DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Is photography art!
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 87, (reverse)
AuthorThread
10/06/2004 10:03:17 AM · #1
Photography is art.

In my humble opinion art can mean and be many things. It can evoke your emotions, many types of emotions, good, bad and everything in between. Even if you don’t know what it makes you feel, that’s ok, just feel it. I see photography as a valid artistic medium like paint or clay. I also believe that understanding the technical side of photography is helpful but comparable only to knowing how to hold a paintbrush. To me it seems that for many people, the technical aspect of an image is the first and most important point of their scrutiny, rather than any other possible facet to an image, emotional or otherwise? I personally feel that text book technique should never restrict or dictate how an artist uses a medium, or be used as a definative yardstick when viewing an image. I try looking at it first with an empty, open mind and see where it takes me. Are we so trained as to only seeing things the way we think they should be, not how they could be or how they are seen by others!

Please take photos because you love to, or like me, need to. Shoot images that move you! If other people get them great and if they don’t at least you’ve been true to yourself.

What's your opinion?


[/url]
10/06/2004 10:21:10 AM · #2
i think it is, definatlely.

it takes the same vision to create a painting or a photograph. you have to know what not only looks appealing to the eye, but also how to convey emotion to the viewer. i call photography a 'subtractive' art because you're taking away from what exists rather than building it from nothing in say painting or drawing. but I'm hooked on photography, I have an art school background, and I gotta say photography is the way for me now.
10/06/2004 10:27:16 AM · #3
Photography is a science that just happens to have the ability to be used in an artistic way. The artistic form of photography is a minor detail when you look at all the scientific applications that it is applied to. The tools of photography and method of capturing an image are scientific procedures. This includes different darkroom chemistries to the interworkings of digital image sensors. Art is only one application of how photography is used. Just my 2 cents :)
10/06/2004 10:31:10 AM · #4
If this
is considered art, then so should
this.

....and you can't hang the former on the wall either!
10/06/2004 12:45:50 PM · #5
Well, it depends.

Art, if you connect it to an author (someone creating, finding, presenting) something which (then) exists through itself (meaning?), is, via my experience, an attitude, a stance toward the world. If you manage to articulate a particular stance universally, you've got something that can match the kind of values that can be drawn from nature.

The more nature is impaired by artifice, the more vital the need for art. It reminds us of who we are, where we come from and to what we owe our humble existence. It also reminds the management of the price of blood.

Photography, as in the application of a camera alone, means nothing in this equation. When the genre gets involved and steeped in life via the eye, mind and heart of a person looking through it, then, and only then, photography has a crack at art.

Message edited by author 2004-10-06 12:46:18.
10/06/2004 12:58:11 PM · #6
Originally posted by zeuszen:


Photography, as in the application of a camera alone, means nothing in this equation. When the genre gets involved and steeped in life via the eye, mind and heart of a person looking through it, then, and only then, photography has a crack at art.


This makes sense. But it also applies to any other 'art' form as well. If a paint brush doesn't get 'involved and steeped in the life via the eye, mind and heart of the person holding it,' the crack at art is weak as well.

"Art" is whatever we say it is. We just have to accept that our ideas of art may not be accepted by anyone other than ourselves. Your first paragraph seems to say this.
10/06/2004 12:59:28 PM · #7
Originally posted by zeuszen:

The more nature is impaired by artifice, the more vital the need for art. It reminds us of who we are, where we come from and to what we owe our humble existence. It also reminds the management of the price of blood.


Sounds spiritual/religious.
10/06/2004 01:04:01 PM · #8
We can't write poetry without first knowing the alphabet, grammer and sentence structure rules. Photographic art is the same, and a knowledge of the technical issues are equally important to humanistic ones. We need them to know how to express ourselves more fully and accurately. We just need to make sure we aren't getting steeped in one at the expense of the other.
10/06/2004 01:04:40 PM · #9
It can be.

I wouldn't call my grandma's cruise ship vacation photos art but I would call most pictures here art. I think art has more of a personal definition then a text book definition. What some call art, others call garbage.
10/06/2004 01:17:38 PM · #10
As an artist and illustrator first I must admit I frequently use source 'photographs' for many of my illustrations. I think that says it all, don't you?


Message edited by author 2004-10-06 13:19:14.
10/06/2004 01:32:06 PM · #11
Originally posted by jmsetzler:

..."Art" is whatever we say it is. We just have to accept that our ideas of art may not be accepted by anyone other than ourselves. Your first paragraph seems to say this.


Equally, we (including 'others) may do well shedding all ideas of art (as in 'concepts') so we may stay tuned (sensitized) without having to succumb to an undue amount of interference. [Idea, Grk. meaning form, no more.]

We say a lot of things. Truth, however, is more convincing when it grabs us.
10/06/2004 01:33:46 PM · #12
It depends whether you're talking about 'art' as making marks on media with paint/pens/crayons whatever, or about 'art' as cultural iconography.

E

PS. A reply to the preceeeding post

Message edited by author 2004-10-06 13:34:19.
10/06/2004 01:36:34 PM · #13
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by zeuszen:

The more nature is impaired by artifice, the more vital the need for art. It reminds us of who we are, where we come from and to what we owe our humble existence. It also reminds the management of the price of blood.


Sounds spiritual/religious.


I believe, art does have religious origins. I do know, that Greek poetry (and Molpe, a form of fusion between music and verse, now extinct) had its origins in pre-homeric liturgy.
10/06/2004 01:39:50 PM · #14
Have you ever tried to walk into an 'Art Shop' (as opposed to gallery), and ask "is art art?"

