Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => But is it Art? => Topic started by: ripgriffith on November 21, 2014, 03:55:20 am

Title: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: ripgriffith on November 21, 2014, 03:55:20 am
Is shooting without looking through the viewfinder really photography?  Or just the random collection of images?  Or what?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-IOEAlBpSo
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: LesPalenik on November 21, 2014, 07:59:51 am
I guess that with some practice and some luck, you can get a few interesting shots.
He made one good point that if you hold the camera close to your eye, you may miss some things happening outside the viewfinder.
(Or even worse, that truck coming at you).
 
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: amolitor on November 21, 2014, 10:58:13 am
This just moves all the work to the contact sheet, where a lot of the work has always been. Sure, it's photography. Why wouldn't it be?

Shooting at random is a fabulous exercise. Everyone should do it once.

This guy isn't, though. He just learned to frame pretty well without looking through the finder. He's got something going on, to my eye. 3 out of 150 seems a bit high as a keeper rate, but I think that's probably a kind of first edit number.

1 out of 1000 feels more like it, based on my experiments, and that strikes me as consistent with what we saw in the video. If he culled to 1 in 20 of his current keepers, I think he could have a truly powerful body of work.
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: ripgriffith on November 21, 2014, 11:01:37 am
I wonder how it would sit with the HCB notion of "authenticity" (holy rule #1: Thou shalt not crop!).
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: Isaac on November 21, 2014, 02:20:05 pm
Autography? Camera Toss – HowTo (http://www.cameratossing.de/JensLudwig/Camera-Toss-HowTo/page38086.cameratoss)
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: jjj on November 21, 2014, 02:31:19 pm
Is shooting without looking through the viewfinder really photography?  Or just the random collection of images?  Or what?
You can shoot without looking through viewfinder, if you are practiced enough, in this case...the photos shown in the video looked pretty much like random shots taken by camera on an intervalometer whilst someone was walking along. I saw no skill displayed, just someone throwing a heap of crap against wall hoping some would stick. Skill is taking a few shots and nailing it, not shooting thousands and hoping for a good pic.
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: Isaac on November 21, 2014, 02:35:32 pm
Skill is taking a few shots and nailing it, not shooting thousands and hoping for a good pic.

Winogrand :-)


Quote
"In summer 1954, Cartier-Bresson was therefore the first western photographer to obtain a visa for the Soviet Union since the thaw in the Cold War 15 months after Stalin's death. ... He took 10,000 photographs in ten weeks."

p203-4 Henri Cartier-Bresson: A Biography (http://books.google.com/books?id=_ICFQgAACAAJ).
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: amolitor on November 21, 2014, 04:08:15 pm
What's the difference between

- walking along, seeing a photograph, and shooting it
- walking along taking 1000s of snaps and then inspecting the contact sheet, seeing exactly the same frame, and circling it in red

?

"But I practiced super duper hard and I do the first one, so it's more awesomer" isn't a great answer, by the way.

Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: BobShaw on November 21, 2014, 05:20:35 pm
"In summer 1954, Cartier-Bresson was therefore the first western photographer to obtain a visa for the Soviet Union since the thaw in the Cold War 15 months after Stalin's death. ... He took 10,000 photographs in ten weeks."

p203-4 Henri Cartier-Bresson: A Biography.


So what? If the quote is accurate then he would have shot 300 rolls of film so I question the logistics of getting that through Russia in 1954. However if you are the first guy to be allowed into a place then EVERY shot is news. It is only 1000 a week which wedding photographers will do in a day, and they may be all important. That is not the same as machine gunning at 10FPS on the auto everything because you don't know what you are doing. Two photographers can photograph the same thing from the same spot and get completely different results.
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: Telecaster on November 21, 2014, 05:21:25 pm
In the late '90s and early aughts I often took photos while driving to & from work. An activity I do not advocate now that I'm older and a bit less crazy.   :D  I used a Contax IIa rangefinder and Zeiss 50mm lens, stopped down in the f/4–8 region depending on conditions, and zone-focused. Anyway, after some practice I got quite good at framing with the camera at chin/neck level. I've attached an example, re-photographed from a small (and kinda dirty) print. I should dig out the original neg (I think it's a neg but it could be Kodachrome 200) and re-digitize it.

