise you can bet on it that it will just turn into a 'Critique Forum II'."

Again (as stated in my post above), if Art is subjective, how does the "artist" (photographer) determine if he has a snapshot or a work of art if he has fallen in love with his image, but others (including the moderator) view it as "crap?"

In no way am I saying it won't work - I already agreed it's a great idea. However, I think it needs to be "critiqued."

Where are you Irakly? We need your input too!

Liz

[walterick]

What about restoring the "Vision" gallery?

Rick

[Irakly Shanidze]

Wow... Thanks John, that's the way to do it. I think that the Art Forum is a viable idea, especially if it is somehow tied to a gallery that is something like the Vision gallery that perished some time ago. The rules can be established that would really make it easy for people to understand what to post there and what not to.
What I want everybody to understand that this is not a talk about stupid newbees and wise advanced shooters, but about ability and willingness to challenge yourself with something more than taking a photo with a certain lens and certain exposure value on a certain type of film. I do not want to offend anybody here, on a contrary, I believe that virtually everybody is capable of creative self-expression. Do you remember when you were kids how mucj time you spent drawing, assembling wierdest things with Lego sets, etc.? All it means that you still have it inside of you, just let it out!
What was a real surprise for me in all the posts in this discussion (I read them all, believe me) is that some people are saying with a scary ease that they do not want to be creative. I do not want to make anyone do stuff that they really do not want to, but I want you to think about your being actually able to create something with your very own mind, eyes, hands and a camera, and not just "something", but a piece that will stir emotions, bring memories, spawn an associative chain in a viewer. Another words, create something that will make a viewer live through your experience, feel what you felt. Believe me, when you take a picture that someone sees and remembers in a year from the moment of seeing it, it feels great. Try it, and you will understand
Irakly

Way to stir things up, Irakly! This site can use a little more controversy. Sometimes we get too polite. But that's because most people on this site have so much respect for each other. This thread just proves that. Even when you try to get in our face, people come back at you with reasonable and well-thought out answers.

That said, I am very sympathetic to your message. I too believe that most photography I see isn't art. To me, ART is about meaning. There's illustration and art. There are both types of work in other "artistic" disciplines, why should photography be any different? A pretty, technically perfect image of a flower, or even a naked woman, isn't necessarily art. It becomes ART when it starts to have deeper, layered meanings - when it starts to speak about the human condition and help us to better define and understand our place in the universe. ART is abour spirituality and the deeper parts of the psyche. It's more than just capturing a scene. It's capturing that scene and sing it to suggest more about who we are, where we come from, where we're going, and our relationship to the world around us.

I hope I'm not being judgemental here. That's not my intention. People are very quick to get defensive whenever anyone starts to challenge whether their work is "real" art. But I'm not saying there's anything wrong with snapshot, family, flower, or other representational photography. I understand that people take pictures for many reasons. Not everyone is interested in taking pictures that encompass something larger. But to claim that all photography is art is to undermine and devalue the word, "art." ART is different. That's we argue about it and that's why it's important. It's hard to define - especially the line where a piece goes from being representational to art. But once again, a technically perfect photo does not necessarily qualify as art. That doesn't mean it's bad or the photographer isn't doing valuable work, though. It just means the content is different.

I'm glad Irakly started this thread. I think it's a good one and I think we can take advantage of it. A bunch of people said that he should go somewhere else because this site just isn't an artistic site. I take issue with that. I have a fine art background. I'm not really doing artistic photography these days, but I want art on this site. One of my unspoken goals for PhotographyREVIEW.com is to challenge photographers and get them to expect more of themselves and each other when it comes to photography. If you read the critiques I post on the Photo Critique forum you'll know that I occassionally start talking about meaning, symbolism, and understanding your own motives. These things are important for "real" art. And while talent is a real issue, I believe we can all improve our work ad make it more artistic. We can't all be great artists. But we call all be better artists. ut we have to have an open dialogue about art and we have to speak the right language and understand what art actually is.

I propose that we create a new forum specifically for art photography. That way, if you're interested you can share and participate. And if you're not, you can ignore it. But I believe this site can become more artistic and we'll all benefit. It will raise the level of the site and encourage and inspire us all to expect more from our photography. I know I miss mixing with photographers who are concerned with a deeper kind of work.

Irakly, would you be willing to moderate a new forum?

[darkman]

Again (as stated in my post above), if Art is subjective, how does the "artist" (photographer) determine if he has a snapshot or a work of art if he has fallen in love with his image, but others (including the moderator) view it as "crap?"

