A moment of truth

Level horizon OCD and symmetry fetishism is overrated

>>3101310
Fucking triggered. The only person allowed to shoot tilted horizons is Koudelka.

The symmetry thing is pure */p/ though, and I'm grateful to all the autists who developed my appreciation of it.

small format photography is too easy to be considered fine art

>>3101306
I can take better pictures than all of you needing only my stylus infinity.

The reckless attempts to replicate a certain aesthetic creates it's own aesthetic.

File: Carl-Aqua.jpg (27KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 400x300px

• William Klein is an overrated cantankerous old turd.
• Fuji's cameras are technologically inferior and their greatest creation was the GSW690III
• Sony will probably dominate future digital camera sales because they excel in sensor production, research and development.
• /p/ actually was better when criticism was scathing and vicious.
• Photography uses truth to highlight fiction - Art uses fiction to highlight truth.

Technical considerations are absolutely meaningless with regard to the artistic value of a photo.

It's really hard for me to take a photograph seriously if the technical merits are too low. I'd rather read in a newspaper a dramatic account of the event than look at a hastily shot and badly composed photo of it.

Primes are highly overrated

>>3101325
>Photography uses truth to highlight fiction

Could you please expand on this.

"Bokeh" is a term that was invented by camera salesmen to sell expensive lenses that no one needs

>>3101310
false. if your photo is basic shit (like 99% of photos), it could at least have a level horizon, its what saves it from being a total failure. "symmetry fetishism" is a meaningless buzzword spawned from your lack of photographic exposure, there are as many symmetry as assymetry enthusiasts in the photo world.

>>3101316
false and gay.

>>3101319
no, thatd be me.

>>3101323
true. a cute truth thats not controversial at all.

>>3101325
>• William Klein is an overrated cantankerous old turd.
"overrated" isnt a measure or qualifier of anything, youre literally saying "people like him a lot and im upset because of that", boo fucking hoo, manbabby.
>• Fuji's cameras are technologically inferior and their greatest creation was the GSW690III
who cares, gearfag.
>• Sony will probably dominate future digital camera sales because they excel in sensor production, research and development.
who cares, gearfag.
>• /p/ actually was better when criticism was scathing and vicious.
/p/ is actually better when youre not around.
>• Photography uses truth to highlight fiction - Art uses fiction to highlight truth.
shit, valueless, meaningless quip.

>>3101334
false. if technical considerations are part of the way of delivering the message (for example, the work of Stephen Shore), then it can be harmed, diminished in its effectivity or mistaken for a different message.

>>3101339
your belief isnt it, but a predilection, so its not true or false. good for you, keep on keeping.

>>3101341
false. and stop being poor.

>>3101349
false. out of focus rendering can help an image become "dreamy" or "dry and documentary" depending on what lens you choose, so, bokeh is an useful thing to consider, for a photographer that knows whats hes doing, of course.

>>3101356
Nobody is reading this shit, anon.

>>3101306
The difference between a good photo and a fantastic photo is entirely subjective and you can convince anyone a decent photo is a work of art by how you market it to them.

Sony will open new doors to photography and video because it's trying to hard to be the number one sales, that's soon will become irrelevant in it's own technology.

File: dexter.jpg (75KB, 550x449px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 550x449px

Experienced photographers are usually so close to the medium that they almost always develop a boring and clinical taste in photography. It's honestly so fucking bad that developing photographers are better off looking outside the field for a creative mentor than within it.

I like my own pictures more than that of any other photographer

>>3101349
>a term that was invented by camera salesmen
Incorrect. It was pilfered from the the Japanese language to give erections to weabos and sell expensive lenses that no one needs

>>3101372
I agree with this

>>3101341
Primes are, however, talked up by salesmen, splogs and assorted internet 'experts' because they would rather sell you four lenses when a single zoom is sufficient.

Nobody needs lenses wider than 2.8

>>3101344
You don't seriously think he has a fucking clue do you?

It's just some bullshit he found on Facebook.

>>3101381
on 6x7

Most current photo gear has capabilities way beyond the needs of any average user and only people with specialized photo-related jobs should bother thinking about gear at all.

