# Art or........



## mishele (Jun 22, 2010)

Art or blurry flowers?!  You be the judge. (Disclaimer...I know art is in the eye of the beholder...........I like this type of photography but would like to hear what other people think.) 
#1





#2




#3




#4


----------



## nchips1 (Jun 22, 2010)

Oh god, bokeh. Yeah. I like 'em.


----------



## rickabobaloey (Jun 22, 2010)

I like them! I'd say it's art, as it was obviously the intention to make the photos blurry. It's not like you were trying to take a clear/crisp photo and they came out blurry. 

#2 and #4 are my favorites!


----------



## nchips1 (Jun 22, 2010)

erose86 said:


> nchips1... I dunno where you came from (seems like out of no where to me), but every comment I've seen from you has made me laugh.  I like you.  You entertain me.  :lmao:


:greenpbl:


----------



## katy625 (Jun 22, 2010)

I love them. Especially the last pic


----------



## KmH (Jun 22, 2010)

They are abstracts.


----------



## myfotoguy (Jun 22, 2010)

I like them. Especially #2 and 3. 

For me at least, the other two what was in focus was too close to the edge, so I found my eye drifting up into the blur and bouncing back to the focal point and back up to the blur again. But, I recognize that's beacause I was viewing them like I would a "standard" image. 

Anyway, I like them! I'm probabbly just being critical about how my eyes moved in the frame.


----------



## AlexL (Jun 22, 2010)

all of the above? Blurry flower art


----------



## dak1b (Jun 22, 2010)

blur is def an art form in photography. from what I see your on the right track. they look coool


----------



## Stormchase (Jun 22, 2010)

4 is awsome. and yeah nice bokeh!


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 22, 2010)

I like 'em!


----------



## mishele (Jun 22, 2010)

Thanks guys.............I've really started to love this type of photography. So when I look at it, it's sometimes hard to be objective. 

I have one more Q........how are the colors? Should I keep the colors more dreamy like in 1&2 or should I try to stay to the more bold or natural colors?


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jun 22, 2010)

Sorry mishele but if you have to ask, you don't know what you're doing and you don't know where you going with your work.

Art is anything you thing of as such. You are the artist and you tell us it is art. Period.

I love those photos. Just like I like a lot of your work. You really need someone to give you a good kick in the rear end to make you realize how interesting you are.

You and Bitter should start a club.

I have to say that this club already exist. I was part of it once too. But I did give it up, took my work around to galleries, got a solo show at the second one I visited although my work had been called trash by a renowned photog a few weeks earlier. 

Get your ego u in gear girl. And go get them.


----------



## mishele (Jun 22, 2010)

I love you cloud.......lol I've been waiting for you all day!! I'm starting to get a portfolio together and it's my first one, so it's nice to have a little feed back.  I have a meeting w/ a gallery next month.  I'm excited and nervous. I might have to PM you to pick your brain.....=) 

And what club are you talking about!! 

And thanks for the kick in the ass lol I think thats why I was waiting for you!!! I need it......and I may even like it....:hug::

Thanks!!


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jun 22, 2010)

The club of "I need a kick in the rear-end to decide I'm good, pretty good or somewhere in between."

And anywhere in between is pretty darn good for a start in the art world. Not everyone is going to fall in love with your work, so what? Some people are going to find it to be trash (that's what I was told once) and some people are going to love it. Don't fall for either.

They'll drop you like an old shoe as soon as something else comes along that they think can sell better until you establish yourself. And even then, nothing is ever sure.

The art world is a *****. Deal with it. But don't ever take it personally. It is not worth it.


----------



## mishele (Jun 22, 2010)

Bitter how do you like the "kicked in the ass club"?  :lmao:


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 22, 2010)

I dunno, mishele.

I see my own work differently than everyone else. There's also that high expectation of perfection I deal with daily from my trade in jewelery. That effects my perception of my own work.

I feel my work is all over the place right now. 

I've always loved your images mishele, good luck getting yourself out there!


