What frustrates me about this article the most is that they're basically saying it's okay to take someone else's photography, practically change nothing, and then call it your own. It's one thing if you do a few projects where you use other people's images but when that's all you do for every project you make then it gets ridiculous. A lot of people that do that consider themselves photographers but I don't think that's right. Artists? Maybe, but unless you're taking your own photos I don't think you can necessarily be considered a photographer. Otherwise anyone could slap a filter on someone else's photos and then call themselves a photographer.
I can't think of a question after reading this article, as I agree with most of it. I have strong negative feelings toward where photography is headed and how everyone thinks they can call themselves photographers because they can pick up a camera and shoot an image. The knowledge and skill are no longer there and this diminishes real, well thought out and developed artistry. Not even well thought out, but well made. I see countless images every day on websites like tumblr with thousands of notes and the images are poorly composed, poorly lit, and lack subject matter. I question why people believe they are good images. I find myself in laughable positions when I post work online and don't receive many notes because my work seems to be too conceptual for people when in reality the concepts are basic to understand. It's like people don't have the knowledge to know what goes into making photographs anymore.
I think the one question this article makes me ponder about when I read Teju Coles article this thus:
How many times do you think we can take work from other artist and turn it into something interesting?
I think this technique can get old quite fast since you can only manipulate an image that does not belong to you so many time.
I thought the project "I'm Google" by Dina Kelberman was a interesting take on the subject. I almost feel almost as if she is not clamming the photos to be hers but rather show us how objects found online can relate to one another.
The most significant question that sticks in my head after reading this article is, “What are the photographic rights of an image that was originally captured by one person and is now being used by another “artist?” It takes my breath away knowing how this article reveals how some artists will take other people’s images and change only a few things before basically calling it their own piece of art. As an artist myself, I can relate as I am paranoid of this situation happening to my own work. I am not a fan of placing my artwork out there on the internet as I’m afraid that anyone can claim his or her own rights to it. As a photographer, I think the most rewarding accomplishment is that we were able to capture an image ourselves. I find it unreasonable how some people take the rights of others and create a piece of artwork that only required some tweaking to it. We live in a world today where anyone believes they can be the "world’s greatest photographer." All they need to do is take a photograph with their phone and then put a filter onto it as they transform it into a completely different image. This is exactly what Dina Kelberman is doing with her piece, "I'm Google." When someone times someone else’s images and changes them for their own, this is when the title of being a photographer should be transferred into just an artist.
The main question that stuck out to me from this article was, "What are the limits of photography, and what can and cannot be considered photography?" The idea of curating images from online sources, images that have been taken by an "artist" for a different purpose, for me, is similar to the idea of making a photograph. Curating images online requires a level of pre-visualization and ability to speak your language through the curation in a way that reaches the viewers. This is similar to the process of making a photograph, where we are composing an image through the view finder, that also requires a level of pre-visualization to make a photograph that speaks in the way that you intend to for the viewers. The difference between the two is that curation is a process in "seeing" things that have already been seen and captured by someone else and photographs in this case are what are being curated, the "originals." Maybe my opinion is a little biased, especially after this class, where most of my projects incorporated found imagery, but it definitely requires skill to collect and re-appropriate imagery effectively.
What frustrates me about this article the most is that they're basically saying it's okay to take someone else's photography, practically change nothing, and then call it your own. It's one thing if you do a few projects where you use other people's images but when that's all you do for every project you make then it gets ridiculous. A lot of people that do that consider themselves photographers but I don't think that's right. Artists? Maybe, but unless you're taking your own photos I don't think you can necessarily be considered a photographer. Otherwise anyone could slap a filter on someone else's photos and then call themselves a photographer.
ReplyDeleteI can't think of a question after reading this article, as I agree with most of it. I have strong negative feelings toward where photography is headed and how everyone thinks they can call themselves photographers because they can pick up a camera and shoot an image. The knowledge and skill are no longer there and this diminishes real, well thought out and developed artistry. Not even well thought out, but well made. I see countless images every day on websites like tumblr with thousands of notes and the images are poorly composed, poorly lit, and lack subject matter. I question why people believe they are good images. I find myself in laughable positions when I post work online and don't receive many notes because my work seems to be too conceptual for people when in reality the concepts are basic to understand. It's like people don't have the knowledge to know what goes into making photographs anymore.
ReplyDeleteI think the one question this article makes me ponder about when I read Teju Coles article this thus:
ReplyDeleteHow many times do you think we can take work from other artist and turn it into something interesting?
I think this technique can get old quite fast since you can only manipulate an image that does not belong to you so many time.
I thought the project "I'm Google" by Dina Kelberman was a interesting take on the subject. I almost feel almost as if she is not clamming the photos to be hers but rather show us how objects found online can relate to one another.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe most significant question that sticks in my head after reading this article is, “What are the photographic rights of an image that was originally captured by one person and is now being used by another “artist?” It takes my breath away knowing how this article reveals how some artists will take other people’s images and change only a few things before basically calling it their own piece of art. As an artist myself, I can relate as I am paranoid of this situation happening to my own work. I am not a fan of placing my artwork out there on the internet as I’m afraid that anyone can claim his or her own rights to it. As a photographer, I think the most rewarding accomplishment is that we were able to capture an image ourselves. I find it unreasonable how some people take the rights of others and create a piece of artwork that only required some tweaking to it. We live in a world today where anyone believes they can be the "world’s greatest photographer." All they need to do is take a photograph with their phone and then put a filter onto it as they transform it into a completely different image. This is exactly what Dina Kelberman is doing with her piece, "I'm Google." When someone times someone else’s images and changes them for their own, this is when the title of being a photographer should be transferred into just an artist.
ReplyDeleteThe main question that stuck out to me from this article was, "What are the limits of photography, and what can and cannot be considered photography?" The idea of curating images from online sources, images that have been taken by an "artist" for a different purpose, for me, is similar to the idea of making a photograph. Curating images online requires a level of pre-visualization and ability to speak your language through the curation in a way that reaches the viewers. This is similar to the process of making a photograph, where we are composing an image through the view finder, that also requires a level of pre-visualization to make a photograph that speaks in the way that you intend to for the viewers. The difference between the two is that curation is a process in "seeing" things that have already been seen and captured by someone else and photographs in this case are what are being curated, the "originals." Maybe my opinion is a little biased, especially after this class, where most of my projects incorporated found imagery, but it definitely requires skill to collect and re-appropriate imagery effectively.
ReplyDelete