Art vs. photography

Lorne,

It sounds to me like your critic has no clue himself (or herself) what art is. Most do not. I've read that it is in fact on of the least understood subjects. My .02 first off is to recognize the critic as someone who doesn't have enough understanding or skill to produce anything themselves. Perhaps a little harsh, but (most) often true.

ART is a word which summarizes the quality of COMMUNICATION. Skill and technique and perfection and knowing yourself what you are trying to communicate all come into play, but the subject is still (always) about communicating something to an audience. Taking things out that do not communicate your message, adding things that do, are indeed part of the process toward perfection. Technical rendition is always subordinate to communicating itself however. Technical rendition may be as high as possible but shouldn't be so high as to injure the communication.

So, can a photograph be art? Perhaps you can answer that yourself now.

Lorne Miller said:

As far as I've always been
concerned, it was "art".

Click to expand...

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...

Click to expand...

Lorne Miller said:

...so please inform me, what's the big difference I'm missing?

Click to expand...

I am a reasonably accomplished photographer and likewise artist, I paint and have in the past sculpted.

As a photographer I always think of myself as a photographic artist as I hope my work is not just an illustrative record but something more. Indeed I would venture to suggest that anyone who illustrates (just copies accurately adding no creative interpretation) by painting or drawing is pretty much doing what a photographer does with straight record shots and so if you exclude photographers you should perhaps exclude them.

What is the difference between creating a painted portrait where the artist controls model, lighting, setting and medium and doing the same thing with photography?

The key IMHO is being creative in what you do. Surely no one could argue that what people like Bailey, Cartier-Bresson and others have done is not art?

cheers

Ian

...after waiting to read all the various replies to this thread, I thought I'd point out a few things. I am fully aware that photography is its own art form and means of expressional outlet. I had to resist my initial response to the woman that made the ignorant comment in the first place, if not I would have most likely gotten quite verbal with her instead of remaining calm and keeping a smile on my face.

...I was curious what others have experienced when it comes to the public perception of "digital photography as art" not that this lady knew it was digital as there was nothing indicating so. The area I live in is noted as an enclave of arty types, thus I find there is a certain amount of "snob appeal" that goes with what is considered "art". With the arty types its almost as if the time spent creating the image and what techniques were employed are of greater concern than how the image turned out.

...the viewpoint I'm taking more and more is that we, as photographers and artists, need to try to elevate our work by keeping in mind what it is we are trying to convey to the viewer - are we just taking pictures from a photojournalist point of view to record and ducument events, or are we attempting to make a statement with our work? Are we remembering to take the time and energy required to ensure the image we are recording will actually be "a work of art"?

cheers,

Lorne Miller

Lorne Miller wrote:
.... Are we remembering to take the time and

Lorne Miller said:

energy required to ensure the image we are recording will actually
be "a work of art"?

Click to expand...

Lorne:

I was starting to write about timing sometimes being the key (as opposed to taking time), like in the photo of the Americans' raising of the flag on Iwo Jima. In the pitched heat of battle, a war photog sees 6 soldiers struggling to raise the freedom flag on the top of the hill. He takes aim and fires off a few shots, mindful of enemy fire — and captures a great war photo. I would have to think it is hailed as top-10 all time of war photos.

Then I read the history of that "iconic" shot, which did much to raise the patriotric fervor in the U.S. I'm sure this "artful" shot still stirs the hearts of many, as it has that great "look."

But it was a staged shot, with careful positioning of the participants by Rosenthal — who had been rejected as an army photog because of his eyesight. Later, the photo was cropped for impact.

So, Lorne, Rosenthal would agree with you: take the time to make it great.

(I always wondered what that pole was made of that it took six guys to lift into place...)

You can read about it here.

http://www.fact-index.com/j/jo/joe_rosenthal.html

http://www.iwojima.com/raising/raisingb.htm

Not that I'm an arty type — but now that I know the story behind the staging of the Iwo Jima flag photo, the photo will no longer have that "wow" factor for me.

If true (or at least believable), you could say all sorts of scandalous things about the photographer's lifestyle or beliefs and for me it wouldn't spoil the "wow" nearly as much as knowing that this one was staged.

The "how" behind the "wow" is an important factor for me. Not the most important, but it needs to be more than: "Shot while I watching TV in the next room. Taken in P mode with intervalometer set at 1 per minute." Once I know that, the moment is spoiled for me.

Then again: if I captured a brilliant shot with my intervalometer, I think it would be best to just keep mum about the "how"! No sense spoiling it for others — though it might drive me to drink if the shot went international and I had to go on signing tours.

I'm glad to have had this discussion, though. Maybe I AM an "arty" type!

Barry

I would like to suggest Barry that someone's ability to "draw stick people" hardly makes them an accomplished artist, at least not anymore than the person who can click the shutter and produce a snapshot. To produce art one must have an eye for subject matter, color, composition, light, etc. and the necessary skillls to bring about the desired results. I take my hat off to all who achieve this with excellence!

