# Is photography an art or just a medium?



## shaylou (Apr 18, 2014)

The title says it all. Please keep the discussion polite and respect others opinions. Just wanted to get some insight on the subject . 

Personally I think it's an art. What's your opinion.


----------



## W.Fovall (Apr 18, 2014)

I think its a way to meet really hot ladies...


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 18, 2014)

I think it depends on the intent of the photographer.       Of course, let me be the first to say that this horse has been thoroughly flogged here recently.


----------



## EIngerson (Apr 18, 2014)

Shaylou, you're in college aren't you?


----------



## Raj_55555 (Apr 18, 2014)

W.Fovall said:


> I think its a way to meet really hot ladies...



Really? I must have been looking at the wrong direction.


----------



## W.Fovall (Apr 18, 2014)

Raj_55555 said:


> W.Fovall said:
> 
> 
> > I think its a way to meet really hot ladies...
> ...



it helps to be in California, USA.. we manufacture hot women here...


----------



## EIngerson (Apr 18, 2014)

W.Fovall said:


> Raj_55555 said:
> 
> 
> > W.Fovall said:
> ...



lol, Not a good idea. Come to Asia, they grow them naturally over here.


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 18, 2014)

Yes. But photographers keep worrying about it.

You have to define art to make much headway on the discussion. That's not as hard as many people think, and dictionaries are not super helpful.

But yes, under any modern understanding of Art, photographs can indeed be Art.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 18, 2014)

walmart is art.


----------



## SCraig (Apr 18, 2014)

Why does it have to be one or the other?  Can it not be both?


----------



## sm4him (Apr 18, 2014)

All I know is that when I apply to ART shows, they ask me list what MEDIUM I work in, and I answer Photography.
So, I'd say it's a medium, within the broader umbrella of Art.

The real debate is whether ALL photography IS Art or not, and that's a question we will *never* all land on one side of with our answers.  In my opinion, it all depends on what your own personal objectives are when you take a photo. For instance, the other day, I took a cellphone picture of a new, OLD camera simply to document it. No attempt to be creative or imaginative with it, no real attention to lighting or anything else, just point and click. THAT was not art. But much of what I produce, photographically speaking, IS Art. 
It might be ineffective, "bad" Art, but it's Art.


----------



## EIngerson (Apr 18, 2014)

Braineack said:


> walmart is art.



Yes, it's the art of Walms.


----------



## Overread (Apr 18, 2014)

First lets define Art before we decide what does and doesn't count as Art


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 18, 2014)

The question as posed isn't whether photography is a medium. Of course it is. The question is whether it is merely a medium.

The answer, not quite as obviously, but almost, is no. It is not _just_ a medium.

Any definition of Art you choose, which is sophisticated enough to distinguish Art from artisanship or craft, will make it clear.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 18, 2014)

so a xerox machine is not an artist?


----------



## Rick58 (Apr 18, 2014)

This is really a very simple question with a very simple answer.
A camera is nothing more then paint and a brush. 
It's up to me if I want to paint the post holding my mailbox, or put a beautiful landscape on a canvas.
Either way, I'm a painter (photographer), but only one way am I an artist.


----------



## Designer (Apr 18, 2014)

shaylou said:


> Just wanted to get some insight on the subject .
> 
> Personally I think it's an art. What's your opinion.



Where were you when this was first brought up?  They had this discussion way back in the 19th Century.  No, there has not been a resolution yet.

As for my opinion, photography is definitely a medium, or more precisely a genre of media.

The real question is; what is art?  Define art so everyone will at least partially agree.  

IMO some photographs are very artistic and are deserving of high praise.  

So photography can become art, but of course that means an artist is required to make the photograph.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 18, 2014)

Rick58 said:


> A camera is nothing more then paint and a brush.



I'd say the camera is more like the brush alone--it cannot create something that's not already first there--so the paint is pretty much whatever it's capturing.

A painter, can pick up a brush, and smear some paint on a canvas and create a landscape.  A photographer can't pick up a camera and create the same, it has to first find the landcape and then _re_create it.  The only "happy trees" a photographer can paint, are ones that already exist.


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 18, 2014)

Modern conceptions of Art have largely separated the artisanal aspects of making Art Pieces from the Art.

So, questions of craft, whether it is easy or hard, whether you are merely recording/finding what is already present pretty much all go away.

You can argue from a 200 year old position and conclude that photography isn't art because it's not crafty enough, or because it's only recording things, but to do so is to ignore, well, 200 years of evolution in the way we think of Art.

The debate is on fact long over. It's not a bad idea to review it for people who haven't heard it before, though. You gotta know your history to grasp where you are.


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 18, 2014)

Some starting points for a useful definition of art:

Does the artist have a concept, some idea to communicate? Does some idea or concept get communicated? Do people looking at the piece experience it as Art, according to whatever they think the word means?


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 18, 2014)

Don't y'all understand? Now that photography is becoming popular painting is dead! We must protect our most sacred of arts and destroy all soul-stealing machines.


----------



## Dagwood56 (Apr 18, 2014)

I feel photography is a medium within the genre of art. Other mediums are paints, charcoal, pastels, ink etc., and the artist creates the picture using a specific medium.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 18, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Some starting points for a useful definition of art:
> 
> Does the artist have a concept, some idea to communicate? Does some idea or concept get communicated? Do people looking at the piece experience it as Art, according to whatever they think the word means?




if you take a photo of art, is art art?


----------



## Rick58 (Apr 18, 2014)

Braineack said:


> Rick58 said:
> 
> 
> > A camera is nothing more then paint and a brush.
> ...



