[civo]

Ps. The title of the thread was taken from this website from a post called “Fauxtogs Are Dumb”

[civo]

Just as a closing argument, many names of artistic movements – such as fauvism and cubism,  among others – have originally been given by the supporters of the preceding  movements to describe (in an offending manner) a new art form which they didn’t like or couldn’t understand because it was unconventional at the time. Actually Henri Matisse told his contemporary Pablo Picasso after Picasso had shown his painting ”Les Demoiselles d’avignon”(1907) to him that Picasso should never present this work to anyone  as ”it would destroy his career” and Picasso ended up having this painting in his studio with the canvas facing the wall. So Picasso kept on the going the same path he was before  until after three years he returned back to this painting, realizing there is something special about it and decided to present it. And voilà: Cubism was born. So with ”fauxtography” you actually may have coined a term that lives in art history to describe a new avant-garde movement of photography that changed the people’s way of looking at photography. Or then not. Time will tell.

All the best to all of yous.

 

And please forgive me my English, as it’s not my native language.

[civo]

I was also referring to your forum where you also mock the works of amateurs/beginners.

Ironically I found this website while participating in a discussion in another forum, where was a thread for “photographing is the most meaningless profession of all”. And there I was talking for professional photographers.

[civo]

And sorry if I missed the point but are you saying that divorces should cost thousands of dollars just to file the paperwork?

[civo]

And to add, we also have practically free education and health care.

[civo]

Sorry, I don’t know much about American legal system either. Except from movies and television. Where I come from everyone is entitled to have any attorney they choose free of charge, if they don’t have the means to pay for themselves. Here court cases are not won by johnniecochrans and big bucks.

[civo]

The question of defining ”good art” was addressed to to Gerbles who made that comment that ”fauxtogs” (whatever that means) can’t probably create good art.

Comparing an MD and a photographer is like comparing a gardener and an airplane pilot. Peoples lives are not (in most cases) in any way in danger by the work of a photographer or a gardener.

I do want my doctors and pilots to be well educated and also well paid if that keeps them content and assures me that they actually know what they are doing – as my life may be dependent on them.

And actually there are licensed MDs working with faked diplomas very successfully. Which I find disturbing. Bad photographers – not so disturbing. Also as I don’t live in America, I can’t really take part in discussion of your health care system.

[civo]

Finally some reasonable arguments. But to point out, I have not once referred to money. What do you care if someone wants to pay for a less educated photographer than you? Is it directly out of your pocket? They will also get paid most likely a lot less. Some people also make a clear decision not to pay 3000 dollars/euros/pounds for wedding photos and rather settle for less quality for a cheaper price just to document the event. And they get what they bargained for.

And to answer ”cameraclickers” question, if it was my baby, sure I could hang out this picture on my living room wall. I have a lot stranger stuff hanging on my walls also. But most likely I would let the baby to draw his/her self-portrait straight to the wall with crayons.

Also using pictures of your family to make them look ”beautiful”, boost your ego or justify your status in society is not very interesting to me. Maybe it is to you.

Define good art then? Contemporary art is much more concept-based than about formal things as ”beauty” or composition. Of course in an ideal case the content and form are entwined together. All images are potentially art but not actually.

And surely ”art” and ”interesting” are not requirements for this genre. But that doesn’t also justify you to tell people what kind of images they should like.

[civo]

I don’t expect anything. You obviously didn’t read my posts clearly. Maybe sleep over it and try to make some sense. Artist? All your life? You mean as a profession or lifestyle or in a Beuysian way that “everyone is an artist”? Or just you?

Myself, I don’t consider most forms of photography as “art” – more of crafts. But I do like them anyway.

Also you seem to have very strong preconceptions. 

[civo]

“browneyedgirl89”

Ok. I checked your Flickr account. And now I’m even more confused. The kind of photography you do is REALLY BASIC wedding photography stuff and portraits. Also the discussion about “9-point AF system” etc., very interesting (megapixels are cool, aye?). And here you are claiming to be a “pro” by mocking other people. Sorry to say, but get real girl!

“Another one shot by Cole. I made a funny face on purpose. It’s not really in focus, but who cares.” – apparently you do

[civo]

 

To ”Moga”

No, not a troll. Just someone who gets annoyed by – as ”Loke” described – pretentious ”pro” photographers ( and I’m not referring to you). I find it way more interesting to discuss these matters with your kind of photographers  who can actually justify the usage of such language, rather than just mocking people for shooting ”auto”, ”jpeg” or ”chaep equipment”, which  I just find really arrogant and that they have to prove themselves better in the internet. Actions speak louder than words.

 

[civo]

”To Loke”

Finally some sense to the discussion. I agree with you on the most parts. Maybe we can pick up the discussion from here.

[civo]

To ”Open Focus”

For me the essence of a work is not about it’s technical quality or expensive production. As for painting, I don’t care at all about photorealism, unless it’s somehow relevant to the content. Same with photography. Of course I admire people for technical skills but that’s more of a crafts thing than art. And I do I think it’s perfectly acceptable to shoot in Auto mode, jpeg.

[civo]

 

To “browneyedgirl89”

Nice to hear that I have made you laugh out loud. Laughing is a good thing. But to be serious for a second, for me a lot of the photographs presented on this website are not just badly executed studio photographs. Maybe it has been a driving force to start this kind of appreciation site for ”pro” photographers but it has turned into mocking also all other kinds of photos than just amateurish studio photos. Maybe you personally find all the images you don’t like ”average” and ”boring”. For me it seems that the discussion here really is really focused in the technical aspects of photographs which I find somewhat boring and not beneficial for the development of the language in visual arts. Not to underestimate the experience, effort and ”passion” that all of  yous put in your images. Which I haven’t seen by the way. I only know what you don’t like.

To me ”art” is not about technical quality, as it hasn’t been for western contemporary art for over a century (with the exception of Russia). And I don’t consider wedding photography (not to mention advertisement photography) as ”art” (whatever that means).

And what is this talk about ”real” cameras? Please tell me that you are not serious… How do you like your profile image? I don’t consider it ”art”, ”interesting” or even technically well made. Is it irony then? Or what? Please elaborate yourself.

[civo]

 

To ”cameraclicker”

I am talking about the site in general. Surely you can point out bad examples also that  even I don’t find interesting. Even though when presented in a right context, I think the baby photo is kinda cool in a surreal way. I mean, I could never even think of working in this way. I find it very interesting.

 

[Author]

Posts