View Full Version : Is Photography Art?
bmattock
08-11-2009, 18:46
IS PHOTOGRAPHY "ART?". By A. G. MARSHALL. Photographic Mosaics, 1898 (http://books.google.com/books?id=zns1AAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA186&dq="is+photography+art"&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=1861&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=1870&as_brr=1&ei=0SuCSsi-NpHyMurYgc4K#v=onepage&q="is photography art"&f=false)
Google Books Search "Is Photography Art?" (http://books.google.com/books?as_q=&num=10&lr=&as_brr=1&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=is+photography+art&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_brr=1&as_pt=ALLTYPES&lr=&as_vt=&as_auth=&as_pub=&as_sub=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=1861&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=1870&as_isbn=&as_issn=)
It seems the question has been asked and asked again - dating back to the dawn of photography.
Funny we still ask it from time to time, eh?
Some things, questions, never change.
Ho hum.....
I used to contemplate this question until I came to realize that anything can be art if that is the creator's intention. So of course, yes it is. Any work of art may be perceived subjectively, historically, and/or commercially as good/important/successful or not, but it is still art.
George Bonanno
08-11-2009, 20:01
Photography at its best is a craft.
Nothing more and a lot less.
However when trickery and ignorance enter into the equation then it's deemed by the visually handicapped as art.
Chriscrawfordphoto
08-11-2009, 20:23
George, this was resolved 100 years ago. You're wrong, end of discussion. It amazes me that this discussion continues among amateur photographers when it is a dead issue in the world of art and has been for a VERY long time. It is akin to chemists saying that their discipline isn't really science just because 1000 years ago chemistry was regarded as a form of sorcery.
photography is a medium.
any medium can be used to make art.
some photography is art.
next question!
back alley
08-11-2009, 20:31
i don't know but i like it...
mfunnell
08-11-2009, 20:57
photography is a medium.
any medium can be used to make art.
some photography is art.That's as useful and concise a summary as I've seen.
...Mike
Chris101
08-11-2009, 21:05
George, this was resolved 100 years ago. You're wrong, end of discussion. It amazes me that this discussion continues among amateur photographers when it is a dead issue in the world of art and has been for a VERY long time. It is akin to chemists saying that their discipline isn't really science just because 1000 years ago chemistry was regarded as a form of sorcery.
When I worked in industry, chemistry was a technology. Now I'm at a college, so it's a science again (except when I'm teaching, then it's just work.) It all depends on the application.
photography is a medium.
any medium can be used to make art.
some photography is art.
next question!
You stole my post! :D
I always ask "is writing art?" If that fails to make the point once you point out the difference between a personal letter, a James Joyce novel, and advertisement copy, I ask:
"is painting art?" Of course, they usually say. "But what about house painting? Sign painting?" If they don't get it it's probably a lost cause.
MD
amateriat
08-11-2009, 21:39
Photography at its best is a craft.
Nothing more and a lot less.
However when trickery and ignorance enter into the equation then it's deemed by the visually handicapped as art.
George: That argument can, and indeed has, been used in regard to painting, sculpture, music and literature (try Vermeer vs. Pollock, Rodin vs. Moore, Mozart vs. Glass, Faulkner vs...oh, hell, too many to pick there). And, before you head me off at the pass, the "mechanical reproduction" argument against photography doesn't quite cut it anymore, either, given that at least three of the above creative forms have been augmented (some might say molested, but that's an argument for another day) by technology in not-too-dissimilar ways.
Photography was a handy whipping-boy for this sort of thing once upon a time, but now, almost any medium can play.
- Barrett
Roger Hicks
08-12-2009, 00:16
Is anything art?
As soon as you answer that one, you know that it includes photography.
Cheers,
R.
I don't know if photography IS art but I know for sure that chemistry is a form of sorcery ! :p
Michael Markey
08-12-2009, 00:58
i don't know but i like it...
So, it`s Rock and Roll .:D
Art is very much about how something is presented, so yes a piece of dog mess can be art as well as a photograph. The interesting aspect of this question for me is how photography stands in relation to other art.
It used to be in its shadow, photographers emulating painting for credibility, then it was used by painters, especially the impressionists to see things they’ve never seen before such a horse stride or colours in motion, frozen in time. Then it found a unique voice with the surrealists and latter the American school.
