Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
untitled 0283_10 by stateless untitled 0283_10 by stateless
Like the wind.

Hasselblad 501CM, 60mm CFI, Kodak 160VC film.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconjacqsallott:
jacqsallott Featured By Owner Dec 29, 2011  Professional Photographer
One would have to wonder at the work of William Eggleston then?
Reply
:iconnight-beast:
Night-Beast Featured By Owner Feb 18, 2011
Oh man... yes, I did. I did read all those comments. Maybe what I'm feeling right now is compareable to a pregnant mothers love for her soon to be born child. Less symbolic the love for the child as a subject but more the love for 'their own'.

:) ingenious
Reply
:iconstateless:
stateless Featured By Owner Feb 18, 2011
hahaha! I decided to leave this one because I think it's funny and had some good conversation. It depicts both the worst and best aspects of deviantArt.
Reply
:iconnight-beast:
Night-Beast Featured By Owner Feb 19, 2011
That's what I thought ;) After reading the whole thing I now respect you even more. Firstly because of your knowledge. Not only because of your degree and the general stuff you learned about Photography but mainly because 'your grown awareness of your own photography'. And secondly because of your way explaining things and how you are able to lead a conversation full of arguments while the other side is just bringing up shit.

Big up.
Reply
:iconstateless:
stateless Featured By Owner Feb 19, 2011
thanks man :)

even if the other person is a complete asshole, as was the case here, I always see it as an opportunity to practice and improve explaining what I think about my work and art in general.
Reply
:icondr-snoggle:
dr-snoggle Featured By Owner Mar 24, 2010  Student Photographer
hello,

just a question to you stateless, as i stumbled upon this threads:
if you are a pro, why are you... on dA??? is there any money to do on here??? for a conceptual artist like i think you are? i dont get it...

By the way, have you heard of nicolas delaroche, a french photographer? i thougt you would like it.

PS my gallery is old, and its not what i do anymore.
Reply
:iconstateless:
stateless Featured By Owner Mar 24, 2010
I looked up Delaroche and he has great work, thank you.

Depends what you mean by pro. Anyone can be an artist. An artist might be successful or unsuccessful, popular or unpopular, but I don't think any artist is a professional in the capitalist sense. Artists that make money do so incidentally. Crafts people are professionals in the capitalist sense. It's not really that clear-cut but for simplification's sake it can be.

All artists are conceptual artists; art is conceptual. The performative value of art (as it is in drawing, painting, photography, etc) is itself conceptual, whether one thinks about it or not. The work made is simply work, things upon which ideas can be projected.

Artists don't make work for the purpose of getting money, they make work for the purpose of the work itself. Otherwise the work is not art. Now an artist might incidentally get money for a work they made, but that work would not have been initially designed to attract a consumer for the purpose of a profit; it would have been created for the purpose of creating it.
Reply
:iconwchild:
wchild Featured By Owner Apr 8, 2010  Professional Photographer
Well said!
Reply
:iconstateless:
stateless Featured By Owner Apr 11, 2010
thanks, there's way too much of this "art is making what's popular so the 'artist' can be popular" bullshit going around today
Reply
:iconwchild:
wchild Featured By Owner Apr 11, 2010  Professional Photographer
Indeed.
Reply
:iconeye-of-tom:
eye-of-tom Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2010
I just wanted to say, Ive read all of the comments, and that I feel like I've learnt a great deal about what is "art" in regards to the photographic medium. Which really goes to show me how much I really don't know hah.
Luckily I am not afraid of opening my mind to new ideas and learnings. I once saw a notice board on a local church as I drove by which said "beware an open mind, your brain might fall out", which instantly made me think of the comments and attitudes seen here.
Thank you.
Reply
:iconstateless:
stateless Featured By Owner Mar 1, 2010
hahaha thanks man

