I am curious, from an Amateur Photographers curious Mind, what may be the thoughts of the "Mainstream" Photographers view on Surrealism in Photography. I ask this question simply because very little Surrealism is presented in Photography, the last entry, in the Surreal Genre being on the 22nd of this Month. When I had first come to Renderosity, I found it to be an Artistic Site, where Art could be expressed, however, now, with the Price of Your average quality Digital Camera available to many, and four times the amount of Images being shown in the Photography Gallery, I wonder am I in the wrong place to attempt to display the Surreal and perhaps should concentrate on "Popular Photography"? Hopefully I may be enlightened, should anyone have any input. Thank You :]

You already know my view on it... I do not think surrealism is "unpopular" at all, just that very few newer members/hobbyists know how to pull it off very well... they begin with the usual basics... after awhile you master & perfect your own style of art & become an inspiration & an example to others who hope to achieve some of the same effects/style as you or you become bored & move on... sigh

& as you already know, some just don't get it & prefer the more "classic" photography or maybe a bit "cliche" imagery good subject for discussion :]

Message edited on: 05/25/2005 12:38

I agree there are few surreal images posted and feel that it is not easy to pull off as well as you... I guess there will always be an element of manipulation involved and artistic can be often seen as not the realm of the photo artist which is wrong.. I hope we can see the broad spectrum of all types of photography here or in the Mixed medium Gallery if needs must as I have tended to do my own efforts in this regard.. I dont like to pigeon hole imagery in any one category.. I do think this is a place for artists and the large increase in images here reflects more the increase in sales in digital cameras it takes time to master the required skills is my own view here

Well, I feel that the POPULARITY of digital cameras has made "THE WORLD" in general... Snapshot happy! I think that many people DO use their cams for mostly family stuff, fun and whatnot! While there's nothing wrong with this, it has diminished or overshadowed the more creative side of Photography! I went back to the Nov 2003 challenge to get a better idea of this subject. "Surrealism is defined as the artistic and literary movement that explored and celebrated the realm of dreams and unconscience mind, through visual art, poetry and motion picture" hmmm...I'm still kinda confused by this definition. From my understanding, this type of art is dreamlike, fantasy and tends to be "unreality" based (Please correct me if I'm off the mark here) I guess you could go outside and capture something "surreal" (if your lucky) To me it seems more of a personal expression. There's more of a process to get that image! Again, I'm no expert in this, just my opinion! When it comes down to it, we all reach certain plateaus in our travels thru life! Some hold us back and don't allow us to grow or be fulfilled. If this is the case, we need to ask ourselves...is it time to move on, climb to new heights and expand our horizons...or settle for what is? my $2.35 cents! Joe

Hi Brian, i think people just take the easy way and with todays cameras it has become even easier to take "the easy way" ;o) I do not consider myself an artist, i do not try to create artwork. My purpose is to show the folks on rr the beauty of nature and ofcourse i try to portray the creatures in an appealing way. Everybody has their own reasons to photograph their subjects and upload them here. L8rdaze is right about the fact that the 'snapshots' have 'overshadowed' the more artistic photography here, but i dont think theres any rule to what kind photography may be displayed here and what kind not. To me photography is all about capturing beauty, with or without manipulation. Personally i have not much of a thing for photomanipulation because i try to show reality in stead of 'unreality'. I respect the ones that do manipulate their photography though, such as you :o) I simply wouldnt have the patience or the skill to create something similar to your work lol :o) Well thats my view on this matter, have a great day/evening, Jeroen

Create what is in your mind and heart.

What is popular anyway?

Strive to create the unpopular, now that is art.

Message edited on: 05/25/2005 15:28

I love surrealism in photography.I just have not tried much of it, but the more that would come in the galleries I would always view it and enjoy .

Hi Brian,
To me, photography is a way to express yourself. In my own life it is also a way to enjoy my free time and relax after work :)
As far as surrealism goes, I have had a couple of goes at doing something in that style and really struggled:( I guess I don't get it well enough to be able to do it and be satisfied with what I've produced.

So, shoot what YOU want to shoot and if you want to do surrealism, do it...
Dave

OUPS I write something that has been not accepted or delated and I did not take a copy/paste safe buoy...... SO BEING BRIEVE...IF YOU ARE A CREATOR...EVEN ONLY USING YOUR PHOTOGRAPHY AND CREATIVITY.... YOU CAN BE SURE THAT YOU WONT HAVE SUCCESS IN THE RR PHOTOGRAPHY SECTION.... HERE ITS A PLACE FOR NATURALIST, LANDSCAPE PICKPOKET...OFTEN OF HIGH QUALITY... BUT RR MUST CREATE A PLACE TO today's photography kinda of what you see is what you get...if you are good enought... BUT THE PHOTOGRAPHY SECTION EXCEPT SOME IS NOT AN ART GALLERY... So to say....

