Musings about Photography as an Art

I have not yet decided whether or not I consider photography an "art".

Consider this: There is much skill and creativity that goes into
journalism. For example, I consider many of the writers at Sports
Illustrated, National Geographic, etc as top-notch who are very creative.
They write and interpret everyday life around them. Yet I don't consider
them "artists". Margaret Mitchell (Gone with the Wind) might be an
artist, but not Peter King (Sports Illustrated).

Hmmm...yet when I see a beautiful "photograph" in a museum, I often see it
as a "work of art".

Speaking of photographs, I certainly consider my framed prints, created
with my lab's local LightJet printer, as "photographs" regardless whether
the input was created by scanning film or by scanning the charges
generated by a CCD device. Apparently others in this group think these
things hanging on my wall cannot be "photographs" if any part of the
process is digital. They are only "images". LOL!

The word 'Picture' is etymologically related to painting.

Middle English, from Latin pictura, from pictus (past participle of
pingere to paint) + -ura -ure * more at PAINT

Photographs are not 'pictures'.

'Pictures' (paintings) hanging in a gallery are works of art. Painting,
sculptures, etc., are 'fine arts' (as opposed to the decorative arts,
like wallpaper, woodwork, ornaments on houses, etc.).

"1 : of or relating to decoration : serving to decorate: as a : having
a purely ornamental function *its buildings were utilitarian rather
than decorative- Green Peyton* b of a work of art : producing
immediate sensory satisfaction without regard to meaning *to demand
that all art be decorative is a limitation of the material of art-
John Dewey* c : suitable for decorating or embellishing : enhancing in
attractiveness *his delight in the use of decorative high-sounding
words- Alvin Redman

Photographs have their own name (which is not to be confused with
'pictures'). A photograph can be made digitally or chemically, but in
neither case is it remotely one of the fine arts.

Mike wrote:
I have not yet decided whether or not I consider photography an "art".

Consider this: There is much skill and creativity that goes into
journalism. For example, I consider many of the writers at Sports
Illustrated, National Geographic, etc as top-notch who are very creative.
They write and interpret everyday life around them. Yet I don't consider
them "artists". Margaret Mitchell (Gone with the Wind) might be an
artist, but not Peter King (Sports Illustrated).

Hmmm...yet when I see a beautiful "photograph" in a museum, I often see it
as a "work of art".

Speaking of photographs, I certainly consider my framed prints, created
with my lab's local LightJet printer, as "photographs" regardless whether
the input was created by scanning film or by scanning the charges
generated by a CCD device. Apparently others in this group think these
things hanging on my wall cannot be "photographs" if any part of the
process is digital. They are only "images". LOL!

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:42:48 -0600, Mike wrote:



Speaking of photographs, I certainly consider my framed prints, created
with my lab's local LightJet printer, as "photographs" regardless whether
the input was created by scanning film or by scanning the charges
generated by a CCD device.

Interesting. Then perhaps I should call my childrens coloring books
"albums" ;)

It ain't analog - it ain't photography. See ? I can be just as
illiterate !

==
John - Photographer & Webmaster
www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net

The grains of film 'sample' the image in just the same way as sensors
do.

The image of a DSLR is recorded digitally, but it does not have to be.
The capture itself is not digital at all. It's electrical. Analogue
video tape could be used, or it could be output to film.


John wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:42:48 -0600, Mike wrote:



Speaking of photographs, I certainly consider my framed prints, created
with my lab's local LightJet printer, as "photographs" regardless whether
the input was created by scanning film or by scanning the charges
generated by a CCD device.

Interesting. Then perhaps I should call my childrens coloring books
"albums" ;)

It ain't analog - it ain't photography. See ? I can be just as
illiterate !

==
John - Photographer & Webmaster
www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net

In article ,
Mike wrote:

I have not yet decided whether or not I consider photography an "art".

Consider this: There is much skill and creativity that goes into
journalism. For example, I consider many of the writers at Sports
Illustrated, National Geographic, etc as top-notch who are very creative.
They write and interpret everyday life around them. Yet I don't consider
them "artists". Margaret Mitchell (Gone with the Wind) might be an
artist, but not Peter King (Sports Illustrated).

Hmmm...yet when I see a beautiful "photograph" in a museum, I often see it
as a "work of art".

Speaking of photographs, I certainly consider my framed prints, created
with my lab's local LightJet printer, as "photographs" regardless whether
the input was created by scanning film or by scanning the charges
generated by a CCD device. Apparently others in this group think these
things hanging on my wall cannot be "photographs" if any part of the
process is digital. They are only "images". LOL!

