No doubt... Just becuase one photographer uses high grade gear for their work doesn't mean that someone else can't make very cheap gear work for what they do... This points out the problem that I often have with the discussions on these forums, where folks generalize in ways that don't make sense. Like great photography can only be done with the most expensive gear or that any skilled photographer ought to be able to use any gear... Why make these kind of rules... Rules that clearly don't apply?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Fine art photography anyone?
- Thread starter DWMurf
- Start date
- Status
I find that there are two main uses for a camera.
First, to capture a moment in time for the sake of prosperity or official record.
Second, is to use it as a form of creative expression.
Sometimes these two intertwine either intentionally or by accident with some of the most iconic pieces of fine art photography are historically/culturally significant portraits, action and street shots that captured a moment perfectly while also displaying a compositional artistry that was absent from other photos taken of the same scene.
As we see with a painted rendition of an out of focus photo posted earlier in this thread, artists are able to use different tools to express their view of the world around them. For them, a camera is just another tool to express themselves.
I think this is one of the reasons why smartphones have become so popular and why we have so many 'artistic' images on the internet these days. It is said that everyone has an artist within them, a need to be creative and smartphones have done a great job at allowing people to express this. Most wouldn't be considered fine art but art none-the-less but a few compositions do stand out from time to time.
First, to capture a moment in time for the sake of prosperity or official record.
Second, is to use it as a form of creative expression.
Sometimes these two intertwine either intentionally or by accident with some of the most iconic pieces of fine art photography are historically/culturally significant portraits, action and street shots that captured a moment perfectly while also displaying a compositional artistry that was absent from other photos taken of the same scene.
As we see with a painted rendition of an out of focus photo posted earlier in this thread, artists are able to use different tools to express their view of the world around them. For them, a camera is just another tool to express themselves.
I think this is one of the reasons why smartphones have become so popular and why we have so many 'artistic' images on the internet these days. It is said that everyone has an artist within them, a need to be creative and smartphones have done a great job at allowing people to express this. Most wouldn't be considered fine art but art none-the-less but a few compositions do stand out from time to time.
Moti
Veteran Member
So for you, David Hockney is foolish for using a Polaroid for part of his artwork instead of a much better camera?
Moti
--
http://www.musicalpix.com
Last edited:
Brev00
Forum Pro
Amazing amount of speculation as to why an Art Forum wouldn't work with no evidence whatsoever. Only one way to know.
So that would mean philosophy can be a "fine art" like poetry; conversely Sculpture & painting, can be reasonably considered "practical art".
(rhetorically) Isn't architecture one of the historic facets of "fine art"?
So... a lot of rap music is fine art like poetry then. However paintings usually serve the primary purpose of filling a space, making them a practical endeavor. Song most typically fills a purpose of directly providing entertainment or is indirectly associated with entertainment (providing a "beat " for the entertainment)...
I suppose the end point is that "fine art" is even less defined than the word "pornography" since there are significant practical reasons why we create and or purchase art in its many forms. However what constitutes fine art today is pretty well established.
You've brought to light an interesting bit of information to the historical definition of fine art. The subject matter is indeed interesting to think about.
bosjohn21
Forum Pro
it is very subjective but this is cyber space and this is an accommodating site. So if we petition for a Photography as fine art i will be a bit chaotic to start but be interesting to see where it goes. Not to worry if it stays to chaotic it will die so we have nothing to loose trying one
Mark S Abeln
Forum Pro
I think one of the problems is that our culture has redefined 'art' in general to be what would have earlier been called fine art. Art is something that hangs in an art gallery or in some cases the building itself which houses the art gallery. That's the 'institutional' definition of art which emphasizes the role of museums, curators, art schools, art critics, art historians, and so forth. The main problem with this definition is that some works are excluded from the definition of 'art' and so there are unpleasant battles over getting some works recognized as such. You might notice that this tends to concentrate power to an elite few, although there are indeed terrific struggles over which elites get to control the arts.
Another theory states that something is art if it is viewed or presented in an aesthetic context, but that too feeds into the institutional theory, and it divorces the aesthetic from the utilitarian, which is dehumanizing. It also is elitist, as only the wealthy or powerful seem to deserve useful things that are also aesthetic; everyone else only gets the utilitarian. We saw a bit of the older view of the arts during the Victorian period, when good aesthetics were often used even in machines, although of course this hasn't disappeared completely.
I suppose the current distinction of fine arts started sometime during the Renaissance, when artists started being more specialized, and building plans were less unified.
The older philosophical theory states that art is a universal human activity, not tied to any institution or context, and that utility and aesthetics (or actually, beauty, not just any feeling) should be happily married, appealing to the complete human being.
Another theory states that something is art if it is viewed or presented in an aesthetic context, but that too feeds into the institutional theory, and it divorces the aesthetic from the utilitarian, which is dehumanizing. It also is elitist, as only the wealthy or powerful seem to deserve useful things that are also aesthetic; everyone else only gets the utilitarian. We saw a bit of the older view of the arts during the Victorian period, when good aesthetics were often used even in machines, although of course this hasn't disappeared completely.
I suppose the current distinction of fine arts started sometime during the Renaissance, when artists started being more specialized, and building plans were less unified.
The older philosophical theory states that art is a universal human activity, not tied to any institution or context, and that utility and aesthetics (or actually, beauty, not just any feeling) should be happily married, appealing to the complete human being.
