# Photography as Art?



## TheLostPhotographer (Jun 30, 2007)

I'm interested to get some feedback on how different people from different parts of the world value art photography. I've started threads about this on UK based web forums, and no doubt it has been discussed here in the past.

One of my favourite photographers - Thomas Struth seems to be recognised/appreciated far more in the US than in the UK or, even his home country Germany. He had a retrospective exhibition at MoMa in NY. In Europe you would be very unlikely to see a solo Struth exhibition outside of a small circle of elitist photographic galleries. Although, I am told he is more frequently news in the UK these days (I haven't visited London since leaving over Two years ago).

I would like to know whether photographers like Struth make it outside of art circles in the States (and any other country) into the domain of the general public or, not.

And, I would also like to know who are your favourite art photographers. The term 'art photographer' in this instance applies to any photographers that exhibit or, publish their work in an art context as art. That's my interpretation, but I would be very interested to know how others define art photography.

An open discussion about photography presented as art.

See, I could have said all that in one line  Few will still be reading this far down.

Oh, and why isn't there an 'Art Photography' forum here?


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 30, 2007)

To judge how people really feel about art you have to ask them have you bought another photographer's art photograph.  I like photographs as art and my walls are full of it but it's things I shot.  So I have to say I don't view photos as art I would but.  But then I don't fill my walls with anything but My photographs.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jun 30, 2007)

I have pretension of art, in the sense that I work up pieces specifically to be printed large and hung in my house.

I own two "major" pieces by other artists, one by Ruud van Empel, and one by Simen Johan. I say major because each cost me over $10,000. 

However, I purchased both specifically because their process goes beyond photography, in the sense that their work is of a composite nature. I am only buying work that focuses on a process that I could not emulate.


----------



## sabbath999 (Jun 30, 2007)

TheLostPhotographer said:


> Oh, and why isn't there an 'Art Photography' forum here?



OK, I am going to be way brief here since I am typing this on my Blackberry.

I am not at all a big believer that photography is "fine art" in general. There are obvioisly exceptions, but by-and-large I think most photography is craft and not art. 

If anybody cares why, I will be glad to explain in the future when I have a keyboard bigger than 3 inches across.


----------



## skieur (Jun 30, 2007)

My mother.

skieur


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jul 1, 2007)

skieur said:


> My mother.
> 
> skieur


?


----------



## fmw (Jul 1, 2007)

sabbath999 said:


> OK, I am going to be way brief here since I am typing this on my Blackberry.
> 
> I am not at all a big believer that photography is "fine art" in general. There are obvioisly exceptions, but by-and-large I think most photography is craft and not art.
> 
> If anybody cares why, I will be glad to explain in the future when I have a keyboard bigger than 3 inches across.


 
In my opinion, almost all photography is craft and not art.  Certainly all of mine is.  For me art requires the creation of something unique from scratch and, even with that, most creations are still craft.  I'm a musician.  I view music composition as art but music performance as craft, as an example.  Acting is craft.  Some writing is art.  Most is craft.  Most painting and sculpture are art.  Design is art.

Don't misunderstand.  Craft can be very creative and good photography is certainly creative.  It can be emotive and good photography is so.  

This is all a matter of definition of course, but that's mine.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jul 1, 2007)

Except under unusual circumstances, art is usually also craft. I know there's a lot people who stand around museums saying "my four-year old does better stuff 'n _this_..." but the fact is that most of these artists (Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko come to mind, as do Picasso and Mondrian) actually know the craft - they've just decided to go outside of it.

I know I spoke of process, but that's part of the point: the art would be impossible without the craft. 

"...almost all photography is craft and not art" is true - except when the photographer declares it art. It is not just about the beholder, but also about the creator.


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 1, 2007)

Iron Flatline said:


> Except under unusual circumstances, art is usually also craft. I know there's a lot people who stand around museums saying "my four-year old does better stuff 'n _this_..." but the fact is that most of these artists (Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko come to mind, as do Picasso and Mondrian) actually know the craft - they've just decided to go outside of it.
> 
> I know I spoke of process, but that's part of the point: the art would be impossible without the craft.
> 
> "...almost all photography is craft and not art" is true - except when the photographer declares it art. It is not just about the beholder, but also about the creator.



I second your thought that most is craft only the exception is art.  For art photography try this forum ... supposed to be a forum geared more for "professionals" and "artists".
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/index.php

Gary


----------



## DRodgers (Jul 1, 2007)

To be blunt if a 2 year old paints something is it art because it used a brush and paint ?

Art is made by an artist and whether he tools may be a camera, brush , clay etc  its still an art form  when he follows basic guide lines  set out in art schools over the decades....

And just to be difficult "art is in the eye of the beholder " something like that anyways.

I once bought a image from David White a pro photography here in Ontario why because it was a close up of his wifes oil paint palette It was an amazing shot and I thought it was art.


----------



## deanimator (Jul 1, 2007)

I recently had a show which created a bit of a nervous stir...a buddy said, "oooh, I think you made the people a bit uncomfortable here"

I was not really surprised but still I discussed this with a professional poet who knows what I do...his response was quite simple:
"It´s our job to MAKE people uncomfortable".

This is a partial explanation of part of the responsibility we have. I mean this in terms of knowing why you are doing this. Anything can be made well and it is a question of craft. This is only part of the whole when creating what is called "art"...it has an additional purpose.

The tap in my bathroom is exceptionally well made, but it was made with only the purpose of delivering water. Nothing else was intended...or taken. Think about Duchamp´s irritation at the critics when he gave them a ****oir.

(the famous _male urinal_ if you can´t follow the automatic no-brain censor filter here!)


----------



## Lars Leber (Jul 1, 2007)

I don't really have a favorite art photographer and I never heard of Thomas Struth before (neither here in the U.S. nor in my home country Germany).


----------



## deanimator (Jul 1, 2007)

???

What about Andreas Gursky?


----------



## deanimator (Jul 1, 2007)

The Bechers???


----------



## deanimator (Jul 1, 2007)

Art photography is somethings that the Germans really rock at!


----------



## deanimator (Jul 1, 2007)

Try this:

Who has the world record for the most expensive photo ever?


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jul 1, 2007)

Lots of good replies already. Very encouraging 

Let's look at Andreas Gursky for a start simply because he is the most expensive fine art photographer in todays market.

In particular, his superstore (what do you call them in the states? Megastores?) shots. They're big. They're shots of products on shelves. Lots of them and lots of them for just a dollar.

I know people who will look at them and ask 'is that a painting?'. As soon as they're told 'no - it's a photograph' they'll immediately dismiss it as not having any artistic value.

Then, other people will look and start asking questions. Why is it being presented as art? Why is it so big? Why is there so much repetition? Is it real or, has it been manipulated? If it has been manipulated - why? etc etc etc.

And other people might just look and think 'wow big photo with patterns and stuff - pass the spliff'.

Personally, I think Andreas Gursky's $1 megastore shots are amongst the most important and most influential works of art of the later 20th Century. Throughout history art has played an important role in communicating what the mass media of the day cannot. It's a comment about contemporary society and modern day values. The art 'venue' was the only place to exhibit.

I could go on for much longer here, but I'd be boring to many and wasting my keyboard life expectancy. The 'e' key already needs a thump rather than a tap.

Nice that people are posting with considered thought here.


And, the Becher's... could go on forever here!


----------



## crownlaurel (Jul 1, 2007)

Are you starving? Then it might be an art. 

Someone mentioned art being in the eye of the beholder, but I think it has more to do with the eye of the photographer. An artist sees things differently than the average person and their work goes beyond what most could produce. Anyone can pick up a paintbrush and make swirly lines and circles and maybe even houses and plants, but in the hands of an artist it becomes a whole, a story, maybe even a portal into another world. Anyone can pick up a camera and snap an image. But then there are images that take us somewhere we can't otherwise go (and I am not talking about physical places, but actually transporting the viewer to that moment or that scene...and I think it's more than just emotion). Anyone can capture a moment or even grab great shots, but an artist goes farther than that and grabs you.

Was the collage of outhouses I saw hanging outside the bathrooms at Ryans last night fine art? Maybe if you remove the "ine." But strangely the "artist" took something few people care to ponder and sold it to a restaurant.

Have there been painters who passed swirly lines and circles off as art (or black squares or bulls eyes), yes. They may be quite proud of their feats and conceited about their displays, but they manage to make a good living. 

I took an art class in college with a dear friend who inspired me. He was an artist and could draw, paint, create almost anything he wanted. We were both quite shocked when I got an A in the class but he only got a B. The professor explained to us that I had poured my heart and soul into the class and while I may not have produced masterpieces, I sought to improve and create new things...my friend produced incredible pieces, but he was just doing what he had to to get by. 

I don't pretend to be anything more than a beginner, (just a mom with a dSLR and a kit lens), but one day I'd like to be able to show people their own world in ways they don't take time to see.

Yes it is a craft. All art is craft to some extent. Maybe art is whatever transcends the basics? Maybe art is what stirs emotions, makes people uncomfortable, angers them, saddens them, fills them with joy, makes them lose where they are for a moment, makes them wonder, makes them think. I've seen photographs (some of this forum) that do that...I hope I can someday.


----------



## zakhopper316 (Jul 1, 2007)

when a photograph of something no longer stands for the object or action being photographed it is art.

if you look at the picture and see and feel one thing or emotion then look at the object or action and feel another, to me it is art.

aka symbolism.

im a motion picture director as my profession. 
do you guys consider movies art?


----------



## craig (Jul 2, 2007)

If your work makes it to MoMa you are global and very much traveling out side local circles. Simply put; you have hit he big time. Now the people I know are mostly known statewide and maybe (probably) nationally.  

For me; Irving Penn and Jay Maisel are my heros for bridging the gap between art and commercial. John Stuart andEd Riddell are my mentors.

The terms art and photography have battled since day one. Personally I believe photography is art. It is just that simple.

Love & Bass


----------



## craig (Jul 2, 2007)

zakhopper316 said:


> when a photograph of something no longer stands for the object or action being photographed it is art.
> 
> if you look at the picture and see and feel one thing or emotion then look at the object or action and feel another, to me it is art.
> 
> ...



Movies are art. There is no way I could shoot one though. Generally it seems like there are too many people involved. Plus I wold drive myself batty lighting all the different camera angles.

