to do like to make a record of people / places / things or do you prefer to make art ?

[TacticDesigns]

I've seen these conversations and always find myself going back and forth. What makes photography non-art for you?

Very simple.

If you look at the list of the commonly-accepted "arts", all but one of them start with a blank slate and then a human manually creates something from their mind onto that blank slate. A painter with a blank canvas, a sculptor with a chunk of rock or clay, a composer with a blank sheet of music paper, a choreographer with a stage and a dancer, an architect with a site and a use-case for the building, and so on. Only photography uses technology to record something that's already there (not just in the "artist's" mind) onto the medium.

If one item in a classification system is different than all the others then that item doesn't belong in that class.

This list is from Wikipedia. I would argue that every one of them starts with a blank medium and then something is created by the artist from the mind of the artist - except Photography.

• Visual arts
  • 3.1Architecture
  • 3.2Ceramics
  • 3.3Conceptual art
  • 3.4Drawing
  • 3.5Painting
  • 3.6Photography
  • 3.7Sculpture
• Literary arts
• Performing arts
  • 5.1Dance
  • 5.2Music
  • 5.3Theatre

Further, there's another activity that's very, very similar to photography that isn't generally considered an "art" (it's not on the list above) - sound engineering. A sound engineer uses technology to record sounds (usually music) using a substantial amount of technique and skill, and then post-processes those recordings to create the final product - just like photography. Yet, it's not considered an "art". Why is photography an art and sound engineering not an art?

This seems to me to be a simple problem of classification - photography and sound engineering are not the same as the other accepted arts since they use technology to record something created elsewhere (nature, composer, musician, whatever), and therefore should not be included in that class. One is already excluded, why not the other? It's inconsistent.

If you have a logical argument that counters that argument, then I'd ask that you present it.

Logical arguments are all based on acceptance of definitions.

If your argument is based on more accepted examples and definitions of art (which are not necessarily more accurate definitions, you're relying on arumentum ad populum, which you yourself consider a logical fallacy.

Until some understanding of art surfaces that everyone accepts with equal validity, 'logical' arguments about it will be based on varying definitions, and thus inconclusive.

For me, my definition of art includes conceptual art.

And the artist that is considered the grandfather of conceptual art is Marcel Duchamp.

If you look up his readymades . . . the thing that Marcel Duchamp tried to do with this was to remove the hand of the artist.

These are manufacturer items that are already made (Readymade). And it is the mere act of Marcel Duchamp selecting the object (and writing something witty on it LOL) that makes it art.

He even went out of his way to pick items with little to no aesthetic appeal.

And sometimes he didn't even pick the item himself. He had someone else go pick it up for him. LOL.

So . . . for me, that really isolates the act of art to being . . . within his mind and then communicated to our minds. It is not the artifact itself that is important, but the idea . . . the concept.

So . . . if I can accept Marcel Duchamp's Readymades and conceptual art as art, then I can accept photography as art.

Even if we are taking a picture of something that already exists in front of our eyes.

Even if the scene is readymade! LOL.

By us selecting to capture a particular perspective at a particular time and sometimes communicate the idea we had in our heads while we were shooting it to the viewer . . . then to me . . . that is the same thing as Marcel Duchamp's readymades!

It can be art!

Take care & Happy Shooting!

 

[TacticDesigns]

...

Very simple.

If you look at the list of the commonly-accepted "arts", all but one of them start with a blank slate

In the film days, wouldn't the unexposed film be the "blank slate"?

In the age of digital cameras, it would be the sensor data, before any light hits it.

No, the "blank slate" would be the scene, not the device used to record it.

If I point my camera at something and push the button, it isn't always the case that what gets recorded looks like what my eyes saw.

https://flic.kr/p/f3ta4W

Before I push the button, there is a blank slate.

How I set up my camera, whether I choose shallow-depth-of-field or deep depth-of-field, whether I choose to focus on subject A or subject B, or whether I drag the shutter, or I introduce flash with high-speed sync flash to make daylight look like night.

