|
|
|
|
|
| | Can modern photography really be considered art?Page 2 of 4 (1, 2, 3, 4) | Discoafternoon asked the key question, "What do you consider to be art?" Until we define it, the thread will go round & round in circles like a dog chasing its tail. A couple of other posters mentioned "definition" as well.
But in casting about for a definition don't get stuck in narrow-minded concepts of what art might be. Like Nexus6 pointed out, art can't be defined by the type of medium. Even more absurd is to define it according to how long it takes to create it, or how hard it is.
I disagree with Sanguus who says that art is not in the eye of the beholder, but in the eye of the artist. Art is in the eye of the beholder, and the artist himself is one of the beholders. destination_happiness raised an essential point: it depends on your "motives" as an artist. I would use the word "intention", and I would apply it to not just the artist but any observer. If you behold something man-made, and it moves you emotionally somehow, then you likely intend to see it as art.
As you might guess, I definitely consider modern, indeed all, photography to be art. | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 6/19/2008 5:17:09 AM | So here's the thing, the question what makes art, art, will never have solid answer. It's different for each person. As far as photography goes, there is a difference between photography and simply taking pictures. You're right, anyone can take pictures when they're on vacation. However, photography is an art form. If you haven't studied it, you can't fully understand what it takes to make a great photograph. Like painting, there is a thought process involved. What am I going to photograph? What angle am I going to use? What should the focal point be? WHat do I want my message to be? What about the lighting? Did you know Monet painted the same scenes in various types of lighting and various seasons? A photographer can do the same thing to experiment. ANd I'm sorry, if you don't know what you're doing you won't be able to take pictures like Ansel Adams. You have to know about depth of field, shutter speed, and aperture. If you want to use a filter on the lens to play with the colors, etc.
There's a whole lot more, but I think you get the idea. Yes, photography can be art. It's not as simple as just pointing and shooting... that's simply taking a picture. | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 6/19/2008 8:55:12 AM | | Anyone interested in the question of "what is art" must study Duchamp. He considered that question more profoundly than anyone before or since. Are the "readymades" art? Not even he was sure. | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 6/20/2008 9:23:24 AM | | Kristinlia, what if someone takes a snapshot while on vacation, and it turns out to be a beautiful photograph admired by many. Is it still not art, just because the photographer had no formal training? I think it is art regardless of how much knowledge the artist has. Artistic photographs, paintings, whatever, can sometimes come about by chance. | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 6/21/2008 9:45:28 PM | Personally I distinguish snapshots from photographs. Snapshots are what you take while you are on vacation, at a party, or at the club. Photographs are carefully planned. You will take into account such things as visual balance, the 9 grid, and color harmonies. You may look at a snapshot and at a first glance think it looks pretty good, but if you hold it up against other "true" photographs, you will see that 99.9% of the time it pales in comparison. We have an annual photography competition here, and you can tell which ones are snapshots and which ones are true photographs.
In the end, it doesn't really matter. If you like what you see, isn't that what really matters?
D | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 6/22/2008 9:33:01 AM | Of course snapshots can be beautiful! There's no doubt about it. And, to those who view it, it may be art. However, I still maintain what i posted earlier. Maybe one has to have a trained eye to appreciate the difference between a snapshot and a photograph. I don't know. I know what I've learned. I majored in art so maybe I'm just looking at this through the eyes of an artist. But if people are saying photographs are just point and shoot, that's definitely not true. There is a process for ALL types of art. So photographs shouldn't be cast aside because people think anyone point and shoot.
But dstinct is right. You're the only one who can judge art at all. If you like it, great. If you don't, there's plenty of other pieces out there. | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 6/22/2008 2:21:52 PM |
With photography in general you are not really creating anything, you are merely recording what is in front of you, so how can that be art?
Well, this is simply mixing two things, I have a passion for photography and creating artwork, I consider my photography to be art.
Now, I MAKE images using my camera I don't TAKE them, this is the difference.
I compose them and use various manual settings i.e. DOF I therefore control what I shoot and make an image. Composition, use of space and depth of field just to name a few will make my shot different from someone just recording what's in front of them, therefore my photography will be unique, created .................. therefore it's art.
A photographer whether amateur or profesional has control of the outcome if they know how to use they camera, (manual settings), composition, chosing the subject, texture, colour , shape, etc ...... it has nothing to do with colour or bw. Not everyone has an eye either for use of space when shooting. It's difficult to learn, I personally think that is something you have or haven't (it's creativity). Some people see things that others can't.
You'll find that the best landscapes images are usually shot on long exposure, not anyone is able to use manual settings properly and get good results.
