Art vs. photography

...question for all of you, totally non equipment related in the slightest way.

Where do photography and "art" become separated?

My daughter is already an accomplished portrait artist, doing paid commisions on a fairly steady basis. She, however, uses pencils on paper as opposed to my pixels on a print. I have been using digital manipulation ever since I figured out what you could do with it - going back in time to where all you had was stuff like Aldus Photostyler, Photoshop was still a gleam in someone's eye.

I scanned negs and slides to create digital files that I then worked on to create all sorts of interesting imagery. I, as I'm sure many of you have as well, have learned to use digital manipulation, or "photoshopping", to enhance many of the photos I've taken, with very pleasing results. As far as I've always been concerned, it was "art".

...the other day, after someone was viewing some work my daughter and I had on display, I was told that what she did was "art", mine was simply taking pictures...

...so please inform me, what's the big difference I'm missing? What is it that we are trying to create? I'm not talking about taking snap-shots with a point and shoot at birthdays, but taking the time and creativity neccessary to create visually stimulating and enjoyable images printed on paper. I may not use paint or pencils on paper, but a camera and photoshop instead, with the results being just as "good"...is that not "art"?

...your input would be greatly appreciated...

cheers,

Lorne Miller

Art does not depend upon sketching, painting, modeling or photographing. Art is a creation that takes thought and talent. Skill, talent and creativity sets the value (appreciation?) of art.

The situation you faced is not unusual. Usually it is quite easy to see if a painting or sketch has form, skill and technique and so can be judged as art (obviously there is some forms of art that are hard to classify). Photography usually being a literal translation of what the camera sees is much harder to classify. The talent and skill to compose, light and transfer to print creates photographic art. The inference is generally that art takes thought to create and realize. It is hard to accept a happening as art, althought some do. Snapshots are generally a happening.

I think many people do not see the difference between a snapshot and a well thought out and realized photograph.

Best regards,

Ed

Lorne Miller said:

...question for all of you, totally non equipment related in the
slightest way.

Where do photography and "art" become separated?

My daughter is already an accomplished portrait artist, doing paid
commisions on a fairly steady basis. She, however, uses pencils on
paper as opposed to my pixels on a print. I have been using
digital manipulation ever since I figured out what you could do
with it - going back in time to where all you had was stuff like
Aldus Photostyler,

Click to expand...

I think I am having a flash back.

Lorne Miller said:

Photoshop was still a gleam in someone's eye.
I scanned negs and slides to create digital files that I then
worked on to create all sorts of interesting imagery. I, as I'm
sure many of you have as well, have learned to use digital
manipulation, or "photoshopping", to enhance many of the photos
I've taken, with very pleasing results. As far as I've always been
concerned, it was "art".
...the other day, after someone was viewing some work my daughter
and I had on display, I was told that what she did was "art", mine
was simply taking pictures...
...so please inform me, what's the big difference I'm missing?
What is it that we are trying to create? I'm not talking about
taking snap-shots with a point and shoot at birthdays, but taking
the time and creativity neccessary to create visually stimulating
and enjoyable images printed on paper. I may not use paint or
pencils on paper, but a camera and photoshop instead, with the
results being just as "good"...is that not "art"?

Click to expand...

Yes, IMHO it is. I wonder if the person you were talking about would call what Ansel Adams did was "simply taking picures"?

Lorne Miller said:

...your input would be greatly appreciated...

cheers,

Lorne Miller

Click to expand...

--
As we celebrate mediocrity all the boys upstairs want to see
How much you'll pay for what you used to get for free

• Tom Petty

I suspect that any great painter/sculptor/architect... would at least be a pretty good photographer, because they have the "eye" for what looks good.

My problem (and many others' I suspect) is that my mind and hands aren't in-synch — unless I have a camera to help connect the dots of what I see.

There is a great deal of art involved in catching the light (or manipulating it) in a dramatic way, positioning elements in the photograph top make it visually appealing and pressing the trigger at the right moment in the action/expression/emotion — but a great graphic artist can do all of that AND connect the dots without the aid of a machine.

