Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-15-2018, 05:43 PM   #16
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
You said that he made his millions using this "I am not into recording what I see, I want to create art." viewpoint. It wasn't, and I didn't think it was irrelevant to point this out. Following your creative artistic drive first and foremost while still managing to bank serious coin at the same time would be grand, but that wasn't the case here.
There has been no evidence to point out he wasn't the most artistic wildlife / landscape artist of his time either. You're drawing conclusions not based on evidence.

Maybe you can find some photography by Steve Parrish that is somehow lacking in artistic vision, I can't.

https://images.steveparish-natureconnect.com.au/portfolio/G0000Q1gdONFKxdw

---------- Post added 07-15-18 at 09:00 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by gaweidert Quote
My fine arts teacher in college flat out stated that photography was not an art at all.
My physics and math teachers in high school argued about whether math was subject in itself or just an adjunct to science. A Professor ar Western University here Ontario measured the sizes of people from various races and tried to argue Chinese were the smartest and that their smaller es were proof of that. You studied with a whack job, as have lots of other people. Don't let it ruin your life.

Here we have the Steve Parrish fine art overview. Maybe you could get your professor to phone him and explain how wrong it is to call photography art.
https://images.steveparish-natureconnect.com.au/portfolio/G0000jFcyDOrnpbk

Click on the Fine Art link at the bottom of the galleries.

What part of the definition of art is it makes you think photography isn't artistic or shouldn't be?
https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-the-definition-of-art-182707


Last edited by normhead; 07-15-2018 at 06:12 PM.
07-15-2018, 06:44 PM   #17
Pentaxian
cmohr's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Brisbane. Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,823
I met him years and years ago before the flood, he's a loverly fellow. I worked at the Colour House here in Brisbane that scannned and digitized all his work. The effort put into scanning and creating separations for Litho printing, and getting all the detail in those prints was painstaking, and they were very good at their jobs. So much done pre-digital, scanning transparencies , touching up, producing litho negs for making the printing plates, long hours, and many proofs later the craftsmanship had to be up to the images they would produce.

So too, the Printing company that did most of the printing , again , here in Brisbane, Both the colour house and the printing company won many Gold Printing craftsmanship Awards for Steve Parish works.

He was photographing in a very different time, and his work is outstanding. It's nice, to see he is progressive in mind to move that foundation to new works in the field.

I wish him all the best.
07-15-2018, 07:04 PM   #18
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,321
Well Norm, that professor made that statement almost 50 years ago. If he is still around he would be in his 80's at least. We had to do three art projects as part of the class but could not use photography for that reason. He was about the most closed minded professor I ever had in college. He believe that as engineering students we could never appreciate art in the first place and probably did not even want to be in his class. Sadly I was really looking forward to the class. Not only a chance to learn a bit about art appreciation, but also as a break from chemistry, calculus, photographic chemistry, physics etc.


Even the term artist is fairly new in history. People were thought more as craftsmen who sometimes created art. As to me, you use a camera to record a scene. Is the photograph of the scene art or has it merely captured something that already has it's own intrinsic beauty? Besides, who determines what art is in the first place? Can something be beautiful and not be art? I have no idea. Is the Pieta art or is it a masterpiece made by a master craftsman? If Andy Warhol's realistic painting of a Campbell soup can is art, then every photograph of a soup can is art too. Or is the soup can the real work of art?


The professional photography students at Rochester Institute of Technology had a saying about a photograph. If you can't make it good, make it big. If you can't make it big, make it color. I think that this came close to hitting the nail on the head. Are it about emotional impact. Nothing more, nothing less.


FWIW, I take photographs because I cannot paint worth a darn. I know because the same professor who said photography is not art only gave me a C on my art projects. I thought they were better than that.
07-15-2018, 07:05 PM   #19
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,332
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
There has been no evidence to point out he wasn't the most artistic wildlife / landscape artist of his time either. You're drawing conclusions not based on evidence.

Maybe you can find some photography by Steve Parrish that is somehow lacking in artistic vision, I can't.

Steve Parish
He's had a paradigm shift from recording salable images recognizable as real landscapes or wildlife to heavily manipulated fine art.

I'm not saying his earlier body of work wasn't well done, but it's pretty clear to me his aim in the past has not been "I am not into recording what I see, I want to create art." Look under fauna > reptiles. It's filled with documentary, stock style, somewhat repetitive images of snakes (and I love snakes)*. Ditto the frog one. Or "perching birds". The bulk of it looks like a stock compilation of Aussie wildlife, not something a pure creative would be proud of based on its artistic merit but something a craftsman produces to pay the bills (and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that and I greatly envy his business acumen!). Compare with his "fine art section" which looks to be his most recent work (the "As One" collection is 2016?). Which approach did he build a multi-million dollar business with?

