# Photography vs. Art



## DScience (May 4, 2012)

I would like to try and lead a discussion based on the topic of photography as an art. I have thought about this topic a lot, and have many questions to ask you all. I thought it may flow better if I began with one at a time.

Art =  the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

1.) Do you believe that a good photographer is also a good artist? Consequently, do you believe that a good photograph is automatically a piece of art?
       (Good photographer = one who can produce properly exposed photos regardless of anything else)
       (Good photograph = one that is properly exposed regardless of any other feature)

2.) Do you pursue photography so that you can take good pictures? Or do you pursue photography as a means of expressing yourself artistically?


----------



## SCraig (May 4, 2012)

No, on both counts.  I believe that a good photographer CAN BE a good artist and I believe that a good photograph CAN BE art, however I do not believe that either case is automatically true.


----------



## bhop (May 4, 2012)

I agree with SCraig


----------



## GeorgieGirl (May 4, 2012)

I am of the opinion of yes to both.


----------



## chuasam (May 4, 2012)

What is your definition of Art?


----------



## GeorgieGirl (May 4, 2012)

chuasam said:


> What is your definition of Art?



Is this a general question or are you asking it of someone?


----------



## PixelRabbit (May 4, 2012)

SCraig said:
			
		

> No, on both counts.  I believe that a good photographer CAN BE a good artist and I believe that a good photograph CAN BE art, however I do not believe that either case is automatically true.



I also agree, I think thought, intention and execution combined make a photographer an artist. A photograph becomes art when it elicits the intended response from the viewer.


----------



## vipgraphx (May 4, 2012)

You are going to find that there are many opinions on this topic and at the end of the day you will be where you started with your first post. Its all opinion and there is no fact in opinion. Just like the saying one mans trash is another mans treasure. What one see's as art another see's as non art or crappy.  You take an artistic person who can draw and paint and he paints a beautiful painting and then you get another man who gets a few buckets of paint and throughs it at a canvas and the paint splatters and creates a pattern that now is called art...is it? Did the artist know my throwing the paint what pattern it would make like the the other artist envisioned in his mind what he wanted to paint? They both get hung in galleries and both get sold....At the end of the day it does not matter what we think it matters what the person viewing the photo or painting or what ever other form of art thinks.

With that said I will give my opinion. Photography is a form of Art. It is an artistic expression of one self. IT starts as seeing the photo. Then the processing to bring out the photo. End results are a nice photo to be admired.

There is a difference though to me a snap shot and a thought out photo. At the same time some thought out photos sometimes look like snap shots. 


Its a tough topic because its all based on opinion...

Cheers...


----------



## Trever1t (May 4, 2012)

Does art imitate life or life imitate art? 

I believe photography is an art. Period.


----------



## cgipson1 (May 4, 2012)

Just because one can operate a camera well (a good technical photographer)... does not mean that one automatically takes artistic photos. Technically good is not Artfully good! 

Just as one can take poor photos technically... but they can be artistically framed and compositionally pleasing.

It takes both the technical capability (understanding your tools and how to use them) combined with a knowledge of art / rules / guidelines / posing / etc... or very good instincts along these lines, to be what I would call a real Photographer!

I do believe that photography is an art... but one can be a photographer without being an artist also...


----------



## Trever1t (May 4, 2012)

as a painter needs to know how to mix colors.


----------



## DScience (May 4, 2012)

vipgraphx said:


> You are going to find that there are many opinions on this topic and at the end of the day you will be where you started with your first post. Its all opinion and there is no fact in opinion. Just like the saying one mans trash is another mans treasure. What one see's as art another see's as non art or crappy.  You take an artistic person who can draw and paint and he paints a beautiful painting and then you get another man who gets a few buckets of paint and throughs it at a canvas and the paint splatters and creates a pattern that now is called art...is it? Did the artist know my throwing the paint what pattern it would make like the the other artist envisioned in his mind what he wanted to paint? They both get hung in galleries and both get sold....At the end of the day it does not matter what we think it matters what the person viewing the photo or painting or what ever other form of art thinks.
> 
> With that said I will give my opinion. Photography is a form of Art. It is an artistic expression of one self. IT starts as seeing the photo. Then the processing to bring out the photo. End results are a nice photo to be admired.
> 
> ...