But in terms of art, it is still very early on for photography compared to painting. In terms of evolution and as an art form, where next, especially considering most people do it and that we see a multitude of clichéd, disposable and forgettable photographs every day?
www.urbanpaths.net (http://www.urbanpaths.net)
I used to contemplate this question until I came to realize that anything can be art if that is the creator's intention. So of course, yes it is. Any work of art may be perceived subjectively, historically, and/or commercially as good/important/successful or not, but it is still art.
I think it can be, but does not have to/need to be. I can be as much art as anything else because it can be used as just another medium, equally it can have no artistic perspective at all.
If we think of it as not art, I would ask this: if a conceptual art 'piece' were to be staged and photographed and displayed as a photograph (perhaps due to the impossibility of maintaining certain elements for long term 3D display), what would it be? Art? A photo of art?
If we think of it as not art, I would ask this: if a conceptual art 'piece' were to be staged and photographed and displayed as a photograph (perhaps due to the impossibility of maintaining certain elements for long term 3D display), what would it be? Art? A photo of art?
It depends how it is presented. In very basic terms and for the sake of categorization, if the photograph is presented in a gallery, then it's art. If it's in a newspaper, then it becomes journalism. A lot depends on context.
www.urbanpaths.net (http://www.urbanpaths.net)
Brian Sweeney
08-12-2009, 01:41
Why doesn't anyone ever ask "Is Painting Art?" It is just a form graphics.
"Is drawing Art?" It is just a form of doodling.
Or "Is Sculpture Art?" Obviously, it is just a form of modeling.
A camera is like a paint brush, and film is the canvas.
Of course, you cannot do real art with a digital camera, but they are not bad for radiometric analysis.
Think I'll make some coffee now.
art (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcR7U2tuNoY) ... more art (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B0hGyKV9qs)
Art is fluid ... it can be anything it wants to be ... including photography!
David R Munson
08-12-2009, 02:45
photography is a medium.
any medium can be used to make art.
some photography is art.
next question!
I say we make this the official response to this question from now on. Seems like it would save a lot of people a lot of typing, as well as headaches.
Forget art -- too confusing.
Hello.
If you can't tell a "boy" from a "girl"....yeah, best to forget it.:)
The other perspective to this question is that is just does not matter one bit what you call it. It is what is is. What photography is categorised as impacts upon nothing, so although we can debate it, none of this, or any other discussion on the subject, will change what it is (or is not)
The other perspective to this question is that is just does not matter one bit what you call it. It is what is is.
True enough in a way.
But there is no real "what it is", either. "What it is" is a moving target, based on a complex interaction of photo-as-object, viewer, and context.
Plato doesn't live in our cameras...
Disaster_Area
08-12-2009, 05:37
Let me put it this way... I recently went to an exhibit opening at a local gallery where the artists gave a short talk about their works. Bear in mind... these artists all received federal juried grants in the 5 figures area to develop and promote their work... here's what they did:
Artist #1: Created a video of her dogs running around a field set to music made of samples of her dog whining for a biscuit.
Artist #2: Created walkways and tunnels in her house to make her cat feel more at home... then.. because it was an indoor cat... she created a video of herself dressed in leopard spandex climbing a tree to show to the cat... so the cat could experience "tree" for herself. The purpose of this set was to develop better human/cat relations.
Artist #3: Created a room with a projector displaying on one wall a video of her dog. If there was no one in the room.. the video showed the dog far away playing with itself... when someone entered the room the video showed the dog coming "closer" to investigate the person entering.
THIS IS CONSIDERED ART... art that my tax dollars funded... art that out of a huge list of artists a jury picked to receive funding... I can't imagine what the people that DIDN'T receive funding came up with.
Ladies and gentlemen... if this is art... then photography... even bad photography... is art. Case closed... lets have a beer and discuss all of our amazing art.
David R Munson
08-12-2009, 06:02
lets have a beer and discuss all of our amazing art.
I am in support of this.
amateriat
08-12-2009, 06:49
Names? Location? Canadians? :cool:
Yes...we New Yorkers will not be usurped this way! :rolleyes:
- Barrett
Disaster_Area
08-12-2009, 06:54
Names? Location? Canadians? :cool:
The exhibit is in Ottawa by Canadian artists... the exhibit is of Art done by animals... which actually includes some rather good paintings done by elephants and monkeys. I thought it was ironic that in an exhibit of many animal artists.. they got the three artists that did art with/for animals to do the talks... counter to the purpose of the exhibit which was to show that animals have an artistic capacity.
mfunnell
08-12-2009, 07:01
I thought it was ironic that in an exhibit of many animal artists.. they got the three artists that did art with/for animals to do the talks... counter to the purpose of the exhibit which was to show that animals have an artistic capacity.I'm with you. I'd want the elephant to give the talk. It might not have been art - but it sure would have been interesting!
