I would assume that everyone in this forum thinks of photography as a form of art. What I'm interested in is how do you, as a photo enthusiast, think the the public at large perceives photography's relationship to art? Personally, I think there is sort of a strange dichotomy with how the public perceives photography's artistic merrits.

I'm confident that if you asked a random sampling of adults "Is photography art?" you would get a comfortable majority that would answer yes. But here's where I see the dichotomy, plurality, whatever you want to call it...

If you purchased a painting and hung it in your home or office I'd bet 9/10 times the conversation would go like this:

Them: Nice painting!
You: Thanks
Them: Who's the artist?

On the other hand, if you purchased a photographic print of an image you admire and hung it in your home or office, I'd bet that 9/10 times the conversation would go like this:

Them: Great picture! Did you take that?
You: No
Them: Oh. [uncomfortably look away]

It's like the public readily admits that it takes artistic talent to create good photographs but they can't quite understand the idea of wanting to acquire someone else's photography because you admire it as art.

 

i see your point.

The public seems to think that taking great pictures is as easy as point and shoot. I think i'm not that great a picture taking, but have been told some of mine come out great. But trying to get the right angle, light, shading, and many other factors really fall flat with me.

Seems like unless you painted it, people seem to think that it's just something they can already see themselves, so who cares right???

I give tons of credit to great photographers, it's definitly way harder than it looks, and to capture that "something" in a photo is hard work and takes some skill. Yet i think many dont realize this.

 

Unless you are talking about Ansel Adams...yes you are correct.

Artists are a very close knit community...and only other other artists, and ture art fan really know names that aren't just mainstream.

I was at The Tate Modern museum of art in London in dec and one of the special exhibit they had was a photographer. Cant remember his name (i know right.....totally in the vain of this thread) and he shoots everything digitally...its all staged...but he shoots everything in pieces and uses the computer makes one huge, and i mean HUGE image...and then has it printed on a mylar like paper and mounted on a lightbox.

If i hadnt watched a video knowing how he worked...i would have thought he just took single posed images and wouldnt have really cared.

But at the same time..this is why I want you to "sign" that picture you took. When I have a print made....it will be clear I didnt take it.

 

I dont think photography is automatically art, but it CAN be art. A painting or a sculpture on the other hand, is probably always "art".

 

I kinda agree with you. But it all depends on your definition of "art".
I think this is a great thread btw. Some people take photographer's and their "art" for granted. And like Sarlacc said by signing your work that will make others aware of the fact that this is not just any picture but a piece of artwork.

 

Well yeah.

Taking pics at your family renunion is not art.

Walking around England/Arizona/etc with a sole purpose of finding interesting compositions, colors, images = art.

 

But it's also inportant to note that taking pics of your family can be art, it just usualy not. That the subject really doesn't make the difference.

Though i see what your saying. As family pics usually are taken by the guy with his finger over the flash, and a thumb over the lense.

 

Yeah, but even when I take pics like that, I'm not going to for anything special...happy accidents on occasion.

But yes, i know what youre saying.

 

Good thread Billiam.

My :
Art should never be about impressing your friends, it should mean something to you.

In general, I would say the majority of the population really doesn't care about art, regardless of form. Some people claim to be music fans, but they never critically listen to a piece. Listening to music for them is turning up their stereo as they leave the McDonald's drive-through.

When it comes to photography, these people aren't going to care about the careful composition, the delicate choice of exposure, or timing of a great shot. Most people believe that cameras take the picture, not the photographer. This I believe is the reason for the megapixel wars we're seeing today.

The one good thing that is coming out of the digicam boom is that there are now more people with cameras than ever before. With more of the population taking shots, its bound to generate more interest in photography as art. People will compare the shots they take to some of the masters and realize that there's more to a good shot than having 8.0MP inked on the front of their P&S.

I have to say this though: To me, photos are very personal. Every shot I take isn't just a pretty scene, it's a part of a story. Looking at my shots brings me back to that moment in time and leads me to memories of what was going on around me when I was taking the exposure.

I love looking at other people's work but I would have a hard time hanging someone else's photos on my wall. Since I wasn't there when it was captured, I don't really feel connected to it. I can certainly respect it and admire the lengths that they went to to get the shot, but hanging it in my house is something different altogether. I have no problems with other people wanting prints of my work, since everyone views art differently.

I have original paintings hanging in my place but I think the difference to me is that for one I can't paint, and secondly, since it's entirely composed in someone's head, I don't feel the need to associate with the scene portrayed.

Times are changing, and I'm sure we'll start to see photos gaining in popularity in the art world.

 

Yes and no....I still think a lot people will be like

"why are pictures better then mine? which camera do you have?"

The smart ones already know its the photographer not the camera.

So, you couldn't hang an Ansel Adams print on your wall?

I'm somewhat with you on that...I only have my stuff on my walls...but i sometimes also feel its a bit pretentious. Like artists who hang their own paintings.

