Topic: Art Wolfe (Read 12132 times)

Theodore · « **on:** March 03, 2009, 10:54:02 pm »

I was delighted and excited to read the note on the "What's New" page that Art Wolfe will be contributing material to the LL site. I'm such a "fan" of Mr. Wolfe's photography. For those of you who haven't seen it, his "Travels to the Edge" series is a lot of fun to watch. Even for the non-photographer as Art is an entertaining host and the videos are beautiful and could easily be Travel Channel destination features. I ordered a copy of the series from Oregon Public Broadcasting on-line.

wolfnowl · « **Reply #1 on:** March 04, 2009, 02:20:37 am »

It's a great series indeed. I'm also looking forward to seeing Art's writings here.

Mike.

digitaldog · « **Reply #2 on:** March 21, 2009, 04:39:11 pm »

Just to add, Art is one of the nicest and most generous guys around.

framah · « **Reply #3 on:** March 21, 2009, 05:36:03 pm »

Just asking... do you think he is worth what he charges for a 4 day class? $4,000 x 10 people in the class?

For what it's worth, I really love his vision!!

Craig Murphy · « **Reply #4 on:** March 21, 2009, 10:12:59 pm »

Why is it called Seeing Like a Painter? If I wanted to see like a painter I'd become a painter.

DarkPenguin · « **Reply #5 on:** March 21, 2009, 11:19:35 pm »

Quote from: Craig Murphy

Why is it called Seeing Like a Painter? If I wanted to see like a painter I'd become a painter.

I believe he explains that in the article. In fact I would say that explaining that is the entire point of the article. Perhaps that is why he called it "Seeing Like a Painter."

Craig Murphy · « **Reply #6 on:** March 22, 2009, 04:46:32 pm »

I love Art Wolf's work. Great. Great. Great. I just wish photographers would stop using 'painters' or 'painting' as a way to legitimize their own medium. Not that Art needs any of that but it can come across as 'If I could only make my photos look like what painters, the 'real' artists, works looks like then I've done it'. I'm in a building full of 'painters' and not one of them really thinks that photography is an art so I don't like to give them even an inch. That's all.

Graham Welland · « **Reply #7 on:** March 22, 2009, 06:50:20 pm »

Quote from: framah

Just asking... do you think he is worth what he charges for a 4 day class? $4,000 x 10 people in the class?

For what it's worth, I really love his vision!!

Sometimes price has to be used as a gate on demand. It applies in many aspects of life and can only be justified if there is both demand and a quality offering. It applies to Michael's workshops too. I'm sure Art could be busy and sold out 260 days a year with lower priced workshops but I seriously doubt that's what he'd want.

framah · « **Reply #8 on:** March 23, 2009, 08:47:41 am »

Good point Graham. Too bad it was able to weed me out of that group.

Graham Welland · « **Reply #9 on:** March 23, 2009, 08:53:39 am »

Quote from: framah

Good point Graham. Too bad it was able to weed me out of that group.

Ditto.

wynpotter · « **Reply #10 on:** March 23, 2009, 01:55:11 pm »

Quote from: Craig Murphy

I love Art Wolf's work. Great. Great. Great. I just wish photographers would stop using 'painters' or 'painting' as a way to legitimize their own medium. Not that Art needs any of that but it can come across as 'If I could only make my photos look like what painters, the 'real' artists, works looks like then I've done it'. I'm in a building full of 'painters' and not one of them really thinks that photography is an art so I don't like to give them even an inch. That's all.

Craig, I must be muli personalities because I discuss this with my painter self and my photographer self almost daily. I also can not get my painter self to budge on these issues. But when the painter self wants some photos of his work the photo self usually gives in because he's such a nice guy. What can we say?
Wyndham

Craig Murphy · « **Reply #11 on:** March 25, 2009, 08:51:23 am »

Look at Jay Maisel's classes. $5000

OwlsEye · « **Reply #12 on:** March 27, 2009, 06:17:58 pm »

Quote from: framah

Just asking... do you think he is worth what he charges for a 4 day class? $4,000 x 10 people in the class?