These are all things I can do to change how the picture I take looks.

It is possible for different photographers to be photographing the same thing . . . and the images they end up with come out completely different.

That is the creative side of photography.

That can be the art.

Take care & Happy Shooting!

The analogy is the "blank slate" is the music paper on which a composer creates a song, not the hard drive on which the digital recording will eventually reside.

and then a human manually creates something from their mind onto that blank slate.

A painter with a blank canvas, a sculptor with a chunk of rock or clay, a composer with a blank sheet of music paper, a choreographer with a stage and a dancer, an architect with a site and a use-case for the building, and so on. Only photography uses technology to record something that's already there (not just in the "artist's" mind) onto the medium.

For photographers that can be envisioning the end picture.

They get an idea in their head.

So they grab their camera, go to where they need to be in order to get the shot they have in their head.

And then they either make the event happen or they wait for it.

And if they build the scene, it's art (i.e. a feature film maker creating a set). If it's just captured, it's not.

If one item in a classification system is different than all the others then that item doesn't belong in that class.

This list is from Wikipedia. I would argue that every one of them starts with a blank medium and then something is created by the artist from the mind of the artist - except Photography.

• Visual arts
  • 3.1Architecture
  • 3.2Ceramics
  • 3.3Conceptual art
  • 3.4Drawing
  • 3.5Painting
  • 3.6Photography
  • 3.7Sculpture
• Literary arts
• Performing arts
  • 5.1Dance
  • 5.2Music
  • 5.3Theatre

Further, there's another activity that's very, very similar to photography that isn't generally considered an "art" (it's not on the list above) - sound engineering. A sound engineer uses technology to record sounds (usually music) using a substantial amount of technique and skill, and then post-processes those recordings to create the final product - just like photography. Yet, it's not considered an "art". Why is photography an art and sound engineering not an art?

Aren't there awards for best sound?

Just because it isn't "art" doesn't mean it doesn't require skill, and therefore be associated with competitions and awards.

 

[Lee Jay]

If I point my camera at something and push the button, it isn't always the case that what gets recorded looks like what my eyes saw.

https://flic.kr/p/f3ta4W

Before I push the button, there is a blank slate.

Before you push the button, there is a scene.

How I set up my camera, whether I choose shallow-depth-of-field or deep depth-of-field, whether I choose to focus on subject A or subject B, or whether I drag the shutter, or I introduce flash with high-speed sync flash to make daylight look like night.

These are all things I can do to change how the picture I take looks.

And how you set the volume, equalization, compression, reverb etc. changes how an audio recording sounds, and yet that process is not considered art.

 

[sybersitizen]

I've seen these conversations and always find myself going back and forth. What makes photography non-art for you?

Very simple.

If you look at the list of the commonly-accepted "arts", all but one of them start with a blank slate and then a human manually creates something from their mind onto that blank slate. A painter with a blank canvas, a sculptor with a chunk of rock or clay, a composer with a blank sheet of music paper, a choreographer with a stage and a dancer, an architect with a site and a use-case for the building, and so on. Only photography uses technology to record something that's already there (not just in the "artist's" mind) onto the medium.

If one item in a classification system is different than all the others then that item doesn't belong in that class.

This list is from Wikipedia. I would argue that every one of them starts with a blank medium and then something is created by the artist from the mind of the artist - except Photography.

• Visual arts
  • 3.1Architecture
  • 3.2Ceramics
  • 3.3Conceptual art
  • 3.4Drawing
  • 3.5Painting
  • 3.6Photography
  • 3.7Sculpture
• Literary arts
• Performing arts
  • 5.1Dance
  • 5.2Music
  • 5.3Theatre

Further, there's another activity that's very, very similar to photography that isn't generally considered an "art" (it's not on the list above) - sound engineering. A sound engineer uses technology to record sounds (usually music) using a substantial amount of technique and skill, and then post-processes those recordings to create the final product - just like photography. Yet, it's not considered an "art". Why is photography an art and sound engineering not an art?