-Dave-
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: ripgriffith on November 21, 2014, 05:45:28 pm
In the late '90s and early aughts I often took photos while driving to & from work. An activity I do not advocate now that I'm older and a bit less crazy.   :D  I used a Contax IIa rangefinder and Zeiss 50mm lens, stopped down in the f/4–8 region depending on conditions, and zone-focused. Anyway, after some practice I got quite good at framing with the camera at chin/neck level. I've attached an example, re-photographed from a small (and kinda dirty) print. I should dig out the original neg (I think it's a neg but it could be Kodachrome 200) and re-digitize it.

-Dave-
And your point would be?  I hate to be snippy, but the photograph isn't a particularly good example of "getting quite good at framing with the camera at chin/neck level".
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: Berliner on November 21, 2014, 06:26:02 pm
He says he gets 3 "flickr-good" pictures per day with his method.

That sounds realistic, given he seems to have practiced for a long time.
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: Isaac on November 21, 2014, 07:03:25 pm
If the quote is accurate…

I copied it from the printed pages of the biography (http://books.google.com/books?id=x4zRtwAACAAJ) myself ;-)


So what?

So it's important to remember that we don't get to see the bad Cartier-Bresson photographs.

Quote
…“I did remember that I saw his contact sheet of this picture (means Behind the Gare Saint-Lazare), I am so surprised that people these days doubt that picture is a “Set Up Picture”, I know it is NOT because I read the contact sheet from Henri Cartier-Bresson for that picture.” David Hurn told me that Henri Cartier Bresson was actually stand in a same place and waiting people to jump over the water, he captured every best moment and choose the “Best of the Best” moment (http://mrfox44.blogspot.com/2013/04/some-random-time.html) to become this most famous picture - “Behind the Gare St. Lazare”.

Quote
Everyone thought his was a pure chance, a piece of luck. Once again, it was but only to a certain degree. The contact sheet showed us that HCB had tried some 10 times to obtain that shot. With other cyclists, passers-by, pedestrians and such. He then chose the best one out of all those other ones (http://morganmoller.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/street-photography-is-the-hardest-branch-of-photography-cartier-bresson-still-teaches-us-every-day/) and it became this incredibly famous image. [Th]e rest of them never saw the light of day.
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: luxborealis on November 22, 2014, 09:41:27 am
Is shooting without looking through the viewfinder really photography?  Or just the random collection of images?  Or what?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-IOEAlBpSo

It's all just a random collection of images whether you want to call it photography or not. These days, what's in a name, anyway?

Whether you shoot 1 16x20 Polaroid in an hour or 12 to 20 glass plates over a week or 1000 images a day, looking through a viewfinder or not, in the end, it's what you'll be remembered by. After a lifetime of photography, how many photos does the world  remember EW, AA or HCB by?

I figure, if I get one "keeper for the wall/book" per outing, I'm doing well. I know that if I'm wasting my time blasting away, I'm not really looking and the quality of my seeing suffers. I also know that if I'm spending time pouring over contact sheets or LR Grids of images, I'm wasting good time that could be spent refining my work either in the field or on a print.

I'm am constantly coaching my students that their time should be spent in the looking and the seeing, not the shooting. That way they spend less time editing and more time photographing - which is what it's all about. For me anyway.

Ed. For spelling
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: Isaac on November 22, 2014, 10:46:03 am
These days…

Coincidentally, I turned a page and:

Quote
Eggleston (http://www.egglestontrust.com/ancient_intro.html) says it was in 1976 that he first abandoned using the viewfinder. As a result, he felt, 'You end up looking more intensely as you walk around'. He made an analogy between photographing without a viewfinder and firing a shotgun rather than a rifle: 'You don't look down the barrel and line things up'. Instead, 'With a shotgun it's done with feel'. Such analogies help explain the extraordinary liberational and open aspect of so many of Eggleston's pictures -- their sense of perceptual freedom, a roaming, lyrical, unencumbered response to things in the world.

page 94, Photography Today (http://books.google.com/books?id=Ebv7ngEACAAJ)



I also know that if I'm spending time pouring over contact sheets or LR Grids of images, I'm wasting good time that could be spent refining my work either in the field or on a print.

