Is photography art! - DPChallenge Forums

10/06/2004 02:20:52 PM · #26

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Defining art is simply not possible... It's like defining religion...

This needed to be repeated.

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

10/06/2004 02:21:39 PM · #27

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

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?

That is one interpretation of what art is :)

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

10/06/2004 02:26:12 PM · #28

So then maybe it is in fact a semantic argument that is goin on here. We are getting the words "interpretation" and "definition" confused. There are many renditions of both and while one definition/interpretation of what art is is valid, it does not preclude/exclude another definition/interpretation.

Message edited by author 2004-10-06 14:28:48.

graphicfunk

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

10/06/2004 02:34:15 PM · #29

Societes have wrestled with this question: the communication of the artist via his work to the recipients. What usually happens is that some artist in some media creates a buzz which spreads and then this media rises to the surface and to the top of the attention of many. Then this art form, like a magnet attracts more artist and soon saturation sets in and the this hot art media then begins the normal fluctuation into the progressive stages. here the tangents disperse like fireworks. Many do flicker out, but out of this chaos emerge a few worthy contenders which may even require new generations to appreciate.

Art, like beauty can be said, is in the eyes of the beholder, yet there are many artist that strive to create only for the sake of art, whatever that is.

David.C

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

10/06/2004 02:34:58 PM · #30

Originally posted by PerezDesignGroup:

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?

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make, but what you describe is going far beyond photography as photography; and it looses any bearing on wether or not photography is, or can be, an artform of its own.

Since finding this site, I have thought long and hard concerning what makes a photograph a photograph, but in my research on related items of interest I find examples such as Vermeer and is possible use of a Camera Obscura. In which Vermeer possibly became a part of a camera creating a negative from light coming through a lense with a paint brush and shades of grey paint and then developing the 'picture' later with his brush and colored pigments.

***

As to wether or not photography is, or can be art, on its own: it depends. Aesthetics are a very personal perspective of the world around us, and each of us will experience it differently -- that's just the way it is. It is a good deal of what makes us individuals; but with many perceptions of aesthetics being universal, it is also a lot of what makes us part of a greater whole. So in that regard it does have many similarities to religion, as mentioned above, but aesthetics is a seperate experience.

I feel this duality in aesthetics, how much it defines us as individuals versus how much it ties us together as one, is the biggest reason for the arguements that come about anytime anyone starts defining art. As such, Jim and I are in agreement that any such definition is personal and should never be taken from another or forced upon another.

***

Photography is a craft, like painting and basket weaving. It has its own technologies that must be learned before it can be done well. But, in and of itself, it does not express anything; it must be used by someone to say something about themselves, society or the world around them. What it has to say, depends on the person; both the photographer and the viewer. For the photographer to be able to show the viewer their own perception of some part of the universe requires a mastery of the technical aspects of the craft.

In my opinion, photography is a craft that can be used by someone aware of the uniqueness they have created as themselves in the universe, but also in touch with with the similarities that bind us all together. Art comes about from a touch of the master's hand, the tools used to create it don't matter much.

David

Mick

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

10/06/2004 02:35:56 PM · #31

Art is in the grokking.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/06/2004 02:38:33 PM · #32

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

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.

> graphicfunk

I'm listing some critical reservations:

To exhilarate, to stimulate awareness, to preach dissociation (toward a coming to one's essence), to kindle resentment against evil - characteristics ascribed to the Odes (Confucius), which, in my view, may profitably be applied to a sense of what art may mean to us, what it sets out to do.

I also feel that art can happen to an artist, it can come over him like weather, war or love. His personal viewpoint may not be able to withstand such substantial onslaught.

In a good novel, its author should take up as little attention as possible, his story should. The better the novel, the further our remove from personal sentiments, such as likes and dislikes.

With a good work, our judgement is questioned or, at least, suspended. There should be some degree of transport, a transcendence of value.

Whether or not a photo is taken with a purpose cannot be determined without a grasp of what that purpose might be, something that often eludes its author even, who may find himself to be no more than a vessel for something larger than him.

There may well be a purpose in accentuating a specific viewpoint: 'survival' to name an easily identifiable one.

Message edited by author 2004-10-06 14:43:40.

10/06/2004 02:48:19 PM · #33

I'll take a stab at a definition of "Art":

"Art" is an emotional response derived from a stimulation of one or more of the five senses. This response appeals to the receiver in some positive way, even though the input to the senses may be negative. The emotional responses derived from these stimulations are governed by the receiver's knowledge of the stimulation source, knowledge of the creator of the source, and/or desire for knowledge of one or both.

Now...

What does this mean to me?

""Art" is an emotional response derived from a stimulation of one or more of the five senses."

When we encounter 'art', we are stimulated by it in some way. The emotional stimulation comes from one or more of the 5 senses.

"This response appeals to the receiver in some positive way, even though the input to the senses may be negative."

Art may not be 'nice' or 'pretty'. It may be dark and ominous. Regardless of the positive or negative input, we like what we see for some reason.

