| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/03/2005 03:59:30 PM · #1 |
Unfortunatly not everyone recognises photograph as an art form (especially galleries!). Just a photo. People give towsands of bucks to have a Dali painting in the livingroom or a Monet in the hall but how many people exibit proudly an Ansel Adams print?
In your opinion what makes a photograph a piece of art, and not just a mere photo. The technique? The sense of oportunity? The tipe of print? Creativity?
Please post your opinion and personal experiense if yiu have any of exibition and selling prints, along with advices to achieve the art form, or at least more lellable prints. :)
We, the less experienced will aprecciate and assimilate the wisedom of the masters. Tanks in advance.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 04:08:14 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by Nuno:
In your opinion what makes a photograph a piece of art, and not just a mere photo. The technique? The sense of oportunity? The tipe of print? Creativity?
|
None of the above. What makes it 'art' IMO is when it transcends being a picture and stirs emotions in some way.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 04:11:00 PM · #3 |
There is little doubt that photography is a distant cousin to the traditional arts.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 04:13:25 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Nuno:
Unfortunatly not everyone recognises photograph as an art form (especially galleries!). Just a photo. People give towsands of bucks to have a Dali painting in the livingroom or a Monet in the hall but how many people exibit proudly an Ansel Adams print?
|
Oh how wrong you are, mon ami!
MFA
This 8x10 original contact print of Nevada Fall Rainbow is selling for $10,000. Some of his work has been sold for 20 or 30 times that amount.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 04:17:20 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by Nuno:
In your opinion what makes a photograph a piece of art, and not just a mere photo. The technique? The sense of oportunity? The tipe of print? Creativity?
|
None of the above. What makes it 'art' IMO is when it transcends being a picture and stirs emotions in some way. |
The above list was just to serve as example and nnot to descrive the creative process.
But yes, for me as for you it has lots to do with emotions.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 04:25:14 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Nuno:
People give towsands of bucks to have a Dali painting in the livingroom or a Monet in the hall but how many people exibit proudly an Ansel Adams print? |
That's an odd statement, because Ansel Adams is one of the "elite" category of photographers that is almost universally recognized as "artists". Original Adams prints sell for tens of thousands of dollars and are proudly exhibited by those who own them.
And he's not alone; there are many others.
But one thing to bear in mind is that photographs are "prints", there can be more than one of them. Paintings, on the other hand, there's basically only one copy of. Many serious "art" photographers limit their print runs for this reason; the negatives/files are "destroyed" after a fixed number of prints is made, and the prints are numbered and signed by the photographer.
Near the end of his life, Ansel did this, under considerable pressure from his advisors; when it was announced that Ansel would make only a limited number of additional prints of his classics, then retire the negatives (they were marked, not destroyed, so they can still be archived and studied), the price of existing AA prints went through the roof instant art. At least from a commercial/investment POV.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 04:30:23 PM · #7 |
[/quote]
Oh how wrong you are, mon ami!
MFA
This 8x10 original contact print of Nevada Fall Rainbow is selling for $10,000. Some of his work has been sold for 20 or 30 times that amount. [/quote]
As they say, "peanuts'! At 100 times that amount. :-)
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 04:35:31 PM · #8 |
"To me photography (as art) is not about perfection in every technical aspect; the essence is emotion and atmosphere. Technical perfection can often be arranged, however emotion goes far beyond that limitation. Probably it's a mixture of many different and undefinable things. It is a theme, the light or a mood that holds the viewer's attention long beyond what would have been given a simple snapshot.
Photographs as art are mainly story-tellers, a way to freeze the here and now. They are the priceless reminders of how things were when today fades into yesterday." .... Yolann Verouden
I love her observation. My own:
On first glance, the sensory experience from a photograph is of far greater importance to a viewer than the reasons the shot was taken. But with longer study time, in good photography, emotional motivation should eventually broaden and deepen that experience. In art, as in life, experience ushers the search for meaning, but does not transcend it.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 08:33:09 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by RonBeam:
"To me photography (as art) is not about perfection in every technical aspect; the essence is emotion and atmosphere. Technical perfection can often be arranged, however emotion goes far beyond that limitation. Probably it's a mixture of many different and undefinable things. It is a theme, the light or a mood that holds the viewer's attention long beyond what would have been given a simple snapshot.
Photographs as art are mainly story-tellers, a way to freeze the here and now. They are the priceless reminders of how things were when today fades into yesterday." .... Yolann Verouden
I love her observation. My own:
On first glance, the sensory experience from a photograph is of far greater importance to a viewer than the reasons the shot was taken. But with longer study time, in good photography, emotional motivation should eventually broaden and deepen that experience. In art, as in life, experience ushers the search for meaning, but does not transcend it. |
Nicely put.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 08:57:30 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
None of the above. What makes it 'art' IMO is when it transcends being a picture and stirs emotions in some way. |
Yes. |
|
|
|
09/03/2005 09:04:11 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
None of the above. What makes it 'art' IMO is when it transcends being a picture and stirs emotions in some way. |
Yes. |
Well that may be a little too general. The emotion upon looking at an image may be one that would cause the viewer to want to puke, but that the emotion was stirred would not necessarily make the image art.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 09:15:01 PM · #12 |
To be stirred is a good thing. Whether it makes us feel good or ugh! To feel something from a picture. To be held by it.........