I agree with Sylvaine here, its just not a real art gallery... dunno if thats good or bad though... ;o) Jeroen

oh tedz behave... other wise it off to the naughty corner to be spanked... believe it was.. c.g jung who said "The creation of something new is not accomplished by intellect but by the play instinct acting from inner necessity. the creative mind plays with objects it loves... and you play with these objects, the pyscho analytic thoeries of the unconscious in dream like visions, dali painted these photographically.. you have mastered these images with photography..and truly amazingly also... It isnt everyones "Cuppa Tea" as we say in England, and it isnt always easy to pyscho analysis surrealism its taste only for the few.((especailly created from someone elses unconsciousness ))) Art is an expression of ones own inner experiances and self.. we are all different..and theres place for every thing.. for me just an undying romantique.. even down to the last atom of sunlight piercing a small blade of grass... you have orginal individualism in expression, a traite to cherish.. and l mean who is going to bring the smile of the day.. if you give up the craft and fly to pastures new... hugs tedz...:) nikki

I think it would be really cool for Rosity to add an extra category to separate the "snapshots" from some of the artwork or the more professional looking photography. I think everyone should be able to post what they want, but I also think it would be nice to let the people choose which catagory to put the photos in. That said, I love to do postwork on my images. I haven't gotten into the surrealism much simply because it's time consuming and I want to get better at what I am doing now. I do keep almost all my photos, good or bad, just in case I can put some together to make one good one. I glanced at your gallery, Ted, and really like what you do (I plan on taking a closer look when I can). I do believe it was Cynlee who said that if the image is made up of photography and no other images (stock, painted, etc,) then it's still photography and I agree. I wouldn't really want to put something in the mixed medium when it's the photograph(s) I'm trying to show. I think I strayed from the question......(antibiotics have me all loopy) Basically, I like the surrealism genre, and I think it isn't "popular" because it's hard to pull of. Also it could be that people don't know if there photo qualifies for surrealism. That is my hang up. I would probably be wary of putting in there and having someone tell me it isn't even close to surrealism.

Many of you are thinking...."Is she done rambling yet?" Ha ha! I'm NOT!! lol No, I am....done, that is. ;)~ Edit: I wanted to make sure this didn't get lost....Ted, I think you are a great photographer. Don't worry about what's "popluar". People have told me this and it's true; do what you want at that moment. Be happy with what you like to do. :) Now I'm really done.

Message edited on: 05/25/2005 16:57

well, RR promotes itself as a "learning" site for all levels... we have a handful of gems here who've replied with experience & a lot of talent... don't ever get discouraged, you really need no help but can encourage & help others... i know i've learned quite a lot from all of you... & it never stops... maybe there should be a "tedzart" genre mmmmm? :D

oh crossed with damia... the thing with the genres? it has to cross all the galleries... interesting to see "modeling" used for posing models in photos then again with making 3D models :]

l agree with cindy... tedart genre.. and maybe a tedzart tutorals for us lesser morals (( technical bimbos..who still get there vectors and layers and all the other technical bumffff in knot.. )))...and tedz keep eatting the cheese before bed..));

Ah yes, I hadn't thought of that. Ah well. I wanted to add that I have learned a ton of stuff from seeing all the different kinds of photography. I hope no one stops just because they think it won't fit in or be well received. :)

Photography is like rock 'n' roll to me...can't please everyone in all its genres!

I liken F6 to A major ;)

and 1600 ISO to B flat!!

Brian, your art is incredible!! I love it and would sure love to do it. Surrealism is not so easy to achieve. Always, always, produce the types of images that please YOU, Brian!!!! I love everything you do. just follow your heart and others will follow you. i really wanna do some surrealistic photography. i took several today i thought might qualify for that. but really, i'm not sure. and i find them difficult to shoot. i'm not fond of working with layers and doing a lot of postwork but i am interested in learning more. i guess for me, i just need to study other surrealistic artists. you're a pioneer, and well, pioneers usually exploring new territory. i dunno if surrealism is new territory for photography, but it sure is for me anyway! Teach me, wise one! :)

Stand easy. Thank You all for Your candid feedback and Psychiatry advice. I appreciated that coming from a Cross dress...opps...cross section of the Photography Gallery. Dear Sheila...and I always do what I want to do... I am the HC...remember? Once again I thank You all, and pledge not to single any one out for Revenge....but...I cannot Vouch for My other 2 Personalities. salute