In no way am I saying it won't work - I already agreed it's a great idea. However, I think it needs to be "critiqued."

Where are you Irakly? We need your input too!

Liz

Hi Liz, I too have this concern. Was Rembrandt not an artist because his paintings were so real? Is Van Gogh AN artist because they're not?

Some people on this site think photographic "art" has to be B&W. Others think it needs to be diffent or wierd (of course, in their terms of whatever that means!) While others like a heavy hand in PS. And on, and on. Remember, pnd1 described "arty" as a term to use when you like something but can't describe why in classical terms. Does that mean everything has to be abstract or not depict reality?

I believe a persons creativity and vision produces art. Wherever that brings them. IMO, mastering the easel and brush, or becoming an excelent drafstmen, is no different than furniture making, or architecture. All of these require a vision and a mastering of the medium to make an end product.

Then again, sometimes serendipity produces great art. However, even in these cases it's usually helps if the person has mastered his craft. In other words, knowing what to do when the situation arises, or how to make it arise. Consider people who think art with photography is playing with shutters speeds, camera movement, and flash sync.

In other words, there's almost no good answer. I do (I think) understand what PJ is trying to say. I too often see praise of an image of a drop dead gorgeous paid model posing nude in front of a window with diffused light. While this often does produce wondeful results - diffused light from a window I mean - more often than not the praise is about the model. As PJ told me while we were discussing this once, "great model, now show me some good photography." But, this brings us back to the masters like rembrandt. So I suppose it is art too!

Wow, I went on for a while! Very tough question.

Mike

[MJS]

Wow, what a king size can of worms. I'm not quite as well versed as others, nor do I see myself as an artist. I understand and can teach technique in both still and moving pictures. I can appreciate the way texture can bring you into a shot and the how lighting can add dimension to an otherwise flat world that we reproduce. I may not get expressionism or cubism but I can appreciate the heart, soul, hard work and vision of the artist. I shoot to freeze that moment in time, to savor the memory and keep it near and dear to my heart. I teach the technique that I've learned to my young souls, hoping to inspire or maybe awaken the artist inside them. I'm a self professed visual mechanic, good at some things, better at others. But most importantly, I've learned that, and I'm paraphrasing a stolen quote here, wisdon isn't how old you are, or how much you know. Wisdom is how much you are willing to learn from the people and the world around you. I plan to keep showing up and learning. How about the rest of you?

I understand the frustration you are feeling at times. Sometimes out of great angst, comes great art.

MJS

[Irakly Shanidze]

I do not think that this is a good idea to try to define art as something "real" or "not real". Things that make a photograph {a painting, a sculpture, a poem for that matter) artistic have nothing to do with how real the reality is depicted in that piece. Work of art is something that has a meaning, and it is clear that the artist was able to bring this meaning to the viewer and make the viewer FEEL. It is kind of a primitive definition of art, but it's all I've got after a two-mile run

Hi Liz, I too have this concern. Was Rembrandt not an artist because his paintings were so real? Is Van Gogh AN artist because they're not?

Some people on this site think photographic "art" has to be B&W. Others think it needs to be diffent or wierd (of course, in their terms of whatever that means!) While others like a heavy hand in PS. And on, and on. Remember, pnd1 described "arty" as a term to use when you like something but can't describe why in classical terms. Does that mean everything has to be abstract or not depict reality?

I believe a persons creativity and vision produces art. Wherever that brings them. IMO, mastering the easel and brush, or becoming an excelent drafstmen, is no different than furniture making, or architecture. All of these require a vision and a mastering of the medium to make an end product.

Then again, sometimes serendipity produces great art. However, even in these cases it's usually helps if the person has mastered his craft. In other words, knowing what to do when the situation arises, or how to make it arise. Consider people who think art with photography is playing with shutters speeds, camera movement, and flash sync.

In other words, there's almost no good answer. I do (I think) understand what PJ is trying to say. I too often see praise of an image of a drop dead gorgeous paid model posing nude in front of a window with diffused light. While this often does produce wondeful results - diffused light from a window I mean - more often than not the praise is about the model. As PJ told me while we were discussing this once, "great model, now show me some good photography." But, this brings us back to the masters like rembrandt. So I suppose it is art too!

Wow, I went on for a while! Very tough question.

Mike

[MJS]

My friend, if I may be so bold, I think you just hit the nail on the head. Now if I could only have the wear-with-all to even think about enjoying a 2 mile run.