E
10/06/2004 01:41:34 PM · #15
Originally posted by e301:

Have you ever tried to walk into an 'Art Shop' (as opposed to gallery), and ask "is art art?"

E


I ask myself only... never anyone else.
10/06/2004 01:45:59 PM · #16
@JS :-)

You see, we slide into semantics. But asking whether or not photography is art, is asking a semantic question.

If (some) photography does for you what you want art to do for you, then the answer is yes.

If otherwise, then no.

E
10/06/2004 01:46:42 PM · #17
Originally posted by e301:

It depends whether you're talking about 'art' as making marks on media with paint/pens/crayons whatever, or about 'art' as cultural iconography...


Both interpretations, in my view, are perfectly apt and valid, although I see a definite social function as well, which would go beyond mere 'iconography'.

Message edited by author 2004-10-06 13:48:16.
10/06/2004 01:51:58 PM · #18
Originally posted by e301:

@JS :-)

You see, we slide into semantics. But asking whether or not photography is art, is asking a semantic question.

If (some) photography does for you what you want art to do for you, then the answer is yes.

If otherwise, then no.

E


I agree. I just don't ask someone else if they think somthing is "art" or not. I also keep my opinion of the matter to myself.

I see a lot of photography from the classic 'masters' that I think is garbage, for the most part. In its day, it was probalby also considered quite mundane. The artistic value of any given photograph may improve over time. When nostalgic value becomes apparent, the meaning of the image changes.

10/06/2004 02:00:17 PM · #19
Originally posted by zeuszen:


I believe, art does have religious origins. I do know, that Greek poetry (and Molpe, a form of fusion between music and verse, now extinct) had its origins in pre-homeric liturgy.


Or if your theology allows for a Creator-God, as mine does, artistry goes back even further and our own sense of wanting to 'create' comes from being created in the likeness of this Creator-God.

Message edited by author 2004-10-06 14:01:01.
10/06/2004 02:00:37 PM · #20
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

We can't write poetry without first knowing the alphabet, grammer and sentence structure rules. Photographic art is the same, and a knowledge of the technical issues are equally important to humanistic ones. We need them to know how to express ourselves more fully and accurately. We just need to make sure we aren't getting steeped in one at the expense of the other.


Not to mention phanapoeia, melopoeia, logopoeia, which denote the difference between between being able write (being able to play the piano) and the condensed heat of literature/poetry (becoming a pianist).

Good horse-sense though, in this post.
10/06/2004 02:01:57 PM · #21
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

Originally posted by zeuszen:


I believe, art does have religious origins. I do know, that Greek poetry (and Molpe, a form of fusion between music and verse, now extinct) had its origins in pre-homeric liturgy.


Or if your theology allows for a Creator-God, as mine does, artistry goes back even further and our own sense of wanting to 'create' comes from being created in the likeness of this Creator-God.


I am pagan (someone who lives in the country).
10/06/2004 02:02:47 PM · #22
Originally posted by zeuszen:

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

Originally posted by zeuszen:


I believe, art does have religious origins. I do know, that Greek poetry (and Molpe, a form of fusion between music and verse, now extinct) had its origins in pre-homeric liturgy.


Or if your theology allows for a Creator-God, as mine does, artistry goes back even further and our own sense of wanting to 'create' comes from being created in the likeness of this Creator-God.


I am pagan (someone who lives in the country).


Yeah, I'm not Greek either.
10/06/2004 02:04:28 PM · #23
Art has never been easy to define. Many things which are solely produced to feast the eyes and senses border in the art realm. Of course, this opener will have to include food that is well prepared. Some do consider this art. If we eliminate the ephemeral items produced as a feast for the eyes and the senses we narrow this down. Yet there is also ice sculptures which are ephemeral and sand scuptures and we can go on and find many more examples.

There is art in as many fields as you chose to look at. There is music, mathematics, architecture and a complete list would swallow many bytes in cyber space.

Yet, many people think of art as that which is encased in a museum or a gallery.

We can define the purpose of art and here too we must be careful. There is one thing that we can isolate and that is that art requires a person with a viewpoint and the communication of this viewpoint to those that wish to see it. When you read a good novel, the author takes your undivided attention and he is able to play upon your like and dislikes. Here one obtains validations for uncertainties that we have never properly filed in our mind. All art is a communion between artist and viewer. You will find art in any form seeks to effectuate a feeling in the viewer. If it grates against our judgement we dislike it. If it is pleasing, mysterious as it may seem, we love it.

So now, we speak about our question is photography art. The answer is: not all photography is art because some photographs are not taken with the purpose to go beyond the recording of the moment and there is no true purpose to accentuate a specific viewpoint.

Those that have a vision, those with a unique viewpoint and those with the desire to communicate this viewpoint using the medium of light and shadow do create art.

So yes, photography is art but not every photograph is a work of art.

Message edited by author 2004-10-06 14:20:07.
10/06/2004 02:14:10 PM · #24
Defining art is simply not possible... It's like defining religion... everyone has personal beliefs. A good example of how personal beliefs interfere with 'definitions' is any given challenge topic we have here :)

I went to an 'art' exhibit yesterday that was unique for me. The title of the exhibit was "Curve-iture" and every piece in the gallery was some sort of furniture with curves in the overall theme. Until yesterday, I had never really looked at furniture as 'art'. I saw some amazing things though...

10/06/2004 02:15:16 PM · #25
So then photographic art (or any art) comes down to that which is created and appreciated for it's merely sensory stimulation, and that which is produced for it's more soulful and deeper individualistic connections. And good (effective) art is considered a combination of both?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 03:33:35 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 03:33:35 AM EDT.