I think the deeper one looks into anything, the more complex it becomes
Reply
:iconaliee-01:
aliee-01 Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2010  Student Photographer
I'm almost certain I'm last to comment this, but I love your body of work, and this is no exception. It doesn't have to be beautiful to be interesting. Shadow lines are really interesting. Nice shot :) (and don't listen to that rude woman... I was in shock that someone could attack someone in a place like this... If someone had spoken to me like that in a comment I would have been very very offended!! I'm sure you're experienced enough not to need my advice but keep up the good work!! and ignore all the harpies out to wreck our fun!!) xx
Reply
:iconstateless:
stateless Featured By Owner Mar 1, 2010
thanks! and I agree! :)
Reply
:iconpetercrowfoot:
PeterCrowfoot Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2010  Professional Photographer
I've only been watching you and your work in the last few months and I find your work quite inspiring and I must admit it made me actually go out and look at my suburban and city landscapes with a different 'eye' and I thank you for showing your here at DA as it is artists like yourself that keep me here at DA.
Reply
:iconstateless:
stateless Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2010
thanks man :)

I also stick around for a few people but I also think any audience is a good audience and I like to think I make work for the sake of the work itself (not as part of any grander competition for popularity etc), so the quality and quantity of the audience to which I show my work becomes mostly irrelevant.

Perception is something I'm very interested in at the moment (and something I've had in mind as I've been developing this body of work) and so I'm quite happy if the work has made any impact on your own perceptions of the landscape.

My own perceptions of landscape have been largely informed in part by Lee Friedlander [link] and Brent Bennett [link]
Reply
:iconchrizum:
chrizum Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2010
and lastly [last, I promise]
I can't tell you how many times I've been kicked and banned from this sites chat rooms for defending myself and people who create work such as Levi's in arguments against types of photography that people would find distasteful.

To close my point, I'd say that the organization of this site is tyranny at its worst where only people with glamorous flower bokeh shots and over processed landscapes recognized.

Most of the moderators on this site take an extremely narrow-minded approach to the work that is created with a different approach than their own.
Reply
:iconstateless:
stateless Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2010
I agree, I think some of the moderators are promoted to be such mostly on the grounds that they are enthusiastic (nothing wrong with that of course) and eager to help with whatever skills they have, but they are also perhaps less knowledgeable or experienced and as a result tend to promote the things they are familiar with and don't always have as fine-tuned an ability to critically think through the work they promote/demote.

I see nothing wrong with glamorous flower shots and all the rest as a type of practice, but you're right, those people often seem to have difficulty seeing outside that box they have built around themselves through their restricted and outdated model for art.

I often think that someone likely starts learning something like photography and they get to a point where they get some peer appreciation for their work which has just begun to find some competence. Rather than risk losing that peer appreciation by trying something new, they see their work as the standard to aspire to, so they stop their growth as an artist and just reproduce what they "know" is good. Unfortunately not only do they not grow, but the level of competence of their peers is often amateur and in no way advanced, and so they have often stopped growing at a fairly low level of growth.

I think the best way for someone to grow at something is to continually compare themselves to the best in their field. That way there is tons of room for growth and they have to work hard to attempt to attain that level of work.
Reply
:iconfourteenthstar:
fourteenthstar Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2010
uh, who kicked you from a chatroom for such?

I'd love for you to give me details of this tyranny you speak of too.

`Tepara is NOT representative of deviantART administration in any shape nor form.
Reply
:iconchrizum:
chrizum Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2010
My apologies for that, and I hate to sound like I'm blaming all members of dA administration.

I'd rather not give names. Whats done is done, and I shouldn't have even mentioned it.
Reply
:iconchrizum:
chrizum Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2010
And another thing.
Commenting on what ignancy130 said...
Most of the highly popular work on this site fits a specific medium of photography. If you go on flickr and take a look at the highly favorited shots, you'll notice that the style is much less glamorous than dA, much more simplistic, and naturally it tends to be film.

I don't mean to take shots at anyone's work, but most of the "popular" work on this site is stuff like you'll find on Tepara's dA profile.

Now, it is considered art, but what is art?
Popular work does not make a shot better than less popular work, and unfortunately, too many people will never realize that.