This seems to me to be a simple problem of classification - photography and sound engineering are not the same as the other accepted arts since they use technology to record something created elsewhere (nature, composer, musician, whatever), and therefore should not be included in that class. One is already excluded, why not the other? It's inconsistent.

If you have a logical argument that counters that argument, then I'd ask that you present it.

Logical arguments are all based on acceptance of definitions.

If your argument is based on more accepted examples and definitions of art (which are not necessarily more accurate definitions, you're relying on arumentum ad populum, which you yourself consider a logical fallacy.

I think my argument is the opposite - that the fact that lots of people accept photography as art isn't a reason to accept it.

Equally, the fact that other people don't accept photography as art isn't a reason to reject it. So it always comes down to what each individual accepts as art.

If we can't agree on the definitions of words and which items fit into each category then we don't have a basis of communications.

My argument isn't based on how many people accept anything but rather the characteristics of the activities in the class.

There can be outliers in the classes of all things.

Then there's something wrong with the classification system.

There's not necessarily anything wrong with classifications that accept outliers. They're just not refined to the level of granularity that some people would prefer.

People who consider photography as art presumably consider it an outlier, but still within the class.

The fact that photography and sound recording were only recently possible in the long history of humanity, unlike those other things, almost automatically makes them outliers.

And thus, not art, in my opinion.

There we go: opinion.

Until some understanding of art surfaces that everyone accepts with equal validity, 'logical' arguments about it will be based on varying definitions, and thus inconclusive.

The lack of an accepted definition is a pretty big problem for identifying which activities fit in the class.

And thus the 'logical' arguments wind up being opinions in the end.

Which is part of the problem.

It's not really a problem unless someone feels it necessary to characterize the answer to the question 'What is art?' as something other than an opinion.

Here's someone else's take on the whole thing:

What is art? The question that has been troubling the humanity for centuries. The nature of art has been described by philosopher Richard Wollheim as ‘one of the most elusive of the traditional problems of human culture’. The definition of art is open, subjective and debatable. Throughout the history of art, artists themselves have been pushing the boundaries of each definition and challenging our preconceptions. As the concept of art has been changing through centuries, its purpose has been defined as to represent reality, communicate emotions or ideas, create a sense of beauty, explore the nature of perception, explore formal elements for their own sake, or simply being nonexistent. The role of art has been changing over time, acquiring more of an aesthetic component here and a socio-educational function there. There is no agreement between philosophers, art historians and artists, and thus, we are left with so many definitions.

There isn't much point in trying to force the concept of 'art' to fit into a specific box.

 

[Ellis Vener]

when you are using your camera do you get more pleasure using it recording people events , places and things

or to make art ?

--
Ellis Vener
To see my work, please visit http://www.ellisvener.com
Or on Instagram @EllisVenerStudio

 

[stevo23]

Here's an example from me that I don't consider art at all, but it's almost exactly fitting your description above. There was a "supermoon" and I planned to capture it from a specific place at a specific time to get it "resting" on the mountain. I succeeded. However, it didn't come out like I planned because a cloud put the back mountain in the shade. It's not how I envisioned it, it's how mother nature made it, and it was captured by a piece of technology not by my own hands.

What focal length did you have to use? I like this.

300mm on APS-c.

Thanks.

 

[stevo23]

I've seen these conversations and always find myself going back and forth. What makes photography non-art for you?

Very simple.

If you look at the list of the commonly-accepted "arts", all but one of them start with a blank slate and then a human manually creates something from their mind onto that blank slate. A painter with a blank canvas, a sculptor with a chunk of rock or clay, a composer with a blank sheet of music paper, a choreographer with a stage and a dancer, an architect with a site and a use-case for the building, and so on. Only photography uses technology to record something that's already there (not just in the "artist's" mind) onto the medium.

