As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

New Webcomic - Deleted Scenes

2»

Posts

  • MustangMustang Arbiter of Unpopular Opinions Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    It reminds me of all these jackasses taking photos of architecture. Its like cheating, the architect designed it to look cool...so you shouldnt get credit for taking a photo of it.

    Yeah that opinion is going to be pretty unpopular. A good photographer will be able to photograph the architechture from the right angle with the right lighting to bring the best out of it's form. A shit photographer will stand in front of it, with the sun high in the sky and his dick in his hand and make a stunning piece of architechture look like the local megaopolex.

    Mustang on
  • YogYog Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Mustang wrote: »
    A shit photographer will stand in front of it, with the sun high in the sky and his dick in his hand

    To be fair that made my trip to the Vatican a bit more interesting.

    Yog on
    IA! IA! IA!
  • rtsrts Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Mustang: My opinions on this forum are usually unpopular. Anyways, I didn't say photography isn't art, I am just saying that taking a picture of something that somebody else designed to look good is sort of bullshit. And I see soo damn much of it among young photographers in particular.

    Waiting for the light and angle to be right is sort of a lame way of excusing it too. I mean, a lot of architecture is designing how the building will be lit. What it will look like at certain times of day, from certain angles. At least, in the higher echelons of architecture.

    And even when I say architecture, I don't mean some neat old building that is worn down and practically a ruin, I mean literally taking a picture of the skylight at the getty or something.


    Jake: I am not sure that analogy works. In fact, I am certain it doesn't. Also, that was kind of hurtful. My ignorance is on this forum daily. Besides, how do you know I haven't studied photography or architecture or both?

    rts on
    skype: rtschutter
  • ThylacineThylacine Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    cakemikz wrote: »
    Mustang: My opinions on this forum are usually unpopular. Anyways, I didn't say photography isn't art, I am just saying that taking a picture of something that somebody else designed to look good is sort of bullshit. And I see soo damn much of it among young photographers in particular.

    Give 50 people the same thing to photograph and you'd be surprised at how different each person sees something. Yeah, you'll get some who go for something simple...but then you'll get some who reach for something deep. Those people deserve credit for their work whether it is good or bad. It's easy to spot a crappy photographer.

    A good example might be the Casa Milà, a really interesting building by an architect named Gaudi.

    Most pictures I can find of it look something like this: A cool building, but the photo is just that...a cool building.
    casa-mila.jpg
    Casa-Mila-Gaudi.jpg

    Then, there is something like this which I find more interesting(the best I could find on short notice though google images...there were some interesting ones in my art history book, but I sold that :-P):

    2550246049_cdb9e6a635.jpg

    Maybe you don't like it, maybe you think by taking that photo they're still taking credit for the Architects work. But in cases like this, Photographers typically do credit what they're taking a picture of.

    I'm not really that fond of architecture pictures myself, and it's typically not what I take pictures of. But if you invalidate all architecture photography...well, what about candid portraits? They're not posing or dressing people. Or pictures of objects or nature...they didn't make those either. Maybe finding the right time, the right place, the right angle the right lens and filter, composition and depth of field doesn't sound like much...but if that were true there wouldn't be so many bad pictures floating around.
    Waiting for the light and angle to be right is sort of a lame way of excusing it too. I mean, a lot of architecture is designing how the building will be lit. What it will look like at certain times of day, from certain angles. At least, in the higher echelons of architecture.

    And even when I say architecture, I don't mean some neat old building that is worn down and practically a ruin, I mean literally taking a picture of the skylight at the getty or something.

    I don't think people call "picture of the skylight at the getty" high art or anything. It could still be a good picture...but from what I've seen things like that are usually used as promotional/commercial such as in a brochure or website or educational textbooks, etc. Or they're just pictures people took because "hey! I was there, this was cool!"

    I think the problem today is everyone with a camera thinks they're a photographer.


    Edit:
    I got side tracked...I was going to say I read through some of the "Deleted Scenes" comics as I really like movies. I found some of them amusing...but they're all older movies. Very recognizable though. Are you going to go more in the direction of using current movies? I mean, this is probably just me but there were 3 starwars comics in there and when I see starwars stuff I can't help but think 'ugh, another starwars joke." That might just be me though...I know my old boss was insane about Starwars. Even named her kid Luke Hayden. If I didn't hate her I'd point her in the direction of your comic.

    Thylacine on
  • NightDragonNightDragon 6th Grade Username Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    ..........I don't even think graffd02 is coming back, frankly.

    NightDragon on
  • MustangMustang Arbiter of Unpopular Opinions Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    This has become so much more than graffd02's comic, it has become a post apocalyptic (someone set off a few nukes k thks) battleground between people who think architectural photography is balls and those who think achitechtural phtotography is not balls.

    Mustang on
  • Jake!Jake! Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    cakemikz wrote: »
    Jake: I am not sure that analogy works. In fact, I am certain it doesn't. Also, that was kind of hurtful. My ignorance is on this forum daily. Besides, how do you know I haven't studied photography or architecture or both?

