Technical vs Art

[jsbn]

As we all know, the first steps to taking good photos is a good technical mastery of ur camera, lens, and all the basic knowledge required.

But the ironic thing after mastering all technicalities to produce a good photo, we have to break the rules to produce an artistically appealing photo.

Between a technically good photo and an artistically appealing photo. Which would u choose? :dunno:

 

[Heavensent]

interesting question u have there.
i would choose an artistically appealing one. cos good techniques are supposed to produce appealing photos. A qn for you: can a technically good photo not produce an artistic composition?

 

[jsbn]

Well, it may be possible.

A person with technical mastery following the technical rules strictly may not produce a photo that's just as aesthetically pleasing as to one with artistic appeal in the long run.

 

[student]

Why must there be such artificial divisions?

Why this or that?

Art and craft are intrinsically linked.

Good craft is immediately recognisable. But good art is almost always controversial.

And how often are "Good Art" produced by people with little technical knowledge of the craft?

Or is it an excuse for people to be sloppy in the production of their "art"?

 

[jsbn]

With all these digital gizmos these days, we constantly hear things on MP comparison, the technicalities of the camera and how a photo ought to be taken and anything beyond those rules are dismissed as 'a bad photo', cos 'not sharp', 'no 1/3rd rule', not straight, handshake blur, colour very strange, Yadda-yadda.

Gone are the days where people see the photo and take it in visually thru the heart. Assuming if 'The Vietnam Girl' (I thought that was an excellent moment captured but tragic nevertheless) was taken now, the technical rules it would had already broken would be sharpness which seems to be 'the in thing'.

Sharp = good
No sharp = no good

 

[scanner]

With all these digital gizmos these days, we constantly hear things on MP comparison, the technicalities of the camera and how a photo ought to be taken and anything beyond those rules are dismissed as 'a bad photo', cos 'not sharp', 'no 1/3rd rule', not straight, handshake blur, colour very strange, Yadda-yadda.

Gone are the days where people see the photo and take it in visually thru the heart. Assuming if 'The Vietnam Girl' (I thought that was an excellent moment captured but tragic nevertheless) was taken now, the technical rules it would had already broken would be sharpness which seems to be 'the in thing'.

Sharp = good
No sharp = no good

Thats the differences between a noob, newbie and a person with trained eyes... :bsmilie:
Why concern over these? If your work is well recognised and appreciated by others such as professionals or people who appreciate good work, why bother?

 

[LittleWolf]

But the ironic thing after mastering all technicalities to produce a good photo, we have to break the rules to produce an artistically appealing photo.

The rules that you break are usually "artistic" rules, not technical rules. If "rules" can be broken without causing severe degradation of photographic quality, they are not sound technical rules. However, there's a lot of myths out there - e.g., to cite a current example, "landscape has to be photographed using a wide angle lens". Obviously, this "rule" can be broken, but equally obviously, there is no technical reason whatsoever for such a rule.

 

[jsbn]

Breaking a traditional mindset?

 

[student]

Gone are the days where people see the photo and take it in visually thru the heart. Assuming if 'The Vietnam Girl' (I thought that was an excellent moment captured but tragic nevertheless) was taken now, the technical rules it would had already broken would be sharpness which seems to be 'the in thing'.

"The Vietnam Girl"/ "Naplam Girl" or similar images (Falling Soldier & Vietcong execution are other examples) are really not good examples of "Art" (depending on the definition of "art").

They are documentary images and taken with the "best available techniques" given the circumstances. They made headlines because of the message they convey, not because they have intrinsic "artistic" merits.

Sharp = good
No sharp = no good

I think there are images that one can give to illustrate the fallacies of such concepts.

Take the images of Richard Avedon, David Bailey and Paolo Roversi. They are all highly skillful technicians who can take pictures so sharp that they cut across sashimi with precision. But they also allowed unsharpness in many of their images (especially Paolo Roversi).

Well, let those who insist on "Sharp=Good and No Sharp=No Good" go argue with photographers like Avedon, Bailey and Roversi.

 

[Rev]

I choose both.

Art can be technical & attractive because the mind unexplainably has certain mathematical preferences
example...
a) symmetry
b) patterns
c) the guideline 'rule of thirds'
d) calculation of human body's proportions in Da Vinci's vitruvian man, I think the forearm is 2/3rds longer than the upper arm...
e) straight lines
d) in focus

And yet all of the opposites of the above are equally attractive...
example...
a) impressionism
b) cubism
c) abstract

The brain has 2 sides (left=technical/logic, right=art/emotion/feelings) which do U choose?

