Street photography by google.

[jsrockit]

Sorry but no, a bit of found driftwood is not sculpture, the wind in a tree is not music, a running horse is not dance and a coloured daub made by a chimpanzee is not a painting ... art needs to be first conceived in the mind of man, that's what art means, that's what an artisan is, this is just edited happenstance

There is no one way to view things. There are no absolutes in Art. On a very simple level, I don't see much difference between framing something with a camera and using this method of selection. Both involve selecting images through framing.

 

[Compaq]

I agree with Stewart, I wouldn't call this art. However, I do see the photographic qualities, here.

I agree that art should come from the mind of a person, then put into existence through means such as paintings, photography, sculptures, music or any other form of art.

But I do find some of the images very good, but I won't call it art.

 

[celluloidprop]

Authorship and intent are slippery subjects.

The car headed down the road between two sets of kids in Halloween masks is a haunting image.
http://www.tumblr.com/photo/1280/9eyes/14778850160/1/tumblr_lws3ljkZAO1qzun8o

 

[jsrockit]

Luckily for people using this method, the MOMA already validated it as Art.

http://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2011/newphotography/doug-rickard/

 

[celluloidprop]

re: 'that's just editing' - that's a strange charge to make on a photography forum. Photography is all about editing - whether that's composing or winnowing down photos for an exhibition/book. Artistic vision is, itself, a form of editing.

Robert Frank took ~25,000 photos for his Americans project - and winnowed it down to under a hundred. I think we can safely assume that the other 24,900 aren't lost masterpieces: he edited.

 

[jsrockit]

re: 'that's just editing' - that's a strange charge to make on a photography forum. Photography is all about editing - whether that's composing or winnowing down photos for an exhibition/book. Artistic vision is, itself, a form of editing.

Robert Frank took ~25,000 photos for his Americans project - and winnowed it down to under a hundred. I think we can safely assume that the other 24,900 aren't lost masterpieces: he edited.

Exactly...

 

[Sparrow]

Pierre Brassau isn't bad considering the style he painted. Even though he wasn't human.

http://ecclesiastes911.net/story/pierre_brassau.html

Yes and Nat Tate was a big hit in NYC, just goes to prove some folk are easily fooled.

 

[Sparrow]

re: 'that's just editing' - that's a strange charge to make on a photography forum. Photography is all about editing - whether that's composing or winnowing down photos for an exhibition/book. Artistic vision is, itself, a form of editing.

Robert Frank took ~25,000 photos for his Americans project - and winnowed it down to under a hundred. I think we can safely assume that the other 24,900 aren't lost masterpieces: he edited.

"Robert Frank took ~25,000 photos" is the art, the leaving out of 24,900 is simply the craft of it ...

 

[celluloidprop]

How do you know they were art?

 

[Sparrow]

How do you know they were art?

They were made by the hand of man with a pre-conceived purpose ... In what way is Google art?

 

[celluloidprop]

He had a 'preconceived purpose' for each of those 25k frames? How do we know this? If that was really the way he operated - rather than reacting to the reality that presented itself to him - why wasn't Frank a studio photographer, efficiently creating what he had preconceived?

Google isn't the artist, Rafman is. The images are chosen and displayed "by the hand of man with a pre-conceived purpose."

 

[kai.zorki]

I might add what my art teacher once said: "You can hardly say what is art and what is not, but you can say if it is good or bad art"

 

[OurManInTangier]

Art or not aside, my overall impression left me with two thoughts.

1. If you go out with your camera enough the world is full of opportunity
2. 'The Bird' is not just a global gesture but possibly the worlds favourite gesture

 

[ibcrewin]

That was fun

 

[jsrockit]

They were made by the hand of man with a pre-conceived purpose ... In what way is Google art?

Ok, wait... so you cannot make Art unless it is pre-conceived?

 

[Sparrow]

He had a 'preconceived purpose' for each of those 25k frames? How do we know this? If that was really the way he operated - rather than reacting to the reality that presented itself to him - why wasn't Frank a studio photographer, efficiently creating what he had preconceived?

Google isn't the artist, Rafman is. The images are chosen and displayed "by the hand of man with a pre-conceived purpose."

... he had a concept for the finished work, the edit was part of the creative process, he wasn't simply collecting shells like this chap

Rafman is a more difficult case to argue ... so I'm trying to steer things away from him 😉

 

[Sparrow]

Ok, wait... so you cannot make Art unless it is pre-conceived?

No I don't think you can, without a controlling mind it would be simply blind chance ... a kaleidoscope is a tool for artists, not art in itself, even if the pattern remains the same

 

[jsrockit]

No I don't think you can, without a controlling mind it would be simply blind chance ... a kaleidoscope is a tool for artists, not art in itself, even if the pattern remains the same

So, if one goes out to photograph and makes some photos, and then decides what to do with those photos after the fact, it is not art? Also, isn't the artist(s) in question using their mind to find the images?

 

[gns]

similar thread from a while back located here...
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108133

There are several artists utilizing Google Street View. Doug Rickard's work stands out as some of the smartest.

It's funny that so many will just discount something based on what they know of the process, without consideration for the actual work.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Sparrow]

So, if one goes out to photograph and makes some photos, and then decides what to do with those photos after the fact, it is not art? Also, isn't the artist(s) in question using their mind to find the images?

So you would contend a pretty pebble found on a beach is to be considered art in the same way the statue of David in the Accademia delle Arti del Disegno is?