You can twist it anyway you like, but the bottom line is, it all depends what you do with the camera when you snap the shutter.
Is a press or police photographer any less a photographer yet I doubt seriously many murder scene photographs are concerned about rule of thirds.
I'm not sure why everyone is so intent on giving photography a label. It is whatever you want it to be.


noun: *photographer*; a person who takes photographs. It doesn't NEED to be any more or less


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 18, 2014)

Braineack said:


> if you take a photo of art, is art art?



No, it's fine art since art + art = double the art!


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 18, 2014)

Overread said:


> First lets define Art before we decide what does and doesn't count as Art



Wow.. really?  I mean.. really?

rotfl

I'm going to run away and hide now.  I just don't think I could bear to slog through another 200 pages of that old discussion.. lol


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 18, 2014)

I find it so interesting that whenever anyone wants to talk seriously about Photography on The Photography Forum, several of the more active members, whoever they are at the time, will invariably turn up and try furiously to shut the conversation down. The players change, but the game remains the same.


----------



## gsgary (Apr 18, 2014)

It all depends who is doing it


----------



## Designer (Apr 18, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> I find it so interesting ...



Oh, rilly?  



photoguy99 said:


> ...try furiously to shut the conversation down.



Like your post?  

Got anything to add to the topic of conversation?


----------



## Braineack (Apr 18, 2014)

Rick58 said:


> noun: *photographer*; a person who takes photographs. It doesn't NEED to be any more or less



correct.  one doesn't need a creative bone in his body to take a picture.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 18, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> I find it so interesting that whenever anyone wants to talk seriously about Photography on The Photography Forum, several of the more active members, whoever they are at the time, will invariably turn up and try furiously to shut the conversation down. The players change, but the game remains the same.



That's because this conversation has been beaten and flogged and burnt with lit cigarettes so many times not just on this forum but in the history of human existence as a whole, that it seems pointless to keep rehashing it.

Do a Google search and you'll come up with much better answers than can be provided here


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 18, 2014)

I know the conversation had been had. And I know that TPF does not provide particularly good answers. And so it is perpetuated that TPF is a surprisingly bad place to talk about photography.

My point is that there seems to be community effort involved in ensuring that no good discussion ever occurs here.

Designer, please actually review my contributions before claiming I haven't made any.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 18, 2014)

That morning, with his 40 posts, photoguy99 set off on his quest: To expose the community and discuss things in which shall not be spoke.  It was a good morning.  Photoguy99 was later played by Kevin Bacon in the movie version of the story.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Apr 18, 2014)

It's whatever you want it to be. For me it's a job I enjoy doing, within that job I always look for images that are worthy to be used in magazines or hung on walls.  I shoot images that exactly the same as other photographers standing next to me, and I shoot images that other photographers don't see. I visualize images in my head before I even show up to shoot, some work, and some require re-thinking, the art of creating images is in the head of the person holding he camera that can translate what they see and record what they see, create something out of nothing.  It's all personal.  Some people can look at ugly and see beauty, other look at beauty and see ugly.


----------



## Designer (Apr 18, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> I find it so interesting that whenever anyone wants to talk seriously about Photography on The Photography Forum, several of the more active members, whoever they are at the time, will invariably turn up and try furiously to shut the conversation down. The players change, but the game remains the same.



Most of these people are my friends, so I stick up for them.  

Who is trying to shut down the conversation?


----------



## bc_steve (Apr 18, 2014)

Rick58 said:


> This is really a very simple question with a very simple answer.
> A camera is nothing more then paint and a brush.
> It's up to me if I want to paint the post holding my mailbox, or put a beautiful landscape on a canvas.
> Either way, I'm a painter (photographer), but only one way am I an artist.



I was thinking the same.

Is every painting art?  Or just some of them?  If I paint my house, is that art?

It's subjective, and in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Raj_55555 (Apr 18, 2014)

Braineack said:


> if you take a photo of art, is art art?



All I know is if this is Art:





A Painting named "Untitled (No. 11) " worth 48 Million $

Then this definitely is:






Photograph by Paul Nicklen, National Geographic


----------



## Braineack (Apr 18, 2014)

is a photograph photography?

is the photograph art, or is the penguin and nature art?

is this real life?


Rothko took a metaphysical abstraction and made it real (for all we know, that could be a painting of penguin), a photographer has to take something real in order to make it metaphysical.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 18, 2014)

Braineack said:


> That morning, with his 40 posts, photoguy99 set off on his quest: To expose the community and discuss things in which shall not be spoke.  It was a good morning.  Photoguy99 was later played by Kevin Bacon in the movie version of the story.



Wait, the angsty misunderstood Kevin Bacon in Footloose or the evil mastermind from Xmen?  

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 18, 2014)

Braineack said:


> is a photograph photography?
> 
> is the photograph art, or is the penguin and nature art?
> 
> ...



I am the eggman, you are the walrus, koo koo kajube

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk


----------



## bc_steve (Apr 18, 2014)

Raj_55555 said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > if you take a photo of art, is art art?
> ...



If I'm left scratching my head, it _must_ be art


----------



## Braineack (Apr 18, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > That morning, with his 40 posts, photoguy99 set off on his quest: To expose the community and discuss things in which shall not be spoke.  It was a good morning.  Photoguy99 was later played by Kevin Bacon in the movie version of the story.
> ...



was kevin bacon in Xmen?!


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 18, 2014)

I think my recent point has been adequately demonstrated.

Anyone care to offer up a trial definition for art? I threw out some ideas and, obviously, have a definition or two rattling around but it's not about me.


----------



## Raj_55555 (Apr 18, 2014)

Braineack said:


> for all we know, that could be a painting of penguin


That's one strange looking penguin. Rothko should really try photography.. 



Braineack said:


> is this real life?



Very valid question, as long as we are questioning everything, has anyone here heard of metaphysical solipsism? It's a philosophy which questions the very existence of every single thing (living or non-living), and stresses that only one's mind is sure to exist. 



			
				wiki said:
			
		

> As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.