Opinion are exactly what I was looking for. I know there are no Gods or deities attending this forum.


----------



## DScience (May 4, 2012)

chuasam said:


> What is your definition of Art?



the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination,typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producingworks to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotionalpower:


----------



## DScience (May 4, 2012)

I've updated with a clear definition of art for us all to work with. So, with that said, has anyones opinions changed?


----------



## GeorgieGirl (May 4, 2012)

Nope. Mine is even more certain.


----------



## DScience (May 4, 2012)

GeorgieGirl said:


> Nope. Mine is even more certain.



Okay, so i've updated my definition of good photographer and good photo. Still have the same opinion?


----------



## GeorgieGirl (May 4, 2012)

DScience said:


> I would like to try and lead a discussion based on the topic of photography as an art. I have thought about this topic a lot, and have many questions to ask you all. I thought it may flow better if I began with one at a time.
> 
> Art =  the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
> 
> ...



No, this is not the (definition) that I feel is what qualifies someone to be a good photographer or to be an artist.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (May 4, 2012)

DScience said:


> GeorgieGirl said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. Mine is even more certain.
> ...




_Try not to alter the original post in any way when people have already been discussing it _(15 replies). It's much better to amend your definition later in the thread than  to change the Original Post and diminish the chance for those who haven't seen the thread yet to see the original verbiage.


----------



## KmH (May 4, 2012)

DScience said:


> I've updated with a clear definition of art for us all to work with. So, with that said, has anyones opinions changed?


There is no clear definition of art.



> Art is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Balmiesgirl (May 4, 2012)

What one may find is art another may perceive as junk. It's in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## DScience (May 4, 2012)

KmH said:


> DScience said:
> 
> 
> > I've updated with a clear definition of art for us all to work with. So, with that said, has anyones opinions changed?
> ...



So art is a meaningless word? I think all words have clear definitions, depending on what context they are used in. :O)


----------



## DScience (May 4, 2012)

Nice replies people, I like the great dialogue we're having. (sorry to the person who doesn't like updates to the original post)

I updated with a new question! Very curious to see replies.


----------



## DScience (May 4, 2012)

KmH said:


> > Art is in the eye of the beholder.



Never heard that one. But I have heard another quite commonly used statement: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Thus art is art, and whether or not it's good art (beautiful) is thus subjective to the one perceiving the piece, I would argue.


----------



## GeorgieGirl (May 4, 2012)

Here is an alternate to that Art is in the Eye of the Beholder idea....

If we start out with the concept that a good photographer is one who consistently has demonstrated skills that result in an image that is exceptional more often then not, then the idea of him (or her) is that they are good. Good meaning that they are accomplished at what they do, as in He's Good at What He Does.

A photographic image is an form of Art. 

Here on this site there is a member who is a jeweler. The creation of jewelry is a form of Art. It comes from one's mind and is formed into something that is tangible and that can be seen and viewed by others. Just like a photographic image.

Liking it or not liking it is not the criteria for it to be a form of Art.


----------



## rexbobcat (May 4, 2012)

I just go by the formal elements of art. I also take into account the intent of the piece.

One example is that I don't view fashion magazine photography as art because of its purpose. It's the difference between porn and tasteful nudity. Porn is indeed nudity, but it's purpose is to satiate a shallow need (in my opinion). It's also made to be mass-produced. 

Traditionally, art has typically been one-of-a-kind type deals. That's why the market is so much more different than others. If a photograph is taken to be bulk-produced, I don't typically consider it art. However, if someone has a very specific photograph and they sell it on an individual basis then I'm more inclined to see the work as art.

There are other factors as well. This is just one of the main ones when judging whether a photograph is art, or if it's simply artistic...if that makes sense.

