(In Art) What matters to you more concept or technical ability?

[zenie]

i love how on threads like this the concept (read: imaginative shilly-shallying) is defo regarded higher than tech skills but whenever there's some fucking far-out conceptual happenings its denounced as wankery (first order of).

*cough*

Bingo

 

[Flavour]

And as an imaginative shilly-shallying type the last thing I want is to be decried as a first class wankery-emitter!

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Technical ability without concept is mere draftsmanship.

 

[zenie]

Technical ability without concept is mere draftsmanship.

Indeed

You see the reason I ask is probably more to do with the photography on this forum and the reactions it gets from certain posters.

I'm not gonna name names, but some people give too much of a shit on whether a photo is properly exposed etc. they treat photography as a science, not as an art, but they cant see they're doing it!!

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Indeed

You see the reason I ask is probably more to do with the photography on this forum and the reactions it gets from certain posters.

I'm not gonna name names, but some people give too much of a shit on whether a photo is properly exposed etc. they treat photography as a science, not as an art, but they cant see they're doing it!!

The problem with photography, is that often the mechanics or the technical stuff are very important in properly addressing the concept.

I think that in order to consistently produce good photos that might be considered artistic, it's necessary to have a firm techical grasp of what your camera's all about.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I should add that it's possible to have a superior techical knowledge, but without a touch of creativity, you still might not produce 'artistic' photos.

You need the eye, and then the technical knowhow to render what it is that your eye sees.

 

[Dhimmi]

Neither- for me it's the item as a whole which either works or doesn't.

 

[cybertect]

BTW, I'm going to print this thread out and declare it an objet trouvé

 

[Firky]

architecture is an art form but many people don't consider it an art because it is largely engineering, maths and physics
combing the two - technical possibilities and conectp so that the building works is what makes some buildings works of art and others boxes.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

architecture is an art form but many people don't consider it an art because it is largely engineering, maths and physics
combing the two - technical possibilities and conectp so that the building works is what makes some buildings works of art and others boxes.

Architects tend to be conceptual types who employ draughtsmen etc to actually do the heavy lifting when it comes to the technical specs drawings etc.

 

[Vintage Paw]

Indeed

You see the reason I ask is probably more to do with the photography on this forum and the reactions it gets from certain posters.

I'm not gonna name names, but some people give too much of a shit on whether a photo is properly exposed etc. they treat photography as a science, not as an art, but they cant see they're doing it!!

I agree with you. I hope I haven't been guilty of that, because it does go against how I feel. Some of the most amazing photos have been taken by people who know jack shit - anyone remember the Border Film Project for example?

Of course, that is just one specific example, and doesn't fit with the premise of one photographer creating their own art. You could look at the lomo-esque fads around at the moment - some, or even most, are complete pants imo, but some are simply beautiful. And yet most are rarely properly exposed, crisp to the edges of the frame, use rule of thirds etc ad infinitum ...

 

[boskysquelch]

bullshit

 

[zenie]

I should add that it's possible to have a superior techical knowledge, but without a touch of creativity, you still might not produce 'artistic' photos.

You need the eye, and then the technical knowhow to render what it is that your eye sees.

But photography isn't just about 'ways of seeing' is it Johnny?

You could look at the lomo-esque fads around at the moment - some, or even most, are complete pants imo, but some are simply beautiful. And yet most are rarely properly exposed, crisp to the edges of the frame, use rule of thirds etc ad infinitum ...

Yeh I know about LOMO, have a few of the cameras myself, and there are a few beauts on there I'll agree

Nice link btw cheers and no I'm not singling out anyone

*Ignores boskysquelches unhelpful comment as pernormal*

 

[Stanley Edwards]

...some people give too much of a shit on whether a photo is properly exposed etc. they treat photography as a science, not as an art, but they cant see they're doing it!!

There are different genres of photography. Some forms rely more on technical excellence. Rules are there to be bent or, broken. Personally, unless you've mastered the technicalities to a very high degree and know the 'rules' inside out you don't have the knowledge to make your concept work by breaking the rules.

