On The Walls

On The Walls

  • I never print my photos

    Votes: 3 2.9%

  • I print my photos but don't display them on my walls

    Votes: 10 9.7%

  • Just one or two of my own photos on my walls

    Votes: 18 17.5%

  • Three to ten of my own photos on my walls

    Votes: 39 37.9%

  • More than ten of my own photos on my walls

    Votes: 33 32.0%
  • Total voters
    103
Erik van Straten said:
More boring because they are not hand made. I prefer, on my wall, a clumsy drawing or painting made by a child (if I can not afford a painting by Modigliani) to a photograph by Cartier-Bresson.

Erik.
Click to expand...
Dear Erik,

A print isn't hand made? Unlike the child's drawing that requires paper and crayons, neither of which the child has made?

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Erik,

A print isn't hand made? Unlike the child's drawing that requires paper and crayons, neither of which the child has made?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

No, I've never seen handmade prints. The printer can make as much identical prints as he likes. That is the reason that famous paintings are priceless and prints of famous photographs are for sale.

Erik.
 
Erik van Straten said:
No, I've never seen handmade prints. The printer can make as much identical prints as he likes. That is the reason that famous paintings are priceless and prints of famous photographs are for sale.

Erik.
Click to expand...
Dear Erik,


How are you defining "hand made?"

What about dodging? Burning? Exposure? Toning? Local bleaching? Hand colouring?

Identical? Not really. Remember the Ansel Adams saying that the negative is the score, and the print is the performance. Try buying an original Ansel Adams print of Moonrise. Why do you think prints made by other people from the same negatives go for less?

And... um... famous paintings do get sold from time to time. Van Goghs, for example. Expensive, yes. Priceless, no.

Cheers,

R.
 
Regarding paintings v photographs.

Nothing irritates me more than an off perspective in a painting, where objects look like they've been cut and pasted into a composition. It takes a skilful painter to get it right.
The main difference I see is the bar is so low in photography, you can take an image, and have it hanging within an hour. The effort required to hang a uninteresting photograph is not a lot. On the other hand, a painter who by virtue of the medium has made a substantial investment in time is more likely to know what to do and how to do it before they hang something on the wall.
But when both the photographer and painter know what to do and how to do it, the results from each can be equally inspiring. The same goes for other artistic methods. I think its a bit childish to discount one method based solely on the means of creation. It's a bit like loving marble sculpture while dismissing bronze as 'mechanical' and therefore inferior.

Just my 2c. (We also have screen prints, ceramics, paintings, and other associated 'art' in our house - I don't see one as superior, they're just different)
 
Well I love to see pictures hanging on the wall, specially good ones and very well made ones, but being spanish, having lived in Madrid for a couple of years with possibility to visit best paint museum in the world (El Prado) I'm more inclined to paintings, of course.

Look at Bosco Paintings are PRICELESS. Velázquez, Murillo, Rembrandt, Rubens, Tiziano... impressive. I also enjoyed my years in London visiting National Gallery and the Flemish, impressionist...

Photography is a bourgeois concept 😛
 
michaelwj said:
. . . I think its a bit childish to discount one method based solely on the means of creation. It's a bit like loving marble sculpture while dismissing bronze as 'mechanical' and therefore inferior.

Just my 2c. (We also have screen prints, ceramics, paintings, and other associated 'art' in our house - I don't see one as superior, they're just different)
Click to expand...
Dear Michael,

That's my feeling too. Nice analogy, by the way.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Michael,

That's my feeling too. Nice analogy, by the way.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Back in the Nineteenth Century it was also the feeling of one of the pioneers of 'pictorial' photography Dr. P.H. Emerson: “Photography has been called an irresponsive medium. This is much the same as calling it a mechanical process. A great paradox which has been combated is the assumption that because photography is not ‘hand-work’ as the public say—though we find there is very much ‘hand-work’ and head-work in it—therefore it is not an art language. This is a fallacy born of thoughtlessness. The painter learns his technique in order to speak, and he considers painting a mental process. So with photography, speaking artistically of it, it is a very severe mental process, and taxes all the artist’s energies even after he has mastered technique. The point is, what you have to say and how to say it. The originality of a work of art refers to the originality of the thing expressed and the way it is expressed, whether it be in poetry, photography, or painting. That one technique is more difficult than another to learn no one will deny; but the greatest thoughts have been expressed by means of the simplest technique, writing.”
 
Doesn't it depend on how one defines art?