>>3101386
People with specialised photo-related jobs rarely think about their gear. Faggoting is for amateurs

Digital looks bad and with good editing it's okay at best. Never great. No digital image has ever impressed me with its colors like film.

>>3101306
The film look can be approximated well enough in LR that there's no real reason to still be shooting film if you're just after the aesthetic.

Film is the GOAT.

Black and white film is the GOAT.

>>3101425
>The film look can be approximated well enough in LR

Nope. I would like to see some examples of digital photographs that look like film.

isi is one of the most capable posters on /p/

>>3101356
>meaningless quip.
A quip is a humorous remark, dipshit.

Moopco gave good advice and post good photos.

f.

>>3101605
Good morning moopco

>>3101361
False, I am reading it, and I am definitely not the guy that typed it.
I-I swear.

>>3101573
this is true
>>3101605
this is troll

>>3101344
>Photography uses truth to highlight fiction - Art uses fiction to highlight truth.
>Could you please expand on this.

Sure. Probably best to start with the second part though. "Art uses fiction to highlight truth."

A work of art is just that - a piece of work. It is the product of a human minds perception, translation, and representation. We choose a subject and then reproduce it, in an individual way, to present it to others for contemplation. Try as hard as we might - our personal choices define what we wanted to highlight in the final work. We embellish. We stylise. We romanticise. Often without realising we are doing it. We use fictitious elements to weave a story and guide the eye. In essence we use falsehood to bolster details which might otherwise be underestimated. We idealise. The work is done in the head before the hand moves.

Photography, on the other hand, uses truth to highlight fiction. The camera is intrinsically designed to capture only perfect reality.
It cannot idealise without being manipulated into doing so. We force a machine, designed to be candid, to lie for us. We are perverting its nature so that it will convey a narrative which does not exist at all. We force physical elements, rather than ideas, to act so that we might tell a story with the image. The work goes on in the world, not in the mind. The genius element disappears as we can only produce a photograph of what reality will let us. The final stage-directed piece will little resemble the photographers true desire.

>>3101614
oh wow, a faggot showed up

>>3101616
kneel before burt

>>3101618
>implying you arent currently on your knees sucking off
>>3101325

>>3101610
shutup isi, moopco is much better than you

>>3101614
It's funny how one can see after reading two of your sentences, that you never had any academic education. Though, you may have a basic understanding of how to conclude, but your premisses are just hilarious.

Firstly, art is not as monolateral as you put it. Art occurs between the creator and the consumer. You cannot detach the one from the other.

Secondly, "reality" is a very difficult term. And the statement that photography reproduces reality is just incredibly superficial. Consider once, that even a human experience with all senses included, does not even remotely capture what one could say that "really happened". How could then a optical sensor which excerpts a little fraction of a temporary state of some electro-magnetic wave spectrum? It can't.

See? I change two premisses and your whole statement is void. In this manner photography is just as fictitious as any other art form.

Maybe next time elaborate your premisses a little better. This is what academics can teach you: Start your thinking process earlier - /before/ accepting the routines.

>>3101695
>premisses
Kill yourself for this shame

>>3101682
kys poopchute

>>3101697
well ok, premiss or premise but in any case premises. .. you know for a 2nd laguage (actually 3rd) my englis is pretty okeyish.

>>3101695
Whilst I agree that >>3101614 is a rip roaring faggot the line:

>Art occurs between the creator and the consumer.

is complete rubbish.

the consumer doesn't enter into it until the art is already complete. At that point it is merely a transaction ... if the artist is lucky and the consumers actually show up before he dies.

>>3101706
>muh normative conviction

No. Don't be so linear. Reflect some basic philosophic conditions. (Blablabla tree falls is forest and nobody hears it.) And then take yourself as "an artist" not so serious.

Listen, pleb. You don't get the consequences of your statement. If arr would be monolateral then there must be an objective criteria for quality. If you accept that the quality of art is subjective then it MUST be bilateral. Yoz can't have both.

So take your side: either art is bilateral and subjective OR monolateral and objective. ... And in case you choose the latter: good luck in life and with your suburb family house with garden and the SUV in the garage and all that.