Lastly, just like Levi said.
If you admit that your work has no artistic value, and that your photography skills are limited, the least you can do is take a humble outlook on other people's work instead of berating them mindlessly, and then defending yourself with weak insults a 4th grader would find offensive.

Thanks. Have a great day.
Reply
:iconchrizum:
chrizum Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2010
And another thing.
Commenting on what ignancy130 said...
Most of the highly popular work on this site fits a specific medium of photography. If you go on flickr and take a look at the highly favorited shots, you'll notice that the style is much less glamorous than dA, much more simplistic, and naturally it tends to be film.

I don't mean to take shots at anyone's work, but most of the "popular" work on this site is stuff like you'll find on Tepara's dA profile.

Now, it is considered art, but what is art?
Popular work does not make a shot better than less popular work, and unfortunately, too many people will never realize that.

Lastly, just like Levi said.
If you admit that your work has no artistic value, and that your photography skills are limited, the least you can do is take a humble outlook on other people's work instead of berating them mindlessly, and then defending yourself with weak insults a 4th grader would find offensive.

Thanks. Have a great day.
Reply
:iconchrizum:
chrizum Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2010
Levi, I personally find all of your shots extremely artistic, and I love your style of work.

Don't let some schmuck come around and discourage you.
Reply
:iconstateless:
stateless Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2010
thanks man and no worries :D
Reply
:iconignacy130:
ignacy130 Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Don't know if discussion ended, but I'd like to say something. Comments and faves are not a measure of a level of work, especially on dA. Lots of work are overrated, and a lot underrated, like stateless's photos.

Keep up the good work Levi!

(sorry for my english)
Reply
:iconstateless:
stateless Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2010
exactly :) and thanks!
Reply
:icontepara:
Tepara Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2010  Hobbyist Photographer
Ummm? Its a snapshot of a ute, or truck or what ever you might call it there :) Thats full of rust a dent or two, and the front is about to fall off by the looks. And could do with a lot of cropping, sharpening, and a lot of editing in the brightness and contrast.
Please enlighten me how you even think of this as art, when its very clear its just a snapshot for either scraps, or your personal photoalbum at home. Not on an art sight.
I must be missing something really big here. Please explain, as I would like to understand.
Reply
:iconimaginaryverythought:
imaginaryverythought Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2015  Hobbyist Writer
I am shocked by how rude deviantArt has grown in the last years.

It is not your decision whether something is art or not. All you can do, as someone to criticize other work, is to talk about what you think it has or has not to it. It is not your decision to give it a yes or no. There are artists out there shitting color filled eggs on canvas.
Just because someones art grows above your horizon you have no right to talk like this.
I myself don't feel anything for this peace of art of stateless. If you look into my favourites you can see I am clearly not into photophraphy in this style in any way. But I would never play god in the decision whether something is art or not. The sky can be art. Rust taking over a moveless object is art as well.

The whole discussion of people jumping onto you - what seems to anger you if I read into the timbre of your really rude answers - happens to exist because of this one, really unneccessary comment. And yes, indeed it is. This is not critique. This is unfair and solely terrible commenting to take someone down. He gave you a really expalantion about what art is to him. Why he made this choice and what he learned about light and shadow and all you took of it was "it's boring, because it is so much to read".

I am baffled to what a place of terrible people deviantArt has grown. When it started it was about artist helping eachother and not taking each other down, when it's not the favourite style of art. I would never comment the same rudeness you did here on the pictures of huge breasted anime woman, even if it disgusts me. I would even so nevercomment such a mean thing on your pictures of cats an dogs.

And as you said. He might not have a clue what you are doing or what you have learned about photography, but the same goes for you.

All I can say is: You did not give any critique, you just run your mouth like someone on facebook comments without thinking and tahts really a shame.

