Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Photography to the next level
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:03 am    Post subject: Photography to the next level Reply with quote

I think it is a great idea to have an Art topic section.
To give some ideas and thoughts about the Art of photography I would like to recommend this series of articles

http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/next-level.shtml

I personally think they are a good series of articles because they dont separate technical quality and the aesthetic quality.

For example IMO you can be a Good artist but consistently show photos with hardly any detail in the shadow details that matter. On the other hand one can be a good Technical photographer and bore us all to death with shadow detail that doesnt matter!
Or God forbid you can have no talent and take photos with no real technical quality or artistic merit.
All a bit of a conundrum which IMO this article helps explain.
I have read the series at least four times and will continue to return to it and try and take some of it in!


PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

These were already on my Favorites folder. Inspiring, and by reading them, it helps keep me grounded and concentrated. GREAT idea for establishing this link!


PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I for sure am no maniac of showing details in the shadows at all costs. There are images that simply work with some pure black. It really depends on the single image, it is impossible to make a rule.

I find much more aesthetically horrible some tentatives to extract details from shadows at all costs, than to leave shadows as they are. Excess of use of techniques like HDR composing lead to results that are innatural for the medium, and simply look wrong, at least to my eyes.

Shadows in a photograph are like reticences in novels, or like pauses in music. They are needed, in different amounts depending (again) on individual cases.

Everyone with a developed aesthetical sense has his own idea and concept of what photography is.

In the most intelligent persons (the persons who listen to the others, accept critiques, don't assume they are always right), this concept often evolves, although in a single moment in time, we might be 100% convinced of what we think in that given moment.

At the present moment in my life, I am convinced (or I should better say I became convinced, because this is not what I used to think 20 years ago) that photography has in itself, all that it takes to make complete and satisfactory art products, without the need of compromising with other art ways and instruments.

What this concretely means, for me, is that now, when I am given a choice of two paths to reach a photographic goal, I always choose the straightest one. Why? I have no objective reason to submit. I do so, simply because the straightest path feels to me the most sincere, the most direct, the most honest. In a post-modern age, where everything is contamination and crossovers, but most of the time not for the sake of creating something new, but with the intent of faking, of camouflaging, of getting smoke in people's eyes, I feel more and more out of place, and find myself wishing to the back to the purity.

When I say "purity" I don't mean morals - I mean the purity of arts as opposed to merchandising. The same thing that made Wagner furious (to see arts sold to merchants and by merchants).

When I look at a Cartier Bresson photograph, I find that purity. In the simplicity of the means (that are simple, but not simplistic!). In the straightforwardness of the results. In the honesty of the output. I take that garcon that Bresson photographed in a street with the baguettes under his arms. There is one reason why that snapshot resisted through the years, in spite of his technical approximation and it's obviously improvised nature. The reason is that it is totally honest and straightforward. It goes directly from the eyes to the heart. And everyone can understand it, because it is universal. Like all great art.

If I have to choose an opposite to this, I think of the glamour photography for fashion magazines. There, everything is fake. From the beginning. The girl itself, is fake: it's not a person, she is chosen for what she appears after hours of makeup. Then the photo is fake, because everything is constructed to make something appear, that is not there. And most of the times, the intervention with computer in post processing is so invasive, that barely a small portion of the original take remains.

And all of this, to what purpose? To create an artwork that talks to the heart of the people? No: the purpose is to sell a cloth. Or a car. Or a food.

The art of photography (for what remains of it) becomes completely servant of a logic of capitalistic profit that is obtained through the illusion of something that is not there. It is a deception. And it is meant to cheat on people, to make them buy something that in most cases they don't need. It is profoundly dishonest, and this -dare I say - immoral, yes.

The immorality is not in showing a naked tit - it is in hiding it with a veil and the implicit conclusion that by buying a product you will obtain that object of desire.
When photography becomes accomplice to this, it makes a betrayal.

This is the way I see the thing now.