As per this philosophy, this painting and the photograph along with all you guys on the forum could be a figment of my imagination.

Enough philosophy for one day, back to FIFA14 now (which is also my creation)


----------



## Braineack (Apr 18, 2014)

how's this:



> Is the universe intelligible to man, or unintelligible and unknowable? Can man find happiness on earth, or is he doomed to frustration and despair? Does man have the power of choice, the power to choose his goals and to achieve them, the power to direct the course of his life&#8212;or is he the helpless plaything of forces beyond his control, which determine his fate? Is man, by nature, to be valued as good, or to be despised as evil? These are metaphysical questions, but the answers to them determine the kind of ethics men will accept and practice; the answers are the link between metaphysics and ethics. And although metaphysics as such is not a normative science, the answers to this category of questions assume, in man&#8217;s mind, the function of metaphysical value-judgments, since they form the foundation of all of his moral values.
> 
> Consciously or subconsciously, explicitly or implicitly, man knows that he needs a comprehensive view of existence to integrate his values, to choose his goals, to plan his future, to maintain the unity and coherence of his life&#8212;and that his metaphysical value-judgments are involved in every moment of his life, in his every choice, decision and action.
> 
> ...


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 18, 2014)

Braineack said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...



Yup, xmen first class.  I guess all the other actors insisted they give him the part so they could lower their bacon number.

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 18, 2014)

Not really a Rand fan, but it'll do. It's not about me, right?

Can a photograph help us to integrate up an understanding of the metaphysical, to grasp what is too big, too complex, to grasp? Can it help us develop a summary idea of things outside our actual grasp, so that we can expand ourselves, can grow, and can live more fully, better, and in a fashion more aligned with what we aspire to?

I think so. I've never noticed a photograph literally changing my life, but a much as any other art, photographs have informed that wordless abstraction that lives behind the mind, that in turn informs the way I live my life, and think. I can think of many iconic pictures that have subtly changed how I understand myself and my place in society and in the universe. I'm a modern rational guy, so it's always going to be pretty small, pretty incremental, but it happens.

So. yeah. Per Rand's ideas, I have experienced photographs as Art with a capital A.


----------



## AlanKlein (Apr 18, 2014)

Photography is the only true art.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 18, 2014)

I've never once argued that a photograph is not or can't be art. 

but here's Rand on photography:



> A certain type of confusion about the relationship between scientific discoveries and art, leads to a frequently asked question: Is photography an art? The answer is: No. It is a technical, not a creative, skill. Art requires a selective re-creation. A camera cannot perform the basic task of painting: a visual conceptualization, i.e., the creation of a concrete in terms of abstract essentials. The selection of camera angles, lighting or lenses is merely a selection of the means to reproduce various aspects of the given, i.e., of an existing concrete. There is an artistic element in some photographs, which is the result of such selectivity as the photographer can exercise, and some of them can be very beautiful&#8212;but the same artistic element (purposeful selectivity) is present in many utilitarian products: in the better kinds of furniture, dress design, automobiles, packaging, etc. The commercial art work in ads (or posters or postage stamps) is frequently done by real artists and has greater esthetic value than many paintings, but utilitarian objects cannot be classified as works of art.


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 18, 2014)

Rand seems to be contradicting herself. Art is defined in terms of _what it does_ in one passage and _how it is made_ in the second. The idea that art has anything to do with how it is made is pretty dated, and was pretty dated when she was writing. "Fountain" in 1917 is an obvious direct challenge to the idea that making has anything to do with art, when Rand would have been about 12.

Still, this remains a fundamental issue. Need there be, basically, a _creative act_ to make art? Is so, photography has a problem. This is usually the root of any claim that photography isn't art, and it usually leaves actual artists pretty confused.

I more or less stand with the modern idea that Art is defined by what it does, rather than how it is made.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 18, 2014)

Yeah that quote is where I part ways a bit.--but I completely get the point she was trying to make--and i agree with your points.


----------



## jake337 (Apr 18, 2014)

SCraig said:


> Why does it have to be one or the other?  Can it not be both?



It is both.  Art can be the practice and the end result.


----------



## slackercruster (Apr 18, 2014)

Listen up...and I'm only go to say this one more time.

If there was no judgment involved and one photo was as good as the next...photography would not be an art.

But whenever judgment is involved, there is also 'art' involved. This could be 'technical art' or' artistic art' but in either case talent or art is injected into the equation.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 18, 2014)

slackercruster said:


> Listen up...and I'm only go to say this one more time.
> 
> If there was no judgment involved and one photo was as good as the next...photography would not be an art.
> 
> But whenever judgment is involved, there is also 'art' involved. This could be 'technical art' or' artistic art' but in either case talent or art is injected into the equation.



Umm.. hmm.. could you go over the middle part again?


----------



## W.Fovall (Apr 18, 2014)

its art if i feel compelled to hang it on my wall..


----------



## otherprof (Apr 18, 2014)

Is marble an art or just a medium? Is paint an art or just a medium? What was the question?


----------



## otherprof (Apr 18, 2014)

It is just a medium. Like paint and marble.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 18, 2014)

W.Fovall said:


> its art if i feel compelled to hang it on my wall..



how do you hang performance art?


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 18, 2014)

Braineack said:


> W.Fovall said:
> 
> 
> > its art if i feel compelled to hang it on my wall..
> ...



You've never been to Texas apparently.. lol


----------



## W.Fovall (Apr 18, 2014)

Braineack said:


> W.Fovall said:
> 
> 
> > its art if i feel compelled to hang it on my wall..
> ...



its hard, they scream when putting the screws in..


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 18, 2014)

otherprof said:


> Is marble an art or just a medium? Is paint an art or just a medium? What was the question?