Love & Bass


----------



## zakhopper316 (Jul 2, 2007)

well im blessed to have the best director of photography ever, hes done all of my films but 3. but yes lighting and pulling focus is always fun. when your shooting 24 frames a second versus just 1 frame in photography.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 2, 2007)

deanimator said:


> The tap in my bathroom is exceptionally well made, but it was made with only the purpose of delivering water. Nothing else was intended...or taken. Think about Duchamp´s irritation at the critics when he gave them a ****oir.
> 
> (the famous _male urinal_ if you can´t follow the automatic no-brain censor filter here!)



Duchamp was making a serious point when he produced 'The Fountain'.
When asked why he had put up the urinal instead of a piece of 'art' he famously replied: 'it's in an art gallery, it's signed by an artist and you can't p*ss in it - so if it isn't art then tell me what it is.'
This is a question that has been argued ever since.
(But when thinking about this never forget that Duchamp had a wicked and obscure sense of humour).

People have a somewhat different attitude to 'art' produced with a camera that to 'art' produced by other means.
Everyone owns a camera and can take picrures so it devalues the creative process.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 2, 2007)

zakhopper316 said:


> lighting and pulling focus is always fun. when your shooting 24 frames a second versus just 1 frame in photography.



The old joke was that stills photographers are obviously superior to a film crew: it takes a whole bunch of people shooting 24 frames per second to get what a good photographer can get in one shot :lmao:


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jul 2, 2007)

zakhopper316 said:


> ...
> 
> im a motion picture director as my profession.
> do you guys consider movies art?



Yes. Definitely.

I recently visited and exhibition pf photographs by the Turkish film director Nuri Bilge Ceylan. Stunning photographs that manage to portray a film type story in a frozen moment. The 'ordinary' subjects become film stars. They view the camera with a challenge that gives them an assured and confident persona. You can view the photographs here: http://www.nuribilgeceylan.com/

Follow links to Turkey CinemaScope. Well worth a view.


Impressed by his photography I went to see one of his films; The Climates. It was beautifully shot. Slow, lingering scenes without dialogue and a contemporary Sergio Leone style sound track. It was definitely art, but as a film it totally lost me. When he introduced the film he made a joke about people falling asleep because it was a very slow film. Stunning visually, but boring as a film for me. Art nonetheless I'm sure.


----------



## crownlaurel (Jul 2, 2007)

Orig: Hertz...


> People have a somewhat different attitude to 'art' produced with a camera that to 'art' produced by other means.
> Everyone owns a camera and can take picrures so it devalues the creative process.


 
But by the same token, anyone can buy canvas, a few tubes of paint, a palate and brushes.  We give 3 year olds brushes, tempura paint and paper plates.  You can even get a "paint by numbers" for $5 at Hobby Lobby.  Yet few would argue that painting is art.


I set out to find the official definition of art and was rather surprised to see that different dictionaries define it differently...even in its purest form, art seems to be a bit subjective. The American Heritage dictionary defines art as:

*



art 1






   (ärt)  Pronunciation Key 
n.   

Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.

The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
The study of these activities.
The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/art

Click to expand...

* 
* 
The earliest etymological reference (same link as above, scroll down page to etymology dictionary) is "c.1225, "skill as a result of learning or practice," from O.Fr. art, from L. artem"  and "Meaning "skill in creative arts" is first recorded 1620; esp. of painting, sculpture, etc., from 1668."

*


----------



## fmw (Jul 2, 2007)

DRodgers said:


> To be blunt if a 2 year old paints something is it art because it used a brush and paint ?


 
It might be.  Certainly it is free expression.  Some painting is only craft.  An example would be decorative painting.


----------



## fmw (Jul 2, 2007)

crownlaurel said:


> Orig: Hertz...
> 
> 
> But by the same token, anyone can buy canvas, a few tubes of paint, a palate and brushes. We give 3 year olds brushes, tempura paint and paper plates. You can even get a "paint by numbers" for $5 at Hobby Lobby. Yet few would argue that painting is art.


 
I would. Perhaps not for the person filling in the numbers but for the designer of thing in the first place. It may not be good art or fine art but design is always art for me.




> I set out to find the official definition of art and was rather surprised to see that different dictionaries define it differently...even in its purest form, art seems to be a bit subjective. The American Heritage dictionary defines art as:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
A lot of what people define as art is not beautiful so many would disagree that the definition requires the product to have beauty. Some creations that people define as art are ugly and some disgusting.


----------



## deanimator (Jul 2, 2007)

I may not have been clear enough with my comment about Duchamp...but actually I wrote it that way deliberately...
...just as Duchamp deliberately presented the critics with his "found object". He did it to get the reaction...in this case, the adulation that he knew they would give it. This allowed him to then berate them for their shallowness...and express his disappointment.

I wanted to see if it would evoke a reaction...such as the "who is Struth?" and "So Weston seems to be under-rated", and similar comments found here. 
Which president was it who said "Never underestimate..."? (you know the rest)

Well...the problem often just lies with the critics, the audience, and what they´ve been exposed to.

Maybe then the real problem of "what is art?" is simply one of western culture! :shock:


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jul 2, 2007)

Perhaps a good why to define what you consider to be art photography and what you don't is to post a link to Two examples with a quick explanation as to why is is or, isn't art in your opinion.


A photograph that isn't art IMO:





It's from the front page of the website of a national UK daily. It's a news photograph. Although, perhaps a little artistic interpretation is going on? Nothing really happening, nothing to photograph as news so, a little creativity has been used. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if photographs similar to this one will be exhibited as part of an art installation in the future. But, not real fine art photography for me.


A photograph that is art:





This is a fine art photograph because I took it and I am presenting it as art.

It's as simple as that. If the photographer/artists presents their work as art in an art context then it should be viewed as such. Whether the viewer thinks it's good or, bad is totally irrelevant. Whether I manage to draw the viewer in to anything beyond the immediate image is possibly relevant and the measure of my artistic ability/failure. Of course, I will argue that it needs to be viewed in the right environment and not as a low res on screen jpeg.

Many would refuse to look at a photograph like this as anything other than architectural, documentary or, just a snap shot even if it was presented in a prestigious art gallery.


Any more examples from anyone else?


----------



## zakhopper316 (Jul 2, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> The old joke was that stills photographers are obviously superior to a film crew: it takes a whole bunch of people shooting 24 frames per second to get what a good photographer can get in one shot :lmao:



haha well i def. give you guys credit. im new to still photography and making a piece with symbolism and a theme worth talking about is very different then the way us filmmakers go about it. as a director i get all of the elements through my actors. scene objectives, motivation, and so forth. with photography theres none of that, its all visual, its awsome it has helped my filmmaking quite a bit.


----------



## crownlaurel (Jul 2, 2007)

fmw said:


> I would. Perhaps not for the person filling in the numbers but for the designer of thing in the first place. It may not be good art or fine art but design is always art for me.


 
Oops, I meant to write "Few would argue that painting ISN'T art."  Sorry for that.  I was trying to say that most people consider painting (aside from non creative wall and house painting) art, even though anyone can walk into a Hobby Lobby or a Michaels and buy everything necessary to paint and even though a child can do it (usually not with the same results an artist can get), painting is not excluded from "art."  Yet the fact that everyone can own a camera seems to be a major factor in excluding photography from "art."  



> A lot of what people define as art is not beautiful so many would disagree that the definition requires the product to have beauty. Some creations that people define as art are ugly and some disgusting


 
What I quoted from the dictionary was a very strict definition of art and I found the etymology particularly interesting because it shows how we've evolved the word.  Some of the dictionaries defined art as "painting or sculpture."  Others included any craft that requires the application of sets of skills or something like that.  Very few definitions could be interpretted so narrowly as to exclude photography (or movies).  And each person here seemed to have his or her own definition.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 2, 2007)

ART TO ME IS WHATEVER I SAY IT IS....


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 2, 2007)

deanimator said:


> ...just as Duchamp deliberately presented the critics with his "found object". He did it to get the reaction...in this case, the adulation that he knew they would give it. This allowed him to then berate them for their shallowness...and express his disappointment.



Duchamp was actually one of the directors of the group that organised the exhibition (Society For Independent Artists founded in New York) but didn't like the organisation so used one of his 'readymades' (he had already produced a number of them) to goad them. It was, like many of Duchamp's works, a joke with a point.
The fact that it was laid on it's 'back' was so that it would be erect. The signature is a multiple play on words. A number of other artists were in on the joke, offering to buy _The Fountain_ to support the starving artist. And Duchamp wrote a spirited defense of the piece in his magazine _The Blind Man_ (issue 2 in fact).
Even though at least one member of the committee knew Duchamp, none of them recognised it for one of his. Which added to the joke.
The piece was never shown, never mentioned and was misplaced. But it had served it's purpose.
Duchamp's readymades were intended to eliminate the individual, hand-made quality of art and instead assert their own qualities. This is quite important for photography where the ability to make many identical prints from the same neg argued against it being considered as art. Duchamp was on our side.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 2, 2007)

crownlaurel said:


> I was trying to say that most people consider painting (aside from non creative wall and house painting) art, even though anyone can walk into a Hobby Lobby or a Michaels and buy everything necessary to paint and even though a child can do it (usually not with the same results an artist can get), painting is not excluded from "art."  Yet the fact that everyone can own a camera seems to be a major factor in excluding photography from "art."



Painting has been around for far longer so has established itself.
True, anyone can buy canvas and paint and paint pictures. Many do. But few would consider themselves 'Artists' (as opposed to 'artists') because of the hand-crafted nature of painting. People might slag off a painting saying a child could do it but deep down they know it is not really that easy - as anyone who has tried painting will have discovered.
Photography, on the other hand, is now pretty much foolproof. Press the shutter and you'll get an image. If it's that easy then being a photographer can't be very hard. And the mechanical nature of reproduction excludes it from being art as it doesn't qualify as being handcrafted.
To drive home the point: you rarely get people saying 'I've bought a paint box now can someone tell me how to become a portrait painter?' But if you read the threads here it's a regular occurence for people to buy a camera and then start trying to become a professional.


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jul 3, 2007)

I'd still like to see some examples of photographs that people consider to be art and photographs that aren't art. I'm interested to see where different people place the 'art' value of a photograph.


