[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/p/ - Photography

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 56 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: garry83-12.jpg (717 KB, 850x566)
717 KB
717 KB JPG
Winogrand was a spray and pray hack, not an artist. The other day I was covering a sports event and got several pictures that are equivalent to this one, but I don't have the audacity to call my luck "art". Where's the creative process in pointing your camera and pressing a button? Now, Olivia Malone or Giampaolo Sgura for example I can unironically call artists, they're actively making the desired pic. They don't just walk into a situation where the expressions are already happening and pretend they made them happen. It is true art.
>>
>>4098193
>Winogrand was a spray and pray hack, not an artist
Did he call himself an artist or was it the art industry that stitched him up?
>>
>>4098193
Post your pic then.

You could also spray for a thousand years and not come up with anything close to pic related.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2100
Image Height1398
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>4098193
>got several pictures that are equivalent to this one
post them
>>
>>4098220
>Post your pic then.
>>4098224
post them

No (:
I won't bring the stink of 4chan to a wholesome event nor attract you fags to my social media.
>>
Computer, bring up the early life section of Winogrand
>>
>>4098227
Like clockwork.

Your know the only logical conclusion here is that you’re a retard and full of shit, right?
>>
>>4098227
>i took pics on par with that old hack Winogrand
>i'm too scared to post them tho
I'm sure you took amazing and wonderful shots anon.
>>
>>4098193
you didn't take any photos you're just posturing.

art snobs who want to "legitimize" photography as "moar art" are always swinging their dick around for art critics that don't exist or care about or have anything resembling their opinion. this thread was directed at yourself and your own ego.
>>
File: IMG_8623.jpg (9 KB, 155x138)
9 KB
9 KB JPG
>>4098231
kek, true enough
>>4098233
I'll post a super tight crop that doesn't expose my subject just to prove the pictures exist.
>>4098235
I did and my media is exploding even more than it does after every other event I go to. I was basically the only guy taking pictures like a pro there.
>>4098237
Not really, my non-art pictures outnumber my art ones by a few orders of magnitude. I don't take a lot of art pictures. I'm not trying to "legitimize" photography as "more art", I'm saying photography can be art or not. And Winogrand's is not, because it's spray and pray like you or I can easily do. It's not about snobbery, it's about integrity.
>>
>>4098240
>I did and my media is exploding even more than it does after every other event I go to.
That sounds wonderful anon. I'm sure the picture is great!
>>
>>4098240
>just to prove the pictures exist
literally proves nothing
>>
>>4098243
I could give you my memory card and you'd still insist it proves nothing, because you're arguing in bad faith.
>>
>>4098246
Or you could just post photos. Many photographers far more successful than you will ever be have posted their work here.
>>
>>4098247
Already did, faggot.
>Many photographers far more successful than you will ever be have posted their work here.
I know at least three that got real life consequences for it. Your proposal isn't attractive, all risk no reward.
The argument at hand is that Winogrand relied on spraying enough and getting lucky, and anyone can do that as I've proven. There's no creative process so there is no art. I took a lot of fantastic pictures I won't call art because all I did was press the shutter.
>>
>>4098247
Also the few that did what you said with no trouble, were people who never dared voice some controversial opinions that would upset some autists here such as yourself. This is an anonymous imageboard and I'm committed to staying anonymous.
>>
>>4098246
all anyone's asked for is just the images you took that are better than Winogrands
>I could give you my memory card and you'd still insist it proves nothing, because you're arguing in bad faith.
that line of thinking is bad faith
>>4098250
>Already did, faggot.
no you didn't, you posted someone's mouth
>I know at least three that got real life consequences for it. Your proposal isn't attractive, all risk no reward.
cool, i post a ton and haven't, but i'm not a pussy either
>>
>>4098252
lol, I argue all the time with people here, and have posted all kinds of shots, including client work. Still at 0 consequences. You're just making excuses for yourself. Time to hide another nophoto thread.
>>
>>4098253
>that line of thinking is bad faith
>no u!
Just lol, buddy.
>no you didn't, you posted someone's mouth
A photo of someone's mouth.
>cool, i post a ton and haven't, but i'm not a pussy either
You're probably boring too. You also probably take precautions to not get doxed such as toeing the party line.
>>
>>4098240
Once again you are trying to define more art and less art based on effort because you want to equate photography with fucking painting or something, but it's not, you're not creating anything, you're just there with a camera, looking at stuff that was there before you arrived and will be there after you leave, and you are lucky enough to fire the camera with the correct settings to produced at least a salvageable exposure that will look cool once it's developed. And this only matters to you, you are the only one who knows this. You are trying to legitimize yourself to yourself because it seems you're insecure and judgemental of others because of that.

Unless you insist on describing your shooting conditions in an essay by every picture NOBODY will ever know how you took that photo. Nobody cares about you or how you look or what camera brand you used. They care about your photo. Read death of the author.
>>
>>4098193
Kek, faggot.
>>
>>4098255
>and have posted all kinds of shots, including client work
If you did that it'd be unethical but you're larping.
>>4098257
>Once again you are trying to define more art and less art based on effort because you want to equate photography with fucking painting or something
Not about effort or insecurity. It's about intent.
>but it's not, you're not creating anything, you're just there with a camera, looking at stuff that was there before you arrived and will be there after you leave, and you are lucky enough to fire the camera with the correct settings to produced at least a salvageable exposure that will look cool once it's developed
That's not art, lol. It may be good photography, don't get me wrong. But that's not art. However photography can be art, if you somehow controlled the scene before you, directly or not.
>And this only matters to you, you are the only one who knows this. You are trying to legitimize yourself to yourself because it seems you're insecure and judgemental of others because of that.
Wrong. I have no issues with most of my stuff not being art. If I'm doing essentially photo reporting, I'm not doing art. I'm just covering a damn event. It may take some skill but it doesn't take creativity. To insist on it being art would be insecurity.
>Unless you insist on describing your shooting conditions in an essay by every picture NOBODY will ever know how you took that photo.
>he doesn't know
lol
>Nobody cares about you or how you look or what camera brand you used.
No shit.
>They care about your photo.
If you can't tell art from non-art that's on you, but for me it's pretty easy to tell most of the time. There's always some dead giveaways in the picture.
>Read death of the author.
Nothing to do with any of my arguments.
>>
>>4098257
>Nobody cares about you or how you look
One caveat about this, if you wear some kind of outfit to get a reaction it might make for some art. For example, walking in Jew York with a t-shirt that reads "the holocaust didn't happen but it should have" to take pics of enraged yids. There's creative intent and you're indirectly controlling the scene you're photographing to some degree that goes far beyond just picking where to be.
>>
>>4098250
>I know at least three that got real life consequences for it.

Oh, I instantly know which faggot you are.

Why haven’t you killed yourself yet, drama queen?
>>
>>4098261
>If you did that it'd be unethical but you're larping.
Not unethical, just sharing photos, but whatever you want to think paranoid nophoto anon. Enjoy your own larping!
>>
>>4098271
>Why haven’t you killed yourself yet, drama queen?
I guess I don't have what it takes, that is, intent. Just what's lacking in Winogrand's photographs to make them art, artistic intent. Just like I don't have the intent to end my precious life any sooner than nature deems it timely. Pic related is art, by the way (:.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created2012:06:26 12:33:28
>>
File: 9840295.jpg (45 KB, 618x360)
45 KB
45 KB JPG
>>4098276
"just sharing photos", what a dude.
People trust you with their image and you post it to an anonymous imageboard where the dregs of the internet flock to.
>>
>>4098253
How's the weather in Nellis?
>>
>>4098281
>People trust you with their image and you post it to an anonymous imageboard where the dregs of the internet flock to.
Yup! If you actually look at the board, you'll see there's lots of portraits. Even dedicated threads for them sometimes! Reality is, no one cares half as much as you think they do, and if you had just simply posted your photos without all this "muh privacy", no one would likely car. I've posted tons of photos, hundreds of people at this point, no one cares.
>>4098283
Probably not the person you're thinking of, but I'll give you some help. I'm in the PNW, so a bit far away from Nellis, but it's chilly here today.
>>
>>4098281
Kibosh>Women are Beautiful
>>
>>4098285
It’s genuinely not worth engaging with OP at this point. He’s never going to post photos or argue in good faith, he’s terrified of moop and is an all-around shitposter.
>>
>>4098290
Based.
>>4098291
>He’s never going to post photos
I can post crops, but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. I guarantee there's no special talent needed to do what Winogrand did. Just spray and pray, just like he did.
>or argue in good faith
I've argued in good faith from the start. I'm not moving goalposts or anything of the sort, my positions are clear.
>terrified of Moop
lol. I come from a time when youtube warned you to not use your real name in your profile. What you see as paranoia used to be common sense, that's why doxing is more common now. I'm not careless because I'm not someone with nothing left to lose. I stand to lose a lot.
>and is an all-around shitposter.
Funny way of admitting you can't win the debate.
>>
>>4098281
>anonymous imageboard where the dregs of the internet flock to.
Like you?
>>
>>4098268
It's not art over non art, it's a different kind of art. You have gone full circle from "no technical skill means not art, being provocative isn't all there is to it" to "not being an artistic troll means not art" and shit on all the people in the middle.
>>
>>4098300
There's no debate to "win", you fucking nitwit.

Your claim is "I can take photos as good as Garry Winogrand."

You then refuse to show said photos.

The end.

Because we all know who Garry Winogrand is and because literally no one knows who you are, we have to assume that you're lying on the internet. We have to assume that because we literally have no other option.
>>
>>4098300
>just trust me, i'm like winogrand
>more excuses why i'm a nophoto
>>
>>4098307
No, like the pieces of shit who harass people in real life because they didn't like something they posted here.
>>4098310
>>4098312
>Your claim is "I can take photos as good as Garry Winogrand."
>You then refuse to show said photos.
Here's the thing, Winogrand's pictures aren't that great, just shilled ad nauseam. And my claim isn't just that, my claim is anyone including you can. Because there's no real input involved, just be in the place where stuff is happening and then spray and pray. You'll find you have pics that are even BETTER than many taken by him. Because he took pictures with no rhythm or rhyme, just shooting and hoping for the best.
>Because we all know who Garry Winogrand is
How not to, with that early life kek
>we have to assume that you're lying on the internet. We have to assume that because we literally have no other option.
You have an option, you can go to some event with a DSLR and spray away. Winogrand's photos are all accidents, frozen frames from what was essentially a CCTV capture.
>>4098313
I'm not like him at all, I'm saying I'm able to produce the same results and anyone can if they spray and pray enough at the right place. Even the right moment becomes irrelevant if you're spraying, you're going to get it. Why do you think he left so much undeveloped film? He liked making that camera go click more than he liked photography. I'm not like that at all, I only spray and pray if I know "the shot" is coming. Thankfully I'm not like him at all, because if I were I'd hate myself.
>nophoto
In fact the photo I posted cropped here reminded me of the one in the OP and made me think about the spray and pray photographer and his nature as a replaceable non-artist who could have his place taken by an android without anyone noticing the difference in the final result.
>>
>The battle for the acceptance of photography as Art was not only counter-productive but counter-revolutionary. The most important photography is most emphatically not Art.
A. D. Coleman
>Although photography generates works that can be called art-it requires subjectivity, it can lie, it gives aesthetic pleasure-photography is not, to begin with, an art form at all. Like language, it is a medium in which works of art (among other things) are made.
Susan Sontag
>I've always thought photography is not so much of an art form but a way of communicating and passing on information.
Don McCullin
>>
>>4098369
>No, like the pieces of shit who harass people in real life because they didn't like something they posted here.
They are your fellow men on the platform
Don't be suprised.
>>
>>4098375
Well, for me 4chan is a part-time site.
>>
>>4098369
>I'm saying I'm able to produce the same results
post pics or gtfo. We're not here to engage with your deluded headcannon.
>>
>>4098378
You are a faggot full-time.
>>
>>4098227
well, then post some other pictures of yours
>>
Is there a filter for am a talented photographer
>>
File: IMG_1727.jpg (586 KB, 1080x720)
586 KB
586 KB JPG
Took this one in branchanon's honor, I guess I'm a talented photographer or something :^)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>4098408
Meant for >>4098382
>>
>>4098369
you sound like an utter fucking retard.
why not just post any photo you made and end the fucking discussion?
>>
>>4098411
because the hacker known as 4chan is going to get him
>>
>guys my photos are literally the greatest photos on earth
What a claim, post them
>no way I don't want to get doxxed

This fucking charade again
>>
>>4098369
Yes but if you were to pick interesting frames and compositions from a CCTV capture it'd still be a good image
>>
>>4098408
Whatever happened to amitalentedbranchfag?
>>
>>4098312
>no one knows who you are
Incorrect, unless you are a newb I think we all know who it is and we all know he is only doing it for attention
>>
i mean, "spray and pray" is essentially a form of expressionistic technique, and expressionism has been considered a "valid" art for a while now, so I'm not sure why Winograd couldn't be considered art. Things like technique, time spent, and planning, don't really factor in to whether or not something is "art". Not to mention, you don't really know what went down in the dark room, where plenty of artistic choices can be made.
>>
>>4098421
It's 100% this fucking retard.

https://archived.moe/p/thread/4079867/
>>
>>4098424
that was mind numbing
>>
>>4098424
I had the misfortune to see that first time around. I saw his October salvo as well.