I think the question was, "How much does the elevator operator weigh?"


----------



## Braineack (Apr 18, 2014)

I'm pretty sure it was: In what way does the author's use of the prison symbolize the protagonist's struggle, and how does this relate to our discussion of the uses of irony?


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 18, 2014)

And the beat goes on.


----------



## Rick58 (Apr 18, 2014)

slackercruster said:


> Listen up...and I'm only go to say this one more time.
> 
> If there was no judgment involved and one photo was as good as the next...photography would not be an art.
> 
> But whenever judgment is involved, there is also 'art' involved. This could be 'technical art' or' artistic art' but in either case talent or art is injected into the equation.


Sorry I got distracted after "Listen up"


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 18, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> And the beat goes on.



Well as much as I'd love to don a black turtleneck and a beret, grab my bongos and head out to the local all-night coffee house where we could all sit on pillows and discuss the metaphysical ramifications of a photographer taking a picture of an artist who was painting another artist who was painting a landscape as viewed through a mirror, truth is I had other plans. Which is a shame really because I just so love it when somebody at one of these things starts talking about Schrodinger's cat, because for whatever reason at one of these things somebody always start's talking about Schrodinger's cat.


----------



## Designer (Apr 18, 2014)

Where is the OP?


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 18, 2014)

robbins, it probably wasn't a secret before that you're anti-intellectual, and it certainly isn't NOW.

I rather hope the OP comes back too. Braineack contributed some interesting remarks which I think could be helpful.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 18, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> robbins, it probably wasn't a secret before that you're anti-intellectual, and it certainly isn't NOW.



Nope.. don't think that was a secret.  Pretty sure most folks were well aware.  I mean I even went to all the trouble to buy T-Shirts just in case.


----------



## runnah (Apr 18, 2014)

Simple question. 

Photography, the action of using a machine to make an image, is a medium. What it produces in the right hands, is art.


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 18, 2014)

The thing is, this isn't a trivial issue. If you have internet access, the odds are excellent that you live in a country that spends money acquiring and funding art. Your money is being spent on Art with a capital A.

Why? Ostensibly because Art is something that is inherent in humans, that it betters and enbiggens us, that it is an inherently Good Thing that ought to be Funded to some degree. Whatever Art is, it seems to change over time, so we can't just just write down a 17 page chunk of some legal code that defines it, and then we fund That but not Anything Else. Since it evolves, someone needs to try to keep up. Which means these conversations have to continue. How are we going to notice when Photography stops being Art, if we're not occasionally asking the question?

Since it's your money being spent, you at least have a right to have a position on it, and arguably you ought to have a position on it. If you have a camera, you're at least slightly connected to the issues at hand, and perhaps might find yourself more inclined to a position.

By all means, dismiss it as a stupid conversation had by stupid eggheaded stupid people, but you're dismissing a conversation that actually matters to society, to us as people, and which is, perhaps a few steps removed, about spending your tax monies.


----------



## JacaRanda (Apr 18, 2014)

It is a medium art.  There!


----------



## unpopular (Apr 18, 2014)

it really depends. photography by most working professionals is certainly a medium. it's neither rare nor well done.


----------



## runnah (Apr 18, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> By all means, dismiss it as a stupid conversation had by stupid eggheaded stupid people, but you're dismissing a conversation that actually matters to society, to us as people, and which is, perhaps a few steps removed, about spending your tax monies.



The good thing is that most, if not all, social problems are resolved on internet forums.


----------



## runnah (Apr 18, 2014)

unpopular said:


> This whole conversation is redundant and needless.




You are!


----------



## unpopular (Apr 18, 2014)

^^ yeah. I already addressed that issue. look again.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 18, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> The thing is, this isn't a trivial issue. If you have internet access, the odds are excellent that you live in a country that spends money acquiring and funding art. Your money is being spent on Art with a capital A.
> 
> Why? Ostensibly because Art is something that is inherent in humans, that it betters and enbiggens us, that it is an inherently Good Thing that ought to be Funded to some degree. Whatever Art is, it seems to change over time, so we can't just just write down a 17 page chunk of some legal code that defines it, and then we fund That but not Anything Else. Since it evolves, someone needs to try to keep up. Which means these conversations have to continue. How are we going to notice when Photography stops being Art, if we're not occasionally asking the question?
> 
> ...



Ok, well before you can finish your church lady superior dance, here you go:

A definition is a statement that explains the meaning of a term.  The term "Art" is simply not one that you&#8217;re going to be able to do this with for a very simple reason.  Art is by it's nature an attempt to evoke an emotional response from an individual.  Since what will evoke an emotional response varies from individual to individual so too then does it only logically follow that the meaning of the term Art must then also differ from one individual to the next.

This makes any meaningful definition of the word "Art" unobtainable, as the true meaning of Art differs from each individual to the next.  Indeed to attempt to define Art is an oxymoron of the highest order, as the very nature of Art lies in its subjectivity and as such it could never be expressed in the objective terms required for a proper definition. 

In fact to do so simply displays a total misconception of what Art truly is and what it is that makes Art, Art.  Indeed the only way to define Art is to render it meaningless, devoid of emotion and therefore once it is defined, it ceases to exist.

So.. Schrodinger&#8217;s Cat BABY!!!!!

Now if you&#8217;ll excuse me, I have a book burning to attend.  Ciao Campers!


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 18, 2014)

I got robbins to contribute something meaningful and intelligent, I am pretty sure.

I am also pretty sure that this means I win.


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 18, 2014)

When you come back from your book burning, noodle on this one a little, then:

If Art is strictly individual, why are there so many works of Art that pretty large chunks of some pretty large societies seem to agree are Art, and Good Art at that? I think the answer to this could be pretty illuminating.