----------



## dak1b (Jun 22, 2010)

mishele said:


> Thanks guys.............I've really started to love this type of photography. So when I look at it, it's sometimes hard to be objective.
> 
> I have one more Q........how are the colors? Should I keep the colors more dreamy like in 1&2 or should I try to stay to the more bold or natural colors?



i like the bolder colors personally....but the dreamy ones r very cool too. hard to decision, but I would go with bold just because the color really stand out.


----------



## mishele (Jun 22, 2010)

Bitter do you have a site for your jewelry? I would love to see it!! 
And thanks!! It's always nice to hear that someone gets what you are doing!!


----------



## burstintoflame81 (Jun 22, 2010)

I think #1 works the best. It still instantly jumps out as a flower, but has that sort of ethereal look to it.


----------



## white (Jun 22, 2010)

Some of the best pictures of flowers I've seen in awhile.


----------



## Raizels (Jun 23, 2010)

I think as a set they're incredible, but on their own #3 is less Interesting than the others.
As for the colors, I like them dreamy, but it's always good to experiment - and post!

Good luck with the gallery - I hope you'll succeed!! :flower:


----------



## mishele (Jun 23, 2010)

Thanks guys!!! I keep you updated on how things go! :hug::


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jun 23, 2010)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> I see my own work differently than everyone else. There's also that high expectation of perfection I deal with daily from my trade in jewelery. That effects my perception of my own work.
> 
> I feel my work is all over the place right now.



I believe we all see our own work differently than everyone else. When I had my first shows, since nobody knew who I was, I listened in on people talking about my work. It was quite fun to hear what people found in my work that I had never seen myself or never even thought about.

And that, in a way, is part of the reason I push people to show. You'd get reactions there that would be very different from on a photo forum. Yes, there may be photogs there too but you would have people who just don't care about the technical side of it.

It is quite normal for your work to be all over the place. A young photog (young to photography, not in age) is looking not only for a style but also for their zone of interest.

But don't obsess too much on the technical side. In the art world, technique is overvalued imho. The feelings I get from a work is much more important to me than the technical perfection. Now, I always draw some fire when I say that, but I don't like Ansel Adams much. He may be incredible technically but his photos kind of bore me.

That said, I understand how your jewelry work affects your photography. We are all affected in our art work by whatever else is going on in our lives.

Last but not least, no one needs to start with a solo show. There are usually more group shows than solo shows around and they are a great way to get started since one deals with fewer pieces. And it's a nice way to meet other artists too.

Cheers.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jun 23, 2010)

mishele said:


> I have one more Q........how are the colors? Should I keep the colors more dreamy like in 1&2 or should I try to stay to the more bold or natural colors?



I like both. Nothing says everything has to be in the same exact style.

I get a different feeling from each style but there is nothing wrong with that.


----------



## vtf (Jun 23, 2010)

I believe you should tailor the coloring to the type of colors, if they're already bold then keep bold, if pale keep pale. Just my opinion, very nice shots.


----------



## mishele (Jun 23, 2010)

Cloud I'll be in touch and thanks for the help!! 

One for the road......


----------



## ashbeephoto (Jun 23, 2010)

I thought I'd be saying "blurry flowers" but these are gorgeous ... art


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 23, 2010)

These are very nicely done, but no photograph can be a 'work of art' in the technical sense of 'art'. It is thus fundamentally different from painting and sculpture.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jun 23, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> These are very nicely done, but no photograph can be a 'work of art' in the technical sense of 'art'. It is thus fundamentally different from painting and sculpture.



Can you enlighten us with your supreme knowledge? What is the technical sense of art?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 23, 2010)




----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 23, 2010)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > These are very nicely done, but no photograph can be a 'work of art' in the technical sense of 'art'. It is thus fundamentally different from painting and sculpture.
> ...




A lot of people equate photography and painting, using the term 'art' to refer to them both. There is even a group who practice what they erroneously call "fine-art photography". This usage is incorrect and fundamentally so.

Technically speaking, precisely speaking, the 'fine arts' include painting (watercolor, oil), sculpture (glass-blowing) and architecture (a building is a big sculpture in a way) etc.

These all involve manual manipulation of something, some material that we shape or form or apply, and which is distinct from the 'subject'. A photograph is always _a photograph 'of' something else._..to which it is _causally _related. A painting or sculpture or building is not 'of' something else...nor does a painting stand in a causal relationship to something else...which must already exist. A photograph is 'non-fiction'. All 'art' is 'fiction'. 

