|
seravid posted:Bringing a discussion from the discord channel here, about Macro's place as an art form, beyond Biology textbook illustrations There’s a lot of internet arguing that goes on about what is art and what is not. I guess I’ll share my take on the “Art vs Craft” debate. I think a lot of the debate feels like insecurity over the idea that all important or valuable created things must be labeled art, which I don’t think is true. I’m on the side that art is about expression of imagination and creativity. It’s an attempt to share something about the human condition. It’s not just about the result being beautiful and skillful. The intent of the creator matters in identifying art. Craft is about execution of technical skill to create something beautiful and/or functional. Good art will usually also involve technical skill to create beauty, but it must also have the expression of creative intent and imagination, making their art a lens to view the world through their eyes. My insect photography is not art, it’s craft. I think I’m good at it, but very few of my shots are attempting to convey an emotion. I’m documenting the beauty of the natural world, and creating images that are beautiful and interesting. But beauty and interest is not art. “Not art” doesn’t mean “not good,” or “lacking merit” which I think a lot of people get hung up on. I’m also into woodworking. I have made a few pretty nice pieces of furniture. Also skillfully made and beautiful (and functional). Also adding value to my and other’s lives. Also not art. There is no artistic intent behind them. I take joy in doing things well, and for me it’s enough to do a good job creating an image, or a side table. I have made a few macro images where I did attempt to set up the image to capture a particular feeling. I’d say those are (crappy) art. I’m not saying insect macro can’t be art. But generally, every very well done images are examples of high craftsmanship and technical execution, not art. I’m an engineer by profession. The stuff I design and bring into the world is done with great care and effort and expertise, and the results can have their own kind of beauty. Economically valuable and impactful and important. Not art. Not all important and good created things must be labeled art. I’m comfortable that I can create valuable things that are not called art, and that’s totally ok. Does macro belong in a gallery? Sure. There’s nothing wrong with showing a gallery of crafts. People like and can enjoy seeing work skillfully done that they can’t replicate. Macro also shines a light on the hidden beauty of the world around us. That’s valuable. Are visitors going to leave such a gallery thinking differently about themselves, having grown as a person? Eh. I’d say probably not.
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2022 14:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 15:54 |
|
|
Fingers McLongDong posted:I'll contrast that very engineer-like perspective and say I absolutely think it can be art. I have never thought of myself as an artist, but it's been repeatedly insisted upon me that having an eye for the subjects, understanding what is interesting, displaying it in attention-capturing ways, and presenting it to a wider audience that would never see it otherwise does make it an art form. I strongly believe that there’s more to art than just being beautiful. I disagree that there is art in nature. There is certainly beauty in nature, and that beauty evokes emotion. But no art critic or theorist would claim that a sunset is itself art. A beautiful person is not art. A beautiful insect is not art. To claim otherwise says is to deny that art is anything different than beauty, which is not a position I can accept. Art is human. Art is a viewpoint, not just a view. I have spent 11 years making macro images, so there’s no argument from me that they are beautiful and worthwhile and commercially viable. And it certainly takes skill! I’ve created landscapes and wildlife photos that I do think aspire toward art. And maybe your insect photos are art because you compose them with a message and emotion in your mind and not “just” with an intent to make a pretty picture of an interesting subject (which is difficult and worthwhile in itself). Here are a couple of images I took that aspire to art. They try to not just document the beauty of the insect, but impose an emotion and perspective that wasn’t present in the subject. Not they they are good art, or even better photos than others, but they have emotional content and a viewpoint that the photographer added, or tried to add, to the frame. https://www.flickr.com/photos/93703706@N07/46883106885/in/datetaken/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/93703706@N07/42475780411/in/datetaken/ I believe there is such a thing as art theory, and that art criticism is a valid field. I disagree that it’s a fool’s errand to define art. Art supports and rewards deep thought. People who like or make or buy beautiful things don’t necessarily know, or have ever read or thought deeply about, what is the difference between art and craft. There have been many books and papers written on these topics, and not by fools. I reject anything that leans further into the “death of expertise” in the US. We have an extremely niche hobby in this thread, and I don’t want to be rude to “my people” here because we surely have much more in common than not and I’d love to meet you all some day. I’ll just leave it here because I really don’t want to upset anybody in this tiny niche community of people with a shared oddball interest.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2022 17:23
|
|
|
