[*isteve]

I get your idea Steve, although there are a number of very talented photogs on Flickr from whom one can learn a lot from. It's just a matter of finding them.

Its a bit like panning for gold in the Klondike but I like (and get a lot of inspiration from) various websites.... For the record heres some of my favourites.

Andrzej Dragan PHOTOGRAPHY

The official website of Nuri Bilge Ceylan photography

Martin Parr Photographer

Peter Paterson ARPS EFIAP DPAGB: Photography My Way

Portugal, images of a country Photo Gallery by Nuno Luis at pbase.com

I do think its important to understand the medium though, and what makes some photographers important and others not. Liking stuff is not, at the end of the day, very helpful in itself unless you can qualify why it does so and how it does so. Mind you I am as guilty as the next person of reacting to something on an obvious, aesthetic level.

The trouble is I sometimes learn more in ten minutes when I get the chance to watch someone at work than I do in months of experimentation. Doing your own thing is great but sometimes someone else already got there and can save you months of messing around. Looking at the web in awe is not so helpful and ultimately frustrating.

[*isteve]

Honestly, I don't think of this as "stifling real creativity and technical mastery" as much as I consider it "promoting mediocrity".

Good point, and I like your analogy.

I also think criticism is good. The trouble is at what point on a public website does criticism become worthless or even counter productive?

You see I think it works the other way too. Crap is often patted on the back, whereas anyone who dares be a bit good frequently gets the "patronising pro" treatment, as if someone who shoots a few senior portraits is automatically an artist.

So maybe its doing both?

Art is art and needs at least some accessibility in order to communicate. Craftsmanship, OTOH, is by definition, "hard".

It was pointed out to me once that sometimes art NEEDs to be introspective - that some artists need to play to their own peers - to challenge their own institutions intellectually - even if their work has no resonance with the public at large. If they dont, art will cease to have any intellectual capital at all.

A simple case in point is Duchamp's Fountain...
File:Duchamp Fountaine.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course now this is so well known, and the motives and thought process so well understood by now, that it has become totally mainstream. I guess the point is though, its not always the work that counts but the thought process behind it.

[*isteve]

Yeah Steve...I know all about Judges...You know

Why I wrote this:

Benjamin Kanarek Blog Photography Teachers?

I will never, ever sit on a panel of Judges...Unless of course I am PAID a SH-T load of CASH of course...

Of course.

But surely all artists need to learn technique, history and get exposure to other work before they know the context in which they work. You can probably list every major current fashion photographer in Europe right now and what their signature style is.

You cant be original if you reinvent the wheel and even composers must learn music.

There are of course bad teachers who say "do it like this" and then there are the good ones who tell you how they ALL did it and force you to look hard at hundreds of photographers so you can choose for yourself.

[johnmflores]

Well obviously nowadays it would be in colour

LOL, poor HCB, as great as he was, struggled with color.

Seriously though, production values only really matter for certain types of photography (stock, advertising etc). For artistic photography the roughness of the medium can be part of the aesthetic, like Bach played on the original instruments.

Would those awful photos of Kim Phuc be any more powerful if they had been taken with a D3x?

File:TrangBang.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Photojournalism in general (and war photography in particular) is a special genre, where being at the right place at the right time trumps all other factors. So no, a D3x would have not have made that powerful moment any more powerful - in modern times it could have been taken with a cameraphone.

And yes, in artistic photography the roughness of the medium can be part of the aesthetic, but then again, so can precision and production values. At that point, it's more a matter of the artist's vision - what they want to create - and the tools that they have at their disposal. Having mastery of the camera and the different things it can do is something I strive for as it gives me more tools to create with.

[lithos]

So...are the people who criticised it idiots because they criticised a Cartier-Bresson shot? Is that what this is about?

Second of all, that link in the OP highlights another thing about flickr that bugs me. Of the total area of the page, perhaps 10% is taken up by the photo. I'm not saying that it needs to be bigger (there's a link to a bigger shot,) it's just that the comments are about 60% of the area.