----------



## Rusty_Tripod (Jul 3, 2007)

Lately, the attitude is that "If I think it is pretty, then it is art. If I like it, then it is art. The discussion is over,"

It really is subjective.

For personal based reasons, I am a fan of much of Weegee's work, but I doubt that many would identify his photographs as art. However, they are currently on display at the Phoenix Art Museum.

Rusty Tripod


----------



## crownlaurel (Jul 3, 2007)

I don't argue against that painting is a much finer art than photography and if I am correct I think I see you making the distinction between "art" and "Art" in which case I can very much agree. I'm not inclinded to put even the best photograph on the same level with a painting and the "art" on my walls are paintings (prints: one is limited edition but still a print). But just because it isn't on the same scale as finer arts doesn't exclude it entirely from being an art.

Anyone can take a portrait. Just ask the photographers at Walmart who make a living sporting a pretty camera, chopping off children's extremities and cocking their heads in the most unusual positions that are even more uncomfortable perched on that strange fur covered table.

But if anyone can make a portrait, why do people pay thousands of dollars to have their wedding recorded when for less they could buy cousin Luigi his very own camera and get the same result? Could it be because cousin Luigi doesn't have an artistic eye?

Anyone can take a picture, but why doesn't my sunset look like some I've seen here? Why does one picture of a barn look like a barn and another picture of the same barn looks like a step back in time?

There are paintings and sculptures on Grandma's walls and shelves that are interesting pieces made by little Johnny, but then there are paintings and sculptures that museums fight over. What makes the distinction is not the medium, nor so much the viewer (though a viewer is a factor in whether it is ever appreciated) but the eye and the skill of the person creating it.



A little OT: I also think you see more "have camera, want to start business" because this IS a photography forum. Several people assumed because I wanted to "move closer to pro" (and I discussed "cameras") that I wanted to start a business. I did shoot two weddings, not because I wanted to be a wedding photographer (though it may not be out of the question later on), but because neither couple could afford a professional photographer and my husband was perfoming the ceremony (and because one was my dad). My photos weren't anywhere near pro quality but for free they were well worth it to the couples, who otherwise wouldn't have had any pictures. I loved it and I'd love to do it again with a better camera, but that doesn't mean I want to start a business...it just means I know a lot of poor people, LOL. I had to explain several times that I only wanted to move one step further equipment-wise and learn more, not set up shop, and only then were the dogs called off and I was let in (figuratively). I had found the site by searching for "Amateur photography forum" so I didn't realize there were people who made a living from it on here and didn't think I'd have to explain myself.


----------



## crownlaurel (Jul 3, 2007)

Rusty_Tripod said:


> Lately, the attitude is that "If I think it is pretty, then it is art. If I like it, then it is art. The discussion is over,"
> 
> It really is subjective.
> 
> ...


 

What exactly would disqualify his work as art?  I only saw part of it just now and I like it (not what I am using as criteria for art, mind you).  I'm curious about his "Distortions" series.  Obviously the Museum saw art in his work.  Why do you think few would call it art?


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 3, 2007)

TheLostPhotographer said:


> I'd still like to see some examples of photographs that people consider to be art and photographs that aren't art. I'm interested to see where different people place the 'art' value of a photograph.



There are a number of factors that determine whether an object is Art or not, and these apply to Photography in the same way as to all other Art forms.
The problem is that these 'rules' are difficult to explain as they are fuzzy. The most you can ever do is take your best guess.
But there are some guidelines that help. For example:
Art proper tends to be about ideas. The piece of art is usually just an attempt to make the idea 'real'. And it might not be very good but it is the concept behind it that is important.
Art proper tends to have no real function other than to voice the artist's idea(s). This means that a picture that is commissioned and produced with the sole purpose of selling fish fingers is almost certainly not going to be Art proper - although it might be artistic.
Art can have an effect on the rest of Art if the idea is ground-breaking enough. See Picasso's _Les Demoiselles d'Avignon_.

The whole notion of what is and what is not Art is something that is not easy to get to grips with. People who have studied Art in College for years are loath to try to define it. 
And real artists aren't concerned with it. They know that the only true test of Art is posterity, so let future generations decide in retrospect if it's Art.

As for photographs as Art try Man Ray, Robert Demachy, Frederic Holland Day, Paul Strand....
So to get you started:
http://www.richardmoorephoto.com/photopages/demachy_pic1.html
http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artMakerDetails?maker=2036


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jul 3, 2007)

Okay. Can we firstly get back to photography as art and forget about all the other art mediums and the way they pushed the boundaries. Interesting, and the point has been made, but it has no further place in this thread.

The Two links given in the previous post are good examples of photographic art that has been established and accepted as art. I'd like to see your examples of photography that isn't art also.

Art is all about breaking rules and pushing boundaries to a certain extent. Personally, I believe anyone can be an artist. Anyone can do the art they want to do. Whether others think it's good or, not is irrelevant.

We are all artists. Some of us are happy to please ourselves, others need to communicate ideas to a broader audience.

Possibly?


----------



## mwct (Jul 3, 2007)

I prefer to look at art from the point of view of what it does rather than how it was made. If you look at the history of art through its many twist an turns and the way opinions are created, destroyed, and recreated, in the end you will stand scratching your head wondering, like Ruyard Kipling, just exactly what art is. Once upon a time, art was in fact "craft", and the highest form of art was the ability to use rare and expensive paints. Today, art distances itself from any sort of craft in a mad scramble to separate itself from exactly such tools as the camera. Artists are told at galleries that their paintings should show as little evidence of craft as possible, and the possibility of a work being labelled with the tag "craft" is the deathknell for an artist. But are the public convinced? Look at Disney, Ansel Adams, and Ken Rockwell... clearly the general public has their own opinions of art remote from those of art critics and professionals.

This all leads me to my personal belief that in the end, what is art should be reflected on what it accomplishes rather than how it was done. If a painting was done using elephant turd (yes, there was one recently) then the question should not be "is elephant turd a suitable medium for art" but rather "does the painting accomplish the objectives it set out"?

When I see a photograph, and the photograph accomplishes nothing, it doesn't look nice, it doesn't tell a story, then to me, it has no merit. If a photograph is able to convey a story, then it becomes a narrative medium. Photographs are able to tell stories very very well, as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. Is that art? Well do you consider literature a form of art? If so then yes. If on the other hand, the photograph's main accomplishment is to look nice, then it might be considered "craft" or perhaps "pop art." A picture of cuddly kittens rolled up into a ball, is very nice, but perhaps won't get your photo into the Chicago Art Institute. Perhaps the goal of photography should ultimately aspire to "fine art" but what exactly does that mean? From my experiences, fine art usually conveys a deeper meaning that what is apparent on the surface. It touches the human spirit deeper inside and every time you look at the picture, it should speak to you in new ways. There should be some level of abstraction, and the narrative of the photograph is as important as the artistic merit - hence photographers often spend hours or days puzzling over exactly how to caption their photos in gallery displays. Is it art, if a photograph can do all that? I would certainly think so, but it is hard, very hard to accomplish that. I do not think that it is necessarily harder to do that with a camera than with a paint brush but the thing about a camera is that it is seductive to go the other way. When you have a camera it is too terribly easy to just take a pleasing photo, it takes merely milliseconds... a painter takes hours planning his picture and then days to months executing. The last thing that painter wants is a imperfect composition or someone telling him a photo would have done the job better. Then again, that is part of the challenge of photography bec we have to work with time, and we don't have the luxury of putting things exactly how we want (unless its a studio composition).

As examples of how photograpy can change the way we view the world, look at how photography even influences painting. Photorealists try to imitate the camera, and concepts such as focus, motion blur, etc... that did not exist before photography are now used in all forms of art, fine or otherwise. Richard Avedon when he made his controversial photos of his father dying of cancer, gave in the photos a quiet dignity to his ailing father, something that was better captured in his photos than could have been in any other medium. I'm probably going to make a few enemies by saying this but I feel that perhaps Ansel Adams, whom is universally adored by photographers, is closer to craft than art. He has a system which is used to good effect to capture the moment of nature, but for me personally it doesn't go beyond that. It is a pleasant picture. I'm not saying that is bad or good, this isn't judgement and he is clearly a master, but current opinions of fine art eschews mere "beauty" and requires of the artist more, the ability to provoke thought and discussion. P.S. please noone tell me that Richard Avedon is famous primarily for his photos of semi-nude models in Vogue... I am well aware, and I am mainly referring to his other work that he did 

Anyway this is just my opinion. I think that the opinion of ppl on photography as "low art" is bec they see so much of photography being used that way. And easy access to a camera means everyone with $200 and access to a computer can take and print their own photos. If that is all they see, no wonder they think of photography that way! It would take some education as to what photography can truly achieve in order to elevate it to the higher status that other art forms attain.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 3, 2007)

Art shmart.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 3, 2007)

Went to school With Art shmart's sister Joyce. Joyce Smart  She was a bit of an ass.... Need I say more.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 3, 2007)

Say no more, say no more. A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 3, 2007)

Is that also true of a blind dingbat


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 3, 2007)

TheLostPhotographer said:


> I'd like to see your examples of photography that isn't art also.



http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=81926
Sorry, Alex.

Art is a great deal about pushing boundaries, ideas and communication.

As for "anyone can be an artist" - that depends upon what your definition of an artist is.
Like most professions it takes a certain kind of person to be able to do it.
I think this whole concept of 'anyone can be an artist' is just wishfull thinking. Some people are just not cut out for it. Believe me, I know from experience having taught Photography and some Graphics and Art.
It is true to say 'anyone can paint a picture' which is, I think, what people really mean when they say it. In the same way as 'anyone can take a picture'. But there is a world of difference between painting a picture and being an artist, as there is a world of difference between taking a picture and being a photographer.
It takes not just technical skill and knowledge of the medium, but an attitude of mind and a way of looking at the world. And those are things not everyone is born with or can develop.
If it were otherwise then our whole notion of Art would be totally different - we would not see it as 'special' and have dedicated places to show it because we would all be able to do it. 
It's like saying everyone can be a juggler or a trapeze artist. You know it isn't true because you have people who just don't have the co-ordination, and people who are not prepared to do the long hours of practicing. Even the ones that can get through it all will only be passable. They won't have that extra something that allows them to entertain a crowd.
Can anyone be a concert pianist? A brain surgeon? A theoretical physicist? An Olympic gold medalist?
Of course not. So to say 'anyone can be an artist' is to either ascribe qualities and abilities that aren't there to people or you are de-valuing the meaning of the term 'artist'.


