Art or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.


Lik unfortunately gives us landscapers a bad name

Of course photography can be art, but doing what 1000 photographers have done before probably isn't
 
Eh? So because it's "easy" to do (by clicking a button) it means it's not art. I don't think the author of that article gets what art is tbh. I've seen a f***ing urinal described as "art". Surely anything can be when there's a story behind it and an angle to it.
 
Very poor and lazy article by Jonathan Jones who patently dislikes photographers (see also : http://www.theguardian.com/artandde...13/why-photographs-dont-work-in-art-galleries.)

He's desperately trying to be controversial to seek attention - however his WUM attempts are rank amateur in comparison with the expertise available even here in the SMB!

I'm not the greatest fan of black and white shots - but to call them "outmoded" and an "arty special effect" is so obviously trying to be provocative it pathetic!

If he is unable to research photography beyond his suggestion that "My Ipad can take panoramic views that are gorgeous to look at" suggests a bone idleness of the highest order and totally "befitting" a "Friday afternoon post pub" article aimed at stirring up a controversy that simply doesn't exist!

Why does he refer to "fine art" in his various articles and compare with the obvious photography equivalent.....an Ipad? Surely ..rent a higher order Canon or Nikon and try them out for an afternoon?.... But no ..."fine art's" direct comparison in the world of photography is an Ipad!!

His piece on the poppies at The Tower of London is petulant and infantile!

Other than that - he's a brilliant journalist!
 
Very poor and lazy article by Jonathan Jones who patently dislikes photographers (see also : http://www.theguardian.com/artandde...13/why-photographs-dont-work-in-art-galleries.)

He's desperately trying to be controversial to seek attention - however his WUM attempts are rank amateur in comparison with the expertise available even here in the SMB!

I'm not the greatest fan of black and white shots - but to call them "outmoded" and an "arty special effect" is so obviously trying to be provocative it pathetic!

If he is unable to research photography beyond his suggestion that "My Ipad can take panoramic views that are gorgeous to look at" suggests a bone idleness of the highest order and totally "befitting" a "Friday afternoon post pub" article aimed at stirring up a controversy that simply doesn't exist!

Why does he refer to "fine art" in his various articles and compare with the obvious photography equivalent.....an Ipad? Surely ..rent a higher order Canon or Nikon and try them out for an afternoon?.... But no ..."fine art's" direct comparison in the world of photography is an Ipad!!

His piece on the poppies at The Tower of London is petulant and infantile!

Other than that - he's a brilliant journalist!
I do have some sympathy with his attitude to lik, but he shouldn't expand it to photography in general
 
I don't really think I am in a position to criticise someone who has sold prints for $6.5 million, $2.4 million and $1.1 million.

I wouldn't really care what anyone else thought if I was selling my photos for that kind of money!
 
I don't really think I am in a position to criticise someone who has sold prints for $6.5 million, $2.4 million and $1.1 million.

I wouldn't really care what anyone else thought if I was selling my photos for that kind of money!
Why should that stop you having an opinion? Most landscapers barely have a good word to say about Lik. Jealousy of course, but his stuff is nothing special. He's nowhere near as good as Cornish for example. Nor Michael Fatali who did all this Antelope Canyon stuff donkeys years before him
 
His argument against photography as an art form is that it's driven by technology. Same could easily be argued about painting (brushes, pigments and suchlike, or Adobe Illustrator for that matter), sculpture (quarrying, chisels), literature (pens, word processors, printing presses) or music (instruments, recording equipment).

All art involves tools. He is living evidence that journalism does too.
 
Last edited:
His argument against photography as an art form is that it's driven by technology. Same could easily be argued about painting (brushes, pigments and suchlike, or Adobe Illustrator for that matter), sculpture (quarrying, chisels), literature (pens, word processors, printing presses) or music (instruments, recording equipment).
Architecture especially

Ignores the fact that shooting on glass plates 100 years ago was better quality than the majority of today's cameras
 
Why should that stop you having an opinion? Most landscapers barely have a good word to say about Lik. Jealousy of course, but his stuff is nothing special. He's nowhere near as good as Cornish for example. Nor Michael Fatali who did all this Antelope Canyon stuff donkeys years before him

Doesn't stop me having an opinion at all, but I would definitely sacrifice my artistic integrity for that kind of money :lol:

In fact thinking about it, I regularly do things the way a customer wants, rather than what I recommend, just cos they are dangling a couple of hundred ££ in front of me !
 
Doesn't stop me having an opinion at all, but I would definitely sacrifice my artistic integrity for that kind of money :lol:

In fact thinking about it, I regularly do things the way a customer wants, rather than what I recommend, just cos they are dangling a couple of hundred ££ in front of me !
He's a master salesman, of himself and his work

Better to be good at selling than anything else innit
 
its about having the eye to see a shot or the framing or the picture within a picture to crop...that to me is artistic
 
its about having the eye to see a shot or the framing or the picture within a picture to crop...that to me is artistic
True

He's just turned up and copied a shot that's been done 100 times before
 
On an arty trip I had a dodge along to Somerset House yesterday for the "Photo London" exhibition/festival/fair thingy.

At £20 quid entrance Ive nivver seen so much pretentious old shite in my life. Forty odd of the worlds leading galleries with hundreds of their "best" stuff for sale at mind bogglingly daft prices. Im pretty sure just about every signed photo cost ower a grand. Hundreds of people all dressed in black talking pretentiously about "aspects" and "inspiration" and "light" and shade".
There was a few rock, movie star and artist shots that I liked. Warhol, Bowie, Blondie, Jagger, Richards, Dylan, Beatles etc etc. But the best pic of all was of a bear reading a book! Annie Liebowitz and Anton Corbijn were the only names I recognised and thats only from my NME reading days.

Im probably not their target audience
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top