Real feelings about fake images

In article <115mc3ugak7q7e7.TakeThisOut@corp.supernews.com>,
Travis Porco <tcporco.TakeThisOut@transbay.net> wrote:
 >Could anything possibly be less original than taking a straight photograph of
 >the Golden Gate bridge off the Marin Headlands? But if you're some place like
 >that, how can you not take
 >such a photograph, at least once? Doesn't every new quality shot of it reveal
 >at least something about it, as the light, seasons, and bay change?
 >So, I can't speak for the market for professional artists, and for professional
 >photographers. I *do* know "all the good photographs" have certainly not
 >been taken. As an amateur I have the freedom to photograph anything I like,
 >since no claim of wild novelty, or even moderate novelty at all, is at stake.

I think the main thing is to consider the target audience. An amateur
may take pictures just because he likes the process. An artist may create
works just to express an idea. As long as you take pictures to please
yourself there is no reason to take work of other people into account.

When you show pictures to other people, you have to take their interests
into account. A tourist who takes the 'standard picture' may show it to
relatives and friends who have never seen pictures of that place before.
Even a local art market may be small enough that potential buyers have
not seen similar works by other people.

At a global scale it may be harder to come up with something new. But in
many cases, there are so many degrees of freedom in photography, that
if you really have something to say, you will end up with a different
picture.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
  -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->

I think that setting out to imitate an existing artist's work because it
might appeal to a specific audience is not "art" per se.

I have seen almost exact recent reproductions of some of Ansel Adams' most
popular (and spectacular) landscapes. For me the question is "why were they
done?"

Two cases: If they were taken by a photographer who was completely ignorant
of AA's work and who simply came to a perfect vantage point on a trail to
take a dramatic landscape that moved him/her, then I think that artist was
moved by a truly artistic creative spirit. However, if that same person in
the same place knew of AA's specific photo and tried to duplicate it because
he/she wanted something saleable for the craft fair, then I think that is
not creative nor is it art. Paradoxically, both took the exact same
picture, so how are they different? The difference (to me) is in the
motivation. If you the artist are moved to create, that is "art" in its
purest form. If you need a commodity to sell, so you imitate art, that is
something else. I guess that is why some few artists are commercially
successful - they are not creating with a audience in mind. Hopefully
someone of similar tastes will like their art, but that's not the moving
force behind creating it. It could be real crap to the rest of us - "art"
is truly in the mind of the creator.

So when my photographer friend refuses to look at magazines because "all the
good pictures are already taken", in part he is doing it because he will
find pictures he wants to take. If he sees them in a magazine before he
takes them himself, and consciously or unconsciously imitates them, he will
not be an artist (but he might be a commercial success).


"Philip Homburg" <philip.RemoveThis@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote in message
news:i9u5c72ou93l896i25erve1ef7@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...
 > In article <115mc3ugak7q7e7.RemoveThis@corp.supernews.com>,
 > Travis Porco <tcporco.RemoveThis@transbay.net> wrote:

<SNIP>
 > I think the main thing is to consider the target audience. An amateur
 > may take pictures just because he likes the process. An artist may create
 > works just to express an idea. As long as you take pictures to please
 > yourself there is no reason to take work of other people into account.
 >
 > When you show pictures to other people, you have to take their interests
 > into account. A tourist who takes the 'standard picture' may show it to
 > relatives and friends who have never seen pictures of that place before.
 > Even a local art market may be small enough that potential buyers have
 > not seen similar works by other people.
 >
 > At a global scale it may be harder to come up with something new. But in
 > many cases, there are so many degrees of freedom in photography, that
 > if you really have something to say, you will end up with a different
 > picture.
 >
 >
 > --
 > That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
 > could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
 > by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
 > -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->