|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 7/6/2008 11:49:31 PM | I agree that this digital age we live in has made it easier for people to become competent photographers. Just like music programs have made it easier for a person to create good music. That is the progrogress of human kind. But since it is easier to take a nice exposed picture doesnt mean that a person is a good photographer. They will just get lucky more times then an amateur could before. A pro photogrpaher still would shoot consistently could photographs, while an amateur would not. A pro can have the image in his mind and create it with special conditions and tricks, while the amateur can not.
I think there should be 2 classses of phototgraphy.(Real Photography). Where the photographer tries to protrait reality the way thier eyes really see it. And (Photo Art), where a Photographer alters reality into a work of photot-art.
Reguardless,, each class requires the person be a true artists. Someone who consistantly produces good art.
The reason why amateurs can take good pictures, can be explained mathmaticaly.
If we have say 400 million people in North America. and say, 1 of 4 have digital cameras.
that leaves 100 million amateurs taken pictures. A person with a digital camera can take at least 100 pictures a year. That means there are at least 10 billion amatuer photo's taken every year in North America. (this is just a major under-estimate)
With so many photo's taken of reality, some have to connect to be good art. This does not make them a artist. They did not know why it was a good picture, they just either happened to take it by chance or felt it was good because it was good.
So to answer your question. Modern Photography is art. It is mostly created by artists, but some times an amateur gets in by chance. | |
|
| |
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 7/18/2008 3:54:43 PM | I think art, not unlike beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Creativity is subjective, and whether a photography communicates that...similarly.
Whether a photograph is captured in the modern age, or 50 or 100 years ago, has little bearing on whether it is "art" IMO...
Some will argue that digital has changed it as a medium.
It has. But it has not changed it's stature as one medium to which art may be achieved...ymmv of course. | |
|
Artcee
| | Joined: 7/10/2008
Msg: 55 | |
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 7/19/2008 11:15:06 AM | Art is everywhere...just look
and I agree with you A true artist will show you things through photography that you never would have seen with your own eyes were you in the same situation.
Artcee | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 7/24/2008 9:27:07 PM | Modern photography's use of the digital medium does not decrease it's potential for being art. A digital camera and Photoshop are merely tools in the process. I would bet that around the 1900's when film and cameras started being readily available to the masses that a lot of painters thought their art careers might be over. Admittedly, a lot of those folks were just commercial artists, and not fine artists. So it's important to realize the difference and define "what is art" to you.
As time marches on, there will always been technical advances in anything. As a professional photographer who shoots architecture, I consider what I do commercial art, not fine art. My goal is to "make" good photographs, not just "take" them. I think someone else posted those words too (they teach you that in photo school!!). An amateur photographer will get lucky from time to time and produce something worthwhile that might be perceived as art. But an experienced profession, whether he is a commercial artist or a fine artist, and in whatever his chosen medium will consistently produce good results. Well, at least most of the time! l would exclude some of the folks who do the Elvis velvet paintings though!
Or you can look at this way. The velvet painters might be true artists too. Is it not an art to develop a business selling to suckers with no taste? | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 7/26/2008 8:51:01 AM | I haven't read through many of the posts on the thread yet. I am a student pursuing my MFA in photography and writing. The question of whether or not photography is an art has been argued ever since people started taking photographs (photography was really developed for scientific purposes). I have taken photographs ever since the 4th grade when I bought my first camera for $1 on a field trip. It wasn't until last semester, my second semester in the MFA program, that I began to consider myself to be an artist (doing the math, that's over 30 years of taking photographs yikes!). Up until the last couple of years I was taking snapshots and not photographs. I specialize in macro photography and strive to find things that most people pass over.
I'll add more comments later when I've read more of the posts and had time to think about it. | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 7/26/2008 9:12:52 AM | OP,
My understanding of your interpretation of art is that if it's easy then it's not considered art.
I've seen digital photos of other photographers I admire, and I am still striving to pefect my technique. Even with a digital camera and zoom lens.
