Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?  (Read 18802 times)

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #20 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.
Logged

BobShaw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2218
    • Aspiration Images
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #21 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.
Logged
Website - http://AspirationImages.com
Studio and Commercial Photography

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #22 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-
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #23 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.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #24 on: November 24, 2014, 06:46:16 pm »

It's an internet forum, not a thesis defense. Go do your own research,
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #25 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
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #26 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).
Logged

Kirk Gittings

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1561
    • http://www.KirkGittings.com
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #27 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......
Logged
Thanks,
Kirk Gittings

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #28 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'.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2014, 08:05:09 am by jjj »
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #29 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. 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.
Logged

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #30 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.
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #31 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 :-)
Logged

ripgriffith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 373
    • ripsart.com
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #32 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.
Logged

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #33 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.
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #34 on: November 25, 2014, 01:29:41 pm »

All photographers are, by definition, surrealists.

By which definitions? :-)
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #35 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?
Logged

ripgriffith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 373
    • ripsart.com
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #36 on: November 25, 2014, 01:44:24 pm »

By which definitions? :-)
Susan Sontag, among others.
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #37 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?
Logged

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #38 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.
Logged

ripgriffith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 373
    • ripsart.com
Re: Is it really "Photography" or "Autography"?
« Reply #39 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
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up