To get back to the issue of detail in the shadow - I went a long way far from it, but I hope it was not useless. What I wanted to arrive to, is that a "industry standard" solution, is not necessarily the truest one. If one thinks that the shadows in his photo are hiding something important, it is right for him to make it show. But if a "blocked" (i.e. all black) shadow feels natural and right to be there, there is no rule written in the stone that you must correct it.

In my own, personal vision of today, the simplest, straightest way a photograph can deliver itself to vision, it the most effective one, and the most valuable.
Of course I understand this is a very personal position, and other people may rightfully disagree.

I often like to make photographic choices based on the inputs I receive from other arts. There is a saying of a famous jazz musician, the drummer Peter Erskine (Weather Report, Steps Ahead), that stayed with me since the first moment I read it - and I never forget it.

When asked to describe his experience with Weather Report, and Joe Zawinul in particular, Peter Erskine once said that it was a fundamental experience, because it taught him how to play with silences - as opposed to many young jazz musicians of today who think they "can play" only when they play a lot of notes. Erskine said that very simply, Zawinul didn't teach him how to play, he taught him when not to play.

After having read this sentence, I listened again to those records, trying to understand what he meant. And that changed completely my listening experience. Not only in listening to music: in listening to everything. Photography wise, that sentence taught me that a photograph must be listened to and not only seen.

That empty spaces, blacks, have a function that goes beyond not simply the "industry standard" evaluation meter, but also any rational evaluation.
That in those spaces, that are left empty, the mind of the viewer can take place, explore, relate with the rest of the photograph in a different way.

How to choose those spaces - this is the most difficult part. No empty space is such a living space only because it exists. It must have a reason to stay there, that is not casual, or a missed cropping. This is part of what is difficult in making great photographs: to leave spaces for the viewers, but at the same time, make so that those spaces are essential.
But, nobody said that photography is easy.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I see what you mean Orio but life is always a compromise and art, and within art photography, is no exception.

You talk about Cartier-Bresson but for example his most famous shot, Kiss by the Hotel de Ville, is posed. He saw these two young people kissing and then he asked them to replicate the kiss again for him.
Is it purity? Was that shot sincere? I don't really care, because the result was great.

And talking about Weather Report I heard all sort of bad things from jazz "purists" for Zawinul and Miles going to electronic and fusion leaving the acoustic path. Also Wagner sold himself and his work pretty well, he wasn't a poor fellow like Van Gogh or Ligabue.

I remember an exposition of ceramics of Picasso that was really inspiring despite they weren't paintings. But it was Picasso art at his best nonetheless.

It's the artist not the medium.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A G Photography wrote:

You talk about Cartier-Bresson but for example his most famous shot, Kiss by the Hotel de Ville, is posed. He saw these two young people kissing and then he asked them to replicate the kiss again for him.


I'm sorry, but that was Doisneau.

Quote:
Is it purity? Was that shot sincere? I don't really care


I do.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
A G Photography wrote:

You talk about Cartier-Bresson but for example his most famous shot, Kiss by the Hotel de Ville, is posed. He saw these two young people kissing and then he asked them to replicate the kiss again for him.


I'm sorry, but that was Doisneau.


Doh! Shame on me Embarassed When one is so sure of one thing... I would have bet money (and not a few) that was a Cartier-Bresson's shot.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anybody can get a fully auto camera and have the shots professionally printed and get at least 50% or more of them technically good. If any of the shots have any Artistic merit then it is pure luck but it is very doubtful any will have two together.
The same applies to digital if you just shoot on auto and use camera JPEG or default RAW settings.
But these are only generalised opinions or examples concerning technical and artistic merit.

There could be many definitions of an excellent artistic and technically good image. IMO one of the toughest is for the photo to be judged as pretty well imposable to improve, or everything is just about right.

