Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Recently, I re-read an interesting article by noted photographer Guy Tal (you can read here Words Matter ). Guy talks about the tendency for people to separate photography from the arts. Even in our own forum we see this occur as the title of the forum is "Photography and the Arts". Now I believe that the meaning of this forum was to include photography into the other arts but we often see the two being spoken of as separate.

So, what is your feeling about this? Is it art or something else? If it is art, is there freedom to use artistic license in the making of a photograph?

I am very interested to hear your views on this.

Many thanks in advance,

Stix

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I think that in order to determine whether photography is art, we have to define art. As I see it, Art is emotional communication. Art strives to make one feel. It does not necessarily strive to ma

The problem with answering your question is that Photography is not one narrowly defined thing, just as Art is not. Personally I am not concerned with the semantics or academics of photography, I just like to take pictures. I leave it to others, to label them as they wish.

I view the title of this forum as an attempt to be inclusive, allowing for various interpretations, not as an attempt to separate things.

Edited by villagefarang
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Photography can be art, just as painting can be art. But painting my walls is not art, neither are any of the photos that I have taken. But look at the work of the truly talented, who have used a camera or paint as their medium of expression; and there is great art to be found.

Min Thein, as always, is a good read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ming-thein/art-and-photography_b_4297646.html

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Photography can be art, just as painting can be art. But painting my walls is not art, neither are any of the photos that I have taken. But look at the work of the truly talented, who have used a camera or paint as their medium of expression; and there is great art to be found.

Min Thein, as always, is a good read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ming-thein/art-and-photography_b_4297646.html

Really good article. Thanks for that link.

I think anyone who is an artist started with very elementary and unsophisticated efforts. But in time, the love of art captured them and they evolved into 'successful' artists. I like to consider my photos as art albeit, elementary and unsophisticated but the love for photography is there. So, FR, are your photographs art? I think you have to look at your motivation. Are you simply trying to 'store' memories or are you trying to convey what is inside of you?

I think that inside of most of us on this particular forum, our desire is to create art. It is an art that desires to capture what moves us or to tell a story in images. I think most of us also want to become better at our art.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Subject is everything ?

Subject, composition, lighting, textures, the perfect moment, luck, an eye for the creative. And (if you are discussing the subject with your wife) a box full of the latest gear which you really need to acquire otherwise you can't take a decent photo....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not art.

For lazy people who want to be artists but don't have the dedication or talent to learn a manual skill.

10 reasons why photography isn't an art form.

http://richardxthripp.thripp.com/2008/06/10-reasons-why-photography-sucks-and-isnt-an-art-form/

Extract

"Cant you see how dumb this is? If photography was an art form, we wouldnt have millions of pages debating the subject. It would be plain and obvious. The very existence of a debate proves that photography as art is shaky ground to stand on. You dont see anyone debating painting as an art form, or protesting the Mona Lisa as uncreative."

Edited by FiftyTwo
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There may very well be individuals who wish to create art on this forum but unless someone states that desire explicitly I would not make that assumption. The notion of becoming better is also quite subjective.

How about, happier with the outcome, more pleased with the result or perhaps less confused about, what does what, on the camera or in the software. Some want to learn through study, while others want to learn through experiment, trial and error. Some may not be as interested in learning, as in the joy of doing.
I say it is up to the photographer to choose what they want and it is up to the viewer to decide what they like. Some things in life are complicated, for me, this is not one of them.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard this subject come up over the years. As technicians we know lighting etc.. I am most satisfied when I hear the great photographers attribute the success of their images on their subject.

Photography is art and science - also seems correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting timing as I was just looking into this subject yesterday. Having been very active in the arts and had purchased several fine art pieces over the years, what defines art to me is the strong emotional response that it invokes. I was a VIP at the art gallery that I visited monthly and made purchases from and had the opportunity to see and hold top art pieces. One time I came into the studio and was asked if I would like to see a Rembrandt. Of course I would and they took me into a private showing room and brought it out of the safe. Set me down at a table with it and an eye loupe to examine.