I've got to tip my hat to that.

There are many comparisons out there. One that comes to mind is the bow-hunter versus the hunter with an assault rifle. They might both get the deer — but the archer requires much more skill and effort.

Anything that is deemed "easier" is diminished in its value. Try sending your loved one an e-card instead of a real one and you'll see what I mean...

Barry

Photography, to me, records a place and a moment, in the hopes of recreating emotion on the part of the viewer. It seeks to recreate the very emotion that the photographer felt upon encountering that particular subject. Those of us that visualize a photo before actually taking it, usually base that visualization, and resulting composition, on whatever feels strong to us. Beautiful, ugly, glorious, tragic, pitiful... some of the emotions we seek to recreate with a photograph.

Back in the film days, I got a terrific photo of a large angry bull on a cold day, looking the camera straight in the eye and blowing clouds of steam out his nostrils. Using a telephoto was not only common sense, but compacted the angry bull into an even tighter space, making him look even more intimidating. People would look at that photo and feel the power of this massive beast, and a bit of the intimidation I felt.

In a way, all art seeks to provoke emotion on the part of the viewer. Photography does not actually create a physical entity (then again, neither do the performing arts), but in all cases the goal is the same. I don't believe any of the art forms can claim a moral or intellectual high ground, because they all seek the same effect upon the audience.

Lorne Miller said:

...the other day, after someone was viewing some work my daughter
and I had on display, I was told that what she did was "art", mine
was simply taking pictures...
...so please inform me, what's the big difference I'm missing?

Click to expand...

In my opinion there is no difference.

In order for something to be art, it has to convey a specific message or feeling, in a way that is not too didascalic nor too obscure, through skillful use of body and instruments.

So both photography and drawing can be art, or can be "just pictures". In fact, in the great majority of cases, they are just that.

Giordano

Lorne Miller said:

...question for all of you, totally non equipment related in the
slightest way.

Where do photography and "art" become separated?

My daughter is already an accomplished portrait artist, doing paid
commisions on a fairly steady basis. She, however, uses pencils on
paper as opposed to my pixels on a print. I have been using
digital manipulation ever since I figured out what you could do
with it - going back in time to where all you had was stuff like
Aldus Photostyler, Photoshop was still a gleam in someone's eye.
I scanned negs and slides to create digital files that I then
worked on to create all sorts of interesting imagery. I, as I'm
sure many of you have as well, have learned to use digital
manipulation, or "photoshopping", to enhance many of the photos
I've taken, with very pleasing results. As far as I've always been
concerned, it was "art".
...the other day, after someone was viewing some work my daughter
and I had on display, I was told that what she did was "art", mine
was simply taking pictures...
...so please inform me, what's the big difference I'm missing?
What is it that we are trying to create? I'm not talking about
taking snap-shots with a point and shoot at birthdays, but taking
the time and creativity neccessary to create visually stimulating
and enjoyable images printed on paper. I may not use paint or
pencils on paper, but a camera and photoshop instead, with the
results being just as "good"...is that not "art"?

...your input would be greatly appreciated...

cheers,

Lorne Miller

Click to expand...

I think that this sums it up: "If you can visualize it, then create it in the camera, finish it off with the print that matches your mind's eye then you are, most likely, a master..."
--
Regards,
(afka Wile E. Coyote)
Bill
PSAA
Equipment in profile.

If you can visualize it, then create it in the camera, finish it off with the print that matches your mind's eye then you are, most likely, a master...

--
Draydur
(Mike Lowery) - SF bay area, CA, USA
http://www.pbase.com/draydur
Pbase supporter, DP review supporter
--All things considered, the final image is all that matters.

That comment must have hurt! I do graphic design, photography and fine art. They are all creative and considered art. They are all part of the creative process. The average person is not well educated in the creative arts and generally say things that hurt. One could also say that painting or sketching portraits is not art compared to other art. Maybe what you are doing is more creative-who cares! It is all art. This is why artists have to be tough and differentiated and be willing to patiently educate people who simply don't know. The introduction of the computer and digital has created a whole new challenge for the artistically challenged. (said with respect) Keep doing what you are doing!