If one item in a classification system is different than all the others then that item doesn't belong in that class.

This list is from Wikipedia. I would argue that every one of them starts with a blank medium and then something is created by the artist from the mind of the artist - except Photography.

• Visual arts
  • 3.1Architecture
  • 3.2Ceramics
  • 3.3Conceptual art
  • 3.4Drawing
  • 3.5Painting
  • 3.6Photography
  • 3.7Sculpture
• Literary arts
• Performing arts
  • 5.1Dance
  • 5.2Music
  • 5.3Theatre

Further, there's another activity that's very, very similar to photography that isn't generally considered an "art" (it's not on the list above) - sound engineering. A sound engineer uses technology to record sounds (usually music) using a substantial amount of technique and skill, and then post-processes those recordings to create the final product - just like photography. Yet, it's not considered an "art". Why is photography an art and sound engineering not an art?

This seems to me to be a simple problem of classification - photography and sound engineering are not the same as the other accepted arts since they use technology to record something created elsewhere (nature, composer, musician, whatever), and therefore should not be included in that class. One is already excluded, why not the other? It's inconsistent.

If you have a logical argument that counters that argument, then I'd ask that you present it.

Logical arguments are all based on acceptance of definitions.

If your argument is based on more accepted examples and definitions of art (which are not necessarily more accurate definitions, you're relying on arumentum ad populum, which you yourself consider a logical fallacy.

I think my argument is the opposite - that the fact that lots of people accept photography as art isn't a reason to accept it.

Equally, the fact that other people don't accept photography as art isn't a reason to reject it. So it always comes down to what each individual accepts as art.

My argument isn't based on how many people accept anything but rather the characteristics of the activities in the class.

There can be outliers in the classes of all things. People who consider photography as art presumably consider it an outlier, but still within the class.

The fact that photography and sound recording were only recently possible in the long history of humanity, unlike those other things, almost automatically makes them outliers.

Until some understanding of art surfaces that everyone accepts with equal validity, 'logical' arguments about it will be based on varying definitions, and thus inconclusive.

The lack of an accepted definition is a pretty big problem for identifying which activities fit in the class.

And thus the 'logical' arguments wind up being opinions in the end.

But I think it's fairly clear were he draws the line.

 

[Lee Jay]

There can be outliers in the classes of all things.

Then there's something wrong with the classification system.

There's not necessarily anything wrong with classifications that accept outliers. They're just not refined to the level of granularity that some people would prefer.

Yeah...I think that's a problem.

People who consider photography as art presumably consider it an outlier, but still within the class.

The fact that photography and sound recording were only recently possible in the long history of humanity, unlike those other things, almost automatically makes them outliers.

And thus, not art, in my opinion.

There we go: opinion.

That outliers are a problem.

Until some understanding of art surfaces that everyone accepts with equal validity, 'logical' arguments about it will be based on varying definitions, and thus inconclusive.

The lack of an accepted definition is a pretty big problem for identifying which activities fit in the class.

And thus the 'logical' arguments wind up being opinions in the end.

Which is part of the problem.

It's not really a problem unless someone feels it necessary to characterize the answer to the question 'What is art?' as something other than an opinion.

If it's all just an "opinion" then why do so many people so vehemently defend photography as an art?

Here's someone else's take on the whole thing:

What is art? The question that has been troubling the humanity for centuries. The nature of art has been described by philosopher Richard Wollheim as ‘one of the most elusive of the traditional problems of human culture’. The definition of art is open, subjective and debatable. Throughout the history of art, artists themselves have been pushing the boundaries of each definition and challenging our preconceptions. As the concept of art has been changing through centuries, its purpose has been defined as to represent reality, communicate emotions or ideas, create a sense of beauty, explore the nature of perception, explore formal elements for their own sake, or simply being nonexistent. The role of art has been changing over time, acquiring more of an aesthetic component here and a socio-educational function there. There is no agreement between philosophers, art historians and artists, and thus, we are left with so many definitions.

