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

[DamenS]

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

So, not only aren't photos "art" according to you (they're just melancholy plays or funny plays), but plays aren't "art" either.

You seem to believe that nothing which reflects or modifies or comments on life is really art ... in which case, what is it ? Is a painting or a photo or a play or a book life itself ?

 

[Nomad Z]

...I think this thread should just be shut down and people should read Crisis Of The Real and other great books (that as pointed out already) that have tackled the issue of "photography as art". The philosophy of art and photography won't be summed up in 400 pages on RFF. I'm all for great discussion online and elsewhere, but a smug comment (regardless of your entitlement to say whatever you want online) will only invite crude, reactionary and emotional responses on this forum. Of course, there are very intelligent and well-qualified opinions on this forum, but to sift through all the gibberish to get to them is more time consuming than reading the research, essays and articles from people who have dedicated their entire lives to this topic.

I'm not one to appeal to authority on the matter, but cut through the wannabe intellectuals and get straight to the source and read something of substance on the issue from someone who is an "expert" on the subject. Online, you will get a lot of people who will hype themselves up, get their egos involved and try to persuade others that their way of thinking is the only way to think. Read, educate yourself and incorporate that conversation in a forum that is more productive than here. Of course you can ask "is photography art?" on RFF and you will likely get some good answers, but the crap you have to sift through first isn't worth the effort.

But 'here' is a forum - a place to discuss things. If everyone went to unnamed authorities as you espouse, then forums would hardly have a reason to exist. If you think this thread has too high a crap factor, feel free to avoid it yourself rather than proposing that others do.

 

[sanmich]

Phototography IS not art. Some photography is and some isn't
Just like elevator music, most movies, the industrial paintings or sculptures sold to tourists are not art, yet music, painting, or sculpture can clearly be art.
The medium doesn't say if what you see is or is not art.

i even think, that a series of photographes could be art. or a whole body of work. as they tell a story. like the pictures of chris crawford of fort wayne. but not a lonely picture.

Would we see as art a lonely Picasso picture or Bach suite if the rest of it wasn't known too? I really don't know.

Personally, I can definitely enjoy a single picture very much without the need for a series.

 

[pakeha]

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.

Would you have preferred he started another bag thread?
Seems the `pointless'arguments are all coming from the usual suspects round here huh?
Youth should challenge and question.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Would you have preferred he started another bag thread?

Bags are art

😀

 

[Anti-Hero]

Photography is all in the process, and the process becomes an art within itself. Especially when it comes to film and self-processing. To say otherwise is just silly.

Entire thread = TL;DR.

Anything can be art, to argue over the qualifications for something to be art is, pointless, it's subjective. Get out more and snap some photos; take photography a little less seriously.

 

[paulfish4570]

art starts with a different way of seeing.

 

[jsrockit]

Photography is all in the process, and the process becomes an art within itself. Especially when it comes to film and self-processing. To say otherwise is just

Ut oh, are you saying digital photography is a lesser art than film photography? Also, are you saying if you don't process your own film, you are a lesser artist than someone who does? I think you may be confusing art with craft.

 

[Pablito]

it wasn't meant to serious.

then it should be in the "humor" forum.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Is this photography art?

http://www.billynewmanphotography.com/images.html

Depends on who's looking at it, really. I worked with some museum curators, many years back. One of them gave me the official line: "if we catalogue it as art, it's art. If we catalogue it as artisanship, it isn't art."

So I asked him who made the decisions? "Whoever is holding the pen in one hand and the catalogue card in the other."

 

[Pablito]

Would you have preferred he started another bag thread?

yes, absolutely. or a strap thread. or an airport x-ray thread.

 

[gb hill]

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

So you don't like William Eggleston's transfer dye process to achieving the texture & color he wanted to be seen in his photographs? Over 90% of the Art is what is done after the shot is taken.

 

[NaChase]

*cough* pretentious *cough*

 

[Peter_wrote:]

oh, this thread is still going...

some interesting thoughts here anyway.

have not so much time now to comment everything. just came from work, have a meal now, and have to go outside then to shoot a roll of film, as i joined the 7 days a roll of film challenge here on rff.

