Craft vs. meaning?

[Kirk Gittings]

In contemporary photography, what is the most common problem,

1) well crafted, but empty, meaningless, cliched images
or
2) poorly crafted, but interesting, meaningful images?

If someone was to offer you a choice of one of the above, which would you choose? Conceptually these dichotomies are highly personal and one might say that those choices are defined too black and white, but frankly from my POV I see them all the time.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

I see WAY more well crafted meaningless images than poorly crafted meaningful ones.

I think this has always been the case but I think I see more of it today becuase of the ease with which we can get images out into the public. The internet and digital technology has allowed artists to place work into the public much more quickly than before.

There was a person who posted on another thread I read here recently that we was reviewing his own work on a posting site and realized how much needed to be removed. I do the same thing with mine. I think most people are poor at self editing (myself included!) and this, coupled with the ease of getting work out there, means there is just more boring work for the world to see.

I do think this makes the outstanding work seem, well, more outstanding but it also makes it more difficult for the best to be recognized. Viewers are almost over stimulated these days and don't spend as much time really looking at and thinking about an artists work (IMO).

For me, I of course would rather have a well crafted AND meaningful image in my collection. But as that is not a choice, I would take #2 over #1.

[Bruce Watson]

In contemporary photography, what is the most common problem,

1) well crafted, but empty, meaningless, cliched images
or
2) poorly crafted, but interesting, meaningful images?

If someone was to offer you a choice of one of the above, which would you choose? Conceptually these dichotomies are highly personal and one might say that those choices are defined too black and white, but frankly from my POV I see them all the time.

IMHO, they are both bad. But if I have to choose, from just these two choices, what the most common problem is, it has to be No. 1.

In reality, I suspect that the most common problem is probably No. 3 -- poorly crafted, empty, meaningless, cliched images.

Another way to say it is that that No. 4 -- well crafted, interesting, meaningful images, are so darned difficult to create.

[reellis67]

I agree with Eric's well worded post. It appears to my eye that many people make technical precision the point of their photographs rather than trying to convey some other message, but that's just my opinion.

As to preference, I have bought prints that were certainly technically imperfect because the message they sent was so strong. I have also passed up innumerable prints that were tired, or bland, or just plain boring from an aesthetic viewpoint, yet were very well done technically.

That said, I do feel that there is great value in the artists ability to control the craft of their work. They need to be able to make their chosen medium convey the message they want to convey, but I won't pass on something moving just because they have not totally mastered their medium...

- Randy

[Jon Shiu]

I'm not exactly sure what is meant by "contemporary photography," but I see interesting and meaningful images each semester in the beginning photo classes at college, whereas when I went to Photo Eye Gallery in Santa Fe a few months ago the images were mostly kind of blah.

Jon

[sanking]

IMHO, they are both bad. But if I have to choose, from just these two choices, what the most common problem is, it has to be No. 1.

In reality, I suspect that the most common problem is probably No. 3 -- poorly crafted, empty, meaningless, cliched images.

Another way to say it is that that No. 4 -- well crafted, interesting, meaningful images, are so darned difficult to create.

I find that #1 and #2 are about equally common. The only basic difference is that craft, or lack of it, is an objective criteria, and almost universal in understanding. Interesting and meaningful are subjective terms in that what is meaningful and interesting to you may not be to me.

Bruce is right about #4. Well crafted images that are interesting and meaningful to a wide audience are difficult to see/find/conceive, and difficult to execute in the chosen media.

Sandy King

[David A. Goldfarb]

It depends. For me the most interesting images engage the medium in some way, and that requires control of the craft, because the craft is part of the meaning.

Along different lines, I went to an exhibition in a Chelsea gallery a couple of years ago of the work of a moderately well known New York street photographer. The show had gotten some prominent reviews, and I think he had just published a retrospective book of his work, so the show was well attended. While the images were interesting from a social and historical perspective, the print quality was mediocre (though the prices were not)--low in contrast and requiring spotting--and they weren't vintage prints, so it's not as if they were rushed prints for publication. They were printed for the show. I don't think I could own such a print without feeling a little embarrassed for the photographer every time I looked at it.

[Jim Galli]

Who's your audience? Who do you really want to play to? Josh Bell played the Strad in the subway but no one cared? If my audience is other photographers #1 will play well. Boring shit but perfectly executed. If I want to hang in a subway mezanine, any old inkjet print should be fine. #2 but Bigger is better. Obviously if we're here reading this post chances are that we're struggling to close the 98% gap on both. Of course I want my pictures to ring true as something artistically stated. I want them to turn heads in art circles. But I also know that I'll never accomplish that without craft. The trouble I'm having is that craft is changing so rapidly now that I may well achieve what was considered the mountain top 10 years ago and find myself there alone.

[Michael Alpert]

Kirk, both sides of your question involve talent or the lack of talent. Without significant content and the appropriate means to express significant content, there is no creative work. No formula or program of study leads one to originality. Content comes from living deeply. And the means to express one's content comes from craft. Sadly, craft is a value that is often discarded by the very people who would benefit most from its application.

[Marko]

My question is this: if a very talented and skillful photographer who at the same time happens to be lacking printing skills (or simply doesn't feel like spending time in the darkroom) commissions a very talented and skilled printer to produce the prints that do his images justice, who should be credited with the resulting work of art? The photographer or the printer?

In other words, one of them is the artist and the other the craftsman and together they produce a work of art. Who gets the credit for the art, the artist or the craftsman? And which one of them is the true artist?