After 80+ years under a dark cloth gazing at an upside down image, i still get a kick out of seeing what appears to me to be a nice, pleasing image. Do others think the same of my images? probably not, but I don't care -I still enjoy the chase.
After 80+ years under a dark cloth gazing at an upside down image, i still get a kick out of seeing what appears to me to be a nice, pleasing image. Do others think the same of my images? probably not, but I don't care -I still enjoy the chase.
Good for you and I decidedly agree
and I just rolled up a few cassettes of bulk Delta 100 because there are no rules
Tin Can
+1 Photograph for yourself, first and foremost. If others like/love your work, so much the better.Originally Posted by Jim Noel
certainly agree with that statement
regards
Andrew
Several years ago, I finally acknowledged reality -- i.e., that the world was not desperate to pay me for my photography ... lol -- and stopped trying to monetize it via print sales, etc.
Since then, "the thrill of the chase" is the only thing that motivates me to go out into the world with my camera and entertain / amuse myself by taking photos.
If others happen to enjoy my photography as well, that's great; and if not, well, that's okay, too.
The only person I aim to please these days is myself and that's plenty tough enough!
Agreed. For the handful of lucky ones who find an audience there are a multitude who will remain unknown although their work may be exemplary. However, I still need to go out there and make images - great ones of course. To the initial question, there are great shots everywhere. Our medium is about light and form. Remember that Brett Weston photographed his dirty skillet and according to John Sexton, garbage bags , as they caught the light. Everything was fair game to him.
Because the reality is that the word has moved on without us. Trust me, I’m 34 with an MFA in Photography. My classmates who played around with photo paper and photoshop are the ones landing grants ... they’re “challenging the conventions of photography”
Most people here are modernists... those days are LONG over.
I try to have a foot in each camp... modernist in the sense that I love 8x10 and silver, but post modernist in the sense that pictures of sharp trees and nature (ala Edward Weston) will just make you a great photographic practitioner but not an artist... at least in the 2019 way of the world.
The other reality is that I’m going to assume that less than .01% of the membership of this forum goes at this as their primary means of making a living, at least from making art pictures. Maybe you’re a commercial guy, but that’s not the same thing. People here are lawyers, engineers, office workers, etc but few are true artists. The days of that life are nearly economically impossible. I teach to make a living, like many of us MFA kiddos.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You're only a "true artist" if you make your living selling your art? I would call that being a professional artist. Isn't post-modernism itself getting a bit long in the tooth?
This is a bit like my own area, philosophy. What excites academics is not all there is to philosophy.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
Oh really?
Michael Kenna, Clyde Butcher, and many others out there today doing just that. And, I'm not sure how you can say one person is an artist and another isn't just because of the time period they are alive in.
Only those who earn money only from their art are "true" artists? And you would not qualify yourself as a "true" artist because you teach for the majority of your paycheck?
No, it’s not... again... pay attention to contemporary photography. None of us are winning Guggenheim Fellowships or MacArthur Grants
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks