Veli, I don't agree much with this distinction. You will get great howls of rage from crafters. But then, some are too timid (or modest) to admit to being artists themselves! The distinction I see if there is one has more to do with authority. At various times a critical mass of artistic thinking occurs that inspires many. Then, perhaps, one or several will produce "original" works. I'm thinking of "Cubism" as an example. Of the core originators some will become the authoritative bench mark. Most often, though, novel rather than great ideas (the paradigmn shifters) are seen as creative genius. This is typical of Western art. I think the crafts of photography and traditional Asian art are similar. Formal disciplines and love for craft do not exclude opportunities for original vision. AZ LOOKAROUND - Since 1978 Build a 120/35mm Lookaround! The Lookaround E-Book FREE COPY http://www.panoramacamera.us > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [SPAM] RE: The inspiring photograph - Flickr > From: Veli Izzet <veli.izzet@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Fri, February 05, 2010 1:53 am > To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students > <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > What Emily says is actually the difference between art and craft; if you > conceive something and do it first, it is art. > > Doing what is done already is a craft, although craftsmen can be better than > the artist herself. > > Veli Izzet > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andrew Sharpe > Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 8:38 AM > To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students > Subject: Re: The inspiring photograph - Flickr > > Well said, Emily. I was very blunt in my lack of enthusiasm for the > images (even though a couple of them are very nice), but you've > succinctly articulated my feelings. > > Andrew > > > On 02/04/2010 04:05 AM, Emily L. Ferguson wrote: > > At 8:38 AM +0000 2/4/10, Howard wrote: > >> Which all goes to show that opinions about photographs are all very > >> personal. What one person likes.... > >> > >> I don't like Cartier-Bresson, nor Ansel Adams! Am I alone? > > > > No. But you're probably in a pretty lonely place! > > > > The interesting thing about that Flickr page is that the commenters > > don't seem to have any thing to say except, sycophantically, "oh yes, > > wise one, the photographs you've selected this week are indeed inspiring." > > > > Inspiring is not an adjective I'd use for those images - they don't > > inspire me to do much except go hunt for someone who paints on velvet. > > And, unlike the work of Adams and Cartier-Bresson, when I look at the > > gallery, no one image jumps out at me and sticks in my memory. > > > > Either because we're so educated about the history and technique of > > photography, or because we've simply been exposed to so much, we're no > > longer impressed with yet another gritty face, especially when we've > > stared at Steve McCurry's Afghan girl and Dorothea Lange's Migrant > > Mother for a great deal of our education. > > > > My personal opinion is that, in the case of McCurry and Cartier-Bresson, > > some things are great because they're the first. > > > > Steve's image turns out to be formulaic, if you go and track down more > > of his work. > > > > And here's the difference: Cartier-Bresson's isn't. > > -- > http://andrewsharpe.com