The fact that he keeps banging on about the same shit over and over on a Mongolian basket weaving forum is evidence that deep down inside he knows he is talking shit but his stupidity and arrogance won't let him admit it – even to himself.
>>
File: 6ihao1_r1_640.jpg (75 KB, 561x600)
75 KB
75 KB JPG
>>4098193

I look at the pictures I have done up to now, and they make me feel that who we are and how we feel and what is to become of us just doesn’t matter. Our aspirations and successes have become cheap and petty. I read the newspapers, the columnists, some books. They all deal in illusions and fantasies.

I can only conclude that we have lost ourselves, and that the bomb may finish the job permanently, and it just doesn’t matter, we have not loved life… I cannot accept my conclusions, and so I must continue this photographic investigation further and deeper. This is my project.

— Garry Winogrand
>>
>>4098411
>why not just post any photo you made and end the fucking discussion?
Because it never ends the discussion.
>>4098416
>guys my photos are literally the greatest photos on earth
More like
>guys Winogrand's photos are overrated

>charade
lol
The only charade here is pretending Winogrand's pictures are art.
>>4098418
Sure, but it wouldn't be art. "Art" isn't a measure of quality, "art" is defined by creative intent.
>>4098419
I think he still posts from time to time.
>>4098421
I'm not doing it for attention
>>4098422
What went in the darkroom? Tons of developed negs and printed contact sheets he never bothered looking at.
>>4098424
Yep, that's me.
>>4098437
>on a Mongolian basket weaving forum
You're probably wondering how I ended up here.
>deep down inside he knows he is talking shit but his stupidity and arrogance won't let him admit it – even to himself.
Cope harder. If I keep going on about it it's because I hope at least some of you will open your eyes to reality. If I manage to get one of you to try spraying exposures at some event and seeing for yourselves there's nothing artistic about a Winogrand photo, I'll be content.
>>
>>4098193
>Olivia Malone
>Giampaolo Sgura
Why is it always fashionfags shitting on street photography?
>>
>>4098544
it's just fashionlet cope, they know fashion "photography" has very little photography in it
>>
Anyone who insists they can tell you what defines art is a bad artist. Those who can’t do teach and those that can’t teach complain. Want proof? Ask this guy for photos.
>>
>>4098543
hahaha
you really are a whiny cunt, aren't you? post a photo, just one, you fucking coward, and I'll tell you honestly what I think about it and wether you have the skill to make a statement like in the OP or not.
>>
>>4098543
>More like
>guys Winogrand's photos are overrated
nah, you could've just made that point on it's own
you're the one that brought up your own photos
if you don't like people asking to see your shots, maybe don't bring up that you took shots on par with Winogrand? but your ego won't let you do that i guess
>>
>>4098587
You don't see the point, right? I brought up my own photos because I don't think I'm any extraordinary photographer. And for what it's worth, I consider some of the namefags on this board to have produced better photographs than Winogrand ever did. I wouldn't pay for a Winogrand print but I sure as hell would pay for a Burke or a Neumann.
>>
>>4098597
that's your whole problem: you're not a good photographer, and therefore you don't understand that approaches you don't agree with can be "art", wether you like the outcome or not. and that is why I wanted to see a photo you made, to be able to assess where you're at. I don't give a flying fuck about who you are or about your social media, nobody here does. We just want to see your understanding of the process.
>>
>>4098597
>I don't think I'm any extraordinary photographer.
We're all in agreement then!
If all you want to do is shit on Winograd, which more power to you, no need to bring up your own photos. Only reason to do so is to feed your own ego. Claiming you have Winograd tier photos, and not showing us all just makes you look more pathetic though, and really distracts from your main point.
>>
>>4098600
I like the outcome of the pic in the OP but it's definitely not art, because the creative process isn't there. There's a good reason people called out Winogrand as a documentarian back in the day, making him seethe. The man was like a walking CCTV camera.
>>4098602
How can a fluke that came from spraying and praying feed my ego? I don't feel validated or whatever by lucking out with something I had no real role in creating beyond pressing a button. Pressing a button isn't art. A good photo isn't a source of artistic pride for me if it comes from that method. Because the method itself is uncreative. You know what's funny? Winogrand himself realized this, he told his students to take more pictures to increase the odds of getting good ones. His whole philosophy is relying on flukes and rolling the dice so many times you're basically guaranteed to get some. I'm sharing my own experience.
If I wanted to stroke my ego I'd say I make Newton tier photographs, but then I'd be lying.
>>
>>4098602
>>4098600
It's genuinely not worth engaging with OP. He's a loser who only argues in bad faith. He's a shit photographer, too, (as evidenced by the thread and photo he posted in >>4098424) which is actually why he never posts his work.

Just ignore the thread and go take some photos. You won't clown on him or any win any sort of minor victory. He's the kind of mewling retard who insists on being the winner because he straight-up ignores the arguments he doesn't like or can't respond to.
>>
>>4098617
yeah, i saw the picture with the cup now. ironically it's a snapshot, and not a good one.
>>
>>4098605
Whatever makes you feel better nophoto anon.
>>
>>4098617
>argues in bad faith
You're parroting me without the faintest clue of what that means. The fact that you're complaining you can't "clown on" me is proof you're the one who argues in bad faith here. What argument did I ignore? If you keep bringing the same stupid point after I addressed it already I'm not going to keep repeatjng myself.
>>4098619
I was the first to say it's not a good one. But as shitty as it is, it is art and certainly no snapshot.
If you're doing mise-en-scène at all then it's not a snapshot.
It's shit but no snapshot.
>>4098621
You can keep calling me a nophoto but at the end of the day you know it's simply not true. You have seen proof. That woman laughing with her head thrown back, the picture that made me reflect once again on how easy the Winogrand game of spray and pray is. You only get to see a crop, but that's how the thread came to be. My photo of the woman is good but not art. The cup one is a poor draft but undeniably art, as bad as it is. Because I did more than release the shutter like a maniac. A lot more, in fact. It's a failure, but an artistic one at that. In the other one I'm a passive observer, an spectator. I don't want to be a fucking spectator when it comes to art, because that's not art at all.
>>
>>4098651
Arguing in bad faith means that you've presented an argument with no intention of accepting the other side's conclusion. :)

You've ignored every request to show your photos to back up your claim.
>>
>>4098651
no, it's not art. it's a tryhard snapshot. arranging things doesn't constitute art. telling people to say "cheese" is nothing different, you arrange things. the result is a family album snapshot and most certainly not art. that's not how art works, at all. holy shit, anon, the delusion
>>
>>4098664
No, arguing in bad faith means arguing dishonestly and trying to stall the debate by relying on attacks on the guy arguing against you instead of the ideas being discussed. You know damn well I've taken photos but you pretend otherwise and resort to "nophoto" namecalling because you're mad at my ideas. It's bad faith at its finest.
>>4098665
A snapshot isn't defined by it being good or not. It's about being spontaneous. And yes, the family pic where you get people to pose IS art. It may be shitty, but the creative process is there and the photographer's ability to create the picture is key to its success or failure. Not all art has to be high art. But all art comes from a creative process, otherwise it's something else.
>>
>>4098671
>You know damn well I've taken photos
whatever you say nophoto
>>
>>4098671
well, I see what's the problem here: You don't know shit about what art or a creative process is, to the point where you seem autistic in your boneheadedness.
>>
File: IMG_0050.jpg (84 KB, 1000x472)
84 KB
84 KB JPG
>>4098672
Cope harder double nigger.
>>4098682
Not really, it's you who doesn't realize that two casual family portraits taken by different people will be different, therefore the photographer mattering, therefore it being a creative, artistic endeavor. Meanwhile anyone spraying shots can get the same results because it's luck that matters.
>>
>>4098688
wow
incredible
amazing
definitely of the same caliber as winogrand, we were all so wrong to doubt your abilities
watch out though, that mouth might get doxxed
>>
>>4098688
>Not really, it's you who doesn't realize that two casual family portraits taken by different people will be different, therefore the photographer mattering, therefore it being a creative, artistic endeavor. Meanwhile anyone spraying shots can get the same results because it's luck that matters.
We all understand that's your point of view. Some of us just disagree with that way of looking at things. Just like you say different photographers get different results, different photographers sometimes have different opinions too.
>>
File: art.png (106 KB, 614x428)
106 KB
106 KB PNG
>>4098691
It's fully zoomed in, retard.
>>4098692
We're arguing about the definition of art here.
Where's the conscious creation in being an expooser who just lets go of the shutter without any consideration, hoping something good will come out?
>>
>>4098688
two snapshots taken by two different people will be different too, you buffoon. the choice of composition matters. the choice of which pictures to drop and which ones to keep matters. chance matters. pure chance can create art, because art is the recognition of something as art by artist and recipient. you're just dull and somewhat autistic, as i said.
>>
>>4098688
Looks like you could have very well taken a selfie or a photograph of a computer screen

Let's see a photo
>>
File: IMG_0051.jpg (366 KB, 2017x1166)
366 KB
366 KB JPG
>>4098718
Looks like you could just stop coping and admit your assumptions are wrong, but you won't because bad faith arguing is too ingrained in your deplorable psyche. This was a split second before the other pic and an obvious throwaway.
>>4098715
>choice of composition
You don't get what snapping with no rhyme or reason means, do you? Winogrand just pointed his camera at stuff.
>the choice of which pictures to drop and which ones to keep matters
The curator of a gallery isn't an artist, merely a picker. Same with the photographer who mindlessly snaps a bunch of stuff and then picks some and discards some.
>chance matters
Spray enough and you negate chance. Winogrand himself argued in favor of this. Given enough shots you're bound to get that one fluke no matter what.
>pure chance can create art
No, it can create aesthetic moments but art is human.
>because art is the recognition of something as art by artist and recipient
Postmodern bullshit to pass non-art as art.
>you're just dull and somewhat autistic, as i said.
lol, cope more. Brainwashed drone.
>>
>>4098723
I see you're seething. You're actually starting to doubt yourself, aren't you? I'll say it again: You're full of shit and you have no idea what the artistic process even is. Now go and start to collect stamps or something, you troglodyte.
>>
>>4098727
>You're actually starting to doubt yourself, aren't you?
No, I'm just confirming I seem to be almost the only one who sees the emperor has no clothes on this godforsaken board.

Another anons get it too but decided not to engage with the riff raff:
>>4098231
>>4098290

The way things work on /p/ is someone makes a claim others dislike, so they call him a nophoto (the /p/ equivalent of saying nigger) to try to get the upper hand. If they get proven wrong, they turn to questioning the skill of the photographer in question.
If anyone doubts himself here it's you, if you didn't you'd take my advice and try spraying a bit. You'd be surprised at how easy it is to get some keepers in a sea of throwaways, and you'd be surprised at getting some pictures that are better than Winogrand's praised trash. Then you'd realize street photography is the so-called art of hack frauds who weren't doing art at all, except when they actually staged stuff (which in the eyes of street purists isn't true street).
>>
>>4098731
We haven't been proven wrong, though. You still haven't posted a photo.
>>
>>4098731
that Winograd's photos aren't good doesn't prove your point, you fucking moron. Sancta simplicitas!
>>
>>4098731
also, whenever you're
>almost the only one
you should be VERY cautious with your convictions
>>
>>4098731
AND: spraying has been the professional approach for ages. find a good motive, spray, wait, spray. Check the contact sheet/files, choose the ones that are good, edit them, print. Have you been living under a fucking rock? Fucking autist.
>>
File: better call jew jew.png (298 KB, 703x458)
298 KB
298 KB PNG
>>4098745
I have posted proof that I take photos. I don't owe you anything, much less my work.
>>4098752
It does though, it highlights the dishonesty of the praise.
>>4098753
Normally yes, but this is /p/lebs after all. The retarded sister board of /tv/, a gigantic circlejerk.
>>4098755
lol, it may be "professional" but that doesn't make it art.
The fact that Winogrand didn't bother having most of his shots developed is proof he was shooting aimlessly.
>>
>>4098762
>my photos suck so i won't post them and my opinions suck so i won't associate them with my photos
that is indeed why you're so insecure you feel the need to gatekeep "real art" on 4chan where you aren't held accountable for your retardation
>>
fun fact: if someone has to know how you made something to decide if its art or not, either it isn't art, or they're a soulless bellend
>>
>>4098762
>I have posted proof that I take photos.
No you haven't.

>I don't owe you anything, much less my work.
You especially owe us your work, since literally the entire point of this thread is "I can take photos as good as Winogrand."

