Photography discussion

[edicehouse]

Is photography art?

I never really thought of it as art. It takes skill without a doubt to get the right lighting, and focus, and all of that, but really are you producing anything? The thing that got me thinking about this is a friend does an "art show" once a year that we go to. She has pictures she framed that she took (with a digital camera), printed, matted, and framed. I don't tell her I don't think of it as art, because she can produce 5 in no time.

I have seen her drawings/painting/sketches that she has done, and she is talented, but she chooses to do her "art" as pictures.

What are your opinions on this?

 

[OKLAHOMAN]

Art is in the eye of the beholder, just like painting some will look at abstract paintings as art others as someone splashed paint on a canvas, a well taken photograph can be art while a photograph taken by most of us is simply that "a picture". SkipRats pens are works of art while mine are nice (I hope) pens. Art is how YOU see it.

 

[paintspill]

photography is definitely art. but i'd never pay for one. i'm with you on that. i think the "art" of photography died with the computer age. i have always loved photography and i would rank it as one of my favorite hobbies. but now that you can do it with a point and shoot and manipulate it on a computer. i can't see snapping a picture and selling it. i have black and whites hanging in my house and my sister's house from a trip to italy, and people can't believe that i took them.

 

[mredburn]

So is it less of an art form or just an art form that has lost its value? If you take the time to print it, frame it. and hang it, is it not important enough to be considered art?

 

[Haynie]

This gets hashed out quite a bit on photo forums across the net. The answer is yes and no. I would consider the images in this Portfolio to be art. He is a very prolific advertising photographer but his command of light manipulation is exquisite. This guy does amazing things with a computer. This guy uses both film and digital to make some amazingly subtle images. This guy only uses black and white film. There are many other photographic artists that I admire and some that others slobber over that I detest. But yes photography can be art as long as the camera is in the hands of the right person.

Art makes you feel something beyond the "oh, that's nice" feelings. In this day and age when we are saturated with crappy ho hum images it is hard to find the good stuff. Don't even get me started on the hipsters with their holga cameras and that abomination to photography known as instagram.:bad:

 

[MrsPTownSubbie]

YES, it takes as much talent and technique as any other art form. There's usually a photography category for more art shows that I've been to...

 

[edstreet]

Photography is painting with light.

A painter will manufacture images while the photographer will expose select ranges, other than that both art forms are nearly identical.

 

[Sylvanite]

Photography (much like painting, writing, sculpture, dance, etc.) is not in and of itself art. It can, however, be the medium in which art is performed.

 

[edicehouse]

YES, it takes as much talent and technique as any other art form. There's usually a photography category for more art shows that I've been to...

The first part of your comment can apply to things such as water skiing. There is a lot of technique and talent in that, but it is not art.

Photography is painting with light.

A painter will manufacture images while the photographer will expose select ranges, other than that both art forms are nearly identical.

So you are saying taking a picture of "a perfect circle" is about the same as drawing "a perfect circle"?

 

[OOPS]

All I know is, if my sister-in-law and I see a flower and we each take a picture:

I end up with a photo of a flower
She ends up with a work of art.

I think the artistry must be in the composition of the frame.

 

[Haynie]

Seems your mind is made up. Suffice it to say Photography has been considered art for a very very long time.

 

[ctubbs]

All photos need not be art just as all collections of paint on a piece of canvas/board do not reach the level of art. Either can be and do reach that awesome level. If you have any lingering doubts, find some of Ansel Adams photos or Mr. Karsh of Ottawa's portraits. There you will find some true art, both landscapes and portraits. Yes, photography can be, but not necessarily is art.

Charles

 

[edstreet]

YES, it takes as much talent and technique as any other art form. There's usually a photography category for more art shows that I've been to...

The first part of your comment can apply to things such as water skiing. There is a lot of technique and talent in that, but it is not art.

Photography is painting with light.

A painter will manufacture images while the photographer will expose select ranges, other than that both art forms are nearly identical.

So you are saying taking a picture of "a perfect circle" is about the same as drawing "a perfect circle"?

The very definition of photography is painting with light. <- that is what I am saying. Lets look at this more carefully.

The reference of painting being the same is because both task share a very large amount of similar techniques. The circle comment is this; the photographer will show the circle at a given moment and vary items like view point and perception while the painter will show a circle and how it is perceived at a given moment and vary the same items such as view point and perception.