----------



## JC1220 (Jul 3, 2007)

"So why bother about art - a word so abused it is almost obsolete."
Edward Weston, 1930


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 3, 2007)

JC1220 said:


> "So why bother about art - a word so abused it is almost obsolete."
> Edward Weston, 1930



Exactly so. Artists rarely mention the word.
The only people who seem to obsess about it, ask 'what is art?', try to define it or shell out big bucks to own it are people who aren't artists and who have never produced any art


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jul 4, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> ...
> If it were otherwise then our whole notion of Art would be totally different - we would not see it as 'special' and have dedicated places to show it because we would all be able to do it...



There are of course great artists and 'not very good' artists just as there are brilliant jugglers and people like myself. However, I can juggle a little and if the interest took me I'm sure I could improve. Likewise, if anyone is interested enough they can learn to improve their art skills.

Sure, the genius players in any field are born with something that most of us don't have and can never be taught. I see people learn great photographic skills and start thinking with the mind of an artist when they didn't before. Everyone has an ability - just some have a better potential than others.


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jul 4, 2007)

TheLostPhotographer said:


> Everyone has an ability - just some have a better potential than others.


 
That sounds suspiciously like my guitar playing skills. My guitar collecting skills on the other hand are worthy of a gallery of their very own...


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 4, 2007)

TheLostPhotographer said:


> Everyone has an ability - just some have a better potential than others.



People may have 'an' ability but not necessarily in Art. Believe me, I know. I've taught it on occasion.
I've had students who, even after two years of being taught Art, have trouble holding the pencil let alone putting it to use. But this same person may well be able to memorise facts like you wouldn't believe - but with depressing regularity their 'ability' has been only the ability to make farty noises with their armpits.
Everyone may well possess 'an ability' but the real truth is that we each have a different ability (as well as a different degree of potential). It's a bitter pill to swallow but most people just don't have much artistic talent at all - which is why Photography is so popular. It's easier to fake it in Photography :lmao:


----------



## crownlaurel (Jul 4, 2007)

> Likewise, if anyone is interested enough they can learn to improve their art skills.


 
I disagree here.  Our brains somehow function differently to differing degrees.  The artist is dominated by the right brain.  As seen in some historical accounts of artists' behavior (Bernini for example...oops, I mentioned a non photographer here), reason or logic isn't always a strongpoint.  A scientist tends to be dominated by the left brain.  We're not all extreme examples of artist nor scientist but most of us tend to one direction or the other.  Some people are cooks.  They may follow recipes but they don't create.  Others view recipes as starting blocks.  I watch a meal cooked, take note of the ingredients and recreate it with my own style and new ingredients.  Then there are cooks (some are chefs, but some never took classes) who can create from scratch somethign entirely new and different.  Those are eth artists (opps, again, a non photography example...sorry, I can't put forth photography as art without discussing art in other forms).

Here is an excerpt from a speech by von Helmholtz touching on the differences of perception of the artist from most of us (myself included)  http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/helmholtz.htm

*



It is not necessary for me to add further examples; our daily life is more than rich enough in them. Art, most clearly poetry and the plastic arts, is based directly upon such experiences. The highest kind of perception, that which we find in the artist's vision, is an example of this same basic kind of understanding, in this case the understanding of new aspects of man and nature. Among the traces which frequently repeated perceptions leave behind in the memory, the ones conforming to law and repeated with the greatest regularity are strengthened, while those which vary accidentally are obliterated. In a receptive, attentive observer, intuitive images of the characteristic aspects of the things that interest him come to exist; afterward he knows no more about how these images arose than a child knows about the examples from which he learned the meanings of words. That an artist has beheld the truth follows from the fact that we too are seized with the conviction of truth when he leads us away from currents of accidentally related qualities. An artist is superior to us in that he knows how to find the truth amid all the confusion and chance events of daily experience.

Click to expand...

 
The last statement I believe holds true for the Artist Photographer.  And the rest of us aspire to become what the Artist simply is.*


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jul 4, 2007)

crownlaurel said:


> ...*
> The last statement I believe holds true for the Artist Photographer.  And the rest of us aspire to become what the Artist simply is.*



If you're referring to the last sentence; 





> *An artist is superior to us in that he knows how to find the truth amid all the confusion and chance events of daily experience.*


 then I would disagree. Many Artists using Photography as a medium are equally talented with other materials.

I've always had a problem with the left brain, right brain theory also. Where did Da Vinci think from. He was as great an artist as he was a scientist. (going back to painting - I guess there are far more examples).

Science is a big part of any art for myself. When I'm sketching I'm thinking about the physics of the subject not just looking at a shape. When I'm painting I'm thinking about the properties of the paint, how the colours will mix, interact, compliment and contrast. This thought process happens alongside a sort of involuntary creative thought process - the feeling.

I enjoy the science of photography as much as I enjoy the art of photography. I think the lack of physical interaction between medium and artist is part of the problem people have for accepting art as photography. Call it the craft of photography if you like - the burning in in the darkroom or, the subtle manipulation in PhotoShop is as close as photography gets to sketching or, painting. Lighting is possibly an exception.

But, I can get as much pleasure out of enjoying a Thomas Struth photographic landscape as I can from a great Turner landscape. To my mind and way of seeing they are very equal mediums when it comes to art. There is no difference between an artist and a photographic artist.


----------



## crownlaurel (Jul 4, 2007)

TheLostPhotographer said:


> If you're referring to the last sentence; then I would disagree. Many Artists using Photography as a medium are equally talented with other materials.
> 
> I've always had a problem with the left brain, right brain theory also. Where did Da Vinci think from. He was as great an artist as he was a scientist. (going back to painting - I guess there are far more examples).
> 
> ...


 
Here's where I think your fault of logic stands.  You seem to want the entire medium to be considered art, but you yourself have stated it clearly when you say _"There is no difference between an artist and a photographic artist."_  Exactly, but there IS a difference between the average picture taker and the Artist Photographer.  There may be some gray area in between where someone is an artist but maybe not an Artist.  The art is produced, not by the medium, but by the artist using whatever means to express his art.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 4, 2007)

TheLostPhotographer said:


> the burning in in the darkroom or, the subtle manipulation in PhotoShop is as close as photography gets to sketching or, painting. Lighting is possibly an exception.



Then you have forgotten Advertising photography where you start with an empty studio and build the picture up from scratch. You have total control over everything so the final image is exactly how you want it to be. And you have almost as much control over a good fashion shoot or studio portrait.
Most people, when they talk about Photography and Art in the same sentence, think of Photography as going out with a camera and taking what presents itself or of High Street photographers.
But images can be constructed and it's a whole different way of working.
The other mistake you are making is to try to compare Photography to Painting or drawing. They are different media and so have different ways of being used.
It's like saying drawing doesn't come close to painting. Or painting doesn't come close to sculpture. Or sculture doesn't come close to writing. Or writing doesn't come close to music.
They are all comparissons which cannot be made because they are pointless comparissons.


----------



## Mike_E (Jul 4, 2007)

So many words for such a simple subject.  Either you are an Artist or you are not.  Photography has plenty of room for both types.  Be as good as you can at whatever you do.

Here's a saying for you to help you on your way...
'-child, every dawn sets alight a new day.  Go out and play before it's all burned away!'.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 4, 2007)

Mike_E said:


> Either you are an Artist or you are not.



Quite true, but what is being discussed here is how you differentiate between them.


----------



## Mike_E (Jul 4, 2007)

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear.  (too minimalist more likely).  Whether someone is or isn't is not up to them and ultimately only history will judge.  After all, who would have dreamed that a bunch of stacked soup cans would be considered Art?

The only thing that is certain is that if the photo doesn't get made then it is Definitely not art.  If you are spending your time worrying whether or not what you are doing is art then you cannot be doing art because you really aren't doing anything.

Live, Laugh, Love and make photographs that move you along the way.  If your's is a spirit worth remembering and you leave behind a body of work then you will be remembered.

If not then you will have Lived, Laughed, Loved and enjoyed a fine hobby and die a rich person because of it.  (Rich in the only coin of the realm that you can take with you )

Ooops, gotta go, the neighbor's burning his lunch and ... .  Hey, it could be art.  LOL

mike


----------



## Alpha (Jul 4, 2007)

I'm of the opinion that you need a great eye and great technical ability to be a great photographer (that is, to have intentionality and a useful measure of control over your images). If you have neither, you will always be poor. If you have one or the other, then you may be particularly suited to specific types of photography. And if you have both, then the sky's the limit.

Who cares about art.


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jul 4, 2007)

crownlaurel said:


> ...  You seem to want the entire medium to be considered art...




Oh no I most definitely don't.

Some photography is so void of anything beyond a visual record of a moment. A bad visual record at that.


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jul 4, 2007)

Mike_E said:


> Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear.  (too minimalist more likely).  Whether someone is or isn't is not up to them and ultimately only history will judge.  After all, who would have dreamed that a bunch of stacked soup cans would be considered Art?...



This is the worst argument of all. Just because you can't see the value today, you have to wait for 'history' to tell you if art is genuinely art or, not.

Then you think 'oh, okay it's art - someone important told me it's art, but I still don't get it as art'.

Get a brain!


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jul 4, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> Then you have forgotten Advertising photography where you start with an empty studio and build the picture up from scratch...




Or, you just steal the ideas from creative artists.

I've seen ad campaigns here in the UK that so often just steal an idea from an art exhibition and manipulate it for their gain.

In the modern world, advertising and TV commercials are possibly the biggest venue for new ideas. That counts for a lot. TV commercials often present an 'art' image to avoid the very obvious commercial connotations. An arty ad is very often the most successful.


----------



## Mike_E (Jul 4, 2007)

TheLostPhotographer said:


> This is the worst argument of all. Just because you can't see the value today, you have to wait for 'history' to tell you if art is genuinely art or, not.
> 
> Then you think 'oh, okay it's art - someone important told me it's art, but I still don't get it as art'.
> 
> Get a brain!



I Have one thank you.  If you'd use yours then you would have caught the inference that I Do Not consider a stack of soup cans to be Art.  Good Graphic design?  Yes.  Art?  No.  However, no matter how Great an artist you turn out to be, the worth of your work is going to be determined by a lot of people over a long period of time.  In other words, by the weight of history.