Brad Bohland
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 6,356
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 2,566
I think there is a general rule that a large portion of serious photographers take their gear seriously.
Here's a line from a mile long Ken Rockwell article which contains every cliche you've ever heard to the effect that it's the photographer, not the camera, that takes pictures:
"So why do the artists whose works you admire tend to use fancy, expensive tools if the quality of the work is the same?"
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm
I chose this line because it refers to the general rule which I believe to be true, which is that serious photography and quality gear are frequently common companions.
This is a perfectly sensible generalization, and it's all I've been saying throughout every post I've made on this thread. I've never said anything about whether a good photo can be taken with a cheap camera, which is beside the point as far as I'm concerned.
Brad Bohland
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 6,356
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 2,566
Mark S Abeln
Forum Pro
There is a certain kind of bad photographer who blames his gear for his bad photography, while artists use gear they can't blame.
Tom Axford
Forum Pro
I think probably more often artists accept the limitations and shortcomings of their gear and indeed often make it a feature of their art (e.g. prominent grain in b&w film photography).
Brev00
Forum Pro
This is not exactly what you said earlier:
certainly, the best photography, wherever you find it, is often paired with the best gear.
I think there is a general rule which I believe to be true which is that there is a difference between serious and best, quality and best, and often and frequently. Also between an assertion and a subjective expression. In either case, I am not sure what evidence you have that supports this belief other than your own anecdotal experience. But, you do mention Rockwell.
Since the general opinion of Rockwell in these forums is not very high, referring to him as a witness in your case may not be the most persuasive option at hand. Plus, in many places, Rockwell decries the use of very expensive gear (although he reviews it).
I am not sure what a sensible generalization is. If by sensible, you mean logical. No. But, if by sensible, you mean the product of a sane person. Probably.
bosjohn21
Forum Pro
yup
Brad Bohland
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 6,356
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 2,566
Close enough.
None. Personal observation. Opinion.
Pretty sure I could find a number of other similar quotes from a wide variety of sources:
"...when most professional photographers show the equipment they used to make great-looking images, it creates an impression that only expensive gear can produce great photographs."
https://photographylife.com/how-to-take-good-pictures/
Last edited:
Brev00
Forum Pro
Exactly. So, let's edit out certainly, best, often and other words that connote objectivity.
Unfortunately, quoting a wide variety of sources does not confirm truth only truthiness. And repeating your own belief only adds nauseam.
If you say so. You confirm your own approximation of the truth.
Brad Bohland
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 6,356
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 2,566
What a surprise. A forum disagreement.
DenWil
Senior Member
Well the comment where he disagreed had to have been voiced over two decades ago. He died in 1995 at the age of 82. Gear made less difference when we all put the same film in our cameras.
It is hardly a relevant comment today especially when you consider his penchant for a grunge documentary look. How would great lenses been of any use?
Brad Bohland
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 6,356
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 2,566
Bet he would have loved my flip phone, though. Worst camera ever made. Perfect for the gear-allergic artist.
Fact, I think there should be a flip phone Challenge for the anti-gearheads to snub the gear snobs (including the phone snobs with their iPhones, Pixels, and Galaxys).
The Put Up Or Clam Up Challenge (no Moti, this is not my shot, or my phone, but if Richard Prince will sign it, it could be worth $100,000 or more)
Last edited:
J
Joe Pineapples II
Guest
Congratulations for missing the point so widely that you end up arguing against yourself! Bert Hardy wrote in a camera magazine (the 1950s equivalent of dpreview) that you didn't need an expensive camera to take a good photograph. Then, as now, the gearheads such as yourself howled "Put up or shut up". So he was sent off with a Kodak Box Brownie (the 1950s equivalent of the phone camera), and used it to take what is widely considered the most iconic photograph of post-war Britain, that is still exhibited in galleries around the world today.Bet he would have loved my flip phone, though. Worst camera ever made. Perfect for the gear-allergic artist.
Fact, I think there should be a flip phone Challenge for the anti-gearheads to snub the gear snobs (including the phone snobs with their iPhones, Pixels, and Galaxys).
The Put Up Or Clam Up Challenge (no Moti, this is not my shot, or my phone, but if Richard Prince will sign it, it could be worth $100,000 or more)
J.
I've been following the discussion here and it doesn't seem that Brad B. actually is arguing from the "gearhead" perspective, but sometimes it does seem that way. I think that the issue is that he's contadicted himself enough to where it's all but impossible to get what he might be arguing, for or against...Congratulations for missing the point so widely that you end up arguing against yourself! Bert Hardy wrote in a camera magazine (the 1950s equivalent of dpreview) that you didn't need an expensive camera to take a good photograph. Then, as now, the gearheads such as yourself howled "Put up or shut up". So he was sent off with a Kodak Box Brownie (the 1950s equivalent of the phone camera), and used it to take what is widely considered the most iconic photograph of post-war Britain, that is still exhibited in galleries around the world today.Bet he would have loved my flip phone, though. Worst camera ever made. Perfect for the gear-allergic artist.
Fact, I think there should be a flip phone Challenge for the anti-gearheads to snub the gear snobs (including the phone snobs with their iPhones, Pixels, and Galaxys).
The Put Up Or Clam Up Challenge (no Moti, this is not my shot, or my phone, but if Richard Prince will sign it, it could be worth $100,000 or more)
J.
--
my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/
- Status
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum