Is Photography Art?

Painting is dead, painting is dead! Man has discovered how to make 'instant' photographic images of real scenes! Burn your brushes and canvases!


I didn't read the whole article, but skimming through, one line caught my eye:
...the layers of artifice seem unending and the thread connecting photography to the real has been snapped.
This is how I feel about photographic art sometimes, as though there's no space (or want) for pictures that are what they are. Maybe it's a lack of skill, talent, or vision on the part of the photographer(s) that leaves us with images that can't stand on their own merit? I don't know.


But then, the article says this (talking about some 'great' photographers):
The liberties they take can be breathtaking: artificial staging, deliberate obscuring and ghostly distortion of the image. But somehow (primarily by resisting the siren call of digital manipulation)
So, digital artifice is bad, but 'traditional' artifice is good? What the hell is the difference? I think the artists he mentions probably care about the images they make; if they cared just as much by using a computer, does that make them lesser photographers?


Anyways, my opinion is that photography as an art isn't dead. It's changing. Just like the expressionists, the pointillists, the cubists, and the whatever-else-ists of painting, new ways of expressing ideas are being born. Get over it!

<takes grumpy hat off>
Have a great day!
 
Shadrash said:
In a culture saturated with visual images and increasingly cynical about their manipulation

Smee talks about culture like it's a static and universal thing. It's not. So, first burst of questions: who's culture, which culture, where and at what time in history?

Second, is there any evidence for this "increasingly cynical" attitude towards manipulation in the culture from question 1? Smee, show me the smoking gun!

Even this quote is so full of hogwash that I won't even read the rest. Not only does it fail to determine basic premises like culture and give evidence for the cynical attitude, it also completely ignores photographic history (not to mention the history of paiting and drawing) and makes judgement calls on the validity of digital versus "analog" photography based on that utter lack of historic knowledge and sense. :bang:
 
This argument is not just relevant to photography.
IMO, digital methods make people lazy, they don't bother learning the basics, they no longer even have to think, why should they when they can press a button and have a machine do it all for them? (ie auto levels etc in Photoshop etc.). It is the same in the music industry. The charts are full of untalented 'singers' who cannot hold a note, who cannot play any instrument, whose voices have been processed digitally to sound in tune with artificial backing tracks created by machine.
I read recently of someone who bought a watercolour painting on Ebay, on receipt it turned out to be an inkjet print on watercolour paper with a watercolour wash over the top.
IMO the 'digital world' is completely devaluing every corner of human creativity.
 
Last edited:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Photography with the influx of digital is oversaturated. Back in the 1920's it was still a mystery and not everybody could do it.

Photography captures a slice of time. Hard to capture a moment with painting. Painting shows you the world through the artists eyes or in the case of Francis Bacon or Geiger whats inside their minds. That is very tough to do with straight photography but there are some great digital manipulators out there.

The one great photo artist IMO was Man Ray, the surreal photographer. That is art to me.

The quote from the link ????

"Paining is dead"

Must be why I just sold a painting for 5G but rarely can I sell a photo.

Collectors see very little value in buying a photograph, unless it is from someone famous. A painting is somthing that not everone can do, and they still carry a lot of weight.
 
I found it interesting, but based on a flawed premise - that photography is falling out of favor an an 'art form'. This is simply not true. In recent months, higher and ever higher winning bids have been recorded for various photographs at Sotheby's.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/15/ap/entertainment/mainD8FPAN8O0.shtml
'Pond' Photo Sells for 2.9M, Sets Record NEW YORK, Feb. 15, 2006
Christie's/Sotheby's/Phillips de Pury & Company/Swann Galleries, New York City
Fall Photography Auctions Soar to Wild New $30 Million Record
http://www.kctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4358694
Kansas City Museum Obtains $65 Million Photography Collection April 24, 2006 03:25 PM

The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art has obtained one of the country's largest collections of American photography, an estimated $65 million treasure featuring works by more than 900 artists, it was announced Friday.

The Hallmark Photographic Collection, a roughly 6,500-piece assortment of works owned by Hallmark Cards Inc., was permanently turned over to the Kansas City museum, officials at the company and Nelson-Atkins said.

"It's one of the finest holdings of American photography ever put together," said Keith Davis, the longtime director of Hallmark's fine arts program who now also will be curator of photography at Nelson-Atkins. "It's a collection that would be exceedingly hard to duplicate today under any circumstances."

The contents of the Hallmark Collection are widely varied -- from 320 works by influential photographer Harry Callahan, believed to be the largest such holding in the world, to images by Alfred Stieglitz, whose images helped photography become recognized as an art.

For a lover of photography it is considered a jewel. There are iconic Life magazine photos and William Wegman's outrageous pictures of dogs taking on human roles. There are works by American icon Andy Warhol, renowned celebrity photographer Annie Liebovitz, the legendary Dorothea Lange -- the list goes on and on.

A formal price tag has not been put on the value of the collection, but it has been estimated at around $65 million.

Neither Hallmark nor the museum were making public the terms of their agreement. Representatives said only that a "significant portion" of the collection was donated and the balance was purchased with funds from the Greater Kansas City Community Foundation.

For Nelson-Atkins, it fills a void. The museum is known for its Asian art, European paintings and modern sculpture, but years ago it closed its space devoted to photography and other works on paper.

"This adds another component and a distinctly modern and approachable component to the collection," said Scott Stuart, a spokesman for the museum. Museum director Mark Wilson added Friday: "The impact is transforming."

The collection will be housed in the museum's new $350 million Bloch Building, to open next year, and will rotate several times annually, Stuart said. About 30 pieces went on display beginning Friday in the Nelson's existing building.

Kansas City-based Hallmark has been collecting fine art since 1949, and its photography collection was started in 1964. In the last 25 years, the holdings have been assembled in more than 60 exhibitions and shown in more than 200 museums around the world.

Davis said Hallmark still owns more than 2,000 pieces of fine art.

Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

So if the initial premise is incorrect, it would seem to me that the entire article is fatally flawed.

That is not to say that I don't agree with some of the points Smee makes, but the premise, and therefore the conclusion, must be discarded.

And as always, the anti-digital see this as one more reason to moan and complain about how digital is making the world a nasty and icky place, unfit for humans or pure photography.

Whatever.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
I'm currently in the process of preparing a couple of portfolios to present to museums in the hope of getting a show. I'm finding that it's extremely difficult to get the attention of a curator unless you are a known element. This in part is due to the extreme oversaturation of very poor over manipulated over done photography. Unfortunately all photography is lumped into one group no matter what it is. I'm finding it near impossible to even get phone calls or emails returned.

Last fall I was visiting Kim Weston, the grandson of Edward, at his Wildcat Hills home and having a lengthy discussion about the new generation of shooter. Kim teaches workshops through out the year and sees hundreds of students each year. Kim stated that many of his students come with expensive digital slr's and hammer out a full CF card of pictures then go into the studio and download the card to their laptop with the hopes there will be one frame they can fix in photoshop. This has been my observation as well and we both agreed this is not photography and certainly not art. There is no consistancy and no skill other than the ability to fix a bad picture. Unfortunately this is becoming the view of all photography and photographers.

It seems as though there are two schools of thought. Those of us that shoot film look and structure the image to a much higher degree than the average digital shooter. It seems as though there is more visual feedback with the brain and finger that what is happening with an 8 fps motor attached to a camera. This is only my personal observation with no intent of angering anyone. I shoot 35mm as I do large format. I use the VF as a canvas and compose before shooting. Many of my images require no cropping. Recently when printing my portfolio I observed something that I had never noticed about my work. Many of my best images were only single frames. I had not shot two or more frames to capture the image. In many cases there was only one single frame of a subject. This is how I shoot 8x10 film. I find I shoot all formats as if they were 8x10 not a motor connected to the end of my finger. I then started looking at my digital work and found the same. I shoot with my DSLR's the same way.

In the end a great photo is a great photo no matter how or how many frames it took to get it but was it just luck or was it true artistic tallent?

Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while or should it be even a blind photographer creates a photo once in a while.

http://www.photo.net/photos/X-Ray
 
x-ray said:
I'm currently in the process of preparing a couple of portfolios to present to museums in the hope of getting a show. I'm finding that it's extremely difficult to get the attention of a curator unless you are a known element. This in part is due to the extreme oversaturation of very poor over manipulated over done photography.
Yes. Yes. Don't forget about nudes, too; it's hard to find the artistic ones over the purely fleshy ones (and oh, does that trigger discussions --highly subjective). Same goes for many other photos. But it is all about trends, and having your finger on the pulse of the stream.

I have been musing over this (overmanipulation) too. It's time for me to look into some cross-process Photoshop plugins. Well, you know what they say: when in Rome...
 
