Photography as an object of investment

[Тютчев]

Сообщение от Chernomashentsev Vladimir

Well, why?
Trying to understand the art of the artist-painter, who we must learn his technique (in the sense of artistic technique). No wonder many critics whole chapters dedicate to stories about how your finger or a special paint drew particular artist. For example, I have been very useful knowledge that Turner is one of the first switched to white primer for his paintings, but in the end of life began to paint a watercolor on colored paper. All of this technology in the understanding of the painter.
So, trying to understand the works of photographer, you must first understand its equipment, goals, how he is positioning himself. In this sense, the list of photographic equipment for at least a little versed in the subject person has much to say. For example, I well understand the difference between KaterinoyMN and Bagirov. Understanding allows you to speak the same language.
In the end, I stopped to look at KaterinuMN as digital photography. I hope that we had understood each other.

Chernomashentsev Vladimir, in this topic we are trying to understand the complicated issues of photography. Collecting works of art in our country only grows. Accordingly, the information about it very much. And it is remarkable that the forum there are people who want to discuss this topic. Personally, I am interested primarily a matter of aesthetics of photography. And also, the technical issues to enable me to understand what opportunities are available from the artist to deal with those or other creative tasks. How these opportunities are the best demonstration of his talent, or, conversely, simulating the creative process. Accept the fact that to understand this is not necessary to thoroughly study the craft. At least in this topic. To do this, there are specialized forums, enough to give them the link.
In any case, before you go into the details of the subject, we must first understand the essence of the subject, to define and describe it. It is based cognitive process. From the general to specific. The subject in this case is photography as an art.
    I believe that in creating works of art the most important component of the creative process (what does the subject of a work of art) is certainly not a technique and technology, and the fact that almost defies comprehension. I mean what is called talent, a gift ... No this is not the art is in the understanding of which I speak. And, consequently, no large sums of those who pay for these works. Nobody would pay millions if the object does not possess unique characteristics. Canvas, paint, paper, graphite, chemicals and other by themselves are not unique, and, therefore, necessary to understand how such qualities become material after contact with the master. In this sense, the art of photography all the same way as in other forms of art.