Bad faith arguer. Neck yourself before you wreck yourself.
>>
>>4098764
Don't mistake being careful for being insecure.
>>4098765
Sometimes you can just tell. It's different with for example Eggleston. It's obvious he's not just snapping around. And his pics don't get shilled because they're by him, they're praised because they stand on their own. The stupid convertible couple pic from Winogrand is only celebrated by the circlejerkers because to anyone else it's a snapshit. Same with Moriyama's dog and countless other overrated crap pictures.
>>4098770
>No you haven't.
You know damn well I have and I even explained how I got them and how they're similar.
>Bad faith arguer.
Speaking of bad faith you're misrepresenting my argument, attacking a strawman in plebbit terms you'd probably understand better. I'm saying anyone can take photos as good as those and better, because all it takes is spray and pray with a modicum of sense of where to be.
>>
>>4098770
Also your post reeks of millennial entitlement.
>>
>>4098779
>You know damn well I have
Point it out?
>>
>>4098782
See >>4098240
>>4098408
>>4098688
>>4098723
>>
>>4098784
A crop of a random mouth isn't proof. A photo is proof.
>>
>>4098785
>a crop of a photo isn't a photo
>random mouth
Never go full retard anon. Posting the full photo would dox my subject, she's wearing her team's jersey and hat.
>>
>>4098787
Are you sure someone wouldn't mistake it for a Winogrand?
>>
>>4098787
And also, no, a crop of a photo is not proof that you took a photo.
>>
>>4098791
I'd have to use the black and white crutch for that.
>>4098792
Two crops of the same sequence of RAW photos. By your line of thinking not even posting the full photograph would be proof I took it. I'd have to dox myself, link to my social media and post a timestamp with post number on it to satisfy your ever-increasing demands. It's insanity and done in bad faith. You won't be content until you have dox.
All you'd have to do is try what I'm saying and see for yourself that Winogrand's photos were nothing special, art or not art nonwithstanding (even though they're not art). Spray enough and you're bound to get equivalent pics. It's journalism, not art. It's all about being there at the moment things are happening.
>>
>>4098793
tldr: "my photo sucked, my opinions suck, and I intend to associate neither with either because of the sheer embarrassment it would bring upon me."
This is a major argument against your point, because you know deep down inside that your photo is not good, and neither are your opinions

>if knowing how it was made affects its "art" status either it's not art to begin with or you're a faggot
>>
>>4098793
>By your line of thinking not even posting the full photograph would be proof I took it.
lol nope, just a single, full photo that is better than Garry Winogrand's.
>You won't be content until you have dox.
no one gives a fuck who you actually are.
>All you'd have to do is try what I'm saying and see for yourself that Winogrand's photos were nothing special, art or not art nonwithstanding (even though they're not art). Spray enough and you're bound to get equivalent pics. It's journalism, not art. It's all about being there at the moment things are happening.
You have yet to prove this. Why can't you understand that? It's meaningless conjecture on your end until you have some comparative form of evidence. It's like saying "Usain Bolt isn't actually fast, anyone can run that fast. I do all the time." and then when someone asks you to prove it, you say "you just have to think about what i'm saying! it's true!"

You really are a waste of space. I hope you realize this sooner than later. Humble yourself, you histrionic narcissist.
>>
>>4098796
>lol nope, just a single, full photo that is better than Garry Winogrand's.
>implying you wouldn't still deny I took it and then demand the rest

>no one gives a fuck who you actually are.
No but you give a fuck about running me off the board.

>You have yet to prove this. Why can't you understand that? It's meaningless conjecture on your end until you have some comparative form of evidence. It's like saying "Usain Bolt isn't actually fast, anyone can run that fast. I do all the time." and then when someone asks you to prove it, you say "you just have to think about what i'm saying! it's true!"
There's a huge difference there lol, you're presenting a false equivalence to boot. There's nothing really special about Winogrand's work, he's not fucking Gregory Crewdson.

>You really are a waste of space. I hope you realize this sooner than later. Humble yourself, you histrionic narcissist.
Why are you projecting so much? Seriously, give my advice a shot and see for yourself. Weegee used to say "be there", with Winogrand it's "be somewhere and expose frames like your life depends on it and hope the decisive moment happened at some point of your spraying".
>>
Based retard
>>
>>4100361
Nice astroturf, retard. Worried that you didn't get enough attention?
>>
>>4100398
Cope, astro is for gearfags
>>
File: not_winogrand.jpg (116 KB, 1200x838)
116 KB
116 KB JPG
Winogrand was neurotic but based. OP is a faggot, what else is new?
>>
>>4100607
How was he "based"?
>>
>>4098220
Why is this considered any good?
>>
>>4100651
You know (((why)))
>>
>>4100651
It's very aesthetically pleasing to me, and that's all I really care about. I like it, simple as that.
Other people might not like it, and that's fine. Different people have different preferences.
>>
>>4100651
Monochrome
>>
>>4100651
You either have the visual literacy to get it or you don't, dumb goy.
*tips menorah*
>>
>>4100726
anti-semitism on 4chan, what an engaging and original take.

Your own shit photos don't get noticed, might as well blame someone else.
>>
>>4100651
Because it's an unusual sight to most people.
>children
>in a garage
>next to a desert
You have to understand to the "tastemakers" who go around being midwits and telling other midwits what is and is not art, this looks like a shot from an alien planet. This is largely why street photography is fucking OBSESSED with poverty and the "high art" of the midwit upper class of self-isolated IP law leeches, trust fund kids, and lawyers has an odd fetish for things perceived as low culture or ugly. It's like the poor's preference for squeaky clean sci-fi wonderlands and idyllic fantasy. It's the other side, and the scraggly grass is black and white and dramatically photographed as a change of pace from rich green and perfectly mowed.
>>
>>4100732
I live in Albuquerque, grew up poor and still think it's a good photo.

No anon, you are the midwit.
>>
>>4100732
and that is the artistic value of photography. you see something with your camera that most people don't see very often. it's a cool subject, it's a cool perspective. they see it. it's fresh. it's interesting. they feel something. they stand there and look at it for a while. sometimes just taking photos from lower down will make your compositions "artsy" because it's an unusual perspective. just holding the camera straight can go a long way in increasing the number of people that stop and look for a photo.

if it's not fresh what to they do? they pixel peep, go "wow, sharp, nice photo man i bet your camera was expensive", and walk away from grand canyon photo #9001 which you will inevitably sell the rights to so it can be sold in walmart's art section.
>>
>>4100734
How often do you see toddlers walking out of a void in the middle of the desert, from a perspective like you're sitting on the ground, so the arrangement of everything reminds you of an old painting of theoretical cavemen? Not very often.

Bet if it was lawyers walking out of a well lit garage in the suburbs it would be maybe 60% as good.
>>
File: winogrand-women-4501.jpg (279 KB, 800x537)
279 KB
279 KB JPG
>>4098193
Yet, he's the one enshrined in history, while your two fashion nobodies will be forgotten and trampled by time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQlSSx0ssr8
>>
>>4100741
>two fashion nobodies
cope
>will be forgotten and trampled by time
Just like it happened to Helmut, right? lmao keep coping faggot, they're here to stay
>>
>>4100795
Fashion fags deserve the rope, they have no taste whatsoever, but they're still uppity about their social status. They're petty bourgeoisie, ever trying to show aloofness over the peons, ever envious for attention of the ruling classes, jealous of them. What's hitting them the most it that nobody gives a flying fuck about them. They're a pesky fly on the wall, buzzing for attention, meaningless to everyone but themselves.
>>
File: starsandstripes_1.jpg (608 KB, 740x1110)
608 KB
608 KB JPG
>>4100798
Project harder cuckold.
>>
>>4100800
Sorry, m8, the truth is that I'm showing you a mirror. You've been exhibiting all the behaviours described for a whole week now in this thread. I'd like to say that it was funny, but it's all just sad.
>>
File: garry-winogrand.jpg (505 KB, 1393x928)
505 KB
505 KB JPG
>>4100795
look at this retard. 80% of fashion photos are commercial & meant to sell products. The only good ones are the odd editorial, and even then these photographers are a dime a dozen.

I enjoy fashion photography and have done fashion work, your two nobodies fashion photogs you tagged don't hold a candle next to Winogrand. Cope & seethe
>>
>>4100726
I fucking love Winogrand bros... I know not everyone will enjoy his work but like you said anon.

>>You either have the visual literacy or you don't

Good rule of thumb to live by. Too exhausting to argue w/ smooth brains. Winogrand "spray & pray" his way to photograph at least 2 US presidents while OP is too scared to post his photos on an anonymous Mongolian basket weaving forum
>>
>>4098220
Bagel-munching tier pic
>>
>>4100923
better than anything you've ever made and it's not even close.
>>
>>4100869
Not really, I don't seek notoriety. And if I wanted attention I wouldn't do it on an anonymous imageboard (and if I did, I'd use a trip). And I would be careless about my and my subject's dox.
>>4100900
>implying it wasn't about editorial fashion from the start
>implying that snapshit you just posted isn't just more proof that Winogrand took CCTV-grade garbage
>>4100902
lmao that was my own ironic shitpost
>>4100923
Defo lol
>>4100934
How can you be so sure? You haven't seen anything the guy has done.
>>
>>4101089
>How can you be so sure? You haven't seen anything the guy has done.
Don't need to. Conservatives lack the capacity for abstract thought. This guy couldn't finish a paint-by-numbers, let alone create some great masterpiece of a photo.
>>
File: riefenstahl-leni-4.jpg (43 KB, 500x625)
43 KB
43 KB JPG
>>4101159
lmao cuckservatives are the biggest kike lovers in existence, what makes you think that guy is one?
The futurist movement alone produced art that wasn't matched, let alone surpassed by most of what came after. Leni Riefenstahl is still looked up by filmmakers today.
>>
I just looked up Olivia Malone and Giampaolo Sgura—OP has a subscription to People magazine, has no taste.

(Malone and Sgura aren't terrible, but they are most definitely of a lower tier than serious photographers who have withstood the test of time and analysis. Of which I count Winogrand.)
>>
>>4101227
I don't have a subscription to People, you tasteless faggot.
I do have an Italian Vogue subscription though in case you care so much.
The test of time is pointless when the idea is to be ahead of the curve. I never said all Winogrand photos suck, just that they aren't art. And that some that suck get praised only because it's Winogrand.
>>
>>4101231
>>photography, the prime artistic medium that records life as it is. Light on emulsion constraint within a composition. Has always been related to the temporal aspects of life.

>>tHe TeSt of Time iS pOiNtLeSs. THe IdEa iz 2 B aHeaD of the CuRvEee

Kill yourself OP.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width540
Image Height810
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: 1621355085027.jpg (2.66 MB, 3000x4242)
2.66 MB
2.66 MB JPG
>>4101243
>the prime artistic medium that records life as it is
TOP KEK
Photography can lie and it does lie a lot, but it provides the illusion of truth. That's why it's so powerful. And editorial fashion is a prime example of this without getting into the ugly stuff like propaganda. It is present in all of photography, though. I've used carpenter's glue in place of milk when shooting some cereal for an ad. You know that movie "Falling Down" where the guy goes apeshit after visiting a McDonalds and getting served a burger that didn't even resemble the pic? That is photography. When they made it look like the Capitol was on fire just by manipulating the white balance and exposure compensation, that was the art of photography. When they make Dua Lipa look like an absolute goddess through the careful use of lighting and makeup, that is photography. Photography isn't truth, if anything it's untruth. You can drastically change the way a subject looks just with a few creative choices. The illusion of truth is what photography is about. That's why black and white shots of hobos are so popular among streetfags, because it makes them feel they're "speaking truth to power" or whatever.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2015:09:11 16:42:51
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3000
Image Height4242
>>
>>4101231
and Italian Vogue is the most basic, you surely must know this if you’re into fashion???

Literally anyone who just graduated art school & is still green, with no concept of their own style, don’t know how to properly colour grade/colour balance can make it on Vogue Italia. The bar is so low.

Fashion photography looks aesthetically pleasing & is eye candy but holds no weight in actual cultural relevance. Cherry picked talents & models doing choreographed poses vs the oddity and nuances of every day ppl and every day experiences on the streets.

Apple vs oranges. One is meant to be marketable & the other is social commentary.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1182
Image Height1753
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>4101244
Your fucking retarded. You’re telling me If you want to see what 100 years ago Paris or Vietnam looks like you would you look at wood prints, and paintings & drawings and not a photograph?

>>hurrr photos aren’t the prime method of recording real life because… because I said so okay???

Pic related 1910 Vietnam

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1100
Image Height781
>>
>>4101245
Wow, nice snapshit.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Softwarepaint.net 4.0.3
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
>>
>>4101244
>>4101231

Just admit you can’t appreciate Winogrand because you have no visual literacy & you’re too talentless & spineless to share your own photos. Everyone else on this threads reached the same conclusion abt you OP. Time for the rope

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width400
Image Height606
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>4101246
>perfectly arranged picture
>dood this is totes what life was like!
lmfao, gullible fuck. Also that is 1915 and it's art, unlike Winogrand's work. But if we're talking about the documentary value of photography, that has nothing to do with its qualities as art, and in fact the least artistic it is the better.
>>
>>4101248
That is a good picture, aesthetically pleasing even... but still not art. Art is about the creative process, pressing a button isn't and will never be art.
>>
>>4101250
Read death of the author. Again. It might be above you, intellectually, because you are a child who sees art as a "I PUT IN MORE WORK THAN YOU!" contest. No kid that's not art. That's fucking ENGINEERING.
>>
>>4101250
>>Art is about the creative process

Wow sooo deep, except it’s not. It’s intrinsically an aspect of art but that isn’t art. You can have a creative process but the results doesn’t automatically make it art.