I thoroughly applaud his new approach for the simple reason that periodically re-inventing yourself and challenging your previous views and goals is a crucial part of growth as an artist and a human being.


edit- some much nicer examples of his old works are here- We’re for Sydney | Daily Telegraph, all talented nature photography, a handful of them are outstanding.

*(edit ii) In no way do I mean to diminish the value of collections like the ones on his website. They are great nature photographs, invaluable for illustrating wildlife, represent countless hours of searching, a love and knowledge of the animals, etc. They are definitely distinct from his recent fine art images that he says he's creating for himself.



Last edited by BrianR; 07-16-2018 at 03:49 AM.
07-16-2018, 05:53 AM   #20
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
edit- some much nicer examples of his old works are here- We’re for Sydney | Daily Telegraph, all talented nature photography, a handful of them are outstanding.
With all due respect, Brian, those examples are incredibly artistic. Compare this with these. One does by painters and undeniably artistic, Steve's done by a photographer, and equally artistic.

18 best Canadian Wildlife Artists images on Pinterest | Wildlife art, Painting art and Wildlife paintings


Like this is art... a pintest Canadian WIlife Painter


And this isn't. From your "this is not art, this is a documentry" link. Steve Parrish , from when according to you, he wasn't into creating art.
[

With all due respect, you guys are picking at nits and I have no idea why.

Why is it do difficult for you guys to admit good photographers create good art? Where does this odd philosophical distinction come from? The biases of painters looking down their noses at photographers? Some deluded painter telling you "no matter what you do with your camera, it will never be as good as what i do." It must be hard to use a camera under that kind of weight.

In essence all photography is art. If you aren't interested in artistic expression, you aren't good at photography. Documentary photography without artistic values is so rare you couldn't even come up with an example. Very interesting that gaweidert has gone Stockholm on us, and internalized the values of one of them.

From my experience the "photography is not art " school of thought is promoted and kept alive by not very good painters who resent the competition from those who they feel are inferior to themselves.

Anyone who decides a whole group of other artists are inferior to themselves is by definition myopic and delusional. I expect to meet the odd painter suffering from such delusions. I don't expect to see such thinking on a photography forum. You are identifying with your tormenters.

The fact that there is a long history of painters who thought photographers were inferior, doesn't mean they were right, ever, not even in the very beginning of photography. Photography was always about aging art. It did to a large extent replace technical illustration, which cost many "artists" income. In my mind that is the source of the "photography isn't art "movement. It's about money, not about artitistc values. And by those who for some reason have negative attitudes toward the idea of artists because don't slave away in the fields or factories making useful things to improve our material wealth.

Reminds me of Money for Nothing.
https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=aaplw&p=MOney+for+Nothing+DIr...6&action=click

The story of the song being a bunch of truck driving delivery men in bar, and their attitudes towards people who make their money through art. You guys have been Stockholmed. You have adopted the attitudes of your detractors.

Ho is it possible to won and make use of camera, while having such negative attitudes towards the medium? You must feel guilty every time you pick up the camera.

Last edited by normhead; 07-16-2018 at 06:30 AM.
07-16-2018, 06:11 AM   #21
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,332
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
With all due respect, Brian, those examples are incredibly artistic. Compare this with these. One does by painters and undeniably artistic, Steve's done by a photographer, and equally artistic.
Absolutely! The ones chosen from his book are for the most part awesome!

Look, my point is he didn't build his business on the types of art images he was referring to in the first article (creativity for the sake of his own inner satisfaction, bordering on complete abstracts, heavy digital manipulations, with sales not the main goal, etc), but on more literal representations of Australia's nature & scenery that are designed to have broad public appeal.

Absolutely many of them belong on walls next to any sort of "art" a person can muster, but likewise much of his image library can be described as more functional than "awesomely creative stories contained in a single frame" (he definitely runs the gamut!). What's art and what isn't? I don't know or care to put things in strictly defined bins, but his intent and approach has definitely changed.
07-16-2018, 07:00 AM   #22
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
Absolutely! The ones chosen from his book are for the most part awesome!

Look, my point is he didn't build his business on the types of art images he was referring to in the first article (creativity for the sake of his own inner satisfaction, bordering on complete abstracts, heavy digital manipulations, with sales not the main goal, etc), but on more literal representations of Australia's nature & scenery that are designed to have broad public appeal.

Absolutely many of them belong on walls next to any sort of "art" a person can muster, but likewise much of his image library can be described as more functional than "awesomely creative stories contained in a single frame" (he definitely runs the gamut!). What's art and what isn't? I don't know or care to put things in strictly defined bins, but his intent and approach has definitely changed.
Exactly.... this is a debate many photographers simply ignore, because there is no upside to getting into it. it teaches you nothing useful.