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 09:29:13 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
None of the above. What makes it 'art' IMO is when it transcends being a picture and stirs emotions in some way. |
Yes. |
Well that may be a little too general. The emotion upon looking at an image may be one that would cause the viewer to want to puke, but that the emotion was stirred would not necessarily make the image art. |
"Puking" can be a valid indicator of an exposure to real art. In fact, one of the tools of an artist is to stir a negative emotion in order to cause the respondent to question what they believe. It is using the "fight or flee" response on a sensory level to expose shallow, loose fitting values. Testing by fire, as it were. As in the reality of life, art is not always beautiful and pleasing, but it should always mirror passions and emotions.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 09:34:06 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by RonBeam:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
None of the above. What makes it 'art' IMO is when it transcends being a picture and stirs emotions in some way. |
Yes. |
Well that may be a little too general. The emotion upon looking at an image may be one that would cause the viewer to want to puke, but that the emotion was stirred would not necessarily make the image art. |
"Puking" can be a valid indicator of an exposure to real art. In fact, one of the tools of an artist is to stir a negative emotion in order to cause the respondent to question what they believe. It is using the "fight or flee" response on a sensory level to expose shallow, loose fitting values. Testing by fire, as it were. As in the reality of life, art is not always beautiful and pleasing, but it should always mirror passions and emotions. |
But stirring an emotion does not always make it art. If you don't believe me look here.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 09:39:20 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
But stirring an emotion does not always make it art. If you don't believe me look here. |
okay, nsbca7, that was disgusting. how bout a warning before that link...something such as, "warning, graphic image"? I have never seen anything like that. Gross!
you do make a valid point, though with that example:)
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 09:48:29 PM · #16 |
To say emotional stirring is a criterion for art is a little general. There is not doubt shocking someone leaves an impression but sadly too many shocks and such images lose there effectiveness and influence.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 10:23:46 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by irishempress:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
But stirring an emotion does not always make it art. If you don't believe me look here. |
okay, nsbca7, that was disgusting. how bout a warning before that link...something such as, "warning, graphic image"? I have never seen anything like that. Gross!
you do make a valid point, though with that example:) |
We were talking about something that would make you want to puke. Sorry. That one will stick in your head.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 10:33:24 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
We were talking about something that would make you want to puke. Sorry. That one will stick in your head. |
It certainly will, LOL!!!! That poor guy! I wonder who the sick person was who actually shot that and posted it on the internet. |
|
|
|
09/03/2005 10:39:16 PM · #19 |
| Some photographers will shoot anything and try to make a buck.. Not art, but maybe journalism at its worst. |
|
|
|
09/03/2005 10:44:11 PM · #20 |
One can use shock to stir the emotions, if the viewer can tie the image to an event or a personality. However, you are correct if your meaning is that gore used merely for the sake of shocking is not an artform.
Picasso's Guernica is an horrific war scene meant to jolt the senses and evoke an emotional response. It is indeed art. What you posted is closer to forensic photography which is meant to be devoid of emotionalism and merely show factual reality.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 10:47:19 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by irishempress:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
We were talking about something that would make you want to puke. Sorry. That one will stick in your head. |
It certainly will, LOL!!!! That poor guy! I wonder who the sick person was who actually shot that and posted it on the internet. |
It looks like a police photo. You can tell the body was a murder victim because of the drag marks. He was dragged by his feet to where he is in the image before he began to decompose.
There are plenty worse then that on the internet. You can find plenty more just by going to rotten.com. Very few images on that site would be considered art in my oppinion. Almost all will stir some kind of emotion.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 11:02:25 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
....Very few images on that site would be considered art in my oppinion. Almost all will stir some kind of emotion. |
Do not confuse revulsion as a reflex with emotional involvement. Art brings the viewer into the experience portrayed. Revulsion acts in the opposite manner. |
|
|
|
09/03/2005 11:11:01 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Well that may be a little too general. The emotion upon looking at an image may be one that would cause the viewer to want to puke, but that the emotion was stirred would not necessarily make the image art. |
Stirred emotions are not always warm and fuzzy.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2005 11:18:03 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by RonBeam:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
....Very few images on that site would be considered art in my oppinion. Almost all will stir some kind of emotion. |
Do not confuse revulsion as a reflex with emotional involvement. Art brings the viewer into the experience portrayed. Revulsion acts in the opposite manner. |
The following are all states of emotion:
ยจ^hate; hatred
ยจ^love
ยจ^joy; joyousness; joyfulness
ยจ^anxiety
ยจ^fear; reverence; awe; veneration
ยจ^fear; fearfulness; fright
ยจ^anger; choler; ire
That an image should stir one of these does not necessarily make it art, as you have seen with my example. I would add that disgust is also an emotion.
Message edited by author 2005-09-03 23:18:20.
|
|
|
|
09/04/2005 06:51:03 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by Nuno:
Unfortunatly not everyone recognises photograph as an art form (especially galleries!). Just a photo. People give towsands of bucks to have a Dali painting in the livingroom or a Monet in the hall but how many people exibit proudly an Ansel Adams print?
In your opinion what makes a photograph a piece of art, and not just a mere photo. The technique? The sense of oportunity? The tipe of print? Creativity?
Please post your opinion and personal experiense if yiu have any of exibition and selling prints, along with advices to achieve the art form, or at least more lellable prints. :)
We, the less experienced will aprecciate and assimilate the wisedom of the masters. Tanks in advance. |
Photography is such an excellerated form of expression. There is so much of it that we are quicker to dismiss it. I think that the challenges this present make it very difficult for many to accept it as an art form.
|
|
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: 04/24/2024 03:01:16 PM EDT.