(On a side note: I HATE discussing this. It's like trying to discuss religion or politics on the internet. It never ends well and it changes no one's opinion)


----------



## rexbobcat (May 4, 2012)

GeorgieGirl said:


> Here is an alternate to that Art is in the Eye of the Beholder idea....
> 
> If we start out with the concept that a good photographer is one who consistently has demonstrated skills that result in an image that is exceptional more often then not, then the idea of him (or her) is that they are good. Good meaning that they are accomplished at what they do, as in He's Good at What He Does.
> 
> ...



That seems like a VERY vague description of art.

Oh, by the way y'all, there has beena new world record set for the most money paid for a painting: 117 million dollars I believe for The Scream by Edvard Munch. His son auctioned it at Sotheby's


----------



## vipgraphx (May 4, 2012)

So like I said in my first post in this thread...you will find yourself full circle, two pages of opinions that at the end of the day leave you saying hhmmmmmmmm!


----------



## DScience (May 4, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> I just go by the formal elements of art. I also take into account the intent of the piece.
> 
> One example is that I don't view fashion magazine photography as art because of its purpose. It's the difference between porn and tasteful nudity. Porn is indeed nudity, but it's purpose is to satiate a shallow need (in my opinion). It's also made to be mass-produced.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the interesting insight. Sorry for bringing the topic up, but I am a philosopher deep down and this topic is close to my heart. Anyway, I agree with some of the things you said. I also feel that not all photography is art, and actually I hold a probably very narrow opinion that there are two separate areas: photography for the purpose of taking a photo of something (person, inside of a house, snapshot of your child) is not necessarily art (it can be in certain circumstances); then photography for a purely artistic endeavor.


----------



## vipgraphx (May 4, 2012)

You can take a snap shot of your child inside your house and then paint it on canvas is it now art?


----------



## rexbobcat (May 4, 2012)

vipgraphx said:


> You can take a snap shot of your child inside your house and then paint it on canvas is it now art?


 
If I take a snapshot and then add filters and such in Photoshop is it art? Nope.
Same concept


----------



## GeorgieGirl (May 4, 2012)

I thought the objective of the discussion was with the given that the photographer was Good. The circumstances in the last few posts are about ordinary people.


----------



## vipgraphx (May 4, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> vipgraphx said:
> 
> 
> > You can take a snap shot of your child inside your house and then paint it on canvas is it now art?
> ...



No different concept. One you are painting on canvas and using a photo as a reference with a paint brush and paint. The other you are applying filters to the same photograph.


----------



## rexbobcat (May 4, 2012)

vipgraphx said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > vipgraphx said:
> ...



If the original photo does not incorporate any formal elements of art, then technically the painting won't either. It's the same photograph on a different media so, yes, it is the same concept.


----------



## vipgraphx (May 4, 2012)

My point exactly as in my first post sorry to use you as an example. ITs ALL OPINION...there is no fact in opinions!


----------



## rexbobcat (May 4, 2012)

GeorgieGirl said:


> I thought the objective of the discussion was with the given that the photographer was Good. The circumstances in the last few posts are about ordinary people.



Ah okay. In that case, not all good photographers are artists. lol I know that's already been said before.


----------



## rexbobcat (May 4, 2012)

vipgraphx said:


> My point exactly as in my first post sorry to use you as an example. ITs ALL OPINION...there is no fact in opinions!



I don't understand how this pertains to what I said, but okay. What you just stated is fairly obvious.
Pure subjectivism does not sit well with human thought, however. We like to categorize things. So even though art is opinion...technically it's not...

It's like, the largest grey area in the history of grey areas. There are certain universally accepted concepts that qualify something as art. That doesn't mean it can't be art to you, but that does not necessarily make it art...I hope that makes sense.


----------



## Buckster (May 4, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> vipgraphx said:
> 
> 
> > My point exactly as in my first post sorry to use you as an example. ITs ALL OPINION...there is no fact in opinions!
> ...


Having spent countless hours in museums of modern and contemporary art from MOMA in NYC to SFMOMA on the other coast, LA's museum of contemporary art, Philly, Chicago, Detroit and several others, I'd have to say you'd have a really hard time proving that to me.  If a white canvas with a black dot in the middle is art worth tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars hanging in a museum, then why isn't a white photo with a black dot in the middle shot by a 5 year old and blown up to the same size as the canvas art?  They have the same visual veracity and appeal.