When I get Bill's print it will be the first outside photo I ever choose display.

 

I don't think of a good picture as "art." I could take 500 pictures today and maybe get a couple really good ones, but wouldn't consider myself an artist. Take National Geographic, some of the best photos ever taken, but I don't see art, just incredible photos. On the other hand, take a picture and add your imagination to it and you can create art out of it, as in a double exposure or changing it in Photoshop.

Sorta an example how I see it.

A Hawk pic- just a picture of a hawk, I don't see any artistic value.


A Hawk pic- Didn't change a piece of artwork, changed a picture and created an artistic image. I consider this "art"

 

Bdog...but you can many things in camera as well..

most importantly control your exposure.

But also...dont forget you are comparing "life/nature photography"

What about studio photography where the shooter has control over EVERYTHING.

 

To put some persepective on this, I was looking at some of the work from the professional photographers that were leading the Arizona workshop I attended. I really loved some of their stuff and after hearing from them how tough it is to make a living at photography, I wouldn't mind throwing some some disposable income their way. I just know, however, that hardly anyone I know will "get" the idea of spending any resectable amount of money on a "picture" I didn't take myself.

I think this is my personal "sticking point" that just need to get over. If I enjoy and admire the work, just get it.

 

Yea... I can kinda go both ways on the artistic value of a photograph. A camera on auto will take a pic and maybe a great pic, and you still need to have the eye to take a great photo. Then the operator can adjust everything and take the same shot again and have it come out totally different (fast or slow shutter, lighting...) I know there are some photographers that have the artistic eye for a great shot, but I still see a great photo, not a great piece of art.

 

While I hope one day to be able to buy some real "art" for my own viewing pleasure..and investment.

If I could ever afford an orginal Ansel Adams print....I'd scoop it up in a heartbeat.

 

Interesting discussion.


Artists back then (painters) had to deal with what was "art" versus indecency when they painted nudes. Same goes for many photographers today...Billiam does raise a nice point about the way people perceive photography vs. paintings...But, as a food for thought, could painting be "respected" more because it takes time where as photography is just a click (:ibtpeoplewhosaythatgoodphotographytakestimetoset up: )?

Also, it's kind of strange...but, people who see black and white pictures with that hazy look often immediately make the picture out to be an "artistic" photo.

 

Now let me throw a curve ball on this.

Its all about the presentation. If you are looking photos...compared to looking at something nicley mounted/framed/displayed.

 

I think photography is definitely an art. Regardless of the 'type' of photography (eg: portraits, nature, sports, etc). or the 'style' of photography --- it's 100% creative, based on perception of the photographer, and originality. Also, people's view, interpretation, like or dislike, and opinions when viewing someone else's work are completely different from another's, as it is when viewing any type of artwork.

I've been on tons of photo shoots with a few friends where we all take COMPLETELY DIFFERENT shots, views, and angles even though we're standing right next to each other shooting the same subject. I tend to see minute details they don't see and focus in on those, while they see a completely different shot. Photography = Art, for sure.

 

P.S. I hate paintings!

Photography

 

I can see Ansel Adams, Richard Avedon, Andy Warhol... as great artists who have taken photographs I would consider as a piece of artwork. I guess it comes down to presentation and subject for me to consider a photo art. I could take a picture of my Jeep in front of my house, spend hundreds framing it and I still wouldn't consider it art, but yes, an Ansel Adams mountain photo framed hanging on a wall would look artistic.

 

Excellent point. We each place our own values on presentation. When I look at images I truly admire, I'm alsways thinking "I'd love to have a print of that" or "I wonder if that photographer has a book?" I've never thought to myself "What an excellent photograph, I'd love to have that as my computer wallpaper."

 

I have bought books of prints before, but never been tempted to frame and hang any of someone else's work. However, I certainly like to support great artists whenever I can. I would love to attend a workshop someday with Stephen Johnson, Michael Reichmann, or Darwin Wiggett because I think they all have so much to share.

 

I kind of liked this one in your uncle's house:







Seriously, I thought of JC and AD when I saw that.

 

The real question here is, 'what is art'.

Two notable entries in webster.com's definition of 'art':
1) skill acquired by experience, study, or observation
2) the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects

I think that sums it up well.

Photography is not generally considered art, because as a general rule, people who take pictures are not artists. They take pictures for 'documentation', like a photo diary. You see basically the same picture, over and over, with different people, in different places. There's nothing wrong with this, of course.

They shoot pictures the same way I cook food. You learn enough (which isn't much) to get the job done. Cooking can certainly be an art, if I choose to pursue that. But I don't. I just care that the food tastes OK. People tend to just care that in their pictures that 1-2 things are recognizable and focused. It's definitely not art until you start putting a little bit of imagination and creativity into it.