Well digital ones are not silver based photographs, but they can be fart.

And as far as fart goes, a true fart and the fartist are separate.

One can apply what makes a fart to any media
the perception of how accomplished one is -a matter of practice.



--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

greg_____photo(dot)com

"Mike" wrote

I consider many of the writers at Sports
Illustrated, National Geographic, etc as top-notch ... Yet I don't consider
them "artists".

Anything, if it is done well enough, is art.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 00:20:26 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan"
wrote:

"Mike" wrote

I consider many of the writers at Sports
Illustrated, National Geographic, etc as top-notch ... Yet I don't consider
them "artists".

Anything, if it is done well enough, is art.

I certainly agree but I would add that it takes significant
inspiration to drive beyond normal expectations and to achieve that
degree of skill.

Note that I would certainly consider some of the works in Nat. Geo. as
works of art just as I would W.E.Smiths photos as well as many other
photojournalists. IMO, many of their works are much more expressive
than many of the landscapes and still-lifes I've seen.

==
John - Photographer & Webmaster
www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net

In article . net,
"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote:

"Mike" wrote

I consider many of the writers at Sports
Illustrated, National Geographic, etc as top-notch ... Yet I don't consider
them "artists".

Anything, if it is done well enough, is art.

And somethings that aren't too!

--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

greg_____photo(dot)com

John wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 00:20:26 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan"
wrote:

"Mike" wrote

I consider many of the writers at Sports
Illustrated, National Geographic, etc as top-notch ... Yet I don't consider
them "artists".

Anything, if it is done well enough, is art.

Stuff 'n' nonsense.

Art has specific criteria. Such sloppy use of language is
characteristic of the morons who are attracted in such numbers to
photography.



I certainly agree but I would add that it takes significant
inspiration to drive beyond normal expectations and to achieve that
degree of skill.

Note that I would certainly consider some of the works in Nat. Geo. as
works of art just as I would W.E.Smiths photos as well as many other
photojournalists. IMO, many of their works are much more expressive
than many of the landscapes and still-lifes I've seen.

==
John - Photographer & Webmaster
www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net

Language is always changing. At least a living language such as English
is always changing to mirror the times. The inexplicable term art has
been worn out to meaninglessness . The fact that art also has to
transcend accepted meaning to qualify as the real McCoy
is likely too much to handle for most rational, utilitarian minded
people.

Besides it certainly shouldn't be considered a positive compliment to
be considered an artist, if you also consider the degree of shock,
shlock, and outright market driven nonsense that is produced to
convince the buyers/dealers that something new is happening when it
isn't, or at least isn't anything but "new".

"New" being the Holy Grail of the art world, persists despite the
general lack of anything elevating about it. New isn't enough for ART,
but it sells, and that's what really matters.

Painting and similar fine arts shattered and exploded into myriad
directions and lost touch with it's history, it's public, and relavence
altogether. True art today thrives in a folk tradition, i.e. in the
individual more so than the culture itself. The experience of knowing
thyself is the greatest aspect of making art, and it has been driven
underground by a fantastically powerful mass media that focuses on
externals, trivia, and lust; essentially pornography, i.e. you are
inspired to desire something you dont have as opposed to discovering
something you do have.


Photography, according to Robert Adams anyway, has remained true to
its history. Though most people prefer traditional work, the medium is
still evolving in a fairly straight line. It is changing with the
times, and has not imploded with a self-consciousness yeilding a dead
end. It is still a Mars Rover. Still a viable tool for discovering,
despite massive repetitiousness.

No medium is art. Painting is no more art than sculpture, photography,
or underwater ballet, until an artist reaches into it and breaths new
life. Meaningful, inspiring, relevant life.

Art is what an artist makes. And many artists have used photography to
make it. That is taken as fact by far too many serious, capable figures
in this medium to dispute intelligently. It is an accepted cultural
fact agreed upon all over the world that some artists use photography,
and to hear over and over this refuted with rationalized language
points is less than convincing. Nor is the false modesty from those who
insist that they are not artists. They probably aren't. My work
probably does not make the grade of art, despite great care and
quality, because I have not developed a unique style or statement. Nor
have I broken thru influences and discovered a meaning I didn't
anticipate.

There are so many great ideas to discuss regarding art. Is it or isn't
it can't really be argued without those more essential questions.