Unless "pouring over contact sheets or LR Grids of images" contributes to refining your work.
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: amolitor on November 22, 2014, 03:22:50 pm
The idea that ones photography is some sort of legacy is silly in this modern era. If you're shooting in order that you be remembered for something, I'm terribly sorry for you. It's not going to work out.

There are a billion photographers now. A million of them are excellent. 10,000 of them are astonishing.

None of them will be remembered. Most of them will never even be noticed. There are too many.
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: Telecaster on November 22, 2014, 04:44:23 pm
And your point would be? I hate to be snippy, but the photograph isn't a particularly good example of "getting quite good at framing with the camera at chin/neck level".

 :D  I quite like it.

-Dave-
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: luxborealis on November 22, 2014, 06:25:42 pm
The idea that ones photography is some sort of legacy is silly in this modern era. If you're shooting in order that you be remembered for something, I'm terribly sorry for you. It's not going to work out.

There are a billion photographers now. A million of them are excellent. 10,000 of them are astonishing.

None of them will be remembered. Most of them will never even be noticed. There are too many.


Wow - chill! You need to broaden your thinking and understand that people have perspectives different from your own. Not everyone or everything has to be only about the present!

If all I did was compare my photography in terms that you suggest, then I should pack it in today and put my gear up on Kijiji. I mentioned EW, AA and HCB only to provide context to the discussion. I'm not in those leagues, nor do I expect to be.

Being remembered for one's photography can occur at different levels - family & friends, regionally, nationally. We can' tall be international sensations. But we can be happy with our own small corner of the world.

Perspective, man, perspective.
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: amolitor on November 22, 2014, 08:32:50 pm
It's one thing to be remembered for your photography by people who would remember you anyways. It's quite another to be remembered by people who would never have been aware of you.

I don't mean to be negative or discouraging. Only pragmatic.

You can't shoot for some legacy. That road leads to despair and failure. There are lots of other reasons to shoot and to make art or whatever you're doing. Pick one or more of those.
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: jjj on November 24, 2014, 02:32:06 pm
You can't shoot for some legacy. That road leads to despair and failure.
That's exactly the same as telling someone who wants to be a pop star not to bother or an inventor to give creating new ideas or a whole heap of other human activities. Rarely does anyone knows what will be important in the future or who will make it. The number of famous artists who were rejected again and again is not exactly a short list, possibly the majority of them. Probably by naysayers like yourself.
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: amolitor on November 24, 2014, 02:37:52 pm
The number of artists who did it mainly for fame, for immortality, for a legacy is.. pretty small. Andy Warhol. Successful artists mainly do it because they can't NOT do it. That is an excellent reason to take photos.

Artists have never, until now, been confronted with a billion competitors. It changes the game.

Also, where did I say not to bother? That is almost the exact opposite of what I said.
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: BobShaw on November 24, 2014, 04:29:54 pm
We all have 7 billion competitors. Get past it and just do the best you can at what you want to do and don't worry about what others think.
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: Telecaster on November 24, 2014, 05:05:25 pm
Knowing quite a few musicians, who've had varying degrees of artistic & commercial success, I'd say people do creative work—creative musical work anyway—for a variety of reasons. Being told they're not good enough to do or be X, Y or Z is a prime motivator.  :)  Also…musicians who seek fame, and then achieve it, tend to be far more let down by it than are people who get it as a by-product. (I'm referring to genuinely creative people in both cases.) I've seen a lot more cynicism about it from the former group than the latter, which might tell you something about what it's actually like to be well-known. (I'll take anonymity, thanks.)

-Dave-
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: jjj on November 24, 2014, 06:42:06 pm
The number of artists who did it mainly for fame, for immortality, for a legacy is.. pretty small. Andy Warhol.
Really? So where's your research to back that assertion up.
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: amolitor on November 24, 2014, 06:46:16 pm
It's an internet forum, not a thesis defense. Go do your own research,
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: jjj on November 24, 2014, 07:17:30 pm
Ah, so you can spout any old gibberish and the onus is on us to research the claims. I see where you are coming from now, Bullshittsville.
It's an internet forum, not a thesis defense. Go do your own research,
Ah, so you can spout any old gibberish and the onus is on us to research the claims. I see where you are coming from now, a charming locality called Bullshittsville.  ;D
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: amolitor on November 24, 2014, 07:54:36 pm
The last defense of a troll is to ask for something irrelevant, to try to divert attention from the part where they got revealed as, well, Wrong.