The arts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## mishele (Jun 23, 2010)

Doesn't the flower become fiction as soon as I choose the DOF? It is not longer what you see in real life. It is as I want you to see it. (BTW.......I don't want you to think I'm taking your statement personally........just having a fun debate)


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 23, 2010)

mishele said:


> Doesn't the flower become fiction as soon as I choose the DOF? It is not longer what you see in real life. It is as I want you to see it. (BTW.......I don't want you to think I'm taking your statement personally........just having a fun debate)



No, it doesn't. It's just applying the laws of physics.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 23, 2010)

mishele said:


> Doesn't the flower become fiction as soon as I choose the DOF? It is not longer what you see in real life. It is as I want you to see it. (BTW.......I don't want you to think I'm taking your statement personally........just having a fun debate)




Uh-oh...Mishele, you've just applied a bit of logic to shoot a hole in a bogus,pretentious argument...look out...


----------



## mishele (Jun 23, 2010)

Arch.........nothing to see here.......lol


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jun 23, 2010)

Derrel said:


> mishele said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't the flower become fiction as soon as I choose the DOF? It is not longer what you see in real life. It is as I want you to see it. (BTW.......I don't want you to think I'm taking your statement personally........just having a fun debate)
> ...



LOL


Who is this troll?

"A photograph is always a photograph 'of' something else..." Funny, that is how I see most painting until abstract came along.


----------



## Arch (Jun 23, 2010)

mishele said:


> Arch.........nothing to see here.......lol



Hmm... maybe, maybe.
i was going to redirect ppl to the other 'is photography art' thread, but ok we will let this roll... guys, just try not to start that debate off again, please?


----------



## mishele (Jun 23, 2010)

Arch you posted in my thread w/ out commenting on my work......how rude...


----------



## Overread (Jun 23, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...



So your main argument is that art cannot be art unless you are manipulating something that is physical into something new? If that is your argument what of digital artists (those who work with painting programs in computers) is that then not art akin to the artist with the paintbrush?



Petraio Prime said:


> mishele said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't the flower become fiction as soon as I choose the DOF? It is not longer what you see in real life. It is as I want you to see it. (BTW.......I don't want you to think I'm taking your statement personally........just having a fun debate)
> ...



how are the other kinds of art also not just applying the laws of physics to the materials they work with?


----------



## supraman215 (Jun 23, 2010)

erose86 said:


> They look like paintings... I dig :sillysmi:
> 
> nchips1... I dunno where you came from (seems like out of no where to me), but every comment I've seen from you has made me laugh.  I like you.  You entertain me.  :lmao:



Lotta love on this thread.


----------



## Rudha (Jun 23, 2010)

In my humble opinion all definition need to be updated from time to time....makes appreciate life better (no i did not smoke anything )

EDIT: Loved your work especially #1 it's the colors for me


----------



## supraman215 (Jun 23, 2010)

No sarcasm! I was being serious! I wasn't paying attention to my punctuation. 

You need to shed that NE PA cynicism. :greenpbl:

J/K


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 23, 2010)

Overread said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > c.cloudwalker said:
> ...



Yes, digital painting is 'art'. Photographs are not.


----------



## ifi (Jun 23, 2010)

+1 for Art :thumbsup:


----------



## Overread (Jun 23, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Yes, digital painting is 'art'. Photographs are not.



Even though photography is (by definition even) painting with light? The manipulation of light as it is cast upon a photographic medium (film, slide, plate, sensor). The use of light and physics to create something  whilst working within the medium that is light? 

Surely you are not saying that each and every photograph taken is a perfect rendition of the scene before the photographer as seen by their own eyes?


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 23, 2010)

erose86 said:


> supraman215 said:
> 
> 
> > No sarcasm! I was being serious! I wasn't paying attention to my punctuation.
> ...



I always have felt that Pennsylvania is the Leica (35mm) state, in its proportions. Ohio is almost square, the Hasselblad state.