>>ACKTUALLY ITS NOT 1910, ITS 1915
Look at this faggot, grasping at straws.
>>
>>4101252
>read things I have misinterpreted and don't apply here
lol
it's not about Winogrand's opinions about his work (although he seethed when critics called him a documentarian) but about the obvious surveillance-like quality of the pictures. At the visual level it's obvious they were taken rather than made. That's why they're not art.
>because you are a child who sees art as a "I PUT IN MORE WORK THAN YOU!" contest.
Not really, it's about creation. In fact while Winogrand put a lot of work and spent a sizable chunk of his life photographing, Terry Richardson can in a matter of seconds come up with something that is art unlike Winogrand. Because he's MAKING the picture, not a passive observer.
>No kid that's not art. That's fucking ENGINEERING.
Wrong. Astrophotography takes a lot of engineering to do it at the highest levels and yet it's in most cases mere documentation instead of art.
>>4101255
>Wow sooo deep, except it’s not. It’s intrinsically an aspect of art but that isn’t art. You can have a creative process but the results doesn’t automatically make it art.
Wrong, it may be bad art but it's art nevertheless. You have an antiquated view of art that automatically excludes naive art in favor of high art, but at the same time you pretend a lot of non-art is in fact art.
>Look at this faggot, grasping at straws.
Know your photography, faggot. Do you think it's the first time I see that Busy? What next, will you show me some O'Gorman? The entire point is that isn't documentary photography like you pretend, it's art photography. WITH A CREATIVE PROCESS TO BOOT, THE SCENE WAS CRAFTED BY THE PHOTOGRAPHER.
>>
>>4101265
Look at that rant we’ve already heard

Read death of the author
>>
>>4101268
Already did faggot, it's like criticism 101.
The idea behind it is that a work stands by itself and shouldn't be judged based on the author's opinions or biography.
Not the case with pictures that are obvious snaps.
It applies to Matt Furie trying to reclaim Pepe the Frog though. Or to John Carpenter trying to prevent people from saying They Live is about the jews.
>>
>>4101268
Take for example >>4101248
If it were made rather than taken, the people in the shadows would probably be removed because they don't make the picture stronger.
Take >>4100741
Obvious snapshit with nothing going for it, the only appeal is nipples for coomers.
>>4100607
This one is obviously posed, art.
>>4098220
This also bears the markings of a picture that was made rather than just taken. Art.
>>4098193
>>4100900
Passive observer at its finest, non-art.
>>
>>4101265
>> You have an antiquated view of art that automatically excludes naive art in favor of high art

What the fuck are you blabbering about? When did I mention anything about high art?? You’re literally just inserting ideas and monologue in your head at this point & arguing w/ yourself. Meds now schizo.

>> it may be bad art but it's art nevertheless

Basically you’re saying so long as there’s a “creative process” everything can be considered art (which is BS and even more antiquated/laughable). But however… the creative process of Winogrand isn’t art, even though many people around the world regard him & celebrates his work & he is very esteemed. Has works in MoMa

Let me guess, you just began your professional photographic career less than a decade ago and think you know more about art and anyone else & you prove this by sharing 2 no name, generic fashion photogs whose work aren’t in MoMa. Really goes to show how low your knowledge of art is

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width680
Image Height1069
>>
Imagine your whole concept of what is and is not art revolves solely on a vague defined of “muhh creative process” whilst simultaneously disregard a highly respected & celebrated photographer because you’re too smooth brain to understand or conceive other creative processes that don’t align with your own.

There’s definitely no shortages of these talentless self-absorb posters on /P/

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1024
Image Height686
>>
Feel free to show us real art by posting your own work anytime OP. We are waiting
>>
>>4101278
>What the fuck are you blabbering about? When did I mention anything about high art?? You’re literally just inserting ideas and monologue in your head at this point & arguing w/ yourself. Meds now schizo.
When you said there can be something made via the creative process that isn't art. You're the one gatekeeping.

>Basically you’re saying so long as there’s a “creative process” everything can be considered art (which is BS and even more antiquated/laughable).
Not anything, anything that takes creativity to make.

>But however… the creative process of Winogrand isn’t art, even though many people around the world regard him & celebrates his work & he is very esteemed. Has works in MoMa
The quality of the work has nothing to do with it being creative. His pictures speak for themselves, there's not an ounce of creation in them, just manic button pressing.

>Let me guess, you just began your professional photographic career less than a decade ago and think you know more about art and anyone else & you prove this by sharing 2 no name, generic fashion photogs whose work aren’t in MoMa. Really goes to show how low your knowledge of art is
MoMa was a literal CIA psyop created to frame non-art as art as a way to "own the commies", dipshit. My career has nothing to do with my knowledge of art.

>>4101283
>because you’re too smooth brain to understand or conceive other creative processes that don’t align with your own.
No, because there's no creative process to speak of. If I take Google Street View screenshots, call them my photographs and pretend I created them, am I doing art or just curating surveillance? Because that's what Winogrand was, a curator of his own surveillance. He was a man with a stills camera, not an artist.

>>4101286
>Feel free to show us real art
Here you go.
>by posting your own work anytime OP.
No.
>We are waiting
And you'll keep waiting.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created2010:08:15 20:10:06
>>
>>4101346
>>this is art
>>Terry Richardson

KEK’d. Of course

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width400
Image Height292
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>4098193
>Take pics of interesting stuff
>People find it interesting
>60 years later
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOO HE WAS A HECKING SPRAY AN PRAY HACK!!!!!!!!!!
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO NOT A REAL HECKING ARTISTÉ!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lol
>>
>>4101350
I said it before and I'm saying it again, Terry is an artist and his pictures are obviously the product of a creative process. He's not just pressing a button at things that happen on their own. My entire point is that pressing a button isn't art.
>>4101351
You're welcome to like them, it doesn't make them art though lol. Art is conscious creation.
>>
>>4098209
He did seethe whenever he'd get called a documentarian.

>“… Papageorge was particularly aware of of the transformative power of pictures. In time he would teach that a photograph was a fiction too, going beyond the effort to unchain it from narrative and releasing it even from the actuality it described… Even though in 1967 Szarkowski emphasized that Arubs, Friedlander, and Winogrand had junked the old reformer’s program of the documentary, he still called their picturesd ‘documents.’ Papageorge, however, rejected the word early. To use it, even innocently, he argued, was to say that photographs were dumb transcriptions of the real—to say that they were not art. Not much later, Winogrand began reacting angrily when it was said that his photographs were documentary…”
>Garry Winogrand, Leo Rubinfien, Down from the Bronx, p. 36
>>
>>4101353
>Art is
I don't have a strong opinion either way, obsessing on whether something is art or not, especially in photography is a dumb endless waste of time, but the arrogance of some retard on /p/ thinking he has the definition of art.
>>
>>4101355
>but the arrogance of some retard on /p/ thinking he has the definition of art.
Is funny.
>>
>>4101355
>philosophy of art is a waste of time
Whatever, brainlet.
>thinking he has the definition of art.
Even the dictionary agrees.
>the CONSCIOUS use of skill and CREATIVE imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects
>>
>>4098240
>because it's spray and pray like you or I can easily do. It's not about snobbery, it's about integrity.
is this the photography equivalent of some 80iq moron claiming x painting isn't art "because it looks like something my child could paint"?
just kidding, its not, because we all know photography IS NOT art.
>>
>>4101357
>philosophy of art
>photography
does not compute.
keep coping.
>>
>>4101358
>just kidding, its not, because we all know photography IS NOT art.
It doesn't have to be but it can be. Irrespective of the quality of it. The moment there's a creative process involved, it becomes art. Protip: if you're a mere passerby randomly snapping on your way that isn't art.
>>
>>4101362
>i-i-it can be
so much cope.
>Protip: if you're a mere passerby randomly snapping on your way that isn't art.
again, this argument is the "my child could pay this painting, alas its not art".
its not an argument.
>>
>>4101406
How is New York not an everyday location?
>>
>>4101363
>so much cope.
It's not cope, photography can be art but doesn't have to.
>again, this argument is the "my child could pay this painting, alas its not art".
No, the argument is even a monkey could. In fact Winogrand was playing monkey here, with finite time and shots but getting as close to infinity as he could within his means. Random snaps hoping something will turn out right.
Paintings are always conscious creations, always art. You keep trying to pretend photography is on par with painting but it's not, for photography to be art there needs to be more than pressing the shutter release. Arranging the scene, posing the models, controlling the lighting either directly or indirectly (like a landscape photographer who scouts a location and goes there when the shadows will be the way he wants them), manipulating the photograph during post-processing, etc. None of this applies to Winogrand.
If Winogrand's work is art so is this, with the fact that he didn't even curate his photos himself making it even clearer: http://suwud.com/googorama/index.html
And if this is art, then an automated system is an artist.
>>
>>4101346
Isn’t admitting that you will never post your own photos on /p/ worthy of a permanent ban? The whole point of this board is to post your work, not shitpost about photo books and Winogrand.
>>
>>4101424
I don't know, the rules forbid posting random snapshits and people do it all the time.
>>
>>4101454
Better a random snapshit than no photos at all.
>>
>>4101460
Not according to the official /p/ rules, which do allow for criticism and discussion however.
>>
>>4101464
It's against the sticky rules to post images larger than 1mb too. /p/ basically has no relevant rules, they need revamped to "keep gear in /gear/" and "try and post good photos". A random snapshot can end up having good composition. That it was random does not matter. What matters in art is the viewing experience. You do not need to know the name or the process of the artist unless you are childish and want to get into an effort contest to try and elevate less visually pleasing work because you put more work into it. That is a layman's approach to art. That is why talentless woodcarvers and painters will hate photography, because to them nothing you can do with a camera alone comes close to art, at best you are documenting prior art to preserve it unless you are heavily manipulating the photos. And that makes them feel good about themselves with their typical prole attitudes.
>I might suck, but at least i'm doing REAL WORK i mean REAL ART
>>
File: SNAP1735.jpg (975 KB, 2000x1335)
975 KB
975 KB JPG
i spun this before taking a photo of it at a high shutter speed so it would be like i didn't spin it

art

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeRICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera ModelPENTAX K-1
Camera Softwaredarktable 3.8.1
PhotographerJoe Mammah
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)40 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2022:10:31 16:31:55
Exposure Time1/1250 sec
F-Numberf/4.5
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias-2 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length40.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2000
Image Height1335
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeMacro
>>
>>4101464
Yeah, of photos that YOU'VE posted.

>Only upload images that you, the photographer, have taken.

Rule #1. You have failed at even the most basic measure.

>>4101471
The sticky isn't a set of rules.
>>
>>4101487
>Post only photos that show at least trace amounts of thoughtful composition. Do not upload random snapshots.
Your idea has failed the second one.
If you're going to talk about people who should get banned or whatever then you're in for a surprise.
>>4101471
>You do not need to know the name or the process of the artist unless you are childish and want to get into an effort contest to try and elevate less visually pleasing work because you put more work into it. That is a layman's approach to art.
That's all fine and dandy until you realize absolute snapshits only get praised because of the name attached to them. Also that has nothing to do with effort. Winogrand put a lot of effort in his random snapshits, he took thousands of photographs. Doesn't make them art. It's the creative process that matters. And an art photograph shouldn't win a Pulitzer. Ironically one of my favorite photos ever is definitely not art. It's a snapshot and I aspire to one day capture a picture as great as that one, but I won't be calling it art even if I manage to. Because I'll be a passive spectator, a thief of moments, not an architect of them when I do. And that isn't art. The concept of "found art" is revolting and only supported by circlejerkers who profit from it and marks of the con.
Stuckists were right about Duchamp, his work was a protest against the conformist criticism but it was taken unironically and now the conformists praise readymades.
>>
>>4101554
>I only like art if we can compete on the basis of how arty we are about making it
I see. You realize this invalidates all of photography and makes it the lowest form of art? No wonder you don't post photos, you don't take them. Instead your gig is performance art. Playing the buffoon on 4chan and them framing the thread for your gallery.

Please put white borders around my post and add fake film grain when you do.
>>
>>4101559
OP dislikes Winogrand & Terry thinks Terry Richardson’s snapshit is good. This alone should tell you how low the bar is set and the type of faggot you’re trying to argue with.

OP (a literal nobody) thinks he knows more about art than MoMA & claims he is just as good as Winogrand but refuses to post his own photos
>>
>>4101487
lol, what the fuck, this shit is true? When did we get plz gearfag when you're posting photos, plz only do constructive criticism, plz don't post photos from other people?

>/p/ - Photography
> - Only upload images that you, the photographer, have taken.
> - Post only photos that show at least trace amounts of thoughtful composition. Do not upload random snapshots.
> - Even though EXIF data is made available when encoded, please post as much relevant technical information as possible, such as: camera, kit, lens, etc.
> - Include a short description with your photograph, such as when and where it was photographed and under what circumstances.
> - As with the art critique board, only constructive criticism will be tolerated.