If I take a blurry Polaroid of my hand, it's crap.  But if Andy Warhol did it, it's worth a million bucks today and is considered fine art.

Art "experts" have been caught looking stupid numerous times lauding high praise upon works of "art" that turned out to be painted by kindergarten children, chimps, birds and elephants, proving that it's all bullspit; The Emperor is wearing no clothes.


----------



## vipgraphx (May 4, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> vipgraphx said:
> 
> 
> > My point exactly as in my first post sorry to use you as an example. ITs ALL OPINION...there is no fact in opinions!
> ...



Look no offense but, I would rather not argue about opinions with a youngster. The reason is that as you age and mature you realize certain things that you did not understand when you are younger. I am not an old man but I am not a youngster in school. 

Lets use painting as it is probably easier to comprehend than photography ( in the end the same rules apply )

Ok You take Van Gogh  vs Jackson Pollock. 

Van Gogh






Jackson Pollock





In my opinion Van Gogh is an artist and his paintings are Artistic where as Jackson Pollock's paintings are just splatter paint that makes patterns and takes no skill to do and even a child can do. This  is not Artistic in my eyes but, He was regarded as a mostly reclusive artist and his "ART" was hung in  museums. 


A child paints a picture at school during "ART" time and brings it home to his parents. They frame it and hang it on a wall and tell their child I lover your art work your such an artist!

Who can take that feeling and belief away from them? No one because it is an opinion and there is no grey line with opinions.



*Opinion* -a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

*1. * persuasion, notion, idea, impression. Opinion, sentiment, view are terms for one's conclusion about something. An opinion  is abelief or judgment that falls short of absolute conviction,certainty, or positive knowledge; it is a conclusion that certainfacts, ideas, etc., are probably true or likely to prove so: _politicalopinions; an opinion about art; In my opinion this is true. _Sentiment (usually _pl. _) refers to a rather fixed conviction, usually based onfeeling or emotion rather than reasoning: _


I think the same applies with just about everything. If  you as the person viewing the photograph truly think it is  a piece of art than so be it and who cares who agrees and disagrees with you. IT's your opinion!_


----------



## pgriz (May 4, 2012)

Successful art can/should create an emotional reaction.  How that art resonates with any particular person depends on their perceptions, belief structure, values, biases, and experiences, which is to say that it depends on the individual.  One problem that comes up often in art appreciation is that many (maybe most) don't have confidence in their reactions, and seek the opinions of experts (however you want to define that) to guide them.  Leading to a form of group-think.  It gives the impression of consensus, but it is a hollow consensus as it often is based on imitation.

Good technical execution does not in itself make art.  Think of music that brings tears to your eyes - is it the emotional reaction you get, or is it the technical perfection that you notice?  I'm willing to bet that the emotional reaction will win every time.

Photography as art is not about "pretty".  It is about making us see something to which we were blind, to care about something to which we were indifferent, to make us angry about something about which we were ignorant.  If it makes us question our-selves about our assumptions, then I think it has achieved its purpose.


----------



## Derrel (May 4, 2012)

Are tickets still available for the bout between Art and Photography? I was just on ESPN a while ago, and they had a short news piece that said there was some serious trash-talkin' going on at the weigh-in; apparently Art started talking chit to Photography, and called him a second-rate, instantaneous flash-in-the-pan, and said he would, "Fade like an old newspaper in the sun!"

Then Photography got totally,totally up in Art's face and said he was a, "Useless, snobbish waste of time, and only good for lining the walls of snooty,yuppy art galleries." 

Apparently, their handlers had to pull them off of one another, and there was a rumor, unconfirmed by ESPN, that Art bit off, "A small piece of Photography's left ear," during the fracas. Shades of Mike Tyson!