    I don't, but I can be fairly sure. I know both architecture, and architecture photography, and I don't think intimate knowledge of either would result in such a sweeping statement. I'd go as far as to say it's easier to take an ugly photo of a beautiful building, than a beautiful one; let me give you some background*.

    I'm a designer, and illustrator, and by that I mean seven years of print design, not that I've done a website for someone. A large part of that work, has involved architecture, first working with a very skilled photographer, and - increasingly over the last three years - photos that I've taken myself.

    Second, it involves a lot of working with architects, including those of the upper echelons (building of the year, that kind of thing).

    Now, why do I think you're wrong, as a practitioner of architecture, an illustrator who works both digitally and pen to paper, and a photographer who works with both architecture and portraiture;

    Architectural photography is as much an expressive art-form as any, even though equally it can produce lazy, uninspired, unoriginal work (like say, crayon on a napkin). The difference comes from the approach, obviously. When you put pen to paper, the composition is something completely in your control; it's all down to you. Of course, the skill comes from both understanding those rules well enough to know when to use them, and adding your own personality, and your skill to render something pleasant.

    With architectural photography it's the opposite, the rendering is done for you, but you're very restricted with the composition. Instead you have to learn to work against what you see, to find the right angle, and the right kind of day for a good photograph, understanding how to isolate an element etc. Architects want their buildings to look good, but they also work in the real world (and sometimes they're just not that good); so photographing a building, isolating it from the surroundings, making it attractive, and giving it personality (it's own or your own), is definitely an art form.

    That you get a lot of people practising it at the crayon on a napkin level doesn't matter.

    Thylacine: funnily enough, Gaudi's Grada Familia is the building I think of, when I think of something hard to take a good photo of.

    *I'm not saying this makes me instantly right

    Jake! on
  • rtsrts Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    As informative a response as that is Jake, I don't know that I am or even can be convinced. While there is certainly a technical skill to the execution of an architectural photograph I still believe most of the credit should go to the architect in the situation where the architecture is the primary focus of the photograph. We are getting into incredible specifics here though and I am just not sure it is worth it. I am convinced that even you would agree that in the context of architectural photography that I am talking about, it is bullshit.

    One of my best buddies is a photographer and I have immense respect for what he does, but he doesn't shoot buildings. All I remember is being in high school and every other kid had a deviant art gallery full of architecture and extreme flower closeups. And half of the shit was photoshopped to the extreme anyways.

    Thylacine: "I think the problem today is everyone with a camera thinks they're a photographer."

    I could not agree more.

    rts on
    skype: rtschutter
  • RankenphileRankenphile Passersby were amazed by the unusually large amounts of blood.Registered User, Moderator mod
    edited September 2008
    good architectural photography is indeed an art form

    it has just as much to do with an understanding of composition, light and form as it does architecture

    but I can snap a photo of the mona lisa and toss it in a frame

    that don't make my photography art

    art requires understanding

    Rankenphile on
    8406wWN.png
  • Jake!Jake! Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    cakemikz wrote: »
    I am convinced that even you would agree that in the context of architectural photography that I am talking about, it is bullshit.

    And I'm sure you'd agree that also applies to your opening statement, that making a sweeping statement, like calling architectural photography crap, is also bullshit.

    I completely agree that there are both too many people who think they are photographers, just as their are so many people who think they are artists because they can make marks on paper (and conversely, think someone else isn't because they choose a different way to express themselves).

    I'm not trying to change your point of view because I'm sure that will come with time anyway, just presenting a proper argument as to why your opening statement was bullshit, so others don't blindly give it merit.

    Jake! on
  • NightDragonNightDragon 6th Grade Username Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE YELLING ABOUT

    NightDragon on
  • NightDragonNightDragon 6th Grade Username Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    LOUD NOISES

    NightDragon on
  • Castle_BuilderCastle_Builder regular
    edited September 2008
    Jake! wrote: »
    The argument as to whether this is "tracing" is IRRELEVANT

    because what it IS, is the visual art worlds equivalent of plagiarism

    if you use a reference and produce something that is a total replica then its no better then tracing

    to then call the "artwork" original is nothing more then a lie

    and to call it your own is just another lie

    STOP LIEING and STOP BEING BAD AT ART

    Actually, I think Picasso would disagree with you there, Warhol too, and probably even Isaac Newton. This isn't high art, but you should probably have a think about what art is.


    I can appreciate what youre saying, however, personally I find that todays society is far too flexible and "accepting" of peoples forms or styles of art.

    If you look at the bill that congress "The Orphans Works Act" is looking to pass at the moment regarding changes to the copyright laws in this country it is quite safe to say that too many people do not respect much less understand the difference between unique art that is a representation / parody or tribute versus works that are deriviative and mere attempts to copy or "fake" the efforts of someone else.

    Many begining artists trace or use references in order to mimic and "copy" other peoples artworks in order to learn and grow themselves.