I was thrilled and excited by getting this close to a Rembrandt but it was because of the artist and not an emotional response to that particular work. I didn't buy it as it didn't have that 'feel' for me. All my other pieces a strong attachment and bit of awe in the piece was all I needed.

I feel the Art of Photography is two fold. One is art in the technical sense and the photo is taken with finesse and technically very good. The 2nd, is it is done to make something more than it was originally and invokes a strong feeling about it. I've researched it as it is a very interesting area to investigate and puts one mind in motion in how to look at things with a completely different perspective.

Usually creating art from photography means to go beyond the 'take a shot' attitude and need thought and planning in constructing the piece. The below video is an example of many photography artists and their work. It is very clear that they go well beyond the street shot mentality in their production.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

A very broad & open-ended question....to which i won't be giving a narrow & long-winded answer.

'Photography' is nothing more than another working medium where art can be created......either by accident or by design.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some excerpts:

2. Is there even Art in Photography?

In seeking answers to my questions, I learned that there has been a lot of debate not just about whether or not the art of photography is dying, but if we can even consider photography an art?

There has been a lot of treatises on whether it is or it isn’t. To the opposing side, the primary objection is that taking a picture of something does not create art. The mechanical process handles all the work – can a photographer capturing the image of something which is already present be considered ART?

Well, according to Tolstoy, which I know many of you guys know,

“Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously by means of certain signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through, and that others are infected by those feelings and experience them.”

From that definition of art. There is no doubt for me that Photography is ART.

This brings us to my next question.

3. What makes Photography an Art?

I wanted to define art for the sake of the discussion but it would just lead to a much wider debate. So let me just quote William Faulkner.

“The aim of every artist is to arrest motion, which is life, by artificial means and hold it fixed so that a hundred years later, when a stranger looks at it, it moves again since it is life.”

No other words can define photography any better than this. So, what makes photography an art?

  • Photography shows the Photographer’s Vision

It is true that when we look at a photograph, we are looking at a scene that already existed in this world and that’s just a mere image recorded. But definitely that’s not all. We are also looking at how the Photographer viewed the scenery and how the photographer chose to capture and present it to make it his art.

  • It makes a Statement

More here http://www.1stwebdesigner.com/inspiration/dying-art-photography/

Link to post
Share on other sites

“What is your perspective on photography being “art” ? What makes photography art if so?”

Photography can absolutely be an art form. As far as I see it, photography is simply another medium, like painting or sculpture or film, with which one can create visual images. Every time a new medium comes along there’s always a period of questioning whether or not that new medium can be classified as being “art”. For a long time, monoprints were not considered to be a true form of printmaking, and people are still trying to figure out right now where digital media is going in terms of being considered an art form.

The distinction I’d like to make here is that in my opinion, there is no visual medium that exists that is inherently art, all the time. Afterall, if that were the case, everything that is visual in the world would be deemed a work of art. Photography has a massive range of applications, and there are certainly numerous uses of photography that I would not consider to be art. This is the way it is with any other visual medium; just because something is visual does not mean that it is necessarily a work of art.

http://claralieu.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/ask-the-art-professor-is-photography-art/

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the comment about it being highly debated. All new media forms are debated at first until they prove themselves to be acceptable. Photography, film, has reached that point of acceptability, digital has some time to go yet. Even lots of debates using conventional media formats (painting, sculpture, etc) abound. Some may see one painting as art and another just a water color a kid could do. So the media doesn't define it but what is behind it that does and the creativity involved to produce it.

Good example is Andy Warhol - some consider his 'art' as genius, some as just junk and not art at all. Interestingly enough, many of his paintings/drawings are done from his own photographs. So he is just reproducing a photograph onto another media. Does that define that transitional piece as art or just a copy?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...