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

P

Peter_wrote:

Well-known
Local time
9:21 PM
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
462
i don't know, if photography is art. but when it is art, it is a lousy one.

i just wanted to mention that.



sorry.
i didn't wanted to be the party pooper.
 
For me it's not. The scene may be, but the photo is just a recording of the scene.

Obviously, any blanket statement is likely to be false, but I can't quite see "art" in photography they way it appears to exist elsewhere.
 
Then what would you call it? A short trip through your flickr would suggest that you are making an attempt to create art. Unless that is all purely for documentary purposes.
 
And the purpose of this thread is? From a moderator's point of view, I just see it as a huge potential for pointless argument. Please prove me wrong.
 
It can be art in the eyes of the beholder especially if it does not reinforce the illusion of the material world. When it transcends that and somone is ready to percieve that transcendance it is art. "It doesn't matter what we photograph, trees, bodies or antique cars. They're all just atoms in the light and we can make whatever we can imagine from them, and in the process learn all about the being who notices what we notice." I wrote that earlier this year in an email exchange with art photographer and friend Connie . I'm not sure where it came from, but it surprised me by clarifying how photography fits into my life. I am an artist and photgraphy is my medium. All photogrhy is documentation, but there is a difference between documenting whats in front of you and documenting your unique personal vision.
 
koven said:
Fantastic
Click to expand...

i am often fantastic, when i am drunken. or embarrassing.

OwenStegemann said:
Then what would you call it? A short trip through your flickr would suggest that you are making an attempt to create art. Unless that is all purely for documentary purposes.
Click to expand...

don't know. maybe some kind of a melancholic play. or sometimes even a funny play, when i see something, i want to share.

FrankS said:
And the purpose of this thread is? From a moderator's point of view, I just see it as a huge potential for pointless argument. Please prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

don't know, if i could do that.
maybe i just wrote that, because i am somehow surprised ( in a negative way), that i am trying to be productive by photography.
and that is somehow hilarious. because you just snap randomly pictures without time for thinking ( i the case you are not in a studio).

maybe my first statement is just like my photography. an emotional snapshot of a state of mind without deeper thinking, and to really know where i want to go.

i just feel a big a big gap between other kind of arts like literature, music, painting, sculpture and photography. no problem for me. i don't think, that photography is lousy at all, but just as a form of art.
 
Charlie Lemay said:
It can be art in the eyes of the beholder especially if it does not reinforce the illusion of the material world. When it transcends that and somone is ready to percieve that transcendance it is art. "It doesn't matter what we photograph, trees, bodies or antique cars. They're all just atoms in the light and we can make whatever we can imagine from them, and in the process learn all about the being who notices what we notice." I wrote that earlier this year in an email exchange with art photographer and friend Connie . I'm not sure where it came from, but it surprised me by clarifying how photography fits into my life. I am an artist and photgraphy is my medium. All photogrhy is documentation, but there is a difference between documenting whats in front of you and documenting your unique personal vision.
Click to expand...

but to which extend it does really reflect?
 
thegman said:
For me it's not. The scene may be, but the photo is just a recording of the scene.

Obviously, any blanket statement is likely to be false, but I can't quite see "art" in photography they way it appears to exist elsewhere.
Click to expand...


a brave statement.
but i would not say, that a scene could be art. because a scene doesn't make a statement.
 
I earn my living as an art teacher. I thought I was making art all my life. Then at 47 years old, I stepped into my own unique personal vision and realized all the art I thought I had been making was just practice for the real thing. When you are really making art, you know it. If you doubt that, you probsbly aren't making art. Yet others can still have transcendent experiences through your work, even if you do not intend that. Most artist make art that looks like what art is supposed to look like. Most schools teach that approach to art making. You can't teach unique personl vision. You can only model it. Acheiving it yourself is not a matter of learning anything new, it's actually about shedding everything that isn't yours, a never eding endeavor. The road to art making lies through our most mundane assumptions, not through the latest fads and trends.
 
Oh great, another idiot on a photo forum telling everyone there that what they do is not art while ignoring the fact that this question was settled in the art world a century ago.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Oh great, another idiot on a photo forum telling everyone there that what they do is not art while ignoring the fact that this question was settled in the art world a century ago.
Click to expand...

All the guy is doing is expressing a view different to your's. Calling people names does not disprove his view, or even offer an alternative.

I like your work, but your above statement says more about your own manner on this forum, than the OP's.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Oh great, another idiot on a photo forum telling everyone there that what they do is not art while ignoring the fact that this question was settled in the art world a century ago.
Click to expand...

Calm down Chris, you're very quick to rudeness in your posts these days. I found the opening statement both funny and a good jumping off point about what drives people to try and create art. By it's very nature art will endlessly be discussed, that's part of it's job, it's never settled, not a century ago or a century from now, if you don't want to discuss it fine, but why the anger.
 
ah yes, haha. i know. the thread is annoying. chris statement is no problem for me.

it wasn't meant to serious.

maybe just a reaction to too much seriousness. people get really aggressive about photography.
that this and that just stole the photos of google earth, that the pictures of another are sold to too high prices, that the photographs of HCB are too unsharp...
 
Peter_wrote: said:
i am often fantastic, when i am drunken. or embarrassing.



don't know. maybe some kind of a melancholic play. or sometimes even a funny play, when i see something, i want to share.



don't know, if i could do that.
maybe i just wrote that, because i am somehow surprised ( in a negative way), that i am trying to be productive by photography.
and that is somehow hilarious. because you just snap randomly pictures without time for thinking ( i the case you are not in a studio).

maybe my first statement is just like my photography. an emotional snapshot of a state of mind without deeper thinking, and to really know where i want to go.

i just feel a big a big gap between other kind of arts like literature, music, painting, sculpture and photography. no problem for me. i don't think, that photography is lousy at all, but just as a form of art.
Click to expand...

Dude, you're thinking too much. Go out and shoot. Shoot enough to get it down right, and it CAN be art.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom