R
RML
Guest
Dektol Dan said:
Tell me what art is and I'll show you an artist. Humanity has never been able to come up with a sound definition of art (or Art), so who are you to tell us photography is or isn't art?
"Photography does not exist anymore!" New manifesto!
- Thread starter Nachkebia
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies: Replies 75
- Views: Views 5K
Tell me what art is and I'll show you an artist. Humanity has never been able to come up with a sound definition of art (or Art), so who are you to tell us photography is or isn't art?
Art is short for Arthur. As in Art Linkletter.
Any other questions on Art?
Any other questions on Art?
Dektol Dan
Well-known
Before one writes any manifestos
Before one writes any manifestos
He should define his terms.
If, as has been offered, that art is what you make it, then we're off on another tangent and still off on the wrong foot: defining art for _______'s (fill in the blank) sake.
Don't be shocked that art can be defined by what it isn't.
Furthermore, don't be shocked that your precious craft doesn't have to be art. My God! Think of the freedom (from responsibility?) one has!
Much of all this conjecture/misinterpretaiton comes from the fact that those who least are unable to grasp that photography is mere craft have not been trained in, steeped in, or schooled in traditional art forms as accepted for hundreds of years. Probably those same folks are at lower level than craft persons, they are hobbyists.
For those who cannot grasp that their craft many not be art: accept your place in life! Go forward with your 150 year old craft and accept your lot! Wishing that it ain't so won't change a thing. Hey! I'm not losing any sleep over the fact that I wasted years involved in mere craft! Damn it! I'm a damn good craftsman, thank you, and I'm proud of it!
Before one writes any manifestos
He should define his terms.
If, as has been offered, that art is what you make it, then we're off on another tangent and still off on the wrong foot: defining art for _______'s (fill in the blank) sake.
Don't be shocked that art can be defined by what it isn't.
Furthermore, don't be shocked that your precious craft doesn't have to be art. My God! Think of the freedom (from responsibility?) one has!
Much of all this conjecture/misinterpretaiton comes from the fact that those who least are unable to grasp that photography is mere craft have not been trained in, steeped in, or schooled in traditional art forms as accepted for hundreds of years. Probably those same folks are at lower level than craft persons, they are hobbyists.
For those who cannot grasp that their craft many not be art: accept your place in life! Go forward with your 150 year old craft and accept your lot! Wishing that it ain't so won't change a thing. Hey! I'm not losing any sleep over the fact that I wasted years involved in mere craft! Damn it! I'm a damn good craftsman, thank you, and I'm proud of it!
amateriat
We're all light!
Actually working with artists – well-known and otherwise, in various mediums – can offer an interesting perspective as well.
- Barrett
- Barrett
S
Socke
Guest
CJP6008 said:
For my father and my grandfather a negative was always a starting point in "making a picture" as opposed to "taking a picture". Making a pictures was art for them, taking a photograph not. That was one of the reasons why they both considered everything below 6x6 as a snapshot camera.
Peter Klein
Well-known
Barrett: Art isn't easy. Stephen Sondheim said so. 
The medium is the message? Sort of kind of, but sort of kind of not. It depends on what you do with it. Show most people a high-quality film print and a high-quality digital print, they will have no idea which is which. It's not like the difference between, say, movies and TV, or newspapers and radio.
Viewing photos on a computer screen vs. on prints is the kind of difference McCluhan was talking about. But you can view film pictures on the computer, and you can print either film or digital. When we say "digital photography" we're usually talking about using digital capture in the camera. The major change is how the photographer acts and feels, not the viewer.
Digital can be used for exactly the same kinds of things film can be used for. BUT the process is different. The question is how much these differences affect the final result, and how much the fact of shooting digital sends the photographer shooting different things in different ways. The result might be very similar to film, or it might be very different. Because:
* You can have it now.
* You can alter it more easily.
* Once you pay for your camera, shooting seems free.
* You shoot more.
* It looks different from film
* Noise is uglier than grain (IMHO)
* Digital has less highlight detail than neg film.
* It's easier to do something "because I can."
* Playing with digital effects for their own sake lead to new aesthetic standards. Such as preferring smooth, blurry photos to sharp grainy ones (D**n you, C*non!), or thinking it's creative to alter your girlfriend's image with jaundice-yellow skin, flourescent-green hair, high contrast and posteriziation. It isn't really new, people were doing such stuff 40 years ago. But it's easier now, so it seems like everyone is doing it.