Then in the downloading, I've taken pictures with bad lighting and played with color, cropping, texture and spent hours creating something that was a far cry from the original.
Not all black and white photographs are considered art. Some are quite zzzzzz.
When a photographer can capture light, texture, colors and feelings in a close-up of an ordinary object...
It's self expression. It's subjective. It's art. | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 10/10/2008 8:27:13 PM | | I go by my own definition of art, music is a form of art. Art being an expression of feelings through many manners whether artistically being a pencil on paper. Or the strum of a guitar string, or the pitch of a voice singing a tune. As long as there is meaning behind it then it will always be considered art in my books no matter how... different the meaning may be. Its a matter of what we hold close | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 10/10/2008 10:36:18 PM | Digital is an art, many are afraid.
Pedro Costa ,Jon Jost, Agnes Varda,and many others have made digital videos that rank amongst the highest of all art.
We are overwhelmed with crap, so be it, all the more reason to create art yourself, FOR CHEAP!
Those denouncing the beauty of digital are too stubborn or too naive, or maybe simply fools?!
See the video "No Quarto De Vanda"(Costa, prt.) or "Passages" (Jost, eng.) or "The Gleaners and I" (Varda ,Fr.) if at all possible.
In Vanda's Room
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT1HArIj2y0
Passages
http://www.jon-jost.com/work/passages.html | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 10/12/2008 4:55:11 PM |
With color film, the photographer has no control over the final outcome, unlike with black and white film. 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?
Clearly you are not an artist yourself. If you were you would understand the difference between creation and documentation. A photographer has complete control over the scene. His (or her) camera does not create the photograph, it merely records light as directed by the photographer. A painter's brush does not create the painting, it merely delivers paint as directed by the painter.
The only time you don't have control over your final prints is when you take them to WalMart or Walgreens for printing. Most fine art photographers print their own.
I especially don't consider digital to be art, for, if no other reason(and there are many), it is just too easy these days. Anyone can pick up a digital camera, and, through a brief process of trial and error, take good photos. Even a monkey, if it takes enough pictures, at least one is bound to turn out good. To me, this cheapens an art form if anyone can do it.
By your logic, any painter could brush off hundreds of paintings...one of them is bound to be good. Does that mean that the painter is successful?
Digital technology has done nothing to diminish the art of photography any more than the point and point and shoot 35mm film camera has. My mom has a point and shoot camera. That doesn't make her a photographer...it just makes her an old woman who likes to take snapshots of her grandkids. Some of them are quite beautiful...and artful, if you will. I do agree that there is something sterile about digital imaging, but a photograph taken with intent is no less valuable than any other regardless of the medium used. I prefer film myself, but most of my commercial work is done with digital...profit margins are higher.
You can even go to Yosemite, take a zillion digital photos, pick out the best ones through trial and error, convert it to black and white and it can look as good as an Ansel Adams print. In fact, with a little practice and patience, and taking 1000's of photos on digital, I am sure anyone can get a great color vacation or landscape shot these days, they are a dime a dozen. So with something that anyone can do with so little effort, how can a digital photographer, especially ones who do landscape and travel photos, consider themselves a true artist?
practice and patience is how people learn. I never took a photograph with intent before the age of 31. Once I discovered photography, I poured myself into it. I took thousands of photos as a method of learning how to control light. It involved a hell of a lot more than 'so little effort.'
I made an ashtray once in 7th grade. I thought it was pretty cool. My mom still has it. I guess I'll call myself a sculptor now.
As for what can be considered art...I think that is less determined by the artist, or even society in general, but rather by the individual viewer. We all bring our own baggage with use when we view art. The artist created his/her work with intent and had some meaning or message in mind and that might not be picked up by the viewer...but the viewer, regardless of what meaning or message he/she picks up from the piece will walk away with thoughts in their mind that they didn't have before viewing the image, or painting, or sculpture or whatever....that person will determine if it is art...then they will determine if it is good or bad. The next person will do the same, so will the person after that and so on. | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 10/14/2008 4:02:00 AM | I've been studying and practicing photography for probably 20 years now. I still use film and also shoot digital with a DSLR. Photography to me has become about "Moments in Time", there is only that one moment, it will never return exactly the same, especially when we are talking about anything outside of a controlled studio environment. So I say that when using digital and shooting over and over until you get it right is not really capturing a particular moment in time, or getting the same results as the pros. It's true that amateurs just shooting for fun can get lucky, and if what they captured conveys the emotion and passion of that second in time, then indeed I consider it art. A working professional has but one opportunity to catch that moment no matter how modern their equipment is. The equipment helps, but the skill to get it right the first time came from practice and experience.