You're correct on one point, a good photographer will take less photographs as they will increase the amounts of good shots with practise.
There is more to colour and black and white, to differentiate what's art and what's not. An image that caught the attention of others, whether it's in colour or BW, because of it's depth, composition, message, emotion, and so on will be uniquely created by whoever shot it.
Definition of Art: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination, a skill acquired by experience, study and observation, an activity which requires a combination of practical knowledge, judgement, and imagination.
Therefore someone just shooting on automatic what's in front of them is not art. But many digital photography is very artistic and unique due to the knowledge and creativity of the photographer. | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 6/22/2008 10:59:06 PM | KristianLia, my question isn't "can't a snapshot be beautiful". My questions is, "if a point-and-shoot snapshot turns out to be beautiful, then is it art"?
South08, it looks like you would not see a beautiful snapshot as being art. What about a photograph created by someone who consciously tries using skill and imagination, but which then turns out to be boring and ugly. Is that art? Just because someone tried using skill? | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 6/23/2008 3:08:00 AM | the argument is pretty simple in my eyes
art...
is a personal expierience that you share with people
who cares what camera you use... what software you use to change it
you did it... you took the shot... you finalized the piece
and to you
its amazing
that is what art should be about ( what any artform should be about )
i understand that there is obviously a difference between professional and amateur
but at the end of the day
you have to do
what you do
for you, and then everyone else
....
however do i understand your argument, yes
it is relentlessly frustrating to see that anyone can do something youve practiced for decades
and it sucks, granted
.....
but as to your final question
if its their creation, and they caught the moment, i dont see how you couldnt think thats art.
im not a professional by any means, but have i caught some amazing scenes absolutely
and i will take full credit for that, but i would never claim to be a professional by any means.
........
okay i could write forever
...
in conclusion
art = creation
and i will give respect to anyone who has had the capability to take amazing shots
but i would hope those individuals would have enough respect to recognize that their is a difference between their work and someone who truly is a professional
if anything its something that starts them on their journey, to a deeper understanding of an artform
everyone needs inspiration in their lives... and if an amateur photographer was able to capture something... that inspired millions of people
how can we condem them?
just the way i look at the world | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 6/23/2008 4:41:47 AM | Hi Superdrew
No, of course not, a beautiful snapshot can still be art. At the end of the day, I think that it's down to the uniqueness of the image.
If a photograph or anything as a matter of fact, catches the attention of someone, for whatever reasons (as people will interpret and see things differently), and preferrably a lot of people lol and is pleasing to the eye, it's art.
As regards to photography, there are some rules though which make a photograph "balanced" whatever the subject. Personally I'm interested in composition and use of space and DOF. I will shoot whatever catches my eye, which is usually shapes, texture, light, colour which can be seen anywhere if you look around you....
It's about moving others, catching their attention with something you've created whatever the media used.
I think some of my photography is rather creative and unique, and I don't fit in one "box" as regards to style, therefore I dare calling it art  | |
|
| |
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 6/23/2008 5:12:47 PM | Call it what you want-photos, snapshots, well composed or not, art is subjective. It's part the creation of the artist /person and part audience.
2 people can take a digital pic of the same object and you'll get 2 different pics, because even though it's digital, the eye and perspective are what distinguish the differences between the two.
What isn't art?
Is there such a thing as not finding the artistic value in just about anything and any photo...No! | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 6/24/2008 12:48:32 AM | Art is not about a camera or the medium, be it photography, painting, drawing, whatever. If you get caught up in that, you've missed the point. It's like trying to qualify love by arguing blonde, brunette, or redhead...
Photography can be an art. Most of the time, it isn't. Painting can be an art. Most of the time, it isn't. The trick is in seeing, understanding, and appreciating the difference. | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 6/25/2008 6:42:11 AM | Who determines what is art? There is art that some consider to be crap and there is art that others get a lot of pleasure from.
Art is not a formula, it is a creation, it is different applications and mediums.
I have seen exhibitions of cell phone photography and that was art, whether anyone liked it or not, it still was art.
Because one doesn't relate to the way in which something has been created doesn't make it, not art.
To understand the whole concept of what is art, one must be able to think outside of the box or the frame or the canvas. | |
|
| |
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 6/27/2008 12:07:09 PM | I think that, in some ways, modern digital photography can be considered an art form.
But I've got to agree that's is less of an art form than taking pictures with film.
It's pretty easy for someone with a digital camera to re-take pictures of the same scene, until they're happy with it; or to take hundreds of pictures and select the best; or edit pictures on their computer.