Quote from LR8DAZE: 'Well, I feel that the POPULARITY of digital cameras has made "THE WORLD" in general... Snapshot happy! I think that many people DO use their cams for mostly family stuff, fun and whatnot! While there's nothing wrong with this, it has diminished or overshadowed the more creative side of Photography!' I believe more folks are taking pictures in general. Most will never even know 'rosity is here or even care. For instace, a recently uploaded galleyr image of the back of my wife was questioned at work, when I brought it up. "Why didn't you show her face" was the question. I said that it was not a shapshot...more arty. That is how I explained it. And I said, "people have backs of the head, too." Still, dead silence to this answer. The common image is generally pets, family, all shapshots. Why there is not more surrealism I don't know. You among others, Tedz, are able to pull it off well. I went through a period of "purity" when I felt alot of digital manipulation was not my stuff to do..wanting the "pure image" which is never just born pure when corrected from the original for color, contrast, etc. I would love to see more surrealistic images. To pull it off without alot of digital manipulation is trying and likely beyond the availability of props and other resources needed as well as the time to think it out when doing the image. I have a few surreal images on my gallery but don't look for that. These are buried deeply in the vault of my beginnings on the gallery..when I believed that kind of image is just fine and I did it better then than I did a snapshot. Now, I would love to do some good and respectable images in this genre..takes thinking and situation to pull of well. BYW..when a rat falls? Something surreal here, bro! Yikes!

Tedz...the "mens(using that lightly, ha)room" shot of the back of a fellow at a trough urinal was edging on surreal..not the everyday image..then your earlier "religious" compo with many symbols on a bush or tree or something got closer..very good image. How do you see surreal defined in photography? Got a link to some good examples? Thanks. Tom.

Attached Link: http://www.arts-index.com/photography/topics/surreal-photography.html

Message edited on: 05/25/2005 20:19

Thanks, Cyn. Good links...good thoughts.

man, i'm still going through them, bet Michelle has heard of quite a few of these... many, like bsimple.com, are "assembled & printed in a traditional darkroom"... definitely some inspiring ideas in all venues of the surreal & abstract- pinhole & infrared, stilllife, portraits & landscapes! i could be here awhile...

Attached Link: http://market.renderosity.com/~photo/newweb/contests/challenge/january2005/january2005.htm

I was under the impression that 'surrealism' was a form of art where reality is exaggerated or distorted.I would also include images that look real but are somehow more than real, that have an artificial quality that makes it super-real or ultra-real.I have seen images like this in the gallery.Maybe even some of them have become surrealistic without realising it! But authentic surrealistic art,such as that of TedZ(is it Brian?), requires a real artistic need and talent,and a great deal of skill and planning that goes way beyond the level of achieving a quality capture.To ask why there is not more surrealism is to ask why can't everyone draw. That said,I do not find,as some have stated,that the gallery is all nature shots,etc. I would not like to think anyone views my work as such, and I have seen many,many artistic visions that go way beyond that generalisation. TedZ,I believe you were being facetious in your initial question.I don't believe for a minute you will or would ever stop doing what you are obviously so gifted at doing.And believe me,no one would want you to.I admire your humor and enjoy your images immensely. Just my thoughts...

...well - I wouldn't know surrealism if it hit me in the head -- but I can tell you -- it will always only find a small-select audience -- mostly because the mainstream generally wants pretty things -uplifting beautiful images that are not 'wierd' looking and conform to their concepts of how the world 'should' look --- Norman Rockwell will always beat out Man Ray ---always has -always will - surreal work challenges the viewer to 'think' - to work with the image --and a LOT of people are uncomfortable with this -- either because they feel they don't 'get' it -- or that it's just BS masquerading as 'art' ---SO --- you have search to find the people who like this area --- who 'click' with it because they are in the same head space ---they are out there though - but it's like finding needles in a haystack......this photo site is very 'MAINSTREAM' --ie: 'NORMAL' --- it reflects the world in general --------- but - then , I think your work has always attracted a lot of attention -- because of it's quality and your unique humour -- and 'cause people wouldn't think of tangling with your intellect -- they'd get fried and they know it! ---------

I think Damia quoted this - "I do believe it was Cynlee who said that if the image is made up of photography and no other images (stock, painted, etc,) then it's still photography " ----hmmmmmmm -- by that criteria - almost all of my 2D work could be in the photography gallery ( since it they were all manipulated from my own photos....but I don't think that would be accepted -- ----and I don't think there is ANY definitive definition of Surrealism...every book I've read on the subject has a different slant on it ---- it just kind of came out of DADA & metaphysical art ---- and then split up into different avenues..... but one generally knows it when he sees it and it's often NOT pretty - and sometimes reflects certain 'realities' of life better than the images we THINK reflect reality ---- just some opinions.

Once again, thank You for Your thoughts on this discussion....I admire all Your input and it gives Me Food for thought...and...nope...not trying to be facetious at all, though it is My Nature....genuine response to a genuine Question, and varied opinions conducted in a Civil way...almost a first for Me :]

fancy being here at the same time brian... :D just got back it's a fine line doug... ecspecially when you look at some of the images that can be made in a traditional darkroom... i've said that before also...& to use your own judgement ;] ...digital edit/manip does bring a whole nother perspective... but then that's another story...

