Is Photography Art?

Photography as a poor relation to painting?

Photography as a poor relation to painting?

pmun said:
Thanks for the link Richard, I had a look and liked the simplicity of the image. I wondered what you were aiming at here. Are you trying to emulate painting? If so do you not think that implies photography as a poor relation to painting - much like it started out? (not a criticism - but a genuine interest).

www.urbanpaths.net
Click to expand...

Thank you for your comments!

I am not sure myself what I was aiming at. Its my girlfriend in the picture and I hacked the orginal image around in Photoshop and Buzz. 'Hacked' being the operative word as I am no expert with either software. Even worse I could not repeat the excercise - the picture would turn out different.

It looked a bit like a painting (it would be better on the right paper) when it was viewed at about A2 print size. I did a few more and put them on my web under 'photo art' and then realised that to do it all properly I would have to become dedicated and I admit I am no artist and not that dedicated.

Its an area that I might re-visit one day soon when I am 'even older and more infirm' and have the time to spend 'hacking' more of my images.

The golden question - is photography a poor relation to painting?

"If you want to be a painter and you are a photographer - then it is"


Richard.
 
Photography is photography. Painting is painting. Some people like to look at it as a relationship. Others see them for what they are alone. Worry less and do what feels right.
 
Aurance said:
... The golden question - is photography a poor relation to painting? ...
Click to expand...
This picture looks like Hopper's style and subject matter, but the colors are different. The photoshopping you did gives it the palette knife look. However it won't stand up to close examination, because there is no paint on a canvas. In fact, when I get closer I see the dots of my monitor. I suspect that if I did the same to your print, I'd eventually see the underlying inkjet dots. So instead of the underlying structure of a painting, it's got digital output underpinnings. Since the dots of digital are less interesting - and more mechanical - than paint, I'd say yes. Painterly digital photos are less arty than real paintings.

As a picture of your girlfriend however, it is a good picture, and no doubt quite pleasing to see from day to day. So in that way it stands on its own.

Sparrow said:
So would you say a photo of the Mona Lisa was Art?
Click to expand...

A straight photo, taken with a camera on a tripod, aligned and focussed to capture as close a copy as possible? No.

However, take a look at this page. There are certainly lots of artsy photos of the Mona Lisa there!
 
Sparrow said:
I also have an Art degree and I rejected the concept of Bokeh back on the 17th of August … if it was good enough for Leonardo it’s good enough for me
Click to expand...

... I have a science degree and therefore no clue about art before or after 17th of August.
 
Photograph to a Painting??

Photograph to a Painting??

Chris101 said:
This picture looks like Hopper's style and subject matter, but the colors are different. The photoshopping you did gives it the palette knife look. However it won't stand up to close examination, because there is no paint on a canvas. In fact, when I get closer I see the dots of my monitor. I suspect that if I did the same to your print, I'd eventually see the underlying inkjet dots. So instead of the underlying structure of a painting, it's got digital output underpinnings. Since the dots of digital are less interesting - and more mechanical - than paint, I'd say yes. Painterly digital photos are less arty than real paintings.

I agree - it is not a painting.

It was simply an experiment with Photoshop and Buzz software which (more through accident) produced an interesting picture!

Now if I really was a PAINTER and an Artist, I could print that out to A2 on canvas and with the careful use of the right paints (whatever) I reckon it could be made into a class painting and then it might be worth a bit!

Okay - perhaps not!

Richard.
Click to expand...
 
Sorry to up an already (or at least seemingly) dying thread...

I was just wondering, is not being an art a bad thing ? An insult ?

Of course, many of the answers saying " it's not necessarly art but it can be" looks like a "no" but... It's like avoiding the question in my opinion.

Well for me, it is not, but it's just a matter of classification, really. Calling photography art is more a burden than anything else. The way it works, or rather the way I perceive it (something that catches instants, yeah it's that easy...), is too different from all other so called arts to have it put in the same category.

My 2 cents.
 
Art is when its intended to be art and is considered art by the beholder.

That's when you set out to get something across and succeeded.


Intended art thats considered crap, fails to be art.
Intended crap thats considered art still isn't since it was intended as crap.

Only when you set out to get something (what? an image, an emotion) across and people pick up on it in a way you aimed for can it be called art. By those that picked up on it, that is. To others, it's still crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

peterm1
Who has hobbies other than photography?
3 4 5
Replies
97
Views
3K
bulevardi
bulevardi
B
How has your photography changed over the years?
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
8K
Bolo Kukus
B
caila77
letters to a young photographer - the meaning of photography
Replies
4
Views
594
Godfrey
Godfrey
CameraQuest
My first Nikon ONE
Replies
11
Views
946
NIKON KIU
NIKON KIU
Ororaro
Ned Bojic: SLY NYC
Replies
6
Views
2K
Ororaro
Ororaro
Back
Top Bottom