----------



## supraman215 (Jun 23, 2010)

erose86 said:


> Hey, buddy, you watch your mouth!  I'm originally from Central PA! :greenpbl:


HA



erose86 said:


> Philly, huh?



Tiny town, Doylestown


----------



## mishele (Jun 23, 2010)

Reading, Pa. here!!!! Well kinda......


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 23, 2010)

Overread said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, digital painting is 'art'. Photographs are not.
> ...




The derivation of the word photograph is 'writing with light'. Now if you were to take a piece of film and, by hand, spray it with a light source (led or something)  _that _would be art. But if a lens is involved, no, it's not. The lens forms an 'image'. Art does not have 'images' but 'representations'. The relationship is not _causal _in art. In photography it is.

Ever see those reproductions of David or of the Mona Lisa? Those are _not _works of art. They are mechanically reproduced copies. Same with photographs. They are copies of reality, non-fiction. Art is original, fiction....


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 23, 2010)

This old nugget.

WTF cares, really?

REALLY?


----------



## supraman215 (Jun 23, 2010)

mishele said:


> Reading, Pa. here!!!! Well kinda......



I didn't realize the OP was from the area too. Now I don't feel so bad taking the tread so far OT. I was worried we were gonna get yelled at. 

So I'm the only one living near civilization? :lmao:


----------



## mishele (Jun 23, 2010)

We will meet in  Doylestown..........=)


----------



## rickabobaloey (Jun 23, 2010)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> This old nugget.
> 
> WTF cares, really?
> 
> REALLY?


 
:thumbup:


----------



## Overread (Jun 23, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...



So you accept that a photograph of say, lightpainting (that of using a torch, LED to draw images using a long exposure) is a form of art? And that in the same branch of photography is similar things like blurry waterfalls and the rest? 

But you don't accept it as art if there is a lens involved? Why? All it does is focus the light upon the capturing medium. Or are painters who wear glasses or paintings behind glass made lesser now?

Also what about pinhole photography? No glass there!


----------



## Overread (Jun 23, 2010)

erose86 said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > This old nugget.
> ...



he never shares his popcorn


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 23, 2010)

Overread said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Overread said:
> ...



No, what I meant was taking an LED or light source such as a flashlight and shining it _directly on the film itself. _A pinhole is like a lens. It forms an image. Art does not and _cannot _contain 'images'.


----------



## Overread (Jun 23, 2010)

How does it form an image? All it does is focus light upon a certain point. It forms a photo when it interacts with this medium in photography whereupon the reflected view is captured in the photo.

However the artist can manipulate both the reflecting setup (the lens assembly); the medium that records the light; the subject itself; the light that lands upon the subject to be reflected onto the medium (or even the light that shines directly into the setup). 

You just seem to view all forms of photography as records of real world events whilst dismissing any artistic creativity that the photographer has - both compositionally and technically.


----------



## mishele (Jun 23, 2010)

If you guys are going to keep going on this art thing I'm going to keep posting pictures.....lol


----------



## Overread (Jun 23, 2010)

please do  You're giving me ideas for when I next drag the camera out and find some flowers! 
Great photos mishele


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 23, 2010)

Overread said:


> How does it form an image? All it does is focus light upon a certain point. It forms a photo when it interacts with this medium in photography whereupon the reflected view is captured in the photo.
> 
> However the artist can manipulate both the reflecting setup (the lens assembly); the medium that records the light; the subject itself; the light that lands upon the subject to be reflected onto the medium (or even the light that shines directly into the setup).
> 
> You just seem to view all forms of photography as records of real world events whilst dismissing any artistic creativity that the photographer has - both compositionally and technically.



We lack the vocabulary for photography or never bothered to create one for it. We tend to borrow terms from painting. Photography cannot be 'creative' in the same sense we use that of painting. A photographer cannot be properly called an 'artist', _*even though many photographs are far more impressive than many paintings. *_

The issue is this: is there a *causal *relationship between the 'subject' and the 'product'? If there is, it's *not *art (e.g., a fossil may look like a work of art, but since it's _causally _related to something it cannot be 'art'). In art, the relationship is _intentional_, not causal. A painter could set up his easel before the Queen and paint...a dog.

