andy_king wrote:
No need to care about my comprehension stranger. I think it's decent enough. I was pointing to your joke about the 'nothing' term. Quite a impressive sense of humor you got there. *Sarcasm*
Beni, you came to this forum to poke fun at other people's branding (pj and fine art) and comprehension level? No need to be such a low life troll. I'm guessing your the one of the main contributors to this forum's success and popularity over the last little bit. =)
Anyone else with incredible photographs and super creative branding wanting to laugh at other photographers' branding techniques?
Your 200 odd posts gives you quite an attitude. I didn't 'come' here, I've been here practically since the beginning of the wedding forum. You came here with your patronising attitude and your name calling. You won't be missed.
Fine art = we're going to pose the eff out of you to hide your ugg
PJ = don't you dare look at me
Lifestyle = let's hang out, I'll bring my camera, you bring your wallet
Whether you call your stuff pj, fine art, or whatever....as long as you're doing what you like and your clients are happy, who cares what people think?
fine art is special and compelling. weddings happen at an alarming rate.
photography is super easy. it doesn't take a genius to expose a photo. beyond that, you have to say something with the images. by taking photos at a wedding, you are saying that people are getting married. maybe that they are in love and have a happy extended family. big whoop. this happens all the time.
i think the subject matter has to be either especially compelling or completely abstract to be "fine art". there is a very narrow concept of how to shoot a wedding and how to portray it. i barely stray outside of the paradigm and have been accused of (wedding)photographic heresy.
shoot a wedding and make the bride look upset. show the bad side of a wedding. now that would be closer to fine art than anything we currently attempt.
Sergio Mottola wrote:
fine art does not mix with weddings. it's commissioned retail photography.
yep. sure some people shoot in a more 'artistic' fashion then others, and some photographer's work approaches what i think can be considered art. but the term is bullshit
I'd love to see an example of something that might qualify as fine art wedding photography. I've never seen it but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Mark did you have something specific in mind you're not sharing with us?
I have seen some engagement/bridal shots on other forums approach what i would consider art. Fashion art.
I don't think an entire wedding would fall under art .... but i believe it is possible to produce something that is artistic.
In the cookie cutter wedding industry in the US - no.
More specifically, wedding in other cultures - particularly dignitaries or royal weddings will have the ability to produce a couple images which would be on the level that would be considered artistic in nature.
Art does not have to include people, some weddings present landscape and impressionistic locations/views.
Now i think a little more .... who is to say art can not be produced at a wedding.
It think it is short sided and a very narrow minded view to think it is not possible.
I also believe not every wedding shooter can be a true artist just like not every painter can create generational defining art.
Ziffl3 wrote:
Now i think a little more .... who is to say art can not be produced at a wedding.
It think it is short sided and a very narrow minded view to think it is not possible.
I also believe not every wedding shooter can be a true artist just like not every painter can create generational defining art.
I think the part where it would be extra difficult for commercial wedding photographs to become "fine art" is that there is little interest (except in celebrities like Kim Kardashian or the royals) beyond the family and the people involved. I could see some gallery curators and art dealers taking interest in showing wedding work, maybe they do. I don't really know. For example the Detroit Institute of Art did a show on another commercial genre of photography when they did a show on automotive photography.
Anyone can call what they do fine art, but time will tell.....IMHO
I'm not saying that art CANNOT be produced at a wedding. I'm saying I haven't seen it.
I've seen some engagement photos that I think come close enough ... and in fact I can think of a couple of photos that I've seen that I think might qualify.
the other one I can't find... but it's a shot of the asphalt pavement and there's a puddle on the asphalt and reflected in the puddle you see a couple with one or two (can't remember) very colorful umbrellas. Dunno who shot that.
I'd have to see it again, but maybe Chris Fawkes' shot through the window in the rain with the B&G totally abstracted OOF...
I think that in a way my criteria for it to be fine art goes something like this:
Would someone who woudl not put a plate on their wall with the trevi fountain* put THIS photo on THEIR wall if they had no clue who the people in the photo were?
And in fact I woudl strongly disqualify the "royalty" or "celebrity" weddings that Mark and another poster were alluding to... those are automatically disqualified ... basically if your face has ever been featured on the racks at my grocery store, the only way a photo of you can ever qualify as fine art is if you're butt naked from the belt down and you're dancing with the pope.
*and isn't some dumbass weddingluvvie or doesn't just harbor a deep desire to visit some remote location featured in the photo.
Alex,
I suggested possible (royal/celebs) higher end weddings for the location & time of year ... a visual explosion of colors/textures/ etc. I am not say other weddings don't have this no ... just thinking of examples.
I thought about this some more ... i don't think 1 wedding would work but more a of a compilations over a period of time. Thinking years here.
Sergio Mottola wrote:
fine art is special and compelling. weddings happen at an alarming rate.
photography is super easy. it doesn't take a genius to expose a photo. beyond that, you have to say something with the images. by taking photos at a wedding, you are saying that people are getting married. maybe that they are in love and have a happy extended family. big whoop. this happens all the time.
i think the subject matter has to be either especially compelling or completely abstract to be "fine art". there is a very narrow concept of how to shoot a wedding and how to portray it. i barely stray outside of the paradigm and have been accused of (wedding)photographic heresy.
shoot a wedding and make the bride look upset. show the bad side of a wedding. now that would be closer to fine art than anything we currently attempt.
I went back thru the thread ... Sergio, i like that point.
so how do we as wedding shooters 'see' - capture and present "compelling" images.
(this open to anyone and not thrown back to Sergio)
weddings do happen all the time... and not all weddings are equal - not at all .... but the weddings where you see it - feel emotions - do you push yourself to capture it?
the compelling moments that are composed - adjusted for light ..... are they more than just a another image at a wedding?
Any tips?