One of the classes I took in college on photography had a series about some of the famous photographers and even with film, this was B&W, were able to redefine what was reality, and what was on the photo. Manipulation of photos didn't start with digital at all, but it did make it easier in some ways. However how many people can manipulate photos to change reality in photoshop such that even experts cannot tell the difference? Honestly I don't think there are that many, especially amateurs, as it takes a lot more work and thought then most realize. Some if not most manipulations are obvious, but they are now crossing the boundary of the photo is just about what was in front of the camera, it has now truly become their own creation and the artists own vision. In that light I offer that the modern digital photography that is looked down on has the potential to be just as artistic and original as any painting or sculpture. I don't argue however that there are some really horrid offerings in this category. The vase and flower example that was brought up earlier in this thread with the idea that no matter who shoots that vase, it will be the same, is not true with either film or digital. There are literally endless ways to create that shot and get different results from each one.
I think one of the reasons photography has been questioned as an art form is because it has been used for documentation for media as well as evidence for courts. It was accepted by the general public that what you see is an accurate reproduction of what was documented. I happen to know a couple of local cops of which one is a crime scene photographer. In a discussion of this issue he challenged me to take a negative and photo of an old crime scene and change it so that it could have changed the outcome of the court case. Part of the challenge was to do this in such a way that no one could tell the changes had been made.
Procedure deleted for security reasons as an after thought, but I provided my cop friends with a new negative and hand printed image from a wet lab.
My friend took the photo and negative to an expert in the field and he could find nothing false or any reason to find fault with either the negative or the photo. He even had to originals to see what had been changed so he knew where to look. With a negative, and an image from a wet lab very few people would question this as documentation, but I had successfully changed what had been critical evidence in this case. I don't say what I did here was art, but it did take a bit of skill and knowledge of the field. It does however give strength to the position that photography is about the photographers vision and skill to create his vision, rather then just what is in front of the camera. My friend the crime scene photographer is still troubled by this experiment. Modern Digital Photography has made the public aware that photos may not be real. Maybe the some of the disdain for this medium is really about the loss of what was perceived to be reality?  | |
|
| |
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 10/15/2008 8:59:58 PM | I don't agree with you, and know many who would not. Art isn't always about the time you took to get a shot, or about how many years it took you to figure something out. Digital is so art. What is too easy? Figuring out how to efficiently use a computer program? That may be considered an art in itself.
Anyone can create art. We are all artists. Monkeys are not necessarily discluded as artists. We all learn through trial and error. If not, how else?
As far as the photographer not having control over the final outcome of a photo- RAW. Look into it.
I just really do not understand your disclusion.
Or, your point.
With respect-
Pamela | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 5/24/2009 6:20:50 AM | Whoever wrote this post evidently has no clue about art. As a professional photographer that paints with light (you might want too look that up), I spend more time working on a piece than most painters. Unlike a painting that you see what you get instantly, a photograph you do not. If you need a certain background in a photo like an angry sky, you might have to wait months for the right lighting and color unlike a painting, you just paint any color you want at any time. Sure anyone can get lucky and get an amazing photo on accident but then again anyone can splash paint onto a canvas and get the same result by luck with their eyes closed. By the way, I also paint.
P.S. Someone that takes a photo and manipulates it in Photoshop and adds color and other creative techniques to it is an illustrator and the piece is no longer a photograph. | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 5/24/2009 3:27:15 PM | As an artist in photography, drawing in pencil, colored pencil, and ink, painting in oil, water color, and acrylic, and as a digital painter, and also working in graphic art, I prefer to not cheapen myself nor compare myself to a Xerox machine.