You didn't actually bother with the *important* thing which is "Also, where did I say not to bother? That is almost the exact opposite of what I said." instead you decided to mount some sort of irrelevant attack on a throwaway remark (one which happens to be true, I'm just not in the business of digging up papers explaining why the sky is blue to people who choose to nitpick).
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: Kirk Gittings on November 25, 2014, 12:09:57 am
I wonder how it would sit with the HCB notion of "authenticity" (holy rule #1: Thou shalt not crop!).

yeah but he did......
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: jjj on November 25, 2014, 08:03:11 am
The last defense of a troll is to ask for something irrelevant, to try to divert attention from the part where they got revealed as, well, Wrong.
Nothing irrelevant about asking someone to justify some outlandish claim.

Quote
You didn't actually bother with the *important* thing which is "Also, where did I say not to bother? That is almost the exact opposite of what I said." instead you decided to mount some sort of irrelevant attack on a throwaway remark (one which happens to be true, I'm just not in the business of digging up papers explaining why the sky is blue to people who choose to nitpick).
You having an opinion about something,  doesn't make it factual. More like you were claiming that 'the sky is green' to use your analogy with regard to your statement re 'artists who want fame'.
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: Isaac on November 25, 2014, 12:52:42 pm
I wonder how it would sit with the HCB notion of "authenticity" (holy rule #1: Thou shalt not crop!).

yeah but he did......

Yes, rarely.

It doesn't seem to me that "authenticity" is really what not cropping was about for Cartier-Bresson --

Quote
About cropping? Uh, I said in that forward, we have to have a feeling for the geometry of the relation of shapes, like in any plastic medium. And I think that you place yourself in time, we’re dealing with time, and with space. Just like you pick a right moment in an expression, you pick your right spot, also. I will get closer, or further, there’s an emphasis on the subject, and if the relations, the interplay of lines is correct, well, it is there (http://www.americansuburbx.com/2012/01/interview-henri-cartier-bresson-famous.html). If it’s not correct it’s not by cropping in the darkroom and making all sorts of tricks that you improve it. If a picture is mediocre, well it remains mediocre. The thing is done, once for all.
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: amolitor on November 25, 2014, 01:04:33 pm
Given that HCB was a surrealist, I'm not sure what role "authenticity" might play in his work, and what it might mean.

There are surely definitions of the word that would make sense and be applicable, though.
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: Isaac on November 25, 2014, 01:14:52 pm
There are surely definitions of the word that would make sense and be applicable, though.

One benefit of having The Pocket Oxford Dictionary to-hand is that most definitions are limited to 3 meanings or less :-)
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: ripgriffith on November 25, 2014, 01:24:43 pm
Given that HCB was a surrealist, I'm not sure what role "authenticity" might play in his work, and what it might mean.

There are surely definitions of the word that would make sense and be applicable, though.

All photographers are, by definition, surrealists.
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: amolitor on November 25, 2014, 01:27:38 pm
Let me clarify for (one of our) local pedants.

There are surely applications of the word "authenticity" which would be useful and correct.

Really, picking at individual words and phrases is so childish and tedious. It's the sport of the Internet, to be sure, but I really wish people would leave it. It's stupid. It's boring. It makes you look like an obnoxious idiot.
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: Isaac on November 25, 2014, 01:29:41 pm
All photographers are, by definition, surrealists.

By which definitions? :-)
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: Isaac on November 25, 2014, 01:32:16 pm
It makes you look like an obnoxious idiot.

What does that little rant make you look like?
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: ripgriffith on November 25, 2014, 01:44:24 pm
By which definitions? :-)
Susan Sontag, among others.
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: Isaac on November 25, 2014, 02:19:13 pm
I'm just trying to understand what you're saying: so my question was not which authority figures might have said something like that, but have we narrowed what we mean by photographers or what we mean by surrealists to make that statement work?
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: amolitor on November 25, 2014, 02:38:57 pm
Sontag does a fairly thorough job of explaining her usage of the word 'surrealism' as applied broadly to photography. I suggest you go read her essays. They're not long, nor difficult. Don't worry, we'll wait.
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: ripgriffith on November 25, 2014, 02:45:36 pm
I'm just trying to understand what you're saying: so my question was not which authority figures might have said something like that, but have we narrowed what we mean by photographers or what we mean by surrealists to make that statement work?
I don't know if you are addressing me or Amolitor, to try to answer this, first let's look at Sontag's quote,

"Surrealism lies at the heart of the photographic enterprise: in the very creation of a duplicate world, of a reality in the second degree, narrower but more dramatic than the one perceived by natural vision."  