There isn't much point in trying to force the concept of 'art' to fit into a specific box.

I guess that's fine, but the result of that is that the word has no meaning.

 

[TacticDesigns]

If I point my camera at something and push the button, it isn't always the case that what gets recorded looks like what my eyes saw.

https://flic.kr/p/f3ta4W

Before I push the button, there is a blank slate.

Before you push the button, there is a scene.

+1

Just like when I draw or paint from a scene.

And if I am drawing or painting . . . I can make changes if I want. Just like I do with taking pictures.

How I set up my camera, whether I choose shallow-depth-of-field or deep depth-of-field, whether I choose to focus on subject A or subject B, or whether I drag the shutter, or I introduce flash with high-speed sync flash to make daylight look like night.

These are all things I can do to change how the picture I take looks.

And how you set the volume, equalization, compression, reverb etc. changes how an audio recording sounds, and yet that process is not considered art.

That is your opinion.

Which is fine.

But all it takes is one person to believe that it is art, and . . . for that person it is.

Your argument would be valid for yourself, but not the other person.

Take care & Happy Shooting!

 

[sybersitizen]

And thus the 'logical' arguments wind up being opinions in the end.

Which is part of the problem.

It's not really a problem unless someone feels it necessary to characterize the answer to the question 'What is art?' as something other than an opinion.

If it's all just an "opinion" then why do so many people so vehemently defend photography as an art?

Well, first you'd have to demonstrate that so many people do it. And if that's demonstrated, it could be addressed as a more general question about why so many people vehemently defend any kind of opinion.

Here's someone else's take on the whole thing:

What is art? The question that has been troubling the humanity for centuries. The nature of art has been described by philosopher Richard Wollheim as ‘one of the most elusive of the traditional problems of human culture’. The definition of art is open, subjective and debatable. Throughout the history of art, artists themselves have been pushing the boundaries of each definition and challenging our preconceptions. As the concept of art has been changing through centuries, its purpose has been defined as to represent reality, communicate emotions or ideas, create a sense of beauty, explore the nature of perception, explore formal elements for their own sake, or simply being nonexistent. The role of art has been changing over time, acquiring more of an aesthetic component here and a socio-educational function there. There is no agreement between philosophers, art historians and artists, and thus, we are left with so many definitions.

There isn't much point in trying to force the concept of 'art' to fit into a specific box.

I guess that's fine, but the result of that is that the word has no meaning.

We each assign a meaning to it, but the meaning is a personal one. And that's probably as much as can be logically said.

 

[Lee Jay]

I guess that's fine, but the result of that is that the word has no meaning.

We each assign a meaning to it, but the meaning is a personal one. And that's probably as much as can be logically said.

Then it's not a term that can be used to communicate.

 

[sybersitizen]

... And thus the 'logical' arguments wind up being opinions in the end.

Which is part of the problem.

It's not really a problem unless someone feels it necessary to characterize the answer to the question 'What is art?' as something other than an opinion.

If it's all just an "opinion" then why do so many people so vehemently defend photography as an art?

Well, first you'd have to demonstrate that so many people do it. And if that's demonstrated, it could be addressed as a more general question about why so many people vehemently defend any kind of opinion.

Here's someone else's take on the whole thing:

What is art? The question that has been troubling the humanity for centuries. The nature of art has been described by philosopher Richard Wollheim as ‘one of the most elusive of the traditional problems of human culture’. The definition of art is open, subjective and debatable. Throughout the history of art, artists themselves have been pushing the boundaries of each definition and challenging our preconceptions. As the concept of art has been changing through centuries, its purpose has been defined as to represent reality, communicate emotions or ideas, create a sense of beauty, explore the nature of perception, explore formal elements for their own sake, or simply being nonexistent. The role of art has been changing over time, acquiring more of an aesthetic component here and a socio-educational function there. There is no agreement between philosophers, art historians and artists, and thus, we are left with so many definitions.