----------



## unpopular (Apr 18, 2014)

Meaningful Robins?

And here I thought that they were just a sign of spring.


----------



## JacaRanda (Apr 18, 2014)

Crap, I lose my individuality because I am in a large chunk.  That sucks


----------



## unpopular (Apr 18, 2014)

save your existential problems for your proctologist!


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 18, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> Crap, I lose my individuality because I am in a large chunk. That sucks



Rotfl - ok, ya, that's a thread winner there.  Not much that can be said to top that one.


----------



## astroNikon (Apr 18, 2014)

Braineack said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > Some starting points for a useful definition of art:
> ...



No, that is Photograhic Art
or 
just call it a  "Phart"

just don't take a picture of a painting of someone cutting the cheese.  That is something completely different.


----------



## astroNikon (Apr 18, 2014)

back to the OPs question ... photography is what we want to make of it ....


----------



## runnah (Apr 18, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> When you come back from your book burning, noodle on this one a little, then:
> 
> If Art is strictly individual, why are there so many works of Art that pretty large chunks of some pretty large societies seem to agree are Art, and Good Art at that? I think the answer to this could be pretty illuminating.



Because despite what we tell ourselves, we are all just dumb pack animals. 

Just remember, you are unique, just like everyone else.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 18, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> When you come back from your book burning, noodle on this one a little, then:
> 
> If Art is strictly individual, why are there so many works of Art that pretty large chunks of some pretty large societies seem to agree are Art, and Good Art at that? I think the answer to this could be pretty illuminating.



So your ultimate goal here is for me to have an intellecutal conversation with.. myself?  Rotfl.  Wow.  Ok, well sorry bunky but like I said earlier just way to busy for this "If a tree falls in the woods" style silliness.  The answer to your question of course is painfully obvious, not something that needs to be noodled on or even given to micro-second's worth of thought really.  Frankly it stuns me that a world class intellectual such as yourself would even need to ask something so incredibly rudimentary and obvious.

But whatever floats your boat I guess.  Me I have pretty much zero interest in the topic.  By your definition that makes me anti-intellectual, which of course is even more ironic I suppose, much in the same way that the fact that I don't sit around discussing feminine hygiene products would then also lead you to conclude that I'm "anti-woman".  Frankly if you were meaning to stun the world with intellectual prowess here, lol - well lets just say that I'm guessing more than a few of us are still waiting for that one to materialize.


----------



## unpopular (Apr 18, 2014)

meh. this thread isn't even worth derailing.


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 18, 2014)

It's ok to say "I don't know" robbins. The astute observer, by the way, will note that you helpfully provided a definition of Art in your post attacking the idea of defining it. And not a bad one, at that.


----------



## unpopular (Apr 18, 2014)

back when I cared, I posted this about art in the http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...265881-sharpness-overrated-6.html#post2422771 thread.

It's really getting to the point that I refer to previous posts than bother writing anything new.


----------



## nzmacro (Apr 18, 2014)

Hmmm, it obviously must be art because some say so and are very open about it. 

I see often when you see a link and click on it and its says "Fine art prints" &#8203;on their website. I've seen on a few photography forums where they come on and tell you they take / make  .... fine art.

I always find it strange and generally tell them I go out and take photos, not fine art. So there is a difference between them and what I do, there must be. What's interesting is when you go and look at all these fine art prints, you know what, they all look like photographs to me. So it must be just me I guess. I look at the fine art shots and smile and go, hmmm yeah okay  

Anyway, I better head out and take some shots ..... or is it art I'm taking ...... or is that making. I'm all confused now.

Danny.


----------



## astroNikon (Apr 18, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > When you come back from your book burning, noodle on this one a little, then:
> ...



Why, I'll be a monkey's uncle !!
he's right.


----------



## unpopular (Apr 18, 2014)

getting someone to have a conversation with them self is my new goal as an internet troll.


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 18, 2014)

Actually he's not. I'm not really sure where he got the "conversation with myself" thing but it certainly wasn't from me, and finding the conversation uninteresting isn't what shows him up as anti-intellectual -- it's his actively trying to derail it, and mocking the people having it that does. Not taking part is one thing, actively trying to shut it down and drive it off course is quite another. Of course, it's not just robbins, and it's been tons of other people over the years.

It's really a cultural thing, not a robbins thing. To be fair, he's very good humored about it, in stark contrast to, well, historical others.

But that's not really relevant to anything.


----------



## bc_steve (Apr 18, 2014)

This one definitely leaves me scratching my head.

CBCNews.ca Mobile


----------



## unpopular (Apr 18, 2014)

bc_steve:

if the blue ring cost thirty five bucks and a tube of toothpaste, would it be less of an outrage? for some reason when huge pricetags follow public art, we seem to try harder at devaluing it.

Sure, it's hardly my cup of tea, but what does the price have to do with anything?


----------



## unpopular (Apr 18, 2014)

We should just be glad it wasn't in Toronto. Imagine, a giant crack pipe atop the CN tower.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 18, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Actually he's not. I'm not really sure where he got the "conversation with myself" thing but it certainly wasn't from me, and finding the conversation uninteresting isn't what shows him up as anti-intellectual -- it's his actively trying to derail it, and mocking the people having it that does. Not taking part is one thing, actively trying to shut it down and drive it off course is quite another. Of course, it's not just robbins, and it's been tons of other people over the years.
> 
> It's really a cultural thing, not a robbins thing. To be fair, he's very good humored about it, in stark contrast to, well, historical others.
> 
> But that's not really relevant to anything.



So where is it that I mocked anyone actually taking place in serious fashion in the discussion? Traded a few laughs with Brainieck and a couple of the other regulars that I know would appreciate it, but to the best of my knoweldge I never addressed anyone who had a serious point to make in such a fashion, and no you really can't count my responses to you in that regard because I was responding to stuff you specifically directed at me. Other than that those who really wanted to have any form of serious dialogue on this issue, as completely beaten to death as it has been, were free to do so.

