Galapagos #3/Feisty!

[Arthur Morris]

This Hood Mockingbird was photographed at Gardner Bay on Hood Island with the Canon 800mm f/5.6L IS lens and the EOS-1D MIII in fairly bright sun at 4:40pm. (We were pretty close to the equator.) ISO 400. Evaluative metering +1 stop: 1/800 sec. at f/9.

I would have preferred that the bird were not standing in front of the sea-lion and wish that the white lump of sand lower left was elsewhere but a nice territorial threat display is a nice territorial threat display. You take them when ad where you can get them!

Central sensor AI Servo AF. This is a small crop from the top. Minor BKGR clean-up.

There is lots more on my trip at the blog: www.birdsasart-blog.com

Don't be shy; all comments welcome.

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

I really like the blurred affect on the wing display. Your exposure is always spot on, I'd refer a lower angle, or is there a reason that you didn't get any lower than this?

[Ilija Dukovski]

Hey, I believe this is the one that drinks the blood from sea-lion's wounds.
Did it try to get you:)?

[Morkel Erasmus]

love the display and wing position - head is tack sharp with great eye contact.
would also like to know if an even lower angle was at all possible? agree about the sea-lion. imagine it was standing on top of it! :D

[Arthur Morris]

I really like the blurred affect on the wing display. Your exposure is always spot on, I'd refer a lower angle, or is there a reason that you didn't get any lower than this?

I would have loved to have been right on the ground for this but the battles were moving here and there and everywhere and as I like to work right on sun angle I simply would have missed to many of the fights.

[Arthur Morris]

Mork, See above for the why not lower explanation. And yes, it would have been great if the bird had hopped up on the sea-lion.

[Ramon M. Casares]

I agree with your selfcritiques Artie, but also as you said, a nice territorial threat display is a nice territorial threat display so congratulations on capturing a great natural moment!

[Axel Hildebrandt]

The pose is pretty cool, as is the head angle. I don't mind the sea lion in the BG at all, actually I think it adds interest. Where else could you see these two species together.

[Phil Ertel]

I agree with Axel, great pose and capture of action (blurred wings showing motion). The added species definitely adds interest for me. Very cool!

[Amy Marques]

That's a really neat behavior captured. After seeing this, I would have to spend my whole time there trying to get the perfect shot of this. Awesome, Artie!

[Brian Barcelos]

Love the wing blur and eye contact here. Big ol' tubby tubby in the BG sure adds to the image (I'd never say that to his face of course:D). Congrats.

Brian

[Rod Wiley]

I agree, you take them when you can, I like it

[Ákos Lumnitzer]

Great behavioral image Maestro. I love the blurred wings. This fellow looks quite upset with your 800mm! Thanks for sharing.

[Chris Kotze]

Super display moment well captured and exposed.

[Daniel Belasco]

Sorry Artie...
You can take harsh critiques so here goes: I don't like it.
It is so beneath the quality of the images I've seen you take. I can't believe you posted this.
You mentioned the sea-lion--very distracting. I wouldn't have know what it was unless you said.
I don't like the blurred wing tips, just too much blurr. It would be ok if only the tips.
Weird angle. I know technically the bird is level, but the position of the wings make it look strange,
Area around feet looks unnatural. Something, weeds, around right foot.
Sand or something below the body between the legs is distracting.
Light makes the image and the lighting is too harsh. I know it's Galapados and you go when you can and take what you can. I also remember you saying on BAA that you would never go out in the afternoon and shoot in this this kind of light.
To whom is this shot suppose to appeal to?

Sorry, maybe I took the sticky about not saying, "Great shot, Way to Go!" too seriously!
Don't worry only one or two people will read this and my next posted image will really get ripped!!

dan

[Jay Gould]

Dan, I couldn't disagree with you MORE!!

Sorry Artie...
You can take harsh critiques so here goes: I don't like it.
It is so beneath the quality of the images I've seen you take. I can't believe you posted this.

I am glad the image was posted. I have never seen a Mockingbird defending its territory.

You mentioned the sea-lion--very distracting. I wouldn't have know what it was unless you said.

Frankly, there was never any question that the bird is in front of a sea lion; for several reasons: 1) the shot is in the Galapagos and Artie has already posted an image of a sea lion; 2) the lion is lying down and the flippers are to the right and behind the bird IMO

I don't like the blurred wing tips, just too much blurr. It would be ok if only the tips.

Dan, the bird is in a defensive protective position. Since I grew up near Hollyweird (Hollywood, Calif), if someone was threatening me with their fingertips/limp wrist, frankly I would not feel very threatened. However, if someone was waiving their arm then I would feel threatened. This is not a Bird On A Stick; this is real life. The Mockingbird is feeling threatened and is responding. It can't respond with a waving of the tips of the wings; it is flapping and letting and indicating a possible attack.