For many years I have been a member of the RPS and I have seen the emphasis change from the technically perfect, to great artistic merit. In the past judges would reject a great image if it wasnt technically perfect. It is now widely accepted that artistic merit is the most important thing. It is fairly common to see images from camera phones and disposable cameras hanging together at the Salon

The argument about technical and artistic merit is nothing new. Here is a quote from a while back Re the RPS.

However, in the 1880s the feeling was growing that it had become too much centred round scientific aspects, and out of this grew the Linked Ring. Only a few years later, George Bernard Shaw, in a playful mood, was suggesting that the Society was now becoming slightly paranoiac:
"the Royal Photographic Society mixes up optics and fine art, trade and science, in a way that occasionally upsets the critical indigestion.....
To add to the muddle, the R.P.S. has been so effectually laughed out of its old notion that photographs are to be esteemed according to certain technical conditions in the negative, that it has now arrived at the conclusion that a pictorial photograph is one in which the focusing and the exposure are put wrong on purpose. Consequently.... it is afraid to give a medal to any picture that does not look more or less mildewed, lest it be ridiculed for Philistinism. And whenever it gets a photograph which in its secret soul it thinks very good, it is ashamed to say so, and puts it in the "professional" section. As it happens, the object of this guilty admiration sometimes is very good. And sometimes the fuzzygraph which the Society puts in the pictorial section because it privately thinks it very bad is very bad. Thus, whenever the poor Society happens to be right, it makes the judicious laugh - exactly what it outrages its conscience to avoid..."
(Article in Amateur Photographer, October 16, 1902)
http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/royal_ph.htm

It does seem that things change but sometimes the goal posts move!
120 + years latter the argument still continues (With some)
There will always be a few who will never accept that a fussy shot (For example) can have any merit and there will also be those who believe an unaltered shot straight from the camera with no attempt to improve it can have any merit.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think that the technical process has an impact on the artwork and that would be stupid to deny it (otherwise why painters would choose oils instead of acrylic or pastels?)

Having that said, technical perfection should not be considered as the main merit of an artwork. The execution is important but so is the motif and the inspiration behind it.

Leonardo would not have been what he is if he hadn't had his mastery of the techniques. At the same time, his artworks would not be so highly regarded if the subjects (motifs) were stupid and futile and the inspiration (the infamous "sincerity") absent.

A technical defect will never prevent a good artwork from being appreciated. But it's also true that technical defects can prevent an artwork to exploit its full potential.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 3:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great idea to have a place to talk about art . . .
Orio, you bring up so many good points that you help make one think for a while.
I agree with you about the amount of over processing that exists - like this HDR. The trap that exists in the realm of PS and the like is the ability tp disassemble an image and perfect each component to then reassemble them into a picture that there was no way ever to have shot. Mad I guess this is a slippery slope - on a regular basis Popular Photography ( a magazine my wife gave me a subscription to, and one that shows techniques applicable to both film and digital) shows pictures that have been over processed in PS and what should have been done, but then have a PS article showing how to do eye catching fireworks pictures Shocked Surprised Confused

Yes technique can make the artist - hence why I ask questions. A good artist also knows the limitations of his medium and often how to acheive that effect in a different way.

We all know the ideom "a bad workman blames his tools " , at times it can be true. There are times I know from my time in my workshop that using a poor tool can turn a little job into a chore. This is the reason why I was excited to latch onto the M42 adapter, it improves my tools. This is something artists know too - a poor quality paper can adversely affect a watercolour painting, a cheap brush won't allow the control of a better brush etc. There are those out there who will site photographers using box cameras who produce beautiful artwork - aeathetically and technically, but these cameras were often a very good quality for their time. (We weren't a throw away society then). A rule I've always tried to follow is to get yourself the best tools you can afford, and that you may have to be selective and patient.

