Often there is a debate around the difference between an 'artsy' shot and a ' stock' shot, or an artsy shot that gets overlooked. I think this is a good example of such a shot. It is technically well done, the moody dark feel, the looming cloud shadowed on the eerily calm waters. The subtle light on the sign, some may reject the heavy dark bottom, yet i think it lends the viewer to the heaviness and grounded position of the photographer as planted solidily on the ground, IMO this shot is full of emotion and longing. Creates a desire in me to be out at sea. I can see it is not a typical shot, but it does feel emotive and unique, a creative take on a 'seen before' subject. I hope this will lead to a discussion of similar shots that had intended to be of an artsy manner, yet were not held in high esteem by the masses.
I'm not sure why this is should be considered an "artsy shot". It looks like a standard low light silhouette photo. I love the subtle light on the sign and the elements on the horizon. On the other hand, I feel the tree(?)on the left very distracting and there is too much darkness in the bottom.
Lynn, I felt this was a creative and innovative shot as well. As in "stock" shots, you can have a separte technical discussion on how well lighting, editing, etc was done. I like your idea of calling out shots that may have the "artsy" quality you spoke of. By their very selection as artsy, not all will agree.
One of the distinctions I feel (rightly or wrongly) the difference between a bad and artsy shot is that artsy shots (and i call them this for lack of other term), are obviously not 'rushed' , they have the feel that the photographer took some time with it, both in the set up and post processing, not just 'oh heres a snapshot i just took'. I think soups comment on 'soaking it in' is the right idea, it caused me also to stop and pause. To me that makes the shot 'have something' perhaps artsy is not the right term. Perhaps others could post a shot of something they feel is artsy to further discussion.
(it is not the purpose of my post to have people agree with me, just to discuss and name what is it or is not it that makes a shot)
I think it is an "artsy" shot in that it makes you think. It's contemplative and moves you inside yourself, but it's got a subtle effect. There is irony here and opposing forces of movement. A tableau is usually a graphic or vivid description of a striking scene (got that straight out of the dictionary lol). But the photog presents us with a flat, uninteresting scene. The flat horizon is contrasted with the more undulating and blackened foreground. The tree trunk also contrasts with the tableau and the flatness of the shot. Being that it cuts off it takes your mind up to the heavens, as well as, to the earth below. Is the purpose of the shot to take us deep within our psyches, to take us beyond the surface to deeper meaning through the most mundane and uninteresting of subject matter? I guess it's a "Zen" image, in more ways than one.
i dunno if artsy necessarily is the right term, creative maybe.
meaning the image doesnt present its purpose w/o a close inspection.
a stock photo by nature - gives the veiwer an immediate sense of a specific feeling/emotion that the photog is pushing at you.
a creative photo leaves some deducing to the viewer even though the photog may have had a specific goal of his/her own, the photo itself is more open to interpretation.
maybe this isn't aren't what you mean, but.. anyhow comments welcome...
Technically and emotionally I'd score it low, often a photo means much more to the photographer because they have an attachment with the photo and dont' realize what they see isn't what others see - since they're remembering the emotion of being there to see it in real life...as opposed to being a stranger just viewing it for less than a minute. The challenge is to evoke in others what YOU felt when you saw it...and try to see it for what it is, not what you think it is.
Artsy fartsy schmartsy...that's semantics. I don't really care how it's labled.Get back to the picture at hand. What was the photog's intent and did he accomplish it?
On second thought, I have no problem with the term "artsy" when it's used to distinguish between photographs that are meant to depict or express some kind of genuine humanistic experience as opposed to an image that is meant to sell or has some other ulterior motive.
On second thought, I have no problem with the term "artsy" when it's used to distinguish between photographs that are meant to depict or express some kind of genuine humanistic experience as opposed to an image that is meant to sell or has some other ulterior motive.
yep. But isn't that re-cooking my previous post?
I mean... Art does exists since thousands (!) years ago...
If we need to call it 'artsy' just because salesmen have blewed it during the last couple of centuries that means to give way too much power to commercials (like if they need more..).
Regardless our age gold is still gold and shit is still shit.
For the POV challenge I made artsy shots and stock photo shots. I decided to enter the artsy one because it was different and original. From the comments so far everyone feels the same way. The stock one had some really good depth of field but it was "blah".
Probably the main reason that I haven't joined yet is because I enjoy taking and looking at artsy shots, but it seems frowned upon in the challenges and DPCprints.
By what definition or standard do you hold art up to? Where is the dividing line?
it should not be too much of a shock (even risking to shift into sci-fi) to reckon that artists were able to capture the feelings, dreams and fears of their Age (not rarely looking ahead) and because of their 'psychic powers' they had a quite a damned living (ellamay is living too well - good for her - that's why she speaks of 'artsy').
That's the history so far (of course there is another theory which says that salesman were waiting for the very poor artist to die and then start speculating on their works and most people feels it more realistic - but what's reality after all?)
I think people should do whatever they do to express whatever it is they are trying to express, and stop worrying about whether or not it's "real art".
I think people should do whatever they do to express whatever it is they are trying to express, and stop worrying about whether or not it's "real art".
I think another difference between art (artsy) and what's not is also the depth of feeling or communication being expressed, and how well it accomplishes it's message. On the surface, Tableau appears too flat and uninspiring, but I think the real message behind it, if I may, is reality has cycles, seasons and up and downtimes. I'm sure that in another time of the year/season or perspective, that view that Zeuszen presented is probably beautiful, if nothing else, as evidenced by the fact that there is in fact a tableau there, although we don't necessarily know what it describes. This is alot different than an image who's sole purpose is to draw attention to itself with glitter and glitz, although I'm not demeaning that either. Everything has it's place and time. In that sense, Tableau is probably artsy.
Totally agree, but then why have a rating system here on DPC? Some art/images have higher value than others. It's the intent of the artist/photographer and how well he/she accomplishes their intent that helps to determine it's value. Reality is truth, and art, imo, expresses reality on a deeper level. Other forms of expression may, or may not express reality, to a greater or lesser degree, but on the whole, do not express it as well or effectively as art.
I'm also tiring of this term artsy as it denotes a work as art like. To what extent is it art would be a better question to ask of an image.
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
I think people should do whatever they do to express whatever it is they are trying to express, and stop worrying about whether or not it's "real art".