We're officially the most cucked board on this forsaken site.
>>
Opie, have you ever seen the picture of Teeth?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width300
Image Height168
>>
>>4101574
>chat full of demons
>i unironically have the best picture here

Feelsgoodman

What is this 231 b.c?
>>
>>4101572
Those have been the rules since day one, back when /p/ was /x/.
>>
>>4101554
The accuser would have a very hard time proving that a photo was a snapshot taken without a trace amount of thoughtful composition.

On the other hand it’s very easy and quantifiable to count how many of the zero photos you post here.
>>
File: 1657774489611.jpg (50 KB, 717x717)
50 KB
50 KB JPG
FFS, there is a faggot(probably an /ic/ or /tv/ shill) who has been baiting this board with his "photography is not art", "spray and pray" bullshit for almost 2 years now and yet fags are still taking it. He has got BTFO'd many times before but he isn't here for a discussion. The wise anon one time said "DON'T FEED THE TROLLS".
>>
>>4101659
He's our very own resident fuckwit and he's been here for more than 2 years. But /p/tards are a thin skinned bunch with fragile egos and he gets the attention he craves. If he can't earn their admiration he will accept their hate.

But he's also a fucking liar and sometimes it is necessary to smack him down so that newbies and others with less experience aren't fooled into thinking he speaks with any kind of authority.
>>
>>4101572
>We're officially the most cucked board on this forsaken site.
nah that's /pol/ the FSB playground
>>
>>4101559
>I see. You realize this invalidates all of photography and makes it the lowest form of art?
It doesn't invalidate all of photography, it merely separates non-art photography from art photography. I say art photographs shouldn't win Pulitzers because if you're making rather than taking the picture then it won't be an accurate reflection of reality, and the Pulitzer is about journalism. I don't think anyone needs to discuss whether or not Ansel Adams' work was art, for example. Because it's self-evident. Creative intent is always oozing from his pictures.
>No wonder you don't post photos, you don't take them.
Some photos I take, those aren't art because I'm just pointing my camera and pressing the shutter. Some I make, those are art.
>Instead your gig is performance art. Playing the buffoon on 4chan and them framing the thread for your gallery.
Deep down you know I'm right
>Please put white borders around my post and add fake film grain when you do.
kek
>>4101563
>OP dislikes Winogrand & Terry
I don't dislike Terry and I like some of Winogrand's stuff.
>thinks Terry Richardson’s snapshit is good.
It's not a snapshit, the fact it's staged alone makes it not a snapshit. You may argue about whether or not it's a good photograph, but calling it a snapshit is a failure to realize what a snapshit is. It is art, you may think it's bad art but there was a creative process behind it.
>OP (a literal nobody) thinks he knows more about art than MoMA
You're a conformist who goes with whatever the establishment says is art.
>claims he is just as good as Winogrand but refuses to post his own photos
No, I claim I'm as "lucky" as Winogrand was. It's easy to get lucky when you're spraying exposures. I'm also saying some of Winogrand's snapshits get praised only because they're by him, nobody would give a rat's ass about them otherwise. Which is ironic considering the "death of the author" posts trying to defend Winogrand while failing to grasp what that concept is about.
>>
>>4101720
Your whole argument is centre on
>>I like this so this is art
>>I don't like this so this is not art
>>You like MoMA so you're a conformist

We're dealing w/ an absolute imbecile
>>
>>4101720
>words words words words
Let's see your photos
>>
File: world_press_photo_001.jpg (183 KB, 620x787)
183 KB
183 KB JPG
>>4101572
Yep, it's true. But those rules are so ridiculous not even the mods enforce them.
>>4101644
>The accuser would have a very hard time proving that a photo was a snapshot taken without a trace amount of thoughtful composition.
Even the dashboard is there getting in the way, but that wasn't my argument. My argument is that picture is not art, yet one of my favorite photos. It's so damn powerful. There's a good reason it inspired all those stories.
>On the other hand it’s very easy and quantifiable to count how many of the zero photos you post here.
See >>4098408
>>4101659
>"photography is not art"
lol, the idea that photography isn't an art has been around since the dawn of photography. But that's not my position, my position is that photography isn't always art. And I'm not whatever boogeyman you're imagining posting that for years.
>"spray and pray" bullshit for almost 2 years now
I don't have the monopoly on that term, I bet looking at the archives there's people using it since /p/ started.
>probably an /ic/ or /tv/ shill
I was big into /tv/ when there was a place for cinephiles there and the staff didn't have a stick up their asses.
>He has got BTFO'd many times before
>he isn't here for a discussion.
Not really.
>>4101665
>He's our very own resident fuckwit and he's been here for more than 2 years. But /p/tards are a thin skinned bunch with fragile egos and he gets the attention he craves. If he can't earn their admiration he will accept their hate.
Wrong. Sometimes I do bait, but it's subtle, technical and I aim at brandfags and their insecurities.
>>4101726
Wrong, there's art photography I dislike and non-art photography I absolutely love. Pic related, reminds me of the painting on Bateman's wall. So damn slick. But it's not art. It took balls of steel to take it, but the photographer is a passive observer in it. And yet, it's a magnificent photograph.
>>4101760
See >>4098408
Basically that's all you're gonna get.
>>
>>4101780
>words words words words words words
You haven't posted a good photo yet just some snobbish shit about telling other people what is art and what isn't and how, not for any reason, you just use dismissive language for what you say isn't art and speak to glorify what you say is art. That is your argument. Making emotionally laden statements with an authoritative tone. Just as many retards can use emotional rhetoric to craft the opposite opinion and your only possible response it to simply re-state yours but more derisive of theirs and more glorifying of your own.

You see that only works if you're rich and popular because all opinions on things like art and morality structured like this are 100% unprovable bullshit that ultimtaely rests on emotional rhetoric. Because you lack charisma and social status you simply don't get to decide these things. You can't even make art yourself. This is why people are saying "POST A GOOD PHOTO" because your "argument"
>i use dramatic language to emphasize how much i like what I like and speak of what I do not like with disdain
ONLY holds weight if YOU hold weight. You command no respect and yet write an essay about your feelings of awe and your feelings of disdain expecting us to care about what you think about what you feel. You're nobody - nophoto.
>>
>>4101783
You want readymades to be art. Also as recently as 3 days ago the University of Nottingham had a lecture about Winogrand's work as "anti-art".
>You're nobody - nophoto.
Yet I've posted photos here lol, and you have not. Sure, it's a shitty photo emulating branchanon - but a photo nevertheless, more than you'll ever post. Because you're here not to discuss photography but to feel better about your tastes acquired through years of consuming whatever critics feed you. You're like people who think themselves as sophisticated for listening to Kanye West because Fagtano told them he's a genius. So when someone challenges your views, you get defensive and start screaming "nophoto" despite posting no photos yourself. Applying your own logic, why should I take your opinions into consideration if you don't even post photos? And the answer is, because it's your ideas that I care about on this subject. Face it, pressing a button isn't art.
>>
>>4101783
Also your views on the matter are forever tainted by the misguided conception that being art makes something intrinsically better, that's why you get so defensive about calling out non-art for what it is.
>>
>>4101790
The entire premise of your argument is that you feel more awe and respect if you know more work and process is involved in making something. That is it. You feel more impressed knowing how it is made. How it is made is unprovable after the fact, so it is irrelevant and can be lied about to no end. Could you say that seeking out a situation to press a button in is art? Yes.

This is a common belief among butthurt proles and budding commies because it is the worship of labor and the hatred of leisure and ease, as a way of circumventing the requirement of quality in art. It is the deconstruction and destruction of art such that art will no longer be about quality. Conveniently in a way that makes bad artists who produce non-art suddenly "different" artists who produce "different" art.

And it is, most horribly, the denial of the natural world as inherently a work of art.

>>4101791
It's not about being art being better or not. It's about your senseless worship of labor. Art is not decided by the creator. Art is a naturally occurring phenomenon of beauty. Art is in the eye of the beholder. The fact is you could labor endlessly and have endless intent and a rich creative process and the thing you produced could be absolute SHIT and not qualify as art. A heap of garbage that inspired nothing but disinterest and mild annoyance.

Meanwhile someone who was simply lucky with a camera could place an image before you that was beautiful and evoked emotions and an experience. And it would be art, while your abortion of labor would not be. I could even say they had a creative process, and that they simply aren't fully aware of it, because they are naturally a talented artist.
>>
>>4101795
the commie thinks process is more beautiful than the result and real art is the means of production
>>
>>4101795
>The entire premise of your argument is that you feel more awe and respect if you know more work and process is involved in making something. That is it. You feel more impressed knowing how it is made. How it is made is unprovable after the fact, so it is irrelevant and can be lied about to no end.
Not really, there's dead giveaways that make lying about certain things nigh impossible. And it's not that I'm "more impressed", is that I'm willing to consider it art. Non-art can be aesthetically superior to art sometimes. It's not the issue at hand. The issue is that art is conscious creation, that it follows a creative process. Winogrand's pics aren't conscious creation but accidents, for the most part. The ones that are, are clearly staged and therefore conscious creation and not accidents.
>Could you say that seeking out a situation to press a button in is art? Yes.
That's my issue with Winogrand, he didn't seek a situation to press a button. He just pressed it constantly hoping something would turn out alright.
>This is a common belief among butthurt proles and budding commies because it is the worship of labor and the hatred of leisure and ease, as a way of circumventing the requirement of quality in art. It is the deconstruction and destruction of art such that art will no longer be about quality. Conveniently in a way that makes bad artists who produce non-art suddenly "different" artists who produce "different" art.
Ironic because commies are the champions of readymades. I have no problem saying some art is garbage. But it doesn't make it non-art. Jason Lanier has horrible taste and I despise his photography, but it's undeniably art.
>And it is, most horribly, the denial of the natural world as inherently a work of art.
You're getting into a way different conversation there, nature is beautiful but it can only be considered art if you believe in a creator. If there's a God-creator who designs nature, then yes, nature is a work of art.
>>
>>4101795
>It's about your senseless worship of labor.
Wrong, I don't worship labor but merely state that creative intent is an essential part of art. I don't deny the amount of labor that Winogrand put into his work, thousands of pictures taken. It's a lot of labor, but it's not art.
>Art is not decided by the creator.
True, it's decided by the process, by virtue of the creator making creative choices while producing it. If he doesn't, he can claim it's art all he wants but in reality it's not.
>Art is a naturally occurring phenomenon of beauty. Art is in the eye of the beholder.
Wrong. Under that definition everything is art, because there will be someone who finds it beautiful no matter how ugly it is.
>The fact is you could labor endlessly and have endless intent and a rich creative process and the thing you produced could be absolute SHIT
True.
>and not qualify as art. A heap of garbage that inspired nothing but disinterest and mild annoyance.
It would be a heap of garbage art that inspired nothing but disinterest and mild annoyance, but it'd qualify as art nevertheless.
>Meanwhile someone who was simply lucky with a camera could place an image before you that was beautiful and evoked emotions and an experience.
And yet, it wouldn't be art, because it's a readymade. I've produced such things, the latest example being the one I posted crops of here. It's not art.
>And it would be art, while your abortion of labor would not be.
Wrong.
>I could even say they had a creative process, and that they simply aren't fully aware of it, because they are naturally a talented artist.
Just lmao. Art is conscious creation by definition.
>>4101796
It's not about beauty and I'm not a fucking commie. Leftists are the ones who love pretending non-art is art.
>>
>>4101883
Let me be simple here. You don't have an argument. You just repeat this over and over again:
"A creative process is required for art"
Why? WHY? You can't answer. You just keep repeating it.

I refute this as plainly as you state it. But unlike you, I can give the reason that explains why a creative process is irrelevant to art.

Because: It is irrelevant to the result, it is irrelevant to what you see. It can be imagined into and out of existence after the fact. Only the end product of art can be judged. Nothing prior to your viewing or experience of the art has anything to do with it unless the history of the presentation is intended as part of the presentation, capiche?

Can you refute this or will you just repeat yourself over and over again? Because if you repeat yourself I'm wasting my time. The only response I have to your incessant repetitions is another incessant repetition. Explain yourself clearly, and refute this:
The way art was made is irrelevant to what art is, because that is an optional and often unavailable part of the experience you have when experiencing the art.

I reckon you are not an art critic. You are an artist critic. The lowest of the low, the smallest souled of the buggiest men. Art is beyond you, you compare penises.
>>
File: 1668899008404.png (51 KB, 1036x129)
51 KB
51 KB PNG
top jej
>>
>>4101889
>Why? WHY? You can't answer. You just keep repeating it.
Because art is conscious creation.
>Because: It is irrelevant to the result, it is irrelevant to what you see. It can be imagined into and out of existence after the fact. Only the end product of art can be judged. Nothing prior to your viewing or experience of the art has anything to do with it unless the history of the presentation is intended as part of the presentation, capiche?
When the end result betrays the process behind it, yes you can. An obvious snapshit is an obvious snapshit. See the picture in >>4100900.
And the concept that art has to be beautiful is the most backwards I've seen in the entire thread. Take the grotesque baby from David Lynch's Eraserhead, for example. It's not beautiful in any way but it's a work of art nevertheless. Or take much of the imagery in Dalí and Buñuel's Un Chien Andalou. It's shocking imagery but undoubtedly art. In fact I would argue that unlike the world of still photography, nearly all of cinema is art.
>The way art was made is irrelevant to what art is, because that is an optional and often unavailable part of the experience you have when experiencing the art.
That's only the case with photography and that's why its status as an art has been debated from the start.
>I reckon you are not an art critic. You are an artist critic. The lowest of the low, the smallest souled of the buggiest men. Art is beyond you, you compare penises.
kek, I reckon you're coping.
>>
>>4101902
>Because art is conscious creation.
Okay, you already said this. This is where you need to explain WHY.
>I don't like it
Not a why.
>That's only the case with photography and that's why its status as an art has been debated from the start.
You have no explained why that is the case. I doubt you can.
>Coping
What people say when they get BTFO.