Might also want to think about that whole "conversation with myself" commentary - and the rather tremendous level of irony involved. When I did finally give you the serious response you supposedly were looking for, your response was completely devoid of anything "intellectual". After all that whining about how you supposedly wanted an intellectual discussion your response was a complete cop out, merely another question that you would have me do all the heavy lifting in answering for you - and yet supposedly your the intellectual here. That I found as pretty funny. The truth appears to be that you don't actually want an intellectual discussion, or perhaps more accurately that you want to observe such a discussion but are either unwilling or unable to actually take any active role or have any real participation in it yourself. Like I said, I rather appreciate the irony of that since your the self-proclaimed intellectual.

I also got a kick out of the constant obfuscate, side step, proclaim yourself victorious thing. That is also pretty ironic coming from someone who continues to proclaim intellectual superiority. Honestly you really need to consider a career in politics. Or maybe comedy. But I'd probably go with politics. Your stuff as a comedy routine is pretty esoteric and most people probably wouldn't get it at all, especially as a stand up act. I mean granted I find it pretty funny - but I just don't see it having nearly as wide a range of appeal as say some of the stuff Howie Mandell comes up with.


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 18, 2014)

I'm not going to get into it. What you wrote and what I wrote are there for anyone to see. The zero people who care can decide for themselves.


----------



## bc_steve (Apr 18, 2014)

I wouldn't like it if it was free.

I'm not from Calgary so I didn't pay for it, and there's enough money in that city nobody's going to notice a half-million dollar streetlight.  I don't really care about the cost apart from making me feel like I'm in the wrong line of work.

My point is:  I don't care for it, it seems silly to me.  I would find a normal streetlight more visually appealing.  But sure, it's art.  It's a very broad term and not defined by whether you like something or not.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 18, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> I'm not going to get into it. What you wrote and what I wrote are there for anyone to see. The zero people who care can decide for themselves.



If you would like to see another cop out response, press 1 now.

For further obfuscation, press 2 now.

To hear about my intellectual superiority, press 3 now.

To have this menu repeated, in all it's irony, press 4 now or stay on the line ....


----------



## Derrel (Apr 18, 2014)

I like my photography *medium-rare...*


----------



## limr (Apr 18, 2014)

I enjoy a robust intellectual discussion - hell, I even get paid to be an egghead - but all I have learned from this thread is who else to consider for my ignore list.


----------



## astroNikon (Apr 18, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> So where is it that I mocked anyone actually taking place in serious fashion in the discussion? Traded a few laughs with Brainieck and a couple of the other regulars that I know would appreciate it, but to the best of my knoweldge I never addressed anyone who had a serious point to make in such a fashion, and no you really can't count my responses to you in that regard because I was responding to stuff you specifically directed at me. Other than that those who really wanted to have any form of serious dialogue on this issue, as completely beaten to death as it has been, were free to do so.
> 
> _*Might also want to think about that whole "conversation with myself" commentary - and the rather tremendous level of irony involved.*_ When I did finally give you the serious response you supposedly were looking for, your response was completely devoid of anything "intellectual". After all that whining about how you supposedly wanted an intellectual discussion your response was a complete cop out, merely another question that you would have me do all the heavy lifting in answering for you - and yet supposedly your the intellectual here. That I found as pretty funny. The truth appears to be that you don't actually want an intellectual discussion, or perhaps more accurately that you want to observe such a discussion but are either unwilling or unable to actually take any active role or have any real participation in it yourself. Like I said, I rather appreciate the irony of that since your the self-proclaimed intellectual.
> 
> I also got a kick out of the constant obfuscate, side step, proclaim yourself victorious thing. That is also pretty ironic coming from someone who continues to proclaim intellectual superiority. Honestly you really need to consider a career in politics. Or maybe comedy. But I'd probably go with politics. Your stuff as a comedy routine is pretty esoteric and most people probably wouldn't get it at all, especially as a stand up act. I mean granted I find it pretty funny - but I just don't see it having nearly as wide a range of appeal as say some of the stuff Howie Mandell comes up with.



Why, I'll be a monkey's uncle !!
he's right.


----------



## Designer (Apr 18, 2014)

And where the heck is that OP?


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 18, 2014)

I would point out that of the 40 or so substantive, non-dismissive, relevant posts in this thread, I made between 1/5 and 1/4 depending on how generous you are, so I've actually done quite a bit of the "intellectual heavy lifting" such as it is, and there's ample evidence that I actually do (well, did) want a conversation, but it wouldn't matter. He's your friend, and people judge who is right and who is wrong by which fellow they like better. So it goes.


----------



## Designer (Apr 18, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> I would point out that of the 40 or so substantive, non-dismissive, relevant posts in this thread, I made between 1/5 and 1/4 depending on how generous you are, so I've actually done quite a bit of the "intellectual heavy lifting" such as it is, and there's ample evidence that I actually do (well, did) want a conversation, but it wouldn't matter. He's your friend, and people judge who is right and who is wrong by which fellow they like better. So it goes.



??? Who is whose friend?  To whom are you writing?

As to your intellectual prowess, who cares?  The OP has not responded lately, so it seems all your effort has been wasted.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 18, 2014)

limr said:


> I enjoy a robust intellectual discussion - hell, I even get paid to be an egghead - but all I have learned from this thread is who else to consider for my ignore list.



Woohoo!  Did I make the cut this time?  Lol


----------



## limr (Apr 18, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > I enjoy a robust intellectual discussion - hell, I even get paid to be an egghead - but all I have learned from this thread is who else to consider for my ignore list.
> ...