There isn't much point in trying to force the concept of 'art' to fit into a specific box.

I guess that's fine, but the result of that is that the word has no meaning.

We each assign a meaning to it, but the meaning is a personal one. And that's probably as much as can be logically said.

Then it's not a term that can be used to communicate.

Reality shows that communication about what qualifies as art has been going on for centuries, and continues to go on, despite the absence of a universally shared meaning for the word. The communication exists, but the ultimate usefulness of that communication is questionable, and probably always will be.

 

[Lee Jay]

If I point my camera at something and push the button, it isn't always the case that what gets recorded looks like what my eyes saw.

https://flic.kr/p/f3ta4W

Before I push the button, there is a blank slate.

Before you push the button, there is a scene.

+1

Just like when I draw or paint from a scene.

Not necessarily.

And if I am drawing or painting . . . I can make changes if I want. Just like I do with taking pictures.

But those drawings or paintings are done by a person, not by technology.

How I set up my camera, whether I choose shallow-depth-of-field or deep depth-of-field, whether I choose to focus on subject A or subject B, or whether I drag the shutter, or I introduce flash with high-speed sync flash to make daylight look like night.

These are all things I can do to change how the picture I take looks.

And how you set the volume, equalization, compression, reverb etc. changes how an audio recording sounds, and yet that process is not considered art.

That is your opinion.

Which is fine.

But all it takes is one person to believe that it is art, and . . . for that person it is.

Your argument would be valid for yourself, but not the other person.

If we don't agree on the definitions of words, we can't communicate.

 

[TacticDesigns]

If I point my camera at something and push the button, it isn't always the case that what gets recorded looks like what my eyes saw.

https://flic.kr/p/f3ta4W

Before I push the button, there is a blank slate.

Before you push the button, there is a scene.

+1

Just like when I draw or paint from a scene.

Not necessarily.

For me personally it is.

Are you saying what it is like for me?

And if I am drawing or painting . . . I can make changes if I want. Just like I do with taking pictures.

But those drawings or paintings are done by a person, not by technology.

Just like the camera.

I liken the camera to the pencil, charcoal or Conté I use for drawing. Or the oil, latex or egg tempura paint I use for painting.

It is the medium I use to get an idea recorded.

How I set up my camera, whether I choose shallow-depth-of-field or deep depth-of-field, whether I choose to focus on subject A or subject B, or whether I drag the shutter, or I introduce flash with high-speed sync flash to make daylight look like night.

These are all things I can do to change how the picture I take looks.

And how you set the volume, equalization, compression, reverb etc. changes how an audio recording sounds, and yet that process is not considered art.

That is your opinion.

Which is fine.

But all it takes is one person to believe that it is art, and . . . for that person it is.

Your argument would be valid for yourself, but not the other person.

If we don't agree on the definitions of words, we can't communicate.

For me, I liken it to the words "Favourite Home Cooked Meal".

Does that mean the same thing for me as it does for you?

It might mean completely different things.

It could be completely different cuisines.

But just because it means different things to different people, it doesn't mean we can't talk about it.

In fact . . . the more different the better IMHO.

I love trying new dishes.

I rarely refuse to try something new.

That IMHO is where the fun is.

Take care & Happy Eating!

 

[Lee Jay]

If I point my camera at something and push the button, it isn't always the case that what gets recorded looks like what my eyes saw.

https://flic.kr/p/f3ta4W

Before I push the button, there is a blank slate.

Before you push the button, there is a scene.

+1

Just like when I draw or paint from a scene.

Not necessarily.

For me personally it is.

Are you saying what it is like for me?

You *always* paint from a scene? That's unusual.

And if I am drawing or painting . . . I can make changes if I want. Just like I do with taking pictures.