A photograph is always 'of' something else: something that already exists.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 23, 2010)

mishele said:


> If you guys are going to keep going on this art thing I'm going to keep posting pictures.....lol



 I like them. Very nice!


----------



## Overread (Jun 23, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> A painter could set up his easel before the Queen and paint...a dog.



So what you're saying is that any limitation upon creativity nullifies the artist from being an artist and thus also negates the works that they create from being art?


----------



## supraman215 (Jun 23, 2010)

http://www.leemuslin.com/Dtakingroot2.htmlhttp://www.leemuslin.com/Dtakingroot2.html

Just because this was created from a photograph makes it not art?


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 23, 2010)

Overread said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > A painter could set up his easel before the Queen and paint...a dog.
> ...



I have no idea what you mean. My point was merely that one could not photograph the Queen and the photo be a dog. It's impossible. There is a _causal connection_ (captured photons) in photography that does not exist in painting or art. Photographs are derivative of reality, of things that already exist. Art is not derivative.


----------



## matie1138 (Jun 23, 2010)

if you modified them to be blurry for a purpose because you want to play with the colors, then I consider it to be art


----------



## Overread (Jun 23, 2010)

So that casual connection between the real and the artistic makes it impossible for it to be art? Does that mean you only accept art if its totally from within the photographers mind with no input what so ever from outside sources that form physical connections within the mind of the artist at the time?


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 23, 2010)

supraman215 said:


> Untitled Document
> 
> Just because this was created from a photograph makes it not art?



Is it a painting? if so, then it's a work of art.


----------



## Overread (Jun 23, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> supraman215 said:
> 
> 
> > Untitled Document
> ...



even if its entirety is derived from a photograph - to put it in your terms - for the art (painting) to be completely connected to the photograph which is in turn connected to the subject


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 23, 2010)

Overread said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > supraman215 said:
> ...



It _isn't _connected, not at all. The artist _chose _to give the painting the likeness of the famous Uelsman photo. Photographs have no choice. Cameras in the same physical place with the same settings would produce identical photographs.

Do you understand that a photograph is _of _something else, and that a painting is not _of _something else?


----------



## Derrel (Jun 23, 2010)

Petraio, your concept that any painting is a work of art fails to account for kitsch. Please explain to us oh great art expert, how a junky, hokey kitsch painting, such as the flowers by a window paintings sold at airports and convention centers are "art". By the definitions you have given us over the last couple of weeks, even these hokey, gaudy, God-awful paintings are "fine art". They meet all the criteria you have ascribed to fine art paintings, and yet they are garbage paintings, designed to be sold to homemakers, college students, old ladies, and low-rent interior decorators, home builders, and hotel managers--as wall "art". They are as the commercials scream, "genuine hand-painted oil paintings, at insanely low,low prices! Hurry! One weekend only you can buy two genuine, hand-painted, original oil paintings on canvas for the low,low price of just $99 each!"

And yet Petraio, this stuff is just kitsch. It's crap. BUT, ACCORDING TO YOUR DEFINITION, it MUST BE ART. As you have written, it "must be art". It has been created by hand. Please enlighten us as to your stance on kitsch.

Dude, your education in philosophy is skimpier than my university education in art. Your blatherings about art are seriously,seriously off the mark. I think you're just a contrarian who likes to go into a place where there's no real competition, and start an argument and feel like you are winning some type of important debate. Your are the Ricky Flame of iCarly fame, as my young son would say...