Sure, yes, there are people out there who attempt to fake art. There are people out there who will steal art and say it is their own. There are thieves who will steal anything whether it is art or something else.
I do admit that I only recently accepted digital art as art. This is the most easily faked art form.
It takes snapping photo after photo to get just the right one. It's the same as sketching before the final drawing or painting to get just the right outcome. | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 5/25/2009 8:54:57 PM | | The impression I get from the OP is that they haven't viewed much photography as art. The tools of the craft have very little to do with the intent of the artist and what they are trying to convey. To reduce art to a question of the tools, how modern they are, how versatile they are, and how easy they are to use conveys a misunderstanding of what art is. Photography is captured by a photographer with a camera. These are images that capture moments of life, that are framed in the artist perspective. How the photographer develops the film afterward is irrelevant. What matters is the perspective, the message, and the response from the audience. | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 5/26/2009 10:04:02 PM | As a professional photographer and ARTIST for the past 30+ years, I'm almost insulted by the question. As a matter of fact, this is just a stupid question! There should be no debate! Those that don't believe that photography, however modern the equipment used, is an art, obviously have no idea or understanding of the definition of art.
Here... let me spell it out for ya....
From Dictionary.com:
ART (noun):
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.
5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.
6. (in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story?
7. the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.
8. the craft or trade using these principles or methods.
9. skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.
10. a branch of learning or university study, esp. one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature.
11. arts, a. (used with a singular verb) the humanities: a college of arts and sciences.
b. (used with a plural verb) liberal arts.
12. skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature.
13. trickery; cunning: glib and devious art.
14. studied action; artificiality in behavior.
15. an artifice or artful device: the innumerable arts and wiles of politics.
16. Archaic. science, learning, or scholarship.
Photography is first a science. The science of capturing light and making an image through chemical ( and now...digital) processes. The photographer in turn makes it art through composition.
Simply put; the painter uses paint to create art. The sculptor uses a chisel to create art. The modeler uses clay to create art. Agreed?
Well, the photographer uses a camera to create.
Just as paint and the chisel are tools to create "art", the camera is a tool.
Some people do indeed have "artistic vision", but can't draw a straight line on a piece of paper or hold a brush steady on canvas, so they use a camera.
And yes... Any monkey shooting thousands of images can take a GOOD photograph by chance. But it takes an artist to produce an image that is "extraordinary".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>
So with something that anyone can do with so little effort, how can a digital photographer, especially ones who do landscape and travel photos, consider themselves a true artist?
Because they take the time to actually LOOK and COMPOSE the image. It's not all *click* *click* *click* from the car window as they drive through the mountains and valleys as the sun sets with a hope for the best shot out of 1000.
Professional photographers will spend hours in one location waiting for the right conditions when doing landscape and travel images. I have a feeling that you really don't understand "The Art of Photography" at all.
Why don't YOU give us your definition of a "true artist"? | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 5/26/2009 10:09:15 PM | A few of my digital photographs are posted on my Multiply.com site.
You tell me, would you consider them "art"? ...Or just "luck"?
http://iiisixstringsiii.multiply.com/ | |
|
| |
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 5/28/2009 9:36:06 PM | The more I learn about photography, the more I come to appreciate the skill of great photographers. It's true that modern cameras make photography more approachable than ever, but it certainly doesn't take anything away from truly skilled photographers.
I'd also maintain that if all you're shooting are landscapes, you might be able to stick around and shoot 1000's of photos waiting for that one perfect shot, but most photography isn't like that. Even in that case, though, if you're able to pick one shot out of 1000 and know that that shot is the best, you're exercising artistry.
You're right -- lots of people can shoot "good" photos, but far fewer can shoot great photos. | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 5/29/2009 12:53:17 AM | People are going to say, "Art is in the eye of the beholder." blah blah blah....