.........Well - yes -- Jerry Uelsman's surreal work would be considered "photography" by most - & he works exclusively in a traditional darkroom --- anyway - of course - there is no dividing line -- one area gradually melts into the other -- with the purists of 'straight' -unmanipulated photography ( which doesn't really exist) --always on guard to sheppard offending images out the door ( if they had the power ).......my point here is that the actual scene and the photo of the scene are two different things - with filters - f-stops and speeds, etc. already shaping and changing what the lens sees.....so - it's ALL manipulated....just a matter of degree ---- but , of course - this has all been here said before .....many times

This is "Surrealism" as defined by my The Random House Dictionary: Surrealism, a modern style of art and literature stressing the subconsicious significance of imagery or the exploitation of unexpected juxtapositions(to place close together or side by side as for contrast.) I hope to someday think of something Surrealist for art. The definition is somewhat confusing to me. I wonder with many of my pictures...is this abstract? surreal? atmosphere mood? still life?...ect.... I hope w/more practice I'll get better at this sort of thing..and I'd like to some day feel confident to do some surreal art. I have posted a few here or there, and I was never really sure exactly what it was. I guess surreal sounded just as good as abstraact or still life. Perhaps it is hard to label something as surreal.....not to mention other genres.. I have much to learn :-)

just remember brian...surrealism made monty python a fortune. and cross dressing heheehehe, and the next time the all blacks play england in the world cup... it will never been the same knowing they wear winter stockings ((( panythose)))...and remeber the lumberjack song... and he was okay ...:)....jokingly hugs...

Attached Link: Jerry Uelsmann's website

I think RR makes it very difficult to display surreal photography a subject I was interested in when I first came here. If one manipulates an image beyond what is considered acceptable limits then it is cast out and you are sent to the 2D gallery. Since the genre is all about altered states then that leaves very little room for manoeuvre. It is a shame that RR cannot find a way to display digitally manipulated photographs without saying they are not photographs. An example the images of Georgia Denby, a recognised photographer by photographic organisations here in the UK, would I feel fall outside the realms of what is acceptable to RR photography gallery. You do a great job here Brian and I commend your efforts but I do think you are constrained to work within very narrow guidelines which is perhaps an unsurmountable barrier to some.

I hadn't thought of that. But shouldn't anything be acceptable if it can also be done in a dark room?

i think you'll find we're really pretty flexible in the gallery...
i have said it before & i'll say it again... use of stock, not your own, photos, 3D apps such as bryce, poser, fractals, vue & tubes are not accepted in the photo gallery... sure, if you can do it in a darkroom or use scissors & glue & make a collage out of your photos then go for it
& when has the Mixed Media, 2D galleries been considered a wasteland? (no offense meant) i usually cruise through those galleries too...
i can tell you one thing, they move a lot slower then the 10-14 pages posted daily to the photo gallery off to check out Georgia Denby... found the link :]

Message edited on: 05/26/2005 15:01

Attached Link: Georgia Denby

Message edited on: 05/26/2005 15:07

very few of these, if any, would i shuffle out the door to 2D or MM... thanks for the link kort & the name richard :]

you'll find many of the 2D artists also use their own photography... much is interchangeable, but it is true that more members would probably appreciate seeing some of the more manipulated images in the 2D/MM galleries... probably because they have a hard time comparing them to "straight" photography & sorry to say, leave very few comments on these... sigh

edited to chuckle@kort, correct spelling & add a thought :P

Message edited on: 05/26/2005 15:14

That was not a slur on any other galleries - I have toured these too and found some real gems. Nor was it a critism of anyone. Nor do I want to start the whole discussion up again on what is photography because it has been covered in the past and I accept the majority decision.

Only my personal opinion that I would like to see the photo gallery accept any image that was based in photography.
RR is a more digitally art based site than the purely photo sites that are about (some of which have a digitally manipulated category) and as such I would like to see digitally manipulated embraced more.

Message edited on: 05/26/2005 15:28

Here a bunch of links to some surreal photographers/artists in case anyone is interested. Movitvate me to try harder, that is for sure. :) http://www.insomnium.co.uk/ http://www.craiggordon.com/ http://www.pixiport.com/ http://www.pixiport.com/Gallery-A04.htm http://www.pixiport.com/gallery-D01.htm http://www.1220.org/surrealphotography1.htm http://us.artring.net/search,surreal%20photography,0,0.html http://www.twistedtreephoto.com/

no problem richard, i know that's what you meant :] i'll tell you one way i look at it & i'm a fine one to talk :P... the difference in photos that are appreciated for their manipulative/artistic skill compared to photos that are appreciated for the more percise skill it takes to shoot the photo yep... RR is not a photo site... so having different catergories in this are virtually nill we have to work with what we have & be accepting of all forms of photography :]