Nah, you're going to have to try harder to annoy me


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 18, 2014)

limr said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



Consider the gauntlet thrown milady.  Ok.. so lets see, I'm going to need a few things from the supply closet.  Ok, here we go, peanut butter, a kazoo, ah.. there it is, canned sweat..  now, where did we put that parrot?  I know I just saw it around here somewhere.. lol


----------



## limr (Apr 18, 2014)

Hrm....the peanut butter and canned sweat are predicable, of course. The kazoo is a twist, but manageable. But that parrot! Diabolical. What could you _possibly_ be planning???


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 18, 2014)

limr said:


> Hrm....the peanut butter and canned sweat are predicable, of course. The kazoo is a twist, but manageable. But that parrot! Diabolical. What could you _possibly_ be planning???



Oh sure, I tell you and then you tell somebody else and before you know it we've got a third world war followed by a zombie apocalypse on our hands in no time flat.. lol

Or as my teenage daughter so often tells me, "Dad, your just weird."  Lol


----------



## manaheim (Apr 18, 2014)

"bunky"


----------



## Derrel (Apr 18, 2014)

runnah said:


> Simple question.
> 
> Photography, the action of using a machine to make an image, is a medium. What it produces in the right hands, is art.



This ^^^^^ was post 69. Wish it had been post #5.


----------



## shaylou (Apr 18, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> I think it depends on the intent of the photographer.       Of course, let me be the first to say that this horse has been thoroughly flogged here recently.



That is my opinion exactly. This came up on another forum and I thought I would get this forums opinion.


----------



## shaylou (Apr 18, 2014)

EIngerson said:


> Shaylou, you're in college aren't you?



Your not even close.


----------



## EIngerson (Apr 18, 2014)

I think I need a lot more booze to deal with this thread. lol


----------



## shaylou (Apr 18, 2014)

Braineack said:


> walmart is art.



That's helpful....


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 18, 2014)

EIngerson said:


> I think I need a lot more booze to deal with this thread. lol



Well if your making a beer run see if you can scare up a parrot.  Oh, and some zip ties.


----------



## EIngerson (Apr 18, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> EIngerson said:
> 
> 
> > I think I need a lot more booze to deal with this thread. lol
> ...



I understand the zip ties, you'll have to explain the parrot when I get back.


----------



## astroNikon (Apr 18, 2014)

zip tying up a scared, drunk parrot .... Art or Not ??


----------



## minicoop1985 (Apr 18, 2014)

EIngerson said:


> I think I need a lot more booze to deal with this thread. lol



Me too.

I thought photography was more of a large, really. Medium seems too tight.


----------



## shaylou (Apr 18, 2014)

Rick58 said:


> This is really a very simple question with a very simple answer.
> A camera is nothing more then paint and a brush.
> It's up to me if I want to paint the post holding my mailbox, or put a beautiful landscape on a canvas.
> Either way, I'm a painter (photographer), but only one way am I an artist.



So what is the answer?


----------



## shaylou (Apr 18, 2014)

Braineack said:


> Rick58 said:
> 
> 
> > A camera is nothing more then paint and a brush.
> ...



What about light painting? That can be completely man made and I'm sure there are other examples too.


----------



## astroNikon (Apr 18, 2014)

Light Painting is difficult
Everytime I go to Home Depot and buy a bucket of light, when they go to color mix it they spill it all out.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 18, 2014)

shaylou said:


> Rick58 said:
> 
> 
> > This is really a very simple question with a very simple answer.
> ...



Lol, well since I'm stuck here waiting for a beer and a parrot anyway, I'll go ahead and see if I can help you out.  Put a hammer and a chisel in my hands and throw me a hunk of marble and I can produce something that might be useful in paving your driveway with, but believe me what your left with will not be art.  Give those same tools to a sculptor and he can use them to produce art.

A camera is a tool, just like a hammer and chisel.  Nothing more.  It can be used to produce magnificent art, or something akin to gravel for your driveway.


----------



## shaylou (Apr 18, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> I find it so interesting that whenever anyone wants to talk seriously about Photography on The Photography Forum, several of the more active members, whoever they are at the time, will invariably turn up and try furiously to shut the conversation down. The players change, but the game remains the same.



I was wondering about that. When I ask the question I seriously wanted to hear opinions but did not expect the negative remarks.


----------



## shaylou (Apr 18, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > I find it so interesting that whenever anyone wants to talk seriously about Photography on The Photography Forum, several of the more active members, whoever they are at the time, will invariably turn up and try furiously to shut the conversation down. The players change, but the game remains the same.
> ...



 I have not come across the question before and that is why I ask it. With all do respect, if the question bothers you why did you involve yourself in the conversation? When I am looking at forums I skim over the conversations that do not interest me and get involved with the ones that do. It's really that simple.


----------



## shaylou (Apr 18, 2014)

Braineack said:


> That morning, with his 40 posts, photoguy99 set off on his quest: To expose the community and discuss things in which shall not be spoke.  It was a good morning.  Photoguy99 was later played by Kevin Bacon in the movie version of the story.



Again not helpful!


----------



## shaylou (Apr 18, 2014)

Designer said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > I find it so interesting that whenever anyone wants to talk seriously about Photography on The Photography Forum, several of the more active members, whoever they are at the time, will invariably turn up and try furiously to shut the conversation down. The players change, but the game remains the same.
> ...



The smart remark are two to one from the regulars here. I think that is  what he is referring to. It's a shame I have to weed through bunch of  smart remarks to get to constructive replies to my thread post.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 18, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> shaylou said:
> 
> 
> > Rick58 said:
> ...


cant a driveway be art?


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 18, 2014)

bribrius said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > shaylou said:
> ...