With film, where a person can't see the finished result until afterwards, there's less room for error, and the photographer needs to anticipate how the finished result will look, since he can't easilly pre-view the finished result. | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 6/28/2008 10:28:02 PM | I have boxes of photographs I shot and printed myself over a span of 40 years+
I have almost as many digital stored on disc and on my pc.
I used to take black and white slides and develop them myself.
I take a lot of digital photos as well and edit them, similar to some the experimental editing I used to do in my darkroom.
All the cameras are different in the way the take a photo and the processing is also different.
But my work, regardless of what kind of camera or application, is equally considered to be, art!
when I look at my photos in my editing program, they look very different than a quick view in my digital camera.
Polariod photos are shot before the other camera shots, to preview the lighting, angle, composition, etc.
When box cameras were replaced with Brownie cameras, and disposable cameras showed up in stores, the photos produced were also questioned on their legitimacy of being an art form or art.
The 'perfection of the finished product, has lots to do with the skill and artistic talent of the photographer.
Just my 2 pixels' worth | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 7/1/2008 7:36:37 AM | [A photographer whether amateur or professional has control of the outcome if they know how to use they camera, (manual settings), composition, choosing the subject, texture, colour , shape, etc ...... it has nothing to do with colour or bw. Not everyone has an eye either for use of space when shooting. It's difficult to learn, I personally think that is something you have or haven't (it's creativity). Some people see things that others can't.]
I agree completely with this based on my couple of decades of professional experience as a photographer.
If my work were not considered art and approached by me as such I would not be making the living
that I am. This does not guarantee my living but the opposite does guarantee my demise.
My father and grandfather were exceptional oil painters, since I was a child of the late 60's
I found photography a much faster method to reach a very similar result to painting. In fact I call it
lightpainting. I can see beautiful light(usually natural) and direct it on my subject to achieve a pleasing result for my subject and me.
I apply all the other measures mentioned in the quote above as well as the principles learned at my fathers side while painting with him early in my life.
While I prefer black and white my knowlege from using it allowed me to apply many of the same principles to manipulate my use of colour film
to produce anything but a "snapshot"!
So glad I found this forum and pursued it to the second page. The first had nothing but music threads
and while I adore music I am glad to see the other "art" is in here somewhere!
Page | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 7/1/2008 12:17:57 PM | | I think it depends. I agree that art, and therefore beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. But really, art is just a form of expression. And if someone can do that through a photograph, including digital, and have it reflect a moment in time for them, how can that not be considered, even on a basic level, as art? | |
|
| |
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 7/1/2008 7:34:22 PM | First-off, one should realize the difference between "taking a picture" and "constructing a photograph." Ergo, the difference between "documentation" and "invention."
I am a mixed-media artist who invents images utilizing the photography mediums of both digital and film.
Metaphorically speaking, dubbing film photography "art" and digital photography "not art" is like calling an analog recording onto vinyl the only form of recorded "music."
If anyone is interested in seeing some of my more conservative work check out this link:
http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewPicture&friendID=6545503&albumId=1893864
ps.sorry if repeated anything already stated, i only got a chance to quick-scan the previous posts  | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 7/3/2008 12:31:41 PM | | It's amazing that some contributors to this thread thing that 'more effort' or 'more time-consuming' equals more artistic, and vice-versa. They need to think more about the definition and meaning of 'art'. | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 7/3/2008 5:53:17 PM | Photography to a painting done by a monkey's fingers, is considered Art. But I really don't care about both.
The long accepted understanding definition of Art was originally done by human hands/body through creative minds, not by animals or electronic (digital) equipment.
Isn't doing digital photography more of a function of Science than Art?<<that could equally be debated.
How is that being creative when you're just shooting photos on what is just in front of you, at any time? A lot of the photographers write that they have a eye for it or just see things that others don't. Well, everyone literally "sees" things differently and no two are alike, so someone with no clue can photograph a work of Art...with that in mind, we can go back to the monkey.
| |
|
| |
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 7/4/2008 12:04:22 PM | I guess it all depends on who you ask. Photography has many uses for both business and pleasure. It is often the basis of advertising and in fashion print. Photography can also be viewed as a commercial and artistic endeavor.
The word "photography" comes from the French photographie which is based on the Greek f?? (phos) "light" + ??af?? (graphis) "stylus", "paintbrush" or ??af? (graphê) "representation by means of lines" or "drawing", together meaning "drawing with light."
Traditionally, the product of photography has been called a photograph, commonly shortened to photo.
Im a painter. Im an artist. I make art. (reddwine.com)
Musicians can be artists, actors can be artists...but, do they make art? | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