Weird angle. I know technically the bird is level, but the position of the wings make it look strange,

OK, weird is in the eye of the beholder; so is art.

Area around feet looks unnatural. Something, weeds, around right foot.

It's right foot appears obscured by the different sand elevations; it appears to be stamping or raising it's left foot.

Sand or something below the body between the legs is distracting.

Yup; it looks like grains of sand in the air as a result of the action of the left foot and the fanning of the wings.

Light makes the image and the lighting is too harsh. I know it's Galapados and you go when you can and take what you can.

Yup, I agree a bit harsh. So what! Sometimes what you see is what you get, and sometimes it simply is the best there is and shouldn't be dismissed.

I also remember you saying on BAA that you would never go out in the afternoon and shoot in this this kind of light.

"never" is an absolute and frankly if I have learned anything from Artie it is that there are rules in under some circumstances the rules are meant to be broken.

To whom is this shot suppose to appeal to?

ME! and others; that is why we wrote the positive comments that we have. Trust me on this; no one before or after my comment wrote something positive to stroke Artie. That is the last thing Artie wants; and, if he catches you stroking him and not the image truthfully, well.......you won't get a "get out of jail pass."

Sorry, maybe I took the sticky about not saying, "Great shot, Way to Go!" too seriously!

No you didn't; you are entitled to your opinion, and it is better to express your opinion truthfully than to either provide a typical BS "Great Shot", or to say nothing.

Don't worry only one or two people will read this and my next posted image will really get ripped!!

1. Wrong; and 2. only if it is justified!

dan

Regards,

PS: these are my opinions and Artie when he returns may totally disagree with me and agree with you; that is OK too!

[Markus Jais]

I like it a lot. You already mentioned the sea lion and the small white rock.
But I think this is good as it is and it shows a very interesting behavior. Not shooting this because of the sea lion would have been a mistake. Glad you took the shot and shared it.

Markus

[Daniel Belasco]

Hi Jay,
We are probably looking at this image from different perspectives.
You analyize it as an informative images, pointing out the behavior aspects of the bird--like an image in a scientific article. For that purpose the image is great.
I photographic birds for the artistic merits and to show nature in all it's beauty. Photography to me is all about light. To show the beauty of light as it refects off nature.
Mr. Morris by line of "Birds As Art" would seem to ascribe him to the artistic camp. With that in mind I commented on his image.
If Mr. Morris's purpose was simplely an image meant to inform and educate people about the actions of a Hooded Mockingbird, then the image serves that purpose and I apologize. But don't call it Art!

[Jay Gould]

Hi Jay,
We are probably looking at this image from different perspectives.
You analyize it as an informative images, pointing out the behavior aspects of the bird--like an image in a scientific article. For that purpose the image is great.
I photographic birds for the artistic merits and to show nature in all it's beauty. Photography to me is all about light. To show the beauty of light as it refects off nature.
Mr. Morris by line of "Birds As Art" would seem to ascribe him to the artistic camp. With that in mind I commented on his image.
If Mr. Morris's purpose was simplely an image meant to inform and educate people about the actions of a Hooded Mockingbird, then the image serves that purpose and I apologize. But don't call it Art!

Ouch! Do you live in a box?

Is there no overlap between a behavioral image and art? Are you seriously contending that this presentation of a Mockingbird in a defensive pose is not art?

In your first post you focused on "never".

Now you again focus on "never" and apply it to yourself. You never do anything that isn't art.

There was nothing in my post pertaining to either behavioral or art; I simply responded to your criticisms AND almost all of your criticisms related to the behavioral presentations.

Art according to www.dictionary.com:

–noun

1.	the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

2.	the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.

3.	a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.

4.	the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.

5.	any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.

6.	(in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story?

7.	the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.

8.	the craft or trade using these principles or methods.

9.	skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.

10.	a branch of learning or university study, esp. one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature.

11.	arts, a. (used with a singular verb) the humanities: a college of arts and sciences. b. (used with a plural verb) liberal arts.

12.	skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature.

13.	trickery; cunning: glib and devious art.

14.	studied action; artificiality in behavior.

15.	an artifice or artful device: the innumerable arts and wiles of politics.

16.	Archaic. science, learning, or scholarship.

Are you seriously going to argue that Artie's image does not fit within one or more of the above definitions? If you are, we definitely speak different forms of English.

[Daniel Belasco]

Jay

I'm not going to argue with you.
That was not my purpose in joining this site.
Since the image wasn't your's, you really don't know the intended purpose, i.e. art, scientific, behavioral, etc.
Mr. Morris may care to enlighten me or not.

dan

[Arthur Morris]

Sorry Artie...
You can take harsh critiques so here goes: I don't like it.
It is so beneath the quality of the images I've seen you take. I can't believe you posted this.
You mentioned the sea-lion--very distracting. I wouldn't have know what it was unless you said.
I don't like the blurred wing tips, just too much blurr. It would be ok if only the tips.
Weird angle. I know technically the bird is level, but the position of the wings make it look strange,
Area around feet looks unnatural. Something, weeds, around right foot.
Sand or something below the body between the legs is distracting.
Light makes the image and the lighting is too harsh. I know it's Galapados and you go when you can and take what you can. I also remember you saying on BAA that you would never go out in the afternoon and shoot in this this kind of light.
To whom is this shot suppose to appeal to?

