Banksy

daviesee

lostboysaint wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Maybe it would have been better had the child been making Nike trainers. Then at least it would have more of a lasting significance.

No it wouldn't as it wouldn't then have looked like a sweat shop child making tat for us to buy. That's why you're not an artist!

You obviously have a higher regard for Nike trainers than I do then. Tat.

daviesee

Heavymental wrote:

This is The point about this debate. The fact that someone could have or might have said/done something similar or better. The fact is that they didn't. In hindsight it all seems so simple. I was visiting a friend of mine who is a reasonably famous photographer and she showed me a photobook by someone who I can't recall which was a collection of shots of undergrowth. Very unremarkable shots. I commented to her that many people would say "I could have done that" and she pointed out this very point; that "yes, they could have, but they didn't". Potential greatness is not good enough in any field unless it's realised.

One of these photos is considered art, the other a mistake.
I think they are both flawed.
Why is one art other than the name of the person behind the camera?

dw300

Lol at everyone thinking they'd rip Banksy's arms off for painting on their houses. His work only happens on government or corporate buildings or spaces to illustrate their anti-societal practices. Plus he's a big lad. So you don't need to worry.

And if it's so easy to do what he does, then work away and come back when you're as famous as he. If you don't think its the quality, scale, message, prolific nature of the work that got him there then it should be easy enough.

Plus Banksy never claimed to be a fantastic technician, he'll tell you that there are plenty out there with more talent. His stencilling is all about speed.

heavymental

daviesee wrote:

Heavymental wrote:

This is The point about this debate. The fact that someone could have or might have said/done something similar or better. The fact is that they didn't. In hindsight it all seems so simple. I was visiting a friend of mine who is a reasonably famous photographer and she showed me a photobook by someone who I can't recall which was a collection of shots of undergrowth. Very unremarkable shots. I commented to her that many people would say "I could have done that" and she pointed out this very point; that "yes, they could have, but they didn't". Potential greatness is not good enough in any field unless it's realised.

One of these photos is considered art, the other a mistake.
I think they are both flawed.
Why is one art other than the name of the person behind the camera?

I know what you mean but that's not really a great example as I think the Agnes Thor photo is best viewed in context; as part of a collection of images. Her works are a series based around a concept or idea. None of these images on their own are particularly special but the collection is an exploration of an idea which makes quite a nice little piece I'd say... http://www.agneskarin.se/gallery/71038/safe-wild/ I think I'd enjoy leafing through the book or strolling past those images hung in a gallery. They have atmosphere don't you think? Again, her works are not always wildly difficult to put together but she has succeeded in actually doing it. I don't think she's made a huge amount of money from it by the way, so that might please you!?

As I said previously; seeing a picture online isn't a great way to view or understand an image. For example, this is the most famous painting of all time.... Hmmm. Not that special is it?

daviesee

Heavymental wrote:

I don't think she's made a huge amount of money from it by the way, so that might please you!?

As I said previously; seeing a picture online isn't a great way to view or understand an image. For example, this is the most famous painting of all time.... Hmmm. Not that special is it?

It doesn't make a bit of difference to me one way or the other.

Part of this debate is about the concept of art. As I said back on page 1, it is entirely subjective and no amount of explaining will get round that.

Yes. The Mona Lisa is over-rated.
But then, that is only our opinion.

heavymental

Fair enough. But it is helpful to read the thoughts of the artist or others on their pieces. If you still don't like it then that's fine.

I didn't say the Mona Lisa was overrated... just that a pic on a computer screen doesn't do it justice. Not that I'm a big fan of it.

GiantMike

daviesee wrote:

One of these photos is considered art, the other a mistake.
I think they are both flawed.
Why is one art other than the name of the person behind the camera?

I like the balloon pic. The focus of the image radiates from the balloon and the lighting effect looks quite impressionist. However, the distracting blue background is too distracting. Some artistic skill, but poor framing.
The train station picture is just rubbish. No focus or emotional engagement. No artistic skill.

daviesee

GiantMike wrote:

I like the balloon pic. The focus of the image radiates from the balloon and the lighting effect looks quite impressionist. However, the distracting blue background is too distracting. Some artistic skill, but poor framing.

You clearly know you're art.

GiantMike wrote:

The train station picture is just rubbish. No focus or emotional engagement. No artistic skill.

You clearly dont know you're art.

heavymental

Daviesee. Some pedants have probably been sick in their hands over your use of the apostrophe there. They're right to feel nauseous.

finchy

dw300 wrote:

And if it's so easy to do what he does, then work away and come back when you're as famous as he. If you don't think its the quality, scale, message, prolific nature of the work that got him there then it should be easy enough.

I must say, I don't get this line of argument. It's like saying "if you think that McDonald's/Daily Mail/One Direction is crap, you go and set up your own restaurant/newspaper/band". Just because you don't rate something doesn't mean that you think you can do better, or would want to.

GiantMike

I wrote:

daviesee wrote:

The train station picture is just rubbish. No focus or emotional engagement. No artistic skill.

You clearly dont know you're art.

Au contraire

Art is what I think it is. As a photographer, the station photo is just rubbish. I doubt the photographer decided on that photo before he/she took it. It's a symptom of the digital age where a photographer can take 5000 photos a day and choose the one(s) they like best after the event. This, however, is brilliant....



This is OK...



And this is understated excellence...



What are they worth? Absolutely f*ck all, although this photo has been ripped-off by a porn site!!!

daviesee

GiantMike wrote:

Au contraire

Art is what I think it is. As a photographer, the station photo is just rubbish. I doubt the photographer decided on that photo before he/she took it.

Not quite au contraire. We actually agree. Look at my earlier posts, all the way back to page 1.