Shocked Embarassed I guess that's my rambling commentary . . .
Jim


PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting discussion. Whilst I love the immediacy of Cartier-Bresson's work I also love the highly worked images of Ansel Adams. I'm not convinced that one approach is right and one wrong.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

j.lukow wrote:
Great idea to have a place to talk about art . . .
Orio, you bring up so many good points that you help make one think for a while.


thanks!

j.lukow wrote:
I agree with you about the amount of over processing that exists


Now how much of it would be really necessary?
This is a key question. How many times do we see digital photographers take no care or little care in taking photographs, because they think "I can rescue it in Photoshop"?
How many times we see sloppy lighting not taken care for, because "I can rescue the shadows with HDR"?
How many times we see boring banal pictures put through the Virtual Photographer plugin because "it will make it look cool"?

I have the highest respect for the people who spend hours in the streets, in the forest, in a studio, spending hours, days, months to make their photos right from the start.
Then it happens to almost everyone to occasionally erase a pimple with photoshop. This is not the problem for me, I'm not that uncompromising.

ON a higher level of manipulationss, I don't like it when I see a poor shot by Mr. XY processed in Virtual Photographer and have people go "ooh" because the effect looks "grunge".
And of course I don't like all kinds of huge computer graphics lies that are made on photographs to sell things to people.
You can call it my rebellion to the homogeneization of pop culture into the "ad culture": for many young people, a beautiful thing is not beautiful on its own terms, but because it resembles a famous actor, or a model, or a TV commercial.
And there is so much faking involved in this process, that as a reaction, I tend more and more to go towards the pure and the straight.
Perhaps if I lived in a different era, where this standard of faking things were not so dominating, I would not be that way.
Heck, you go to a furniture shop and they sell you kitchens that are made of plastic that looks like wood. F***ng fake. Either make it with that damned wood, or just make it look like plastic. Plastic that looks like plastic has a dignity, plastic that looks like wood has not.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
I think that the technical process has an impact on the artwork and that would be stupid to deny it (otherwise why painters would choose oils instead of acrylic or pastels?)

Having that said, technical perfection should not be considered as the main merit of an artwork. The execution is important but so is the motif and the inspiration behind it.

A technical defect will never prevent a good artwork from being appreciated. But it's also true that technical defects can prevent an artwork to exploit its full potential.


I think we agree.
Perhaps I go further and would say without the technique and a full understanding of it one isn't going to produce good 'Art' unless it is just a bit luck - something that many photographers (Inc self) often get a bit of.
Another way of putting it would be to state.
One can't break the rules if you don't know them in the first place?

There is also the question of what one person (Perhaps inexperienced) may see as a technical defect may have been done for arts sake rather than by mistake?
A good exmple of this would be some of the work (IMO great) turned out on 'Toy cameras' such as the Holga or pinhole, or the use of lenses like Lens Baby.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Richard_D wrote:
Interesting discussion. Whilst I love the immediacy of Cartier-Bresson's work I also love the highly worked images of Ansel Adams. I'm not convinced that one approach is right and one wrong.


Oh I don't see anything wrong in what Ansel Adams did.
Perhaps I explained myself poorly.
I don't have objections into practicing techniques. Not at all!
What I don't like is the use of techniques as:

- a way of faking things
- a shortcut to skip facing and solving photographic issues

Ansel Adams did not fake anything, he just worked to bring out from the medium, what was already IN the medium.
He did not add anything to his photograps, he just worked to exploit the potential of the medium.
He did not turn Virtual Photographer on and added "grunge effect".


PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You can make a good picture look better, but you can never make a bad picture look good.

Just a thought Very Happy


PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rob Leslie wrote:


I think we agree.
Perhaps I go further and would say without the technique and a full understanding of it one isn't going to produce good 'Art' unless it is just a bit luck - something that many photographers (Inc self) often get a bit of.
Another way of putting it would be to state.
One can't break the rules if you don't know them in the first place?

There is also the question of what one person (Perhaps inexperienced) may see as a technical defect may have been done for arts sake rather than by mistake?
A good exmple of this would be some of the work (IMO great) turned out on 'Toy cameras' such as the Holga or pinhole, or the use of lenses like Lens Baby.