Sorry, maybe I took the sticky about not saying, "Great shot, Way to Go!" too seriously!
Don't worry only one or two people will read this and my next posted image will really get ripped!!

dan

Hey Daniel, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. For one, this image appeals to me. But what the heck do I know? In addition, the image appealed to most everyone who posted before you. Go figure.

The difference between me and most other folks is that I never take it personally. I have had images trashed way worse before.

[Arthur Morris]

ps: though I do not expect it to be honored in the BBC I do feel that the image does have some artistic merit. But as I said, what the heck do I know?

[Ilija Dukovski]

Wicked cool! Respect!

[Daniel Belasco]

Mr. Morris

I wasn't trying "to trash" your image. Perhaps the closest analogy might be "the Emperor has no clothes"
Or perhaps I was just trying to get you to think.

It seems photography today is all about just push the button and figure out later how to "fix it" in PS or a half dozen other programs.

I'm sorry you felt you had to brush me off thinking I'm some brash young photographer out to (fill in the blank) a famous photographer like yourself. I read your comments under yourr "Galapagos #1" image about the tendencies of other people to knock your work in a online forum like this. This was not the case here as I have the utmost respect for your work, especially concerning bird photography.

respectfully,

dan belasco

[Ryan Lambert]

Not sure what to say now as the image kind of appealed to me;) If anything I would maybe have had a bit more space at the bottom with the top of the sea-lion in the top left corner. I think it would have enhanced the subject a tad more. The blurred wings emphasises the subject and the foot off the ground adds to the image...

[Kiran Poonacha]

Oh oh guruji.. you are under attack here.... I like any thing you present...:D

[Kobus Tollig]

Ditto your self crits but i would take this any day. Well done

[Arthur Morris]

Daniel,

re:

I wasn't trying "to trash" your image.

You may not have been trying but you did a fine job of trashing it. When you write "To whom is this shot suppose to appeal to?" that is trashing.

It seems photography today is all about just push the button and figure out later how to "fix it" in PS or a half dozen other programs.

I am sorry to burst you bubble but JI =JO. (junk in = junk out) What seems to be true to you could not be farther from the truth.

I'm sorry you felt you had to brush me off

How do you know what I felt?

And what did I say that made you think that I had "brushed you off"? You stated your opinion and I stated mine.

thinking (sic:that...)

Again, how did you know what I was thinking???

I'm some brash young photographer out to (fill in the blank)

(trash)

a famous photographer like yourself.

I have no idea what your motivation was. And I have no idea either who you are or how old you are.

I read your comments under yourr "Galapagos #1" image about the tendencies of other people to knock your work in a online forum like this.

You are not exactly including everything that I said there. What I said was that at times folks seem to invent criticisms just so they can get a shot in, and when they do that, I call them on it. That was not the case here. Your opinion is your opinion.

This was not the case here as I have the utmost respect for your work, especially concerning bird photography.

Much appreciated. Please do be sure to answer my questions above and below.


Last comment on something that you wrote above:

Light makes the image

Did you include the comment above to educate me?

and the lighting is too harsh.

Though I have worked in sweeter light I would not aualify that quality of the light in this image to be "too harsh." Did you note that it was made just 1 hour and 20 minutes before sunset? My point was that the sun remains relatively high in the sky for much of the day when you are near the equator.

I know it's Galapagos and you go when you can and take what you can. I also remember you saying on BAA that you would never go out in the afternoon and shoot in this this kind of light.

Again you are misquoting me and quoting me out of context. Please post the exaact quote here. Furthermore, I am always learning. And there are lots of ways to make great images even at midday on a clear day. That lesson was reinforced on this trip when we encounted a big group of hawks at 11am on a clear day with wind against sun.

I do look forward to your answering all of my questions above.

[paul leverington]

We should not critque the critiquer. Free thought and expression is inhibited because the one who is being personally critiqued becomes defensive and will either dig in and fight back or run away. Neither action helps the rest of us because either that person stops commenting, or they get stubborn defending their position when maybe they shouldn't. I tire of it frankly and it would be my hope that this site tries to diverge from all that stuff. I just wish we all could stay focused on the shot. We would all learn more.

When I first opened the shot I never had any belief that it was anything more than a behavior shot. Not that it has zero artistic merit, but I just never believed Artie was claiming or implying that it was a world beating artistic capture. It is what it is, and shows something really interesting and neat. I have like no doubt
that Artie knows exactly what kind of shot it is.