[Liz]

Mike,

You're made some excellent points. The thought occurred to me that the work of some artists were not recognized as "art" until years after their death. Some of them suffered tremendously during their lifetime just trying to make a living.

Maybe this is a bit off the track, but here goes. I have a book (catalog) "Photographs for the Farm Security Administration 1935-1938" which includes numerous prints of Walker Evans. I love these photographs - I love his work. This was his job. They are not all technically perfect. Is he an artist? He's captured my heart along with the hearts of many others with his incredible images.

At any rate, it will be interesting as well as a challenge. I think there is a place for this forum on PR. I think we have to be sensitive to the newbies and others who enjoy just doing snapshots and seeing the results as their works of art. We've all been there. ;)

Liz

[Liz]

"I'm not quite as well versed as others, nor do I see myself as an artist."

You certainly did a great job of expressing what you feel. I loved reading your post. It is both true and inspiring.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I was truly inspired. You're quite well versed.

Liz

[Irakly Shanidze]

Liz, once again...
Being a newbee or a professional has nothing to do with artistic ability. I have been teaching creativity in photography for quite some time and can tell you that there are some people who take a camera in their hands for the first time and immediately start producing stuff so amazing that technical imperfections just do not matter. There are few of those, unfortunately. Others have to develop their artistic ability, but one can do it only after he or she realized that there is something to be developed.
Sometimes, however, a person with a great artistic ability does not regard it as such. The best example is Guy Bourdin who repeatedly refused to exhibit his photos, or publish a book. He reasoned that he was just doing fashion photography, therefore he was merely a craftsman with no artistic vision. Fortunately, his son did not share this opinion and published a stunning book, which is an intensly humbling experience to look at for anybody who thinks that he can shoot fashion, or who regards himself as a photo artist.

Mike,

You're made some excellent points. The thought occurred to me that the work of some artists were not recognized as "art" until years after their death. Some of them suffered tremendously during their lifetime just trying to make a living.

Maybe this is a bit off the track, but here goes. I have a book (catalog) "Photographs for the Farm Security Administration 1935-1938" which includes numerous prints of Walker Evans. I love these photographs - I love his work. This was his job. They are not all technically perfect. Is he an artist? He's captured my heart along with the hearts of many others with his incredible images.

At any rate, it will be interesting as well as a challenge. I think there is a place for this forum on PR. I think we have to be sensitive to the newbies and others who enjoy just doing snapshots and seeing the results as their works of art. We've all been there. ;)

Liz

[opus]

Ok, back to that idea about a separate art forum.

I like that idea, but it scares me that it would be critiqued. In my mind, I post for a critique when I think I could do better. Right away that goes against the idea of posting your "best". I'm not going to post something that I think is wonderful knowing that everyone else will be looking at it to pick out the flaws, or tell me that they think the bird should have been on the OTHER side of the volcano and the shot would have been improved if a meteor had been falling through the clouds as I shot. OK I'm exaggerating...I haven't gotten that kind of critique here, but I have gotten that kind of critique from other professionals.

On the other hand, people should say something about the posts. We already have the Gallery that nobody comments on.

But I think if you open up a forum that asks for "the Best" "Art", you have to be ultra sensitive about not hurting the fragile feelings of anyone opening up their soul to display what they think is their best art. It should be expected that people give some thought to what image they're posting, but that everyone else should respect that person's vision, whether they agree with its merit or not. It might turn into a total BS forum: "oooh, I like it" ... "wonderful image" ... "oh, great color" ... etc., but maybe that's OK. More artists might post if they know their egos will be stroked. We all seek Validation.

After all, over yonder in Critique, accepted comments include those about technique, equipment and general composition. Comments about the actual subject matter often don't go over well. When someone questions your vision, your viewpoint, your intention, it hurts. And I would suspect that an Art forum would be all about vision, and therefore extremely personal.

These are my thoughts as seen through a sleepy brain after staying up all night watching Ivan make landfall on CNN. I hope I haven't been too blunt.

[Liz]

Thanks for replying Irakly,

Just to clarify that my reference to newbies was meant as part of the bigger "picture."

I think we have to be sensitive to the newbies and others who enjoy just doing snapshots and seeing the results as their works of art. We've all been there.

My concern isn't for the newbies per se - it is for anyone who sees their snapshots as a work of art. Point being - we need to take into consideration that in their view, their work is Art. As you mentioned on an earlier post, it is important to be clear about what is considered "appropriate" to post.

Your post did help to clarify some things for me. I think I have a better understanding of your "vision" and goals. I think some "reactions" are due to the "surprise/shock" of how this all evolved. Other reactions might be due to some lack of clarification of vision, etc.

