# How do you decide what makes a photograph "art?"



## yistigay (Dec 11, 2009)

What are the most important elements that make a photograph "art?"

Thanks


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 11, 2009)

Intent.


That's pretty much it.


----------



## Atlas77 (Dec 11, 2009)

Can you tell me whats art? What makes something art?

All photographs are art, photography itself can be seen as an art form. Even things you see everyday around you are art. Everything is designed somewhere isnt it? Your shoes are even art


----------



## robertwsimpson (Dec 11, 2009)

I think you are asking about elements that make photos "appealing as art."

there are so many... important ones are composition and exposure... after that, you can do all kinds of things to a photograph to make it say different things.


----------



## Pugs (Dec 11, 2009)

I agree with the poster who said that "intent" makes it art.  In terms of what makes it "appealing art", if it evokes some sort of emotional response in me, then I consider it "appealing".  The degree of the response dictates the degree of its appeal.  

Well, actually that's not entirely true.  I've seen some "art" that has absolutely disgusted me.  I did not find those things appealing in the least.  I've also seen some "art" that has thoroughly angered me , or saddened me, or anguished me, and I DO consider those to be appealing art.  

I'm interested in what others have to say on this!


----------



## robertwsimpson (Dec 11, 2009)

I don't have an emotional response toward just about any photo that I haven't taken myself.  I have emotional responses toward more snapshots that I have taken than anything else.  I think that a photo that follows certain "rules" or breaks them with a certain intent appeal to me.  I like structure, though.


----------



## Pugs (Dec 11, 2009)

Hm...

I guess at a certain level, my aesthetic sense agrees with yours.  I just commented on the water drops on a CD thread and there was no emotional response for me.  There was, however, a great deal of aesthetic enjoyment.  The pic that enjoyed the most, I would have enjoyed more if it had followed the "rules" as I see them.  

Interesting.  Defining one's aesthetic sense is difficult... or at least is for me...


----------



## yistigay (Dec 11, 2009)

I like the intent concept...but what kind of intent do you think makes something art?


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 11, 2009)

I don't think "art" can really be defined.  If you meant for it to be art, it's art.

"Art" is _made_, intentionally.  I guess it's possible to make art accidentally though.  Everyone gets lucky sometimes.  Better to be lucky than good, right?

Damn...now even my original "intent" response seems wrong...lol.  Maybe "desire" would be better...?  If you want it to be art, it is.


----------



## yistigay (Dec 11, 2009)

I have a sense that generally speaking, art is something that we know when we see. We'd probably mostly all be in agreement if we put up 5 images and decided together if we should label them art or not...I'm just not sure we'd be able to define why...so the why is my big question.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 11, 2009)

yistigay said:


> ...but what kind of intent do you think makes something art?



Just the intent to create something more than just fodder for the family photo album.  But even that (fodder...) might look like art to other people...

There are two different perspectives here - that of the creator, and that of the viewer.  "Art" will not necessarily be the same thing to them.

For the creator, I'll go with intent.  With the exception of "accidental art".
For the viewer......?  Who knows...  There's no way to know what other people are thinking.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 11, 2009)

yistigay said:


> I have a sense that generally speaking, art is something that we know when we see. We'd probably mostly all be in agreement if we put up 5 images and decided together if we should label them art or not...I'm just not sure we'd be able to define why...so the why is my big question.



I agree.  Just for fun, I looked it up in the dictionary...

I actually like this definition:



> the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, *or of more than ordinary significance*.


----------



## KmH (Dec 11, 2009)

yistigay said:


> What are the most important elements that make a photograph "art?"
> 
> Thanks


Form and content, context, line, direction, movement, implied shapes, light, color, emotion, texture, perspective, balance, scale, proportion, rhythm.....just to name a few. 

What is most important varies from image to image but over the last couple thousand years it has become apparent that there are certain elements that make an image worth more than just a casual glance.

I would recommend getting Mark Getleins book "*Living with Art"* to gain a perspective on what does and doesn't work. The current edition (#8) is somewhat expensive at $299.00 new, but you can find used previous editions for as little as $5.00:

Amazon.com: Living with Art 8th Eighth Edition: Mark Getlein: Books


----------



## Overread (Dec 11, 2009)

As far as I have worked out - with regards to art in general - the following things are needed (in part or all together)

1) A person with a few million £/$s in the bank calls it art

2) A person with a degree in "something"art from a top university says its art (bonus points if its an art snobby uni)

3) A person with a skill at flogging stuff to people with a few million £/$ in the bank flogs it as art

4) A 5 page essay on all the possible inner meanings of the created work (should be included with the art or should be generated by viewers/reviewers of the art) Note this is possibly the most important part and really should always be included

Note - actual tallent and artistic skill are not prime requirements

Basically that appears to be what art is in the real world - a world filled with Mona Lisa's; bluetack on the wall with finger print and dirty coffee mugs.