Fingers McLongDong posted:I respect your PoV, and I think the fact that it differs from mine kinda proves the point that art is different things to different people. I also don't think you're giving yourself enough credit by thinking of photography as simply presenting something that already exists- it takes skill, talent, intent, and often luck to get an evocative, interesting photograph. Something inspired you to take a photograph, maybe that photograph inspires someone else. I'm personally not a fan of putting the definition of "art" into small boxes with specific meanings. People are too varied and complex and the feelings evoked by different people make it hard to tell someone "that isn't art". My point is absolutely not to say that photography can't be art! Photography of course can be. I have many books on art and photography. I'm just trying to say that art is about creative intent, not method, or product. Art is presenting a viewpoint, not creating a work. A black square on a wall, created by an artist, is art. Art requires an artist. A black square on a wall formed by a brick accidentally falling out is not art, even if it forms an inspiring and evocative composition. I agree with Philthy that anything can be art, but not everything IS art. I don't think all created things are art even if they are inspiring and beautiful, unless they are created by a human mind to share a view of their inner or outer world. Cartier-Bresson created art through his photography, even though he was photographing "found" subjects that appeared in front of him. He brought intentionality to the specific moment he chose because he was capturing an emotion and an energy. If a tourist had taken a snapshot of another moment from the same vantage it would not have been art because it lacked the intentionality. I think that's true for all art photography. Where I am trying not to be rude is that I am ultimately claiming that what most of us are sharing here, most of the time, is not art. Which is probably inherently offensive to someone who thinks they are creating art. I just want to be very clear that I don't think created works have to be art in order to be beautiful and valuable. I wouldn't have done this for 11 years if I thought otherwise. And I recognize that there is nuance. In general, I would say that an image that is "just a pretty picture" is not art. But sometimes a person taking "pretty pictures" without creative intentionality can't help but infuse their world-view into them in a way that elevates them to art, because you aren't just seeing the thing that the photographer saw, but you are seeing the way that the photographer saw it. You are seeing the world through their eyes, which is how I would define art. I can imagine that maybe insect macro is something you would view in that way.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2022 18:41
|
|
|
seravid posted:I'm also noticing that I'm clearly behind the times regarding diffusers... Any suggestions? I'm one of the crafty DIY people. Here's a shot of my latest setup  Macro field equipment, July 2021and inside:  Macro field equipment, July 2021The rest of the album has more examples of earlier setups. https://www.flickr.com/photos/93703706@N07/albums/72157657582137811/with/51327599647/ I'm a "more diffusion is more better" person, so I skew toward heavier, bulkier, more expensive setups if they give me more diffusion. I've built or bought many different setups over the years that make different trade offs. The thing to remember with diffusion is that what matters is the angular size of the light source: how much of the "sky" does the light source fill. It can be bigger to fill more of the angle around the subject, or it can be closer. Both of those increase the amount of angle the light source covers. My setup is pretty close to being in-frame of the image a lot of the time, and it wraps down on the sides of the lens. It's on a friction arm so I can adjust the angle freely during use, which adds weight but also flexibility. Another factor is that you usually want your light source further back from your diffusion medium. If you point a flashlight at the wall from six inches away, it makes a small spot on the wall. If you step backward from the wall, the spot gets bigger (and fainter). To avoid hot spots off light in your diffuser, you should set your light source back from the diffuser. Or, at least be aware that this can cause hot spots if you configure it wrong, which gives you specular highlights as if you had less of a diffuser. In my setup linked above, the flash head I'm using has interchangeable bulbs, and I'm using an omnidirectional bulb head, so light is bouncing from the white interior of the hood just as much as from the bulb itself. You can test your setup for hot spots by photographing your setup in a mirror so you can capture how even the light is when the flash is firing. Another advantage of my current setup is that it supports off-camera use. It's mounted to the tripod collar of my lens with an arca quick release. I can unclip and and hold it in my off hand as a diffused softbox. There are some great creative opportunities when using a softbox like this, even if you usually wish you had three hands to make the best use of it. Some back / side illuminated examples:  Tree salamander 20150808-HA4A8673.jpg Leaf cutter ants CrysalisSo, my setup is kind of one extreme of how you can do it. At one point I also had a second friction arm mounted underneath with a tiny flash that would add rim lights from below or behind the subject while attached to the camera. That was ... too much. If I need that now I'll put a gorillapod with an optical triggered flash somewhere around the subject. You can also get excellent results with something as simple as attaching a sheet of tracing paper / vellum to the lens so it sticks up in the air and attaching it to your flash gun with a stick and velcro or something. You just want it to take up as much space around your subject as you reasonably can.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2022 21:03
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:
Nice one! It’s sort of got the cinematic orange and blue color theme, adding extra pop.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2022 12:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 15:54 |
|
|
 20230809-5F9A0418.jpg  Praying Mantis  Praying Mantis
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2023 15:01
|
|