That being said, I admire Dan's up front and courageous post which went against all popular opinion. To stiffle people like him would hurt the sites value. And I, for one, agree with just about all that he said, however, like I said above, Artie made it clear it was not a world beater artistic shot and he took what was given. At least in my mind he did.

Sometimes a little spirited debate that goes personal can be entertaining and liven things up, but it also gets so old very quickly aand can degenerate into other stuff.

Paul

[Arthur Morris]

Paul,

re:

We should not critque the critiquer.

I agree.

Free thought and expression is inhibited because the one who is being personally critiqued becomes defensive and will either dig in and fight back or run away.

Please let me know if you are referring to Jay's posts, to my posts, or to both. Thanks.

Neither action helps the rest of us because either that person stops commenting, or they get stubborn defending their position when maybe they shouldn't. I tire of it frankly and it would be my hope that this site tries to diverge from all that stuff. I just wish we all could stay focused on the shot. We would all learn more.

Agree.

When I first opened the shot I never had any belief that it was anything more than a behavior shot. Not that it has zero artistic merit, but I just never believed Artie was claiming or implying that it was a world beating artistic capture. It is what it is, and shows something really interesting and neat. I have like no doubt that Artie knows exactly what kind of shot it is.

I think that it is a pretty cool image with a fair amount of artistic merit and a great deal of impact.

That being said, I admire Dan's up front and courageous post which went against all popular opinion. To stiffle people like him would hurt the sites value.

Do you feel that any of my comments were mean to stifle Dan? If so, please quote me directly.

[Ryan Lambert]

Sorry I had to come back to this image as a couple of things that Daniel stated were bothering me. I'm not one to get into a debate unless it is healthy but here goes. WRT the lighting - How is the lighting harsh? The shadow on the ground represents at least a 45 deg angle, maybe it is the white beach throwing his eye off. Taking images on the equator your exposure has to be spot-on, which it is here, because as Artie stated the sun stays high in the sky longer. over exposing by +1 shows the photographer knew what he was doing to maximize the detail in the shadows. Yes we all aspire to taking that perfect image in perfect golden light, and I'm sure we all have at some point, but why not take an image in midday sun if you are able to control it properly?

Secondly the wing blur - For me the wing blur adds to the image as it off-sets the subject and shows behavior how else would you truly show the behavior. I think you have missed something here in terms of the Art of the Image, because here it lies, a photographer less artistic would have upped the SS to at least 1/1600 in this light, the wings would have been sharp but surely less effective. the point is the subject is sharp where it counts. The true art here can be seen in the settings, take a closer look...I would love to know what your definition of Art is? because the beauty of Art is that it is so subjective and for you to state that this is not Art is a pretty harsh statement.

I agree with the Sea-Lion not being ideal but the Photographer did state that upfront and realized it was a negative. Who does this image appeal to? well it appealed to a number of very good photographers here on the forum and funnily enough it appealed to you, just not in a positive light...

And Daniel I'm not having a go at you but rather disagreeing with what you said, and giving a bit more in-depth feedback on the image...

[paul leverington]

By the way I thought I would respond to something Jay had posted concerning the definition of art. The dictionary almost always becomes our bible for defintion and word use and has this omnipotent quality of the unchallenged. But in fact it is a work in progress and has always been so. Words are added, ammended, and meanings modified each year during review time to better reflect their real true way to be used. Even two different dictionaries from different sources WILL NOT have the same exact meanings. There is tremendous subjectiveness and ambiguity at times in the wriiten meanings of words in other words.(he-he)

In the definition of art as posted by Jay above the first and second meanings mostly are of concern to us. They both reflect off each other that "art" is an aesthetic thing that must appeal in a pleasing way. However this is not only a very subjective way to look at things but also leaves out those artistic endeavors that are anything but aesthetic and pleasing and are intended to shake the viewer up, to upset the emotion, to enrage, sicken, disgust, shock, or inspire to action the mind. Well the word aesthetics actually is not locked in meaning to things only pleasing but most often due to the fact that is how it is used that's what most assume. The two words seems to be holding hands.

This is from wikipedia and is very worth reading and absorbing:

Aesthetics and the philosophy of art
Aesthetics is used by some as a synonym for the philosophy of art, while others insist on a distinction between these closely related fields. In practice aesthetic judgement refers to the sensory contemplation or appreciation of an object (not necessarily an art object), while artistic judgement refers to the recognition, appreciation or criticism of art or an art work.

[edit] What is "art?"