Yes, all your definitions can be different ways to look at the same concept.
I think that every art medium has it's nature.
Photography is photographing, basically.
Then you can post-edit it, but if it's meant to be photography, it shouldn't be distorted.

THere are artists that use photography as a pure instriument to obtain other goals. Andy Warhol was one of them. That is OK with me, but I don't consider that photography anymore. I consider it something else.
But I have respect for the artist as he follows what he feels is a true path of artistic research.

Then there are the fakers, which are a different thing, and those I don't like.
A photograph that presents itself as manipulated, but without pretending to be a true photograph, is something I respect. I respect the effort of the artist to produce something new.
A photograph that is manipulated but wants to be falsely believed as a photograph, is something that cheat, that lies, and I don't like it.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

lahnet wrote:
You can make a good picture look better, but you can never make a bad picture look good.
Just a thought Very Happy


Smile
Unfortunately, the truth of this statement depends entirely on what is perceived as "looking good".
And the absence of the ability of discerning the beautiful from the ugly, is evident everywhere in our society, from the way we dress to the way we build houses to the TV shows that we make and watch.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

An example I want to make.

Sepia toning of photographs is something that "feels" old, but not because of it's age - because it was a method that was used a lot more in the past than it is now.
But per se, there is nothing wrong with that - one can make today photos in sepia if he really and sincerely feels that, and if he does not do that as a "cheap trick" to an "effect".

"Effect" is the enemy.

Now let's talk about those "Old Time" plugins. THose that add scratches, dirt, fingerprints to fake an old photograph.
THese things can have a use in a fictional situation. If I make a movie for instance, where there's need of an old photograph, this is a way to make it. This is ok, because this is not a lie. THis is something true in the context of a fictional story.

But what about those people that post photographs in the galleries with that "old time" effect?
What is the point of that?
Is that part of a fictional novel? No.
Is that a true old photo? No.
It's just a way to hit the viewer with an "effect". With nothing underneath the effect. The king is naked.
Because even if there was something good beneath the effect (and most of the time it doesn't), the effect would kill it.
It's just surface, surface, surface. Skin effect. Ham acting.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
Richard_D wrote:
Interesting discussion. Whilst I love the immediacy of Cartier-Bresson's work I also love the highly worked images of Ansel Adams. I'm not convinced that one approach is right and one wrong.


Oh I don't see anything wrong in what Ansel Adams did.
Perhaps I explained myself poorly.
I don't have objections into practicing techniques. Not at all!
What I don't like is the use of techniques as:

- a way of faking things
- a shortcut to skip facing and solving photographic issues

Ansel Adams did not fake anything, he just worked to bring out from the medium, what was already IN the medium.
He did not add anything to his photograps, he just worked to exploit the potential of the medium.
He did not turn Virtual Photographer on and added "grunge effect".


Is the 'grunge effect' any worse than Man Ray's solarisation work, or cross-processing? I suspect fashions will come and go. The violently coloured grads so popular in the 70's largely disappeared. There seems to be a gradual decline in over-saturated extreme-wide angle landscapes in the photographic press already. I appreciate the skill that goes into some fashion photography, even if I frequently don't like the hyper-real results. I don't personally like most of the HDR work I see, but I've increasingly seen it done subtly where it's been used to lift a scenes dynamic range to that of negative film so that it still looks realistic.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Richard_D wrote:

Is the 'grunge effect' any worse than Man Ray's solarisation work, or cross-processing?


Maybe not worse. Surely cheaper.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
lahnet wrote:
You can make a good picture look better, but you can never make a bad picture look good.
Just a thought Very Happy


Smile
Unfortunately, the truth of this statement depends entirely on what is perceived as "looking good".
And the absence of the ability of discerning the beautiful from the ugly, is evident everywhere in our society, from the way we dress to the way we build houses to the TV shows that we make and watch.