After that all other definitions of art in the real world get very wordy and long and tend to be written by people with art degrees from universities.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Dec 11, 2009)

Overread, your post makes me want to puke and I certainly hope that you are not trying to become an artist.

In DC there was once a man who ran a photo gallery that launched a certain number of the better known art photographers in town yet he was pretty much hated by most of them. Why? Because he wasn't a snob.

The man loved photography and gave a chance to anyone whose work he liked. His gallery, depending on the year, would be open for 3, 6, 9 months only because he was a waiter. Yes, some waiters in DC make excellent money but it's still not much when you consider the costs of running a gallery. He put every extra dollar he had into his and most of his shows were people who had never shown before and he was rewarded by your kind of attitude.

You can complain all you want about the snobs on the viewing/buying side but what about your snobbism? That of the rejected wanna-be?


To answer the OP, photography has always had a hard time establishing itself as a valid art form with collectors mainly because of 1/ the possibility of reproducing the work forever (unlike a painting or sculpture) and 2/ what is the life of a photo print? Paintings last forever with a little bit of care but we don't really know how long a photo will.

And from a recent talk with a gallery owner, digital photography has brought the problem to the forefront big time. What is the life of a digital print? Is a digital print even a photo print? I'm actually wondering if digital has not just killed art photography...

For those reasons I moved to painting full time some years ago. I'd always sold more paintings than photos when I was trying to be an art photographer so it was not a hard decision to make. And to be honest, I couldn't care less what media I create in. So long as I create and say what I want to say, I'm happy. And if someone buys the stuff, I'm ecstatic.

AND I went from selling a work for a few hundred dollars to selling for a few thousands. Should I complain? 


To answer the OP more directly, no element makes a work of art a work of art. It is a combination and nobody knows what exactly that combo is.


----------



## skieur (Dec 16, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> Intent.
> 
> 
> That's pretty much it.


 
Nope, Intent is irrelevant unless it has been successfully achieved in the photo.

skieur


----------



## Brieff (Dec 16, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> I don't think "art" can really be defined.  If you meant for it to be art, it's art.
> 
> "Art" is _made_, intentionally.  I guess it's possible to make art accidentally though.  Everyone gets lucky sometimes.  Better to be lucky than good, right?
> 
> Damn...now even my original "intent" response seems wrong...lol.  Maybe "desire" would be better...?  If you want it to be art, it is.


I agree with this.. 

Also.. I think it should be something DIFFERENT. You can take 1000 crappy pics of your favoisite mug and tell everyone that every single one of them is a huge piece on artwork... Maybe to you they are, but I would call art something that gives the viewer something different from what she/he sees every day. 

This is practically same with a drawing. You can either be Picasso and every single stick figure you draw is considered as art... Or you can be a "total nobody" and create something emotional and inspiring and that would be REAL ART. 

The line between art and non-art... nobody knows exactly.
Art Definition | Definition of Art at Dictionary.com
- read what the dictionary says..


----------



## skieur (Dec 16, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> I don't think "art" can really be defined. If you meant for it to be art, it's art.
> 
> "Art" is _made_, intentionally. I guess it's possible to make art accidentally though. Everyone gets lucky sometimes. Better to be lucky than good, right?
> 
> Damn...now even my original "intent" response seems wrong...lol. Maybe "desire" would be better...? If you want it to be art, it is.


 
No!  Art is not defined by what the artist intended, but rather by the quality of the work he/she produced.

You also contradict yourself.  If art cannot really be defined, then it certainly canNOT be made intentionally.  You can't make, what you can't define.

Moreover there is also a element of skill/talent involved.  We have all seen the work of photographers who will never get beyond the snapshot level, let alone come remotely close to the artistic level.

skieur


----------



## robertwsimpson (Dec 16, 2009)

skieur said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think "art" can really be defined. If you meant for it to be art, it's art.
> ...



I've seen some "art" that looked like the crayon drawings of a 5 year old.  

I've seen an elephant paint a self portrait.  Is that art?

I don't think that skill has anything to do with it.  If you have an audience, you have someone who is going to think you've created art.


art is too arbitrary to define, I think.


----------



## skieur (Dec 17, 2009)

robertwsimpson said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > O|||||||O said:
> ...


 
Anything can be characterized as "art" in the short term but it is a matter of whether it passes the test of "time" and is still regarded as "art" years and decades later.

skieur


----------



## Imagine That (Dec 17, 2009)

i think art is very subjective! like marmite, you either love it or hate it! art comes with emotion i think! 

We are Wedding Photographers Birmingham - Imagine That Studios


----------