Well if you find a driveway that does that for you I'm guessing it would have to be a really nice driveway.  Either way the pretentious quotient has pretty much exceeded my personal tolerance level, so I'll wish you all well in sorting it out.  All I can say is thank goodness for some of the regulars having both the wisdom and the patience to keep things light hearted and prevent this thread from spiraling out of control like so many of those on this and similar topics have always done so quickly in the past.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 18, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > robbins.photo said:
> ...


I was thinking construction design or sidewalk art chalk on the driveway.
anyhoo. I stopped reading when I liked post #3.  Figured after that it would pretty much go nowhere.

what is photography, 

it is cave men painting on the walls in the modern era.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Apr 19, 2014)

The classic "Define art" concept. It's impossible to define what is and isn't art, because it's subjective. You know what isn't impossible to define? Bacon. Lots and lots of bacon. I'm hungry now.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 19, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> shaylou said:
> 
> 
> > Rick58 said:
> ...



That was the most articulate statement I've seen on TPF, on this subject, since I've been here.

And it came from robbins... 

I think I'm gonna head down to Hell and make me a snowman.


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 19, 2014)

You can't define what is or isn't a boulder, either. I mean, there's lots of stuff that is a boulder, and lots of stuff that's not, but there's these other things. Is it just a rock, or is it big enough to be a boulder?

Ditto "red" or "van"

Turns out words are pretty subjective all around, not just "art", and yet somehow we all muddle along.

Thanks, shaylou, for seeing my point. The rest of you, well, as we say in the south, Blayuss yer horts!


----------



## astroNikon (Apr 19, 2014)

shaylou said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > I find it so interesting that whenever anyone wants to talk seriously about Photography on The Photography Forum, several of the more active members, whoever they are at the time, will invariably turn up and try furiously to shut the conversation down. The players change, but the game remains the same.
> ...


There is no ONE answer to this.
And if you have an opinion on it, and someone else has an opinion that differs, that's just the way it is.
What is art to one person, could not be art to another.

It's in the eye of the beholder if a photograph is art or not.  Or anything else for that matter.

Trying to get a consensus would be fruitless.


----------



## Designer (Apr 19, 2014)

shaylou said:


> When I ask the question I seriously wanted to hear opinions but did not expect the negative remarks.



I doubt if you even read my answer.  I still have not seen any "negative remarks" directed at you.  If you are so easily swayed into swallowing BS statements such as the one you responded to, there is nothing more I can say to help you with your quest.


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 19, 2014)

Well now I'm curious.

Designer, just as a for-instance, the example I recall without reviewing the thread, did you completely miss robbins' snarky post about black turtlenecks and bongos? Or did you not interpret it as negative? I mean, he DOES write 'Lol' after every post, so, that makes everything, no matter how ****ty, ok. Or maybe you have some people on ignore?


----------



## limr (Apr 19, 2014)

I find the meta-discussion here to be as fruitless as the original.


----------



## Designer (Apr 19, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Well now I'm curious.
> 
> Designer, just as a for-instance, the example I recall without reviewing the thread, did you completely miss robbins' snarky post about black turtlenecks and bongos? Or did you not interpret it as negative? I mean, he DOES write 'Lol' after every post, so, that makes everything, no matter how ****ty, ok. Or maybe you have some people on ignore?



No, that was not "negative" nor "snarky".  Robbins simply likes to inject some humor.  

Incidentally, I have been flamed.  Hard.  Not here, but on another forum.  I can recognize negativity when I see it, and I don't get bent out of shape if someone posts sideways to the topic of discussion.  It's just a part of internet discussions.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 19, 2014)

Is cooking an art form, or just a way to fill stomachs with hot food that will not cause foodborne illness nor allow parasites to be ingested alive?

To a big-name chef, the selection,preparation, and cooking of food is an art form; to some kid flipping burgers at a hamburger joint, "cooking" is a minimum wage job, and a grind. I think the same issues apply to photograpy: it is a medium, of that we are certain. Photography has craft, and science aspects, and with the right person doing the photograpy, it might reach the level of "art".

Bobby Flay, the famous chef, versus the Burger King afternoon fry cook...meticulously composed, painstakingly printed, and lovingly matted and framed photographs, versus iPhone snapshots of a drunken night with my friends...


----------



## Designer (Apr 19, 2014)

limr said:


> I find the meta-discussion here to be as fruitless as the original.



Very astute, madam.  I might take this opportunity of resting just before lunch to add some points.

1.  The question posed to the OP by her teacher was non-sensical at best.  It was a question that required clarification before I could offer my opinion.
2.  I understand that somebody would think this is a worthwhile line of discussion, but as it has been thrashed over by countless people for a long time, I don't see how we can substantially add anything to the discussion.
3.  If anybody has perceived negativity here, it is most likely the result of "The Offended" having a very thin skin.
4.  If anybody is mean in this equation, it is the teacher for having posed a question that was so poorly-worded that an unsuspecting student simply passed it along without considering if it was actually a good question.
5.  This thread has seen some good responses from those who thought they understood the question to be; "is photography an art form?"  Which wasn't the question as asked.
6.  I have no idea what the OP is able to glean from this thread, but if she should ever want to further the discussion, I suggest that she re-word the question so that it makes sense, and not be so thin-skinned about some of the side-tracks.


----------



## Designer (Apr 19, 2014)

Is paint an art form or is it a medium?


----------



## photoguy99 (Apr 19, 2014)

It was in fact negative and snarky, you simply choose to ignore the fact because you like Robbins and you don't like me.

Negativity isn't flaming and nobody ever said they were. I've been rattling around the internet a couple decades and I'm pretty sure I recognize negativity too.

As for you limr, well. Best I hold my peace.


----------



## Overread (Apr 19, 2014)

And I think after 10 pages its time for the thread to hold its peace too


----------

