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

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Photography: art or not art.
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 83, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/01/2006 10:29:37 AM · #26
Originally posted by idnic:

Give a 5-year old paints and a paintbrush. Will the child create "art", likely not.


I don't know about that. There's a lot of so called 'art' hanging in galleries that look like a 5 year old did them. To top it all off, the galleries paid millions for the work.

The National Gallery of Canada has a 2 million dollar stripe.
02/01/2006 10:31:44 AM · #27
Funny, I just thought of an odd illistration of art. A photo of a soup can is "Stock" and an painting of a soup can is art. So there may be a difference somehow in the minds of "artists". But, I never thought a painting of a soup can was art anyway and argued this point to a "c" in an art class in college.
02/01/2006 11:04:33 AM · #28
Originally posted by hopper:

i think the term "art" has become meaningless

it doesn't have to be good, it doesn't have to require talent, it doesn't need anything at all ... just someone to consider it to be art


Are you related to Marcel Duchamp?
02/01/2006 11:12:03 AM · #29
Originally posted by msieglerfr:


I believe that photography is not art, here what I say if I need to quote what photography is:

'Photography is not art but rather a way to capture art, whatever it is dead-still or moving'


Is it because you believe that there is a more absolute human intervention in the production of classical forms of art than in photography? Do you believe that classical forms of art are more organic...a more direct expression, whereas the technology involved in photography provides a buffer between our visions and renderings?

Any of the technologies involved in the production of art, whether rooted in paints, clay, wood, stone, air, light, digital, etc, provide both a buffer and means for expression. There seems to be no other way as art requires the use of the world to express our inner and outer states of mind. Imo, photography falls in this broad definition of art.

02/01/2006 12:41:58 PM · #30
Two definitions of the word gleaned from the web:

ART:

• Formally known as HAART [Highly Active Antiretroviral Treatment], ART is defined as treatment with at least three active anti-retroviral medications (ARV’s), typically two nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI’s) plus a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) or a protease inhibitor (PI) or another NRTI called abacavir (Ziagen). ART is often called the drug “cocktail” or triple-therapy.
//www.opendoorclinic.org/hivglossary.htm

• stands for Assisted Reproductive Technology; The process of producing a pregnancy by fertilizing an ovum outside the female and emplaning the fertilized embryos.
//www.redwoodmalefertility.com/education/glossary.html

jejeje™

R.
02/01/2006 12:47:08 PM · #31
More seriously;

"Art", in its broadest meaning, is the expression of creativity or imagination, or both. (cribbed from Wikipedia)

I like that. No need to draw lines. Anything can be art, including a life. It is what it is, whatever it is, and how we name it, or define it, has nothing to do with what it is.

I'll close off with my favorite Avedon quote: "The art of seeing is the beginning of art."

R.
02/01/2006 12:59:45 PM · #32
is that Ross' monkey on "Friends"?

:)

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Are you related to Marcel Duchamp?
02/01/2006 01:20:25 PM · #33
A photograph taken for the enjoyment of the photograph is just that, a photograph. But a photograph that motivates, communicates, and cause debate with the viewers is ART.

Message edited by author 2006-02-01 13:21:39.
02/01/2006 01:29:47 PM · #34
Art is like onions.
Onions have layers...art has layers...
art is like onions.
02/01/2006 01:30:21 PM · #35
Originally posted by taterbug:

Art is like onions.
Onions have layers...art has layers...
art is like onions.


One word... windex.
02/01/2006 01:34:26 PM · #36
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

...

ART:

• stands for Assisted Reproductive Technology; The process of producing a pregnancy by fertilizing an ovum outside the female and emplaning the fertilized embryos.
//www.redwoodmalefertility.com/education/glossary.html...


I like this definition best, so far...

To me, art (lower case) is the most durable of man's creations despite our infinite attempts at squelching it.
02/01/2006 01:36:37 PM · #37

"Where the spirit does not work with the hand there is no art."
Leonardo Da Vinci

"Art is not what you see, but what you make others see."
Edgar Degas

"Art is a technique of communication. The image is the most complete technique of all communication."
Claus Oldenburg

"The job of the artist is always to deepen the mystery."
Francis Bacon

"The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance."
Aristotle

02/01/2006 01:39:55 PM · #38
Piet Hein, the Danish mathematician/philosopher, said this:

There is one art,
no more, no less:
to do all things
with artlessness.


And of course, see my signature...

R.
02/01/2006 01:52:25 PM · #39
The sole function of art today
is to prove a use to the world.
02/01/2006 02:00:12 PM · #40
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Photography is both art and not art. Anyone can take a photo, but it takes an artist to create art.

Yes, but anyone can annoint themself as an artist and call their photos art.

To me, one should do neither. Wait until someone else, perhaps with some level of qualification, calls it art. And after several of your works are called art, someone will call you an artist. Applying those labels for yourself is just egotism.

My personal way of thinking is that only a small part of photography is intented to be artistic. Most of it is just capturing and recording and relaying. Doing that well requires different skills but is not necessarily a lower calling than the more creative efforts.

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Is it art? I suppose you would have to ask the artist.
That should be the last person you ask.

Message edited by author 2006-02-01 14:10:31.
02/01/2006 02:03:13 PM · #41
Good one: "The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance."
Aristotle

I'm gonna go with that one ...

For me:
Art is fleeting but its representation and permanance are possible by artists. A photograph can be art.
02/01/2006 02:04:01 PM · #42
Here's an extreme example, but I think illustrates my opinion:
If you were to take a dump on my table, and I looked at it and said..."Now that's art."
then isn't it?
can you tell me it is not any more than I could tell you your favorite painting is not?
02/01/2006 02:22:13 PM · #43
Originally posted by idnic:

Give a 5-year old paints and a paintbrush. Will the child create "art", likely not. The child will put paint to paper with little thought.