Art vs photography is the wrong question, that was settled decades ago, and people who make comments like the one you heard are simply morons.

The interesting question, and one that is more recent, originally because of digitization and now because of a totally digital workflow, is "when does a photograph cease to be a photograph?" Let's face it, you can start with a photo and photoshop it to end up with something that's virtually indistinguishable from what your daughter does. One of the reasons photography has been such a powerful medium is the subtext that what you are seeing in the photograph is not the product of imagination but a real thing. That subtext is becoming more and more eroded.

--
ODM
http://home.earthlink.net/~olddigiman/photography/old_digiman.htm

Lorne Miller said:

Where do photography and "art" become separated?

Click to expand...

This general question on what is "art" has been an on going discussion since the first cave man scratched on the soot on the cave walls and won't be settled any time in the next millennium or so.

Art is always in the eye of the beholder and no matter how you explain that this is took such and such expertise and requires such and such technique and I thought it was the perfect personification of such and such and on ad nauseam it will still come down to the viewer saying I like it or I don't. Doesn't matter if it is an old master, a gallon of paint on the sea wall, a bronze sculpture, ivory carving, music, painted pottery, etc.. if you like it and it was created by someone it is art.

One time a "serious" artist told me that the definition of "ART" was, if you created it (I know you did not create that sunset but you did capture it and it won't ever be back again) and liked it and some one else liked it enough to pay you for it, it was art. Rather crass but holds much truth.

Ed Oliver
DPReview and Pbase supporter - http://www.pbase.com/em3h4

Lorne

here is a quote from a friend Jim Sandman from another forum some time ago. I put it here because I do not believe other words could say this much better and I do not think jim would mind me quoting him here. His comments about ego's photos at the end may not mean much to most people, but to those that know these two gentlemen the comment means a lot.
Enjoy -

"Like music and painting and sculpture, I think photography is a form of art. It is a way to communicate...sometimes with a whisper, other times with a scream, sometimes even with silence...it is communication.

For me, photography is a way for me to communicate the feelings and thoughts that are difficult for me to say. I recently had an uncle who was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and we knew he would not have long to live. I went to the card shop to find the right card to send him. I looked for more than an hour, yet nothing seemed to express what I wanted to say. A get well card seemed so inappropriate. Absolutely nothing. So I went home and opened my PrintMaster and started working on a blank card. For the cover, I found an image of him asleep in a rocking chair holding his infant grandson in his arms. When you open the card, both sides were filled with face shots of all of his kids, nephews, neices, and his wife (all taken from a few years of digital photography at our family gatherings). I left one square empty and wrote the words, "Ray's Fan Club." He called me the day he got the card and said it was the nicest card he had ever received in his life and how much he appreciated it. He took the card with him to the hospital on numerous occasions. To my amazement, his wife had that card setup on a easel beside his casket at his funeral. He was not an emotional or sentimental man and I would have had a very difficult time telling him how much I was going to miss him. So, to me, photography is a way to communicate my inner thoughts and feelings.

Certainly these are not always so deep and sober. Sometimes they communicate the appreciation for the beauty of nature, sometimes they communicate the frantic pace of life in the 21st century, sometimes the thrill of victory, and yes, the agony of defeat. But the common thread is communication....with the possible exception of ERGO's photos...what's the deal there?

jim "

--

'The very fact that I find myself in agreement with you other minds perturbs me, so that I hunt for points of divergence, feeling the urgent need to make it clear that at least I reached the same conclusions by a different route.'
KimR

Lorne Miller said:

...question for all of you, totally non equipment related in the
slightest way.

Where do photography and "art" become separated?

