8.14.2012

Continued Motivation.

The boy. Kodak DCS-SLR/n camera. Nikon 135mm f2.8 ais lens.

I like to own nice gear. I am as avaricious as the next guy when it comes to cameras and lenses.  I like having options to work and play with. But if you are looking to the gear to inspire you as a photographer you might be trapped in a nasty closed loop that will inevitably disappoint. The gear should always work in the service of the subject. And your motivation should come from your interest, curiosity or love for the subject. The image exists in your brain as your art.  When it's stuck in your brain it's just for you. The equipment helps you make your ideas and inspirations physical and share-able.  That's the only power the camera has, to make art share-able.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'am trapped in this "nasty closed loop" and i don't know how to get out...
Nicolas

Anonymous said...

When everyone's an artist, nobody is. Did you not watch that video you posted? Art is elitist and most people don't have talent. The "art" of most people is not worth sharing. I feel strongly that photography is a craft, where some craftsmen are better than others. Using the term art for everything in your head simply devalues the term and makes it meaningless: any and all self-expression then becomes art.

Where photography becomes art is a seperate debate, and one I find impossible to resolve.

Wolfgang Lonien said...

Very nice and very film-like. Grainy and great. The highlights in your son's eyes tell me "studio", but the background looks a lot like outdoors. The light falloff on his skin is beautiful, and shows the Tuck signature. I like it.

Corwin said...

SLR/n camera I can have and Im not sure if I should try or not...

Dave Jenkins said...

Here's a definition which works for me, maybe not for you:

Photography is a medium, as are painting, sculpture, engraving, and pottery. When practiced competently within the context of its own inherent qualities, each medium is a craft which may become art when imbued with an indefinable presence imparted by the being of the artist himself.

kirk tuck said...

Nah. It's no better or worse than anything else out there.

kirk tuck said...

"did I not watch the video?" Yes, I did. And I can't tell whether you are being facetious or not but there's "big" sharing and "little" sharing. Big is with the wide world and little is with family and friends. Yes, most stuff isn't worth sharing outside the small circle. But too many people do. Some people cross over and represent a smaller Ven diagram that covers both fields. Too many people blindly share in the big circle because they lack any sort of critical internal monologue.

Frank Grygier said...

Profound. In one sentence you some up the role of the camera and make Photokina mute.

Anonymous said...

I think maybe you're reading what you've written differently to me. I realise now it sounds like I'm criticising the picture, or having a go at you, but I'm not, its the writing I disagree with: "the only power the camera has, to make art share-able". Doesn't that imply that any picture worth sharing is art? Yet clearly a picture can be powerful without being art. I am of course swimming pointlessly against the tide: have you googled "fine art photography" lately? It's depressing. And it's part of the wider cult of instant gratifiction: click, hipstamatic, here's my art. And the cult of "me". No one needs to learn the craft anymore, or take the time to truly consider who they are before imposing their "inner vision" on the world. Just because you made it doesn't mean it's art.

John Bour said...

I could not agree more with 'Anonymous' above. I know this doesn't contribute much to the discussion, but it is something I feel very strongly about..the devaluation of the term 'art'. Any kitschy sunset printed on canvas is presented as fine art photography, as are the endless black and white minimalistic seascapes, the barns, and indeed, God forbid, the Instagram-iPhone popular cult. It is garbage, most of the time, and done zillions of times before.
this is the easy part of course..defining what constitutes art is the difficult part ;-)

Frank Grygier said...

This is a somewhat related quote from Zack Arias "Why am I not fearful of people who buy a nice camera and suddenly fancy themselves photographers? Because this shit I’m talking about doesn’t come in the box. The camera will never see. The camera has no vision. It’s a f*cking hammer that can’t build a house. It’s a stove but it can’t cook. It’s a stupid, stupid, stupid piece of plastic with some metal bits. It’s useless as it sits there in a box. It knows nothing. It does nothing. It sees nothing. The camera is a piece of shit."

kirk tuck said...

Okay, thanks for explaining in more detail. I guess I was narrowly defining art in my head and not overlaying an objective measure.

Claire said...

PO-WER-FUL

Low Budget Dave said...

I rarely use the term "art". To me, it is a "craft". That is just me, though: I have learned a few tricks to get eye contact from autistic kids, and all the camera needs to do is refocus and shoot very quickly.

Your work is frequently artistic, and worth sharing wide. Mine is a hobby, and is not shared at all unless you know where to look.