I was looking at Zigomar's portfolio (welcome back, Zigomar, we've missed you), specifically his Leg my frame series, and I got to thinking.
Dangerous, I know...
A lot of us shoot pretty pictures because we like pretty things and other people we know like to look at pretty things. A lot of us shoot pictures to "record" incidents, occasions, places, or people, sort of a visual notebook. A lot of us, in other words, shoot pictures for easily-understandable reasons.
And some of us don't.
Why does Zigomar do what he does? Why does Posthumous? Why do our "artists of the bizarre", those among us who see strange visions in the banal and everyday, those among us who steadfastly slog along against the tide of the everyday aesthetic, why do they do what they do?
Are you sure that Zigomar and Posthumous don't consider their work pretty?
Anyway, there's another reason for making pictures, I think: To provoke a reaction, any reaction; to stir an emotion, any emotion. I think some people don't necessarily want the viewers of their art to say 'ahhh!' or 'hmm!' they want them to say 'ugh' or 'yuk'
I've been finding myself more drawn to much of their stuff. Not all of it appeals to me, but much of it does. I'm not a "deeper meaning" type, though. It just looks cool.
And that I say because although US citizens live in the shadow of an outmoded constitution and rotten democracy, we must be forever thankful for their one-liners.
And that I say because although US citizens live in the shadow of an outmoded constitution and rotten democracy, we must be forever thankful for their one-liners.
And that I say because although US citizens live in the shadow of an outmoded constitution and rotten democracy, we must be forever thankful for their one-liners.
Have I just been dissed?
Nah, I'm not deep either - it's all straight up face value and fair dinkum.
Is photography art? Is psychology a science? Is the United Nations nations united?
I have my own ideas but I do not think I am proficient enough to be called a photographer, I am just another 'man-with-camera'. Just as a lady with a piano can not call herself a pianist, but just one who possesses a piano.
Nope,I do not have the answer, accept that I ADORE capturing the moment, for me. Does that make me an artist? Hell no!
In a way, I think that if you can get somebody to think hard about your image and like it, it would be much more satisfying that just having somebody say 'that's a pretty sunset.'
If in years to come I could do that it would be amazing.
Saying that though I do think these kind of 'artists' have to be more open to criticism as they definitely don't have the broader appeal of most mainstream images but I think that is why they like it as it 'promotes' a response.
I love that image at the top (and images like that) however, funnily enough I commented on it earlier before this thread was even opened :-)
There is a wide spectrum of motivations for photography. I think the most common motivation among this crowd is the thrill of the "challenge." It's fun to react and respond to a gauntlet thrown down.
But there are many ways to respond to a challenge. There is the fun of seeing how high you can score, but there are other sorts of reactions you can try for: most favorites, most controversy, etc. After all, if you're not interested in how people react to your photo, why would you put it in a challenge?
Discussions like this make me wince a little, because people come up with false categories, like "pretty" and "meaning." I tend to like photos with less meaning, not deeper meaning. And I love visual beauty. Eye candy is not beautiful to me. I'd rather see a castle in Ireland than Cinderella's castle in Orlando. Is that really so hard to understand?
...those among us who steadfastly slog along against the tide of the everyday aesthetic, why do they do what they do?
The only time I was working "against the tide" at DPC was when I was entering challenges with the aim of achieving high scores and maintaining a high average. I got past that when I realized that challenges here reward the viewer, not the photographer.
The people agonizing over "which image will score the best" and boo-hooing in the scores threads are the only ones working against the tide.
I shoot and enter what amuses me. It's actually quite easy. No slogging necessary.
My own position is that I have almost no interest at all in photography, but I am absolutely fascinated by photographs. For me, the camera is merely an instrument for assaying the imagination.
I wasn't always this way, as my lamentably leaden early work attests only too dismally. I simply became dissatisfied with safe, banal photographs, and so I began looking for the provocative, the unexpected, the audacious. In my own stuff, and in the work of others.
It's liberating. For the intellect and for the soul.
In DPC terms it means being happier with scores of 4-point-something rather than 5-or-even-6-point-something. Should I ever accidentally have a score of 7-point-something, you may shoot me.
This (above) is of course the reason why I so often find that I have scored ribbon-winning images in the 3-5 range (to the outrage of some folks here). Those images are not bad photography; they're just bad photographs.
Instinct and study; love and hate;
Audacity-reverence. These must mate,
And fuse with Jacob's mystic heart,
To wrestle with the angel--Art.
~Herman Melville