It is easy to do bad but technically competent photography digitally. It is much the same amount of effort to do good photography with either.
One of the reasons why I love my M8 is that it helps me shoot "filmishly" on a digital camera. And its B&W look is beautiful. It isn't Tri-X, it's itself. And beautiful.
--Peter
The medium is the message? Sort of kind of, but sort of kind of not. It depends on what you do with it. Show most people a high-quality film print and a high-quality digital print, they will have no idea which is which. It's not like the difference between, say, movies and TV, or newspapers and radio.
Viewing photos on a computer screen vs. on prints is the kind of difference McCluhan was talking about. But you can view film pictures on the computer, and you can print either film or digital. When we say "digital photography" we're usually talking about using digital capture in the camera. The major change is how the photographer acts and feels, not the viewer.
Digital can be used for exactly the same kinds of things film can be used for. BUT the process is different. The question is how much these differences affect the final result, and how much the fact of shooting digital sends the photographer shooting different things in different ways. The result might be very similar to film, or it might be very different. Because:
* You can have it now.
* You can alter it more easily.
* Once you pay for your camera, shooting seems free.
* You shoot more.
* It looks different from film
* Noise is uglier than grain (IMHO)
* Digital has less highlight detail than neg film.
* It's easier to do something "because I can."
* Playing with digital effects for their own sake lead to new aesthetic standards. Such as preferring smooth, blurry photos to sharp grainy ones (D**n you, C*non!), or thinking it's creative to alter your girlfriend's image with jaundice-yellow skin, flourescent-green hair, high contrast and posteriziation. It isn't really new, people were doing such stuff 40 years ago. But it's easier now, so it seems like everyone is doing it.
It is easy to do bad but technically competent photography digitally. It is much the same amount of effort to do good photography with either.
One of the reasons why I love my M8 is that it helps me shoot "filmishly" on a digital camera. And its B&W look is beautiful. It isn't Tri-X, it's itself. And beautiful.
--Peter
ISO
Established
Is this art or not?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/parnas-io/884675516/
or this one?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/k2d2vaca/893353644/
that one?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theorem/856832438/
this?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/psylense/858732640/
maybe this one ?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/annakarinquinto/885013377/
now I found art, or not?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/frzw/889402000/
mmmh?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eman59/890608538/
a masterpiece ?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rougerouge/886968353/
maybe here?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ruipalha/894730506/
the next one is pretty cool, but is it art? (btw anyone knows the effect here. Is it PS or can this be done analog?)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/artsyevie/865517176/
...I could go one. Took me 4 minutes to find these photos on flickr. Does it really matter what "camera" this peole/ photographers/ artists? use ? Art has to do with inspiration and creativity. A painter is free in what he does, a photographer needs something to capture. Beside that, to become a good respected artist in the "art world" today, marketing is important - "Hype" can help a lot. . For me as a photographer, I am just happy if I have a picture that is worth printing big and hang it up on the wall to make me happy, again and again......Quality of the file or negative to produce the print is very important here, at least for me.... I have around 30 prints so far, which would not exist without me. And that makes me proud - just for myself.... artist or not!
BTW - Before we run out of film, we will run out of petrol... Anybody wants to bet?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/parnas-io/884675516/
or this one?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/k2d2vaca/893353644/
that one?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theorem/856832438/
this?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/psylense/858732640/
maybe this one ?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/annakarinquinto/885013377/
now I found art, or not?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/frzw/889402000/
mmmh?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eman59/890608538/
a masterpiece ?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rougerouge/886968353/
maybe here?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ruipalha/894730506/
the next one is pretty cool, but is it art? (btw anyone knows the effect here. Is it PS or can this be done analog?)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/artsyevie/865517176/
...I could go one. Took me 4 minutes to find these photos on flickr. Does it really matter what "camera" this peole/ photographers/ artists? use ? Art has to do with inspiration and creativity. A painter is free in what he does, a photographer needs something to capture. Beside that, to become a good respected artist in the "art world" today, marketing is important - "Hype" can help a lot. . For me as a photographer, I am just happy if I have a picture that is worth printing big and hang it up on the wall to make me happy, again and again......Quality of the file or negative to produce the print is very important here, at least for me.... I have around 30 prints so far, which would not exist without me. And that makes me proud - just for myself.... artist or not!