I don't think it's with little thought at all -- I believe they know exactly what they're trying to depict. What they lack is the motor skills and hand-eye coordination which their young bodies have not yet fully developed, and training in perspective. Remember too, that the view of the world from the height of a five year-old's eyes is different from your elevated adult view -- try walking around on your knees for a day ...
Originally posted by nomad469:

Photography is the only ART that has its basis in Science (ok maybe 3D art)

Sculpture involves an intimate, scientific knowledge of minerology, metallurgy, and the characteristics of woods. Large scultures (e.g. the Statue of Liberty) involve structural engineering. There are some (dead) painters whose secret formulae to achieve certain colors are as yet undiscovered and unduplicated. Scientists are still trying to unravel the construction secrets of Stradavarius.

The only form of art I can think of which doesn't have a "scientific" basis would be á capella singing, and even that requires a strictly mathematical foundation if it is to sound like what we usually refer to as "music" and not atonal cacophony.
02/01/2006 02:24:17 PM · #44
Originally posted by taterbug:

Here's an extreme example, but I think illustrates my opinion:
If you were to take a dump on my table, and I looked at it and said..."Now that's art."
then isn't it?
can you tell me it is not any more than I could tell you your favorite painting is not?
Maybe not, but I might try, lol.

Here's another example, also somewhat extreme: everyday millions of digital images are captured by automated cameras to be used in the prosecution of red light runners. Are those works of art? I don't think so. But they are most certainly photography.
02/01/2006 02:33:01 PM · #45
Originally posted by coolhar:

Originally posted by taterbug:

Here's an extreme example, but I think illustrates my opinion:
If you were to take a dump on my table, and I looked at it and said..."Now that's art."
then isn't it?
can you tell me it is not any more than I could tell you your favorite painting is not?
Maybe not, but I might try, lol.

Here's another example, also somewhat extreme: everyday millions of digital images are captured by automated cameras to be used in the prosecution of red light runners. Are those works of art? I don't think so. But they are most certainly photography.


You make a good arguement for it being art, once you take the camera out of the hands of the artist and automated it is not art.

Even a photojounalist that is trying to record events will take into account the artistic presentation like composition, lighting and is trying to control how we view it, the same can be said for the family snapshot when we are asking people to smile we are trying to present a scene and in my view this what art is about.
02/01/2006 02:33:29 PM · #46
Originally posted by hopper:

is that Ross' monkey on "Friends"?

:)

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Are you related to Marcel Duchamp?


Ummm.....no.
02/01/2006 02:37:55 PM · #47
Originally posted by msieglerfr:


'Photography is not art but rather a way to capture art, whatever it is dead-still or moving'


I think this is a bit narrow. A photographer is often creating something with a photograph that goes beyond what his eyes and lens see. We control the exposure and the light (in most cases) to get what we want out of the captured image. We often create what we are photographing also, so maybe there is some additional form of art there. If we setup a still life and photograph it, we have created something that simply didn't exist in the beginning. When we change the position and intensity of the lights we use, we get the same effect. We aren't creating as much if we are simply walking around snapping at whatever we see. Those images, however, often gain artistic value over time by a simple concept called "nostalgia" :)
02/01/2006 02:39:20 PM · #48
Originally posted by coolhar:

Originally posted by taterbug:

Here's an extreme example, but I think illustrates my opinion:
If you were to take a dump on my table, and I looked at it and said..."Now that's art."
then isn't it?
can you tell me it is not any more than I could tell you your favorite painting is not?
Maybe not, but I might try, lol.

Here's another example, also somewhat extreme: everyday millions of digital images are captured by automated cameras to be used in the prosecution of red light runners. Are those works of art? I don't think so. But they are most certainly photography.


hehe, but once again, if someone looked at one of those photos, and loved it, and said "I want a print of that, that is real art"...how could anyone say it isn't???

...my point being, it is not the 'thing' (painting, photo, statue, piece of music, whatever) that determines itself whether or not it is 'art', it is in the viewer that decides if it is 'art'. And that will be different in each viewer.

So my opinion is, it is un-arguable. There is no right, wrong, or anykind of definition or solid answer. The more you try to define it, the further away from a definition you get.

But I'm just silly, don't listen to me :-)

Message edited by author 2006-02-01 14:45:06.
02/01/2006 02:50:18 PM · #49
Originally posted by msieglerfr:

Just a discussion about Photography, hope people will not be confused about this post.

I believe that photography is not art, here what I say if I need to quote what photography is:

'Photography is not art but rather a way to capture art, whatever it is dead-still or moving'

I wonder what is your conception of photography? How will you define it shortly?


Remember you opened this can of worms:)
and yes it is art
02/01/2006 03:16:36 PM · #50
Hemmingway to Irving Penn "Nice photos Irving, what kind of camera do you use?"

Penn "Thanks Ernest, I like your work too, what sort of typewriter do you use?"

Probably never happened, but it summs up the issue for me. Art is in the how not the what. Anyone can break a stone into smaller peices, a sculptor has something left over that other people want to look at.

And if you belive that photography is the only art that uses science, it just means that you have never fired a pot to cone nine, tried to cast a bronze, or mixed pigments to get a stable egg tempura. All plastic arts have their base in science.

"I am a carnivorous fish swimming in two waters, the cold water of art and the hot water of science." --Salvador Dali

Message edited by author 2006-02-01 15:24:53.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 09:46:08 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 09:46:08 AM EDT.