Art has no boundaries. No rules. You don't have to like it. But you have to accept there are other views on this planet and your view is not "the right" nor are you or any other human being qualified to give such horrible statements.
Reply
:iconhonkeycracker:
honkeycracker Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2011
lol
Reply
:icontepara:
Tepara Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2011  Hobbyist Photographer
Sorry? Im lost, what are you laughing at?
Reply
:iconhonkeycracker:
honkeycracker Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2011
your ignorance
Reply
:icontepara:
Tepara Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2011  Hobbyist Photographer
Umm ok. What ever tickles your fancy.
Seen as you are the stupid one leaving a comment on something that died a very very long time ago.
Reply
:iconfirebugs:
fIRebUgs Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2010   General Artist
Your close mindedness is quite staggering. please breed out.
Reply
:iconstateless:
stateless Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2010
Perhaps if you enlighten me first as to what you believe makes something art then I could better answer your question in a way you might understand.

If the brightness or contrast seems off then you might require a better monitor or some calibration (I use a calibrated LaCie 321 and it is perfect on my screen).
Reply
:icontepara:
Tepara Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2010  Hobbyist Photographer
Lol.. I had an idea you would reply like that :lol:
There is a big list as to what is art and what isnt art. And most things are art.
But there is a difference between a photo and a snapshot. And a snapshot has its only "type" or art. I guess you could call it. :hmm:
Reply
:iconstateless:
stateless Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2010
Most things are not art but more typically fall under craft or kitsch. Art is a production of new models and not the duplication of existing models (which would be classified as craft or in certain cases kitsch, though kitsch is really just a specific variance of craft).

Self-expression does not necessitate a work as art nor does human manipulation alone and very little art takes self-expression as its purpose (though a great deal of art does involve new modes of perception and this is often mistaken for self-expression, for example famous work like those by Picasso, CÚzanne, Van Gogh, etc). There is no room for "taste" in art as taste plays no role in the function of an artwork. The effort and time it takes to produce something are irrelevant to the classification of that thing as art. Art is an opening of potential rather than a closing of meaning. Art begins trajectories of meaning; it asks questions without answering them.

A snapshot is a photo, and neither are criteria for art or craft as photography is a medium and as such it can function as a vehicle for either art or craft regardless of the particular type of photography that is used (not to mention that any so-called categories are artificial in the first place and defy any precise delimitation making them meaningless in a discussion about art).

Art always involves an awareness of form, as form is what produces an aesthetic and is the basis for its functionality. Representation is only one aspect of form; there are also forms like the visual which involves shapes, values, hues and the composition of those elements, the physical form involving dimension, tactility, surface and context, etc, etc.

To judge anything on representation alone is to miss the point, particularly when most contemporary photography and art in general have moved beyond representation as the sole defining quality. Many people are not aware of this because instead of looking at contemporary photography they spend their time looking at the derivative work found in commercial and editorial photography. There is nothing wrong with those types of photography, but very few works of that nature overlap into the realm of art.

---

As to this particular work and why I made it, I am interested in the perceived and constructed appearances of objects and places. Objects and places exist in a state of constant flux and are part of and affected by a greater community of interconnected physical materials and modifiers which are also in continual flux. So what does an object or place actually look like?

The problem with this question is that it assumes a static or unified singular appearance, something easily analyzed and classified. More interesting questions can be asked. What are the possibilities and potential for the appearance of an object or place? To what degree is appearance subjective—when does appearance cease as the trace of an object or place and begin as a reflection of ourselves and by extension our culture?

I use photography to explore the function and affect of appearance. Photography is a useful tool in this pursuit because it is capable of generating traces to previous instances of space and time and the objects and places contained therein. Photographs unify a continuous flux of appearance into a single representation—a concise iconic perception. The body of work this image belongs to challenges this iconic perception through an emphasis on the informational properties of the photograph while downplaying its representational qualities.

An emphasis on information means an emphasis on visual qualities (shape, texture, value, hue and composition) which are the informational qualities of an image: these qualities are what describe the semblance of what was photographed.