[flippedgazelle]

Of the total area of the page, perhaps 10% is taken up by the photo. I'm not saying that it needs to be bigger (there's a link to a bigger shot,) it's just that the comments are about 60% of the area.

Yup. That's why Flickr is more social site than photography site. Which is fine.

[RawheaD]

The trouble is I sometimes learn more in ten minutes when I get the chance to watch someone at work than I do in months of experimentation. Doing your own thing is great but sometimes someone else already got there and can save you months of messing around. Looking at the web in awe is not so helpful and ultimately frustrating.

One point where I find Flickr quite useful, since a lot (although not all) of photogs post their techniques and/or keep their EXIFs in tact, so that we may all "steal" their methods. If the data aren't there, you can always ask; cuz that's what the site is, like it's been said, social.


There are plenty of websites that showcase absolutely fantastic work by great photographers, but 99% of them are non-interactive. Looking at them is kinda like looking at a photography book. You can admire the great photos, but you really don't learn too much (or are left wondering "How the hell???").


But again, returning to the original question, I think it's stupid to call out Flickr and blame it for the degeneration of modern photography. I mean, then, why stop there? Why don't you just blame the whole frikkin' interwebs for that?

[*isteve]

One point where I find Flickr quite useful, since a lot (although not all) of photogs post their techniques and/or keep their EXIFs in tact, so that we may all "steal" their methods. If the data aren't there, you can always ask; cuz that's what the site is, like it's been said, social.


There are plenty of websites that showcase absolutely fantastic work by great photographers, but 99% of them are non-interactive. Looking at them is kinda like looking at a photography book. You can admire the great photos, but you really don't learn too much (or are left wondering "How the hell???").


But again, returning to the original question, I think it's stupid to call out Flickr and blame it for the degeneration of modern photography. I mean, then, why stop there? Why don't you just blame the whole frikkin' interwebs for that?

Well, if you noticed my original post I didn't single out Flickr, nor did I presuppose the answer to the question though some got very defensive. I merely asked whether the critique one receives (good and bad) from self appointed critics has any particular role in terms of improving photography per se, or just technique, or neither.

[*isteve]

So...are the people who criticised it idiots because they criticised a Cartier-Bresson shot? Is that what this is about?

No it's about the value (or otherwise) of free (and unqualified) opinion.

I sell prints now and again, but the funny thing is I seldom sell the shots I really like, although they move me far more than others which sell quite well.

Clearly one good thing about Flickr/pBase etc is that they give you an idea about what will sell and what wont (as opposed to whats good and what isnt). Its a bit like X-factor.

[K McCall]

Interesting point, and I agree with you about other people's opinions, but is Flickr a good place for inspiration? Should you aim a bit higher?

I intentionally didn't mention the word "inspiration" because that's usually not what I'm looking for when I browse through flickr. Maybe it's just me, but I'm more likely to inspired by a book or a song or even a conversation than by someone else's work. I'm not saying that I'm not inspired by other photographers, but that's not what I go looking for on flickr.

More generally, the question that you posed seems to treat Flickr as an entity. If you look at all the photographs that are posted in a day, then the average quality of the photos on Flickr is just that - average. But there are some fantastic photographers who post their work there. A great photo is a great photo is a great photo regardless of the domain where it's uploaded and stored.

[lithos]

No it's about the value (or otherwise) of free (and unqualified) opinion.

I sell prints now and again, but the funny thing is I seldom sell the shots I really like, although they move me far more than others which sell quite well.

Clearly one good thing about Flickr/pBase etc is that they give you an idea about what will sell and what wont (as opposed to whats good and what isnt). Its a bit like X-factor.

Thanks. Just wanted some clarification, because I can't stand the tired old line of "It's by Artist X, you have to like it," line, which, on reflection, might have more to it than that.

The thing about art is that it's...opinion. Pure, straight, unmitigated opinion. Why? There are no baselines for it, like there is for pretty much everything that isn't art. If you put diesel in a petrol car, it's not going to run. That's bad. There are tangible and quantifiable effects of doing so. There are no consequences for bad art - other than differing opinions.