...Mike
Disaster_Area
08-12-2009, 07:16
It's getting a bit ridiculous what falls under the heading "art" nowadays... it used to be that you'd have to be either really creative... or really skilled... or both to be an artist. I'm fine with people not being skilled technically as long as they're creative. Hell... a LOT of photographs that are considered art didn't take a lot of technical skill to produce... just the creativity of the photographer knowing what to point at and when to press the shutter (I don't consider this technical skill as it's 99% mental and only 1% mechanical)... and that's fine.
What I don't get is so much art I've seen lately (and I see a LOT... I do reportage for a couple arts/culture sites) is completely mind boggling. And I simply can't accept the "well you just don't get it" theory... I took art in University... I know my Rembrandt's from my Pollock's and my HCB's from my Avedon's and I do appreciate a lot of art that pushes the envelope of what has previously been considered art. But a lot of what I see is just complete baffling. I swear it has to be a case of "The Emperors New Clothes"... no one in the arts community wants to stand up and say "That's just crap on canvas" for fear of looking like a prole.
Disaster_Area
08-12-2009, 07:22
Well if you missed it last week don't despair:
Animals in Art
Date: Sunday, August 16, 2009
Time: 10:00 AM
Location: Cumberland Heritage Village Museum
Cost: 7
Contact Info: 613-833-3059
cumberlandmuseum@ottawa.ca
I really think if you have the chance you should go see it... I'm not kidding when I say the elephants painting is amazing... it painted a frigging TREE... VERY WELL... it looks like a tree.. it has leaves... there HAS to be intent behind that. There was also a cool exhibit where someone taught an ape to paint circles... well.. they got it to paint... but had to take the canvas away from it before it was done. It would paint the circle it was taught... then violently cover the circle with paint until it was completely covered. You think maybe they should have let it go at it? I think it was trying to say "Screw your circles!!!" ... now if that isn't artistic expression I don't know what is. I think they should give all the art grants to the apes and maybe save some of their habitat!!
Disaster_Area
08-12-2009, 08:16
Yeah... really do try to keep an open mind when I go to exhibits. It's hard not to form pre-conceptions when I get the promo material... but I've had my mind changed many a time after going to the show. There's a lot of great art being made out there, I'd say at least 75% of what I report on I like... or at least I can understand why others might like it.
I go to everything from major gallery shows to "some guys sketches in the back of a coffee shop"... and what really gets me is sooo much of the coffee shop and basement gallery art is so much more creative and deserving of attention, but until you get a critic or curator to say "Yes ... this be art *ART STAMP*" it can be hard to get noticed. And once you've got a couple of gallery showings and letters from "qualified" curators under your belt it's almost impossible NOT get government grants because of the strict requirements you need to qualify... none of which are very artistic in nature.
It's the catch 22... for the decent grants (more than a couple hundred bucks) you need X gallery showings and X publications etc... but without grant money most artists have to hold down full time jobs that makes it impossible to have the time or cash to GET the needed gallery showings. In fact there's a couple galleries here in Ottawa that you can pay a couple hundred to get a 2-3 day showing of your work... and many of my friends have done it simply because it's the easiest way to get the showings they need to apply for grants.
Chriscrawfordphoto
08-12-2009, 09:08
And you have to be careful, when I was about 28 I remember getting into almost a fist fight, with a now famous artist at a show of his "New Clothes."
Was he the Emperor? LOLOLOLOL :p
elmer3.5
08-12-2009, 09:38
Hi, undubiously art is out there.
You can´t attack it or grab it directly, you have to go in circles around it trying to grasp it and from time to time get a bit out of it, if you`re lucky enough.
You can´t give art a particular purpouse like you have in advertising medias, maybe it has an open end not even closed by the author himself.
Of course it has to mean something to you, it must move something in you, otherwise you will jump it without even remmembering what you looked at.
Can`t recognize a media in particular that is more prompt to art, nor painting, graphics, sculputure, installation art or even photography.
So i would say that photography can be art.