 

[granni]

With all these digital gizmos these days, we constantly hear things on MP comparison, the technicalities of the camera and how a photo ought to be taken and anything beyond those rules are dismissed as 'a bad photo', cos 'not sharp', 'no 1/3rd rule', not straight, handshake blur, colour very strange, Yadda-yadda.

Gone are the days where people see the photo and take it in visually thru the heart. Assuming if 'The Vietnam Girl' (I thought that was an excellent moment captured but tragic nevertheless) was taken now, the technical rules it would had already broken would be sharpness which seems to be 'the in thing'.

Sharp = good
No sharp = no good

Good one

 

[redstone]

I rather have an artistically pleasing photo than a technically mastered photo.

 

[eikin]

i don't quite understand the existence of the seperation of art into 'technical quality' and 'artistic quality' ... there's appropriate technique for affective art, but i haven't heard of a 'technically poor artistic artwork' or a 'technically brilliant trash'

 

[Timber]

For a writer, which is more important?
1) flair/command of language
2) story/content

It takes both to write a good book. Neither attribute is useful without the other.

 

[catchlights]

Before you can run, jump, or dance...... or do whatever stunt.
You must learn how to crawl, stand, and walk first.

if a photographer can produce a so call artistic masterpiece without understand of the fundamental of about photography....

A chimpanzee can also be a great master of fine art photographer.

 

[jsbn]

i don't quite understand the existence of the seperation of art into 'technical quality' and 'artistic quality' ... there's appropriate technique for affective art, but i haven't heard of a 'technically poor artistic artwork' or a 'technically brilliant trash'

Maybe its a little vague but I shall elaborate.

Technically excellent photo: Pinpoint sharp, clear, adherence to 1/3rd rule, exposure spot on.
Artistically excellent photo: All that above AND 1 tinge of special touch.

 

[eikin]

Maybe its a little vague but I shall elaborate.

A = Technically excellent photo: Pinpoint sharp, clear, adherence to 1/3rd rule, exposure spot on.
B = Artistically excellent photo: All that above AND 1 tinge of special touch.

therefore A is a subset of B, doesn't that make poll pointless?

 

[Rev]

i don't quite understand the existence of the seperation of art into 'technical quality' and 'artistic quality' ... there's appropriate technique for affective art, but i haven't heard of a 'technically poor artistic artwork' or a 'technically brilliant trash'

I couldnt agree more. technical or artistic, it's subjective because everything is artistic in its own right. I dont love abstract but I do appreciate it for ignoring all rules...

But define 'poor' or 'trash'... isnt that & the definition of artistic quality & technical quality subjective?

The photo might not be disgustingly horrible but since it's undesirable, then it becomes 'trash'. Had 2 friends engage 2 ST photographers to photograph a house & do a commercial shoot for furniture. The lighting, WB, composition were all well-taken with the lighting gear, light meters, 1Ds... but it lacked spirit so hence the undesirable photos became 'technically brilliant trash' because it lacked punch & couldnt be used...

 

[Stereobox]

Maybe its a little vague but I shall elaborate.

Technically excellent photo: Pinpoint sharp, clear, adherence to 1/3rd rule, exposure spot on.
Artistically excellent photo: All that above AND 1 tinge of special touch.

i won't participate in the poll per se..

but allow me to clarify something?

are you trying to ask which we will choose, between a photo that follows all the 'correct, by-the-book rules' and yet falls flat, lacks soul, unable to move the senses and mind.... and one that inspires and makes you simply go 'yes! that's it!', despite possibly maybe or not flouting certain 'rules'?

i think i'll go with the latter.

in fact, i think most of us here would :bsmilie:

 

[sk.images]

Before you can run, jump, or dance...... or do whatever stunt.
You must learn how to crawl, stand, and walk first.

if a photographer can produce a so call artistic masterpiece without understand of the fundamental of about photography....

A chimpanzee can also be a great master of fine art photographer.

Not strictly true, but not comepletely wrong either. Sure a chimp can take a fantastic picture, but it is likely that it will only happen once. Anyway hat is the definition of a 'masterpiece' - is it a something created by a master or something that is judged by many to possess beauty, etc, etc???? If it is strictly the later, then anyone can do this through sheer luck - the difference is, a master can do this over and over again. Having said that, not everything a master creates is a masterpiece