AdjectivePerson
New member
This obnoxious kid got pissed at me because I said "I like how anyone that can operate a DSLR these days is a Photographer" in a sarcastic manner, meaning that Photography is a current trend and a lot of teens are doing it because it's "cool". I didn't actually say this to him but made it my Facebook status and he got pissed off because he had just bought a new SLR and it applied pretty heavily to him.
Anyway, he pretty much said I was a pretentious hipster (which I'm not) and that I "just can't take the fact that anyone can take a picture and be an artist". This royally pissed me off but I was polite because at the time I couldn't think of anything offensive to say back without sounding like an idiot
Anyway, the reasons I think photography is a poor art form is because:
A. No creativity. When you take a photo, you’re using a tool to save a copy of a scene even if that scene is incredibly beautiful. Now the exception is if you use certain lighting and editing techniques to make the photo genuinely original.
B. Anyone can do it. Especially with today’s auto-focusing, auto-metering, easy-to-use cameras, meaning that a lot of idiots an pick up an SLR and pretend to be a great artist.
C. No talent involved. You’re in a good place, you take a good picture. You’re in a bad place; you get nothing. It doesn’t matter if you have passion or willpower. If someone else is in the right place at the right time, they can easily capture the moment just as well, even if they’ve been handed a camera for the first time.
D. It's usually completely Literal, metaphors and ideology can be illustrated much better through painting, drawing, or music.
E. If you make money off of taking photo's (for National Geographic as an example), then your not an artist, you're a businessman.
Now there are some exceptions, there are photographers who create their own scenes, like my friend for example. He sets up certain themes and uses models to depict said themes, he uses editing and light effects and all that deliciousness. I think he's a great artist, but that's because he's creating something new, not just digitally saving a scene.
I think the reason that Photography has caught on is because anyone born with arms can do it. The same can be said about painting or drawing or music, but those require months or even years of Practice and a more metaphorical message can be conveyed through them.
Now, I'm not trying to be a jerk, and I know there are a lot of Great photographers out there, but I think a lot of people are doing it just to be hip and happening.
So, what's your opinion? And you can be critical, just don't be a complete asshole.
And I probably already said this but I don't mean any offense to those of you who enjoy it.
“What is popular is not always good, what is good is not always popular.”
AH! Perfect! I am probably misinformed. And Martin is right, my question should have been "Is photography good art?"
Blue October just wrote the best Answer I have ever gotten.
Anyway, he pretty much said I was a pretentious hipster (which I'm not) and that I "just can't take the fact that anyone can take a picture and be an artist". This royally pissed me off but I was polite because at the time I couldn't think of anything offensive to say back without sounding like an idiot
Anyway, the reasons I think photography is a poor art form is because:
A. No creativity. When you take a photo, you’re using a tool to save a copy of a scene even if that scene is incredibly beautiful. Now the exception is if you use certain lighting and editing techniques to make the photo genuinely original.
B. Anyone can do it. Especially with today’s auto-focusing, auto-metering, easy-to-use cameras, meaning that a lot of idiots an pick up an SLR and pretend to be a great artist.
C. No talent involved. You’re in a good place, you take a good picture. You’re in a bad place; you get nothing. It doesn’t matter if you have passion or willpower. If someone else is in the right place at the right time, they can easily capture the moment just as well, even if they’ve been handed a camera for the first time.
D. It's usually completely Literal, metaphors and ideology can be illustrated much better through painting, drawing, or music.
E. If you make money off of taking photo's (for National Geographic as an example), then your not an artist, you're a businessman.
Now there are some exceptions, there are photographers who create their own scenes, like my friend for example. He sets up certain themes and uses models to depict said themes, he uses editing and light effects and all that deliciousness. I think he's a great artist, but that's because he's creating something new, not just digitally saving a scene.
I think the reason that Photography has caught on is because anyone born with arms can do it. The same can be said about painting or drawing or music, but those require months or even years of Practice and a more metaphorical message can be conveyed through them.
Now, I'm not trying to be a jerk, and I know there are a lot of Great photographers out there, but I think a lot of people are doing it just to be hip and happening.
So, what's your opinion? And you can be critical, just don't be a complete asshole.
And I probably already said this but I don't mean any offense to those of you who enjoy it.
“What is popular is not always good, what is good is not always popular.”
AH! Perfect! I am probably misinformed. And Martin is right, my question should have been "Is photography good art?"
Blue October just wrote the best Answer I have ever gotten.