Kindest regards,

Barry Stewart said:

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

Click to expand...

IMHO, and having studied History Of Art at college, specialising in the Italian Renaissance period of Giotto to the 'Big 3' i.e. Da Vinci, Michelangelo and Raphael ...art, or artistic creation, is simply...

Visual entertainment for the eye ...something that uplifts the spirit & senses and imparts sensations and feelings of joy, wonderment and perhaps most importanly ...inspiration!

Of course it is VERY objective, as certainly there can be few examples of human endeavour that carries such scope that it can for example, allow the monumental Sistine Chapel to be categorised alongside, say, modern Brit Art!

I'm sorry ...but a tent covered in Post-Its, an unmade bed strewn with the names of former lovers, a calf cut in half and suspended in formaldehyide or a pile of bricks is NOT art, and it's a travesty (in my opinion) to call it such!

But that's just my take on matters, and there are clearly folks out there gladly paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for this 'stuff'! But as the old saying goes 'one man's meat, is another man's poison'! But surely, the masters of old would be spinning in their graves ...indeed Leonardo would probably have invented a fully fledged 'grave-spinner' by now! LOL!

Going back to my initial point and bringing in the subject of the noble art of photography...

I can look in awe at an H C-B or Adams monochrome and see & feel that it is the work of artistic genius! For there is simply no substitute and/or alternative for true skill, vision and that most precious of things ....imagination ...be it, painted, sculpted, drawn or photographed!

To conclude - I would surmise that all artistic creation (image, object or otherwise) that remains in the viewer's own mind & imagination long after having viewed it/them, is a condition we should all strive to achieve ...as artists in our own right! Fine art, in the real sense of the word, is surely man's greatest achievement!

Fond regards to all

Mark

r3maf.com

Blayne:

We sort of agree. My "headline" was meant to show that I can only draw in a rudimentary way — but am much more artistic when I have a camera doing much of the work for me. I also take my hat off to graphic artists who CAN draw or paint beautifully (and can probably do well on a camera too.)

Barry

Blayne said:

Kindest regards,

Barry Stewart said:

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

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Equipment: (Spelled out > so it won't cause bad
searches...) Oly E-Ten, Oly E-One HundredRS, Oly Flash40, Oly
Fifty60, EyeMak computer

I agree, as an artists I face this all the time, but to me the camera is just another tool, as the pencil was when I drew more. But one problem in this time of electronics, anyone who can play on the computer thinks themselves a graphic artist and anyone who can point a digital camera thinks themselves a photographer, this I hate to say in not to be true and does take away from the true artists out there.

to be a true artist, it comes from inside, a talent that your born with and spend your life developing. Through my life, I have seen a lot of people who call themselves artists and their work wasn't worth the paper it was done on.

I guess, art doesn't come from your computer, camera or pencil, it isn't the medium by which you choose to epress it to, art is a talent that comes from within and the ability to express it out.

the problem you are facing is that it doesn't take more skill to draw, paint or sculpt which is more classified in the fine art category, than to just manipulate an image in photoshop, anyone without talent can do that so hopefully you can see why people who are "artists" just trying to defend the true nature of art and finding the right distinction between "art" and everything else. I guess what I am trying to say, a computer, digital camera or a pencil doesn't make "you" an artists.

digital ed said:

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

Click to expand...

--
Brett Taylor
http://www.bataylor.com
http://www.luxaco.com

I was just debating this stuff with myself (and I'm not sure whether I'm winning, or losing. )

Just taking a break from working on a photo of my grandfather. Scanned it in and am doing the usual touchup that one does to fix imperfections in the scan or original print. However, I looked at his teeth, and noticed that the lighting made it look like one of them was busted. So I did some digital dentistry and gave him a cap.

Does that become art now because I fixed a tooth he never had fixed? I guess my feeling is that when you reach WAY beyond fixing imperfections, or morphing things in is where it becomes art.

Think of it this way. You have a great photo of the Grand Canyon and one of the many points. You add a Coyote howling at that point. Very inconsiquential. I'm sure in all the eons a coyote could easily have went there so that wouldn't bother me as much as if someone added a grove of redwood or palm trees!! Both a manipulations. both change the scene, but one easily doesn't make a major change, while the latter does.

Robert

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 went back and read your post again and it reminded me of something I ran into a few years ago.

The local community has had an art show for years. That year they decided to ad photography. When I got there, the photography section was stuck over in a separate room that wasn't marked.

Then when they gave the awards for best of this, and best of that, no photographic entries were even considered, and there were some really amazing photos. Then when I got my entry back, it had some comments that aluded to it just being a photo, and an ordinary one at that!

Anyone who looks at photos and lumps every photo ever made into one catagory is an idiot!!

As someone else pointed out, are Ansel Adams' photos simply that...photos? He reprinted Moonrise of Hernandez, NM four times over his carear. Each one looked different. Why? Because he played with light to filter different parts of the spectrum! Sure its a photo, but in this case its most certainly art.

