OPA (other people's art) - DPChallenge Forums

01/30/2003 03:01:05 PM · #1

In lots of the challenges so far, I've come across something that I've got a somewhat defined (although flexible) reaction to - images of other people's art. IMO, if you're going to make a photograph of a work of art, there are two ways to go. You can 'hold the photocopier up to it' and make a representation, like something you'd use for a gallery catalog, or you can use photography to show the work in some unique way - to add your interpretation to it. I tend to score OPA images in the first category pretty low, but have given high marks to images in the sceond. There are plenty of gray areas, but what do you think of including art in your images, especially as the subject?

Swashbuckler

Sony DSC-F717

01/30/2003 03:22:32 PM · #2

I agree. The rules seem very clear, but ppl's interpretations tend to want to make that line very fuzzy. If the photo is strictly OPA with NOTHING else, I can't feel very good about a high score. But I have adopted a wider view on this subject. I think of this in three ways, just plain OPA, grey area OPA and interpreted OPA. The latter either incorporates multiple items as subjects or adds something related to the subject that changes my view of the piece of art, very creative! Grey area is the hardest to score. It might be that the addition to the artwork is either not significant to the photo (if removed, wouldn't change the flavor at all) or my understanding of the addition isn't good enough (my bad). And for the first, strictly OPA...well, I'm still wrestling with a generic score that would be suitable.
While we're on the subject...architechs consider their work to be art, so would a shot of a single building be OPA? Statues, Paintings, Crafts, etc. are easy, but what about bridges? Ancient artifacts?
How about cars? Aren't they a form of art? (excluding yugos)
I'm still wrestling with these types of OPA......

Message edited by author 2003-01-30 15:23:35.

crabappl3

01/30/2003 03:24:05 PM · #3

I have included other person's art in one photograph so far and it scored rather low. Angel

I did however have an angle on the angel that I wanted to show. If you read the description I provided and look at the reflection in the mirror, you'll understand.

01/30/2003 03:36:17 PM · #4

Yeah, the architecture bit is tricky. Usually, though, it's the inclusion of the building's surroundings or selection of a particular detail or point of view that works for me.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/30/2003 03:37:03 PM · #5

well, in the US, all buildings since 1980 are covered by copyright law, so yes - they are OPA. As are coffee cups, staplers, computers, cars etc - anything that could be considered to be 'designed' is really OPA.

This tends to get (quite rightly ignored) but you might find yourself having a hard time taking a picture of a building, professionally with the itention of selling it without first obtaining permission. Also true in other countries

01/30/2003 03:43:44 PM · #6

Danny -
Your pic is a perfect example of what you can do to add something to a photographed piece of art. To be honest, though, I think it might work better in color. The reflections would show better.