Actually, the more I read, the more I understand, and the more I understand, the better I like the idea. Hope that's clear.

Liz

Liz, once again...
Being a newbee or a professional has nothing to do with artistic ability. I have been teaching creativity in photography for quite some time and can tell you that there are some people who take a camera in their hands for the first time and immediately start producing stuff so amazing that technical imperfections just do not matter. There are few of those, unfortunately. Others have to develop their artistic ability, but one can do it only after he or she realized that there is something to be developed.
Sometimes, however, a person with a great artistic ability does not regard it as such. The best example is Guy Bourdin who repeatedly refused to exhibit his photos, or publish a book. He reasoned that he was just doing fashion photography, therefore he was merely a craftsman with no artistic vision. Fortunately, his son did not share this opinion and published a stunning book, which is an intensly humbling experience to look at for anybody who thinks that he can shoot fashion, or who regards himself as a photo artist.

[Elysian]

I do not want to make anyone do stuff that they really do not want to, but I want you to think about your being actually able to create something with your very own mind, eyes, hands and a camera, and not just "something", but a piece that will stir emotions, bring memories, spawn an associative chain in a viewer. Another words, create something that will make a viewer live through your experience, feel what you felt.

And now I ask you Irakly; when is an abstract photograph considered art?

But back to art in general; where people live, how old they are, what they know, their history, their artistic background, their social status, etc, these are all things that influence how we perceive certain photographs as art (whether we are the ones making it or viewing it). This board is also a reflection of all those different people, so take that into consideration.

The truth of the matter is that there is no broad definition of art. What might be considered art by you and even millions of other people doesn't automatically label it "art".

I do agree with you that people should try to take more than just a carbon copy of what they see, but not me, not you or anyone else can define what art really is and so we're back at square one; how are we going to moderate a forum like this? Sounds more than a fair question or not?

[Sebastian]

For what it's worth, I see the new forum as a way for us to challenge each other and discuss vision, with the act of posting images ala critique as secondary.

[Asylum Steve]

IMO, a new forum devoted to photography as art will be a virtual minefield of issues that may cause as many problems as it solves.

If the intent is indeed to focus on better quality work with more dynamic meaning (as Irakly implies), then by nature the forum MUST be exclusive, IOW there must be standards, guidelines for posting, maybe even juries, otherwise it will no different than Viewfinder, Critique, and the Gallery and will be made up primarily of images people only THINK are artistic, in effect taking AWAY from those forums.

With that in mind, I can tell you that it is next to impossible to make a single forum on a site exclusive without hurting someone's feelings or causing resentment from those that don't "make the grade".

If not handled properly, an Art Forum will be viewed as elitist...

As Hodgy and Elysian point out, the best way to deal with this problem is to make an entire site exclusive, either by making it a pay site, or open only to pros, or having the posted work judged for the ENTIRE site. This way the site markets itself to those truely interested and willing to play by their rules.

We also have the problem that Kelly addresses, one I think most advanced shooters and pros would agree with: we are never going to post our best work here. I'm sorry but I believe it's true. Anyone past a certain skill level or point in their career will concentrate almost exclusively on showing their work in the REAL world or on personal web sites that they've invested much time and money in, NOT on these forums or galleries.

So, what we will most likely have if we create an art IMAGE forum are (again) newbies and "inbetweeners" that THINK they are artistic but not really sure and are trying to get better at it, and that will be no different than what we have now...

IMO, a new Art Photography Forum will only succeed if the emphasis is NOT on the posted images, but rather the PHILOSOPHY of photography as art, the VISION of photography as art, the TOOLS and TECHNIQUES of photography as art, the WORKFLOW of photography as art, and the BUSINESS of photography as art.

What I mean is the discussions of this forum will need to be MORE ABSTRACT and celebrate the WORLD of art, the PASSION of art and how we can all tap into our creativity and be a part of it if we really want to...

If we set it up that way, it may actually work...

[Sebastian]

Once again Steve says what I'm thinking...

[darkman]

I do not think that this is a good idea to try to define art as something "real" or "not real". Things that make a photograph {a painting, a sculpture, a poem for that matter) artistic have nothing to do with how real the reality is depicted in that piece. Work of art is something that has a meaning, and it is clear that the artist was able to bring this meaning to the viewer and make the viewer FEEL. It is kind of a primitive definition of art, but it's all I've got after a two-mile run

Hi Irakly,

I do not try and define art as something real or not real. My point is basically my taste in art and yours may be way off from each other on some things and the same on others. But, neither of us is wrong!