TheLostPhotographer said:


> Or, you just steal the ideas from creative artists.
> 
> I've seen ad campaigns here in the UK that so often just steal an idea from an art exhibition and manipulate it for their gain.
> 
> In the modern world, advertising and TV commercials are possibly the biggest venue for new ideas. That counts for a lot. TV commercials often present an 'art' image to avoid the very obvious commercial connotations. An arty ad is very often the most successful.




Oh Great Sir who considers original thought to be so plentiful as to be of little value.  Do you have any idea how rare an original thought is in the rest of the world?  Stephen Hawking may have had one or two but even he riffs off of the thinking of people before him (as has every other person since before recorded history).

Once again, words are of little value in the building of a body of work (unless you shoot soup cans ).  Do your best and don't worry about it.

mike


----------



## deanimator (Jul 4, 2007)

An old artist just said to me last weekend, "hell, it isn´t art till you´re dead anyway"...which sound like an admonition to get on with it too, and at least stop agonizing over it.

Having a bit of a think about it can´t do any harm, but let´s not dwell on it too long...there´s plenty of stuff to do. Someone else can give it a label if it really needs one...which is a bit Duchampian again


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 4, 2007)

My son and law and I had a conversation about this thread. Just the bare essentials. I mentioned early on that Im a hack and he immediately said, "Well I'm an artist." . He has been in it three years lol...  I didn't laugh he copies magazine shots of brides for their portraits.  Nothing much about the bride but lots about the location.  Just thought it was kinda interesting


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 4, 2007)

TheLostPhotographer said:


> Or, you just steal the ideas from creative artists.
> 
> I've seen ad campaigns here in the UK that so often just steal an idea from an art exhibition and manipulate it for their gain.
> 
> In the modern world, advertising and TV commercials are possibly the biggest venue for new ideas. That counts for a lot. TV commercials often present an 'art' image to avoid the very obvious commercial connotations. An arty ad is very often the most successful.



I wasn't making the case for Ad photography as 'art'. It's the area I trained in and I worked in it long enough to know full what it _really_ is. I was merely making the point that it is possible to do Photography starting with a blank canvas and controling every element.
And if you look at Art - certainly from the past 100 years - I think you will find that they have stolen as much from Advertising as Advertising has stolen from them.

As I have always said in threads like this (here included), and echoed here by others, the true Artist never gives it a second thought as to whether he is creating Art or not. He just gets on and does it because he has to. It is History which decides on his worth and his place in it.

As for Max Bloom's question: "who needs Art?"
The answer is: nobody _needs_ it - but if you have any degree of intelligence and any kind of soul you find it can make your life that little bit more bearable and interesting.

(As an aside, I have frequently found that students who 'can't see the point' of Art hold that view whilst themselves wanting to be considered 'artists'. I think it's because they realise how inferior they are in comparison so want to bring everyone else down to their level.  )


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jul 5, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> ...It is History which decides on his worth and his place in it.
> ...




This is no longer true (if it ever was). Sure there are plenty of examples of great artists who weren't recognised until long after their death - Van Gogh is an obvious example. However, there are just as many who were appreciated during their lifetime and were also financially successful.

The measure of an artist in the contemporary art market is how influential they are. Andreas Gursky has been hugely influential and he's nowhere near retirement yet. His works sell for hundreds of thousands. He is recognised today for his innovation and influence. Many people consider him to be a great artist now and even more will probably think that way as history progresses.

If Van Gogh had access to modern communication technologies (including modern transport) would he have remained relatively anonymous during his lifetime? With effective marketing and promotion contemporary artists are able to exhibit their work to huge audiences. The world moves at a faster pace today. The influence of original and innovative artists can be seen almost immediately. 

Great artists are recognised today - in their own lifetime. Or, at least the very lucky/well connected, very few do.


Personally, as an artist, photography is my favourite medium. I have no idea whether my photographic art is any good. I've been shortlisted for awards a couple of times, but never actually won anything. I exhibit occasionally and sell a small number of prints each year. It remains an expensive hobby rather than a profitable business.

I started this thread because I think without the 'art value' photography would stagnate. Digital technologies have resulted in an explosion of photographers publishing their work worldwide. There are millions of extremely high quality photographs on the web. However, they're all very similar in content and style. The innovators are few and far between. Despite the number of quality images found on the web the new photographic ideas remain in the art galleries and art magazines. 

I'd like to see more discussion about art in photography magazines and photography web forums. It is the only way photography can move forward.


Oh, and apologies for mouthing off at times in this thread. I do that occasionally. I'm an artist - us artists are well known for being stroppy gits at times.


----------



## Mike_E (Jul 5, 2007)

And I apologize for being a bit of a grouch as well.

I do think you should spend some time considering the question of original thought because it *is* very rare.  This is why you see so many of the same photos done by so many different people.  No mater how unique we are, our differences are very small in truth which leads us to being so very much alike.

There have always been popular artists -lifted high by their contemporaries- but they are judged on the same merits as politicians, not so much for their art but rather their marketing.

The real value of a work of art can only be ascertained by it's measure against every other piece ever presented.  The worth of an artist is measured the same and this takes time.  It takes time because there is much to consider and because the whole body of work must be considered in the case of the artist- which will not, presumably, be finished until their death.

It also takes time because people need time to change their minds.  Take rap/hiphop for instance, it's popular right now but when compared to music as a whole it's really, really boring!

So, if leaving a legacy is in your ultimate plan then take a longer view.  If self gratification is your aim then market yourself well!

luck to you

mike


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jul 5, 2007)

Mike_E said:


> ...
> 
> I do think you should spend some time considering the question of original thought because it *is* very rare....




Thanks for the sending of luck Mike. We all surely need it whatever path we choose. I gave up a financially rewarding career in design and marketing to go full time as an artist about Two and half years ago. I've been exhibiting photographs on a very small scale since I left college 20 years ago.

Original thought is something I've given plenty of time over the years. I think art inspires original thought. The art 'arena' is also the place that accepts original thought most readily. Science is an industry that encourages original thought of course, as do most industries, but more often than not original thought is dismissed as madness.

My own belief is that we are all capable of original thought just as we're all capable of being artists. It's simply a matter of forgetting what you've been conditioned to think. Without going down the nature/nurture debate to heavily, I think societal pressures drum all originality out of us. The safe option is to conform to normality. No room for crazy new ideas in the money driven world we all live in.

Original thought in our time is probably dismissed even more readily than great art that isn't recognised in our own time. Convention always rules.

I've chosen to chase a career as an artist. However, I'm finding peoples refusal to accept new ideas even more frustrating as an artist than I did in my commercial life. I can go out and complete a 30 minute sketch of The Alhambra and sell it very quickly to a passing tourist for &#8364;30. A &#8364;uro a minute is very good going in Spain, but it's not the art I want to be doing. Strangest thing is that the richer tourists who proclaim to be a lover of culture and art (the biggest spenders) always choose what, in my opinion, is my worst work! Generally, those who choose my best work are younger, less affluent travelers. The younger people are also the ones that appreciate my more unconventional photography. Perhaps, it's not so strange afterall - younger minds are less conditioned and more open to original concepts.

May take a trip down to the local library and look up some books on original thought to see what the Spanish take is on the subject. It will improve my Spanish if nothing else.

I find the internet and web forums specifically are great places to find inspiration for new ideas. It's an extremely useful tool. Thanks for the feedback.

John.


----------



## sabbath999 (Jul 5, 2007)

TheLostPhotographer said:


> Sure there are plenty of examples of great artists who weren't recognised until long after their death - Van Gogh is an obvious example.
> 
> The rest clipped



I am not arguing your point, you are completely correct on this...

I admit it, I am a Van Gogh fanboy, and I travel to see his works in person. I have, to date, seen dozens of them... and I have never, once, seen a photograph that compares in quality to what Vincent did. 

Perhaps it is just me, but I think that the medium of photography is not nearly as pure a channel into the soul as the brush is. 

I can't paint, not a lick. I can take pictures... so that is what I do. I cannot pretend that, in any way, my pictures are equivalent in artistic value to a painter who possesses my skill level in his own medium. They just are not.

IMHO.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 5, 2007)

TheLostPhotographer said:


> This is no longer true (if it ever was). Sure there are plenty of examples of great artists who weren't recognised until long after their death - Van Gogh is an obvious example. *However, there are just as many who were appreciated during their lifetime and were also financially successful.*



If you care to look at Art History you will find that there are a great many of these successful artists who were forgotten very quickly after their death. Financial success (or failure) is no indication of worth as an artist. Neither is popularity.
What establishes your position is your effect on Art - how influential your work is. And you can only see this in hindsight - so it is History that determines an Artist's _real_ worth. And it always will.


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 5, 2007)

For moi, one of the criterium for "art" is that it evokes emotion(s), whether it's music, paintings, sculpture, et al. But exceptional journalistic images also evokes emotions ... Flag Raising on Iwo Jima, Kent State, Tsunami victims, Olympic Champions, et cetera ... but those pictures are not art ... okay .. just talked myself into an understanding ... just because something creates emotions doesn't qualify it as an art piece ... one must set out and preconceive/create a piece which installs emotion ... not capture a scene which is charged with emotion in which the photog had no imput.

Gary


----------



## Mike_E (Jul 5, 2007)

Gary, I would tend to agree if you qualify that with "good".

The finger paintings of a child can convey emotion and even be the beginnings of a long and storied career.

Shock shots are of the same ilk as the dead puppy story in literature.  Yes they convey emotion but are generally juvenile.  (journalism is not included here as it is not -supposed to be- one of the creative arts)

Good art, to me at least, should convey complex emotions without the need of settings or explanations.  Really good art should stir within you an idea- again without the need for setting or explanation.  Great art should Illustrate a point of view which alters your thinking.

I believe that van Gogh is/was a Great Artist because he presented a point of view that allowed others to see things as they had never seen them and allowed his viewers to think in ways they had been unable to before that point.

Because of this I believe that photography can be used in Great Art in it's ability to freeze time and focus in on one bit of reality while ignoring all else.  Tough to do in one shot surely but with a series one 'might' use their photos as words from a dictionary.