But those drawings or paintings are done by a person, not by technology.

Just like the camera.

Nothing like a camera.

I liken the camera to the pencil, charcoal or Conté I use for drawing.

That's crazy talk.

Or the oil, latex or egg tempura paint I use for painting.

It is the medium I use to get an idea recorded.

But you don't do the recording, the technology does.

How I set up my camera, whether I choose shallow-depth-of-field or deep depth-of-field, whether I choose to focus on subject A or subject B, or whether I drag the shutter, or I introduce flash with high-speed sync flash to make daylight look like night.

These are all things I can do to change how the picture I take looks.

And how you set the volume, equalization, compression, reverb etc. changes how an audio recording sounds, and yet that process is not considered art.

That is your opinion.

Which is fine.

But all it takes is one person to believe that it is art, and . . . for that person it is.

Your argument would be valid for yourself, but not the other person.

If we don't agree on the definitions of words, we can't communicate.

For me, I liken it to the words "Favourite Home Cooked Meal".

That's not a valid analogy.

One is a definition of a word, one is a personal preference.

You're not entitled to define your own words unless you invent a new word.

 

[TRIODEROB]

I have to give Mr. Jay credit ..... he sticks to his guns

can you imagine if Lee Jay .. .. was a Deejay ?

he would be "Lee Jay the Deejay "

 

[chipmaster]

Late to the party, but life is about creating memories, I guess my memories are more important than creating art for others to judge.

Photography for me is about the tool to capture my life and what I see thru my eyes. Don't care if it is art or just memories for me. Most can be done with an iPhone and a few need some really nice gear, but gear is less and less important and convenience become more as all the gear is converging in capability.

 

[New Day Rising]

If I point my camera at something and push the button, it isn't always the case that what gets recorded looks like what my eyes saw.

https://flic.kr/p/f3ta4W

Before I push the button, there is a blank slate.

Before you push the button, there is a scene.

+1

Just like when I draw or paint from a scene.

Not necessarily.

For me personally it is.

Are you saying what it is like for me?

You *always* paint from a scene? That's unusual.

And if I am drawing or painting . . . I can make changes if I want. Just like I do with taking pictures.

But those drawings or paintings are done by a person, not by technology.

Just like the camera.

Nothing like a camera.

I liken the camera to the pencil, charcoal or Conté I use for drawing.

That's crazy talk.

Or the oil, latex or egg tempura paint I use for painting.

It is the medium I use to get an idea recorded.

But you don't do the recording, the technology does.

How I set up my camera, whether I choose shallow-depth-of-field or deep depth-of-field, whether I choose to focus on subject A or subject B, or whether I drag the shutter, or I introduce flash with high-speed sync flash to make daylight look like night.

These are all things I can do to change how the picture I take looks.

And how you set the volume, equalization, compression, reverb etc. changes how an audio recording sounds, and yet that process is not considered art.

That is your opinion.

Which is fine.

But all it takes is one person to believe that it is art, and . . . for that person it is.

Your argument would be valid for yourself, but not the other person.

If we don't agree on the definitions of words, we can't communicate.

For me, I liken it to the words "Favourite Home Cooked Meal".

That's not a valid analogy.

One is a definition of a word, one is a personal preference.

You're not entitled to define your own words unless you invent a new word.

The meaning of words changes all the time. People begin to use them in different ways and sometimes those two meanings stick.

We see examples of this right here in the forum.

In a very short period the word "bokeh" has shifted from referring to the aesthetic qualities of the out of focus areas to more commonly being used to refer to the plane of acceptable focus (or the area outside the plane of acceptable focus - even the misused definition varies).

The term "mirrorless" was coined following the introduction of the Panasonic G1 as a shortened form of Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera. It is now frequently used to refer to any camera that does not have a mirror, including those long preceding the G1.

