If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Musings about Photography as an Art
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! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Musings about Photography as an Art
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Musings about Photography as an Art
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Musings about Photography as an Art
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Musings about Photography as an Art
"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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Musings about Photography as an Art
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Musings about Photography as an Art
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Musings about Photography as an Art
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Musings about Photography as an Art
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Outdoor photography resources - articles, newsletter, forum, digital editing | PT | Digital Photography | 0 | September 13th 04 07:54 PM |
questions about SLR photography, nikon n5005 | Pallav | 35mm Photo Equipment | 19 | September 5th 04 11:11 PM |
Study Photography in Venice | Venice School of Photography | Photographing Nature | 5 | February 14th 04 07:43 AM |
Aerial Photography from Alaska, Yukon Territory & beyond | PNW | Photographing Nature | 0 | December 1st 03 11:19 AM |