$.02

mike


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 5, 2007)

I have yet been exposed to finger painting of children which stir an emotion ... but then I'm probably an bit more jaded than most.

"Great Art", (as you described), in one image is hard ... which is why it is great ... not everybody can create said art in one image.

As to using "photos as words from a dictionary", that is the concept behind photo journalism.  Reporters paint an image using words ... photogs tell a story using pictures.  One reason why most major market media orgainizations require a degree in communications/journalism for their photogs ... because for them it isn't about phortography ... it is about the ability to capture and tell the story.

Gary


----------



## Mike_E (Jul 5, 2007)

"I have yet been exposed to finger painting of children which stir an emotion ... but then I'm probably an bit more jaded than most."

LOL  Don't you have any kids?

"As to using "photos as words from a dictionary", that is the concept behind photo journalism.  Reporters paint an image using words ... photogs tell a story using pictures.  One reason why most major market media orgainizations require a degree in communications/journalism for their photogs ... because for them it isn't about phortography ... it is about the ability to capture and tell the story."


Also true except that Photo Journalists are supposed to only portray what is factual.  The artist may use what is factual, proverbial, contrived or completely cobbled together to convey ideas, ideals or points of view that may have no bearing what so ever to anything previously existent.

It's in the margins of 'Photographic License' that artistic communication is made and as the guy walking through the woods would have said, "And that has made all the difference.".

mike


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jul 6, 2007)

Apparently a few posts were deleted last night so, I'd just like to say; asterix, asterix, asterix, asterix, off.


Did that offend anyone?

What has the world come to?


----------



## PNA (Jul 6, 2007)

And the mods are not banning this guy.....????!!!!!


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jul 7, 2007)

Here's an interesting read for anyone interested in photography and art:

http://www.alexalienart.com/Bacon%20News%20Archive.htm

Francis Bacon and Henri Cartier-Bresson.


Found it on another forum where a poster asked the question 





> *Francis Bacon understood photography in a way better than Cartier-Bresson?*


My thoughts:

I don't think the comparison is judging either on their ability to photograph, it's stating that they were very different artists.

HCB was a prolific photo-journalist/documentary photographer. He was also a very clever marketeer.

Bacon was a genius portrait artist. His work is more about the individual rather than a study of humanity as a whole. He pushed the boundaries of art a came up with new ideas. Cartier-Bresson was very much working to an established format.

Two very different artists working in very different fields for very different clientele.


e2a; Can't see any reason for banning me. I'm no fan of the sterile world of censored web forums. Have you got anything worthwhile to add to this thread?


----------



## JC1220 (Jul 7, 2007)

"People who wouldn't think of taking a sieve to the well to draw water fail to see the folly in taking a camera to make a painting."


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jul 7, 2007)

JC1220 said:


> "People who wouldn't think of taking a sieve to the well to draw water fail to see the folly in taking a camera to make a painting."



But, it isn't about making a painting - it's about making photographic art.

I've seen plenty of photographs that are as equally charged with feelings as paintings. This again illustrates the problem. Some people refuse to give art photography any time or, any artistic merit simply because it's a photograph and 'anyone can take a photograph'. That is the folly.

The 'reality' of photography as an art medium is what makes it so appealing to myself, yet for others it seems to be the biggest put-off. The reality should make it art that is more accessible to the viewer. Far less challenging than an abstract painting possibly. I've viewed many photographs that take me on a long journey of contemplative thought for example. If a photograph can take me beyond the immediate image I'm prepared to give it more time and enjoy it.


----------



## JC1220 (Jul 7, 2007)

Edward Weston made that statement in 1943 with much the same issues and with "photography as art" being much younger than today. Today, it should be a non-issue whether photography is or is not art compared to other visual arts or on its own terms, the masters before us have made that statement in their work, and not recognizing that is the folly of today. Then, at the start that is, photographers had no tradition so they fell on the traditions of painters, which laid the ground work for the attitudes that persist today and delayed the recognition photography as art. If someone who is a true lover of art, or artist themselves fail to recognize photography as a visual art, they have failed themselves to grow as a person, which is what it all is truely about, not art, not a particular medium, the work that results from that growth and discovery is the bonus. 
"an artist, whose only agony is to grow." e.e.cummings

"Man is the actual medium of expression, not the tool he elects to use as a means."


----------



## nabero (Jul 7, 2007)

Seefutlung said:


> For moi, one of the criterium for "art" is that it evokes emotion(s), whether it's music, paintings, sculpture, et al. But exceptional journalistic images also evokes emotions ... Flag Raising on Iwo Jima, Kent State, Tsunami victims, Olympic Champions, et cetera ... but those pictures are not art ... okay .. just talked myself into an understanding ... just because something creates emotions doesn't qualify it as an art piece ... one must set out and preconceive/create a piece which installs emotion ... not capture a scene which is charged with emotion in which the photog had no imput.
> 
> Gary



Susan Sontag's _Regarding the Pain of Others_ enters into the quandary of art and/as documentary photography. 

I've got an anecdote involving Pablo Neruda on the tip of my tongue...about guilt felt in feeling the need to be creative in describing the Spanish Civil war...but I can't seem to remember the particulars.  (I know, this was enormously unhelpful...eh?) 

Cheers


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jul 7, 2007)

> "The visual arts are involved with feeling. If one has ideas to express the proper medium is language." the great art historian, Sir Herbert Read



I'm struggling with this. Why are ideas supposedly better expressed through language? What if you're not so eloquent in your language skills? Say, you're better at explaining your new idea through visuals.

That quote is total and utter crap to my way of thinking. Language has to be the oldest idea of all. Ug!


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jul 7, 2007)

nabero said:


> ...
> 
> I've got an anecdote involving Pablo Neruda on the tip of my tongue...about guilt felt in feeling the need to be creative in describing the Spanish Civil war...but I can't seem to remember the particulars.  (I know, this was enormously unhelpful...eh?)
> 
> Cheers



You're rubbish. Do the Googling for us before you post next time


----------



## WDodd (Jul 7, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> I'm of the opinion that you need a great eye and great technical ability to be a great photographer (that is, to have intentionality and a useful measure of control over your images). If you have neither, you will always be poor. If you have one or the other, then you may be particularly suited to specific types of photography. And if you have both, then the sky's the limit.
> 
> Who cares about art.



I actually agree with that. 

Photography is widely viewed as an art form, just like paintings, sculptures, drawings, and architecture. Not every building is going to be admired for its artistic side, but some are. Not every person is using photography as a means of artistic expression but some will and will succeed at it. 

Is a mom snapping pictures of the kids creating art in the process? Sure, why not? Photography is a form of art. It might not be something that people will want to buy or pay lots of money for or hang it on a wall. But she thought about what she wanted it to look like before she clicked that button.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 7, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> I'm of the opinion that you need a great eye and great technical ability to be a great photographer (that is, to have intentionality and a useful measure of control over your images). If you have neither, you will always be poor. If you have one or the other, then you may be particularly suited to specific types of photography. And if you have both, then the sky's the limit.



Not actually true.
I have known many photographers who were extremely good technically, had a good eye and were very creative but who never made it.
And I've known some were not very good and had no creativity you could mention but who made themselves very successful commercially.
Ability and creativity are not recognised by the majority because they do not know what it looks like.
What makes you successful is the ability to sell yourself and being a complete and utter b*stard. Believe me, I've seen it at first hand.

You can see the principle at work in Photography just as you can in any other Art form.
Ansel Adams and HCB are always mentioned as being 'great'. But there have been a great many other photographers who were better but nobody knows them. This is because AA and HCB were good at selling themselves and surrounded themselves with mystique.
AA always promoted himself as a technical wizard but, whilst he did take the technical aspects to extremes a lot of it was also b.s. It was part of the image he used to sell himself.
If you look at most of his pictures and ignore the technical aspect you find them to be pretty pedestrian mostly. There are one or two good ones - but a lot are nothing special. And some had already been done by earlier photographers.
HCB did the same, only he replaced technical ability with 'magic'. The mystery of 'The Decisive Moment' came about by a mis-translation of his first book title, but he siezed upon it and used it to his own ends. He was always vague about what it actually meant. And he never let anyone photograph him. His picture in _Dialogue With Photography_ is a drawing. What a poseur.
He did take some excellent shots but he also took an awful lot that were pedestrian. But you don't see those unless you go looking.
Now I'm not trying to put these guys down. I'm just pointing out that a lot of what makes them household names is to do with their ability to sell themselves.
And, of course, marketing departments turning their work into calendars.


----------



## Tangerini (Jul 8, 2007)

Does a photograph have to be technically perfect (technically superior, or even above average technically speaking), to be good or to be considered art?
How do you measure the level of 'technical greatness'?   Taking the digital medium just as an example surely there are vast changes in the technology and therefore the quality of the resulting photos?  Does that mean that the previous versions are no longer viewed as credible art?
If as some people claim, film is obsolete and dying, than do those old film prints hold a candle to the 'new wave' of photography?

(Not being of a very high caliber myself) Some of my favorite personal shots have been more accidental than ordinary.

Who's to say that some of the most famous photographs weren't themselves accidents?  Were if you one of those greats admit to the accident?  NO!

When did the ego merge with photography?  Surely when photography was first about photographers didn't cut each other down on technical flaws?  "That's wonderful Bob, but you could have used an extra bit of exposure"  I'm betting they were in awe of what they were doing.
"Look I made that tree over there appear on this paper!"



....as an aside, I'm sleepy and starting to ramble, don't mind me if I make no sense


----------



## Seefutlung (Jul 8, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> Not actually true.
> I have known many photographers who were extremely good technically, had a good eye and were very creative but who never made it.
> And I've known some were not very good and had no creativity you could mention but who made themselves very successful commercially.
> Ability and creativity are not recognised by the majority because they do not know what it looks like.
> ...




Disagree about Adams.  Adams was light years ahead of the competition.  Even by todays standards his stuff is good ... back in his days it was stellar. Eisenstaedt was completely blown away the first time he saw an Adams.

As for Cartier-Bresson I tend to agree.  His philosophy was superior to his images.  By todays standards most of HCB's stuff is less than pedestrian ... back in his day it was good.  HBC was all about Magnum, he was surrounded by talent, Capa, Rodgers, et al, so much of marketing himself was also marketing Magnum.  But any professional photo journalist who viewed the world only through a 50mm was not capitalizing on technology (lol) ... and seriously limiting their own images and creativity as well as hurting the agency.