A few years ago at a craft sale, an older gentleman talked to me for a while about how my work looked just like his suisters. She was a painter, he was looking at some canvas landscapes. His wife and I kept trying to point out, mine were photographs, hers were paintings. It clearly made no difference to him. It's unfortunate that for some people, it does, or it should, or something.

The other funny thing from that sale was I noticed, if I was occupied talking to this man, people were much more likely to go into my booth and look at things. If I was busy with someone else my booth was packed, if i was standing there alone doing nothing, my booth was empty. We had prints, mine and Tess' from 4x6s to 30x20 canvases and everything in between. People who buy the big canvasses were much more likely to come in alone. The people who picked out a couple 4x6s from boxes on the the shelves wanted a crowd. People are so weird.

07-16-2018, 07:24 AM - 2 Likes   #23
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,332
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Exactly.... this is a debate many photographers simply ignore, because there is no upside to getting into it. it teaches you nothing useful.
Your story reminds me of a man who came up to me at a small, local craft show. He opened with "Photographers really hate me." I asked why, and he told me he was a painter with his own gallery. I probed him on why photographers should hate him and he didn't have much of an answer, waffling about how photographers envied painters and other 'real' artists. He then proceeded to tell me he was heading to a small shop with an art wall who had asked him if he had an interest in putting some work up. He continued to explain how accomplished he was and how beneath him such a small local showing was, but he was meeting them to 'be polite'. I then understood why photographers would hate him and that perhaps it wasn't limited to photographers. I also got in some smiling and nodding practice.

Yes, impulse shoppers like a "buy, buy, buy!" lineup
07-16-2018, 07:39 AM - 2 Likes   #24
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
Your story reminds me of a man who came up to me at a small, local craft show. He opened with "Photographers really hate me." I asked why, and he told me he was a painter with his own gallery.
Next time ask "Is it just photographers or is it everybody?"

Last edited by normhead; 07-16-2018 at 07:47 AM.
07-16-2018, 01:09 PM   #25
Pentaxian
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,122
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Too funny, National Geographic took the 2000 images the photographer submitted, they picked the best ten, then took the most artistic one. Your statement that they did no artistic evaluation of the images is absolutely , insane. The process is well documented. Otherwise their images would look like the photos in medical text books. I have never once seen an image in National Geographic that wasn't a piece ofart on it's own. That doesn't happen by accident. I'm really unclear as to why you even say these things. Surely, you'e aware of the difference between National Geographic and medical / biology texts. The park biologist I talk to is always complaining about the lack of composition skills of donated photos that are to be used in the park wildlife guides. He judges those images as more than illustration. And that's always been true. The fact that you are documenting something, doesn't mean you can't do it artistically. A man of your background should know that more than anyone else, not be posting hogwash like that.

I suspect that your evaluation of art was so ingrained, that you could focus on the technical, because you knew intuitively which images were good enough on an artistic level and got rid of those that weren't before you even started looking at the technical aspects of the image. Either that, or as in the case of many art directors, they ask for the Artist/photgraphers 10 best and make the final selection themselves, usingg the photographer's artistic vision to cull the images.
National Geographic is trying to communicate truth about the world - not to disseminate great art. You can select the nicest looking amongst a bunch of shots, but that still isn't being artistic. Artists emphasize clouds, create colors never seen in nature, perhaps even remove or add a feature or two, to create art that makes people go "wow" and spend money.

There is a reason why I use the verb "take" while an artist uses the verb "make" to describe how a photo comes into being.
07-16-2018, 01:48 PM   #26
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
ChipB's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,698
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
National Geographic is trying to communicate truth about the world - not to disseminate great art. You can select the nicest looking amongst a bunch of shots, but that still isn't being artistic. Artists emphasize clouds, create colors never seen in nature, perhaps even remove or add a feature or two, to create art that makes people go "wow" and spend money.

There is a reason why I use the verb "take" while an artist uses the verb "make" to describe how a photo comes into being.
Blanket statements like the above don't cut it - SOME may do that - SOME don't!
07-16-2018, 06:04 PM   #27
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
National Geographic is trying to communicate truth about the world - not to disseminate great art.
You're trying to make it sound like they can't do both at once. I absolutely guarantee you, they take the most artistic image, every time. A friend took pictures of zoo animals in Toronto, to sell int e gift shop there. Every image was a work do art worth framing an hanging on your wall.

I totally don't get this anti-art thing amongst photographers. I find it hard to comprehend among the engineers and hard sciences guys who seem to hold artists in complete contempt, but among photographers, it's actually self hatred.

QuoteQuote:
You can select the nicest looking amongst a bunch of shots, but that still isn't being artistic.
You are so wrong about that. If it appeals to your sense of "nice looking", it's art.