Side musing: In their cases, I suppose the camera is indeed doing 90% of the work.


Painting/sculpture is almost always art because it requires a hell of a lot of skill/creativity to make something that doesn't look like crap.



Another side note, pictures that someone puts out or displays is usually personal to them. Most of the time people want pictures taken of them,
so usually most pictures people have aren't taken by them at all!

I have a random picture someone printed for me of a dog, which I happen to like a lot. I don't know why I like it so much, but I went ahead and had it up on my wall in my cube. So I got this ALL the time:

Them: "Nice picture - is that your dog?"
Me: "Oh, no, just some random dog at a dog show"
Them: *blink*

 

I feel the same way about photographs, including my own. The key difference, IMO, is the intent of the work. Like you said, most photographs are taken for "personal documentary" reasons and not to become art objects.

 

Something to keep in mind, art is not necessarily defined by the end result.

If some goes 'oh, I can do that' and then goes out and shoots exactly the same picture (which is quite doable), then no, I wouldn't consider that art, or very artistic.

Much of the art is in deciding what to shoot, and how to shoot it to make it look like the way you want. Art is a form of expression, and creation. I'd say something is art if one person can look at something and say 'I think it's better now', and other person says, 'I think it's worse now', and both are right.

 

Is that strange? The world is not black and white. To be able to think 'this would look good in black and white' shows a lot more creativity than your typical snapshotter.

 

Part of the challenge of photography is that it has taken over the documentary work that painting used to play, leaving painting as a fine art to be purely "fine art". However, it is useful to remember that Rembrandt, for example, painted numerous single and group portraits on commission, work that would probably now be done by a Bachrach studio...... (useful to remember that Rembrandt had a studio filled with apprentices that did a lot of the scutwork, including infilling the background, leaving Rembrandt himself the exclusive task of specific portraiture, following the development of a "cartoon" for the image that he would generate - studio painting was common amongst artists at the time; Michelangelo worked with assistants, for example.....) that Rembrandt lifted his portraiture from the realm of documentary art to fine art via his passion for composition and light/shadow is an indication of his skill as an artist.... same could be said for John Singer Sargent, whose innumberable paintings of wealthy Bostonian society women became art because of his passion for light and shadow, texture and composition. However, I doubt that his patronage was interested in anything more than a fine documentation of Mary and the kids.

The technical aspects of photography as a craft subsume the technical skills of painting to capture portraits, for exmaple, and other "informational" shots. That said, it is certainly possible to lift photography to fine art - as Ansel Adams did, for example. Fine art can even transform journalistic photography to fine art, as the work of Robert Capa illustrates.....A sense of wit and irony can transform journalistic photography into social commentary, as Weegee did, with his searing photos taken quickly as a street journalist.... and the work of Mapplethorpe can transcend the technical aspects of the craft to create art that outrages some, and puzzles many............ but at least provokes a reaction.

 

I like a lot of the points made and I hope I can add to them. Taking a picture in and by itself is not art in my opinion. One can argue that painting is consider art only because it requires more skill, but that doesn't mean what you painted was any good.

I like to look at art with the literal definition of:
"Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature."

"The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium."

Anyone can take a picture. Anyone can slap paint onto a canvas. I see photographs and canvas paintings as art when something is captured within the realm of the above two definitions. Both are tools of communication and the art is invoked when you choose to use the tool in a certain manner.

 

completly agree, the art should be about you and what you want.



:cough: i would love to see a music forum :cough:

 

Movie forum first buddy...and I have been waiting a long time...so don't count your blessings anytime soon.

 

nuts, ok. I'm down for a movie forum.

 

I'm not counting my blessings either

At this point if we keep adding sub-forums...there won't be any real ramblings section.

 

oh well

 

There are already a few too many sub-forums, in my opinion. Even the threads here in Cams & Photography aren't getting the same exposure they used to in Ramblings. It's all up to Soopa, but I can't see it happening at all.

 

I was never for a photography forum, but AD bitched about too many photography posts in Ramblings and now we have one. I'd prefer it to be a part of ramblings not a subforum.

 

Although it is nice to have all the photography threads seperated for informational purposes. I would rather have it part of ramblings as well.

 

I'll cast the dissenting opinion here. In the big picture of AZ should this forum have happened? Probably not. Now that it's here though, I'm liking this the way it is.

I agree that the threads are getting much less exposure, but I also think they are much more targeted. Every photography related thread in ramblings inevitably turned into the equivalent of

"What camera did you use for that? Really, cool. I've been thinking about getting a camera. Which one should I get?"

If home theater has its own sub-forum, cameras & photography should as well.

 

good point. I do like it now that it's here.

 

This I firmly disagree with. To say that a simple drawn stick figure is comparable to a Monet oil painting is preposterous. The same criteria we apply to painting can be applied to photography as well. In fact, many of the techniques employed are the same (composition, lighting, texture, etc).