In making this work I use a process similar to the conventional process used in drawing. To draw well realistically one must look at the forms rather than the subject. So to draw an eye, one would look at and attempt to duplicate each shape that makes up a specific eye and they would look at it as a set of shapes and forget that they are drawing an eye. They could be drawing anything and their approach would not differ. The problem with drawing an eye as an eye is that one ends up drawing what they think an eye should look like rather than what the eye does look like—they end up drawing a symbol for an eye rather than a duplication of how that specific eye actually looks. While the result of realistic drawing is something representational, this approach is essentially non-representational in that it ignores the representation (what the picture is to be of) in favor of the basic forms and values that make up the picture.

This can also be applied to photography by looking carefully at the forms that make up the image which is framed by the camera and privileging those forms over subject matter. The image can be constructed by paying attention to these forms rather than the subjects these forms combine to make (represent).

The resulting pictures are in a sense more realistic because I don't photograph a specific subject like a car or a tree in the way that I think they should look—I just photograph it as it does look as a combination of forms and values. The resulting pictures are much more about the surface of the image and the pictorial space. I look specifically for unusual and unconventional configurations of space which have aesthetic value. The composition in the resulting works (such as this one) has more in common with the types of compositions found in contemporary and classic painting. The aesthetic is not found in the subject if there is one but in the composition and visual form. Seeing this way is intuitive and not everyone can “see” aesthetic; many judge aesthetic by rigid quantitative parameters (ie, a centered subject, exact symmetry of form instead of by visual tension).

People with a painting background more often tend to "get" this type of image because their training involves looking at form and value before subject, and so they quickly comprehend aesthetic uses of form and composition of that form even when it is disruptive to the subject. Commercial photographers and hobbyist photographers are not as likely to understand because they have been trained to look for subjects, narratives and messages while ignoring other levels of the image. But there are also many photographers who do understand and employ a similar method to their framing, albeit for different purposes than mine.

I run a small blog of images made by other photographers, many of them established and famous in the art world, who have produced similar unusual aesthetic compositions: [link]

---

If you believe deviantArt to be largely a residency for art then I would suggest reexamining what is published here because the majority is replication and craft that lacks any critical underpinning. There is art here, but it takes a great deal of digging to find and it is certainly a minority.

Assuming that something is crap because you lack an immediate understanding is not likely to help you understand it and more likely to prevent future growth and understanding of things beyond the level you are comfortable with (and there is always another level of understanding beyond what anyone might understand). That is not to say everything misunderstood will turn out to be great, but to assume everything outside your understanding is beneath that understanding is a fallacy.

There are a few things you might consider doing before jumping to such a conclusion. You might take a few courses (or get a degree) in art or art history at a good school. No one understands things out of thin air, and given the amount of research that has been produced in art throughout history, there is certainly a complexity involved and many concepts which are often taken for granted in the production of art. Most art is not aimed at the lowest-common-denominator when it comes to critical thought.

Or you could also read some books or at least essays on art. This essay by Brian Massumi for instance ( [link] ) is excellent and in explaining the “art” in interactive art he covers many good points of what makes other mediums such as photography function as art).

And if you don’t have the time to do those things, and who does, you might suspend your assumptions in favor of questions (most often things are not done without reason, and unless you know everything, it is possible others may have ideas and reasons you could not have initially been aware of). If you don’t know why something was made, that alone does not allow you to render a negative judgment; at most it only allows for you to admit a neutral confusion.

If you intend to dismiss this as mumbo-jumbo, you might also notice the overall positive reception of this image in its views and favorites and check out who has added it as a favorite, as this includes two well-respected members in the DA community, intao and equivoque. Certainly they are not without the ability to see aesthetic and art in this work, and their own work has been quite well received within the conventions of DA, far more than both yours or mine.
Reply
:iconsamrickim:
SamRickim Featured By Owner Jun 6, 2012  Student Photographer
I stumbled upon this through another person's journal and I must say you're entirely correct and that `Tepara is entirely out of line. I could understand constructive criticism, but she shot you down unnecessarily. I also don't see where it would need to be sharpened/contrast adjusted, or where it could be cropped - any further would deviate from the realistic nature of the piece. My monitors aren't that great, either - if anything, most artwork looks WORSE on them. The style itself is not my cup of tea, but I can appreciate it for what it is.