>"A creative process is required for art"
Why? WHY? You can't answer. You just keep repeating it.
>Because art is conscious creation.
You said the same exact thing. WHY? You are dipping your toes into philosophical waters - like the very existence of consciousness - that I doubt you can understand.
>>
>>4101889
Anon nailed it on this comment.

OP places too much importance on “le creative process” & how everything has to be a conscious decision, which is why he fails so hard as an actual art critic & an artist. Many great photographs are made intuitively & instinctively. If OPs sole purpose for taking pictures is to make “art” and is overtly concern for making “art”, his process in itself is alrdy diluted, artificial and contrived.

OP judges Winogrand based on individual photographs and not his body of work as a whole. He believes art has to be confined arbitrarily by this rigid system. I’m not even going to bother addressing OP directly as he’s an idiot.

>>4101890
Is this OP? kek’d

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution216 dpi
Vertical Resolution216 dpi
Image Width1054
Image Height1563
>>
>>4101907
>This is where you need to explain WHY.
Because it's part of the definition.
>the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects
(Merriam Webster)
>The conscious use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or appreciated as beautiful, as in the arrangement of forms, sounds, or words.
(The Free Dictionary)
>There is no one universal definition of visual art though there is a general consensus that art is the conscious creation of something beautiful or meaningful using skill and imagination
(ThoughtCo)
>Not a why.
Not something I said either lol, it was never about liking it or not. It's about integrity.
>You have no explained why that is the case. I doubt you can.
Because with all the other arts the creative process is a requisite to make them. You don't accidentally carve a figure out of marble.
>What people say when they get BTFO.
All you did was call me names, it's fair to say you were coping.
>Why? WHY? You can't answer. You just keep repeating it.
BECAUSE IT'S THE DEFINITION, DINGUS. OTHERWISE "ART" BECOMES A MEANINGLESS WORD. What you're doing is basically the same as calling a lens a "car" and then getting mad at people saying that's not a car, even though it might be a fine piece of machinery.
>You said the same exact thing.
See above.
>>
>>4101902
>>When the end result betrays the process behind it

Subjective to each viewer. If you have to understand the process to enjoy a photo, you’re just bad. Simple as

>>Because art is conscious creation.
Absolutism + sweeping generalization on something abstract as art is laughable

>> And the concept that art has to be beautiful is the most backwards I've seen in the entire thread

No one said this; again you’re creating monologues in your brain arguing with yourself.

You’re terrible arbitrary absolutism take on art only reveals how narrow your insights are on the topic. Not even the other anon, just pointing out you’re dodging all his questions and going on a repetitive rant talking in circles.
>>
File: artificial.png (28 KB, 707x388)
28 KB
28 KB PNG
>>4101913
>OP places too much importance on “le creative process” & how everything has to be a conscious decision
Not everything, but there needs to be some degree of creative intent. You have to be more than a walking flesh CCTV camera.
>Many great photographs are made intuitively & instinctively.
They may be great but not art.
>If OPs sole purpose for taking pictures is to make “art” and is overtly concern for making “art”, his process in itself is alrdy diluted, artificial and contrived.
Bingo, you're getting close! Artificial comes from art. Pic related, educate yourself.
>OP judges Winogrand based on individual photographs and not his body of work as a whole. He believes art has to be confined arbitrarily by this rigid system. I’m not even going to bother addressing OP directly as he’s an idiot.
His body of work as a whole is the most damning thing when it comes to the non-art nature of it. He sprayed so hard he left 2500 rolls of undeveloped film and 300000 unedited images. It's not because he was a prolific artist, it's because he was a spray and pray hack. Sometimes his prayers were heard and great images came through.
>Is this OP? kek’d
No, it's not me. Terry is one of my go-to examples of how the creative process is tantamount to art though. One might debate the photographic merit of his work, but it's undeniably art.
>>
>>4101915
>Subjective to each viewer. If you have to understand the process to enjoy a photo, you’re just bad. Simple as
If you can't tell a snapshit is an unplanned snapshit of nothing just by looking at it, you're just bad. Simple as.
>Absolutism + sweeping generalization on something abstract as art is laughable
Abstract doesn't mean meaningless.
>No one said this; again you’re creating monologues in your brain arguing with yourself.
No, see >>4101795 >>4101796.
>You’re terrible arbitrary absolutism take on art only reveals how narrow your insights are on the topic. Not even the other anon, just pointing out you’re dodging all his questions and going on a repetitive rant talking in circles.
What questions am I dodging?
There's a bunch of plebs here arguing that aesthetic value is what makes something art. Basically saying that if they like it then it's art and if they don't it's not. That's not what separates art from non-art.
>>
>>4101907

>>my POV on art is based on the dictionary definition

OP here, I’m a massive faggot. I concede anons, you got me I cannot explain the WHYS to art so please refer to Webster…

Also if you align with MoMA your just a conformist!!! But please conform to my own plebeian take on art via dictionary because… because I said so okay?!??

/thread

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width792
Image Height832
>>
>>4101914
>Because of... le dictionary
Okay I don't care. You're not even capable of independent thought. No fucking wonder you don't take photos.

Art is a construct of beauty. Not "cute puppies" beauty but all forms of beauty, from terrible beauty to cute puppies to sexy women. Art is something you perceive. It is a thing in real space and real time that evokes emotions related to awe and wonder that the mundane things around it do not. It does not have or need a creator or a history, although a creator and a history can be part of the presentation. A lot of those things you called art - well, they're not art. People made them but they are ugly, they're not art, they're junk. If they are intended to be art then they are best salvaged as comedy, or parts of a whole that is art.

As for my why:
It is self evident. I have derived this definition from my experiences in reality. This definition is the thing I have found all works of art manmade, purposeful, accidental, and natural, to share, and when people have different experiences and preferences than me, when I examine them I find this holds true. They may not like the same things but art is something out of the mundane that evokes more, no matter how it came into being.
>>
>>4101916
>> He sprayed so hard he left 2500 rolls of undeveloped film and 300000 unedited images

It’s called terminal cancer, you fucking child.
>>
File: anti anti art.png (51 KB, 1185x1024)
51 KB
51 KB PNG
>>4101919
Just days ago there was a lecture in a British university about how Garry Winogrand's work is anti-art. I wonder if my thread inspired it :^)
Like the one of the Stuckist manifestos says, "art" that has to be in a gallery to be art isn't art.
>>
>>4101920
>> It is self evident. I have derived this definition from my experiences in reality. This definition is the thing I have found all works of art manmade, purposeful, accidental, and natural, to share, and when people have different experiences and preferences than me, when I examine them I find this holds true. They may not like the same things but art is something out of the mundane that evokes more, no matter how it came into being.

Based. A real art enjoyer with the capacity to articulate and translate complex ideas in a clear and straightforward manner without the assistance of a dictionary

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width680
Image Height763
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: inigomontoya.jpg (45 KB, 500x420)
45 KB
45 KB JPG
>>4101920
>Okay I don't care. You're not even capable of independent thought. No fucking wonder you don't take photos.
We're talking DEFINITIONS here mate, you're only mad because the word "art" doesn't mean what you think it does.
>Art is a construct of beauty. Not "cute puppies" beauty but all forms of beauty, from terrible beauty to cute puppies to sexy women. Art is something you perceive. It is a thing in real space and real time that evokes emotions related to awe and wonder that the mundane things around it do not. It does not have or need a creator or a history, although a creator and a history can be part of the presentation. A lot of those things you called art - well, they're not art. People made them but they are ugly, they're not art, they're junk. If they are intended to be art then they are best salvaged as comedy, or parts of a whole that is art.
>junk art isn't art
lol, someone call Picasso to tell him he wasn't an artist
>It is self evident. I have derived this definition from my experiences in reality. This definition is the thing I have found all works of art manmade, purposeful, accidental, and natural, to share, and when people have different experiences and preferences than me, when I examine them I find this holds true. They may not like the same things but art is something out of the mundane that evokes more, no matter how it came into being.
So I should trust "your experience" over a dictionary to define words, lmao.
>>4101921
He wouldn't have gone through all those cancer or not, he was spraying like his life depended on it.
>>
File: 1211137289566.jpg (807 KB, 3000x2880)
807 KB
807 KB JPG
>>4101924
>>
File: t2.jpg (260 KB, 1600x899)
260 KB
260 KB JPG
I'm going to call this a car and if you tell me it's not a car and point me to a dictionary I'm going to get mad and say you have no independent thought.
>>
>>4101922
>>disregard’s institution of MoMA because they don’t align with me

>>recommends a lecture from an institution because it aligns with me
>>
>>4101928
I'm not even recommending it, I'm just saying that if you're going to attempt a fallacious appeal to authority and declare yourself the winner over that, I can remind you there's authorities that don't agree with your foolish opinion as informed by CIA's museum. You're parroting propaganda when you refer to MoMA. And you don't even realize it.
But like Joseph Goebbels, PhD famously said,
"The best propaganda is that which, as it were, works invisibly, penetrates the whole of life without the public having any knowledge of the propagandistic initiative."
>>
>>4101930
>>institution #1 is le propagandaaaa
>>institution #2 is not le propaganda

>>because…because I said so okay?!??
>>
>>4101931
Because one was CIA-funded as a literal psyop, educate yourself.
But even if we pretend the University of Nottingham is a propaganda machine, it doesn't change my argument one bit. I'm arguing that Winogrand's work isn't art because it's a bunch of ready-mades.
You ignored this post >>4101409 because you know that you'd have to say a Google Street View camera snapping around is as much of an artist as Winogrand is, if you are consistent.
>>
>>4101930
>quotes a nazi
Says the guy that denies a beauty based art paradigm and says effort is enough so now worthless “art” becomes art proper
>>
>>4101925
Picasso made much less art than people say he did. He sucked.

Silence NPC. You lack independent thoughts.
>>
>>4101935
Yeah, a nazi who was the master of propaganda.
>effort is enough
No. Winogrand put a lot of effort in his snapshits, he put his life into it. But there was no creative process.
>When Winogrand died, he left behind 4,000 rolls of developed but not printed film and 2,500 rolls of undeveloped film. He had moved from New York to California by this time and was experimenting with different ways of taking photographs, including from the windows of moving vehicles. Szarkowski’s show was the first to feature some of these posthumous images even as the curator used them to advance a critique of Winogrand’s late work that functioned also as a kind of biographical end point. Compulsively shooting, never stopping to develop, edit, and print, Winogrand, argued Szarkowski, had descended into a mechanical ritual of undisciplined image taking. Describing much of this work as “deeply flawed” and “pointless,” he wrote in the exhibition catalog, “Many of the last frames seem to have cut themselves free of the familiar claims of art. Perhaps he had lost his way….”
>>
>>4101936
Picasso made utter garbage, but it was art. Those ugly pointless pictures didn't paint themselves. Picasso is a symbol of the ruination of art, but his work is art nevertheless. Degenerate art, no doubt. But art nevertheless.
>>
>>4101937
But is a photograph not art because winogrand took it? No, if it captures an aesthetic quality, it's as art as a lone waterfall in a clearing. Providence had a hand in it. So behold. Winogrand took a good photo.

And you haven't taken a single one.
>>
Because it was taken, not made, and all he did was press a button.
>No, if it captures an aesthetic quality, it's as art as a lone waterfall in a clearing
So, not art at all lmao.
>Providence had a hand in it. So behold. Winogrand took a good photo.
I'm not saying he didn't take a good photo. I'm saying it wasn't art.
>And you haven't taken a single one.
I've taken plenty. And they have pleased a lot of people.
>>
>>4101974
Meant for >>4101955, for some reason the quote disappeared. I'm sleepy.
>>
>>4098220
kek, every family from the 70's to 80's with a film camera has photos JUST LIKE THIS or better
>>
>>4101974
Wrong answer.
>So not art!
Yes, it is still art. Sorry you can't think behind a dictionary. Linguists are not artists.
>I've taken plenty
I don't see any photos and definitely not any pleasing ones.

