I did not start it as a pssing contest - it was just a very basic question
If a painter produces a photo realistic painting of a scene in front of them, how is that different from a photographer taking a photo of that scene, in terms of your definition of art? They might start with a blank canvas, but why is that different from starting with a "blank" sensor, or an unexposed piece of film?
Perhaps because the sound engineer's role is to record the music under the guidance of a producer, who is then responsible for altering that "blank" sound to achieve theirs and/or the musicians' vision. The sound engineer's role is not totally neutral, but does not have the creative potential of a photographer (whose "role" may range from simply pointing and shooting through to creating or controlling the scene, deciding on composition and timing, directing models, determining lighting, post processing, etc).
That's why I said, "an image of a scene that never existed or that couldn't be photographed".
Well, even in that case, a human did the work instead of a piece of technology.
Depends on if they embellished on purpose due to their own knowledge of that lack of ability.
Not if the alterations are over-all.
Gray area. As I said above, my friend over-painting is definitely art in my opinion.
The sound engineer and the producer are very commonly the same person.
I disagree. In very high-end recording situations there may be a separate producer but then the "sound engineer" is actually an "audio technician". In my use of the term, "sound engineer" is the audio technician + producer.
Logical arguments are all based on acceptance of definitions.
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. My argument isn't based on how many people accept anything but rather the characteristics of the activities in the class.
The lack of an accepted definition is a pretty big problem for identifying which activities fit in the class.
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.
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.
And thus the 'logical' arguments wind up being opinions in the end.
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.
Then there's something wrong with the classification system.
And thus, not art, in my opinion.
Which is part of the problem.
Excellent. Let's see Lee wiggle his way out of this one. ;-) DPR forums can be very entertaining.
My response was posted 30 minutes before you posted this.
I was thinking though that if it's just meant to be almost like a photograph, you might not consider it art.
I see your point here but even classical is full of stylistic interpretations. You can't put everything on the score and musicians often add their own style and embellishments. For me, some classical guys could be artists - Manuel Barrueco recorded a version of Requerdos that brings me to tears every time. No one else's version does that. Is that art? My feeling is yes.
That's some incredible harmony there. But if you had not told me, I might have mistaken it for an Eagles a cappella version. And except that their voices seem stronger across the spectrum.
I would. Actually my favorite painter is a photo-realistic painter.
It *can* be. I specifically mentioned "accurately reproducing" for that reason.
I would be inclined to agree.
I don't think so - there's still a piece of technology intervening in the processing of moving idea to media.
I'd just consider that aesthetically-pleasing (if you like that sort of thing) documentation.
I think it's tough.
The later.
I can't stand his photography so I don't really see that.
It only matters for the use of language. It doesn't matter one bit for the enjoyment of the production or the consumption of photography.
I think it's more like something from human head through human hands to medium, not including a piece of recording technology.
Yes if a human is involved in doing that work.
At least I do that. I don't think every scene/place can be made beautiful in a photograph. But I do want to capture where I've been and who with.
Here's how I look at landscape - I'm really discouraged with landscape because it's so overdone. You can go on 1x or any number of sites that have amazing landscape work - twenty versions of a place and they're all stunning. I rarely have the opportunity to produce something like that. You can go to those places and spend a lot of time by yourself trudging around in rain, snow, cold heat etc. and even then, it's often not unique.
Eek. Hang in there mate. Been there four times now.
Wow - he is quite clever.
;-)
;-)
I thought you might say something like that.
Check.
Ha ha, so I piked the wrong guy.
I think this is really the important point.
What focal length did you have to use? I like this.I think it's more like something from human head through human hands to medium, not including a piece of recording technology.
Yes if a human is involved in doing that work.
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.
300mm on APS-c.What focal length did you have to use? I like this.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.
It is possible to photograph a series of pictures and then stitch them back together with Hugin.Hmmmm... I wonder about this thing of creating art by photographing someone else's art.Yes. Just by picking up a camera and deciding to take a picture can be an act of creating.
Not so much a Marcel Duchampian type thing.
But just thinking of taking a picture of a building.
The building was designed by someone. It could have been designed as a piece of art or architecture.
We might really like a portion of it and take a picture. So we are taking a picture of the pre-existing art that is already there.
Same with taking a picture of a dancer or an athlete (like gymnastics or cheer).
The choreographer has already created the dance. The athlete has implemented that art and probably added a bit of themselves to it as well.
Us as a photographer are capturing that art. And then . . . we may add our own little angle to it as well.
It can be a masterful step, just recognizing the art that is already in front of us!
Take care & Happy Shooting!
I really like taking photos of street art - there is some amazing work around the area of Melbourne I work in (well, work in when I am not in lockdown). I like to photograph it so that I can enjoy looking at it at other times, and also because a lot of it is temporary.
That street art is photographed by many people - I don't pretend that I am seeing something in the world around me that other people don't see.
I will photograph the entire work when I can, but often that is not possible due to the scale of the work (I bought an ultrawide lens just for these photos, but don't always have it with me) or obstructions.
The thing is, this is your personally observation that they look better that way.
IMHO Yes. There is creative input into this.
I would argue that the creative process began before the picture was taken.
In the film days, wouldn't the unexposed film be the "blank slate"?
For photographers that can be envisioning the end picture.
Aren't there awards for best sound?
--
No, the "blank slate" would be the scene, not the device used to record it.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.
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.
Just because it isn't "art" doesn't mean it doesn't require skill, and therefore be associated with competitions and awards.