In my case the problem is, if can i do art with my camera or even if can i recognize art when i´m front of it.
It´s quite ambiguous.
Bye.
Carlsen Highway
08-18-2009, 04:32
The reason why this question is still around is because the question itself doesnt make sense.
It is a chemical process. The process doesnt do anything except make photographs. And even then it needs a craftsperson just to get that far. As for art, that depends on the intentions of the craftsman.
If you leave your Leica alone with a some film, some developer and some extra salts and silver, and some big paper, then come back later after drinking a bottle of absinthe and arguing with your socialist mates about how surrealism is a way of life - it wont have done a damn thing, I expect. At least mine doesnt anyway.
There are artists that use photography as a means of expression, yes.
It's akin to asking - If you stretch a canvas onto some bits of wood and cover it with pigmented oil from linseed, is it art?
Art as we know it - the free for all the other posters have described, is a terriblbly new attitude historically. It would have made no sense at all to Leonardo or Massacio.
Contemporary conceptual art, or the modern art of ideas will collapse into itself like a black hole and then haveto change again in a while, its a dead end.
There is only so long that something can feed of the idea of itself; like a leech sucking the blood of another leech.
Chris101
08-18-2009, 05:04
... If you leave your Leica alone with a some film, some developer and some extra salts and silver, and some big paper, then come back later after drinking a bottle of absinthe and arguing with your socialist mates about how surrealism is a way of life - it wont have done a damn thing, I expect. At least mine doesnt anyway.
...
You probably need to send it off to Solms.
Disaster_Area
08-18-2009, 05:16
If you leave your Leica alone with a some film, some developer and some extra salts and silver, and some big paper, then come back later after drinking a bottle of absinthe and arguing with your socialist mates about how surrealism is a way of life - it wont have done a damn thing, I expect.
It depends on where you leave it alone... and why you left it alone. Leave it alone in a gallery here in Ottawa and it would probably get rave reviews as an installation piece.
The definition of art has become so loose that the only all encompassing definition I've been able to come up with is:
"Art is anything produced or presented with the intention of creating or being art"
At this point in our culture the INTENT is the only important thing... people can get away with bloody awful art as long as they INTENDED it to be art. It doesn't mean they'll end up with good art or bad art... but art none the less even everyone thinks it's bloody awful.
You no longer need skill or creativity or even originality... you just need the balls to stand up and declare "I AM AN ARTIST!!!"
MCTuomey
08-18-2009, 05:34
well, the stuff i produce sure isn't ...
IS PHOTOGRAPHY "ART?". By A. G. MARSHALL. Photographic Mosaics, 1898 (http://books.google.com/books?id=zns1AAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA186&dq="is+photography+art"&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=1861&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=1870&as_brr=1&ei=0SuCSsi-NpHyMurYgc4K#v=onepage&q="is photography art"&f=false)
Google Books Search "Is Photography Art?" (http://books.google.com/books?as_q=&num=10&lr=&as_brr=1&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=is+photography+art&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_brr=1&as_pt=ALLTYPES&lr=&as_vt=&as_auth=&as_pub=&as_sub=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=1861&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=1870&as_isbn=&as_issn=)
It seems the question has been asked and asked again - dating back to the dawn of photography.
Funny we still ask it from time to time, eh?
MCTuomey
08-18-2009, 05:48
let's have a poll on the popularity of thread responses. my criteria are humor a/or withering cynicism:
1. fred - #50
2. chris - #43
Al Kaplan
08-18-2009, 05:55
Last year I found a small frog on the street that had been run over by a number of automobile tires before dryinig out in the sun. I took some pictures. I found a small lizard in similar condition, flat as a pancake and pressed thin, and I took some photos. Yesterday I found the ultimate subject! There was a bird on the parking lot, wings outstretched, every feather in place, completely dried out and maybe 2mm thick at most. It pays to look at the ground!
I'm sure that I can find a local gallery to hang my "Flat Animals" series. They're ART, and find art to boot.
Disaster_Area
08-18-2009, 06:30
I have two degrees from a respected art school, and teach in a college art department.
And I can state unequivocally that photography is not art, it is just an expensive hobby.
Are you saying that photographs cannot be not art as well... or just the act of photography (collecting, fondling and sometimes operating cameras) is the part that isn't art?