Anyways how to make your photo look like art instead of a snapshit
>Not at eye level
>Shallow depth of field
>Angle the camera in some direction
So leave it in aperture priority, wide open, keep autofocus on at all times and hold your camera at waist level while rotating it around so this jackoff will think you're good despite winogranding it up lmao
>>
>>4101980
>I don't see any photos
Get new glasses then. I don't see any from you, the guy demanding them by the way. What's the problem, ashamed? No, like me you'd rather not get doxed. But you pretend to not care, all while posting nothing you've made. It's kind of despicable if I'm honest with you.
>Yes, it is still art. Sorry you can't think behind a dictionary. Linguists are not artists.
Very Orwellian, the destruction of words by erasing their meaning. You're the very thing Stuckists reacted against, a conformist who accepts whatever the academia and statu quo tell them. You praise Winogrand's worst snapshits as art because you've been told they are. Meanwhile the fine art scammers are laughing all the way to the bank.
> make your photo look like art
That's not making it look like art, it will be a readymade anyways. Control of the picture is how. Being discerning in what you shoot instead of manically pressing the shutter hoping something good comes out. Planning the shots and making them rather than taking them.
>>
>>4101978
that's true but it's also true the picture is art, it was clearly not a fluke but he staged it
>>
>>4102066
Yes i'm sure it being art has nothing to do with his early life
>>
>>4102065
Your argument falls apart when you realize I didn't know who winogrand was before this thread. HA.
>>
>>4098408
oh cool it's the worst fucking photo i've ever seen in my life.

pack it up, guys, OP is an expert in the field.
>>
>>4102251
You don't get the surreal vibes from the blur, almost Reznickesque? Almost like the world is dissolving before your eyes? :^)
Yes, it's a joke of a photograph but I'm not going to post my good material here.
>>
>>4102250
Sure you didn't, faggot. That's why you have been arguing in bad faith the entire thread, gas yourself.
>>
>>4102241
It being regarded as (((art))) by the (((fine art merchants))) definitely has a lot to do with that. But that's not what I'm talking about. That one is art because he went and made the picture rather than just take it.
>>
>>4102282
so you're telling me he had that house built, and the children born then subsequently house destroyed and child sacrificed after the photo was taken?
>knowing his early life the second point might actually be true
>>
>>4102066
>he staged it

what a fucking cope lmfao
>>
>>4102311
>so you're telling me he had that house built
No, I'm talking about him using it as a set. You don't have to make everything but you have to control some of the picture for it to be art.
>and the children born then subsequently house destroyed and child sacrificed after the photo was taken?
>knowing his early life the second point might actually be true
kek'd audibly
By the way, have we talked about Cozumel before? I have a feeling we have :^)
>>
>>4102313
It's obvious he at least called the kid to produce the picture. And that's what makes it art.
>>
>>4102313
Also I must mention it appears you think I said he staged it in a negative way. On the contrary, staging is sometimes the difference between taking a picture and making it.
>>
>>4102323
>>4102316
Nice headcannon.

Winogrand shot hundreds of thousands of photos. Do you think he was walking around all day saying "HEY OVER HERE! LEMME TAKE YA PHOTO!"
>>
>>4102327
Can you prove the process or absence of process behind any one photo?
>>
>>4102327
You're supporting my argument that he was a spray and pray hack there.
What I'm saying is that the New Mexico picture is obviously one of the few where he bothered to create something rather than just press a button, one of the few in his large body of work that are art. The rest are accidental for the most part. Just manically pressing the button hoping something good will magically come out. That's why his hit/miss ratio was so terrible, he was aimless.
>>
>>4102331
Doesn’t matter. The onus isn’t on me.
>>
>>4102378
>The onus isn’t on me.
So you admit you can't tell the difference between art from non art
>>
>>4102419
OP here, I think you think that guy is me. He is actually arguing against my position.
In most cases I can tell between art and non art because the end result betrays the process behind it. Photo of the kids in the garage? Art. Photo of the people at the Kennedy Center? Non art.
>>
>>4102424
Composition of a photo is still a creative process. Whether or not you admire it. You can't prove if it was luck or purpose.
>>
>>4102561
Are you serious? You see conscious composition in this? >>4100900
>>
>>4102561
What about typing keywords?

https://hotpot.ai/gallery/8/ai-art-maker
>>
>>4102581
i do honestly
it's a shame you don't
>>
>>4102581
Yeah. It could have happened on accident like anyone holding a camera going 24/7 would produce something that looked composed. Can you prove, without seeing anything but the photo, that it was composed or not? Because if you want to take this to the logical conclusion either process is irrelevant to art (truth), or photography is not art except in the style of a still from cinema where the subject itself is a staged creation (retarded concession, and why are you even here?).
>>
>>4102617
>or photography is not art except in the style of a still from cinema where the subject itself is a staged creation (retarded concession, and why are you even here?).
Nice strawman faglord.
Photography is art at the capture stage only if consciously done. It'd take a lot of persuasion to convince me that snapshit isn't thoughtless.
>>
File: 1000x563.jpg (95 KB, 1000x563)
95 KB
95 KB JPG
>>4102617
Oh and while a cinema-style staged production isn't the only form of artistic photography, it's ALWAYS ART by virtue of its process.
>>
>>4102621
>Photography is art at the capture stage only if consciously done
what a sad way to view things
>>
>>4102627
>I believe the cars that take photos for google street view are artists
weird flex but ok
>>
>>4102621
You can't prove it was or wasn't thoughtless, you can only aimlessly guess and pull shit out of your ass. Therefore, it is not relevant.

>>4102622
>It's ALWAYS ART
Incorrect. If something intended to be art is bad enough, it simply isn't art. Art is a natural phenomenon, not all of human creation. You can in fact be so talentless that no amount of creativity or intent on your part will produce art. "Degenerate art" is often not art, unless it has the characteristic of terrible beauty, shock and horror above the mundane. Which is truly what degenerate art is meant to refer to. The proper term for such absolute trash lacking any aesthetic quality is a mundane creation but not any sort of art.
>inb4 you bring up your faggy dictionary again
The best propaganda is one that masquerades as truth you know. With something as simple as brief passage in a dictionary, you can totally destroy any and all meaning art has.

I personally do not believe that anything that is has nothing behind it. Providence always has a hand in everything, the hand of god, so unthinking nature and bumbling man can produce art, because it was fated by the will of god. If it is art or not depends on the interpretation of the end result as having an artistic quality or not. If the hand of providence did direct winogrand to produce art without trying then behold, he produced art.
>>
>>4102628
>Photography is art at the capture stage only if consciously done
nah
>You believe the cars that take photos for google street view are artists
pretty big leap there
>>
>>4102628
not artists but they can produce art

this hurts the ego of a talentless person who wants recognition for being an artist (well, trying to be an artist). that if you are so talentless, random chance can produce art while you can't!
>>
>>4102628
The cars aren’t artists. The person who looks through Google street view and curates a set of photos is an artist.

This is not a radical viewpoint.
>>
>>4102634
>You can't prove it was or wasn't thoughtless, you can only aimlessly guess and pull shit out of your ass. Therefore, it is not relevant.
Don't you claim that the product is all that matters? It's indistinguishable from a thoughtless snapshit.
>Incorrect. If something intended to be art is bad enough, it simply isn't art. Art is a natural phenomenon, not all of human creation. You can in fact be so talentless that no amount of creativity or intent on your part will produce art. "Degenerate art" is often not art, unless it has the characteristic of terrible beauty, shock and horror above the mundane. Which is truly what degenerate art is meant to refer to. The proper term for such absolute trash lacking any aesthetic quality is a mundane creation but not any sort of art.
You're absolutely wrong lol. Neil Breen produces garbage, but his movies are definitely art. Art can be enjoyed by how bad it is sometimes, perhaps this concept is too high IQ for you to grasp.
>The best propaganda is one that masquerades as truth you know. With something as simple as brief passage in a dictionary, you can totally destroy any and all meaning art has.
kek, you're paraphrasing the Goebbels quote I posted in the thread but with no awareness that you have no argument there because you're the one trying to redefine what art is.
>I personally do not believe that anything that is has nothing behind it. Providence always has a hand in everything, the hand of god, so unthinking nature and bumbling man can produce art, because it was fated by the will of god. If it is art or not depends on the interpretation of the end result as having an artistic quality or not. If the hand of providence did direct winogrand to produce art without trying then behold, he produced art.
lol he pressed a button aimlessly and managed to capture a handful of decent shots per thousand taken by pure luck, then his editor picked those. No different than this http://suwud.com/googorama/index.html
>>
>>4102635
Not as big as yours. Goes back to my initial argument that the man was basically a walking CCTV camera.
>>4102636
>not artists but they can produce art
That's an absurd proposition. What is an artist, but an entity that produces art?
>>4102642
>The cars aren’t artists. The person who looks through Google street view and curates a set of photos is an artist.
Then Winogrand isn't an artist but his curator is, lol.
It's honestly funny to say that google street view pictures are art.
>>
>>4102653
>the man was basically a walking CCTV camera
that consciously chose where to walk, where to stop, how to frame subjects, what aperture and focal length to use, what film to use, where to point the camera when framing blindly, when (and when not) to take the picture
sure sounds like more than a walking CCTV to me
>>
>>4102653
>Then Winogrand isn't an artist but his curator is, lol.
Yes, this is an argument that's been made before. You're really outing yourself as a retard who hasn't read even one piece of photography criticism (outside of probably Sontag, and only because you're a dilettante dabbler).

Then again, you were the guy who also made a thread that said people shouldn't look at photobooks. It's amazing that you think you're having big deep thoughts about an art form, when really, you're at babby's first thingken stage.
>>
>>4102653
An artist is an entity that produces art, but art can be produced without such a thing on earth as the true artist is the hand of providence and can work with or without an artist that considers itself purposeful. Anything that possesses the qualities of art is art.

>>4102649
>Don't you claim that the product is all that matters? It's indistinguishable from a thoughtless snapshit.
In your view, but you can't prove what it is or isn't. You can only say what you think it is. It is not art to you, alright, and? It is art to someone else.
>You're absolutely wrong lol. Neil Breen produces garbage, but his movies are definitely art. Art can be enjoyed by how bad it is sometimes, perhaps this concept is too high IQ for you to grasp.
It might be art to someone, but it is not art to everyone, and that has little to do with intelligence. Something intended to be art that is bad enough is simply not art to the viewer making the judgement.
>kek, you're paraphrasing the Goebbels quote I posted in the thread but with no awareness that you have no argument there because you're the one trying to redefine what art is.
Art has the qualities of aesthetic superiority. If you say anything made by a self professed creative is art you open the floodgates to garbage. I say that even if there was no artist god himself stands behind all things and anything that has the qualities of art can be art, and yet something bad enough made be a self professed artist can be summarily rejected as a mundane object. We can be horrified and disgusted by art but sometimes it's just nonsense - a mundane object.
>lol he...
You can theorize about the circumstances in which each photo was taken but you can not prove it seeing only the photo. You can only theorize based on what it makes you feel. Is it art to you or not? That's it.
>>
>>4102664
I wouldn't waste my time with Sontag lmfao.
>Then again, you were the guy who also made a thread that said people shouldn't look at photobooks.
Another retarded take that only reveals you lack reading comprehension, no wonder you still appear to not get what my argument here is. All I said is "just look at photobooks" and "just take pics" is retarded advice. One would be better served by studying some theory, the way cinematographers do.
>It's amazing that you think you're having big deep thoughts about an art form, when really, you're at babby's first thingken stage.
It was a kid who pointed at the naked emperor, because the "adults" had no integrity left. So I'll take that as a compliment.
>>4102671
>An artist is an entity that produces art, but art can be produced without such a thing on earth as the true artist is the hand of providence and can work with or without an artist that considers itself purposeful. Anything that possesses the qualities of art is art.
that's laughable
>In your view, but you can't prove what it is or isn't. You can only say what you think it is. It is not art to you, alright, and? It is art to someone else.
It's only art to someone else if they use your perverted definition of it.
>It might be art to someone, but it is not art to everyone, and that has little to do with intelligence. Something intended to be art that is bad enough is simply not art to the viewer making the judgement.
It is like nothing else in the world. It is also human creation done for creation's sake. It is art.
>>
File: a. hitchcock.jpg (819 KB, 2100x2100)
819 KB
819 KB JPG
>>4102671
>Art has the qualities of aesthetic superiority. If you say anything made by a self professed creative is art you open the floodgates to garbage. I say that even if there was no artist god himself stands behind all things and anything that has the qualities of art can be art, and yet something bad enough made be a self professed artist can be summarily rejected as a mundane object. We can be horrified and disgusted by art but sometimes it's just nonsense - a mundane object.
That's ironic coming from a guy using MoMA as an argument to why Winogrand is art. Anti-art is celebrated there, mundane objects as you say. Like Duchamp's urinal. Like Carl Andre's 120 firebricks.
>You can theorize about the circumstances in which each photo was taken but you can not prove it seeing only the photo. You can only theorize based on what it makes you feel. Is it art to you or not? That's it.
Can you prove beyond *ahem* a shadow of a doubt... that Winogrand was consciously making that snapshit, rather than he just happened to press the button at that moment just like he did seconds before and after and so he did in the minutes and hours before and after that particular photo was taken? You can't.
It's an accidental photo and it shows, and ironically the mundaneness you claim makes something not-art is there.
What is more, you're excluding the art of the mundane. In a sweep you have reduced much of Bresson's seminal work to non-art, because what is "Diary of a Country Priest" if not about a mundane life? No anon, you're the one who is lost.
>>
>>4102699
I never mentioned anything about moma. I don't even know what moma is. I don't care. Anti-art isn't even art unless it coincidentally has the qualities of art.
>Can you prove
You can't prove either assumption which is why the process is irrelevant to the photo.
>Mundane is not art
Art of the mundane is not necessarily mundane. You are such a brainlet it's unreal.

