|
|
|
|
|
| | Can modern photography really be considered art?Page 1 of 4 (1, 2, 3, 4) | I got into a rather intense debate with someone I know about this.
They insisted that modern photography, even of the digital variety, is an art form. I recognize that some black and white photography may be considered art, but I don't think that modern color, especially of the digital variety, can really be considered art any more. I imagine that what I am saying may infuriate some people, but this is my opinion.
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?
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.
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? | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 5/26/2008 3:46:43 AM | 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?
aside from the fact that possibly anyone can recreate such works for example as from Ansel Adams - can one say the same of a portrait painter? a sculptor? Are they not also recording what is in front of them? - albeit to their own perceptions.
It's a good debate - however one needs to define the word "art" or even "artist" to bring the discussion and the argument to a common ground.
Be it 35 mil or digital, it's the finished product, the composition - does it pique my emotions, does it "wow" me - could I consistently do this, could I bring this product to the masses and have it acclaimed? Is it my chosen profession? - I'll consider the person who can, an artist, and their works, art - rather than my few lucky shots as art, or myself an artist. I think many people have the ability to create art, it's simply bringing it forward to the public, be it in whatever medium.
I've probably rattled off 2500 or more shots in the last year , but none equaled the effort of the one day that I asked my 6 year old daughter to make some faces for the camera. I captured 6 shots, developed them in B/W, cropped them, mounted them in studio frames, and after 7 years , they still please me. Art?, artist? not really.
Today I read an article of someone's exhibit at a gallery where the subject merely filled a room with pictures of common items found in the office environment - simple things that adorn a worker's cubicle, you name it, there was a picture. Interesting perhaps, but it didn't "wow" me. Art? Artist? hmmm - debatable.
I saw an exhibit last year where a photographer did some stunning work of capturing the simple life, portraits in a community of the back hills in West Virginia, all in black and white - stunning and memorable. Art? Artist? I thought so.
Art - in the eye of the beholder. | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 5/26/2008 5:50:11 AM | This is a good question and one that I never really understood until I spent some time with my best mate from Oz who's a great photographer. As nuts as this sounds, I just go by what I feel i.e.what elicits feelings in me that seems to be connecting me with 'something.' He's started to bring a different way of seeing things into my perspective.
To elaborate on what I'm talking about but in the context of music take a look at "Talks: Evelyn Glennie: How to listen to music with your whole body" on this link: http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/103. I'll never 'listen' in the same way that I used to again after hearing her. I'm sure a room full of monkeys can snap off a bunch of pics and produce something. In fact, there's an elephant painting somewhere whose prints are selling! No, not for peanuts, ya cheeky bugger.
I think I heard once that art is the connection between earth and heaven. The artistic mind more readily receives and interprets these vibrations. I often hear musicians, while composing, speak of picking melodies 'out of the air.' Perhaps it is a matter of degree in terms of consistency and excellence that distinguishes the artist from us mere mortals... | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 5/26/2008 12:38:03 PM | Art is not defined as certain types of medium. You can't definitively exclude something as art simply because of the method used to create it. It doesn't matter that a camera merely records what is in front of a person, what matters is that they recognize what is worthy of being recorded. If you give two different people identical cameras and put them in identical situations, you will end up with completely different photographs. 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.
Here is an example;
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b16/eclectixx/creek1postable.jpg
This photograph looks like an abstract painting. Most people would have photographed the trees on the other side of the creek, rather than the mud on the creek's edge. Most people would never notice the colors and textures in the mud, until they are put into focus by an artist with a camera. Is it art? I won't tell you what to call it, but I don't think you can make a compelling argument that it isn't art. | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 5/26/2008 7:00:02 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?
I respectfully disagree.
I would say that with the popularity of point and shoot camera, the majority of the images you see are pictures not photos.
A true photographer still has a large amount of control over the final images. Shutter speed, depth of field, and lighting can transform a scene into an image that is provokes a thought or emotion. The final image may not appear as it did in the moment.
I do agree that somehow digital has change the perception of photography. It has not made better photographers, it just made it less expensive to be a bad photographer. | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 5/26/2008 9:34:27 PM |
I do agree that somehow digital has change the perception of photography. It has not made better photographers, it just made it less expensive to be a bad photographer.
Not so sure about that, I see tons of photos on the net these days, from amateur no name photographers, what back in the film days would have been good enough for National Geographic. Now that there are tons of these high quality photos out there they are not so special anymore, because there are so many out there thanks to the ease and accessibility of digital. | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 5/26/2008 11:09:29 PM | I can't argue with that. I guess when I think about I do see a lot of striking amateur photos.