Gary

PS- Like HCB, when in my youth ego was stronger than quiet dignity ... I also filed out my negative carrier. *sigh*
G


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 8, 2007)

Seefutlung said:


> Disagree about Adams.  Adams was light years ahead of the competition.  Even by todays standards his stuff is good ... back in his days it was stellar.



AA did indeed take some good pictures - but they are mostly not the ones that have been used to 'sell' him commercially.
And Adams only managed to do a lot of what he did because he was standing on the shoulders of people like Weston. I seem to remember that AA's Zone System was originally formulated by Weston - Adams just refined it.
If you look at the landscape work of Watkins, Muybridge and O'Sullivan you will see that they were taking pictures pretty much the same as the bulk of AA's work. In fact some of the shots are almost identical. The major difference, of course, is in the technical execution but a lot this is down to W, M and O working with wet plate collodion (60 or 70 years before Adams).
I'm not trying to put AA down - just put him into perspective. There is a whole thread devoted to this discussion in here somewhere.

'Light years ahead of the competition'? He was competing with Weston, Strand, Stieglitz and many other greats. On a par would be nearer the mark. And it is a tribute to AA's PR skills that he is remembered whereas they are largely forgotten.

As for Eisenstaedt's comments - never take praise or abuse from an established photographer seriously. There are many instances of great photographers praising their latest protege - who has turned out to be just not very good.
And the opposite holds true. In _Dialogue With Photography_ Imogen Cunningham takes time out to slag off Les Krims, and it didn't do him any harm


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jul 8, 2007)

Tangerini said:


> Does a photograph have to be technically perfect (technically superior, or even above average technically speaking), to be good or to be considered art?...



No. Not to my way of thinking. There are different measures of technical excellence. The effect aimed for by one artist may well be considered as a technical error by another.

My own preference is for photography to replicate reality as accurately as possibly - technically excellent to my own standard.


On the creative/technical skills front: technical ability is possibly the least important skill today. Digital technologies and modern cameras have made technical knowledge redundant to a large degree. I know I want the greatest depth of field possible so, I just put camera on AE, take a few spot readings to be sure and then focus purely on what's going on in the viewfinder.

Creative magic will never be replaced by computers. It is a skill that will become valued more greatly as time goes by. However, as Herzt the Van Man said; not everyone will recognise it. The Van Man also said Ansel Adams and Henri Cartier-Bresson were good business people. They were both great marketeers. Look at any successful artist or, photographer today and you will see a great marketeer or, a marketing machine behind them. Perhaps ability to sell is the most important skill in any walk of life.


----------



## jon_k (Jul 8, 2007)

sabbath999 said:


> OK, I am going to be way brief here since I am typing this on my Blackberry.



You know you're addicted to TPF when.....

Anyway... 

Photography can be artistic, or at least I view it that way. Never would I purchase somebody elses photograph / artpeice.

But, you're always welcome to present a photo to me. If I can look at it and say "This guy captured exactly what he wanted to capture, and presented it in a way that nobody else could." Some people have this feeling about Ansel Adams for instance. I'd say black and white photography borders closer to art. Perhaps it's my age speaking (I'm 22). B&W photography seems to have more impact and makes you focus on your subject vs the color noise.

My goal in photography is to get to that point, in which I can present a photograph and everyone can instantly relate and realize what I was portraying. Seems I've got a while to go yet! ;-)


----------



## JC1220 (Jul 8, 2007)

TheLostPhotographer said:


> I'm struggling with this. Why are ideas supposedly better expressed through language? What if you're not so eloquent in your language skills? Say, you're better at explaining your new idea through visuals.
> 
> That quote is total and utter crap to my way of thinking. Language has to be the oldest idea of all. Ug!


 
Visual arts, fine arts, are about feeling, about the artists interaction with his surroundings at the time of the making of that art, discovery, etc. And, that is what one is expressing through their art, that deep interaction, not an idea, you will fail to communicate your idea nearly 100% of the time. 

For example, the large majority of "artists" where I live are concerned about social issues, they almost always want to express a specific point, an idea, lets say, the homeless. They go out with this idea in mind of photographing the homeless, then have a show of the work, which is always accompanied by text to explain their work and direct the viewer to their idea. This is documentary photography, photojournalism perhaps, because they made these photographs based on an idea, not discovery, and it usually shows in the quality and lack of seeing. This is somewhat of a simplistic explaination as there are several camps in conceptual art in postmodernism.

Photographing is always by feel and intuition and is never based on ideas, although it is informed by intelligence. Expressing ideas should come after the fact.

I think Mr. Read had it right, perhaps you don't, we all work differently. 

_________

As for technical being import, it is highly important and should be learned to where those technical abilities are so refined they become a non-issue. Not saying it has to be 100% perfect technically, there are almost always very small issues, a spec of dust not spotted, etc. BUT, you must understand your medium, whether it be oil paint, film, or digital. Fail to be technically proficient and you will fail to communicate your vision. 

If you have the chance to specifically view AA's work prior to around the mid 40's, they are almost always contact prints and his work is stunning, filled with emotion. After he was caught up in his overly technical world, and enlarging, I feel his work waned in the prior emotion. He use to spend hours in the darkroom trying to get a single print to come out as he wanted. To me, this shows a disconnect in his knowledge of his materials and technical ability.

I believe it was Frederick Scott Archer who is little credited with being the real father of the Zone System.


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jul 8, 2007)

JC1220 said:


> ...
> 
> Photographing is always by feel and intuition and is never based on ideas, although it is informed by intelligence. Expressing ideas should come after the fact.
> 
> ...




Think I understand the point you're making a little more clearly now. I agree to a certain extent. If I take my cameras out on a theme shoot the ideas certainly come after the feeling.

Last night I took Three old Olympus Trip 35's out to a games club for a little discrete social documentation which is actually research for a project I will be shooting on LF B&W film at a later date. The ideas for the final shoot will evolve from many visits with small cameras. I will learn about the technical aspects of the environment. I will get to know the many characters a little better. Find out more about the gaming culture, etc. All the time I will be building my ideas about how the LF shoot will work and how best I can convey my emotions and the emotions of the people there.

I am also currently working on a project that creates 3D light sculptures floating mid air just after dusk. I have a very clear idea of what I want to create and where and when I want to create it. Quite literally painting with light into the camera. The lights I use and how I use them will hopefully convey the feelings and emotions I want them to convey in harmony with the natural and man made landscape. It's an idea I've been working on for Three or, Four months now and I have a very clear goal I'm aiming for.

Ideas can initiate the artistic process. They don't necessarily come second to the feeling and emotions.

e2a; Here's where the idea for the light sculptures came from. This is also another example of an idea initiating an artistic process.

Long Distance Portraits:
http://www.totalism.co.uk/LDP/index.htm


----------



## skieur (Jul 23, 2007)

Iron Flatline said:


> ?


 
In other words, one of my favourite artistic photographers is my mother who started into colour photography with Kodachrome 2 and twin lens reflex cameras in the 50's, I believe. if I remember correctly. Her work was published and she competed against some well known Canadian photographers in professional salon competitions and won them. Even at 79, she was out on top of a train in the Yukon, still doing scenic work.
She is the one who got me into photography at a very early age.

skieur


----------



## abraxas (Aug 10, 2007)

Iron Flatline said:


> I have pretension of art, in the sense that I work up pieces specifically to be printed large and hung in my house.
> 
> I own two "major" pieces by other artists, one by Ruud van Empel, and one by Simen Johan. I say major because each cost me over $10,000.
> 
> However, I purchased both specifically because their process goes beyond photography, in the sense that their work is of a composite nature. I am only buying work that focuses on a process that I could not emulate.



Thanks for the link to Johan!


----------



## skieur (Aug 10, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> Is that also true of a blind dingbat


 
Yes, and it fits most of the comments in this heading. :thumbdown: I am inclined to agree with Max. 

skieur


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Aug 12, 2007)

To me art is representing something deep within you in a form others can see. Art isn't technicalities, art isn't techniques, art is raw human emotion characterized in a piece. Anything that was born in human emotion is art. And if photography is someone's way of channeling emotion, than that photography is art.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Aug 12, 2007)

Trenton Romulox said:


> To me art is representing something deep within you in a form others can see. Art isn't technicalities, art isn't techniques, art is raw human emotion characterized in a piece.* Anything that was born in human emotion is art.* And if photography is someone's way of channeling emotion, than that photography is art.



That would make Dachau and Belsen 'art' because they were born of the human emotions of hate and fear. And a lot of people suffered for them.
You could make an argument supporting this - as in De Quincey's _On Murder Considered As One Of The Fine Arts_ - but I'm sure this interpretation is not what was intended.

The 'normal' definition of Art is that it interprets and communicates.
That is to say an artist interprets what he sees and then communicates his vision to the viewer.
Looking at 'art' through this filter it can be seen that technical ability counts for a great deal. Mastery of your medium means you can communicate effectively and the viewer has a richer experience - and also feels confident that the work he is looking at has not come about by accident.
It also means that a lack of technical ability indicates someone who is not a very good artist (but it does not mean that he is not an artist of sorts).
Technical mastery does not mean, however, that you have to use it. Part of mastery is knowing when you don't need to use it.
I see nothing wrong with recognising degrees of ability. To describe everyone who produces anything as an 'artist' and everything produced as 'art' is to devalue the whole concept - and is also insulting and arrogant.
Calling someone an 'artist' with no differentiation is putting them on the same level as Raphael, Duchamp, Turner, Michaelangelo and all the rest. And if the person so called had little ability then this would be the same as saying that skill and ability count for nothing (or the person making the claim had no discrimination). Or that artists have no need to learn or practice: that every piece that they produce is equally as good as every other. And it also says that _everyone else's_ work is equally as good.
This is quite obviously nonsense.
What is wrong with being an 'art student', 'aspiring artist', 'struggling artist', 'starving artist', 'artist', 'great artist' or even (as in my case) 'failed artist'?
People generally have more respect for you if you put the ego on the back burner and are honest.
And most people can figure out which one you are anyway.