Andy Kibber
08-18-2009, 06:50
let's have a poll on the popularity of thread responses. my criteria are humor a/or withering cynicism:
1. fred - #50
2. chris - #43
I like Fred's comment. I also like #47 from Chris101.
Who was it that said "Art is Dali! and Dali is Art!"?
Chris101
08-18-2009, 07:29
Who was it that said "Art is Dali! and Dali is Art!"?.
Dali.
I think my statement was clear. But just to clarify, on August the 17th, 2009, all photographs which were [fine] art are no longer art, all new photographs made after that date, will not be [fine] art.
What if they weren't art before that date, do they now become art?
www.urbanpaths.net
Al Kaplan
08-18-2009, 07:49
All of my photographs of naked girls from the sixties and seventies are fine art. I'm not sure that if I photographed them naked now they'd still be fine art.
I actually think it was Art Fleming who said that on an early show.
Dali actually said "I am Surrealism ... ". It was, in fact, me making a Dadaist statement .... except obviously Dadaist as a genre is an absurdity as you know
johnastovall
08-18-2009, 07:58
Art is what sits on its ass in museums.
My apology to Glaus Oldenberg for changing his quote.
You are not actually Stewart McBride, you are Art Fleming? I thought you were dead.
Only for tax purposes
Al Kaplan
08-18-2009, 08:20
I spent many evenings over the years chatting and drinking coffee with a couple of artists who both became well known. I have several paintings and drawings that are now quite valuable. I also remember all of those quick sketches done on napkins and notebook paper, wadded up and cleared off the table by the waitress. A couple of years ago I got an email from a Chicago art dealer who'd run across one of my on line photos that showed one of the paintings hanging on my wall in the background. She recognized the distinctive style of the artist. I found out that he died in 1999 and some of those paintings are now worth between $20,000 and $75,000 each. Those napkins would probably be worth quite a bit now also.
I suspect my photography will never be art but I am convinced that photography can be art. With "modern art", I am not convinced the same analogy applies!!!!!!!!!!
johne :-D
Of course, you and Glaus, Claes's cousin.
I am for an art that is political-erotical-mystical, that does something more than sit on its ass in a museum.
Yep them and the Lindbergh child all having a party … bugger I’ll get thrown out now
amateriat
08-18-2009, 08:52
And, thusly, IMO, we have sort-of summed up the issue/problem of art in general, not just in relation to photography. (And, yeah, this goes on beyond photography...we just can't help arguing about it that much more.) :rolleyes:
Next Week: Good Art/Bad Art/Non-Art: Who Sez, and Does It Matter?
Be There. Aloha.
- Barrett
(P.S. Fred, I don't completely agree with you on this, but you nailed the tenor of this perfectly.)
Andy Kibber
08-18-2009, 09:00
I am for an art that is political-erotical-mystical, that does something more than sit on its ass in a museum.
I like "erotical". I think I'll whisper it in my wife's ear when I get home.
amateriat
08-18-2009, 09:13
Andy: If we don't hear from you within 24 hours, we'll assume the best...
-Barrett
I have two degrees from a respected art school, and teach in a college art department.
And I can state unequivocally that photography is not art, it is just an expensive hobby.
oh dear i feel very sorry for you give it up then!
Photography can be likened to 'Fine Art' for the concept is the same. The term "Fine Art" was coined in 1767 in reference to the arts that were "concerned with beauty or which appealed to taste - art is the product of human creativity"
dan denmark
08-18-2009, 14:00
art is an interpretation of an idea via the application of a tool; what that tool is is a coincidence. a paint brush is not art but what it paints may well be.
my current art: www.cameraman.carbonmade.com
-dd
Surely you don't think I am serious? :rolleyes:
I jolly well hope you are. Re post 62, I've just finished writing tomorrow's shopping list on the back of one my finest prints. If my photographs turn out to be art after all - I shall be livid.
www.urbanpaths.net (http://www.urbanpaths.net)
sojournerphoto
08-18-2009, 15:01
I jolly well hope you are. Re post 62, I've just finished writing tomorrow's shopping list on the back of one my finest prints. If my photographs turn out to be art after all - I shall be livid.
www.urbanpaths.net (http://www.urbanpaths.net)
It's OK - it's the shopping list and jobs to do list that makes it art. This adds the hand of the artist and the necessary ephemeral touch to your work
Mike
Chris101
08-18-2009, 16:02
Photography can be likened to 'Fine Art' for the concept is the same. The term "Fine Art" was coined in 1767 in reference to the arts that were "concerned with beauty or which appealed to taste - art is the product of human creativity"I always thought that fine art was the stuff that went through the sieve, and course art was the stuff that stayed on top.