Do you suppose it might be because they are posted all over the net instead of stored in shoe boxes on the top shelf of the closet? I mean is it because of the cameras themselves or because of wide spread exposure. You we used to have to sit in someones living room and suffer through there slide shows. Now we go looking for photos online intentionally...lol | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 5/28/2008 2:01:56 AM |
Art - in the eye of the beholder. Actually no, it's not.
Art is solely in the eye of the artist - regardless of what medium they choose, if what they create is an expression of themselves, that is what defines it as art.
So yes, painting, music, photography, throwing rotten tomatoes at a canvas, creating strange hybrid animals with taxidermy (which I saw an exhibit of, actually...), crushing small rodents between cinder blocks (albeit being disgusting) - they're all art.
Now it's personal taste as to what's good art, and society defines high art - but the opinion of the one who sees the final product has no bearing on if it is or isn't art. | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 5/28/2008 10:12:42 AM | | actually if you're processing the film yourself and printing the photos as well, you have a lot of control over the chemicals and balance, even with colour photography, so you can bring out the greens on particular photos or whatever. | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 5/28/2008 3:21:49 PM |
actually if you're processing the film yourself and printing the photos as well, you have a lot of control over the chemicals and balance, even with colour photography, so you can bring out the greens on particular photos or whatever. Even just with Photoshop, you have control over the same adjustments on a digital photo.
Moving the slider to achieve the final result doesn't make it any less valid than putting a pinhole light and trying to time the exposure perfectly, or adjusting the time in each chemical bath (or whatever... I haven't done any manual film development since high school, my memory's a little fuzzy no-camera-focus-pun-intended).  | |
|
| |
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 5/29/2008 2:48:37 PM | Of course it can be considered art.
Doesn't mean its good art, or valued, or at all contributional to the art movement.
Really all art is, is the manipulation of media. So yes, even a monkey can make art.
How good the art is? thats a whole different issue completely.
Your reasons for it not to be art, are yes, reasons that infuriate an artist that spends time, and puts in effort, and takes good pictures without photoshop fixing it...but they are not really all that justifiable.
Its too easy? Not a good enough reason. Any practiced artist finds things easy. Art does not have to be complicated, nor does it have to be difficult. Its meant to inspire, raise questions, pose issues, react, and respond to the environment. I make large scale sculptures with techniques that most people have never even heard of, and i find my work easy.
Sounds to me like someone needs to get their head into the current time period and understand that even if they don't like it...digital photography, and digital media is an art form.
Hey, i don't like it either. How do you think I feel when i have to compete with poorly done sculptures getting imported from china in mass amounts being sold by the local furniture store for half the price of my piece. Or, how do you think the painter feels when you can buy a print mounted and printed on canvas and stretcher bars, put into a frame for a fraction of their work.
History will call this period in art the "designer" period. Where basically, cheap, soulless garbage will be considered arty.
If you have a big problem with digital art, maybe stop and realize, that even most traditional photographers use digital means in their artwork these days. And that yes, it does take skill to take GOOD photos with a digital camera as well. The best picture is the kind you don't have to edit.
But in terms of "what is art". Digital media and photography is art...of course it is. But, its not good art in a large sence, and it really isn't respected as much as traditional art forms. But its still art. And for you to classify digital media, and digital art forms in general as all being horrible, and a shame to the art community, it only shows that you haven't actually dabbled in it enough to know that it is work, and does take talent, if you want to produce something good. | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 5/30/2008 6:30:05 AM | | Go to U-tube watch some of the Photoshop videos and you will see what can be done and what is being done with photography now thats ART! It's totaly limitless and that makes the final result the creation of the artest! what else is there but the final outcome? | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 5/30/2008 7:19:53 AM | Hi, i was at the Tate Modern last week and while there was some 'Art' on display.. great Art... i'm talking Sculpting of Greek Gods and Goddesses and great paintings... i also saw some modern 'Art' which to me was just a few lines of scribble!! A child could do this in pre-school!! As for photography i have seen some great work black & white photography which in my opinion is a much better view than colour photography in most cases anyway!
It seems to me anyone can be a 'great artist' these days yet they have nothing on the great Artists of old!! | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 6/1/2008 6:04:50 PM |
As for photography i have seen some great work black & white photography which in my opinion is a much better view than colour photography in most cases anyway!