Andy K said:
IMO, digital methods make people lazy, they don't bother learning the basics, they no longer even have to think, why should they when they can press a button and have a machine do it all for them? (ie auto levels etc in Photoshop etc.). creativity.

When I was in grade school, I had to learn to extract a square root by hand. I no longer hold this skill; it is readily available to me in the form of a $10 electronic calculator. Failing that, there's the unfailing slide rule, that still works and I still know how to work. Some things just don't have to be retained except as an academic niche. Hmmm, wonder if there's a good thesis topic in mechanical methods for numerical processes....
 
I was chatting to a guy at work the other day, he's in his mid-twenties, a company exec. We were talking petrol costs and fuel consumption and were calculating mileage etc. when he said 'I can't do division got a calculator?' Apparently he has always used a calculator.
I was absolutely stunned that someone could get to adulthood and not be able to do basic mathematical calculation.
 
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep."
Can't remember whose quote it is, but it pretty much covers art.

Peter
 
Andy K said:
I was chatting to a guy at work the other day, he's in his mid-twenties, a company exec. We were talking petrol costs and fuel consumption and were calculating mileage etc. when he said 'I can't do division got a calculator?' Apparently he has always used a calculator.
I was absolutely stunned that someone could get to adulthood and not be able to do basic mathematical calculation.

And how did he become a company exec?
 
Socke said:
And how did he become a company exec?

He has a degree in something or other, probably a Doctorate of Tom and Jerry. It is common enough, look at the amount of graduates today whose handwriting is barely legible and littered with IM spellings and abbreviations, because they have always used keyboards and spell checkers.
 
Oh tempora, oh mores!

On the other hand, one of my cousins is learning latin as his second foreign language. English as a first is mandatory in germany except some regions close to france.
I tried to talk him out of latin in favour of spanisch or french, but he beeing the Harry Potter fan he is insistet on latin and now he is bothering his poor uncle with a brain like a sieve to train vocabulary and grammer which said uncle has forgotten some 25 years ago 🙂
 
Andy K said:
He has a degree in something or other, probably a Doctorate of Tom and Jerry. It is common enough, look at the amount of graduates today whose handwriting is barely legible and littered with IM spellings and abbreviations, because they have always used keyboards and spell checkers.
In my interview for my current job I was asked bluntly what good I thought my history degree was and how I expected to use it. My response: "I can read, write, think, speak, argue logically, and research. Surely you must have some use for those skills?"

Back on topic, I find it discouraging that so many folks simply blast away with a digital camera and hope for something good to come out. However, was it really all that much different when auto-everything film SLRs arrived on the scene? I can't remember who originally said it, but isn't the saying "ninety percent of everything is crap"?
 
And as always, the discussion devolves into the supposed intrinsic values of film versus the presumed absolute stupidity of digital.

I leave you to bashing each other's brains out. Oops, too late.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Andy K said:
This argument is not just relevant to photography.
IMO, digital methods make people lazy, they don't bother learning the basics, they no longer even have to think, why should they when they can press a button and have a machine do it all for them? (ie auto levels etc in Photoshop etc.). It is the same in the music industry. The charts are full of untalented 'singers' who cannot hold a note, who cannot play any instrument, whose voices have been processed digitally to sound in tune with artificial backing tracks created by machine.
I read recently of someone who bought a watercolour painting on Ebay, on receipt it turned out to be an inkjet print on watercolour paper with a watercolour wash over the top.
IMO the 'digital world' is completely devaluing every corner of human creativity.

I personally would not go so far as to say that digital media is devaluing human creativity, it is certainly changing it.

Most people still value quality, digital media allows quality reproduction possible at nearly zero cost. The perceived lack of value is a result of the massive amounts of derivative content.

There is now more audience than there are creative people to produce content. Already boutique items are fetching larger prices. A case in point. Blacksmiths are in greater demand now than ever before. I know of one who no longer accepts commissions because he has a 10 year backlog of orders.

In my little corner of the world there are 2 professional labs and about a dozen photographers. The photographers have enough business that it keeps the labs in business. Even with all the digicams, photoshop jockeys, and cell phone cams people will gravitate to what they consider unique, art that has a provenance. These guys are not getting rich, but they are making a living.

The only thing that is being devalued is the dross, the derivative, because there is so much more of it.

The unique and credible are valued higher than ever.
 
I intended to comment on process, not media, sorry if anyone took that for a "film vs. digital" comment. To clarify: the same people who blast away with a digital camera would likely blast away with an auto-everything film camera. Either way, same result.
 
Back
Top Bottom