Oh wait, nevermind. That was sand.
art is an interpretation of an idea via the application of a tool; what that tool is is a coincidence. a paint brush is not art but what it paints may well be.
my current art: www.cameraman.carbonmade.com (http://www.cameraman.carbonmade.com)
-dd
Interesting art work - I like the rendering and the colour!
I suspect those images will deliver the 'full visual impact' - on the wall at A2 print size or above?
Thanks for sharing!
Richard
art is an interpretation of an idea via the application of a tool; what that tool is is a coincidence. a paint brush is not art but what it paints may well be.
my current art: www.cameraman.carbonmade.com (http://www.cameraman.carbonmade.com)
-dd
Over the last 3 years I have tried a 'little bit' of photographic art rendering and what I have called 'photo art' but its an area that requires a great deal of patience and the image on the web has to be a 'fair size' to display the effect.
I will probably leave it aside for now. When I cannot get about, then perhaps I will spend my time giving it another shot!
Anyway here is a link to probably the only 'photo art image' I have ever achieved that I like -
http://www.lawrencephotographic.com/Main%20Pages/distant_memories.htm
Richard
thomasw_
08-18-2009, 23:52
Dear OP to your Original Question: A short answer: Yes.
Dear OP to your Original Question: A short answer: Yes.
Spoilsport; where’s the fun in that?
Dear OP to your Original Question: A short answer: Yes.
The web never ceases to amaze me - just when you think you have seen it all someone else comes along with a style that makes me quite envious.
I very much like your gallery in particular 'Momentary Escape' - now that for me is Art!
Thanks for sharing!
Richard.
Over the last 3 years I have tried a 'little bit' of photographic art rendering and what I have called 'photo art' ...here is a link to probably the only 'photo art image' I have ever achieved that I like -
http://www.lawrencephotographic.com/Main%20Pages/distant_memories.htm
Richard
Thanks for the link Richard, I had a look and liked the simplicity of the image. I wondered what you were aiming at here. Are you trying to emulate painting? If so do you not think that implies photography as a poor relation to painting - much like it started out? (not a criticism - but a genuine interest).
www.urbanpaths.net
Thanks for the link Richard, I had a look and liked the simplicity of the image. I wondered what you were aiming at here. Are you trying to emulate painting? If so do you not think that implies photography as a poor relation to painting - much like it started out? (not a criticism - but a genuine interest).
www.urbanpaths.net (http://www.urbanpaths.net)
Thank you for your comments!
I am not sure myself what I was aiming at. Its my girlfriend in the picture and I hacked the orginal image around in Photoshop and Buzz. 'Hacked' being the operative word as I am no expert with either software. Even worse I could not repeat the excercise - the picture would turn out different.
It looked a bit like a painting (it would be better on the right paper) when it was viewed at about A2 print size. I did a few more and put them on my web under 'photo art' and then realised that to do it all properly I would have to become dedicated and I admit I am no artist and not that dedicated.
Its an area that I might re-visit one day soon when I am 'even older and more infirm' and have the time to spend 'hacking' more of my images.
The golden question - is photography a poor relation to painting?
"If you want to be a painter and you are a photographer - then it is"
Richard.
Al Kaplan
08-19-2009, 05:30
Photography is photography. Painting is painting. Some people like to look at it as a relationship. Others see them for what they are alone. Worry less and do what feels right.
So would you say a photo of the Mona Lisa was Art?
So would you say a photo of the Mona Lisa was Art?
... Depends on the bokeh of the lens used for the photo.
Chris101
08-19-2009, 06:30
... The golden question - is photography a poor relation to painting? ...This picture looks like Hopper's style and subject matter, but the colors are different. The photoshopping you did gives it the palette knife look. However it won't stand up to close examination, because there is no paint on a canvas. In fact, when I get closer I see the dots of my monitor. I suspect that if I did the same to your print, I'd eventually see the underlying inkjet dots. So instead of the underlying structure of a painting, it's got digital output underpinnings. Since the dots of digital are less interesting - and more mechanical - than paint, I'd say yes. Painterly digital photos are less arty than real paintings.