The fact that she's in an administrative position after writing something like that is terrible.
Reply
:iconstateless:
stateless Featured By Owner Jul 20, 2012
Thanks :)

Unfortunately there will always be people like Tepara who tie their personal validation to the narrow work they make/understand and who maintain arrogance by refusing to learn or study anything beyond that work so that they can preserve the feeling that they are good at what they do and better than everyone else. Rather than adjusting their perspective to match whatever work they are viewing in order to better understand the work, they expect every work to conform to their preconceived ideas (and in doing so will never be capable of perceiving or learning anything new). In the context of the history of photography (in particular art and editorial photography), this piece is not out of place in either its execution or subject matter, but many like Tepara have relegated their experience to crafts fairs, other amateur work and advertising and have not bothered to read a book or do any research (and I don't mean to poke fun at those things, but it is good to recognize that those things do not constitute all that there is, and are not necessarily a measure for quality). I think people with work of quality get there by doubting themselves constantly and thus continually looking to improve and learn (even when their work has reached a level of quality by the standards of others). Others are happy with a few accolades and sit on that "success" and never progress beyond that point, using those accolades as proof that they are amazing people of worth (and it really doesn't take much to get a few accolades). Of course, personal worth has nothing to do with talent, abilities, or accomplishments—it exists independently, and recognizing this allows a more objective approach to judging work, especially one's own.

While not all administrators/moderators on this site are so narrow-minded, one look through the daily deviations generally reveals the kind of work promoted here. I left after becoming tired of the same soft-porn reproductions endlessly featured as a way of driving up traffic. Most were derivative and not well thought-out or executed. My work was actually featured quite well and received a lot of traffic and I had received several daily deviations (definitely no complaints there), but the continual shameless choices aimed at increasing traffic meant that many good works went unnoticed and many people with quality work avoided this site or left it, leaving little that was interesting to look at. While Flickr may contain much of the same kinds of work, it is organized in such a way that it makes running into interesting work and avoiding boring work much easier. However, there really isn't a perfect photo or art site out there at the moment, and Yahoo's control of Flickr is slowly killing it off through poor choices over the years.
Reply
:iconwchild:
wchild Featured By Owner Apr 8, 2010  Professional Photographer
I can't believe my eyes after I;

1) read what Tepara says
2) look at her so called gallery

What a load of crap.
Reply
:iconstateless:
stateless Featured By Owner Apr 11, 2010
hahaha indeed :)
Reply
:iconlansur:
Lansur Featured By Owner Mar 26, 2010
thanks for this wonderful and extensive answer, hope you don`t mind that i`ll post it in my blog (with all due references) for a re-consideration in a year or two ;)
Reply
:iconstateless:
stateless Featured By Owner Mar 26, 2010
haha sure :)
Reply
:iconlansur:
Lansur Featured By Owner Mar 26, 2010
=)
Reply
:iconwchild:
wchild Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2010  Professional Photographer
:thumbsup:

I'm with you 100%.
Reply
:iconstateless:
stateless Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2010
:)
Reply
:iconfirebugs:
fIRebUgs Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2010   General Artist
<3 marry me
Reply
:iconstateless:
stateless Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2010
hahaha
Reply
:icontepara:
Tepara Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2010  Hobbyist Photographer
1 comment saying something about the shadow, is really not saying anything at all.
And a few comments and only 9 favs. really is nothing at all. and I need noone at all that is well respected that has faved it. But like I said.. 9 favs? You think thats good? and 1 comment saying something about the shadow is good?
You are kidding right?
I mean really???? You cant really think thats good?
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×

Featured in Collections

Awareness by Roxyielle




Details

Submitted on
October 14, 2009
Image Size
380 KB
Resolution
760×760
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
3,942 (1 today)
Favourites
22 (who?)
Comments
112
Downloads
16
×