It is currently Mon 25 May 2020 21:53 GMT
Change font size

Photographers and Artists

Is Photography Art?

Looks like we have a few photographers and artists in our midst so here's a place to talk about all photography, art, and related subjects.

Postby días-idílicos » Sat 6 Sep 2003 00:01 GMT

It's a great opinion Mike. PERSONALLY and imho, Prehistoric cave paintings (for example), would stir emotion in as much as I would assume that they where created by someone for a specific purpose of recording their life and in many cases their emotions. It's possibly not relavent to CS's original point as there weren't many cave men with Nikons, so it's not comprable.

Perhaps CS's question is also getting missed in the move to validate different artists and works of art (as in canvas).

To me, again only MHO, cave drawings are a for of art much as is modern Graffitti. The problem seems to be is how each individual perceves art and perhaps where that individual draws a line. We could say (CustStrats original point) that a photocopy machine operator is an artist because they adjust the machine. No doubt someone has already had an exhibition of photocopy art.... but not for me. I just have a personal opinion and draw my line based upon that, just like everyone else and I respect that as the way it should be.

días-i
Reminder: Premium Membership is required for access to private messages. Sign up now!
Posted by:
días-idílicos
Free member
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun 6 Jul 2003 01:53 GMT
Location: L'Afaz y Busot, Alicant, España

Postby Victor » Sat 6 Sep 2003 05:03 GMT

chabrenas wrote:For me, art must stir some kind of emotion - which is why I see the pile of bricks at the Tate many years ago as a cheeky, "emperor's new clothes" con trick rather than art.


I didnt like the bricks either, but as it stirred an emotion (hate, disgust whatever) then it must be art ???
Reminder: Premium Membership is required for access to private messages. Sign up now!
Posted by:
Victor
Free member
 
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu 3 Jul 2003 00:05 GMT
Location: Munich (D), Drapanos (GR) & Banitza (BG)

Postby Victor » Sat 6 Sep 2003 05:16 GMT

días-idílicos wrote:We could say (CustStrats original point) that a photocopy machine operator is an artist because they adjust the machine.

días-i


But they are not being creative in the same was as a painter, sculpture or photographer is.

Copying other peoples creative work is not art. Now I guess you will say therefore photography is not art as you are capturing a view of what others have done, say a building, but this is not what I mean.

In a local building, someone has created an interesting "work of art" out of plates and smashed crockery. It is interesting and original, thus art. The broken crockery is suspended from the ceiling at about eye hight in invisible thread. The title is something like "weddings". In the local customs here crockery is smashed on the night before a wedding. I have taken a photo of this, from an unusual angle and it looks good. BUT I would not call my photo art because I am recording someone else's work. It is more a documentary if you like. Now If I had created the same scene and taken photos of it I would call it art.

The difference is subtle, but important. Its the same as if you were to hand paint a copy of the mona lisa. That would not be art, it would be a copy.
Reminder: Premium Membership is required for access to private messages. Sign up now!
Posted by:
Victor
Free member
 
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu 3 Jul 2003 00:05 GMT
Location: Munich (D), Drapanos (GR) & Banitza (BG)

Postby Kay » Sat 6 Sep 2003 07:51 GMT

Victor

I'm just checking I understand your meaning before I reply:

Copying - definitely not art.

Originality and creativity - art or possibly art?

(BTW, thanks to the board's moderator, Strat, for starting such an interesting discussion.)

Kay
Not Delia - Foodie blog with lots of reviews and recipes.
Posted by:
User avatar
Kay
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15338
Joined: Wed 22 Jan 2003 13:06 GMT
Location: Kent for a couple of years

Postby días-idílicos » Sat 6 Sep 2003 08:14 GMT

Victor wrote:BUT I would not call my photo art because I am recording someone else's work. It is more a documentary if you like. Now If I had created the same scene and taken photos of it I would call it art.

The difference is subtle, but important. Its the same as if you were to hand paint a copy of the mona lisa. That would not be art, it would be a copy.


Victor, I think I'm losing the plot and obviously have been explaining myself very badly :? This is exactly what I have been saying (or meant to).

With the proviso that YOU as the photographer created the object that you had photographed, then I could see the photograph as or your intened final result and a creation by you from start to finish and not just a capture of either 'natural' or someone elses art ie not the 'documentary' or 'reflection' scenario.

Kay wrote:(BTW, thanks to the board's moderator, Strat, for starting such an interesting discussion.)


Yes.... and then b*gg*ring off :lol: :lol: :lol:
Reminder: Premium Membership is required for access to private messages. Sign up now!
Posted by:
días-idílicos
Free member
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun 6 Jul 2003 01:53 GMT
Location: L'Afaz y Busot, Alicant, España

Postby Victor » Sat 6 Sep 2003 08:46 GMT

Kay wrote:Victor

I'm just checking I understand your meaning before I reply:

Copying - definitely not art.

Originality and creativity - art or possibly art?

(BTW, thanks to the board's moderator, Strat, for starting such an interesting discussion.)