Post a clichéd picture (the black-and-white nude, a photo of a homeless guy, your kid or cat being a kid or cat,) and some will hate it, some will like it.

Post some weird, disturbing piece of, I dunno, a hand that's been stabbed with a pair of scissors, and some will love it, some will hate it.

There are no absolute baselines, no rules, which should be evident enough in the formation of new genres, styles, and techniques. The only thing that makes art good or bad is...opinions.

How those opinions are formed we'll never properly know (and I pray we never will, because that means someone would have made a device that can read people's minds and the origin of their thoughts.)

So, perversely, I say that every person criticising the shot and every person praising it are simultaneously right and wrong.

But that's just my opinion .

[RawheaD]

Well, if you noticed my original post I didn't single out Flickr, nor did I presuppose the answer to the question though some got very defensive.

And neither was my comment meant to accuse you of doing either of those things. It's more in response to people who would answer "Yes" to your original question (and you know and I know there are plenty of people who would---that's why similar questions get raised all the time at different fora).

[*isteve]

Thanks. Just wanted some clarification, because I can't stand the tired old line of "It's by Artist X, you have to like it," line, which, on reflection, might have more to it than that.

Well, I dont agree with that either, but I think this was more a case of "I dont like the submitter so I will pick holes in everything he submits" which was the point of the particular thread in Flickr. In this case, despite the technical impurities, it was a better picture than most that are deemed "wow" and "save".

So as well as accepting that occasionally a great artist does less than great work, I am also saying that the greatness should have nothing to do with that persons popularity.

Flickr (as well as Facebook and Twitter) are popularity sites - the more people you stroke the more strokes you get.

The thing about art is that it's...opinion. Pure, straight, unmitigated opinion. Why? There are no baselines for it, like there is for pretty much everything that isn't art. If you put diesel in a petrol car, it's not going to run. That's bad. There are tangible and quantifiable effects of doing so. There are no consequences for bad art - other than differing opinions.

I may admire art that I dont like, and like art that I dont admire, and freely admit that I dont always "get" art that many rave about and sometimes think that the justification for such raving is pseudo-intellectual BS.

However I have also been proved profoundly wrong when a friend and top London art restorer (her last restoration work was valued at over £6m) patiently explained how and why some art is highly respected even if its not aesthetically very approachable because it changed the way artists looked at the world. It was never meant to be likeable or popular, it was meant to be challenging and to upset the apple cart.

Post a clichéd picture (the black-and-white nude, a photo of a homeless guy, your kid or cat being a kid or cat,) and some will hate it, some will like it.

Post some weird, disturbing piece of, I dunno, a hand that's been stabbed with a pair of scissors, and some will love it, some will hate it.

There are no absolute baselines, no rules, which should be evident enough in the formation of new genres, styles, and techniques. The only thing that makes art good or bad is...opinions.

How those opinions are formed we'll never properly know (and I pray we never will, because that means someone would have made a device that can read people's minds and the origin of their thoughts.)

So, perversely, I say that every person criticising the shot and every person praising it are simultaneously right and wrong.

But that's just my opinion .

I think you make a good point here about chiche, and I think that's exactly my point. People who expect cliche (because they are comfortable with what they know and whats acceptable) will generally hate modernism and vice versa.

But doing something radically new is not only difficult (has everything not been done already?) but sometimes a dead end (doesnt work). The good stuff though generally prevails after people have had time to get used to it and the shock values wears off - its not always popular at the time and frequently vilified by the more conservative - its much easier to see it in context after time has elapsed - look at Mozart.

And as I said, I dont think liking something is particularly relevent to whether its good or bad, but rather understanding what its trying to do and whether its successful or not. Thats seldom easy to assess.

[dadipentak]

Eh, I'm not sure it's the right zeit for my geist, anyway.

Exactly!

[jct us101]

Of course Flickr is a social networking website. It was originally designed as a game. Why do you think the URLs all end in .gne?