Really I have seen some nice photography. I do know how hard it can be to get a great picture. Sometimes you spend hours trying for the right shot. Other times it just clicks. With digital SLRs etc... It's easier to take a picture than in the old days. At least you can see the picture before you even put it on your computer. The old days? You had to look through the negatives of 1000's
It is an ART FORM but GREAT art? Hmmmmmm. It is art for the masses! It is art for the poor!
I am a painter and woodworker. I can spend 6 months on one piece of furniture for wood.
The Traditional style of painting that uses Damar Crystals can take 7 layers over 7 weeks. That means Paint 1 layer, wait 7 weeks, paint layer 2, wait 7 weeks, etc... Most people would give up than to be that patient.
I purely am an art snob. When I walk into someones house or office I see a framed print it goes in one eye and out my... Well, you know... Same with that guy that paints those famous prints that people have on calendars. Um, Flem! Cough!
GICLEE prints are today's answer to, "lets fool the eye."
But NOTHING, NOTHING on earth could replace a high quality oil painting!
If Mona Lisa or Water Lilies or tons of other paintings where camera prints. They'd have been probably removed and stored years ago by the museums!
But here you have it! What is the most popular print of all time? "Starry Starry Night" by Van Goch! Oil!! Oil!!! Oil!!!!!!! Thicker than mud on a rednecks truck placed on a canvas!!! If you ever see the original. Pictures don't do it justice!
I never really liked Pollack's work until I seen an original.
Pictures in a book or a print on the wall is like watching anything. How the HECK do you get EUPHORIC enjoyment from it unless you have actually done it yourself! | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 5/29/2009 11:03:51 AM |
Same with that guy that paints those famous prints that people have on calendars. Um, Flem! Cough!
Noooo!!! Never mention his name!!!!! His minions are EVERYWHERE!
My eyes bleed every time I see his art poop! | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 7/21/2009 5:32:29 PM | Every day I get up and get dressed. I grab my trusty old Nikon N2020 (one that never failed due to electronic errors that the N2020 was known for). I leave the NDgrads and the colored filters at home (ya know, the stuff that gives me control over the color/exposure of the film), and I head to work.
When I get to work, I make sure that my digital cameras are charged, and that the work I've been CREATING for my clients is up to date, and see what I have on the schedule for the day. Sometimes its a simple portrait shoot, sometimes its a model, sometimes its a concert.... In any case, each time I take my cameras out (film or digital) I know that I have FULL control in interpreting the light.
Since I am the one in control, and I am the one doing the work, I get to choose what kind of images I make.
Instead of using a **stard amber filter or 80A warming filter, I shoot at about 7000K on the digital. Instead of using a 4stop ND, I use the 1/8000 shutter speed that those old film cams couldn't do.
The digital sensor and the film arent THAT different except for in terms of tangibility. Yeah, you can take your film and develop it in caffinol (coffee) or push it a couple of stops for grain, but guess what... when you push up a digital exposure, you get that grain again (it's called signal/noise ratio)
When I shoot, I shoot because I UNDERSTAND the digital process and how it works in my workflow. It is my art.
Yeah, when you shoot on ANY camera, you only have the scene in front of you to work with, and that is an objective fact. How you INTERPRET the scene is subjective and that's what makes it an art.
Peace out. I'm done working for today. | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 7/22/2009 4:01:09 PM | Ansel Adams was a professional, who knew exactly what he was doing. He would decide what he wanted to achieve, and could then climb a mountain for two hours with all his equipment, set up, wait, take one shot and then turn round and go home with a perfect picture.
As a Fine Art Photographer, I totally agree with you that most photos (digital or film) aren't 'arty' enough to be considered 'Fine Art'. But, whether you are an amateur or professional photographer, when you take a picture and something incredible happens with light reflections; or you get home and see what was going on behind the focus of the picture; or you catch a descisive moment, where a picture looks black and white, but then you notice the girl with red hair in the background. That's when it changes and becomes more interesting on another level! Then you can call it Fine Art!
If you don't believe me, come over and I'll show you Fine Art Photography! | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