My daughter is already an accomplished portrait artist, doing paid
commisions on a fairly steady basis. She, however, uses pencils on
paper as opposed to my pixels on a print. I have been using
digital manipulation ever since I figured out what you could do
with it - going back in time to where all you had was stuff like
Aldus Photostyler, Photoshop was still a gleam in someone's eye.
I scanned negs and slides to create digital files that I then
worked on to create all sorts of interesting imagery. I, as I'm
sure many of you have as well, have learned to use digital
manipulation, or "photoshopping", to enhance many of the photos
I've taken, with very pleasing results. As far as I've always been
concerned, it was "art".
...the other day, after someone was viewing some work my daughter
and I had on display, I was told that what she did was "art", mine
was simply taking pictures...
...so please inform me, what's the big difference I'm missing?
What is it that we are trying to create? I'm not talking about
taking snap-shots with a point and shoot at birthdays, but taking
the time and creativity neccessary to create visually stimulating
and enjoyable images printed on paper. I may not use paint or
pencils on paper, but a camera and photoshop instead, with the
results being just as "good"...is that not "art"?

Click to expand...

I know people want photography to be on the same level as "art", but I think it seldom achieved. I think of photography as a craft. Occasionally someone like Ansel Adams or Edward Weston will use the craft to create art. Sometimes people will make art using photographic materials like David Hockney's assemblages. Painting and drawing are not necessarily art. It is craft too for the most part. Just look at what is given away at yard sales for the price of the frame. Or all those Sunday art sales at the beach or local park. I don't have a wide circle of acquaintances, but I know at least two people who paint with these dreadful things all over their houses that no one would buy. Both lack vision and craft.

In this case McLuhan was wrong. The medium is not the message. Painting is not art and a photograph is not necessarily just a photograph.

Hello Lorne,

This thread is filled with wonderful and thoughtful responses to your question. Thank you for posing the question.

I am one who subscribes to the premise that art is something that evokes an emotion. The form that art takes is up to the artist.

I agree that the form of the photograph is changing in our digital age. Things that were essentially not possible to do in the darkroom are "easy" on the computer. So the art form of photography is changing. I did spend a part of my life feeling that highly manipulated phtographs (film or digital) were not really photographs. They were art but I did not feel that they fit in the world of photography.

My views have since shifted and I feel that photography encompasses a wide range of capturing images on light sensitive surfaces and then creating a version of that capture that causes an emotional response from other people.
--
Thanks.

Cleave

Lorne,

What if it was decided by those "in the know" that photography was not art - it was "only" a documentary tool. What if people who wer doing handmade quilts and rugs that they learned from their mothers were not doing art - they were doing crafts. What if the person who was creating amazing buildings and bridges were not doing art - they were merely architects.

We go through life categorizing things - trying to make order out of the world. Some have a knack for peace and kindness in their order - others stir up the pot and just make people angry, frustrated, or sad.

The statement that I heard once that stuck with me like a bad joke on myself was "Oh you are one of those people who doesn't like to be labeled"

Thanks for your post - you can tell it is something everyone has thought about - at least a little.

--
Thanks,
Brent

http://www.pbase.com/brent

Art is the tangible manifestation of an individual’s imagination.

The methodology and mechanics used to achieve the finished work are irrelevant.

A.M.H.

Lorne,

I think this is a good topic of discussion. I like Ed Oliver's and Kim R's answers above. I've wondered about the "What is art?" question for a while and I think I'm grateful that I've never had a formal art education.

It seems that some people have a very strong opinion of what art is supposed to be and anybody who doesn't follow their "method" of creating art is harshly criticized. It's as if art students (and art connoisseurs) are brainwashed to think that a work of art must follow certain rules of creation.

It wonder if the digital age is making some feel threatened. I've heard of situations where a photographer has displayed their work in a gallery and people will see it and say they think it is wonderful work until they hear it was made with a digital camera and printed digitally, then all of a sudden that person decides the work is sub-par.

I bought the book "Secrets of Award Winning Digital Artists" and was amused by the comments of some of the artists. I seem to recall some of them were saying that they don't like how a person can just make a couple of clicks on a computer and change a normal photograph into an image that looks like a painting and call it "art".