BTW - Before we run out of film, we will run out of petrol... Anybody wants to bet?
Last edited:
oftheherd
Veteran
Brian Sweeney said:
Brian, I think you have given us the most intelligent post so far in this thread, and certainly the best advice.
Thanks.
jbf
||||||
Personally I feel it doesnt matter what kind of camera you use or what method... so long as the method of creating those images does not hinder the artist's ultimate goals, then really it doesnt matter. Its the idea and the concept and the actual photograph in the end that matters. If the artist's vision is what he or she wants then does it really matter?
Just because someone uses a digital camera does not mean one cannot come out with breathtaking photos.
Learning curves and skill is needed no matter which area of photography you venture. Whether it be the print making side of film, or the digital darkroom... all take the skill and eye to get what you want.
Just because you can "post the hell" out of an image doesnt mean that it will look good. A good photograph has to have a good solid foundation to begin with.
Garbage in. Garbage out.
Just because someone uses a digital camera does not mean one cannot come out with breathtaking photos.
Learning curves and skill is needed no matter which area of photography you venture. Whether it be the print making side of film, or the digital darkroom... all take the skill and eye to get what you want.
Just because you can "post the hell" out of an image doesnt mean that it will look good. A good photograph has to have a good solid foundation to begin with.
Garbage in. Garbage out.
amateriat
We're all light!
memphis, Socke, Peter, ISO, oftheherd, jbf:
Y'all said it better than I tried to.
My mother, a painter for most of her life, with a handful of exhibits uner her belt, pretty much taught me, not in so many words, not to believe in art and non-art, but good and bad art. Dan seems to be into "standards" (at the risk of putting words in his mouth), and I have no truck with that. But heirarchies can be pretty strange, never more so than in the "art" world/establishment. When I first became seriosuly interested in photography, in the early 1970s (as opposed to being amorphously drawn to the medium as a youngster, years before), the medium, as it were, seemed to be begging to be taken seriously by the art establishment at large, which struck me as silly. The Beatles' creative output was once largely derided as mere "noise"; among all the pop flotsam and jetsam of several decades, their work has largely endured, and I don't think it's either by a a fluke or a "lowering" of artistic standards (such as they are). And this is merely one example.
Are all changes in perspective about Art good? I don't think so, but we'd all likely get into a serious donnybrook over which "changes" were for the better or not. And it's always been this way. Look to any creative discipline, and you'll find many of the artists who set the "standard" were, at the beginning, argued over intensely. (I had a big fight with the editor of a music/audio magazine over his en masse dismissal of 20th century orchestral and chamber music as "mediocre.")
I'll reiterate: art is what you bring to it, whether you're a creator or an observer. There are those who see absolutely no value whatsoever in art, (however you care to describe it), and see it as the province of well-off dilettantes and clever-boots ne'er-do-wells. This is where I have to (very) reluctantly quote Ronald Reagan about dealing with the world as it is, as opposed to how I wish it to be (let's not get into how he walked the talk on that one). We can't necessarily agree on art because of its amorphous nature. You can point me to a Vermeer or Monet or Degas and say "Damn it, man, are you blind?", and I'll answer, "No argument from me, but what about the 20 people here with me?"
You can spend a solid portion of your life doing this.
The people I know who are making art don't waste their time (well, at least not as much time as I do) with this. Perhaps those that can, do. The rest of us argue.
But I wouldn't say arguing is a total waste of time.
- Barrett
Y'all said it better than I tried to.
My mother, a painter for most of her life, with a handful of exhibits uner her belt, pretty much taught me, not in so many words, not to believe in art and non-art, but good and bad art. Dan seems to be into "standards" (at the risk of putting words in his mouth), and I have no truck with that. But heirarchies can be pretty strange, never more so than in the "art" world/establishment. When I first became seriosuly interested in photography, in the early 1970s (as opposed to being amorphously drawn to the medium as a youngster, years before), the medium, as it were, seemed to be begging to be taken seriously by the art establishment at large, which struck me as silly. The Beatles' creative output was once largely derided as mere "noise"; among all the pop flotsam and jetsam of several decades, their work has largely endured, and I don't think it's either by a a fluke or a "lowering" of artistic standards (such as they are). And this is merely one example.