Apparently Dana White called for security, and both Art and Photography headed back to their separate dressing rooms. On the way back, according to ESPN, Photography grabbed a camera from a press shooter, and literally threw it at Art, hitting him in the backside, and, some said, lowering his possible fight-readiness for the bout. 

Anyway...if anybody has some tickets, I would pay DEARLY to go!!! PM me, mmkay?


----------



## gsgary (May 5, 2012)

No to 1 and 2 photographic art does not have to be perfectly exposed, some photographers can take a perfectly exposed and focused photograph but they cannot produce art


----------



## bentcountershaft (May 5, 2012)

Where's Petraio Prime when you need him.  He'd line all of us out.


----------



## Village Idiot (May 7, 2012)

GeorgieGirl said:


> Nope. Mine is even more certain.


 
So the people that work at portraite mills like Olan Mills, Picture People, Sears, and Wal Mart are all artists and their photography is all art?


----------



## Nikon_Josh (May 7, 2012)

Buckster said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > vipgraphx said:
> ...



My my, what a black and white world you live in, Buckster? You come up with an extreme example of a black dot on a page being sold for thousands and now supposedly everything out of the norm is Bulls*** IN YOUR OPINION... opinions like this really highlight your mindset and just how valid vipgraphx's post is. And I love how your post is stated as fact, when it's just an opinion.

Should all Art be pretty paintings of rivers in your world??


----------



## Nikon_Josh (May 7, 2012)

vipgraphx said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > vipgraphx said:
> ...



I think your bang on the money here! Its all opinion and only close minded people like to say that their opinion is the TRUTH! Everyone has an opinion and should be allowed to believe it and express it, thats the benefit of living in a free society, right?


----------



## KenC (May 7, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Anyway...if anybody has some tickets, I would pay DEARLY to go!!! PM me, mmkay?



Why pay when you can get it free here, over and over again ...


----------



## Buckster (May 7, 2012)

Nikon_Josh said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > rexbobcat said:
> ...


It's the idea that someone can actually define art that I'm saying is bullspit.

Art is what we make of it.  Either everything is art to someone, or nothing is art.  I'm actually more in the first category.  I see art all around me, including in nature, made without thought or intent at all.  But that's just me.

I make an exception for disco.  That crap was NOT art.  LOL!


----------



## Nikon_Josh (May 7, 2012)

Buckster said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



I beg your pardon then sir, maybe I hastily jumped to a conclusion from the way your post was written!

It always gets my goat when these debates are started, cos I know fully well someone will come along and say Art is this and art is that. When in reality as you have just stated Art is what we make of it.


----------



## DiskoJoe (May 7, 2012)

DScience said:


> I would like to try and lead a discussion based on the topic of photography as an art. I have thought about this topic a lot, and have many questions to ask you all. I thought it may flow better if I began with one at a time.
> 
> Art =  the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
> 
> ...



You think too much. 

Less thinking + more shooting = winning at life.


----------



## DiskoJoe (May 7, 2012)

Nikon_Josh said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon_Josh said:
> ...



If art can be a white canvas then it can and is everything around us.


----------



## imagemaker46 (May 7, 2012)

Would these images be considered a photographs or art?


----------



## Buckster (May 7, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> Would these images be considered a photographs or art?


Yes.


----------



## rexbobcat (May 7, 2012)

vipgraphx said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > vipgraphx said:
> ...



This is an area of philosophy waaaaaaaay beyond my ability of explanation. 

I mean...I understand where you're coming from. But you are judging art based on a very shallow criteria. Even the ugliest piece of art is judged as art for more reasons than whether your child could do it or if it looks good. You have to take into account social/historical context, intent, etc...

Like I said in another thread; there is a difference between liking art and appreciating it. Some creative works just can not be truly appreciated because there is nothing below the surface of what they are aesthetically.

I look at art from an academic perspective. I think that might be the difference in our opinions. Art is subjective in theory...but...so is the idea that killing children is wrong...Subjectivity is too vague to survive in its true form in human society.

I'm sure that I will be called ignorant, however; it's kind of hard to be ignorant when you understand both sides and you simply choose one.


----------



## rexbobcat (May 7, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> Would these images be considered a photographs or art?