Let's get on a level we can both work on now

Should I buy a tamron or pentax 70-200 f2.8?
>>
>>4098220
>>4100651
Sometimes I really don't get other people's tastes. This is extremely boring.
>>4100732
Honestly just looks like an old family photo taken in Arizona.
>>
>>4102703
>help me consoom products just like I consoom content praised by (((critics)))
What the fuck do you need a f/2.8 zoom for anyways?
>>
File: the missing pieces.jpg (178 KB, 1240x697)
178 KB
178 KB JPG
>>4102703
>You can't prove either assumption which is why the process is irrelevant to the photo.
This isn't a court of law so one can assume a bit based on evidence, your idea that definite proof is required when everything points to it not being conscious creation is simply ridiculous. You're setting a standard of evidence that you know can't be met, because you're arguing in bad faith. So rather than play, because you know you're losing you just puncture the ball and walk away with it. The match is over.
Your standards mean throwing a lot into the trash, beyond art. They mean destroying history and even sciences like paleontology. Well, guess what. It's possible to reconstruct something based on the evidence, you don't need all the missing pieces.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Width1240
Image Height697
>>
>>4102708
>oy oy oy imma nadsi look at me whyddya need an f2.8
I abhor daylight. Drinking infant blood does that to you

>>4102717
You extrapolated art criticism to paleontology you retard. Is a bone clearly not one of any known living animal whether you saw it dug up or not? Yeah. But art is not a science, it is a quality.

You are missing the entire principle.
>>
>>4102723
Go for the pentax, sister.
>>
>>4102723
>I abhor daylight. Drinking infant blood does that to you
I have a f/3.8 zoom in a similar range that does well at night, get a f/4 if you have a Pentax and SR will handle the rest. Don't be a gearfag. Do you have a K-1? I'm assuming that based on the length you're picking.
>You extrapolated art criticism to paleontology you retard. Is a bone clearly not one of any known living animal whether you saw it dug up or not? Yeah. But art is not a science, it is a quality.
Not really, you'd be surprised by the amount of surmising paleontology takes. Just like they can figure out the rest of the body of an animal based on one small bone, I can figure Winogrand was spraying and praying when taking that Kennedy Center pic. And that he staged the garage pic with the kids.
>>
>>4102730
I heard the f4 had shit sharpness at the long end ergo I might as well save half a grand on the $500 tamron f2.8 if it's not going to be preeeeemium.

>Not really, you'd be surprised by the amount of surmising paleontology takes. Just like they can figure out the rest of the body of an animal based on one small bone
They can "figure out the rest of the body" based on one small bone if and only if that bone has features unique to one species, and all they are figuring out is that it was likely a lot like that species but a certain size barring further discoveries. They revise that shit constantly and include plenty statements of uncertainty. That's something you probably don't see if you mostly subscribe to pop sci and VGH, "paleoart".
>I can figure Winogrand was spraying and praying when taking that Kennedy Center pic
A lot of people subconsciously do this for pretty much anything that was taken at a focal length close to 28mm and a deep DoF because they have been conditioned on phones and compact digicams, but while you can guess, you can also guess that he was framing everything with his feet, moving into the best light, and waiting for the right moment, and then proceeded to spray and pray 50 rolls away in case it got fucked up in the darkroom. Maybe you should go ask him.
>>
>>4102760
>They can "figure out the rest of the body" based on one small bone if and only if that bone has features unique to one species, and all they are figuring out is that it was likely a lot like that species but a certain size barring further discoveries.
They guess a lot more than you would would think. Biomechanics is how they surmise a lot.
>VGH
No idea what that is.
>A lot of people subconsciously do this for pretty much anything that was taken at a focal length close to 28mm and a deep DoF because they have been conditioned on phones and compact digicams, but while you can guess, you can also guess that he was framing everything with his feet, moving into the best light, and waiting for the right moment, and then proceeded to spray and pray 50 rolls away in case it got fucked up in the darkroom. Maybe you should go ask him.
Everything about that picture is utterly unremarkable. Lighting, composition, subject. He shot more because he believed if you spray enough you'll get more good ones. And when it comes to people photos that's not completely wrong. But it's not art. And even his books are full of throwaway pictures as a result of spraying so hard with so little reason to do it.
>>
>>All I said is "just look at photobooks" and "just take pics" is retarded advice

OP is a shit artist/photographer that needs to be spoon fed
>>
>>4102703
OP is getting ass blasted from all sides he doesn't know who he's arguing w/ anymore. He's been talking in circles for 3+ days now on a flawed pretense.
>>
>>4102847
He's getting attention, that's all he comes here for.
>>
>>4102845
You're basically leading newbies down the path of being derivative and aimless.
>>4102847
You fags are like a hivemind, might as well be talking to only one of you. I don't buy for a moment anyone on /p/ doesn't know what MoMA is.
>>4102851
Projection.
>>
Winogrand was great, and spent zero time at all arguing about dumb bullshit on internet forums. Go outside, touch grass, take pictures.
>>
>>4102908
>philosophy of art is LE DUMB!
Go back to plebbit
>>
these threads always just end up with people having different definitions of "art"
Winogrand is just a proxy for arguing over personal definitions, and only obfuscates the actual disagreements
no one is ever able to admit that different people have different aesthetic preferences, and different definitions of art
OP always has to have the "right" view of things, will never make reasonable concessions, and everyone else is simply wrong / uneducated / blind
there is nothing of value here
>>
>>4102915
>Winogrand is just a proxy for arguing over personal definitions, and only obfuscates the actual disagreements
That's interesting and you're probably right about it. I say that as OP, by the way. I do feel it's a good way to condense those differences though, people have him as this sacred cow that makes the argument a lot more heated (and that's a good thing, because when things are too polite people hold back from their true positions more).
>>
>>4102934
i seriously didn't know who he was until this thread

it turns out "art people" like him. who knew? i don't care, a lot of things they like I consider trash, and a lot of the tastemaking they do I consider invalid because you can't tell a man what to like, you are born with your aesthetic sensibilities in the same way you are born with the way you respond to certain chemicals in taste/smell and are inclined to form relationships and build a civilization with people who share that with you, and exclude people who do not.
>>
File: M4_Winograd_7.jpg (34 KB, 569x451)
34 KB
34 KB JPG
>>4102944
i like a lot of his pictures, but i actually appreciate his approach to photography more than anything else
he shot a ton, essentially 2-8 rolls every single day for +35 years, and enough to wear in his m4's pressure plate
i see it as deliberate practice, anyone else with the same devotion towards their craft (music, woodworking, painting, etc) would be seen positively, but he's a "spray and pray hack"
he advocated the importance of framing and properly using the viewfinder, and even scolded students for shooting from the hip, hated cropping too
advocated for studying other great photographers
he would wait to develop his film, sometimes years, to be able to look at the images more objectively, so far removed from the moment of capture and the feelings that might have been present
the framing of photographs as a battle of form vs content, and the idea that the best images are on the edge of failure, both helped me and he warmed me up to 28mm over 35mm
also hated "street photography" as a label

neat read from one of his students to add perspective
http://www.photogs.com/bwworld/winogrand.html
>>
>>4102988
>reducing music, woodworking and painting to crafts
lol
photography can sometimes be art and sometimes a craft but those are all arts unless we're talking about non-sculptural woodworking and wall painting or something like that.
>>
>>4102988
35mm and 21mm are both >>>>>> 28mm. I even like 24mm more.

All of the hate winogrand gets is because of 28mm, whatever you can say about it poetically it is the least interesting focal length, the photographic equivalent of standing there and looking straight ahead. Because it adds nothing to the composition the composition looks more and more like a reproduction. Call it challenging, but even a good photo looks a little more boring than it should be.
>>
>>4103010
No, those aren't all necessarily arts. Even music can be a mere craft. People have made things that absolutely dismal.
>>
>>4102871
>projection

Oh right I forgot he was the one who created this retarded thread and not you. He's the one desperate for attention.
>>
>>4103036
If I cared about the attention I'd have doxed myself already
>>
>>4103054
Do dox yourself with stupid fucking thread you create. Do you really think we don't recognise your shit? You post the same retarded bollocks over and over.
>>
>>4103071
Being a recognizable poster and being doxed are different things. I'm still anonymous.
>>
>>4103098
you wish JAMES, JOHN, ROBERT, MICHAEL, WILLIAM, DAVID, RICHARD, CHARLES, JOSEPH, THOMAS, CHRISTOPHER, DANIEL, PAUL, MARK, DONALD, GEORGE, KENNETH, or STEVEN !
>>
>>4098408
that looks amazing
>>
>>4103098
>I'm still anonymous.
But you are not. You know full well that most of us know who you are, and that is exactly what you want.
>>
>>4103104
you forgot Colin :^)
>>4103110
Seriously? I took it and think it's shit lol
>>4103121
You don't know who I am, you merely can tell when I'm around because of my Anselian stance of photography, the distinction between taking and making a photograph.
>>
>>4103197
>You don't know who I am, you merely can tell when I'm around because of my Anselian stance of photography, the distinction between taking and making a photograph.
No, lmfao. Most photographers make this claim, you idiot.

We can tell who you are because you refuse to back up your points with photos, refuse to post photos, insist your work is too good for the board, and argue like an absolute retard.

You're the kid from third grade who eats paste for attention. We just like feeding you glue.
>>
>>4103275
My work isn't "too good for the board", I just don't want the board associated to my work. Also I'm a better (harsher) critic of my own work than the plebs here. I've posted shitty pics before and received praise in return, probably because I wasn't antagonizing the sycophants here hard enough. The place has become reddit and only in this thread ann in the "just look at photobooks bro" one did I manage to get some negative feedback for some of my snapshits.
>>
>>4103282
You're balls deep in a subculture of the subjective in a field that means nothing. It's a sad source of self worth.
>>
>>4103282
>trust me, my photos are great
>>
>>4103292
They aren't but some plebs here think they are, or pretend to in order to create a disgusting culture of mutual congratulation. It's gross and I want no part of it. When I cast my arguments here it's pearls before swine, the photos are just shit, but like the swine they are they gobble them up too.
>>
>>4103295
>When I cast my arguments here it's pearls before swine, the photos are just shit, but like the swine they are they gobble them up too.
kinda sad that you care so much about the opinions of swine
ive shit on you before for being a nophoto, just wanted to update you since i've posted at least 3 photos of myself here since then, including some on my own social media, and still no doxxing here
you are just a giant schizo of little value here
leave us swine alone
>>
>>4103282
>I've posted shitty pics before and received praise in return, probably because I wasn't antagonizing the sycophants here hard enough

praises here are given if you managed to get a proper exposure. It means nothing you faggot. 3/4 of the board are ppl asking what cameras to buy
>>
>>4103406
>praises here are given if you managed to get a proper exposure. It means nothing you faggot. 3/4 of the board are ppl asking what cameras to buy
You're supporting my point and don't even realize it lol. I have to samefag sometimes to bash my own stuff and then the only negative feedback I get is against my own negative criticism.
>>
>>4103415
Do you realize you're balls deep into the same kind of racket that memed themselves into liking every single photo winogrand took yet? That photography is more or less... like this? Fast and loose with the definition of art, faster and looser with the definition of good? The photographer is not a creator, they are a curator of reality. A creator that photographs their creations is not a photographer, they are a screenwriter or a sculptor with a camera.
>>
>>4103435
Not really, I just acknowledge that the "art" and "goodness" axiis are independent from each other. I'm going by the most commonly agreed definition of art outside of streetfag circlejerk circles.
>>
File: art.png (45 KB, 805x813)
45 KB
45 KB PNG
Condensed the argument for the ones who still don't get it.
>>
>>4103683
So, most of Winogrand's output falls squarely in the red area, with a few in yellow, fewer in magenta and even fewer in white? Is that right?
>>
File: photovenn.png (53 KB, 1045x1000)
53 KB
53 KB PNG
>>4103688
His venn diagram makes no fucking sense.
>>
>>4103701
>fine art is a subset of journalism
gr8 m8 i r8 8/8
>>
>>4103704
Are you fucking retarded?
>>
File: art venn.png (133 KB, 3354x3388)
133 KB
133 KB PNG
>>4103701
>His venn diagram makes no fucking sense.
Here you go you pedantic fuck, it wasn't a Venn diagram but now it is.
>>
>>4103709
It's still a nonsensical diagram.
>>
File: art venn.png (145 KB, 3354x3388)
145 KB
145 KB PNG
>>4103717
Better now?
>>
File: blow.jpg (44 KB, 696x695)
44 KB
44 KB JPG
>>4103723
No.

You don't know the difference between good and bad, you can only judge based on like and dislike.

Until and unless you get your heads around the idea that opinions are not facts none of you are going to make it. You are just going to disappear up your own arrogant and irrelevant arseholes.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Width696
Image Height695
>>
>>4103825
Doesn't invalidate the diagram though.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.