- #1
Marzena
Last edited by a moderator:
rootX said:What are those in the first one?
Marzena said:
misgfool said:Pardon me for my ignorance, but what exactly makes these pictures interesting?
lisab said:I guess to really get what's involved, you'd have to try to take a pic like this, of something really close-up. It's surprisingly difficult!
Technique, composition, artistic sense... They all play into the competition. Depending on the focal length, aperture, shutter speed, and available or filled light, results can range from flat and dull to wonderful.misgfool said:I don't doubt that, but... so all these competitions are about picture taking technique?
turbo-1 said:Technique, composition, artistic sense... They all play into the competition. Depending on the focal length, aperture, shutter speed, and available or filled light, results can range from flat and dull to wonderful.
Sometimes "art" is what one finds appealing, apart from any "message". When I see a well-composed image of a flower with interesting lighting, etc, I don't try to ascribe any meaning to it, any more than I would try to ascribe some meaning to the composition "Classical Gas". Just enjoy it for what it is.misgfool said:Maybe I have misunderstood this, but shouldn't art try to convey some message?
Astute observation. The concept that "the artist was trying to convey this" is often pushed by critics. I can look at Van Gogh's "Starry Night" or "Sunflowers" without trying to ascribe some motive to them apart from the artist's joy in the creative process. Lots of art was subsidized by wealthy patrons centuries ago, but much of the stuff that captures our imaginations was avante-garde, stuff done for the love of it. Vincent was floored when he found out that he was making a living (just barely!) because his brother Theo was quietly buying his paintings and stacking them under his bed.Proton Soup said:i'm not a big fan of art as message/politics. beauty is universal. the poorer the art, the more message it needs to sell.
turbo-1 said:Astute observation. The concept that "the artist was trying to convey this" is often pushed by critics. I can look at Van Gogh's "Starry Night" or "Sunflowers" without trying to ascribe some motive to them apart from the artist's joy in the creative process. Lots of art was subsidized by wealthy patrons centuries ago, but much of the stuff that captures our imaginations was avante-garde, stuff done for the love of it. Vincent was floored when he found out that he was making a living (just barely!) because his brother Theo was quietly buying his paintings and stacking them under his bed.
Proton Soup said:i'm not a big fan of art as message/politics. beauty is universal. the poorer the art, the more message it needs to sell.
misgfool said:I can't see beauty in a static 2D picture, when I have seen and felt the real thing. You would have to have really unique and special (new) object for a picture to have any value. So you really need the message. Or maybe beauty isn't universal after all.
Proton Soup said:not all art is of real things. is there really no art that pleases you?
misgfool said:Of course there is. I love an intellectually stimulating story, message or beauty with novelty.
Proton Soup said:i should've clarified. visual arts, not prose and poetry.
Photography can be done with a "click" as in automated snap-shots at a family picnic, or it can be done with careful composition, lighting, selection of aperture, shutter-speed, etc. I can guarantee you that if you started contracting yourself to do wedding photography, you'd gain a real appreciation for the artistry required and the ability to adapt on-the-fly to changing conditions. If the output is not superior, you don't get references, and you don't get work. I did wedding photography when digital was not even remotely an option, so there was the added restriction of being locked into the ISO of whatever film was loaded in the camera at the time.Loren Booda said:How does photography compare to other visual arts - i.e., an image made with the click of a shutter, vs. a painting created over years of scrupulous work?
turbo-1 said:Google "Ansel Adams" and see if you can justify down-grading his work (compared to painting) based on the fact that he used cameras, glass plates, processing, and printing techniques. His work is high art.
Loren Booda said:But truly, I cannot say that as a rule the best photographers have the artistry which the (other) best visual artists possess. One has to be in the right place at the right time.
"Flower power - embarras de richesse" is a term used to describe the abundance of flowers in a particular area or during a specific time period. It is often associated with the counterculture movement of the 1960s, which promoted peace, love, and harmony through the use of flowers and other symbols.
The term "Flower power" was coined by the American poet Allen Ginsberg in 1965 during a protest against the Vietnam War. It was later popularized by the band The Byrds in their song "Turn! Turn! Turn!" and became a symbol of the counterculture movement.
Flowers were seen as a peaceful and nonviolent way to protest against war and promote love and unity. They were also used as a symbol of rebellion against traditional societal norms and values.
The concept of "Flower power" had a significant impact on society, particularly in the 1960s. It challenged traditional beliefs and promoted a more peaceful and loving approach to social and political issues. It also paved the way for the environmental and feminist movements of the 1970s.
While the counterculture movement of the 1960s has come and gone, the concept of "Flower power" continues to hold significance today. It serves as a reminder of the power of peaceful protest and the importance of promoting love and unity in the face of adversity.