Ask yourself, for what do you trying to do something? If you're enjoying large format camera, it is not necessary to learn the nature of light, psychology, et cetera. I've heard about guy who took photographs and never shared them to anyone. He even didn't look at them. After every set he was formatting the card and charging the battery for the next serie. Kinda strange, but nothing bad in that, everyone should do what he wants. But if you don't wish to be an unpublished writer, you have to learn alot about how to present what you are willing to say. I'm sure, the model you have is able to provide alot of enjoyable moments to capture. She is beautiful, she has pretty face and there are no doubts she is a very kind person. Why not reveal that? Maybe you started too hard with large format: difficulty in setting up that monster camera distracts your attention, making those ethereal things irrelevant, so I advice you to take the faster system in order just to learn how to freeze the best moment you see. And then after time, if you do love LF so much, return to it, having bigger knowledge. Good photographer have to be also a good psychologist, businessman, manager and so on, and so on... There are very many out-of-photography things which are making your photography better, truly.
At the end of the day, people are getting tired more and more of awful depressing stuff, which overwhelms us every day in any environment. They need something to make them happy, full of inspiration and enjoyment — this what art is stands for. I am having strange feeling looking at your second photo, it has something weird I can't define and describe, but compared to the first one, it has nice harsh daylight lighting, untypical to the most portrait photographs I've seen. Talking about girl's portrait, I am sure: you could do it way much better. Try to play with lighting schemes to reveal the best.
Technician wrote:
They need something to make them happy, full of inspiration and enjoyment — this what art is stands for.
While I certainly agree that is the goal of some art and I'm thankful for that kind, this is a pretty restrictive definition of what art stands for.
dmacmillan wrote:
While I certainly agree that is the goal of some art and I'm thankful for that kind, this is a pretty restrictive definition of what art stands for.
completely agree. a narrow view from a narrow man.
Restictive, but not that lifeless. And I'm not a beholder of absolute truth, so anyone can call me biased — no offence. BTW, I didn't wanted to offend author of the picture in any way.
IMO, art is anything made with love. Period. The problem I see is many people struggling to get a clue why they do what they do, why listen music, watching cinema and pictures, reading books and what kind of information and inspiration they're trying to extract. One rarely will hear solid answer on all those questions other than 'Because I like it'. From the deepest anciency human could describe in all thinest details why he hated something. Hate is rational. But none could answer why he loved what he preached.
killersnowman, it's an exerpt from your site.
...(creative) spark has flourished into a passion. Exploring the hidden beauty of the Central Coast brings me great joy. My hope and goal is that my images bring inspiration and joy to those that see them. The world is too beautiful to let these moments slip by. Please enjoy!
technician. thank you much for the feedback. as i dont fully agree with your statement on art, i do appreciate your incite. i do fully agree though concerning the elements surrounding the photographer and the effects they have on the finished product. i will keep all this in mind when shooting next. ps...no offence taken. dont worry about killersnowman...hes just coming down from an adderall binge.
Technician wrote: killersnowman, it's an exerpt from your site.
Is that true or hypocrisy?
are we bereft of logic today? what would be hypocritical about me saying that MY art is made with these intentions? i did not make a blanket statement that only something made with those intentions IS art.
i would define art in a much larger scale as anything, in any medium, that evokes an emotion in a person. the human body, in its most beautiful and most grotesque, is art... since mr. Rowes image evoke a vomiting feeling in you and made you feel emotion enough to come on here and spout your thoughts, we can safely say that it is art. which brings up another point of the subjectivity of art and if we can truly judge one piece as having more significance over any other.
killersnowman wrote:
are we bereft of logic today?
No, it was a pure trolling.
killersnowman wrote:
i would define art in a much larger scale as anything, in any medium, that evokes an emotion in a person. the human body, in its most beautiful and most grotesque, is art... since mr. Rowes image evoke a vomiting feeling in you and made you feel emotion enough to come on here and spout your thoughts, we can safely say that it is art. which brings up another point of the subjectivity of art and if we can truly judge one piece as having more significance over any other.
If you'll see a piece of shit in the park, you'll say it's disgusting, right? Purely essential reaction on such a scene. Let's do it in a tad delicate way: we can shit in a jar, stick in a price tag on it and exhibit in a museum. Everyone should say it's a true art! This crap immediately becomes untouchable, because it evokes an urge to vomit and since it touches emotive sphere of human mankind, we can conclude that shit in a jar is an art. You fooled! Half of XX century flew under banner of post-modernist idiocy, foolishness, hypocrisy and other bad things. I'm not a necrophile, coprofago or something like that. If you don't feel this way, this doesn't make you free to call me narrow.
It comes to mind a King Crimson's song Epitaph, especially the last sentence of a second verse: 'The future of mankind I see is in the hands of fools'. After fourty three years these words remain so true...
can you write up a little pocket guide to Art? or better yet can i just get your phone number? i want to consult you every time i think something is art... thhhhannnkkkssss!! =)
Oh yea, the picture looks like a snapshot of a very beautiful young lady, regardless of what kind of camera it was taken with. More importantly though, you seem to be really enjoying the process and that's a great thing.
When you post a photo for comment don't complain about the responses.....everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion. Period. And if he or she wants to be direct either negatively or positively so be it.
To me it looks like an over saturated photo of a woman looking at the camera and not knowing exactly what to think. Others might pay for a print.