How best to define the term “art” is a subject of constant contention; many books and journal articles have been published arguing over even the basics of what we mean by the term “art”.^[11] Theodor Adorno claimed in 1969 “It is self-evident that nothing concerning art is self-evident.”^[12][13] Artists, philosophers, anthropologists, psychologists and programmers all use the notion of art in their respective fields, and give it operational definitions that vary considerably. Furthermore, it is clear that even the basic meaning of the term "art" has changed several times over the centuries, and has continued to evolve during the 20th century as well.
The main recent sense of the word “art” is roughly as an abbreviation for creative art or “fine art.” Here we mean that skill is being used to express the artist’s creativity, or to engage the audience’s aesthetic sensibilities, or to draw the audience towards consideration of the “finer” things. Often, if the skill is being used in a functional object, people will consider it a craft instead of art, a suggestion which is highly disputed by many Contemporary Craft thinkers. Likewise, if the skill is being used in a commercial or industrial way it may be considered design instead of art, or contrariwise these may be defended as art forms, perhaps called applied art. Some thinkers, for instance, have argued that the difference between fine art and applied art has more to do with the actual function of the object than any clear definitional difference.^[14] Art usually implies no function other than to convey or communicate an idea.
Even as late as 1912 it was normal in the West to assume that all art aims at beauty, and thus that anything that wasn't trying to be beautiful couldn't count as art. The cubists, dadaists, Stravinsky, and many later art movements struggled against this conception that beauty was central to the definition of art, with such success that, according to Danto, "Beauty had disappeared not only from the advanced art of the 1960’s but from the advanced philosophy of art of that decade as well."^[12] Perhaps some notion like "expression" (in Croce’s theories) or "counter-environment" (in McLuhan’s theory) can replace the previous role of beauty. Brian Massumi brought back "beauty" into consideration together with "expression".^[15] Another concept, as important to the philosophy of art as "beauty," is that of the "sublime," elaborated upon in the twentieth century by the postmodern philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard.
Perhaps (as in Kennick's theory) no definition of art is possible anymore. Perhaps art should be thought of as a cluster of related concepts in a Wittgensteinian fashion (as in Weitz or Beuys). Another approach is to say that “art” is basically a sociological category, that whatever art schools and museums and artists define as art is considered art regardless of formal definitions. This "institutional definition of art" (see also Institutional Critique) has been championed by George Dickie. Most people did not consider the depiction of a Brillo Box or a store-bought urinal to be art until Andy Warhol and Marcel Duchamp (respectively) placed them in the context of art (i.e., the art gallery), which then provided the association of these objects with the associations that define art.
Proceduralists often suggest that it is the process by which a work of art is created or viewed that makes it art, not any inherent feature of an object, or how well received it is by the institutions of the art world after its introduction to society at large. Whereas if exactly the same set of words was written by a journalist, intending them as shorthand notes to help him write a longer article later, these would not be a poem. Leo Tolstoy, on the other hand, claims that what makes something art or not is how it is experienced by its audience, not by the intention of its creator. Functionalists like Monroe Beardsley argue that whether or not a piece counts as art depends on what function it plays in a particular context; the same Greek vase may play a non-artistic function in one context (carrying wine), and an artistic function in another context (helping us to appreciate the beauty of the human figure). '
See also: Classificatory disputes about art

[edit] What should we judge when we judge art?

Art can be difficult at the metaphysical and ontological levels as well as at the value theory level. When we see a performance of Hamlet, how many works of art are we experiencing, and which should we judge? Perhaps there is only one relevant work of art, the whole performance, which many different people have contributed to, and which will exist briefly and then disappear. Perhaps the manuscript by Shakespeare is a distinct work of art from the play by the troupe, which is also distinct from the performance of the play by this troupe on this night, and all three can be judged, but are to be judged by different standards.
Perhaps every person involved should be judged separately on his or her own merits, and each costume or line is its own work of art (with perhaps the director having the job of unifying them all). Similar problems arise for music, film and even painting. Is one to judge the painting itself, the work of the painter, or perhaps the painting in its context of presentation by the museum workers?
These problems have been made even more difficult by the rise of conceptual art since the 1960s. Warhol’s famous Brillo Boxes are nearly indistinguishable from actual Brillo boxes at the time. It would be a mistake to praise Warhol for the design of his boxes (which were designed by Steve Harvey), yet the conceptual move of exhibiting these boxes as art in a museum together with other kinds of paintings is Warhol's. Are we judging Warhol’s concept? His execution of the concept in the medium? The curator’s insight in letting Warhol display the boxes? The overall result? Our experience or interpretation of the result? Ontologically, how are we to think of the work of art? Is it a physical object? Several objects? A class of objects? A mental object? A fictional object? An abstract object? An event? Or simply an Act?

[edit] What should art be like?