... people should read Crisis Of The Real and other great books (that as pointed out already) that have tackled the issue of "photography as art". The philosophy of art and photography won't be summed up in 400 pages on RFF.
I

completely agree. i don't think either, that it would make sense to define art in a forum. better read some theoretical stuff for that purpose. thanks for the reading tip by the way. i will have a look.

but besides that it is interesting to hear just the personal view of different people. so no objective definition of art or photography, just their personal approach to it. socialising, doing some smalltalk...


i enjoy photography and i am interested into it. but for me it is just not the same as literature, music or painting e.g.
i like it because it is very personal and impulsive, but maybe this strength is also its weakness. it has some other kind of quality than a painting or a novel. not meant to be judgmental
just my personal view.

 

[CameraQuest]

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.

sounds like you are well acquainted with your own work.
well done.

beauty, like art, is in the eye of the beholder.

Stephen

 

[redisburning]

OP I'll be honest with you, but with the caveat that this comment has nothing to do with your pictures (which I did look through on Flickr) but with what you've said in this thread.

I feel like your understanding of what is or isn't art is immature.

If you are so concerned with message or "telling a story" in your photographs, by all means continue doing what you are. I however, consider that particular aphorism to be false and limiting.

personally, I'm not too bothered that my photos - the product of an inexperienced, young and uncommitted person - fall short of being art. I suspect that your situation is a bit different though. be honest with yourself, rather than with us if you must, but are disappointed in the medium or in your own efforts?

 

[Anti-Hero]

Ut oh, are you saying digital photography is a lesser art than film photography? Also, are you saying if you don't process your own film, you are a lesser artist than someone who does? I think you may be confusing art with craft.

Are you a troll or what? I don't know where I wrote any of that in my last post. Youre reading too much into it, and that's this whole threads problem

 

[pakeha]

yes, absolutely. or a strap thread. or an airport x-ray thread.

ha,very selective quote reply
You choose the `bar talk' throw away line, and not the youth versus age line,.As someone over 50 i know how uncomfortable my generation gets with youth challenging the status quo.Someone here even referred to the OP as a `kid'..very mature:bang:
The OP has in fact dragged some interesting, thoughtful replies with this.Far more interesting than any bag thread ,look what i just brought thread,what should i buy thread,i got hassled taken photo`s thread, except of course the link provided by Sejanus.Aelianus🙂
This is after all the Philosophy of Photography section, nothing wrong with a bit of humour included.Get over your selves.

 

[JChrome]

oh, this thread is still going...

i enjoy photography and i am interested into it. but for me it is just not the same as literature, music or painting e.g.
i like it because it is very personal and impulsive, but maybe this strength is also its weakness. it has some other kind of quality than a painting or a novel. not meant to be judgmental
just my personal view.

For you it may be very personal and impulsive. I surely would find those writing great works of literature to take their work personally (if it is good literature) although it may not be impulsive. But I think that there is plenty of photography that is not impulsive. There are photos that take years to create. And there are masters that can take a photo in one week what another person can take in a year.

I really disagree with your statement about photography as lousy. I think just because so many people are creating imagery these days does lower the bar somewhat... but there are still people out there with amazing visions that require a great deal of talent and elbow grease to make. Just because neither you (nor I) are one of those people mean that you should call their whole medium "lousy".

 

[mgilbuena]

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).

And for precisely this reason photography is art; photography is a truly unique medium that allows us to experience the world from another's vantage point.

I have often heard the argument "How do you know what blue looks like? Perhaps what you see as blue is what I see as purple." What does a waterfall look like to one who has never had the sense of sight? Or the rumble of a speeding race car for one who has never had hearing?

Photography, specifically, allows one to experience moments from another. To go to a world that perhaps is not accessible, such as Mars, or experience the terror of a war gone past. It truly is a magical medium -- and that certainly is art in my mind.