Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 14   Go Down

Author Topic: from the front page: adam krawesky  (Read 4368 times)

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1104
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #160 on: January 09, 2019, 08:03:42 am »

Just for the sake of the argument:

If a great painter has a talent of, say, 100T(Talent Units) or more (to set a benchmark)
The most talented photographers I know have - I would say - about 50T
B&W photography manages way less parameters than colour photography (It is easier to manage)

For a great painting you need at least 100T (Velazquez, Rubens, Rembrandt...)

For a truly great B&W photography you need at least 50T.
That's why there are many great B&W photographs. Some people reach 50T

For great colour photography you would need much more talent (all those colours...) than for B&W.
That's why there is so little great colour photography. Great color photography looks like out of gamut for photographers

And really talented people would paint instead of photographing (much more freedom), color or whatever
Although the race of great painters is as extinct as the dinosaurs I guess  ;D

Am I right?

 No.

There are great colorists among photographers.

Just a few:

Saul Leiter
William Eggleston
Harry Gruyaert
David LaChapelle
Sarah Moon
Logged

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1104
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #161 on: January 09, 2019, 08:05:28 am »

Itís not the medium thats artistic. Itís the artist. An artist can work in any medium. Some creative people dance, some sing or play musical instruments, some paint or print or sculpt.

The problem with photography is that uncreative people can produce a plausible result and then they confuse themselves for a while. They think they are artists of high ability. Eventually they figure out somewhere in their subconscious that they donít actially have anything to say but they just like shiny gear. With nothing to say you cannot be an artist. The next step is the ego wakes up to all of this and in order to defend itself it is forced to condem the entire endevour as futile.

How many photographers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? It takes all of them, one to do the screwing and the rest to stand around explaining how they could have done it.
You forget the brigade that shout about the poor light after screwing up (in)
Logged

OmerV

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 468
    • Photographs
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #162 on: January 09, 2019, 08:16:08 am »

I agree with most of this.

But if the artist inside the person chooses photography instead of painting (or dancing or cooking...) he sets limits for himself because of the medium
You cannot make much music with a piece of clay. Some with a flute and a lot with an orchestra.
Imagine "Las Meninas" done by a photographer.
Impossible IMHO, besides that not everyone is Velazquez.
Photography lets you obtain some good results but not the greatness. The medium itself is restricting.

Well, you may enjoy one over another, but all mediums are restrictive.

rabanito

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 789
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #163 on: January 09, 2019, 08:23:00 am »

No.

There are great colorists among photographers.

Just a few:

Saul Leiter
William Eggleston
Harry Gruyaert
David LaChapelle
Sarah Moon

De gustibus non est disputandum
I would never compare the works by those I named with the work of those you name, however good they may be.
But again, I am just a lowly consumer, not an artist myself.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21307
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #164 on: January 09, 2019, 08:24:47 am »

No.

There are great colorists among photographers.

Just a few:

Saul Leiter
William Eggleston
Harry Gruyaert
David LaChapelle
Sarah Moon

And David Hamilton was pretty damned good in both b&white and colour, as with our Sarah Moon.

I can't stomach Mr LaChapelle.

Somebody mentioned artists choosing a medium: I don't quite think so - I think it chooses them.

Rob
« Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 09:19:17 am by Rob C »
Logged

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1439
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #165 on: January 09, 2019, 08:26:11 am »

Well, you may enjoy one over another, but all mediums are restrictive.

I found watercolour to be restrictive, oil less so, but having said that enjoyed and benefited from those restrictions.
Logged

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1104
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #166 on: January 09, 2019, 08:26:38 am »

De gustibus non est disputandum
I would never compare the works by those I named with the work of those you name, however good they may be.
But again, I am just a lowly consumer, not an artist myself.

The problem is, as said before, photography is not art, like painting or sculpting.

Donít make the mistake by comparing apples with lemons.
Logged

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1104
from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #167 on: January 09, 2019, 08:29:08 am »

And color photography is a new form, compared with the centuries evolution in painting.


Photography is a purely technical thing that can be used on a virtuoso way. But it remains a very technical application.

You will never put the soul of Picassoís single lines in a photo, never.
Logged

rabanito

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 789
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #168 on: January 09, 2019, 08:36:40 am »

The problem is, as said before, photography is not art, like painting or sculpting.

Donít make the mistake by comparing apples with lemons.

Careful- I'm not comparing the media.
I enjoy Elvis and Bach. Not at the same time :-)
My walls are full of "Rabanitos". No Turners or Adams
But I enjoy the superior works of art in an exhibition or museum

Painting and photographing have some things in common. If you have the genius, you choose the most adequate medium and in this case it is painting. Provided that you can paint :-)
Logged

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1104
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #169 on: January 09, 2019, 08:38:55 am »

Careful- I'm not comparing the media.
I enjoy Elvis and Bach. Not at the same time :-)
My walls are full of "Rabanitos". No Turners or Adams
But I enjoy the superior works of art in an exhibition or museum

Painting and photographing have some things in common. If you have the genius, you choose the most adequate medium and in this case it is painting. Provided that you can paint :-)

Correct, they have Ďsomeí things in common
Logged

OmerV

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 468
    • Photographs
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #170 on: January 09, 2019, 08:45:29 am »

And color photography is a new form, compared with the centuries evolution in painting.


Photography is a purely technical thing that can be used on a virtuoso way. But it remains a very technical application.

You will never put the soul of Picassoís single lines in a photo, never.


Ivo, I canít tell if youíre being sincere or a gadfly. Still, Iíll assume sincerity. Picasso never saw the way a shopping window reflection could interpret the world in surrealism the way Atget did:

https://medium.com/vantage/old-paris-through-the-lens-of-eugŤne-atget-9b6890fdca9a

Trying to equate differences between writing, photography, painting et al., is, I think, a Sisyphean endeavor.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 10:43:07 am by OmerV »
Logged

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1104
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #171 on: January 09, 2019, 08:58:11 am »


Ivo, I canít tell if youíre being sincere or a gadfly. Still, Iíll assume sincerity. Picasso never saw the way a shopping window reflection could interpret the world in surrealism the way Atget did:

https://medium.com/vantage/old-paris-through-the-lens-of-eugŤne-atget-9b6890fdca9a

Trying to equate differences between writing, photography, painting et al., is, I think, a Sisyphean endeavor.

I even donít know what a gadfly is, I had to Google.

In your last sentence you say exactly what I said before . You canít compare apples with lemons.

Why should I not be sincere? Do you think I would put time in this if I didnít find it a usefull discussion?
Logged

amolitor

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 560
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #172 on: January 09, 2019, 09:15:19 am »

People who claim photography isn't art, or is a lesser art, are generally (I find) doing a poor job of separating the conceptual side of art from the execution of art.

Executing a photograph is easy. Despite claims to the contrary, there isn't really a "making" step necessary to call into being a photograph. Yes, you can do all the work you like on it afterwards, or beforehand, but that's not the part that makes it a photograph.

Executing a painting or sculpture or a novel is considerably more demanding, you actually do "make" something, with a long and involved series of mechanical steps, each with your brain pretty well engaged, over a period of time.

But that doesn't mean the conceptual part isn't just as difficult and just as valuable. I have argued in the past that photography is essentially an act of "selection" and not of "creation" as such, but that selection should be treated as an equal to creation.

The justification for that equality could come from several places, I dare say, but at any rate you can remark that a photograph can produce results in the viewer just as well as a painting does.
Logged

Martin Kristiansen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 947
    • Martin Kristiansen
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #173 on: January 09, 2019, 09:21:08 am »

People who claim photography isn't art, or is a lesser art, are generally (I find) doing a poor job of separating the conceptual side of art from the execution of art.

Executing a photograph is easy. Despite claims to the contrary, there isn't really a "making" step necessary to call into being a photograph. Yes, you can do all the work you like on it afterwards, or beforehand, but that's not the part that makes it a photograph.

Executing a painting or sculpture or a novel is considerably more demanding, you actually do "make" something, with a long and involved series of mechanical steps, each with your brain pretty well engaged, over a period of time.

But that doesn't mean the conceptual part isn't just as difficult and just as valuable. I have argued in the past that photography is essentially an act of "selection" and not of "creation" as such, but that selection should be treated as an equal to creation.

The justification for that equality could come from several places, I dare say, but at any rate you can remark that a photograph can produce results in the viewer just as well as a painting does.

I like this view point.
Logged
Commercial photography is 10% inspiration and 90% moving furniture around.

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1104
from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #174 on: January 09, 2019, 09:22:07 am »

People who claim photography isn't art, or is a lesser art, are generally (I find) doing a poor job of separating the conceptual side of art from the execution of art.

Executing a photograph is easy. Despite claims to the contrary, there isn't really a "making" step necessary to call into being a photograph. Yes, you can do all the work you like on it afterwards, or beforehand, but that's not the part that makes it a photograph.

Executing a painting or sculpture or a novel is considerably more demanding, you actually do "make" something, with a long and involved series of mechanical steps, each with your brain pretty well engaged, over a period of time.

But that doesn't mean the conceptual part isn't just as difficult and just as valuable. I have argued in the past that photography is essentially an act of "selection" and not of "creation" as such, but that selection should be treated as an equal to creation.

The justification for that equality could come from several places, I dare say, but at any rate you can remark that a photograph can produce results in the viewer just as well as a painting does.

I think I misplaced a comma in a previous post.

Photography is not an art like painting, it is different. You explained it very well here above.
Logged

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1439
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #175 on: January 09, 2019, 09:25:12 am »

...Executing a painting or sculpture or a novel is considerably more demanding, you actually do "make" something, with a long and involved series of mechanical steps, each with your brain pretty well engaged, over a period of time...

That could apply equally when using photographic processes, but admittedly, in many, most, cases, does not.
Logged

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1104
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #176 on: January 09, 2019, 09:35:05 am »

Iím not propagating following, but I find it worth mentioning.

I had long discussions with colleagues in art academy, mostly painters.
The point of discussion was if artís center of gravity is in the cerebral effort, in the concept, or in the craft.

On one side, the technical skillful painter claimed it was in the craft, the Ďnot so goodí technical painter tended more to the conceptual. And the one who didnít saw a difference between the tip and end of his brush swore it was al cerebral.

The summum in cerebral art is the description of a piece of art in text without making it.

......
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12242
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #177 on: January 09, 2019, 09:37:00 am »

Sounds a lot like a discussion in philosophy 101.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13682
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #178 on: January 09, 2019, 09:48:09 am »

petermfiore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1977
    • Peter Fiore Fine Art
Re: from the front page: adam krawesky
« Reply #179 on: January 09, 2019, 09:50:04 am »

No.

There are great colorists among photographers.

Just a few:

Saul Leiter
William Eggleston
Harry Gruyaert
David LaChapelle
Sarah Moon

I like them all...However Sarah Moon, If a painter, would be considered a tonalist. I love tonalism.

Peter
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 14   Go Up