Here's a professional photographer.

This links to a page by one of the finest photographers around today - in my view.

http://www.jbuhler.com/html/toros.html

Did he use a 6x7? A plate camera? A full-frame Canon?

No. A 2Mp p&s. And I challenge any "fine-artist" to show me better pictures.

G

George, just checking did you link us up to the correct web page?

To be honest I am surprised it is taken with a 2mp p&s looks more like a 0.6mp phone camera.
If it had been taken on a plate camera you would see the sweat on the guys face or the individual hairs on the bull.

Not to sound patronising but what is it you like so much about the shots?
- That they are out of focus to the point of looking like a water colour painting
- The subject of bull fighting?

What I like about them is the composition. The "artistic" element. The creative part.

Any fool can make a good print with practice and care. That's not art; it's craftsmanship. Art is doing something with your imagination that results in something that is more than the sum of its parts.

You can't "teach" art. That's why art schools are a waste of time, and all too often become bogged down in rules and prescriptions.

In Beethoven's day, the professors at the conservatories told him that he was breaking the rules of music. They are forgotten, whilst the name and music of Beethoven live on.

Have a look at some of Juan's other work. He can make a good b&w print, too. Good artists need to master the craft. Damian Hirst and Tracey Emin please note.

G

By the way, Ofutter, you really badly need to disabuse yourself of the notion that good photography consists of making sharp prints.

G

I have taken a look at his other street photography which I like. To be honest I feel the bullfighting to be the weakest in the series... which was why I was asking your opinion why you liked it so much.

I am far from locked into a style where sharp prints is my main concern, however a lot of the work contains detail which I feel important for the viewer to see and therefore use the optimum equipment to achieve this.

I think it quite easy to judge art colleges by considering famous artists such as Damien Hurst and Tracy Emin as the product of the 'art' system, however what you must understand is that most people within the 'art world' regard their work to be junk (literally in the case with Emin's work).
Rather than judging art colleges as 'a waste of time' by looking at the works of famous artists who generally become famous for producing crap work in the first place, go to dome degree or master shows where you will get a true incite to the work produced at art college.

Speaking from someone that has spent 4 years at art college, if anything they try to push boundaries to encourage a Beethoven rule breaking style in students.... (which you seem to be in favour of). Personally I believe it has been taken too far and comparing my work to that of others at art college my work is considerably more reserved.

I wasn't blaming Hirst and Emin on art schools. I was making the point that neither of them appear (based on what I have seen) to have acquired any technical ability in any form of art. Marketing is their forte.

I do believe that to be a good artist you have to have mastered the craft. That is self-evident in proper music, less so in some other forms of art. I made the point in relation to Juan Buhler because your dismissal of his bullfight photos suggested you thought that anybody could have done them. I wanted to point out that here is a man who HAS mastered the craft, and his bullfight photos look the way they do by design, not accident.

Fine detail is all very well. Sometimes it is very important, but sometimes it is of no importance at all. By drawing attention to this series of pictures I just wanted to point out that stunning photographs do not necessarily need to be made with stunningly expensive or physically enormous equipment.

G

I don't think we should dismiss anything out of hand. Art is about the perceptions and emotional response of the viewer as much as the creativity of the artist.

How can a can of Campbell's soup be art? Well it can, and can be strangely compelling as well.

Of course, we can be deceived as well, and artists may be sometimes having a cruel joke at the expense of a pretentious audience, but then maybe that in itself could be a statement and indeed be art.

There is also more conventionally recognised art as well, but some of it I'm personally not that impressed with. For example, I feel I want to like Constable but I find him lacking, and I much prefer the texture and compositional style of Dali.

But that's just me, and there's room for all tastes.

But of course, both Constable and Dali were masters of their craft, whatever you may think of their conception.

G

I feel George has a valid point about expensive equipment and sharp prints having nothing to do with good art. Obviously he leans towards the artistic side and that is what I constantly look for too. Ofutter on the other hand is a photographer that places a great deal of importance on technical perfection. Is there anything wrong with that? I think not, just a different direction. I have not seen any of his photos but I am sure if he puts that amount attention to technical detail then he probably is well cabable of great art as well. Unfortunately too many people that do not have the technical abilities try to pass their poor work off as art and many people fall for it.

One thing I TOTALLY disagree with George about is his choice of subject matter to make his point. Bullfighting has got be the most embarassing example of the inhumanity of humanity there is. I don't care how well the brightly coloured hooked spears contrast with the cogagulated blood on the glistening sweat covered blackness of the bull, there is absolutely nothing artful about the agonizingly slow murder of a helpless animal in front of a crowd of cheering neandrathals. It makes me want to vomit.

phew

Drew Peabody

wow Drew...I admire your conviction and passion.
but if you think bullfighting is bad, you should see what people do to other people....

Don't get me started Don

Drew, I feel that is a very valid point and something I tried to raise when asking George as to why he liked these photographs of the bullfighting so much.
Personally I am not fond of the technical style adopted by the photographer and secondly I do not like the subject being photographed.

As Don says, the cruelty mankind inflicts on its own kind is worse in every way than the relatively tiny amount it inflicts on animals.

I wonder how many people who make easy points about bull-fighting are taking active steps to discourage the practices of female genital mutilation, breaking of childrens limbs so that they will make better beggars, and cutting off hands and stoning adulterous women to death in countries with Sharia Law, to name a few.

By posting those pictures I was not promoting bull-fighting, and to say they can't be art because bull-fighting is inhumane is ridiculous.

G

I think we're in danger of straying from the photographic discussion into totally different territory.

Please stick to photography and art guys!

Thanks.

I hope you're not suggesting that photography is a different thing from art?

G