There are many examples in English where the meanings of words in common usage have changed, often to the point where the previous meaning is almost or entirely lost. The word "gay" is an obvious example.

 

[New Day Rising]

If I point my camera at something and push the button, it isn't always the case that what gets recorded looks like what my eyes saw.

https://flic.kr/p/f3ta4W

Before I push the button, there is a blank slate.

Before you push the button, there is a scene.

+1

Just like when I draw or paint from a scene.

Not necessarily.

And if I am drawing or painting . . . I can make changes if I want. Just like I do with taking pictures.

But those drawings or paintings are done by a person, not by technology.

How I set up my camera, whether I choose shallow-depth-of-field or deep depth-of-field, whether I choose to focus on subject A or subject B, or whether I drag the shutter, or I introduce flash with high-speed sync flash to make daylight look like night.

These are all things I can do to change how the picture I take looks.

And how you set the volume, equalization, compression, reverb etc. changes how an audio recording sounds, and yet that process is not considered art.

That is your opinion.

Which is fine.

But all it takes is one person to believe that it is art, and . . . for that person it is.

Your argument would be valid for yourself, but not the other person.

If we don't agree on the definitions of words, we can't communicate.

I don't agree with this at all.

Sure, in your field of engineering terminology is necessarily precise and definite and needs to be for effective communication. But outside your sphere things are different.

I work in research and evaluation in the social sciences. There are many words in common and frequent use in that literature, and in general use, that do not have agreed definitions. Yet the words continued to be used for effective and meaningful communication

Indeed, there is a rich body of work that, at least partly, centres on discussing those definitions. Those discussions in themselves give rise to new information.

A classic example is the word "community", a word in constant use, yet one with no no agreed definition. Despite this, in general use there is rarely any issue with communication that uses this word being effective and understood by all or most who receive it.

--
"You should take photos of whatever you want. That's punk" - Joe Strummer

 

[Peter Jonas]

...

Very simple.

If you look at the list of the commonly-accepted "arts", all but one of them start with a blank slate

In the film days, wouldn't the unexposed film be the "blank slate"?

In the age of digital cameras, it would be the sensor data, before any light hits it.

No, the "blank slate" would be the scene, not the device used to record it.

The analogy is the "blank slate" is the music paper on which a composer creates a song, not the hard drive on which the digital recording will eventually reside.

I do not agree with you Lee Jay.

My logic tells me that when it comes to painting and photography, there are clear analogies between the two.

There is the scene (specifically in landscapes but also in a more generic way), which is the same in both cases. There is the end product, which is the painting on one hand and a print or a display on the other hand.

In both cases there are two more things in between:

1) Technology, which is the brushes, paint, pencil chalk and other items a painter use to create his art on one hand, and the lens, camera (recording medium) and processing on the other.

2) Human expression and creativity.

On this basis, I consider that both painting and photography can be art, but neither is necessarily art.

In my opinion, for anything to be called art, the essential ingredient of human creativity and expression must be present. In fact I consider this to be the definition of art.

Most arts will use some degree of technology to facilitate the human expression and creativity. The technology is the tools of art. These can be the brushes, musical instruments, recording media or modifying tools. The technology used by an artist can be old (chalk), middle aged (musical instruments) or new (camera sensor). They are just technology, no matter at which time they were invented.

I do, however, agree with you that a member of a classical orchestra is not really an artist. They may well be perfectly capable of being artists, but in their capacity as a member of such an orchestra, they are master craftsmen (or women) whom I personally very often respect and admire more than some artists.

I do consider a conductor, a composer or a solo performer an artist.

I take lots of photographs. Some of them I am really pleased to look at, but none of them are art. They are not art, because I do not intend them to be art. I do not put in a creative effort. I do not take them to be used as means of personal expression. I just want to record what I see.

But I have seen lots of what I consider photographic art. Some of them I liked some of them I did not. But that is not what makes them art or otherwise.

--
Cheers,
Peter Jonas