Photography \Pho*tog"ra*phy\, n. [Photo- + -graphy: cf. F. photographie.]
1. The science which relates to the action of light on
sensitive bodies in the production of pictures, the
fixation of images, and the like. The production of
pictures by the photochemical action of light on films of
chemicals sensitive to light, and also the production of
electronic images in electronic cameras, are both
considered types of photography.
[1913 Webster]

2. The art or process of producing pictures by this action of
light.
[1913 Webster]

Now for Art:

Art \Art\ ([aum]rt), n. [F. art, L. ars, artis, orig., skill in joining or fitting; prob. akin to E. arm, aristocrat, article.]
1. The employment of means to accomplish some desired end;
the adaptation of things in the natural world to the uses
of life; the application of knowledge or power to
practical purposes.

So, as we see here it is 1 part art and 1 part science. When you really look at it you will see the science of art and the art of science is not the same thing.

What is also worth noting is the definition of art is adaptation to accomplish. This brings the question of if you take a group of parallel lines which is not adapting but repetition (not art) and yet a 'prop' or similar is added to the image can force the viewer to see well beyond the parallel lines into a higher cognitive region of perception, so this is clearly a case of taking non-art and turning it into art.

If you read into the recent thread I made http://www.penturners.org/forum/f24/hard-decisions-tonis-black-rose-pen-111018/ you can clearly see how bringing art into the image vastly changes perception and recognition.

Then again someone else could also easily state, and be accurate, that photography is the art of light manipulation, even if the end results is not art.

Also fyi art is not bound by time it takes to create or how lengthy the process is

Are we clear as mud now?
Ed

 

[edicehouse]

All photos need not be art just as all collections of paint on a piece of canvas/board do not reach the level of art. Either can be and do reach that awesome level. If you have any lingering doubts, find some of Ansel Adams photos or Mr. Karsh of Ottawa's portraits. There you will find some true art, both landscapes and portraits. Yes, photography can be, but not necessarily is art.

Charles

Touche. I can see that side of it. Their picture of the peir in NC that just about everyone takes, but does not spend the time to frame, isn't art. But the picture of the 1800's lock on a fence post, etc is. I can accept that.





Now for Art:

Art \Art\ ([aum]rt), n. [F. art, L. ars, artis, orig., skill in joining or fitting; prob. akin to E. arm, aristocrat, article.]
1. The employment of means to accomplish some desired end;
the adaptation of things in the natural world to the uses
of life; the application of knowledge or power to
practical purposes.

Eventhough that is the technical defination of Art, that can be applied to making a cheese dip.

 

[edstreet]

Now for Art:

Art \Art\ ([aum]rt), n. [F. art, L. ars, artis, orig., skill in joining or fitting; prob. akin to E. arm, aristocrat, article.]
1. The employment of means to accomplish some desired end;
the adaptation of things in the natural world to the uses
of life; the application of knowledge or power to
practical purposes.

Eventhough that is the technical defination of Art, that can be applied to making a cheese dip.

Where does it say that making cheese dip can not be an art form?

 

[edicehouse]

Saying with the literal defination of art you gave, just about everything is "art".

 

[MrsPTownSubbie]

Ed, if you are interested in learning more about why photography is considered art and have time next weekend, check out the next area art show in VA Beach. Photography is one of the categories that will be judged and there are more than a dozen photographers exhibiting in the show.

Art categories at Boardwalk Art Show | Virginia Museum of Contemporary Art

YES, it takes as much talent and technique as any other art form. There's usually a photography category for more art shows that I've been to...

The first part of your comment can apply to things such as water skiing. There is a lot of technique and talent in that, but it is not art.

Photography is painting with light.

A painter will manufacture images while the photographer will expose select ranges, other than that both art forms are nearly identical.

So you are saying taking a picture of "a perfect circle" is about the same as drawing "a perfect circle"?

 

[Haynie]

Forgot this guy and this guy . Great stuff with a very old technique. Click on the photographs link in the first site.

As was said "art is in the eye of the beholder". Several friends of mine said this guy made a nice chair but not art. According to some this guy was not a very good cabinet maker because his pieces were hardly functional, and no way was he an artist. People are entitled to their opinions. Both of these craftsman had talent and skill.