I like simple definitions.
Art is mostly creative inspiration.
Craft is creative discipline.
Jorj
http://www.tsidigitals.com
http://www.groupmedia.com
Jorj Takacs
jorj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 5-Feb-10, at 9:06 AM, lookaround360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
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