Do you think black and white is better for the same reasons I do? | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 6/2/2008 12:19:38 AM | | photography is photography no matter if its black and white or colour it is still a art form there are many people who like both formats colour has its advantages and so does black and white | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 6/2/2008 4:33:30 PM | It's definitely an art form. What's in the photo all depends on what the photographer puts in it - ie. they have to choose composition same as a painter would. The timing can also be crucial, particularly if it a photo of an animal or the likes. Then you also get photographers like me who like to radically alter their work. My fascination lies with abstract, so I like to make my photos very abstract and I play about with colour, composition, cropping etc. I take something I've already created and I use it to create something else. Everyone has their own ideas about what is or isn't art, and I don't think a definite conclusion will ever be reached. Part of the beauty of art!  | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 6/2/2008 5:38:23 PM | I don't think photography is art at all.....
When a painter paints he or she creates. Okay yes they may have something to look upon but ultimately it is their hand, skill, paitence, eyes, and opinion that creates that image on paper or canvas or whatever...
I mean you and I could get together and paint... let's say a vase with flowers in it... You may use different colours than I, yours may be more vibrant and in celebration of life while mine could very well be more aged looking..... I could go on and on to provide site into this but I'm sure you get where I'm going.
But you and I could go out and buy the same camera and take the very same picture of the vase and flowers....
That is why I don't think photography is art.
Don't get me wrong I LOVE taking pictures. My friends call me the paperazzi.... lol.... but I just can't see pictures as art. | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 6/3/2008 8:57:08 PM | | I think any kind of photography can be considered a form of art even digital photos I have seen some pretty amazing shots done with digital cameras I myself am a amatuar photographer no training of any sort just me and my eye and my digital camera and I must say some of my photos are breath taking and capture emotions as if you are not looking at the photo it is as of you are a peice of the photo. If the picture grabs your attention makes your think ,relate or feel the emotion then it is art regardless of what kind of camera took it. | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 6/4/2008 9:59:57 PM | | It is just like all forms of art it depends on what your motives are when you take that picture as to whether it is art or not. You can't just pick up a camera and take a picture that would win an art award. You have follow the elements of design in most cases. All art forms have gone threw the stage of "is this art or is in not". I am sure Andy Warhol had some comments make about his paintings of soup cans at first. If the image is appealing to you and you like looking at it then it is art even if it is only art to you. | |
|
776877
| | Joined: 10/13/2007
Msg: 21 | |
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 6/5/2008 6:11:29 PM | Sure there are plenty of great amateur photographers out there that hit the one lucky shot or two...the pro has to go out on THE day and shoot THE photograph, a far different pressure entirely and not nearly as easy or forgivable. Adobe photoshop can make many OK images good but it can't make them 'great' , good bones make a good face.
I prefer the classical landscape in B&W but my walls are covered with quirky colour pics etc. I do prefer the 'look' of film over digital, the print quality of the two cannot compare. A nice Ciba just kicks @ss! | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 6/7/2008 3:48:03 AM | | I visited the National Gallery of Art in D.C once...standing there looking at a Rembrandt or any number of other Artist of his time i got a healthy appreciation of the combination of talent and techinal ability...the same goes for a Beethoven or Mozart symphony...to me modern Art is taking a Rembrandt and putting Cambell soup cans all over it or putting one of Beethovens symphonies to a disco beat like they did back in the 70"s....little or no respect for "modern" Art | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 6/9/2008 9:52:40 PM | Just as trappedbayst says, art is in the eyes of the beholder. What might be art to one person may not be to someone else. I'm a creative person myself, art being one of the things I do. Most artists do spend a lot of time and money on their craft, especially photographers, good cameras and supplies are not cheap, and for many artists, success is *not* and overnight accomplishment, it takes years...True, one photographer's work may not be your cup of tea, but there will be other people who are both fans and patrons of that person....
 | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 6/10/2008 8:16:44 PM | | I think photo's are art. A trur photographer can go and and snap a great shot, because they are good at what they do. I could, as you say, snap a million and maybe recreate a great shot. But that's more luck than skill. I think like this, a professional golfer is great at what he does, one of the best in the world. If I go golfing one day and get a hole in one, does that make me as a professional? No. They have skills that few posses and are not easily replicated. | |
|
| Can modern photography really be considered art?
Posted: 6/11/2008 7:59:06 AM |
I got into a rather intense debate with someone I know about this.
They insisted that modern photography, even of the digital variety, is an art form. I recognize that some black and white photography may be considered art, but I don't think that modern color, especially of the digital variety, can really be considered art any more. I imagine that what I am saying may infuriate some people, but this is my opinion.
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?
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.
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?
What do you consider to be art? | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