Kay


Yes. Thats about it. Of course your definition of art and mine are likely to be different as we all see things differently.
Reminder: Premium Membership is required for access to private messages. Sign up now!
Posted by:
Victor
Free member
 
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu 3 Jul 2003 00:05 GMT
Location: Munich (D), Drapanos (GR) & Banitza (BG)

Postby Victor » Sat 6 Sep 2003 08:55 GMT

días-idílicos wrote:
Victor wrote:BUT I would not call my photo art because I am recording someone else's work. It is more a documentary if you like. Now If I had created the same scene and taken photos of it I would call it art.

The difference is subtle, but important. Its the same as if you were to hand paint a copy of the mona lisa. That would not be art, it would be a copy.


Victor, I think I'm losing the plot and obviously have been explaining myself very badly :? This is exactly what I have been saying (or meant to).

With the proviso that YOU as the photographer created the object that you had photographed, then I could see the photograph as or your intened final result and a creation by you from start to finish and not just a capture of either 'natural' or someone elses art ie not the 'documentary' or 'reflection' scenario.



Yes, and No !

Take Kays coloured towels (again). She didnt make or arrange the towels, but she saw something in them and the way she took the photo makes the photo art. In principle there is no difference between a painter having painter the picture of the towels and a photographer taking a shot at them.

Or do you say that Kay should have woven and dyed the towels and put them in a pile for it to count :lol: I personally dont see a difference.
Reminder: Premium Membership is required for access to private messages. Sign up now!
Posted by:
Victor
Free member
 
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu 3 Jul 2003 00:05 GMT
Location: Munich (D), Drapanos (GR) & Banitza (BG)

Postby Kay » Sat 6 Sep 2003 11:32 GMT

I'm in agreement with Victor on how we define art and that, within the definition, each will see things differently.
Last edited by Kay on Sat 6 Sep 2003 17:56 GMT, edited 1 time in total.
Not Delia - Foodie blog with lots of reviews and recipes.
Posted by:
User avatar
Kay
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15338
Joined: Wed 22 Jan 2003 13:06 GMT
Location: Kent for a couple of years

Postby chabrenas » Sat 6 Sep 2003 16:50 GMT

We're probably not going to get much further with Strat's original theme, but I think Victor missed a trick. I can see that he might create new art in his interpretation of the smashed crockery mobile (quite a challenge, but definitely possible - take a new look every time you walk past it, Victor!)

Also, a photocopier can be used to produce art. Not by slavish copying of a picture on a sheet of paper, but definitely by placing objects on the glass and runnig the copier on various different settings. This is just an extension of direct printing leaves, lace, etc. I must try it one day.

I also take the point about the pile of bricks stirring emotions. There have been a few phases in the history of art (and muisc) when it became fashionable to be destructive, shocking, or just plain boring - but these phases tended to run out of new ideas rather quickly.

Art is subjective, and we all 'know what we like'. Does anyone else here feel that modern prints of Impressionist paintings are more satisfying than most of the originals? Maybe the paints have lost some of their sparkle - they look flat to me.
Reminder: Premium Membership is required for access to private messages. Sign up now!
Posted by:
chabrenas
Free member
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Wed 22 Jan 2003 17:41 GMT
Location: France

Postby Kay » Sat 6 Sep 2003 17:59 GMT

Art is subjective, and we all 'know what we like'. Does anyone else here feel that modern prints of Impressionist paintings are more satisfying than most of the originals? Maybe the paints have lost some of their sparkle - they look flat to me.


Hope I'm not stepping on Strat's toes here but I feel that this would make a good new thread for discussion - so I'm copying the posting to a new thread.

Kay 8)
Not Delia - Foodie blog with lots of reviews and recipes.
Posted by:
User avatar
Kay
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15338
Joined: Wed 22 Jan 2003 13:06 GMT
Location: Kent for a couple of years

Postby días-idílicos » Sun 7 Sep 2003 12:03 GMT

Victor wrote: BUT I would not call my photo art because I am recording someone else's work. It is more a documentary if you like. Now If I had created the same scene and taken photos of it I would call it art.

Victor wrote: Or do you say that Kay should have woven and dyed the towels and put them in a pile for it to count :lol: I personally dont see a difference.

Victor wrote: In principle there is no difference between a painter having painter the picture of the towels and a photographer taking a shot at them.

Victor wrote: The difference is subtle, but important. Its the same as if you were to hand paint a copy of the mona lisa. That would not be art, it would be a copy.


Sorry Victor, my fault entirely, but I have definitely lost it now :lol: . Subtlety must obviously be yet another weak point of mine and I am losing the line between subtlety and contradiction…. Put it down to me!.

My guess is, that next time I drop my camera on a photocopy machine… and the shutter on the camera accidentally goes off… and the camera dropping on the copy machine accidentally sets that in action… which in turn spews out a badly adjusted reproduction of a smeary plate glass surface… then I could have two masterpieces on my hands <only joking> :lol: . Anything is possible, but it is just not for me “””personally””” which I have been saying from the start.
Reminder: Premium Membership is required for access to private messages. Sign up now!
Posted by:
días-idílicos
Free member
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun 6 Jul 2003 01:53 GMT
Location: L'Afaz y Busot, Alicant, España

Previous

Return to Photographers and Artists



cron