Why do we shoot? Who do we shoot for?

[Deadpoet]

..... I think the statement of creating art not to appeal to anybody is a self defeatist statement.
If art is created not to appeal to people, then who is art created for in the first place? Why do we even bother showing it? Art is a form of expression, communication and it is created to appeal to, and communicate with people. If that function is lost, so is the intergrity of art.

First of all, I need to thank Skye Tan's statement in another thread that got me thinking.

Why do I take photograph? Who do I take the photograph for?

I don't have an answer. I will come back to post my thoughts here on this topic, if I can put something coherent together.

What are your thoughts?

 

[limyouliang]

my answer is... for myself

 

[Deadpoet]

my answer is... for myself

If you shoot strictly for yourself, then does Skye Tan's assersion that it's self defeatist applies?

 

[night86mare]

If you shoot strictly for yourself, then does Skye Tan's assersion that it's self defeatist applies?

Not really, it is not hard to defeat Skye's assertion, since you just need to find one person that really shoots for himself and no one else, and is thoroughly unaffected by people's comments, and thinks that his photos are the bomb when everyone else spits on it.

Believe me, not hard. Here on CS quite easy to find, if you dig hard enough.

In any case, I am of the camp that we shoot for others AND ourselves. At least most people posting here on Clubsnap would fall into this group. If you shoot for yourself why bother to show or display it? I care what people think of my photos. I try to cater to their tastes, while attempting to retain some individuality and seeing things from new angles. Note the use of the word try. So in some sense, I am shooting for both, with deference to myself FIRST. It is not impossible, after all.

If we shoot for ourselves, if we create Art for ourselves, then why is there always a general trend throughout the ages? The herd instinct theory for humans also applies loosely here in this case.

 

[mattlock]

there's nothing wrong with shooting/creating anything for oneself.
alot of work is done for personal reasons, without a need for an external audience
sometimes the best judge of one's creation is oneself
after all, who can tell better whether you're creating work that is true to yourself, than you yourself?

and there's nothing wrong with showing work that's done for oneself to other people, not everyone shows work to ask for criticism.

 

[night86mare]

sometimes the best judge of one's creation is oneself
after all, who can tell better whether you're creating work that is true to yourself, than you yourself?

I note the use of the word sometimes, and agree with the first statement quoted.

The second assumes that there is no absolute judgement system with regards to how good or bad a work is, that it is all relative. Which is easily debatable with no conclusion in sight. =D

 

[blazer_workz]

Why do we shoot?
For hobby or for a living

Who do we shoot for?
For myself and for my clients

Does this answer your questions? :bsmilie:

 

[Conundrumachinist]

Not really, it is not hard to defeat Skye's assertion, since you just need to find one person that really shoots for himself and no one else, and is thoroughly unaffected by people's comments, and thinks that his photos are the bomb when everyone else spits on it.

Believe me, not hard. Here on CS quite easy to find, if you dig hard enough.

In any case, I am of the camp that we shoot for others AND ourselves. At least most people posting here on Clubsnap would fall into this group. If you shoot for yourself why bother to show or display it? I care what people think of my photos. I try to cater to their tastes, while attempting to retain some individuality and seeing things from new angles. Note the use of the word try. So in some sense, I am shooting for both, with deference to myself FIRST. It is not impossible, after all.

If we shoot for ourselves, if we create Art for ourselves, then why is there always a general trend throughout the ages? The herd instinct theory for humans also applies loosely here in this case.

Another way to defeat Skye's assertion would be to find someone who doesn't consider his photography art.

 

[night86mare]

Another way to defeat Skye's assertion would be to find someone who doesn't consider his photography art.

True.

I think that would be considerably harder though! Since.. the human ego tends to be inflated, rather than deflated. =D :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

 

[deckard]

humans like to take photographs to preserve the memory of existence.

 

[hazmee]

I shot for money to pay the bills. Does that help?

 

[Conundrumachinist]

True.

I think that would be considerably harder though! Since.. the human ego tends to be inflated, rather than deflated. =D :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

Actually it is pretty easy to quote you an example. A photographer working in places like Darfur may not set out "create" art. His main consideration would be to highlight the plight of the people living there. Of course later on he might win awards for his efforts but this is not what he set out to do in the first place. I think saying that anyone who takes a photograph and shares it with others is doing so to share his "art" is too simplistic.

 

[Deadpoet]

I think we are down the wrong path if all we can think of is how to defeat Skye Tan's assersion.

More importantly, is why we shoot, and for whom we shoot.

I don't believe I have the answer definately for myself, but I shoot for fun, and for my enjoyment, and for the enjoyment of others.

This is what I can think of, but I am damn unsatisfy with my explanantion.

 

[deckard]

you shoot because you want to paint with light.

And artists don't have to explain themselves to the world.

 

[Youhong]

I shoot plainly for hobby... I shoot for myself... I've got no one to answer to...

 

[maddyks]

I'm not gonna try to defeat anyone's assertions.

But I feel I shoot for myself. I shoot something according to my taste and what I would feel good, looking at many more times. When others appreciate it, its because our tastes match or they feel my taste is good enough.

If art was created catering to everyone's tastes, then I feel we would still be painting on cave walls instead of having many different kind of painting styles. Does anyone wanna say that when Picasso started cubism as a style of painting, he did it after thinking what people want? :dunno: Not to say I'm comparing myself to Picasso but what I mean to say is that everyone has a different outlook on the same view. Its similar to the four blind men and the elephant.

A bit incoherent but that I ascribe to my lack of sleep. :what: :sweat:

 

[Conundrumachinist]

I think we are down the wrong path if all we can think of is how to defeat Skye Tan's assersion.

More importantly, is why we shoot, and for whom we shoot.

I don't believe I have the answer definately for myself, but I shoot for fun, and for my enjoyment, and for the enjoyment of others.

This is what I can think of, but I am damn unsatisfy with my explanantion.

I don't think we are trying to defeat Skye Tan's assertion. But we have to ask ourselves will

we stop shooting if either we or others stop perceiving our photographs as art?

To me the answer is no. We can still shoot for ourselves or for others, to inform, to

chronicle, to share etc.

Not just for the sake of art.

 

[night86mare]

I think we are down the wrong path if all we can think of is how to defeat Skye Tan's assersion.

More importantly, is why we shoot, and for whom we shoot.

I don't believe I have the answer definately for myself, but I shoot for fun, and for my enjoyment, and for the enjoyment of others.

This is what I can think of, but I am damn unsatisfy with my explanantion.

I already stated my view mar!

 

[Deadpoet]

you shoot because you want to paint with light. And artists don't have to explain themselves to the world.

I don't think we are trying to defeat Skye Tan's assertion. But we have to ask ourselves will we stop shooting if either we or others stop perceiving our photographs as art?

To me the answer is no. We can still shoot for ourselves or for others, to inform, to chronicle, to share etc.

Not just for the sake of art.

As I am still contemplating this question ... just some thoughts

Is it necessary for out photographs (art) to communicate? Does communicating necessitate another person?

deckard
Or course, we do not have to explain ourselves. That is not the point. We are answering the question for ourselves.

We answer the question first, then we can visit Conundrumachinist's question.

 

[Deadpoet]

I already stated my view mar!

We are all expressing our views