It still comes down to the same thing. What you view as having meaning and bringing it to the viewer might not do the same for me. I enjoy well composed AND technically done landscapes and it does have meaning to me. I do consider it art. Whereas, I look at other things and think to myself that is "arty." Mostly because I don't know how else to explain it. But it does absulutely nothing for me!

My question is if we have an "art" forum would this landscape belong? Recently, someone here asked for posts of "arty" nudes, which, by her terms, had to be B&W and abstract. There was nice stuff posted. But, IMO, most of it _I_would_ consider illustrations because of such a heavy handed post processing PS approach.

Now, I'm back to Elysian's comments. What gets to be posted there as opposed to the photo critique forum (or any other forum)? Can a landscape be posted there? What kind of landsacpe? Surely not a post card photo (hah)? What about a senior studio shot? Or even a "catch?" One of Sante's most well known shots was taken after the session as the model was driving away.

You also brought up craft or art. Of which, I think is an imaginary line. A well crafted piece of funiture, or a neat architerctural work, has as much meaning and brings as much feeling to me as a good painting or photo. I too tend to view myself as a craftperson. Does that make me not arty? When I see something that has a heavy handed post processing approach and I see the poor capture technique (camera, lighting, etc), it begins to lose meaning for me as a "photography." Yet, I sometimes still enjoy it as art.

To end this, what will difine this forum over the others? Who's opinion will that be? I get the impression you have an idea of what you think art is. Which may not hold true for others.

[Liz]

What I mean is the discussions of this forum will need to be MORE ABSTRACT and celebrate the WORLD of art, the PASSION of art and how we can all tap into our creativity and be a part of it if we really want to...

Steve,

I think you made some excellent points which taps into the essence of the problems that could evolve. 2 comments:

1) How will we ever know if Irakly's ideas and PJ's suggestion of a separate forum will work unless we try it?

2) I wonder if we really need an actual "forum" for this vs. one of those long sticky threads with options to continue. I could be totally off base and wrong. But, I just wonder if there is enough interest to make this a forever-forum. We've had similar discussion many times. Maybe something like this should begin with a thread.

3) I think your idea of these types of discussions is excellent. However, it's totally different from what Irakly was talking about. Maybe we have two good ideas here. Or maybe both could be incorporated into one forum

Just typing as I think.....which could be dangerous. ;)

Liz

[Irakly Shanidze]

This is exactly the point. To my mind, anybody can post anything that he or she considers art, and it is up to audience to discuss it and to decide whether it is art or not. That's how people learn. I anticipate that some discussions can get quite heated, but personally I do not find that it is bad
Again, another topic for discussion is whether photoshop makes or kills photography, does it help us create art, etc...

Irakly

Hi Irakly,

I do not try and define art as something real or not real. My point is basically my taste in art and yours may be way off from each other on some things and the same on others. But, neither of us is wrong!

It still comes down to the same thing. What you view as having meaning and bringing it to the viewer might not do the same for me. I enjoy well composed AND technically done landscapes and it does have meaning to me. I do consider it art. Whereas, I look at other things and think to myself that is "arty." Mostly because I don't know how else to explain it. But it does absulutely nothing for me!

My question is if we have an "art" forum would this landscape belong? Recently, someone here asked for posts of "arty" nudes, which, by her terms, had to be B&W and abstract. There was nice stuff posted. But, IMO, most of it _I_would_ consider illustrations because of such a heavy handed post processing PS approach.

Now, I'm back to Elysian's comments. What gets to be posted there as opposed to the photo critique forum (or any other forum)? Can a landscape be posted there? What kind of landsacpe? Surely not a post card photo (hah)? What about a senior studio shot? Or even a "catch?" One of Sante's most well known shots was taken after the session as the model was driving away.

You also brought up craft or art. Of which, I think is an imaginary line. A well crafted piece of funiture, or a neat architerctural work, has as much meaning and brings as much feeling to me as a good painting or photo. I too tend to view myself as a craftperson. Does that make me not arty? When I see something that has a heavy handed post processing approach and I see the poor capture technique (camera, lighting, etc), it begins to lose meaning for me as a "photography." Yet, I sometimes still enjoy it as art.

To end this, what will difine this forum over the others? Who's opinion will that be? I get the impression you have an idea of what you think art is. Which may not hold true for others.

[Irakly Shanidze]

Steve, you are so smart that sometimes it almost frightens me
You've made several exellent points here. Now poor PJ has so much to think about...