1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Digital Art

Discussion in 'Talking Pictures' started by MickLL, Jan 29, 2014.

  1. Catriona

    Catriona Well-Known Member

    Why don't you have a Foto-Fight at dawn? I'd love to see your images and I'm guessing more would as well.

    I'll be the judge. lol ;)
     
  2. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Sorry, but that's a bare-faced lie.

    Not a claim, but a fact, supported by evidence not just of definition, but of usage. I don't expect an apology from you for this lie, because frankly I don't think you've got it in you. :(



    You were diappointed by the truth? Why? You had made the absurd statement that you didn't want that as an answer, but frankly tough - it IS part of the answer. It has always been possible, and we've given you examples.



    Then why has neither you nor anyone else challenged that assertion? You actually haven't given your view at any point in this thread as to the acceptability or otherwise of such work, merely repeatedly had cheap snide shots at Roger and me. If you have an opinion, share it. If you think I'm wrong, justify it. Are you saying that in art there are boundaries in terms of what can be done or not? If so, what are they, and why? And if not, what's wrong with my statement?
    In other words, put up or shut up - get on with the debate itself, and stop whining about the terms its on, it's very unedifying.
     
  3. MickLL

    MickLL Well-Known Member

    What a very nasty response. I'm trying to 'pour oil' and you weigh in as above.

    Thanks
    MickLL
     
  4. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    It's the sort of response your thoroughly unpleasant post deserved. "Pour oil" indeed! Another untruth! All you did was repeat a lie about me and have yet more snide digs. Not only do you show yourself incapable of the decency of an apology for the lie, which I've sadly come to expect from you recently, but you you refuse to actually do as I suggest and get on with the debate either, instead perpetuating the nonsense with yet more rudeness.

    Yet again - do you dispute my assertion about boundaries in art, or not? If so, this is your chance. If not, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that you know I'm right, but your pride refuses to let you say so.
     
  5. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Mick,

    No need to joke! What you describe is always the best policy. But long ago I discovered that people can misread almost anything, so it's important to imagine how someone thin-skinned might react.

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  6. MickLL

    MickLL Well-Known Member

    For heaven's sake let's stop this nonsense. I just typed a long and I hoped reasonable reply and lost the lot. I'll try again though although the format might be strange.

    Not a lie (and I find that accusation offensive). Roger taught me in an exchange a little time ago that the dictionary is not always the final arbiter. For the whole of my life, and throughout my social circle, that word would not be used in 'polite society'. I found it offensive and reacted to it. If your upbringing tells you differently then we must agree to differ (that's NOT a value judgement BTW)

    I never said that it wasn't the truth it plainly is. I was disappointed because I had hoped to get past the same old arguments that we have been having for the last ten or fifteen years and talk about something that's a fairly new trend. If you consider that request absurd then, again, we must agree to differ.
    You say it's part of the truth and I accept that. It would have been nice if you had started to discuss the other part.

    There's no challenge to be made - it's self evident. I don't have a strong view because I don't do that sort of stuff. I had hoped that I would learn something and I also believed that the fact that I had raised the issue in the context of some of it not being 'real' photographs indicated the direction in which my thoughts were going.

    No cheap shots were intended and I apologise if it came over that way.

    Once more I apologise but I have to say the same to you as you have done to me. You cannot direct the direction in which a thread goes. I began by specifying photography and competition and that's my interest because I know a little (very little) about it. You seem to want to talk about art in general and that's difficult for me because I know very much less about art in general.

    However let's take things on your terms for moment (and even more apologies if this gets naive). Your central tenet seems to be 'anything goes and no lines can be drawn'.

    First point. There are intellects greater than mine who regularly discuss whether something is art or not. They seem to think that there may be a line somewhere although AFAIK no-one has managed to draw it.

    Second point. I assume that you would agree that it's relatively easy to draw a line between, say, a painting and a sculpture. Heaven forbid that such a thing exists but I further assume that you wouldn't allow a sculpture into a painting competition. We are starting to draw lines.

    Third. I further assume that you would agree that it's possible (but a bit more difficult) to draw a line between a painting and a photograph and that you wouldn't allow a painting into a photo competition.

    Finally, and at last at my point, it seems to me that some of the modern offerings have never been anywhere near a photographic process and I ask if they should be in a photo competition. Now I know that at least we both agree that competitions are not our scene - but we have to accept that they are the scene of most of the club world. Unfortunately if we have competition we need rules and I guess that the first rule should be that an entry into a photo competition should actually be a photo.

    That's it. For goodness sake let's get past this 'taking offence crap' and get on with something more interesting.

    MickLL
     
  7. MickLL

    MickLL Well-Known Member

    For the avoidance of doubt I meant that I wouldn't deliberately be 'properly rude' to you. At least I don't think so. :D

    MickLL
     
  8. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Indeed not; purely as an explanation, my insistance in this point is purely that you criticised me for making it, without explaining if you felt it had any validity. Surely it's a point that gets to the very heart of this debate?

    Thank you for answering it.

    Indeed, and that's why I wouldn't differentiate between photographic art and any other type. The competition element does of course introduce a slightly different aspect, purely in terms of the rules of the competition - I don't disagree with you on that at all.