That's the point, for most people, they can make the photos "look good". For people without experience on photography, ANY sunset taken with a extreme wide-angle and passed through any typical photoshop "pimp my photo" (extreme contrast and saturation or whatever crappy effect) plugin, is a masterpiece. Same for any half-assed picture of textures with hard light turned into black and white and extreme contrast. Same for portraits with a fisheye similarly processed with extreme saturation and contrast. Etc, etc. I personally hate this trend, maybe it's more so ennerving when you see a good photo more or less destroyed than when you see a regular photo "enhanced".

On the other hand, some postprocessing can be good. For instance have a look here at radiant vista: http://www.radiantvista.com/critique/juergen-from-germany It's a very good photo to start with, and the post-processing certainly brings a bit more out of it, what's done, while a bit extreme in some parts, is not much different from having used a red/pink filter while taking the photo.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

By the way, this thread is going a bit off-topic. I think the links in the first post are great, as you progress in photography, it eventually becomes more and more difficult to determine what the next step is. So any help is great Smile


PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
lahnet wrote:
You can make a good picture look better, but you can never make a bad picture look good.
Just a thought Very Happy


Smile
Unfortunately, the truth of this statement depends entirely on what is perceived as "looking good".
And the absence of the ability of discerning the beautiful from the ugly, is evident everywhere in our society, from the way we dress to the way we build houses to the TV shows that we make and watch.


One of the most important qualities of Art is to portray the ugly and often to shock
Many of the greatest pieces of art known were conceived and produced for that one purpose.
Perhaps the best defining example of that is Picassos Guernica
The runner up to this years Royal academy Royal Academys summer show. of art awards was a video installation of a girl cutting herself to pieces with a barbed wire hoop
Tracey Emins gory gallery saves the RAs average-as-ever summer show
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/article4072275.ece


PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 11:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

naplam wrote:
By the way, this thread is going a bit off-topic. I think the links in the first post are great, as you progress in photography, it eventually becomes more and more difficult to determine what the next step is. So any help is great Smile


I don't think itis going off topic.
If the topic is 'Art' we have to have an idea of what art is.
It isn't just taking pretty pictures, it should a bit deeper than that.
The average family shot, holiday landscape etc isn't art. They are 'Record shots'
Record shots have merit and are an important part of photography and are also worth doing to ones best abilty. but they rarely have any artistic quality.
One should not mistake Artistic quality with just good composition, lighting and technique. 'Art should have a lot more.
IMO photography still has a long way to go and huge areas to explore. It is still an almost unexplored medium, which is one of the things that makes it exciting.
The link naplam posted is a greqt example. I quote one of the comments.
'What a great demonstration of managing and crafting monochrome values'
That is what this photo is. It is good craft. It's a great example of a 'Record shot' far, far from art.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 11:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rob Leslie wrote:

One should not mistake Artistic quality with just good composition, lighting and technique. 'Art should have a lot more.
IMO photography still has a long way to go and huge areas to explore. It is still an almost unexplored medium, which is one of the things that makes it exciting.


I completely agree with the above statements.

And I also agree with the "cheap" factor of most of the post processed shots today.

Bringing into again the music comparison Orio did (and music is so damn close to photography, being an extremely sensorial form of art) I remember the overuse of effects and post processing tecniques which now sound extremely dated once the "wow" effect vanished.

At the very end bad music sooner or later reveals itself as bad music, good music is always there despite the fact that for producing it one used an microphoned acoustic Steinway piano in a room with good acoustic or used a sampler and a digital reverb.

This is the point though that divide me from Orio, I don't care what Zawinul or other artist uses to produce their art, I care of their art.
A bad pianist or keyboard player can never make his music sounds good despite all the post processing tecniques. At the inverse getting good results using sequencers and samplers are often a lot harder than simply playing "live". Getting poor results is of course simpler, but they sound poor.
Following Orio's idea of "photography and art", every song played with a sampler or sequencer should not be music. I wonder what Zawinul would think about it Wink