Many goals have been argued for art, and aestheticians often argue that some goal or another is superior in some way. Clement Greenberg, for instance, argued in 1960 that each artistic medium should seek that which makes it unique among the possible mediums and then purify itself of anything other than expression of its own uniqueness as a form.^[16] The Dadaist Tristan Tzara on the other hand saw the function of art in 1918 as the destruction of a mad social order. “We must sweep and clean. Affirm the cleanliness of the individual after the state of madness, aggressive complete madness of a world abandoned to the hands of bandits.”^[17] Formal goals, creative goals, self-expression, political goals, spiritual goals, philosophical goals, and even more perceptual or aesthetic goals have all been popular pictures of what art should be like.

[edit] The value of art

Tolstoy defined art, and not incidentally characterized its value, this way: "Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously, by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through, and that other people are infected by these feelings and also experience them."
The value of art, then, is one with the value of empathy.
Other possible views are these: Art can act as a means to some special kind of knowledge. Art may give insight into the human condition. Art relates to science and religion. Art serves as a tool of education, or indoctrination, or enculturation. Art makes us more moral. It uplifts us spiritually. Art is politics by other means. Art has the value of allowing catharsis. In any case, the value of art may determine the suitability of an art form. Do they differ significantly in their values, or (if not) in their ability to achieve the unitary value of art?
But to approach the question of the value of art systematically, one ought to ask: for whom? For the artist? For the audience? For society at large, and/or for individuals beyond the audience? Is the "value" of art different in each of these different contexts?
Working on the intended value of art tends to help define the relations between art and other acts. Art clearly does have spiritual goals in many contexts, but what exactly is the difference between religious art and religion per se? The truth is complex - Art is both useless in a functional sense and the most important human activity.


It has been said, that a Vogon Starship arriving at the earth and ordering its destruction would ask what use is humanity?
The only justification humanity could give would be a Shakespeare play, a Rembrandt or a Bach concerto. These are the things of value which define humanity itself.




**I love that last line. That book by Tostoy by the way, "What is Art", is a very,very,good and a easy read in a small book.

I have come up with my own little definition which would absolve the definition the burden of satisfying the subjective:


"ART IS THE INTERFACE BETWEEN THE CONSCIOUS AND SUBCONSCIOUS MIND"

Art allows my subconscious to bypass both our conscious minds, and allows me to speak directly to your subconscious mind. By mastering the methods of the artistic qualities which are necessary for the medium of choice with the conscious mind, I would be enabled as far as conveying whats inside of me--to someone elses subconscious mind. Like the keyboard I am using allows me to bridge that gap and communicate to my computer, art also is an interface that enables communication on a non cognitive level. It will stimulate one's primodal core limbic system so as to trigger emtional reaction. It is within these realms, the realm of what makes us truly human, that art speaks to us. We need it like food for our existence, to have purpose and fulfillment. We must be human and experinece life that way, we must FEEL the experience of being alive or we would probably undergo a schizofrenic crackup! We have been doing art forever too. Cave paintings and the beating of simple drums proove this. Art is absolutely vital to us as a tool to send and receive the things that define what it means for us to be alive.

That is something we can all understand and acknowledge that we desire and is NOT anything subjective. However the realization and manifestaions of art will always be subjective--and it's a good thing. Who would go buy ice cream at a Baskins and Robbins if they only had one flavor? (I might if it was butter pecan!)

Paul

[paul leverington]

Artie---

I've been trying to figure the best way to convey what may be some very important points for all, in answer to your questions. If you would indulge me for a little I would love to hear your take on this--

Is there anything to Dan's assement of your shot that you agree on?

Paul

[Arthur Morris]

I've been trying to figure the best way to convey what may be some very important points for all, in answer to your questions. If you would indulge me for a little I would love to hear your take on this-- Is there anything to Dan's assement of your shot that you agree on? Paul

Hi Pau, I will examine them point by point and follow up with a comment:

You can take harsh critiques

Agree.

so here goes: I don't like it.

Disagree, but he is free to state his opinion.

It is so beneath the quality of the images I've seen you take. I can't believe you posted this.

Disagree strongly, but he is free to state his opinion.

You mentioned the sea-lion--very distracting.

I stated this: "I would have preferred that the bird were not standing in front of the sea-lion" I would not agree that it is very distracting; in fact, some folks liked it a lot. I did not.

I don't like the blurred wing tips, just too much blurr.

Disagree, but he is free to state his opinion.

Weird angle.

I do not know which angle he was referring to as he did not make it clear.

I know technically the bird is level, but the position of the wings make it look strange.

I agree that the wing position makes it look as if the bird is not square to the world even though it it.

Area around feet looks unnatural. Something, weeds, around right foot. Sand or something below the body between the legs is distracting.

There are no weeds around either foot. There is sand below the body but as it is a beach I would expect that and do not find it distracting, nor do I find that the bird stamping his foot and causing the sand to fly distracting.

Light makes the image and the lighting is too harsh.

Again I disagree strongly about the light being too harsh, but he is free to state his opinion. Telling me that the light makes the image is a bit much.