The chattering (art) classes would disagree with you though. The train station photo is art. Apparently. :roll:

GiantMike

daviesee wrote:

The chattering (art) classes would disagree with you though. The train station photo is art. Apparently. :roll:

Yes, because it's probably by somebody famous or up-and-coming artist with a decent agent/manager and a whole lot of luck. If that's art, then everything is art, and if everything is art, then there is no art. The more the 'art world' promotes pointless vacuous chancers and their pointless work, the more it devalues art.


This is the most expensive photo ever sold (so far). £2.7m. And it's 1 of 5 copies.

daviesee

GiantMike wrote:

This is the most expensive photo ever sold (so far). £2.7m. And it's 1 of 5 copies.

Bugger!
I have deleted quite a few similar.

How is it 1 of 5 now that it on t'internet?

arran77

GiantMike wrote:

daviesee wrote:

The chattering (art) classes would disagree with you though. The train station photo is art. Apparently. :roll:

Yes, because it's probably by somebody famous or up-and-coming artist with a decent agent/manager and a whole lot of luck. If that's art, then everything is art, and if everything is art, then there is no art. The more the 'art world' promotes pointless vacuous chancers and their pointless work, the more it devalues art.


This is the most expensive photo ever sold (so far). £2.7m. And it's 1 of 5 copies.

Someone enlighten me please, how the fark is that worth £2.7m :shock:

ballysmate

I am that well known opera singer, Fuktifino. :?

Sodafarl

daviesee wrote:

GiantMike wrote:

This is the most expensive photo ever sold (so far). £2.7m. And it's 1 of 5 copies.

Bugger!
I have deleted quite a few similar.

How is it 1 of 5 now that it on t'internet?

Haven't deleted any like it as I would look at the scene and think nothing there. Maybe that's where I'm going wrong, must start taking 5000 pics a day.

Old_Timer

I had actually wondered what a Banksy was as I hadn't seen any of his graffiti/art(?) or even bothered to read about him. We have so many delinquents spray painting buildings, water towers, fences and what not here in the states I try and not think about them. He seems to be like most of the "celebrities" out and about these days, he thrives on things like this forum and its discussion of his stuff, we are actually upping his value by arguing and slamming him. And, you can have him back, I understand his holiday here is almost over.

arran77

Old_Timer wrote:

I had actually wondered what a Banksy was as I hadn't seen any of his graffiti/art(?) or even bothered to read about him. We have so many delinquents spray painting buildings, water towers, fences and what not here in the states I try and not think about them. He seems to be like most of the "celebrities" out and about these days, he thrives on things like this forum and its discussion of his stuff, we are actually upping his value by arguing and slamming him. And, you can have him back, I understand his holiday here is almost over.

We have 'delinquents' here too but I don't think you can put Banksy into that category

daviesee

arran77 wrote:

We have 'delinquents' here too but I don't think you can put Banksy into that category

Dunno.
Spray painting graffiti is still vandalism, no matter how artful.

Old_Timer

Don't know how old a Banksy is, but here it is largely the youngsters (teenagers) doing the tagging and urban art, as it is being called. I agree, graffiti is vandalism when it is done on any edifice that hasn't given permission, no question at all. Some of the taggers are talented, it is a shame they aren't channeled into art classes or actual work they could sell or exhibit.

As for an adult going around tagging things and offering his opinion on anything he wants and getting all the exposure this person is getting, I don't get that. I am a dinosaur though, sorry if I am getting preachy about this. I'll return things to those in the UK that know about a Banksy and what that entails. I need a ride.

seanoconn

Now this guy has talent.

GiantMike

seanoconn wrote:

Now this guy has talent.

No, not really.

Technically, the sun is 'blown' because the camera doesn't have the dynamic range to cope with the extremes of exposure required for the scene. Ideally, get a better camera AND bracket the photo, blending the overexposed and underexposed portions from 3 photos to produce a single image with a higher dynamic range. Obviously you can't do this on a moving sea, but you can shoot in RAW and extract more dynamic range before you save as a JPEG (if you choose to save as a JPEG, that is).

Artistically, the handrail in the lower right corner is quite distracting, unless it adds to the 'story' the photo is trying to tell, in which case it could be more dominant. It looks like an iPhone snapshot.

Derek: "Ooh Doris, aint that nice? Look at the lovely sea"

Doris: "Yes Derek, you aint wrong. It's really is beautiful here on the South West facing coastline of Tenby (for example). Let's take a piccy to remember our special moment."

Derek: "Yeah, then I'll Instagram it too to make it all moody like. Give us ya ifone."

seanoconn

I knew I should have cut the hand rail out

Still not a bad effort as the sun was in my eyes. And it's all natural baby

ballysmate

seanoconn wrote:

I knew I should have cut the hand rail out

Still not a bad effort as the sun was in my eyes. And it's all natural baby

Tell Mike to feck off. I liked it.

seanoconn

Ballysmate wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

I knew I should have cut the hand rail out

Still not a bad effort as the sun was in my eyes. And it's all natural baby

Tell Mike to feck off. I liked it.

Ahh, thanks Doris

GiantMike

So where was it then?

seanoconn

GiantMike wrote:

So where was it then?

Brighton pier, Saturday morning. I took two pics but the other had my finger in the corner.

GiantMike

seanoconn wrote:

GiantMike wrote:

So where was it then?

Brighton pier, Saturday morning. I took two pics but the other had my finger in the corner.

The inclusion of a blurred finger would have elevated it to art. I'd have paid for that

daviesee

Nice enough. But not art.
Art tends to involve better composition.

Or something completely, obviously wrong. But deemed to be deliberate. See Train Station above. :roll:

This is why I am not an artist.