As a picture of your girlfriend however, it is a good picture, and no doubt quite pleasing to see from day to day. So in that way it stands on its own.
So would you say a photo of the Mona Lisa was Art?
A straight photo, taken with a camera on a tripod, aligned and focussed to capture as close a copy as possible? No.
However, take a look at this (http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/monalisa/20.html) page. There are certainly lots of artsy photos of the Mona Lisa there!
... Depends on the bokeh of the lens used for the photo.
I also have an Art degree and I rejected the concept of Bokeh back on the 17th of August … if it was good enough for Leonardo it’s good enough for me
I also have an Art degree and I rejected the concept of Bokeh back on the 17th of August … if it was good enough for Leonardo it’s good enough for me
... I have a science degree and therefore no clue about art before or after 17th of August.
[quote=Chris101;1118890]This picture looks like Hopper's style and subject matter, but the colors are different. The photoshopping you did gives it the palette knife look. However it won't stand up to close examination, because there is no paint on a canvas. In fact, when I get closer I see the dots of my monitor. I suspect that if I did the same to your print, I'd eventually see the underlying inkjet dots. So instead of the underlying structure of a painting, it's got digital output underpinnings. Since the dots of digital are less interesting - and more mechanical - than paint, I'd say yes. Painterly digital photos are less arty than real paintings.
I agree - it is not a painting.
It was simply an experiment with Photoshop and Buzz software which (more through accident) produced an interesting picture!
Now if I really was a PAINTER and an Artist, I could print that out to A2 on canvas and with the careful use of the right paints (whatever) I reckon it could be made into a class painting and then it might be worth a bit!
Okay - perhaps not!
Richard.
Andy Kibber
08-19-2009, 09:07
Tell that to Sherrie Levine.
Or Richard Prince.
Thank you for your comments!
Richard.
That's alright - thanks for explaining.
www.urbanpaths.net
bobkonos
08-19-2009, 11:52
Hmmmmmm...I never ask it. Sad that some still do.
Hmmmmmm...I never ask it. Sad that some still do.
Why?
www.urbanpaths.net
Hmmmmmm...I never ask it. Sad that some still do.
as sad as a statement purporting to be debate?
what about a photo of one of my photos that i don't consider Art, but the client really likes?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3565/3558047998_86346328d0_b.jpg
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3565/3558047998_86346328d0_b.jpg)
I considered taking a photo of my monitor, but thought I will just tell stewart, that way it will be conceptual art.
here is the artwork:
"I intended to take a photo of Stewart's photo"
I don't intend looking at it in an act of existential contradiction :D
Palinure
08-26-2009, 03:13
Sorry to up an already (or at least seemingly) dying thread...
I was just wondering, is not being an art a bad thing ? An insult ?
Of course, many of the answers saying " it's not necessarly art but it can be" looks like a "no" but... It's like avoiding the question in my opinion.
Well for me, it is not, but it's just a matter of classification, really. Calling photography art is more a burden than anything else. The way it works, or rather the way I perceive it (something that catches instants, yeah it's that easy...), is too different from all other so called arts to have it put in the same category.
My 2 cents.
buzzardkid
08-26-2009, 04:07
Art is when its intended to be art and is considered art by the beholder.
That's when you set out to get something across and succeeded.
Intended art thats considered crap, fails to be art.
Intended crap thats considered art still isn't since it was intended as crap.
Only when you set out to get something (what? an image, an emotion) across and people pick up on it in a way you aimed for can it be called art. By those that picked up on it, that is. To others, it's still crap.
OwenStegemann
09-14-2009, 23:21
Who cares? People buy that $hit. GET MONEY!
surfer dude
09-16-2009, 01:10
art is not art
IS PHOTOGRAPHY "ART?". By A. G. MARSHALL. Photographic Mosaics, 1898 (http://books.google.com/books?id=zns1AAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA186&dq=)
Google Books Search "Is Photography Art?" (http://books.google.com/books?as_q=&num=10&lr=&as_brr=1&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=is+photography+art&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_brr=1&as_pt=ALLTYPES&lr=&as_vt=&as_auth=&as_pub=&as_sub=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=1861&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=1870&as_isbn=&as_issn=)
It seems the question has been asked and asked again - dating back to the dawn of photography.
Funny we still ask it from time to time, eh?
Ansel Adams seemed to think so.
“It is easy to take a photograph, but it is harder to make a masterpiece in photography than in any other art medium”
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.