    But that's a question as to what constitutes art, and the boundaries of it; I wouldn't claim to have addressed that, nor indeed to be entirely competent to so do. My own defintion of art, which I would certainly not claim to be definitive or necessarily be shared by anyone else, is that art is what is produced when someone sets out to make art. No value judgement in that, because that's purely a matter of taste. I would be very interested in other people's views on that subject.

    Indeed, but these are lines that are actually drawable in terms of competition rules.

    Again, a drawable line - up to a point, anyway; where does this leave techniques such as airbrushing and hand retouching, or even hand colouring, which are really more painting techniques? But it's possible to define rules for this.

    Don't get me wrong, I've a lot of sympathy with what you're saying, but this is where it does get hard without doubt. How exactly do you define "photo" in the first place? Fair enough, you can probably define it in such a way that it excludes anything that doesn't originate from some form of photographic process, but there's always that question of degree - as long as there is some form of photo at base, I genunely can't see how a meaningful line can be drawn as to how much modification is allowable so long as we're talking art, even competitive photographic art - how can you have a rule that's measurable, and thus enforcible? That's why I think it makes more sense to leave it to the judges to make their minds up unfettered by such complications - it's as much pragmatism as anything.

    Amen. Hopefully that has been!
     
  9. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Mick,

    I've always loved the definition of a gentleman as one who is never inadvertently rude. Though that's probably impossible on the internet.

    Have you yet had a chance to look at any length at those links about surrealist photography?

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  10. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    Leave that to me. :)

    Ten frames on Tri-X yesterday (although light conditions could have been better) with 35mm & 50mm lenses, through Olympus Orange filter, on my first OM1, meter circuit blown so exposure guidance courtesy of Sangamo Weston. :D
     
  11. MickLL

    MickLL Well-Known Member

    :D

    No not looked at the links yet. Despite the impression that you might get from recent activity I have a houseful of sick people and one in hospital. I'm currently twiddling my thumbs waiting for her to call to be ferried home.

    I promise that I will look.

    mickLL
     
  12. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Mick,

    Oh, dear. I hope they all get better soon! I'll light some incense for them.

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  13. PhilW

    PhilW Well-Known Member

    The problem is one of definitions.

    And the snag is we don't all seem to have agreement on the most basic of these:

    What IS a photograph?

    The problem comes from the fact that creating a photograph is a process.

    Stage 1 - we expose the film


    Stage n - we present the result

    In the simplest SOOTC film version of the process stage 2 is send the film to be developed and printed

    And the stage n becomes stage 3

    But even that is more complicated that it seems because although the photographer may on be "hands on" for 1 and 3 a lot goes on during 2

    The same is true of the digital equivalent, where stage 2 is: copy the jpg from the camera to the computer/printer. Because in the split second between the end of stage 1 and the start of stage 2 the software in the camera has done a lot of processing steps you don't see.

    So I'll attempt a strawman definition of a photo

    a picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused on to light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment, or stored digitally, where the final result is not materially different from the original capture.

    Of course I have ducked the issue by the use of the word materially :)

    For me that would mean the essence of the original is maintained. You might clone out some bits, even add in some small elements, or merge similar exposures. But the core is what was there in front of you.

    Digital art is something that truly creates an image from the artists vision. And which may, or may not use elements from one or more photographs as constituent parts of the final creation (digital art could be hand drawn ion photoshop with no bits of photos included)

    So this is a photo, even though i shot it against a white wall

    [​IMG]

    And this one (done as a piss take) is fairly poor digital art because i drew on a lot of the elements

    [​IMG]
     
  14. Trannifan

    Trannifan Well-Known Member

    Personally, I wish you'd posted this without an explanation............
     
  15. Trannifan

    Trannifan Well-Known Member

    That's a serious case of camera shake you've got there! Remarkably horizontal though!
     
  16. Trannifan

    Trannifan Well-Known Member

    [​IMG]

    Photograph/analogue or digital art?
     
  17. PhotoEcosse

    PhotoEcosse Well-Known Member

    I suppose, in some folks' minds, it depends upon whether you created it by swiping the cmaera upwards during the exposure or, alternatively, used the blur tool or some other filter in Photoshop.

    Doesn't matter to me - I quite like it and would classify it as "artistic" however it was achieved.
     
  18. PhotoEcosse

    PhotoEcosse Well-Known Member

    Going back to the beginning of the thread, the catalogue for the Smethwick International dropped through the letterbox yesterday. With the exception of the Nature categories, a lot of the medal and ribbon winners are certainly of the more creative type.
     
  19. Catriona

    Catriona Well-Known Member

    You are right about that! I got nowhere with that Salon and I'm not the least surprised. ;)
     
  20. VampyreVenom

    VampyreVenom Well-Known Member

    As a (fairly) young photographer (I'm 24), I thought I'd offer my opinion on this.

    I'm not a fan of photo-manipulation of any kind. If you edit the picture, in my opinion, you are no longer portraying the art of photography but rather digital art. If you change the sky you need to edit the light to suit the new sky, even if you only add or remove a few clouds. I know modern cameras do a certain amount of editing themselves but this isn't to the extent of adding digitally created elements or Photoshopping elements. I have attempted photo-manipulation myself and found that I prefer to use acrylic on canvas for creating a modified picture of various elements and generally produce a better picture as well.

    That's just my opinion though, as I said I'm fairly young and no expert and definitely wouldn't have been able to rectify botched photography back in the days of film....
     

Share This Page