But TR's 'definition' also has repercussions for Photography. 
"Art isn't technicalities, art isn't techniques, art is raw human emotion".
Where does that leave a digital photo that has been filtered through various bits of technology and software?
A digital image could be described as being nothing _but_ technically produced. And even traditional film has a fair bit in there.
So Photography cannot be art.
This was always the argument. Photography was seen (as TLP still likes to see it) as replicating reality as accurately as possible. That's partly why it was know as 'The Magic Mirror' at the time of Daguerre (that and the fact the Daguerreotype turned everything into a mirror image). And Fox Talbot called it 'the pencil of Nature'.
This accuracy of reproduction appears to be inbuilt at first sight.
But wait!
Reality is based in at least four Dimensions and a photograph (excluding the thickness of the paper) only has two. Depth and time have been squeezed out.
So a photograph can never be more than only partly accurate.
And then we can distort with lenses, camera movements, long exposures...
The more you actually examine the process the less accuracy you find it is capable of.
So if Photography is not capable of _accurately_ reproducing Nature what can it do?
Well, if we can use the various tricks and techniques Photography allows us to we can distort reality. And if we have control over these techniques then we we can play with the image. Or, to put it another way, interpret what we see and present our view.
As in my (though I did not invent it) definition.
Photography isn't art by default - but it certainly has the potential to be used to produce art.
And similarly, photographers aren't artists by default but Photography has the potential to produce them.

Words define things, and definitions limit them so you have to be very careful when choosing your words 

I have no doubts that, had the technology been around in his day, Leonardo would have _photographed_ the Mona Lisa and a C-type print would now be hanging in the Louvre :lmao:


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Aug 12, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> ...
> This was always the argument. Photography was seen (as TLP still likes to see it) as replicating reality as accurately as possible...



Great post with plenty to think about. I may well find time later to come back to the many issues you raise. In the meantime I'll try and clarify my own view on the 'real' quality of photography as an art medium.


It remains the most accurate reproduction of reality for myself. Even lacking the time dimension it still appears to represent nature more accurately than moving film. A good quality LF print at 5' x 4' is the most convincing representation of nature I've ever experienced. The scale and resolution play a big part, but the composition and skill of the photographer are still the ultimate factor.

Also, on a personal level the continuous relationship between artist and light is important. I lose this joy when I use digital. As soon as the image has sunk to a set of numbers the flow breaks down. In this respect digital photography is a very different medium to traditional film photography.

I appreciate that we all view the world from a very singular view point and that the reality represented is only a single opinion of the reality. However, the beauty of a good photograph for myself is that the subject is undeniably something that existed in a real moment in time in a real place.

I'll stop there before going down the 'everything can be digitised' or, digi v film debate. It doesn't interest me as an artist and this thread is about art. It does interest me on a scientific theory level.

And, after saying all of the above, I am currently working on a very abstract use of photography as art. Something I feel I need to do just to understand why the reality is so important to me.


Nice to see so many people giving this thread some considered thought. Not very often you find that on the web. I may well be back this evening (local Spanish time) after a glass of Rioja or, Two.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Aug 12, 2007)

TheLostPhotographer said:


> It remains the most accurate reproduction of reality for myself. Even lacking the time dimension it still appears to represent nature more accurately than moving film. A good quality LF print at 5' x 4' is the most convincing representation of nature I've ever experienced.



It _appears_ to replicate Nature accurately, but a lot of this is merely illusiory.
There appears to be a degree of congruence but for starters (and as I have stated) reality as we experience it has three dimensions (forgetting time for the moment) whereas a photo has only two. This alone should be sufficient to show that there are differences in the way we aprehend reality and the way a photo represents it.
We accept a photograph as representing three dimensions because the illusion is so convincing. In fact the illusion is, in some respects, _better_ than reality. The photograph could be seen as _hyper_-reality.
Reality as we experience it is in a state of constant flux. Things change from one moment to the next. Nothing remains the same for very long.
Photography allows us to 'freeze' reality and examine just one sliver at our leisure.
It is this capturing of the transient that gives Photography most of it's power, and all of it's magic.
Portraits can 'reveal' the inner nature of the sitter - but this is because a fleeting expression is caught: a smile changing to a frown, perhaps. Something we do not usually observe as we monitor the flow of things rather than the individual moment.
A photograph re-presents reality in a novel way.

But can we trust what we see? How accurate is our experience of reality?
It's hard to say, except that it is not as accurate as we believe.
For example, colours do not exist outside our heads.
We 'reconstruct' reality inside our minds from the sensory information we receive. What we aprehend as 'colour' is just the way our brains handle the information coming in.
I'll give you an example of something that we see differently under different circumstances.
Look at the following image.
See the grey circle in the middle?
Now close one eye and stare at the black dot with the other from about 12 - 18 inches from the screen.
What happens to the grey circle? And how does it make you feel?





I can explain what is going on and why it happens but here is not the place.
But if you can't trust your eyes, how can you trust a photograph? :mrgreen:


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Aug 12, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> ...
> I can explain what is going on and why it happens but here is not the place.
> But if you can't trust your eyes, how can you trust a photograph? :mrgreen:




Not entirely the wrong place. Optical illusions and other tricks to fool visual perception have been used by artists for centuries. The first uses of perspective are just illusions really.

I studied a little visual perception theory as part of a degree in multimedia. Fascinating stuff and understanding how we perceive reality is good knowledge for creating 'hyper real' photography.

We all know photographs aren't real, but I will still argue that photography recreates a perceived reality in a way that is more convincing than any other current medium. 

Going back to Thomas Struth, looking at many of his photographs I can apply laws of gestalt. I strongly suspect that they are taught at the Dusseldorf School of Art he (and many other notable German fine art photographers) studied under Bernd and Hilla Becher.

Lines of good continuation being and obvious example. If you study visual perception theories and apply them in practice they do actually help to create photographs that are less challenging to the viewer and thus more 'real'. I'm not sure if I apply these theories subconsciously or, if it's just a natural instinct within anyone who knows how to compose, frame and edit a good photograph. I don't think about them whilst taking a photograph, but analysing at a later date reveals that the theories stand true.

They help me understand why a photograph has an immediate impact and why the viewer is drawn deeper. They don't explain all the personal emotion and stuff I don't really understand myself.


Colours. Yep - they don't actually exist. However, on the whole we all perceive them as the same and share common emotional responses. I think we have to accept human visual perception as THE reality even if there is actually no such thing. Afterall, film and sensor manufacturers strive to recreate what we perceive.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Aug 12, 2007)

TheLostPhotographer said:


> Afterall, film and sensor manufacturers strive to recreate what we perceive.



Not so. Film and sensor manufacturers strive to produce a product that conforms to what the theory tells them it should do using instrumentality to measure what it is doing. That this results in producing something that mirrors what we see is thanks to the Laws of Physics.

As I have said, we accept a photograph as being an accurate representation of reality because the illusion conforms so well to what we expect.
It comes down to the imaging system of our eye and the imaging system of the camera work through the same laws of optics.

The vanishing circle is not an optical illusion. It is merely demonstrating how the eye works.
The light receptors in our eyes react when they identify a transition - dark to light/light to dark. Once triggered they have to reset. The eye is constantly moving (though we are not normally aware of it) so different cells get triggered whilst others are resetting.
What this means is we see things by detecting edges - an edge being a transition from light to dark or vice versa.
With the grey circle there is no edge. It merely fades out.
When we look at the black dot we fix our eye. At first we see the grey circle. But because it does not have a definite edge as our triggered cells reset there is no transition to trigger them again. The grey circle fades as our mind stops receiving information about it - it decides that the best fit for the situation is that the background to the black dot is just all one tone.
Move your eye and the information changes and your mind decides that it is there again. It presents us with a modified model of reality to match the new information.
Most people feel a little uneasy as it fades out. This is because part of your mind knows that it is there whilst the part that deals with visual information is telling you it isn't. Something that our brains usually hides from our conscious self is suddenly brought to our attention.
We trust our senses so much that it can cause us problems when they prove to be faulty.


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Aug 12, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> ...
> 
> The vanishing circle is not an optical illusion. It is merely demonstrating how the eye works....
> 
> ...




So, is it or, isn't it an optical illusion?


I'm off out to eat now, but will come back to explain why your point about film and sensor manufacturers is wrong. Then we'll get back to the essence of photography as art. Possibly?


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Aug 12, 2007)

TheLostPhotographer said:


> So, is it or, isn't it an optical illusion?



No, it isn't an optical illusion. As I have just explained it is a demonstration of a failing in the way the eye works.
Another one:
Cover your left eye. Look at the dot with your right eye. Starting about 18 inches from the screen move slowly forwards until the + disappears.
You have just found the _fovea centralis_ or 'blind spot'. The point in the retina where the optic nerve leaves the eye. We are not usually aware of it because our brains filter it out - even though it is quite a large area.






As for proving my statement wrong - you will see that I am right in what I say if you think carefully about it. Especially if you know anything about manufacturing


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Aug 12, 2007)

So, what exactly is it if it isn't an optical illusion?

From Encyclopedia.com:



> An *optical illusion* is always characterized by visually perceived images that, at least in common sense terms, are deceptive or misleading. Therefore, the information gathered by the eye is processed by the brain to give, on the face of it, a percept that does not tally with a physical measurement of the stimulus source. A conventional assumption is that there are physiological illusions that occur naturally and cognitive illusions that can be demonstrated by specific visual tricks that say something more basic about how human perceptual systems work.


It's an illusion. It's optical. It's an optical illusion.

Understanding why they work and the theories behind them is useful, but they're still optical illusions.

There are physiological illusions as opposed to cognitive illusions, but both are illusions and both are optical.


As for film/sensor manufacturers striving to emulate human visual perception; they do. The first (and most modern) digital receptors were/are based on physical theory. The range of frequency perceived by human vision often off-set against economics or, scientific restraints.

However, many people have argued that digitally produced photographs lack something. They're not quite as 'real' as film. The latest digital sensors being developed are using panchromatic monochrome sensors to add that 'something' that makes them capture light frequencies more like natural human perception.

Can't find a link ATM. I'll go and Google and come back to it.

One of my favourite films is Kodak VC160. VC as in Vivid Colour. If I took it to a lab for processing the vivid colours would be nothing like 'reality'. I use it for reasons other than what it was designed for. So, I guess in the case of some films you're right - they try and do stuff we can do so easily in digital post production now.


I guess the art bit in this thread has died?


----------

