i don't know, if photography is art...

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

For me photography isn't useless. It captures the fleeting moments of life.
Is it art? I don't care.

I am in full agreement with that view.

[denizg7]

except point shooters that report memories in their families

99 percent of the shooters are pretentious freaks that think they are saving the world with their clacky dslrs.

[heartattackandvine]

That is just ridiculous. Why all the hate and contempt? It's probably you who's thinking you're saving the world from us "pretentious freaks".

Blah... this topic is pure rubbish.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by denizg7

99 percent of the shooters are pretentious freaks that think they are saving the world with their clacky dslrs.

I'm sure many of them are just looking to have some fun on their day off.

[jsrockit]

List of most expensive photos...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ve_photographs

[Aristophanes]

Are all the postings here literature?

[bobbyrab]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

List of most expensive photos...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ve_photographs

To me the first four entries are art works that happen to use photography as the means of recording rather than photography in the truest sense, the photograph is the culmination of meticulous preparation which is where the art lies. Any three of these artists could make the move to another media without straying too far from what they currently produce.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Aristophanes

Are all the postings here literature?

Have they been presented as such?

[bobbyrab]

Originally Posted by photomoof

Andreas Gursky
Cindy Sherman
Jeff Wall

Disagree with you on the concept that the medium [photography] is not a central element of these works. "Meticulous preparation" does not make these photos any less "true[st]."

Which is not to say any of them could me other works in other mediums - which I know seems to contradict the above - but I don't think it does.

I probably haven't explained myself terribly well.
What I mean is if you were to describe their work to anyone unacquainted with it, saying they were photographers would not suffice, you would have to explain the prep work that was involved because 98% of the work is the preparation.
Perhaps the distinction is in my head. Photography encompasses such a wide range of work, and for me the work of these artists is an area I'm less interested in, for me they are creating art and photography is a convenient method for them to present the art that they create.
I think each of these artists are talented and interesting in their own right, but for me someone like Cindy Sherman is more of a conceptual artist than photographer, and it does seem the art market would concur as the big money is in this area rather than a straight forward photographer in the HCB, Robert Frank mould.

[Gabriel M.A.]

Originally Posted by Peter_wrote:

i don't know, if photography is art. but when it is art, it is a lousy one.

Writing is an art, and when writing's lousy, I don't know if art dies a little.

[Gabriel M.A.]

Originally Posted by heartattackandvine

Blah... this topic is pure rubbish.

The majority of amateurish/trollish "is this art?" threads are, by definition. Even more so when it pretends it doesn't know the answer to the question and proceeds to answer with a dismissive/disparaging assertion.

[Charlie Lemay]

Other than the early work of Cindy Sherman, I don't think much of the photographic art made by the artist mentioned. Tom Wolfe said it best in his book, "The Painted Word," Modern Art exists to illustrate it's theory.

A TA at the Maine Media Workshops once told me that a teacher of his had explained that when art begins with an idea, the idea eventually gets exhausted, but when art begins with a vision, the vision keeps expanding. I thought that was a profound observation and provided a way to look at two extremes in art making approach and to see them, not as exclusive opposites, but as a continuum, a vector upon which most approaches are a combination of both. I made a poster for my students to illustrate this way of looking at art making. You can download a free PDF from the ZoneSimple section of my website if you want to see it.

Robert Graves wrote an essay about art that I read when I was in college. Despite my efforts over the years, I have not been able to find it again and I'd greatly appreciate it if anyone can point me to it. In the essay. he says there are two kinds of art: the art of Venus and the art of Apollo. Not politically correct, I know, but I feel there is something of value in this approach nonetheless. He said that the art of Venus was inspired by the Muse and was intuitive and spoke about man's most fundamental relationship with creation, a visual language that functions like myth in culture. The art of Apollo on the other hand, is the art of experimentation, of man imposing his will on creation. He had a value judgment about it all. He felt that an artist should strive for inspiration and experiment while he waits for the inspiration to come. The art world demands regular production from professional artists, and waiting for inspiration effects the bottom line, so it is little surprise that the conceptual approach to making art holds sway in our time. In my own life experience,

I find I have to agree with Graves. I'm sure others feel differently. I find this a fascinating topic to consider even if it brings out knee jerk reactions from the usual suspects. Trying to figure out what is art and what is not is a little like "Daddy are we there yet." I think in the end, art is what you know it to be for you, not necessarily what gets rewarded or is commercially successful.

[Leigh Youdale]

Originally Posted by bobbyrab

Why would you do this? A thread title that must have given you some warning the subject wasn't for you, then you read 60+ posts that obviously pissed you off but still you keep reading, then you spend even more time typing out your judgment on it. Should we care about your pronouncments but not the OP's?

Welcome to the party!