Savageduck
On 2013-12-07 15:31:47 +0000, PeterN <peter.newnospam@verizon.net>said:

PeterN
On 12/7/2013 9:53 AM, Savageduck wrote:

Savageduck
On 2013-12-07 14:00:34 +0000, PeterN <peter.newnospam@verizon.net>said:

PeterN
On 12/7/2013 8:34 AM, Savageduck wrote:

<snip>

Not at all the same. the purpose for my definition was to make it clear that a good photo artists was all I was referring to. My definition was ignored because it attempted to preclude arrogant chest thumping, albeit unsuccessfully.

Savageduck
The only arrogance evident here is your elitist stance regarding "good photo artists".

PeterN
The context of my comment was, IIRC in essence, that a good photo artist has a good working knowledge of the capabilities and limitations of his equipment and PP software.

Savageduck
Some pretty mediocre photographers have a good, sometimes very good working knowledge of the capabilities and limitations of their equipment and PP software, and they still produce crappy images. They can call them art, but they remain for whatever reason, crappy images. Some photographers producing extraordinary imagery from their cameras have little technical knowledge of the "art of photography" or post processing, but they have an almost savant ability to capture very good images.

There are photographs which please my eye, sometimes I can define why I like them, many times there are qualities which are less tangible. Some of those images could well be called art, some are documentary, but are still good photographs, in some cases compelling, sometimes disturbing, but hardly art.

PeterN
What is art?

Savageduck
Art is a creation by an individual intended to invoke an emotional response in the viewer. Not all art is good. Just because we are told it is art, is no reason to place accolades upon the work and its creator, when it is in fact a POS.

piece of art because the shooter has a good working knowledge of technical photography, and is aware of the capabilities of his PP software, and he has told us he is an artist and the POS is a work of art to be viewed in that context? There comes a time to let him know that the Emperor's new suit is a figment of his imagination.

Next there are photographs taken by individuals who believe themselves to be artists, but who never truly consistently elevate their work to that level. They produce the occasional magnificent accident, but for the most part their "art" is awful, only called "art" to distract from the fact that they are not particularly good photographs.

PeterN
Again, what is art. When a photographer consistently produces magnificent, or even pleasing images, it ceases to be an accident.

Savageduck
The paragraph above certainly does not refer to the group of photographers who consistently produce magnificent, or pleasing images. Their product is certainly not accidental.

Art is a creation by an individual intended to invoke an emotional response in the viewer. Not all art is good.

I wishfully believe that a few of my images could be considered art, but I don't set out to shoot art. In my case if some viewer declares it a work of art I will accept that opinion, if not it is just another of my shitty shots. I like to produce good photographs and I like to know what is required to help me do that with my equipment and my PP tools, sometimes I succeed, many times I come up short.

Then there are shots taken without pretension, or deliberation, some of these are good, some interesting, most are ordinary and not particularly good.

PeterN
agreed

Savageduck
What they all have in common is the fact that they were created with light focused through a lens or lens system onto a light sensitive medium where it is captured, to be processed via chemistry or computer to produce a visible, tangible image. Good, or bad, art, or not, they are all photographs taken by camera users, good, bad, professional, amateur enthusiasts, indifferent casual users, all termed photographer.

PeterN
All technically true.

Savageduck
Good! then stop arguing.

PeterN
However a carefully defined framework was given. Whether you agree with the framework, is irrelevant to the subject matter being discussed. If I state that Bartlett pears make a good pear preserve. A statement that Cortland apples are not as good as Fujis, is outside the premise, even though both apples and pears grow on trees.

Savageduck
...but could they ever rise to the level of melons?