Quote from: lagereek on June 14, 2011, 05:53

Personally as I said, any kind of photography is IMO, too young a media to even come close to real art. However if you can create a stunner in-camera, using just the camera, composition, lighting, etc and without any help from retouching in any form,  well, then its impressive.

Many years back I photographed David-Hockney at work, gigantic studio in the Highlands of Scotland, his paintings were already then selling for millions of bucks.

When asked about his art, he said, Oh this balloney is not art, I just create and paint the stuff, then some lunatic will come along and buy it.

So would you say his photos weren't art but his paintings are?  I prefer his photos.  Never understood why people think photography is a lower form of art than painting.  Many of the great paintings from hundreds of years ago were made using a lens to project the image on to a canvas, then they just painted the image.  I don't really see any difference between doing that and using a camera.  Anyone can take photos but anyone can splash paint on a canvas as well.

To be honest, I dont like his paintings at all and yet look at the price-tag of a Hockney? ( investment ofcourse)  not too keen on his photography either. Hie is not exactly my cup of tea.

Between him and Bacon, I prefer Bacon.

I like her stuff and all that, but for the life of me I cannot understand why to many people the main criteria for something being art are that it's complex, hard to do and looks good.

I remember a thread round here about her discussing the question "But is it stock?" Seems a much more appropriate approach to me.

I don't think her work is complex, at least in terms of interpretation (easy to understand, clear message, so it is stocky regarding this).

If it sells so well (remember mostly V files and a lot with flames) it is stock. It really is that simple. At least to me.

Yeah, that's what I meant: People consider pictures to be art that are complex in the making. Complexity in interpretation is something different and might be more of a criterion for art.

Pictures having a clear message and being easy to understand would to me be the criterion for something to be (micro-)stock.

I really get your point (and I wish E. V. all the best too!), but: What Sean and Yuri are doing has it's own fun to it (apart from the fun on the way to the bank). There is a different kind of creativity in the process of getting the look of an image exactly right for it to be appealing to "the masses", which includes, of course, choosing the right models which is the discipline many, many microstockers fail in. Getting an image just right so that everything blends in and it doesn't have any edges to it and doesn't leave any questions open is, well I don't really know whether it's creative, but it's a highly skilled task they have set themselves. I do get the fun of that.

Sean's approach specifically includes things that most others just don't think of (because they are busy shooting what everyone else has done already and has prooved successful, so it seems safe). What a microstocker it takes to think of doing a shoot of a spelling contest! Great that is! Also, he really puts himself out and goes to lengthes that others just wouldn't. To get his aeroplane set or his stadium set together!

I started out with shiny happy people over white just recently, and I'm loving it, although I don't give the images that much of a chance, because they are exclusive to Fotolia where they probably will be burried in their new best match. And of course it's late in the game for anything like that. But what I'm saying is, I get the fun of it which is much more than just the money. It's wonderful to have gotten just the look I was after. Things like artistic creativity or even taste are just completely aside from that. To me at least.

ETA: BTW, thinking about every microstocker I've talked to (no big guns, but a few people who are higher up the ladder than me) and from what many people's ports tell me, I've been wondering about this: They are all chasing after the look that Yuri produces, they want part of the success, they follow his blog and listen to everything he says in videos and all that, but the one thing they seem to overhear is what he says about choosing models which to me is the main key or at least the starting point for a shoot. After doing all the research they all go out and shoot their girlfriends, as if "pretty" were enough to qualify as a stock model.

Quote from: Pheby on June 17, 2011, 04:39

I really get your point (and I wish E. V. all the best too!), but: What Sean and Yuri are doing has it's own fun to it (apart from the fun on the way to the bank). There is a different kind of creativity in the process of getting the look of an image exactly right for it to be appealing to "the masses", which includes, of course, choosing the right models which is the discipline many, many microstockers fail in. Getting an image just right so that everything blends in and it doesn't have any edges to it and doesn't leave any questions open is, well I don't really know whether it's creative, but it's a highly skilled task they have set themselves. I do get the fun of that.

This sounds like work, not fun to me;)

I get ur point as well, we just have totally different not just view of stock, but mentality. Which is great too, we don't want to be brainwashed, do we;)

Yeah, we're coming from different directions, and stock photography and photography in general mean different things to you than they do to me. But I must clarify that this business is still like a game to me (although I'm a full timer), and if my photography was anything to do with art and expressing my personality, I wouldn't be in this business. I let the creativity out through other channels. 

Well I don't need to tell you that that clearly shows in your images!

I just love her work! And yes, I would consider it to be Art!

Isn't it the graphics which is her main claim to it being art? But wasn't it largely what went on in the darkroom, rather than in the camera, that led to some photographers being considered artists rather than just snappers? And isn't that darkroom manipulation largely replaced by Photoshop now?

The boundaries between being a photographer and being a graphic designer have blurred a lot, I guess she could describe herself as either.

Is it photography??  is it?  isnt it Photo-Graphics?  20% photography and 80% graphic works?

Photography is the art, science, and practice of creating pictures by recording radiation on a radiation-sensitive medium, such as a photographic film, or electronic image sensors.

Her graphic work is stunning!!  but hardly qualifies for photography.

Why does it even matter what it is, results are stunning and that's all that really matters. I thought 8 mio photos (as in photo-graphics) is more than enough. She's combining something no one else managed so far in MS.

I am VERY impressed with her work.  Art or not, she has skills baby!!

Quote from: etienjones on June 18, 2011, 07:05

Art is always Autobiographical . . . . Craft is not.

Another super-restrictive definition. How about using a dictionary:
art/�rt/Noun
1. The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
2. Works produced by such skill and imagination.


"Autobiographical" doesn't make the grade according to Merriam-Webster. But maybe the dictionary-writers don't realise that Michelangelo, Constable, Van Gogh and Bottocelli were mere craftsmen.

Agree!  and so am I .