I don't know enough about the photographs to have an opinion one way or the other.

Can they not be photographic art?


----------



## Nikon_Josh (May 7, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> Would these images be considered a photographs or art?



I think they are great pieces of Art! But then again, I feel any powerful and impactful photograph that makes you step back and think is a piece of Art no matter what it is. When I studied art I learnt the guidelines are very blurred, if everyone sticks to guidelines placed in a textbook when creating photographs then creativity will die with it and if artists such as Pablo Picasso had continued to paint 'life like' portraits instead of breaking the rules, then Art may not have become as open to creativity as it is today.


----------



## imagemaker46 (May 7, 2012)

Nikon_Josh said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > Would these images be considered a photographs or art?
> ...



These two images are  scans of the original transparencies that have not gone through any computer software.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (May 7, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> > imagemaker46 said:
> ...



Are they yours?


----------



## imagemaker46 (May 7, 2012)

Nikon_Josh said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon_Josh said:
> ...



Yes they are, they were done 40 years ago.  The original transparencies were caught in a basement flood, I kept 80 and mounted them in glass 25 years ago. The impact of the muddy water changed the emulsion and this was the end result.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (May 7, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> > imagemaker46 said:
> ...



The top one is fantastic, you can send me a copy if you like!


----------



## DiskoJoe (May 7, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> vipgraphx said:
> 
> 
> > rexbobcat said:
> ...



People often confuse art with "art the like." These are not the same things. Just because you want to say its not art does not make it so. And to trivialize the work of Jackson Pollock in this way is a bit absurd.


----------



## imagemaker46 (May 7, 2012)

Nikon_Josh said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon_Josh said:
> ...



I'm in the process of finding  a gallery that is interested in the images. The archery one is my favourite. Looks pretty amazing as a 13x19.


----------



## OscarWilde (May 7, 2012)

DiskoJoe said:


> People often confuse art with "art the like." These are not the same things. Just because you want to say its not art does not make it so. And to trivialize the work of Jackson Pollock in this way is a bit absurd.



Not saying it isn't art... but you can trivialize Jackson Pollock any way you want. I used to paint houses and by the end of every month my drop cloths ALL looked like Jackson Pollock paintings. Art? Maybe. Skilled? Not at all. So trivialize any way you want!

He was a sham. A genius. But a sham. I bet he went home every time he sold a painting and said to himself "Wow.... these people are idiots!" And then in public he would just gobble up all the **** the art "critics" threw at him and bend it and throw it back!

Every successful artist is just a wolf in sheep's clothing... They find a way to manipulate the sheep into giving them money! And yes, I would know... I've been painting my entire life! (Well... as long as I can remember)


----------



## vipgraphx (May 7, 2012)

Back to the Topic of Photography vs Art - it will never get solved. Just as I said in my first post its all opinion and opinions are not fact and somewhat relevant.

I think we have come full circle after 5 pages of opinions. I think we should be able to agree on one thing. To each his own, lets agree to disagree, lets respect that we all our own opinion and thats where it ends.


Cheers!


----------



## Derrel (May 7, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:
			
		

> The original transparencies were caught in a basement flood, I kept 80 and mounted them in glass 25 years ago. The impact of the muddy water changed the emulsion and this was the end result.



Dear Imagemaker46,
Hey...I have six cardboard boxes full of 35mm transparencies, pretty much all so-so to middlin' in quality. Do you think maybe you could see your way clear to writing out a description of just exactly how much flood water a guy would need to turn crummy, boxed-up Kodachrome and Ektachrome slides into similar (yet entirely different and all-original!!!) works of art?? I mean...does it take like 2,3,4 days' worth of soaking? Or is it more like a two-week soak because you couldn't get back in the house due to the smell of methane gas and stuff? I'd really, really like some guidance on how best to soak my old transparencies, from an expert like you! I'd be happy to pay you like $5 via PayPal for the recipe and any tips! Thanks in advance!
-Derrel


----------



## DiskoJoe (May 7, 2012)

OscarWilde said:


> DiskoJoe said:
> 
> 
> > People often confuse art with "art the like." These are not the same things. Just because you want to say its not art does not make it so. And to trivialize the work of Jackson Pollock in this way is a bit absurd.
> ...