I say, "Who cares how it was created?" How many different steps in Photoshop must one take with an image before it can be considered art? If clicking once with the Dry Brush filter to turn your nice landscape photo into an image that looks like an impressionist painting is considered cheating by some in the art community, then at what point do they think it is worthy of being called art?

Art is subjective. I wouldn't give much credibility to anybody who criticizes art as if they are stating fact. I think if you put your art out into the world for others to see, whether it is photographs, or paintings, or music, or chainsaw carvings, you better have thick skin because there is always someone who is going to say "That sucks!".

Take care,

Brent

Have you seen pictures inside the human body, say the descending colon? I saw some recently from a medical procedure for colon cancer. I would not say it is art. I also saw some very disturbing pictures from the war in Iraq, "the prision camp pictures", which I cannot consider art.

Photography has many purposes, only one of which is to create art. Generally, your intent makes it so. When your intention is to create art, it is. There is no such thing as "just taking pictures". Was your intent to document, to create art, to test your camera, or perhaps even to humiliate someone or some group?

John Cage wrote a controversial piece of music "The sound of Silence" performed by pianist David Tudor at Woodstock, New York, on August 29, 1952 where for 4 minutes and 33 seconds, he sat in front of blank scores. You can imagine the reaction of the first performance.

Art is what you art say is. Whether you need to agree with the opinion of your observer depends on how important the observer's opinion is to you.

Lorne Miller said:

...question for all of you, totally non equipment related in the
slightest way.

Where do photography and "art" become separated?

My daughter is already an accomplished portrait artist, doing paid
commisions on a fairly steady basis. She, however, uses pencils on
paper as opposed to my pixels on a print. I have been using
digital manipulation ever since I figured out what you could do
with it - going back in time to where all you had was stuff like
Aldus Photostyler, Photoshop was still a gleam in someone's eye.
I scanned negs and slides to create digital files that I then
worked on to create all sorts of interesting imagery. I, as I'm
sure many of you have as well, have learned to use digital
manipulation, or "photoshopping", to enhance many of the photos
I've taken, with very pleasing results. As far as I've always been
concerned, it was "art".
...the other day, after someone was viewing some work my daughter
and I had on display, I was told that what she did was "art", mine
was simply taking pictures...
...so please inform me, what's the big difference I'm missing?
What is it that we are trying to create? I'm not talking about
taking snap-shots with a point and shoot at birthdays, but taking
the time and creativity neccessary to create visually stimulating
and enjoyable images printed on paper. I may not use paint or
pencils on paper, but a camera and photoshop instead, with the
results being just as "good"...is that not "art"?

...your input would be greatly appreciated...

cheers,

Lorne Miller

Click to expand...

Hi Lorne,

I think art is the application of skill and creative imagination to produce something of beauty. What you were doing seems to fit this definition. However, we are told that beauty is in the eye of the beholder: it then follows that what one person appreciates as art is another persons rubbish. This leads to much lively debate and controversy and makes defining where art separates from photography is almost impossible.

Regards from,

Bob.

This is an interesting thread, as someone who came into photography from painting, its one I’ve a lot of interest in. I think that the question however, is more at what point does “craft” become “art”. Someone highly skilled in any media, painting, sculpting, photography or dance could easily be doing either. I believe that craft becomes art when it “transcends” that media, and either uses it in new and creative ways (often breaking the rules of the craft) or communicates with it on new or deeper levels. In most cases I believe that you need to attain a solid proficiency in any craft before approaching art with it, though I may be wrong. I am regularly avoiding arguments with a relative who after taking a few pottery courses over a couple of years has pretty much concluded that “art” is basically a scam. Anything he sees that is unconventional, or non-representational he mocks. In other words he just doesn’t get that there is something beyond the craft, or meaning beyond the subject. Meanwhile, another relative who has been doing needlework for decades, and doesn’t always make up the subject of her works (using kits etc), does regularly combine stitches and materials in unconventional and new ways that more orthodox needle workers may not approve of. She doesn’t consider her work art, nor does the other relative, but I think that they often probably are.
Osh