I will close by saying that a good critique always includes several elements in no particular order:The good, the bad, and suggestions for improvement either while in the field or during image optimiazation.

In his critique, Dan mentioned only negative elements while failing to say a single positive thing about the image. That is trashing.

I often feel like The Executioner when I post to a thread that has several major flaws that have been previously ignored, but I always make it a point to note the positives.

So to answer your question, I do not agree with very many of Dan's comments. I do feel that he went out of his way to stress and even exaggerate the negatives while ignoring any positives. I love when folks do that. I love that I am not them. :)

[Arthur Morris]

ps to Paul: consider yourself indulged!

[Arthur Morris]

In response to Paul's lengthy post in pane 32, I would simply quote Picasso: "If it's good, it's art. If not, who cares?" Of course each of us gets to decide what is good and what is not.

[Amy Marques]

"If it's good, it's art. If not, who cares?"
I believe some folks are making too much of this- though an opinion is an opinion. Personally, I find the image very enjoyable though far from perfect due to the sea-lion in the bg . I love the behavior captured (something I've not seen before) and I find the symmetry quite artful and beautiful. Until the behavior can be recaptured with a more desirable angle and bg, I feel this image is a keeper and well handled for any photographer have taken in such a decisive moment as this.

[Harshad Barve]

I agree with your selfcritiques Arthur
BTW this is one of best natural history iamge
TFS
harshad

[paul leverington]

Artie--

I liked the quote by pablo picasso. I never really was crazy about his work but I admired the man and his courage to buck Status Quo. Here's a few more of his quotes:
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
Pablo Picasso

Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once he
grows up.
Pablo Picasso

Everything you can imagine is real.
Pablo Picasso

God is really only another artist, he made the elephant, giraffe and cat.
He has no real style but keeps trying new ideas.
Pablo Picasso

I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how
to do it.
Pablo Picasso

Inspiration does exist, but it must find you working.
Pablo Picasso

It is your work in life that is the ultimate seduction.
Pablo Picasso

Painting is just another way of keeping a diary.
Pablo Picasso

The artist is a receptacle for emotions that come from all over the
place: from the sky, from the earth, from a scrap of paper, from a
passing shape...
Pablo Picasso

There are painters who transform the sun to a yellow spot, but there are
others who with the help of their art and their intelligence, transform a
yellow spot into the sun.
Pablo Picasso

There is no abstract art. You must always start with something. Afterward
you can remove all traces of reality.
Pablo Picasso

We all know that art is not the truth, art is a lie that makes us realize
the truth.
Pablo Picasso

**Picasso thought long and hard about art, it's definitions, it's implications, it's meanings.
He never could have changed the direction it took if he hadn't.

I apologize if my post was too long--actually most of it was copied from wikipedia as stated. What I wrote was rather short. If we are to be artists than I feel it's relevant, but in know way does anyone else have to feel that way too. However an open mind towards the study of the subject does not appear to be something anyone cares about--so be it--let's move on...

I think I'll stay out of the dialogue between you and Dan also.

Paul

[Arthur Morris]

Great stuff Paul. A lot of them hit home with me. TFS.

[Daniel Belasco]

Mr. Morris,

I don't feel like beating a dead horse, but since you ask me to answer some questions--here goes.

You and Jay like to disect each post line by line. I don't think or write that way. I'll comment on the points that struck me the hardest when I read your post above.

I did'nt feel I needed to comment on the positive points of your image because you are not an amateur with delicate feeling, but a seasoned pro that can take criticism. If I was writing a college term paper on the image I would certainly write a paragrraph or two to mention the positive points of the image.

I guess what slapped me in the face the hardest when I opened the image, knowing it was yours, was the cluttered BG. You did mention it was a sea-lion in the BG, but I believe an image should stand on it's own without an explanation. The more I started at the sea-lion to see that it actually was a sea-lion I remembered a dsicusiion you had with another professional photographer stating that only a clear uncluttered BG was acceptable in an avian photograph, preferably OOF against the sky. That's why you said you always shoot lying on the ground or with a low POV. You criticised the other photographer's images (mildly) that included the environmental BG in his images, saying to each his own (sorry I don't remember exactly when/where I read this, probably in your BAA bulletins). Seeing what I thought was a horrible BG here, I said so!

Second. I read on a note to one of your fieldtrips where you said we'll look at slides in the afternoon when the sun is too harsh for photography, as we never bother to go out in the harsh afternoon sunlight.

I could have accepted these faults if this was an Ivory-Billed Woodpecker or another rare bird. The Hood Mockingbird is not rare on the 2 Galapagos Islands where it is found. In fact the Hood Mockingbird even attacks tourists and lands on their heads! Now that would be a shot that I could laugh at and say, "Great Shot Artie!"

You say "telling you the light makes the image is a bit much".
Agreed! But I know you arn't the only one that was going to read this post. I think that some people forget that. With software that can change the exposure etc. with a "click" days after an image was taken with PS, I think some photographers may forget that.