----------



## Overread (Jun 23, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...



First not true - different photographers might well frame the shot totally differently - if you mean that the gear setup with the same composition of elements (taking away one choice of the photographer) then maybe - but they can still adjust the settings - like in this thread Meshels shots show wide aperture results - myself I might have framed the same but used small apertures - heck I might even have focus stacked the results - bringing the whole question of how one edits the results. I could go with black and white and another with colour to produce two very different looking photos.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 23, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Petraio, your concept that any painting is a work of art fails to account for kitsch. Please explain to us oh great art expert, how a junky, hokey kitsch painting, such as the flowers by a window paintings sold at airports and convention centers are "art". By the definitions you have given us over the last couple of weeks, even these hokey, gaudy, God-awful paintings are "fine art". They meet all the criteria you have ascribed to fine art paintings, and yet they are garbage paintings, designed to be sold to homemakers, college students, old ladies, and low-rent interior decorators, home builders, and hotel managers--as wall "art". They are as the commercials scream, "genuine hand-painted oil paintings, at insanely low,low prices! Hurry! One weekend only you can buy two genuine, hand-painted, original oil paintings on canvas for the low,low price of just $99 each!"
> 
> And yet Petraio, this stuff is just kitsch. It's crap. BUT, ACCORDING TO YOUR DEFINITION, it MUST BE ART. As you have written, it "must be art". It has been created by hand. Please enlighten us as to your stance on kitsch.
> 
> Dude, your education in philosophy is skimpier than my university education in art. Your blatherings about art are seriously,seriously off the mark. I think you're just a contrarian who likes to go into a place where there's no real competition, and start an argument and feel like you are winning some type of important debate. Your are the Ricky Flame of iCarly fame, as my young son would say...




_*'Art' is a technical term, not a term of praise.*_ It's that simple. It matters not a whit whether it's good or bad....


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 23, 2010)

Overread said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Overread said:
> ...



No, I edited that to clarify so that you would not make this misinterpretation.


----------



## Overread (Jun 23, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Do you understand that a photograph is _of _something else, and that a painting is not _of _something else?



Wait what? 
Now you don't make any sense at all as you've just classed any artist who works with a scene as not an artist. A painting can be _of_ something else - infact a great many paintings and works of art are _of_ something


----------



## Overread (Jun 23, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> No, I edited that to clarify so that you would not make this misinterpretation.



you edited to remove all choice that the photographer has. If you remove all the choices present how can anyone be creative in any field? Remove enough choices and artists works would not differ either.


----------



## mishele (Jun 23, 2010)

Be nice...........don't get my thread locked...........:hug::


----------



## Overread (Jun 23, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> _*'Art' is a technical term, not a term of praise.*_ It's that simple. It matters not a whit whether it's good or bad....



I have to side with Petraio here as well - I mean its the only way that the Tate Modern can be explained as "art"


----------



## mishele (Jun 23, 2010)




----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 23, 2010)

Overread said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Do you understand that a photograph is _of _something else, and that a painting is not _of _something else?
> ...



No, they are _not _'of' something, not in the same sense of 'of'. The artist _creates _the painting out of nothing but canvas and paint, and can add or subtract from what he sees, or create things that do not even exist (or no longer exist). 

A photograph is 'of' something that exists, meaning that without that something that exists...there is no photograph of 'it'.

A painter who paints a scene is not doing the same thing a photographer does. There is no causal necessity with the painting.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 23, 2010)

Overread said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Overread said:
> ...



No, I edited that to clarify so that you would not make this misinterpretation.


----------



## Overread (Jun 23, 2010)

But you are still leaving out the development stage of a photograph (as I've mentioned before). Be it film or digital I can use darkroom/computer methods to significantly change the output from what I saw - in both dramatic and subtle ways.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 23, 2010)

mishele said:


> If you guys are going to keep going on this art thing I'm going to keep posting pictures.....lol


 
:thumbup:

Oh, I survived the earthquake in Ohio.


----------



## Overread (Jun 23, 2010)

mishele said:


>



Love the effect in this one, really brings out that watercolour feel. However something seems off to me  about the position of the infocus/sharp part. I don't know what but something just seems a little off - might be the heavy red middle being too dominant - might be a bit too much dead space just under the sharp part whilst the rest is a riot of effects and colour?


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 23, 2010)

Overread said:


> But you are still leaving out the development stage of a photograph (as I've mentioned before). Be it film or digital I can use darkroom/computer methods to significantly change the output from what I saw - in both dramatic and subtle ways.



So what? If you modify it _too _much it is no longer a photograph at all. If you scrape off the emulsion on half the image, glue feathers to it, soak it in wine, blood, and turpentine, what have you...so what?


----------



## Overread (Jun 23, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > But you are still leaving out the development stage of a photograph (as I've mentioned before). Be it film or digital I can use darkroom/computer methods to significantly change the output from what I saw - in both dramatic and subtle ways.
> ...