I  think the definition needs to be that of "surrealism" rather than photography.  The root of the word is "sur" (beyond) "realism", and I think it is this precise definition, rather than an art movement, that Sontag refers to.  IMO, one cannot accurately consider photography to be realistic.  In a conversation about realism in photography, Picasso supposedly looked at a photograph of David Douglas Duncan's wife, and observed, "she's very small, isn't she".  Not until photography becomes life-sized,three-dimensional 360x360 degree solid holograms can we practitioners even pretend to deal in a realistic medium.

Enough words... I'm going to go shoot!
59
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: amolitor on November 25, 2014, 05:32:30 pm
Here's the thing, jjj.

I don't care what you think. If you want to go check the truth value of some side remark I made, a couple of moments with google will provide loads of evidence that I am right. Page after page after page of "We asked so and so artists why they do it and they said..." with not one of the artists saying "to create a legacy" or anything equivalent.

Since you are too lazy to even bother with that, you obviously don't care whether what I say is true or not.

What you CARE about is winning an argument on the internet.

I don't. I don't care what you think, or what you believe. Go ahead, you win. Go collect your trophy, and the cash prize that goes with making snotty remarks on the internet.
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: Isaac on November 26, 2014, 06:31:23 pm
"Surrealism lies at the heart of the photographic enterprise: in the very creation of a duplicate world, of a reality in the second degree, narrower but more dramatic than the one perceived by natural vision."  

I  think the definition needs to be that of "surrealism" rather than photography.  The root of the word is "sur" (beyond) "realism", and I think it is this precise definition, rather than an art movement, that Sontag refers to.

amolitor surely meant the art movement, when he wrote "Given that HCB was a surrealist… (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=95334.msg780103#msg780103)"


IMO, one cannot accurately consider photography to be realistic.

I take it you're referring to Reality not Realism :-)

Let's go further and agree with Gerhard Richter --

"I don't mistrust reality, of which I know next to nothing. I mistrust the picture of reality conveyed to us by our senses, which is imperfect and circumscribed. Our eyes have evolved for survival purposes. The fact that they can also see stars is pure accident."
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: ripgriffith on November 27, 2014, 03:45:04 am
Here's the thing, jjj.

I don't care what you think. If you want to go check the truth value of some side remark I made, a couple of moments with google will provide loads of evidence that I am right. Page after page after page of "We asked so and so artists why they do it and they said..." with not one of the artists saying "to create a legacy" or anything equivalent.

Since you are too lazy to even bother with that, you obviously don't care whether what I say is true or not.

What you CARE about is winning an argument on the internet.

I don't. I don't care what you think, or what you believe. Go ahead, you win. Go collect your trophy, and the cash prize that goes with making snotty remarks on the internet.

I think you need to tuck your defensiveness back in your pants and stay with the conversation.
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: amolitor on November 27, 2014, 08:37:15 am
I do not. jjj has been slapped down and now we can move on.
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: ripgriffith on November 27, 2014, 11:54:56 am
I think you need to tuck your defensiveness back in your pants and stay with the conversation.
Perhaps I should have said "Offensiveness".  The more you rant, the more offensive you become; jjj much less so.  So why don't you take it to the woodshed and let the adults continue  the conversation?
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: amolitor on November 27, 2014, 12:56:36 pm
Do you plan to reprimand jjj who a) started it with an obvious troll and b) followed up by cursing at me? Among other sins already mentioned.

Or is it pretty much just me you're not friends with?
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: Isaac on November 27, 2014, 01:55:18 pm
…stay with the conversation.

