" Photography is art and always will be" by Sean O'Hagan

I've a considered opinion that photography in itself is not art. If it were so, then by extension a reproduction shot of the Rembrandt's Nightwatch would be art.

It's the process of setting up a stage, directing a model, reading the light, deciding what it the right moment that is the art. The pressing of the shutter button is not.
 
pvdhaar said:
I've a considered opinion that photography in itself is not art. If it were so, then by extension a reproduction shot of the Rembrandt's Nightwatch would be art.

It's the process of setting up a stage, directing a model, reading the light, deciding what it the right moment that is the art. The pressing of the shutter button is not.
Click to expand...

By the same token, the act of touching a brush to canvas is not art.

If I may quote you, "It's the process of setting up a stage, directing a model, reading the light, deciding what it the right moment that is the art"
 
pvdhaar said:
No.. just like pressing the record button on a tape-deck isn't art. It's the writing of the songs and musical performance that is the art..
Click to expand...

Okay so if you made a photograph without pressing a button, would the resulting image then, for you, qualify as art?
 
pvdhaar said:
No.. just like pressing the record button on a tape-deck isn't art. It's the writing of the songs and musical performance that is the art..
Click to expand...

That's pushing it... the shutter button allows one to get the right moment. The tape deck's record button isn't exactly as time sensitive.
 
pvdhaar said:
It's the process of setting up a stage, directing a model, reading the light, deciding what it the right moment that is the art. The pressing of the shutter button is not.
Click to expand...

Pressing the shutter button only marks the first half of photography.

Post-processing and printing the photograph is the other half.
There is a lot of opportunity, techniques, and approaches to express our vision on this half, which to me, is what art is.
 
To me if person with talent of artist is doing something and results are standing above the crowd - it is often the art.
For example, knifes - many of them available, only few people will make knife as good as object of art.
Not only by how it looks, but how good the metal and handle is in actual use.

Animations made with computers, some of them are very nice and enjoyable as art.

But somehow, for me, personally, digital photography is not the art. It is only the media to provide image with nice esthetics in it, but the chemistry of magic is missing.
But it is only for my specific taste.
 
Just like a drawing photography can be art but doesn't have to be. As we know since Duchamps even an urinal can be art and I agree with him it really has a beautiful form.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
But somehow, for me, personally, digital photography is not the art. It is only the media to provide image with nice esthetics in it, but the chemistry of magic is missing.
But it is only for my specific taste.
Click to expand...

Ah yes! ye olde RFF film v. digital debate rears its head once again:)
 
Before defining whether photography is art one would have to have an easy to understand definition of the meaning of the word "art".

Then one could measure the practice of making a photograph against that definition.

Unfortunately it seems that even the meaning of the word itself is subject to so much personal opinion that a definitive answer cannot be offered.

I could certainly at this point give my personal opinion. But what would that be worth? About as much as anyone paid for it I suppose.
 
photomoof said:
To me that is like saying the Last Supper is not art, or magic, because the paint faded and fell off the wall.
Click to expand...

I'm lost with my ESL, are you saying the painting with some deterioration is not the art?

To me it just old art.

Where are many abandoned churches in Russia, where they have remainings of paintings and mosaics, which are hundreds of years old. ART of the art to me.
 
zuiko85 said:
Before defining whether photography is art one would have to have an easy to understand definition of the meaning of the word "art".

Then one could measure the practice of making a photograph against that definition.

Unfortunately it seems that even the meaning of the word itself is subject to so much personal opinion that a definitive answer cannot be offered.
Click to expand...
Defining art is easy. As I said in another post elsewhere, art, according to the dictionary, is "something created with imagination and skill to be beautiful or to express important ideas". In other words, art can be a pretty decoration that says very little (like Peter Lik's) or ugly but with a lot to tell us (like Gursky's). I personally find art that combines the two extremes to be to my taste...

That's a pretty broad definition, and something originally not art can be made into art. An artist can tell you it's art: Duchamp's urinal comes to mind. Or you can hang something in an art gallery - like a family snapshot: inside the gallery on a wall it becomes art. It may or may not turn back into a simple family memento if then taken outside.

You don't actually have to do something to make art.

I see there's a bit of an argument about shutter button pressing...

The photographer DiCorcia made a well-known series called "Heads": http://www.pacegallery.com/newyork/exhibitions/11963/philip-lorca-dicorcia-heads.

Pvdhaar says art is more than just pressing the shutter button - I guess he thinks DeCorcia's photos aren't art, then... The camera was hidden on a street, and the shutter released automatically when someone passed by; the images were printed straight from the camera, and hung in a gallery. DiCorcia did nothing except choose which photos would become art.

 
Obviously, and simply, as with other kinds of works, photography is art sometimes.
And just as true, the reasons to consider a photograph art, are sometimes not the same reasons that make a painting art, or a sonnet art.
In general it's not the technique nor the story, but the peculiar way the story is told, and the freedom and freshness to tell it, and most important IMO, what's hiding there behind the story: another story.
That fact of at least another lyrical story apart from the direct story, seems to be present in works called art, and those works seem to endure more than us.
That's what I call art, and that's what I enjoy.
Cheers,
Juan
 
jsrockit said:
Are you saying that the same photo made with film could be art?
Click to expand...

Same crapshot, no, but less disturbing :)

All I'm saying about this thread title - analog b/w is more art to me in terms of still image. More traditional art. I'm not modernist in terms of the media. I like it to be created with hands, not computers.

Art is about to be creative. As ex computer graphics artist (for TV) and broadcast technician for 20+ years I have no doubt it is more easily to be creative and achieve good results in PP with the tablet and PC, not with the brush and darkroom.

But Friday picture is easy with digital and gives more time for consuming!

_MG_9798.JPG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom