back alley
IMAGES
pesphoto
Veteran
I have to say I am a homemade pizza artist. At least my wife agrees. Sorry...it's the beer talking.
marke
Well-known
So what is it? A photograph? Yes, I just photographed a tree.
You, my friend, are one of the exceptional few that can call themselves a tree photographer.
Sparrow
Veteran
When I was in college they said "art" was the product of "artisan" which was from a Latin root that meant; by the hand of man.
So in effect everything is art, weather you like it or not.
maybe someone should start a "Are you a good artist thread"
So in effect everything is art, weather you like it or not.
maybe someone should start a "Are you a good artist thread"
FrankS
Registered User
I agree with this, Stewart. Anything created with the intention of it being art, is art. It may or not be good, which is subjective anyway, but it is art.
Travis L.
Registered Userino
Tell that to Paul Strand. The man who literally created the term "Straight Photography".
To quote Alfred Stieglitz,
"His work is rooted in the best tradition of photography. His vision is potential. His work is pure. It is direct. It does not rely upon tricks of process. In whatever he does there is applied intelligence. In the history of photography there are but few photographers who, from the point of view of expression, have really done much work of any importance. And by importance we mean work that has some relatively lasting quality, that element which gives all art its real significance... The work is brutally direct. Devoid of any flim-flams; devoid of trickery and any 'ism', devoid of any attempt to mystify an ignorant public...."
dave lackey
Veteran
So, no one wants to dispute this photographer's work as art? He is a gentleman, yet he considers his work art and himself as an artist. Why wouldn't he? Why would anyone hesitate to call his work "art" if he produced the images with that in mind?
One example:
Last edited:
lawrence
Veteran
How can anyone dispute that it is 'fine art photography' when no one knows what that term means? Take away the 'fine art' part and the photographs remain the same...to be judged on their content, not their label.
DougFord
on the good foot
Guilt by association is reason enough not to refer to oneself as an ‘artist’.
JTK
Established
Ugly isn't necessarily "art", but "pretty" isn't either...and pretty is soooo much easier than anything else
Sunsets, kittykats, female anatomy....IMO photography at it's best is unrelated to art. It's quite fine as snapshots or street or trash or record of foreign travel etc...
And art does sometimes occur, but that's not important.
At it's BEST, photography is photography and doesn't flounce around as art.
JTK
Established
Call it "art" if you like. But it's a fine photo so why reduce it to that?
So, no one wants to dispute this photographer's work as art? He is a gentleman, yet he considers his work art and himself as an artist. Why wouldn't he? Why would anyone hesitate to call his work "art" if he produced the images with that in mind?
One example:
dave lackey
Veteran
Well, Richard....
Like I mentioned last night...
Pity, though, art is all around us and some only refer to it as "photography". It's kind of like limiting a beautiful piece of art on canvas as a "painting". But, worse, it's sad when someone does not have the confidence in their own work to recognize it as art.
Oh, well, I'm outta here. I learned a long time ago not to argue with a mindset.
Cheers,
Like I mentioned last night...
Pity, though, art is all around us and some only refer to it as "photography". It's kind of like limiting a beautiful piece of art on canvas as a "painting". But, worse, it's sad when someone does not have the confidence in their own work to recognize it as art.
Oh, well, I'm outta here. I learned a long time ago not to argue with a mindset.
Cheers,
- Status
- Not open for further replies.