Fluking an effect or, expressing your concept by happy accident is a chance thing. Something that is very different to an expressive, conceptual artist making good use of limited technical ability.

For me, the appeal of photography is the 'reality'. In order to get the most out of reproducing that reality you need to know how to. Not chance upon a good exposure/composition/lighting etc.

If a photographer points to a badly exposed photograph and claims that is the way they intended because they feel it expresses the concept better, then fair enough, but I'm guessing that is rarely the case.

 

[Reg in slippers]

concept

 

[zenie]

concept

YBA's you have to love em

 

[Reg in slippers]

concept

 

[BlackSpecs]

architecture is an art form but many people don't consider it an art because it is largely engineering, maths and physics
combing the two - technical possibilities and conectp so that the building works is what makes some buildings works of art and others boxes.

i went to a design-furniture-fair last week and it struck me that some designers have become absolute super-stars a bit like foot-ball players. it's odd .... they used to be blokes that knocked-up a chair so you could sit ! That's what happens if you take concept too far !!!!!

 

[Robster970]

concept

it's all Duchamps fault and his rejection of 'Retinal' art

 

[boskysquelch]

Reg... those examples are technically achievements of concept rather than "concept" itself.

& @ Blackspecs...nah!!-1 it's being going on in Britain since a bloke called Chippendale took the West End by storm...the then equivalent of Wayne Hemmingway(sp?) going MFI in Newcastle.

@Robster I was going to say...if you don't understand things you could always go play chess for 40years and think about it some more!!!!111

 

[Reg in slippers]

true

 

[Robster970]

@Robster I was going to say...if you don't understand things you could always go play chess for 40years and think about it some more!!!!111

not being a board type geek, what's the significance of the binary? I can't figure out just how cheeky/serious/cutting/derogatory/loving the Kraken of Cornwall is being

 

[Robster970]

or

http://www.international-klein-blue.com/

Klein was a good example.

 

[boskysquelch]

true

ffs! Reg I was looking for that picture back along...you bleddhi random!

proven a fake...but cannot_couldn't I find the proof let alone that picture?....

@Robster the binary, in my head, gives Duchamps kudos for thinking about "it".

 

[Stanley Edwards]

true

Technically very clever and advanced for it's day.

 

[Robster970]

Klein was caught in a large sheet that was held by some friends and then the picture doctored before being put into the spoof newspaper that he then distributed.

http://www.ville-ge.ch/musinfo/mahg/musee/cde/acquklein.html

 

[Firky]

Renaissance art is both technically thooper and carries a lot of conceptual caramel and noghurt layers in it. Hark how the springer spaniel looks longingly at its master, who's semi-naked body is sat in a woodland of thorns. What does it all mean? Ohh look at her getting out of that seashell all naked, she's well fit - i'd do her! She must be a god or something. And look at him, with that bloody big ace. You damn well think you're God or something. God give life, God taketh it away, not you. I think you are the Devil itself.

OI NOAH ARE YOU REALLY DRUNK OR IS MICHELANGELO ON THE PISS AGAIN?

 

[boskysquelch]

Renaissance art is both technically thooper and carries a lot of conceptual caramel and noghurt layers in it.

methinx yoothz may hath mithed the point of the symbolism and political codecs found therein!

I revel in the knowledge that small cock = intelligence and magnificence of Self....for example!

 

[Firky]

What I mean is that it wouldn't be able to have said layers of nogurt and rice crispies with out being technically thooper. Mmm yeah? How is say Rothko going to do the subtle smile of moaning leesa?

WITH A BIG FUCK OFF SLAB OF BLACKNESS THAT'S HOW!!!!!


I started early today *_*

 

[Groucho]

Concept imo.

However, I'm sure this debate would hot up burningwise if a piece of 'concept art' visually represented - say Duchamp's Fountain - were to be justaposed alongside a top notch example of an artist showing off technical expertese in such tricks as perspective, depth and 'realistic' illussion.

A greater challenge though would be to first agree a definition of Art and then to define criteria by which we can judge 'good' and 'bad' Art within the parameters of that definition.

Greater minds than mine have tried and stumbled.