    However ... there is a fine line between using that for personal education and then trying to shop it off as talent and present it to a public audience for accolades and respect.

    As to your references to well known "prefessional" artists ... yes ... there are MANY professionals out there that make a living off riping off other peoples works. Look at all the people selling "authentic" representations of the Mona Lisa and other classic pieces. Or even people like Robb Liefeld who clearly used many immages from Jim Lee and Portacio in his artwork that were almost EXACT traces of these other artists works but with different colors and cloud designs behind the space ships.

    This does not make it okay. Nor does it make it good.

    Just because Warhol gained fame and notoriety does not make him a great artist. Much of his work was nothing more then what millions of amateurs do today in Photoshop by manipulating the visual elements of something to change its original nature. Today people would laugh at his works. Back then he was the first to do something with tools that were primitive compared to todays standards and that makes him impressive.

    In any case an opinion is an opinion nothing more ... and in my opinion its a tragedy and sad commentary on the state of our societies culture that so many artists feel it is some right of their to use other peoples artwork any way they want.

    It hinders creative movement and ham strings imaginative development.

    So yeah ... no ... I simply dont conform to the immature self satisfying notion that anything a person does is art.

    Modernists use the term art to display a total lack of ability or work ethic, and frankly it sickens me.

    Castle_Builder on
  • Jake!Jake! Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    It's a bit ironic to bandy round the word immature when that seems to be your current posting style.

    Art is an expression of human creativity, and all art (even and yours judging from, for instance, the genricity of your technique and the execution of such a dull subject for your avatar) is unoriginal. So to dismiss any art just because it copies elements of other work, or uses complete elements of other work in a wider work, is dismissing all art, including your own.

    The Newton quote by the way, is 'If I have seen further, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants*


    *which is fittingly, someone else's words.

    Jake! on
  • IrukaIruka Registered User, Moderator mod
    edited September 2008
    Castle Builder, You sound like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of art, how art develops over time, and the difference between personal dislike and merit. Artists are, by nature, derivative, and an original statements are not always coupled with original images.

    Iruka on
  • ilmmadilmmad Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    This comic will show up on Digg and will be frontpage'd.

    Then he'll come back and be an asshat.

    ilmmad on
    Ilmmad.gif
  • NightDragonNightDragon 6th Grade Username Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I DRANK A LAVA LAMP ONCE. IT WASN'T LAVA.

    NightDragon on
  • Castle_BuilderCastle_Builder regular
    edited September 2008
    Jake! wrote: »
    It's a bit ironic to bandy round the word immature when that seems to be your current posting style.

    Art is an expression of human creativity, and all art (even and yours judging from, for instance, the genricity of your technique and the execution of such a dull subject for your avatar) is unoriginal. So to dismiss any art just because it copies elements of other work, or uses complete elements of other work in a wider work, is dismissing all art, including your own.

    The Newton quote by the way, is 'If I have seen further, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants*


    *which is fittingly, someone else's words.

    Are you really as ignorant as you sound or do you just not care?

    First of all "an expression of human creativity" in and of itself does not constitute art ... an expression of human creativity is just an expression of human creativity.

    Art goes beyond the mere attempt. It is more then just a crack addict giving himself paint enemas and farting it onto a canvas.

    I was making a distinction between copying for the sake of copying and representative art.

    A distinction between riping someone off because youre not good enough to do it yourself and creating a replica in honor and tribute to someone or something you respect.

    Yes, most everything is influenced in appearance or spirit by something else ... but this is a FAR cry from takeing the easy way out of creating something and merely "taking" someone elses efforts and representing them as your own.


    Iruka said : Castle Builder, You sound like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of art, how art develops over time, and the difference between personal dislike and merit. Artists are, by nature, derivative, and an original statements are not always coupled with original images.

    I understand all to well how art has "matured" over the centuries.

    The problem is that the artists themselves have gone the other direction.

    Our society is filled with people claiming to be artists and too many of them feel it is their self promoted "right" to use and abuse the works of others. This attitude that missrepresents the nature of original art only inhibits our culture from creating new and unique discoveries in the artistic world. It has become far too easy to use representations and derivitives as an excuse not to struggle for something that can stand aside and be called special.

    The movie industry in the way it produces 99% of the same movies year after year and the music industry that creates songs with a formula or repeated phrases and repetative chords is only an example of the overall apathy that the public has for the trash its being fed.

    Castle_Builder on
  • NightDragonNightDragon 6th Grade Username Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    aertfyghuijkop;ljhkugjyfd

    Hey I've got a great idea how about you stop bumping this thread for the sole purpose of carrying on your argument and just let this thread fade off already?

    :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

    creepy.jpg

    NightDragon on
  • beavotronbeavotron Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    i want to look away from that picture
    but I cannot

    beavotron on
  • NightDragonNightDragon 6th Grade Username Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I'm laughing every time I look at it. I can't help it.

    NightDragon on
  • bombardierbombardier Moderator mod
    edited September 2008
    Ugggggggggghhhh...

    bombardier on
This discussion has been closed.