Doesn't it depend on how one defines art?

lawrence said:
Back in the Nineteenth Century it was also the feeling of one of the pioneers of 'pictorial' photography Dr. P.H. Emerson: “Photography has been called an irresponsive medium. This is much the same as calling it a mechanical process. A great paradox which has been combated is the assumption that because photography is not ‘hand-work’ as the public say—though we find there is very much ‘hand-work’ and head-work in it—therefore it is not an art language. This is a fallacy born of thoughtlessness. The painter learns his technique in order to speak, and he considers painting a mental process. So with photography, speaking artistically of it, it is a very severe mental process, and taxes all the artist’s energies even after he has mastered technique. The point is, what you have to say and how to say it. The originality of a work of art refers to the originality of the thing expressed and the way it is expressed, whether it be in poetry, photography, or painting. That one technique is more difficult than another to learn no one will deny; but the greatest thoughts have been expressed by means of the simplest technique, writing.”
Click to expand...

Dear Lawrence,

I agree with all that you quoted, but I sometimes think that how photos get judged depends on how one defines art?

I enjoy bird and wildlife photography. Neither of which would be considered by most to involve much in the way of artistic effort, or vision. To me, and to the people who are much better at those genres than myself and whose work I admire, success is determined by preparation and scouting and set-up.

I consider photography is it's literal definition of "light writing" and approach what I do with the idea in mind of recording a visual representation of what I witnessed with my own two eyes. Speaking only for myself I hope to record something that shows what I would have written about a particular bird or animal. In that sense, I really don't see art being involved.

I do however understand that others actually do use photography to create art. I've seen many photos posted here on the message board that involved the use of light and shadows and shapes and patterns to create a pleasing and interesting image.

I can recognize their work and appreciate it, I'm just not good at it. 😉

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Harrisburg, PA 🙂
 
Dear Tim,

I don't think it does depend on how one defines art if you compare like to like.

Is a bird photograph worth more, less, or the same as a similar painting for example? In some ways, the painting is easier, lighting can be controlled, the subject can be dead (yet the painting of a living bird), there are no leaves in the way etc. while the photographer has used their skill to ensure they are in the correct position at the correct time to ensure correct lighting, they have had to stalk/hunt the bird and wait for the perfect subject position and framing, etc. I would say there is an art to making the bird photograph, but of course that doesn't mean the end result is art - but then neither is the painting 🙂

I can recognize their work and appreciate it, I'm just not good at it.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way about bird and wildlife photography.
 
We're fighting on the same side I suppose?

We're fighting on the same side I suppose?

michaelwj said:
Dear Tim,

I don't think it does depend on how one defines art if you compare like to like.

Is a bird photograph worth more, less, or the same as a similar painting for example? In some ways, the painting is easier, lighting can be controlled, the subject can be dead (yet the painting of a living bird), there are no leaves in the way etc. while the photographer has used their skill to ensure they are in the correct position at the correct time to ensure correct lighting, they have had to stalk/hunt the bird and wait for the perfect subject position and framing, etc. I would say there is an art to making the bird photograph, but of course that doesn't mean the end result is art - but then neither is the painting 🙂



I feel the same way about bird and wildlife photography.
Click to expand...

Dear Michael,

When you put it as you put it I can agree that there is an artistic component to a good bird or wildlife photo. As a hillbilly who lives and breathes in the woods I guess it's easy for me to miss that part as I see more things on a daily basis than I could ever hope to record in a photograph.

It all kind of boils down to the old American football quote, originally made by the Roman philosopher Seneca but effectively stolen by many football coaches. You can substitute the word "art" for the word "luck' in the quote but it goes like this, "Luck is where preparation meets opportunity."

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Harrisburg, PA 🙂
 
michaelwj said:
Is a bird photograph worth more, less, or the same as a similar painting for example? In some ways, the painting is easier, lighting can be controlled, the subject can be dead (yet the painting of a living bird), there are no leaves in the way etc. while the photographer has used their skill to ensure they are in the correct position at the correct time to ensure correct lighting, they have had to stalk/hunt the bird and wait for the perfect subject position and framing, etc. I would say there is an art to making the bird photograph, but of course that doesn't mean the end result is art - but then neither is the painting 🙂
Click to expand...
Outspoken photographer Dan Burkholder opines that you don't get extra credit for the technique being hard; the resulting image should be judged on its own merits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
How do you display and/or store Images?
Replies
0
Views
579
DennisM
D
R
Where do you develop/scan your negatives?
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
Luftfeder
L
peterm1
Who is your favorite photographer in history - who has influenced you the most?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
2K
mconnealy
mconnealy
bulevardi
Talent vs Skills — where’s the magic coming from?
2
Replies
28
Views
817
chuckroast
C
maigo
Germany Photo Enthusiast Sites of Interest?
Replies
7
Views
509
valdas
V
Back
Top Bottom