Um so its a part of the photographic process and as such you can't just ignor it nor try to defect the argument into how far one has to edit a photo before it becomes less of a photo. 
I'm not quite sure where you are going with the next sentence as you would still have art at the end of it if the artist so wish to call it so (since art is not a quality based term)


----------



## Derrel (Jun 23, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio, your concept that any painting is a work of art fails to account for kitsch. Please explain to us oh great art expert, how a junky, hokey kitsch painting, such as the flowers by a window paintings sold at airports and convention centers are "art". By the definitions you have given us over the last couple of weeks, even these hokey, gaudy, God-awful paintings are "fine art". They meet all the criteria you have ascribed to fine art paintings, and yet they are garbage paintings, designed to be sold to homemakers, college students, old ladies, and low-rent interior decorators, home builders, and hotel managers--as wall "art". They are as the commercials scream, "genuine hand-painted oil paintings, at insanely low,low prices! Hurry! One weekend only you can buy two genuine, hand-painted, original oil paintings on canvas for the low,low price of just $99 each!"
> ...



Sorry Petrtaio, but you are flat-out wrong on that. "bad art" is not art, it is kitsch. Your ludicrous assumption that ALL hand-painted paintings are "fine art" is patently false...paint-by-number paintings would therefore be art...your definition of art as "hand work" fails to account for the differences between folk art and fine art...by your definition ANY work done by hand is art, and unfortunately, the art world does not agree with your fringe views.


And please, explain to us all about kitsch and fine art; by your definition, there would be no kitsch, and everything that was painted would be fine art. Which is preposterous. Your definition would put paint splatters on canvas drop cloths in the same,exact place of fine art as the work done by Renoir, Degas, Van Gogh, or any other acknowledged painter. Which is, of course, patently ridiculous! Your views on fine arts are certainly amusing to me, but you seem to repeatedly fail in your explanations--all you do is cite a one-sentence proclamation and fail to address repeated learned comments with simple re-statements of preposterous, fringe positions. Your knowledge of the fine arts is laughable. And, I thought that just yesterday you didn't want to associate with 'photographers'..and yet here you are, trying to gain converts.

Your definition of art and fine art is simply preposterous...something that has been made by hand is not by default fine art...I could take a lump of clay (or feces for that matter) and squeeze it in one hand, and it would by your definition, be fine art. That is preposterous!


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 23, 2010)

Overread said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Overread said:
> ...



If you destroy its photograph-ness it becomes 'art' then. Quite the opposite of what you think. The more you scrape it, put feathers on it, soak it in wine...the more it approaches 'art' and ceases to be a photograph. Or if you paint over it then of course it's art...you're using it as a canvas.


----------



## Overread (Jun 23, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Your definition of art and fine art is simple preposterous...something that has been made by hand is not by default fine art...I could take a lump of clay and squeeze it in one hand, and it would by your definition, be fine art. That is preposterous!



It is art as defined by the Tate Modern
Tate: British and international modern and contemporary art
where such examples include and empty room, trash, cat litter trays and some old coffee mugs (that one was worth a few hundred £1000 and was cleaned away by the cleaners!). Even such fine works as bit of bluetack on wall.

Now fine art and such we can debate till the end of the earth as to what that is


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 23, 2010)

Overread said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Your definition of art and fine art is simple preposterous...something that has been made by hand is not by default fine art...I could take a lump of clay and squeeze it in one hand, and it would by your definition, be fine art. That is preposterous!
> ...



They are wrong. Photography can be exhibited, so what? That does not change what 'art' is.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 23, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kF0P1VD82E[/ame]


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 23, 2010)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kF0P1VD82E



Huh? What is the meaning of this?


----------



## mishele (Jun 23, 2010)

Overread said:


> mishele said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



I had a hard time editing this one. You are right, I think it would of been a nicer picture if I would of had focused one petal to the right. I actually threw this one out there because I thought people would not like the color choices...lol And that is what you liked.


----------



## Overread (Jun 23, 2010)

mishele said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > mishele said:
> ...