Last edited by normhead; 07-16-2018 at 06:15 PM.
07-17-2018, 07:59 AM   #28
Pentaxian
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,122
QuoteOriginally posted by ChipB Quote
Blanket statements like the above don't cut it - SOME may do that - SOME don't!
So you believe that some people who "make photos" and modify reality aren't trying to be artists - then what are they trying to do - or that some who skip the whole PP thing are artists anyway??
07-19-2018, 09:13 PM   #29
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
bhbrake's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Colorado
Photos: Albums
Posts: 331
As far as I can tell, the dictionary considers photography art.

NOUN
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

Origin of art
1175–1225; Middle English < Old French, accusative of ars < Latin ars (nominative), artem (accusative) ‘skill, craft, craftsmanship’

Images are not taken, they are made- whether it is with a camera, paint brush, or chisel. The notion of photography not being art is complete elitist hogwash. Is every picture art? of course not. Is every sentence an english student writes art? nope. When an image is created with a camera, it is not taken because it is not the actual thing that is being represented. Everything from the selection of the camera to the f-stop is the photographic equivalent of selecting brushes, paints, canvas, etc. Photographers walk a double-edge sword because they are provided with source material but must also work with the source material available at any given moment. If a photographer in Australia wants a dramatic sunset in namibia, he or she must expend a great deal of effort get to that location and cannot simply conjure it up from the imagination. The shot has to be timed for the desired time of day, position, location, etc. It is an interpretation. The way that sunset is represented through the photographic capture is the creation of an image at that moment in time as interpreted by the photographer's selection of setting and equipment- the image is not a thing to be captured like one collects a stick. This is the crux of the problem- those who would label photographers as not artists are in essence accusing them of collecting sticks and rocks, but there is a big problem with this argument- images are immaterial. They interpretations. The mere act of creating an image of a moment or object in time as reduced from all the other ones int eh universe is a calculated effort.


My personal view is that art requires two things: intentionality and skill. Whether someone is trying to "make art" or not is irrelevant- the point is that they are trying to express something. Whether it is good art or bad art is another debate entirely that I would argue is a measure of skill and thoughtfulness. Much of what is praised in modern I tend to think is actually low grade rubbish- art is subjective. There was a time when the measure of a painter's greatness as an artist and craftsman was defined by their ability to re-create a scene before them and these photorealistic paintings hang in every major art museum in the world. Is it easier to pick up a camera and push a button to make a realistic image of a coyote than it is to paint one from the imagination? Yes, but it is not easier to make a good, well composed image with a camera as the experience that goes into creating that image occurs before and after the press of the button. This is the other problem with conceptions of photography- the thought that it is just pushing a button. As if the camera levitated from the ground, read your mind about how you wanted the image to look, and then composed and edited the scene for you.

The "photography is not art" tripe is right up there with the "Straight out of the camera" snobbery on the other end of the spectrum and I would venture guess many of those folks are one in the same.


Robots and software are now writing symphonies and painting pictures that are impressing many. Are these works art? Are the makers of the robot art? Who's the judge?

I have spent most of my life drawing, playing music, and taking pictures. Photography is where I personally have successfully communicated to the most people. I can personally say that while I have been moved by many forms of visual art, I have found photographs to be the most provocative. Music is auditory and an experience all its own.

In regard to Mr Parish, I don't know what is in the depths of his soul, but I would consider his former work art as much as his latter, although it is a different kind of art.
07-20-2018, 01:23 AM - 1 Like   #30
Pentaxian
Dartmoor Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dartmoor, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,856
For about the past 2500 years philosophers have been trying to establish "Art" as an actual category of things in the world. Since nobody has managed to do that convincingly in all that time, we should probably assume that it's a category that doesn't exist. And arguing about which things we think should go into a category that doesn't exist is pointless. If you like it, and you're able to find some meaning in it, then it's art.

Of course, in any society there is always a cultural elite that gets to dictate what that society officially considers to be art. Nowadays it's museum and gallery curators and the big auction houses that get to do that. But if you look back through history, you'll find that many of the works with the longest-lasting influence have been ones that deliberately challenged the conventional notions of art of the time. So if your personal taste isn't what the cultural elite consider to be art, don't sweat it. You're probably right and they're probably wrong.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
approach, article, arts, business, evidence, mansion, math, people, photographer, photography, steve, time, wildlife, wildlife photographer
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wildlife pix by 15-yr-old photographer Alliecat Photographic Industry and Professionals 2 04-03-2013 03:25 AM
Wildlife Photographer Disguises Himself as a Swan to Get Close to Other Birds interested_observer Photographic Technique 6 03-10-2013 05:15 PM
Nikon Photographer Shagged by rare animal during a BBC documentary on wildlife Student General Talk 10 02-21-2011 04:26 PM
Wildlife Photographer of the Year / Where is Pentax Photography bt*ist Photographic Technique 32 06-04-2009 04:35 AM
For Sale - Sold: Another Book-BG Wildlife Photographer of The Year Bob Tuttle Sold Items 4 03-04-2009 09:37 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:10 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top