By "weird angle" I'm saying with the bird square to the photographer the wings should look more balanced--symentrical, and they don't. I did say that it just looked that way even though I knew the camera was level to the ground.

The feet area, I just said it "looks unnatura to me" and it does. That doesn't sound like a harsh criticism to me--it just looks unnatural. It's just an observation. Maybe I set a too negative tone and your reading too much into my comments.

Lastly, everyone here was saying "WOW", "Great Image Artie" etc. If this was Joe X"s image, would they have said the same? Maybe I was just trying to get people to take a second look? Or maybe shake things up a bit!

sincerely
dan belasco

[Arthur Morris]

I don't feel like beating a dead horse, but since you ask me to answer some questions--here goes. You and Jay like to disect each post line by line. I don't think or write that way. I'll comment on the points that struck me the hardest when I read your post above.

I did'nt feel I needed to comment on the positive points of your image because you are not an amateur with delicate feeling, but a seasoned pro that can take criticism. If I was writing a college term paper on the image I would certainly write a paragrraph or two to mention the positive points of the image.

I guess what slapped me in the face the hardest when I opened the image, knowing it was yours, was the cluttered BG. You did mention it was a sea-lion in the BG, but I believe an image should stand on it's own without an explanation. The more I started at the sea-lion to see that it actually was a sea-lion I remembered a dsicusiion you had with another professional photographer stating that only a clear uncluttered BG was acceptable in an avian photograph, preferably OOF against the sky. That's why you said you always shoot lying on the ground or with a low POV. You criticised the other photographer's images (mildly) that included the environmental BG in his images, saying to each his own (sorry I don't remember exactly when/where I read this, probably in your BAA bulletins). Seeing what I thought was a horrible BG here, I said so!

Second. I read on a note to one of your fieldtrips where you said we'll look at slides in the afternoon when the sun is too harsh for photography, as we never bother to go out in the harsh afternoon sunlight.

I could have accepted these faults if this was an Ivory-Billed Woodpecker or another rare bird. The Hood Mockingbird is not rare on the 2 Galapagos Islands where it is found. In fact the Hood Mockingbird even attacks tourists and lands on their heads! Now that would be a shot that I could laugh at and say, "Great Shot Artie!"

You say "telling you the light makes the image is a bit much".
Agreed! But I know you arn't the only one that was going to read this post. I think that some people forget that. With software that can change the exposure etc. with a "click" days after an image was taken with PS, I think some photographers may forget that.

By "weird angle" I'm saying with the bird square to the photographer the wings should look more balanced--symentrical, and they don't. I did say that it just looked that way even though I knew the camera was level to the ground.

The feet area, I just said it "looks unnatural to me" and it does. That doesn't sound like a harsh criticism to me--it just looks unnatural. It's just an observation. Maybe I set a too negative tone and your reading too much into my comments.

Lastly, everyone here was saying "WOW", "Great Image Artie" etc. If this was Joe X"s image, would they have said the same? Maybe I was just trying to get people to take a second look? Or maybe shake things up a bit!

sincerely, dan belasco

Daniel, As I expected, you found a way to avoid answering my tough questions. Instead, you came up with more of the same by continuing to mis-quote me and by generalizing. Way to go. Enough said.

[Juan Aragonés]

I apologize but I do not have a lot of time to read all the complete thread instead of the fact that it seems pretty interesting. I would look for more free time to return to this thread.

I am glad that you posted this image because it is a very interesting behavioral photograph. I have never seen a display like this one and that it is enought reason for me to enjoy this image.
Composition would be much better IMO with just a bit additional room at the bottom and without the sea lion on the Bg but you know that and I am sure that you took into consideration the sea lion when you created the image. It is very simply, somethimes the images that we made are not esxcatly the ones that we would like to made or the ones we have on mind but who cares. Not all the images needs a perfect light angle, head turn, et to be a good image. The strongest point of this one is that is telling a story and that is a very good reason to consider this one a keeper and to post here. :-)

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks for stopping by Juan. There was not much time to consider anything; the birds were fighting and moving quickly. I had all that I could do to follow and focus; there was no time to consider the background. While editing the images, this one, with it spectacular pose, jumped out at me. There is no room below in the original but adding canvas would be easy. I do, however, like the pano look.

Here is another from that afternoon, this one with a cleaner background.

[Harshad Barve]

what a spectacular second image this is Arthur
loved the wing position and image lighting shows the conditions
whites are too good ,
TFS
Harshad

[Jay Gould]

Artie, what a sharp cutie!! Is this baby also stomping its foot (left is raised), was it moving forward. Great series. Thanks.

[Arthur Morris]

Hey Peter, Well said. I am fine with the high winds, but, as with most tall trees, I have trouble with the chain saws.