For what it's worth, I really love his vision!!

Like you I am a big fan of Art Wolfe's work. Like Jim Brandenburg he has done much to demonstrate that nature photography is both an art and skill. However, I believe that the cost of the workshop is exorbitant. At about $1000/day, you could go on Safari with Andy Biggs, make a lot of mistakes, but grow as an artist and photographer. I would love to participate in an Art Wolfe workshop, but I'd rather go on Safari with Andy Biggs!...

cheers,
bruce

framah · « **Reply #13 on:** March 28, 2009, 09:17:47 am »

You're right, Bruce..

My thoughts exactly!!

MichaelAlanBielat · « **Reply #14 on:** April 14, 2009, 12:31:58 pm »

Quote from: Craig Murphy

Why is it called Seeing Like a Painter? If I wanted to see like a painter I'd become a painter.

Painting has been around much longer than photography has my friend! We can learn a lot about composition and lighting from master painters.

For example, a portraiture lighting technique is named after Rembrandt because that is how he would light his models.

I'm sure Art's articles will explain things better on why it is named how it is.

Kirk Gittings · « **Reply #15 on:** April 14, 2009, 12:45:58 pm »

I think Craig's point is valid. "I just wish photographers would stop using 'painters' or 'painting' as a way to legitimize their own medium."
I had the same thought myself when I read the AW article.

Photographers in the first half of the century struggled long and hard to free itself from the perception that it was just the poor stepchild of painting and develop a uniquely photographic aesthetic. Remember F64? Suggesting that imitating painting contains some higher aesthetic purpose for photographers is a very antiquated and long ago discarded idea.

MichaelAlanBielat · « **Reply #16 on:** April 15, 2009, 01:13:56 pm »

Quote from: Kirk Gittings

I think Craig's point is valid. "I just wish photographers would stop using 'painters' or 'painting' as a way to legitimize their own medium."
I had the same thought myself when I read the AW article.

Photographers in the first half of the century struggled long and hard to free itself from the perception that it was just the poor stepchild of painting and develop a uniquely photographic aesthetic. Remember F64? Suggesting that imitating painting contains some higher aesthetic purpose for photographers is a very antiquated and long ago discarded idea.

Okay, so I do agree with you guys more after finally reading Art's piece (I didn't know it was live until just a couple minutes ago) but think we can always learn and be inspired from the real painters of yesterday. Anyone can toss a gallon of paint on a canvas and call it art... Anyone can take a picture of a spilled gallon of paint in a parking lot and call it art... That is not my cup of tea. What everyone did over in F64 IS my cup of tea. Sure if I was referring to mod-art/abstract work stuff like what Art has shown as images in the articles then that is totally debatable and I would really agree with your comments and the photographer=painter correlation hands down. Personally, I never found that abstract painting to be anything worth writing home about and don't understand what all the fuss is about... I am open minded however and accept it. Will I purchase a Warhol and hang it over my fireplace? No.

My main goal was to just say that we could learn a lot of art theory from master painters from way back when. This would entail composition, lighting and so on.

My premise with my original comment was within regards to what I consider real art, that depicts people and places. I do like how he mentioned art theory but totally see where you are coming from in some sense since a lot of it looked like that abstract stuff I mentioned before. The only thing I did appreciate from that article was that he mentioned learning art theory...

Thanks!

Kirk Gittings · « **Reply #17 on:** April 15, 2009, 02:01:01 pm »

Understood.

MichaelAlanBielat · « **Reply #18 on:** April 16, 2009, 10:16:04 am »

Not to hijack this thread but beautiful work you have there Kirk. I am especially liking your black and white work.

Kirk Gittings · « **Reply #19 on:** April 16, 2009, 10:42:35 am »

Thanks, I appreciate that. I wish I could make my living off the b&w, but the color architiectural photography has primarily paid the bills for the last 30 years.

Quote from: MichaelAlanBielat

Not to hijack this thread but beautiful work you have there Kirk. I am especially liking your black and white work.

Author Topic: Art Wolfe (Read 12132 times)

DarkPenguin