0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 2945 times.
There's a pervasive disrespect for the rights of artists of all kinds, not just photographers. I'm not trying to start an argument about downloading, but there IS a large segment of the population who feel that any artistic creation on the web should be theirs for the taking. Movies, music, images, it doesn't matter. I am a photographer by profession working primarily in the field of Fine Arts and it is a constant struggle to get a certain segment of my client base to understand that copyrights are to be respected and credit given when using images I've created. Museums and book/magazine publishers get the concept and never give any problems, but private galleries are a constant hassle. I've actually had archivists and publicists for for some of the most prestigious galleries in N.Y. and London act surprised when I insist on being given credit when they're using images I've taken. I'll look at their websites six months later and credits will have vanished. There's only so much you can do though. I always embed credit and copyright info in the metadata, but that only goes so far.
.......But a true artist with the camera brings home the bacon over and over, that's the difference. We live in a world so saturated with photographs both banal and wonderful, we've all become jaded by the technology. Twenty years ago, before digital made "average" so competent, perceptions were different I think.
My take (as a person with no interest in taking photos.)I have over 5,000 images taken from the web using the pics on Google and yahoo. I run them as a slideshow all the time. Art, Nature, etc.. I like it. And as far as i am concerned one interesting nice one is a good as any other.. A few have tags, a name or something on them.As for photography in general I do not perceive it as an art. like painting. It is more like a craft, like making furniture.Some (few) pictures do have a fantastic artistic beauty, and approximate art. and I would say they are 'art'. And they are about a thousandth of the proportion of like dabbler painters to great paintersBut the vast majority of photos are average boring snapshots. 99.99% boring.The problem is many photographers think they are 'artists', when in fact they are tinkerers, and not very good ones either. So thier egos are blown up way out of proportion to the actual content they produce.So when photographers think their work is being stolen... Well I agree they should be thrilled anyone though it had any merit.This does not apply to theft to use for profit. which I agreee is a criminal act.So feel free to hate me but this is what i feel. And i produce this not to insult anyone, but to further the discussion. As an 'outsider' with my perspective on the topic.
Well Elizabeth, there's a lot of truth in your perspective. "99.99% of photographs are boring" might be a charitable take on the actual ratio! Art, like beauty, is a matter of personal and cultural perspective. A large part of what can make traditional photography an art IMO is entirely outside the realm of photographic mechanics. Intuition and sensitivity to the subject, in concert with facility in the technical aspects of photography, allow for those photographs that transcend banality. A well known example of that sort of aesthetic is Steve McCurry's work: http://stevemccurry.com/galleries . As someone who has a degree in "traditional" ways of making art (painting, drawing, printmaking, etc.) but makes their living with a camera, I think that the perspective you express comes in part from the fact that today, everyone can buy a decent camera for little money and make images with a reasonable degree of competence in very short order if they have even a little bit a visual good sense. However, no such easy route exists for competence in painting, drawing, and "tradtional" art media. Thing is, 99.99% of paintings, drawings, sculpture, and prints are boring, derivative, and easily forgotten as well. Now admittedly, dumb luck can bestow an average photographer with a transcendent photograph (once or twice in a life time) whereas dumb luck is never going to give a painter a great painting. But a true artist with the camera brings home the bacon over and over, that's the difference. We live in a world so saturated with photographs both banal and wonderful, we've all become jaded by the technology. Twenty years ago, before digital made "average" so competent, perceptions were different I think.
I hope I'm not too far off topic, but I also get upset when people visiting galleries, museums, or other places take photos where they are forbidden. It's incredibly disrespectful, and if I have any doubt I always ask.
And while dumb luck plays a part, most good shooters make their own "luck" by putting themselves in a situation where "luck" is more likely to happen.