>>3101714
>monolateral
I've no idea what your varilateral twaddle is all about to be honest. Does the artist execute their own idea and then hope to sell it, do they sell an idea and then produce the art or do they merely provide the manual labour for someone else's idea?

I don't really care. What is art anyway? I would suggest it is the execution of ones own ideas with the hope that someone will buy it later. I suppose you would call that monolateral. But then the criteria for quality would be whether the consumer likes it or not. Do you prefer donuts or cup cakes?

>>3101734
>how to write nine sentences whout saying anything

Photography provides fewer creative tools than painting. It is an inferior medium.

>>3101306
Art has crawled so far up its own ass it's generally pointless and fails at any purpose beyond making "artists" and art critics go "hmm" while trying to one up each other with obscure references or miles thick of jargon that is devoid of real meaning.

>>3101714
>Listen, pleb. You don't get the consequences of your statement. If arr would be monolateral then there must be an objective criteria for quality. If you accept that the quality of art is subjective then it MUST be bilateral. Yoz can't have both.
lolno
Protip: almost no dichotomies actually exist.

>>3101621
thats the same person dicknuts

>>3101810
I agree. That's why there are 37 genders and not only 2.

>>3101695
>It's funny how one can see after reading two of your sentences, that you never had any academic education.
Well I have a degree in Art history and museum management, what do you have?
>Though, you may have a basic understanding of how to conclude, but your premisses are just hilarious.
At least I know how to form a grammatically correct sentence.
>Firstly, art is not as monolateral as you put it.
I actually gave art a huge amount of space for variables - but please go on.
>Art occurs between the creator and the consumer.
I almost stopped reading the sentence at "art occurs". Art does not "occur", sir, it does not materialise without some conscious effort being made.
>You cannot detach the one from the other.
Thats probably why I said "We choose a subject and then reproduce it, in an individual way, to present it to others for contemplation."
Also - art does not have to be subject to consumption to be art. It can be a personal memento.
>Secondly, "reality" is a very difficult term.
Only for stupid people.
>And the statement that photography reproduces reality is just incredibly superficial. Consider once, that even a human experience with all senses included, does not even remotely capture what one could say that "really happened". How could then a optical sensor which excerpts a little fraction of a temporary state of some electro-magnetic wave spectrum? It can't.
This is just semantics now. You know exactly what I mean by reality. Optically perceptible reality - the same reality captured by all visual art - which I am comparing to fictional representation. Come on.
>See? I change two premisses and your whole statement is void. In this manner photography is just as fictitious as any other art form.
What the hell are you even talking about.
>Maybe next time elaborate your premisses a little better. This is what academics can teach you: Start your thinking process earlier - /before/ accepting the routines.
You're talking bollocks.

isi is a girl

>>3101807
>I'm too stupid to spend more than a second contemplation a complex work of actual art - and believe all contemporary art is shit because blogs and news outlets show me the very best of it and not just the shocking insipid shite side of it... honest.

>>3101807
Seconded. Modern art at least falls under this. It's just a bunch of bullshit obscurantism that people pretend to understand to somehow feel superior to people who "just don't get it", as if staring at a canvas splattered in paint makes you an intellectual superior because you can superimpose generic platitudes and cliches on it. It's so overdone.

>>3101306
photos shot in portrait orientation are generally more interesting that ones landscape orientation

Modern art and most ""minimalist"" """photography""" is a big fat liberal circle jerk completely devoid of any actual meaning and shrouded in obscurantism.

>>3101856
Modernism was an experimental period in art forced into happening by the advent of the camera. We no longer had to record history with paint. So artists had to think of something new. They started experimenting with angles, emotions, exaggeration, minimalism, abstraction, etc to see what they could describe visually better than a camera. They studied speed, energy, dreams, political unrest and nature, etc.

Just because you didn't react to a tiny amount of it in the way the artists would have liked doesn't make the art that you saw bad. It means that the experiment did not create a universally understandable communication. This sometimes means that you might have to do some research to understand it better. Which, again, doesn't mean it is bad.