The colours work fantastically together - its just that sharpbit that distracts - infact I think you could have not had anything sharp at all and the water colour effect would have worked well alone


----------



## mishele (Jun 23, 2010)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kF0P1VD82E



:lmao:LOL:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::hail::hail::hail::hail::hail::hail::hail:


----------



## LadyIsis (Jun 23, 2010)

ahh... your photos are truly art, soothing, and totally breathtaking! 
they make we feel like i've been in a dream land, a bright and new fantasy world. thanks and keep it up.


----------



## Arch (Jun 23, 2010)

Guys I said 4 pages ago NOT to bring up the 'what is art' argument, so stop now please.

If you want to continue that futile argument then find the other thread where valuable points made weren't answered, and instead it deteriorated to a slagging match.


 - nice pics btw


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 23, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDjt-Rs13Ws[/ame][ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaI_so0ovcc"][/ame][ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaI_so0ovcc"][/ame]


----------



## Derrel (Jun 23, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kF0P1VD82E
> ...



Petraio,
 Here are the lyrics to the song. Perhaps a perusal of the lyrics will yield some meaning as to what Bitter Jeweler was trying to impart with his linking to the song. I understand how difficult it can be to fully hear 1980's pop lyrics...I myself was not that familiar with the actual lyrics, even though I have heard the song many times before.

When explanations make no sense
When every answer's wrong
You're fighting with lost confidence
All expectations come

The time has come to make or break
Move on don't hesitate
Breakout

Don't stop to ask
Now you've found a break to make at last
You've got to find a way
Say what you want to say 
Breakout

When situations never change
Tomorrow looks unsure
Don't leave your destiny to chance
What are you waiting for
The time has come to make your break
Breakout

Don't stop to ask
Now you've found a break to make at last
You've got to find a way
Say what you want to say 
Breakout

Don't stop to ask
Now you've found a break to make at last
You've got to find a way
Say what you want to say 
Breakout

Some people stop at nothing
If you're searching for something
Lay down the law
Shout out for more
Breakout and shout day in day out
Breakout

Breakout

Don't stop to ask
Now you've found a break to make at last
You've got to find a way
Say what you want to say 
Breakout

Don't stop to ask
Now you've found a break to make at last
You've got to find a way
Say what you want to say
Breakout

Lay down the law
Shout out for more
Breakout and shout day in day out

Breakout

Breakout

Breakout

Lay down the law
Shout out for more
Breakout and shout day in day out

As to the flowers the OP posted: this type of shallow DOF work is a pretty well-known sub-genre of close-up/macro photography. I think your original photos could use some refining. COmpositional principles still apply, even in this world of very shallow DOF. There's a wonderful article about composition that was recently posted on the Luminous Landscape photography, which breaks down photographs into various building blocks--like color blocks, crude shapes, etc.,etc.

This article was written by John Paul Caponigro, one of a handful of my personal favorite acknowledged master photographers with multiple decades of experience. I think looking at this one,specific article would really,really help you in this type of photography, since it is such a "different" type of photography than the more typical deep depth of field type stuff we so normally strive for.

Photographic Composition - Introduction


----------



## mishele (Jun 23, 2010)




----------



## Overread (Jun 23, 2010)

There now there's another great working one! Really liking this series 

Also I think I worked out why that earlier one wasn't working as well - its the leading angle of the petals. In most of your shots the petals fade into the blurry watercolour effect; whilst in that one they were more of a dividing line with less of a leading element - which made the back and foregrounds (at least to my eye) clash


----------



## Moe (Jun 23, 2010)

Wow. What a thread. I'm not gonna get involved in the discussion, but it takes quite the "set" to come to a *photography* forum and say photography is not art. I wonder if these are your own thoughts or thoughts from a professor/mentor...sure sounds professor-ish.

Very nice art...ahem...photos, mishele. They got even better as the thread went along. It was a very beautiful break from the discussion. I may have missed it, but what lens are you using?


----------



## mishele (Jun 23, 2010)

5D M2  
lens 100mm Macro L IS

It's my baby!!


----------



## mishele (Jun 23, 2010)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDjt-Rs13Ws



Where do you find this stuff....lol Crack me up!!!!:hug::


----------