Don't feed trolls. Feed the conversation.
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: amolitor on November 28, 2014, 02:40:53 pm
I think trying to comb the idea of the surreal apart from the art movement is an error in this case. HCB was surely sophisticated enough to not be a slavish devotee of a specific group of people, but was surely open minded and creative enough to be influenced by their take on an underlyng ideas and to make something new of them (both the ideas and the influences).

Photography, especially as pursued by HCB, is a radically different medium from, say, painting. The methods of the surrealist painters would have been almost useless to him.

ETA: That said, when I say "HCB was a surrealist" I mean rather more than "HCB was a photographer and photographers are surrealists"

I mean that HCB enjoyed a good visual joke, a peculiar juxtaposition of objects in the frame, random-seeming echoed shapes and lines. This leans more in the direction of "surrealist art movement" than in the direction of "photos are 'beyond-real'".

Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: jjj on December 18, 2014, 10:32:51 am
I do not. jjj has been slapped down and now we can move on.

No, you ranted. Not the same thing at all.

Do you plan to reprimand jjj who started it with an obvious troll
Someone not agreeing with your assertions is not a troll, they simply have a difference of opinion. You need to chill out out and stop confusing your opinion with facts.
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: jjj on December 18, 2014, 11:04:37 am
Here's the thing, jjj.

I don't care what you think. If you want to go check the truth value of some side remark I made, a couple of moments with google will provide loads of evidence that I am right. Page after page after page of "We asked so and so artists why they do it and they said..." with not one of the artists saying "to create a legacy" or anything equivalent.

Since you are too lazy to even bother with that, you obviously don't care whether what I say is true or not.
Really? So where's the link to this 'proof' of what you think is the case. I don't know what you googled to prove a negative. Which is in fact rather difficult to do.  :-\
Here's a thing, people create art for a whole host of reasons, some of which won't be to create a legacy, some will. Also there may be multiple reasons why people create art. But I very much doubt any of them will be producing art and not hoping others appreciate their work, even after they've gone. The thing about creating stuff that others like, is that it is a way of being remembered/gaining a sort of immortality. This way you do not simply disappear once friends and grandkids die.
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: amolitor on December 18, 2014, 12:55:38 pm
Luckily for me, I said:

"The number of artists who did it mainly for fame, for immortality, for a legacy is.. pretty small."

rather than "there are no artists ..." and I have given you a method for proving what I actually said in literally a matter of seconds. And yet you continue to contest it, pointlessly.

You are a mere coup-counter, unwilling to either admit defeat or simply, gracefully, let your humiliation fade quietly away.


Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: Isaac on December 18, 2014, 01:13:30 pm
the adults

I believe you are able to lock a discussion you start…
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: mezzoduomo on December 18, 2014, 08:55:39 pm
I believe you are able to lock a discussion you start…

I thought this was the case.
Isaac: Do you know how this is done? I can't seem to find the method.
Thx.
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: amolitor on December 18, 2014, 09:45:19 pm
If you started the topic you should find a Lock link in the bottom left corner.
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: jjj on December 22, 2014, 06:34:50 am
Luckily for me, I said:

"The number of artists who did it mainly for fame, for immortality, for a legacy is.. pretty small."

rather than "there are no artists ..." and I have given you a method for proving what I actually said in literally a matter of seconds. And yet you continue to contest it, pointlessly.

You are a mere coup-counter, unwilling to either admit defeat or simply, gracefully, let your humiliation fade quietly away.
No idea why you think I'm humiliated, just because you like to rant at me. You have a different view that all.
BTW - You haven't proved what you claimed to be the case. You did however then claim to have found proof of your previous claim, but didn't show it.
Why should I simply agree with you just because you keep claiming something, but never show any actual evidence for? It simply comes across as your viewpoint with no sign of any facts.
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: amolitor on December 22, 2014, 09:40:38 am
I told you got to prove it yourself. You don't care to follow simple directions? I don't need to provide evidence, and you'd just dismiss it anyways since that's what trolls do.

Also, you never did respond on the point of

'Where did I tell people not to bother?'

Which was your original beef. You seem to be stuck on this side note about artist motivation, about which you are also demonstrably wrong. Classic troll move. Change the topic when you're down to be wrong. Still, I'd love to see you try to back up your original complaint. Mostly because it would be funny.
Title: Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
Post by: ripgriffith on December 22, 2014, 09:52:12 am
Enough, already!  I'm locking the topic.