"The emotional responses derived from these stimulations are governed by the receiver's knowledge of the stimulation source, knowledge of the creator of the source, and/or desire for knowledge of one or both."

Whether or not we like the experience is determined by what we know about it, who created it, and whether we want to know more.

Message edited by author 2004-10-06 14:49:08.

sfalice

Canon PowerShot SX60 HS

10/06/2004 02:48:38 PM · #34

And then there is Cindy Sherman who uses a camera as a major tool in her artistry. Cindy Sherman

10/06/2004 02:50:28 PM · #35

So John, eating a tasty hamburger is art?

Perhaps...

Edit: or how about being yelled at by my boss?

My point is that every definition can be picked apart...but there have been some good 'descriptions' of art in this thread.

Message edited by author 2004-10-06 14:51:50.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

10/06/2004 02:51:21 PM · #36

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

So John, eating a tasty hamburger is art?

Perhaps...

Absolutely.

graphicfunk

Canon EOS-20D

10/06/2004 02:51:47 PM · #37

Another angle on this thread is the following: We have always had artist. They were evolved much later after man was able to solve the survival delimma...yet we even find cave art. What I mean is that the artist can express his creativity via any form he chooses. The argument then is is his production art?

Whether we are able to define it or not has no effect in our admission that it does exist. Photography is first a craft and many consider it so because the bulk of work was mostly the recording whatever. However, there are many images that represent more than a recording. The evolution into the digital arena gives the artist more flexibility in his expression.

My belief is that the artist has a unique viewpoint and selects a medium to display his ideas. It all rests on the viewer to make the final determination. For example, I consider many of the works of Bach and Mozarts to be masterpieces. Others have an opposing view. Does this mean that we define art and the creator does not know what he is doing?
Just a thought. lol

Message edited by author 2004-10-06 14:53:39.

10/06/2004 02:52:01 PM · #38

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

Edit: or how about being yelled at by my boss?

You may not consider that to be art. Someone else may though :)

10/06/2004 02:53:34 PM · #39

I think one thing missing from your definition/description is the intent and/or purpose of the creator...

This is what seperates my snapshots from my photographic attempts to be artistic...

Message edited by author 2004-10-06 14:53:56.

10/06/2004 02:56:53 PM · #40

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

I think one thing missing from your definition/description is the intent and/or purpose of the creator...

This is what seperates my snapshots from my photographic attempts to be artistic...

I think that part falls under 'knowledge of the creator'.

10/06/2004 02:59:04 PM · #41

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I think one thing missing from your definition/description is the intent and/or purpose of the creator...

This is what seperates my snapshots from my photographic attempts to be artistic...

I think that part falls under 'knowledge of the creator'.

I would think that knowledge of the creator's intent is more important than knowledge of the creator...unless I misunderstood that part.

10/06/2004 03:02:32 PM · #42

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

I would think that knowledge of the creator's intent is more important than knowledge of the creator...unless I misunderstood that part.

I would consider them one in the same.

GoldBerry

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

10/06/2004 03:03:24 PM · #43

Not everything 'technical' is textbook.

Even painters laugh at those who don't know what they're doing when they slap stuff on a canvas.

You'd have to talk to artists in each genre before deciding photographers are too technical most times.

GoldBerry

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

10/06/2004 03:05:16 PM · #44

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
So John, eating a tasty hamburger is art?

Perhaps...

Absolutely.

I agree.

I can't believe there's even a thread where people are trying to 'define' art. Everyone just wants their opinion heard: right or wrong.

N'est pas?

Fujifilm XF 23mm f/2 R WR

10/06/2004 03:06:17 PM · #45

I agree, Goldberry...Technique and purpose are an integral part of creating any form of art.

aznym

Fujifilm X-T3

10/06/2004 03:06:57 PM · #46

Sometimes you don't create art. You create something and you realize it's art or someone calls it art or you go around convincing people that it's art.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/06/2004 03:08:22 PM · #47

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

...Whether or not we like the experience is determined by what we know about it, who created it, and whether we want to know more.

We all know there are more than five senses. The five you list are our primal senses, rudimentary equipment for the purpose.

What matters, in my view, is less whether we like or dislike or know but whether we are alive with it, how thoroughly and profoundly we are effected. If we are moved, our take on things/the world becomes transcended, enduringly, at the best of times. A process such as this would, by need, have to involve as much sense -or as many senses :-)- as a morsel of consciousness. Yes?

Message edited by author 2004-10-06 15:09:01.

10/06/2004 03:08:51 PM · #48

Originally posted by xion:

Sometimes you don't create art. You create something and you realize it's art or someone calls it art or you go around convincing people that it's art.

Given that most of us have agreed the 'definition' of art is subjective, I'll give you my opinion on that.

It's not art. It's happy coincidence. It's beauty recognition. It's lots of stuff, but not art.

Now let's see if everyone's allowed their own opinion!