Robert

Lorne Miller said:

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

Where do photography and "art" become separated?

Click to expand...

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?
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...

Hello Barry,

Thanks for the clarification, and for a good response to Lorne's original question.

Best regards

Barry Stewart said:

We sort of agree. My "headline" was meant to show that I can only
draw in a rudimentary way — but am much more artistic when I have a
camera doing much of the work for me. I also take my hat off to
graphic artists who CAN draw or paint beautifully (and can probably
do well on a camera too.)

Barry

Blayne said:

Kindest regards,

Barry Stewart said:

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

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Equipment: (Spelled out > so it won't cause bad
searches...) Oly E-Ten, Oly E-One HundredRS, Oly Flash40, Oly
Fifty60, EyeMak computer

Click to expand...

Lorne,

As a graduate of a fairly well known art and design school and I'm sure I could expound on some sort of philosophy on what defines
art, but the bottomline is that; " It is all a matter of perception."

Photography can be art

Some paint on canvas isn't always art

I think the "emotive" quality spoken of earlier is an important quality along with an audience that recognizes the "work" as art.

That audience doesn't have to be extensive. It can even be an audience of one.

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...

--
Kevin Barrett
Lowell, MI

Lorne if you study Georgia O'Keefe's husband, I believe his name was Arthur Stigletts, I think you will find commentary that speaks to the debate of photograhy vs art. This is an age old debate as many people know. I appoligize if I have spelled the names wrong, but a quick search on this fellow might be quite revealing.

Jason

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...

--
Jason Stoller [email protected]

We are just Beta Testers who pay the Camera Companies to test their new products!

Sorry for misspelling the name.

http://wywy.essortment.com/alfredsteiglitz_rskp.htm

Jason Stoller said:

Jason

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...

--
Jason Stoller [email protected]
We are just Beta Testers who pay the Camera Companies to test their
new products!

Click to expand...

--
Jason Stoller [email protected]

We are just Beta Testers who pay the Camera Companies to test their new products!

A photograph can certainly qualified as art but taking a picture is not neccesarely art in itself, it only becomes art when there is a determine efford behind it.

I shoot weddings as a sideline and while a lot of my peers consider themselves artist I do not, my job is to document the event to the best of my ability, and while some of the shoots may look artsy to same, still is just an event.

On the other hand when the season is over I grab my 4x5 and tried to capture images that have been carefully plan from the onset in terms of time for the shot, proper film etc, in other words is a determined effort on my part.

The other thing is just because you call yourself an artist it doesn't mean that you are one, the praise to come from someone else.

Regards

Hugh

Lorne:

Photography and art have not become seperated. On several occassions over the years, I have taught a photography class entitled "The Art and Craft of Photography". The title is not original, it was lifted from a book of the same name, long out of print.

Photography is both an art and a craft. The art relates to the use of photography to communicate emotions or to express concepts that relate to the human condition. Photography is an excellent tool with which to accomplish these goals. Frankly, if a crucifix in a jar of urine can be classed as "art", anyone making the claim that photography cannot rise to the level of art is on pretty shakey ground.

The ability to create pretty pictures is the craft of photography. The craft is essential to the ability to produce photography that rises above the "pretty picture" level. Without firm control of the artiistic elements (such as subject, composition, color, lighting) AND the craft elements (exposure control, focus, processing) the communication cannot take place.

We lost a great photographic "artist" today. Though I don't always consider photo-journalism an artform (I don't consider telling a story "art") Eddie Adams work rose to the level of art. His greatest images always communicated more than just "what happened" or "what it looked like".

Many people consider the film, and now the electronics, as the medium that the photographer uses to create his or her art. I disagree. It is my opinion that the medium used by photographers is the light itself. The film or the sensor is just the tool we use to transfer the "medium" onto the viewing surface, much as the brush transfers the paint onto the canvas. If such were not the case, how could "photography" encompass so many technologies ranging from the wet glass plate to the electronics we use today.

So, if you have something to say, if you are able to elicit an emotional response from your viewers, your work is art, no matter the medium.

If not, then what you have is "pretty pictures" or attractive statuary. I am not, in any way, denigrating pretty pictures. Some of my favorite photos, the ones I like to hang in my den, do not really rise to the level of art, but I enjoy them.

The theory can be applied to the flag raising over Iwo Jima. Not only was that the second raising, it was the second flag. One of the officers on the scene (I used to know which one) considered the first flag too small, so a larger flag was brought in from one of the ships. All of this is beyond the point of "art". If you want to talk about "what happened", well, the photograph doesn't depict that. But if you want to communnicate the emotion connected to the event, then the photograph is extremely effective. The combination of subject, pose and lighting, all carefully recorded with an excellent exposure, sharply focused and expertly processed, communicates the emotion and conveys much of the human condition of that moment.

Would paint on canvas have been as effective? I don't think so.

Reg