That was Willem De Kooning.


----------



## DiskoJoe (May 7, 2012)

Derrel said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Try pissing on them.
http://www.warholstars.org/aw76p.html


----------



## DiskoJoe (May 7, 2012)

vipgraphx said:


> Back to the Topic of Photography vs Art - it will never get solved. Just as I said in my first post its all opinion and opinions are not fact and somewhat relevant.
> 
> I think we have come full circle after 5 pages of opinions. I think we should be able to agree on one thing. To each his own, lets agree to disagree, lets respect that we all our own opinion and thats where it ends.
> 
> ...



This is good stuff. Im bored at work and people are posting. Good stuff. Nothing like a little art debate for good conversation. At least were not talking politics.


----------



## bentcountershaft (May 7, 2012)

Art is an indefinable abstract construct.  It's the idealized notion of something and nothing more.


----------



## Compaq (May 7, 2012)

Buckster said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > vipgraphx said:
> ...



This. Art is a corrupt concept. It's the name that sells, not the piece of "art".


----------



## Nikon_Josh (May 9, 2012)

OscarWilde said:


> DiskoJoe said:
> 
> 
> > People often confuse art with "art the like." These are not the same things. Just because you want to say its not art does not make it so. And to trivialize the work of Jackson Pollock in this way is a bit absurd.
> ...



And what makes you such an expert can I ask? Your another of the close minded people that has been discussed already in this thread! You come forward with your 'opinions' stating them as fact. If the world of Art was governed by people like you I'd be very concerned!


----------



## OscarWilde (May 9, 2012)

DiskoJoe said:


> OscarWilde said:
> 
> 
> > DiskoJoe said:
> ...



De Kooning is closer to Picasso than Paint splatter... Paint splatter is definitely Pollock.
File:No. 5, 1948.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## charlie76 (May 12, 2012)

Whether a photograph is art or not depends on the intention of the photographer. Consider a random example...a  sports photographer (random example, no offense to sports photographers) that shoots a ton of boring, genetic photos, and all he wants to do is go home and eat dinner. He cares not for style or form. What if he accidentally gets an interesting, aesthetically attractive shot?  Is his careless shooting automatically transformed to art later....just cuz he got lucky?  I say no...he doesn't get credit...credit goes to the subject...or the shot becomes something that we can chuckle at when we think about how lucky somebody got.   Imagine somebody getting really lucky...then being praised for the photo like he is a photography genius?!?  It's all about the intention of the photographer


----------



## Buckster (May 12, 2012)

charlie76 said:


> Whether a photograph is art or not depends on the intention of the photographer. Consider a random example...a  sports photographer (random example, no offense to sports photographers) that shoots a ton of boring, genetic photos, and all he wants to do is go home and eat dinner. He cares not for style or form. What if he accidentally gets an interesting, aesthetically attractive shot?  Is his careless shooting automatically transformed to art later....just cuz he got lucky?  I say no...he doesn't get credit...credit goes to the subject...or the shot becomes something that we can chuckle at when we think about how lucky somebody got.   Imagine somebody getting really lucky...then being praised for the photo like he is a photography genius?!?  It's all about the intention of the photographer


How do you prove intent?  If he was just "lucky" but claims he was inspired at that very moment, after patiently waiting for just the right time, how do you prove otherwise?  Flip side of that, if someone claims he just got lucky but is actually being modest and worked his ass off to learn how to get a shot and then worked his ass off some more to actually get it, how do you prove otherwise?


----------



## charlie76 (May 12, 2012)

Buckster said:
			
		

> How do you prove intent?  If he was just "lucky" but claims he was inspired at that very moment, after patiently waiting for just the right time, how do you prove otherwise?  Flip side of that, if someone claims he just got lucky but is actually being modest and worked his ass off to learn how to get a shot and then worked his ass off some more to actually get it, how do you prove otherwise?



Good point...


----------