Pollocks work (the paint splatters you are talking about probably) was about his emotions and the chaotic fear and anger in his drunken mind. He expressed himself on the canvas with viscous stress-relieving whips and dribbles of paint. His work is an excellent visual representation of energised creativity released with no preoccupations about what should be experienced by the viewer.

In essence - Pollock didn't give a shit about what you thought. He needed to paint anything. Thats kind of his myth.

>forced into happening by the advent of the camera. We no longer had to record history with paint.

Lol you really need to learn some art history if you really think that before photography, painting was done simply to represent reality.

If anything movements like the impressionists were inspired by the cameras potential for experimentation with light and its ability to capture a moment rather than out of some great fear of being superceded by the superior reality representing powers of photography. Heck, during the 19th century you saw the development of realist genres of art and more Plein air painting became more popular than ever before.

>>3101372
I love my own pictures. There are people who love photo books and galleries but I am not one of them. The only time I seek out other's photography is when I want to see what kind of images certain equipment produces.

File: 1478669391020.jpg (98KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 900x900px

>>3101384
perfect

>>3101306
I like photography but photography is over rated. Also, once you have a basic handle on technique then the only thing separating you from the "greats" are interesting subjects or a theme based photo set. Most great photographers are like pop stars in that their photography isn't necessarily better but they have these cool little background stories or celebrity. Photography isn't art.

>>3101917
>Lol you really need to learn some art history if you really think that before photography, painting was done simply to represent reality.
Thats not what I said though is it. Not exclusively. Many great artists were experimenting with varying the content of their paintings during that time. Duchamp also had quite a big hand is condemning painting - but he came in the early 20th century.

>If anything movements like the impressionists were inspired by the cameras potential for experimentation with light and its ability to capture a moment rather than out of some great fear of being superceded by the superior reality representing powers of photography.
Oh for gods sake, realism was a rejection of romanticism, not a reaction to photography, which it predated. In fact Paul Delaroche, a late romantic painter, is famous for saying that "from today, painting is dead" upon seeing the daguerreotype.


>Plein air painting became more popular than ever before.
En plein air painting became more popular because of the advent of stabilised, uniform, commercially available tubes of oil paint. Landscape paintings of idyllic rural farms etc became very popular among the wealthy during the 1870s too which meant that getting as many paintings done as quickly as possible was financially beneficial to decent painters - so they dropped the sketchbooks and took the canvas outside with them. It had nothing to do with photography.

Go home and be a family man.

>>3101306
Subject and lighting means more than the gear it is being photographed with.

>>3101939
>that's not what I said.
>Modernism was an experimental period in art forced into happening by the advent of the camera. We no longer had to record history with paint. So artists had to think of something new.

Sounds to me like you're HEAVILY implying here that the purpose of painting was, prior to photography, just to represent reality. Maybe if you wanted a family portrait or something sure but the ART that was exhibited in salons and bought by clever bougoisis was always much more sophisticated than that.

Also, at no point did I say that realism was a reaction to photography at all. I said that impressionism was, not realism.

>En plein air painting became more popular because of the advent of stabilised, uniform, commercially available tubes of oil paint
I know that. I was telling you that to show (along with the continued popularity of realism throughout the 19th century) that representational painting continued to become popular despite photography existing for decades before modernism arrived. They existed concurrently.

IMO It doesn't make sense to say that modernism existed as a reaction to photography when both painting and photography had existed for so long before that point. There were many reasons why modernism came into existence (rejection of academies, of war, of modern industry, of bourgois sensibilities, of religion...) and saying that it was mostly or entirely due to the "threat" of photography is just plain innacurate.

>>3101927
I like you. I agree with you. Photography is a shit artform for nerds that masturbate to bokeh.

>>3101969
Photography was a definite and acknowledged factor in the move from more traditional painting to experimentation - but the impressionists were much more inspired into activity by the academies stuffy inertia than by photography. They just wanted to create an alternative.

>>3101850
t. janitor

>>3102046
snappy comeback

>>3102050
ayo, now bring that broom back 'cross the floor
sweep it side to side and on out the door
now grab the mop you sheepish fop
before I make this microphone drop

>>3102059
How are you still single.

>>3102061
I'm not single, you projective git

>>3102083
well we can absolutely take your word for that.