Are all changes in perspective about Art good? I don't think so, but we'd all likely get into a serious donnybrook over which "changes" were for the better or not. And it's always been this way. Look to any creative discipline, and you'll find many of the artists who set the "standard" were, at the beginning, argued over intensely. (I had a big fight with the editor of a music/audio magazine over his en masse dismissal of 20th century orchestral and chamber music as "mediocre.")
I'll reiterate: art is what you bring to it, whether you're a creator or an observer. There are those who see absolutely no value whatsoever in art, (however you care to describe it), and see it as the province of well-off dilettantes and clever-boots ne'er-do-wells. This is where I have to (very) reluctantly quote Ronald Reagan about dealing with the world as it is, as opposed to how I wish it to be (let's not get into how he walked the talk on that one). We can't necessarily agree on art because of its amorphous nature. You can point me to a Vermeer or Monet or Degas and say "Damn it, man, are you blind?", and I'll answer, "No argument from me, but what about the 20 people here with me?"
You can spend a solid portion of your life doing this.
The people I know who are making art don't waste their time (well, at least not as much time as I do) with this. Perhaps those that can, do. The rest of us argue.
But I wouldn't say arguing is a total waste of time.
- Barrett
Last edited:
S
Socke
Guest
Peter, I couldn't have said it better.
Peter Klein said:Barrett: Art isn't easy. Stephen Sondheim said so.
The medium is the message? Sort of kind of, but sort of kind of not. It depends on what you do with it. Show most people a high-quality film print and a high-quality digital print, they will have no idea which is which. It's not like the difference between, say, movies and TV, or newspapers and radio.
Viewing photos on a computer screen vs. on prints is the kind of difference McCluhan was talking about. But you can view film pictures on the computer, and you can print either film or digital. When we say "digital photography" we're usually talking about using digital capture in the camera. The major change is how the photographer acts and feels, not the viewer.
Digital can be used for exactly the same kinds of things film can be used for. BUT the process is different. The question is how much these differences affect the final result, and how much the fact of shooting digital sends the photographer shooting different things in different ways. The result might be very similar to film, or it might be very different. Because:
* You can have it now.
* You can alter it more easily.
* Once you pay for your camera, shooting seems free.
* You shoot more.
* It looks different from film
* Noise is uglier than grain (IMHO)
* Digital has less highlight detail than neg film.
* It's easier to do something "because I can."
* Playing with digital effects for their own sake lead to new aesthetic standards. Such as preferring smooth, blurry photos to sharp grainy ones (D**n you, C*non!), or thinking it's creative to alter your girlfriend's image with jaundice-yellow skin, flourescent-green hair, high contrast and posteriziation. It isn't really new, people were doing such stuff 40 years ago. But it's easier now, so it seems like everyone is doing it.
It is easy to do bad but technically competent photography digitally. It is much the same amount of effort to do good photography with either.
One of the reasons why I love my M8 is that it helps me shoot "filmishly" on a digital camera. And its B&W look is beautiful. It isn't Tri-X, it's itself. And beautiful.
--Peter
S
Socke
Guest
amateriat said:
Barret, I experienced something close to a spiritual enlightenment when I saw Monets seasons in the Royal Albert Hall. I'd seen those picture in books and I really liked them, but when I encountered the real paintings I was blown away and drawn into at the same moment.
kalokeri
larger than 35mm
I´m with Peter Klein in almost everything he wrote - something like that I was trying to express, but he did it better. Just one I would like to add: Taking pictures with a digital camera becomes photography when the picture is materialized in a print. Otherwise the result is not a picture but a machine code.
Chris, coming back to your P.S., I didn´t want to give the impression that slides are not "real" photography. Slides are film based as negatives and therefore - in the context of the above thought - materialized.
Thomas
Chris, coming back to your P.S., I didn´t want to give the impression that slides are not "real" photography. Slides are film based as negatives and therefore - in the context of the above thought - materialized.
Thomas
colinh
Well-known
dskphotography said:
Maybe in a few years the processors will analyse the frame and when you try to take a shot a little voice will say "No, that's a pathetic shot. Options: "get closer, change viewpoint, choose better Decisive Moment"
colin
