Photography vs. Art

[GeorgieGirl]

I thought the objective of the discussion was with the given that the photographer was Good. The circumstances in the last few posts are about ordinary people.

[Ads]

[vipgraphx]

You can take a snap shot of your child inside your house and then paint it on canvas is it now art?

If I take a snapshot and then add filters and such in Photoshop is it art? Nope.
Same concept

No different concept. One you are painting on canvas and using a photo as a reference with a paint brush and paint. The other you are applying filters to the same photograph.

[rexbobcat]

You can take a snap shot of your child inside your house and then paint it on canvas is it now art?

If I take a snapshot and then add filters and such in Photoshop is it art? Nope.
Same concept

No different concept. One you are painting on canvas and using a photo as a reference with a paint brush and paint. The other you are applying filters to the same photograph.

If the original photo does not incorporate any formal elements of art, then technically the painting won't either. It's the same photograph on a different media so, yes, it is the same concept.

[vipgraphx]

My point exactly as in my first post sorry to use you as an example. ITs ALL OPINION...there is no fact in opinions!

[rexbobcat]

I thought the objective of the discussion was with the given that the photographer was Good. The circumstances in the last few posts are about ordinary people.

Ah okay. In that case, not all good photographers are artists. lol I know that's already been said before.

[rexbobcat]

My point exactly as in my first post sorry to use you as an example. ITs ALL OPINION...there is no fact in opinions!

I don't understand how this pertains to what I said, but okay. What you just stated is fairly obvious.
Pure subjectivism does not sit well with human thought, however. We like to categorize things. So even though art is opinion...technically it's not...

It's like, the largest grey area in the history of grey areas. There are certain universally accepted concepts that qualify something as art. That doesn't mean it can't be art to you, but that does not necessarily make it art...I hope that makes sense.

[Buckster]

My point exactly as in my first post sorry to use you as an example. ITs ALL OPINION...there is no fact in opinions!

I don't understand how this pertains to what I said, but okay. What you just stated is fairly obvious.
Pure subjectivism does not sit well with human thought, however. We like to categorize things. So even though art is opinion...technically it's not...

It's like, the largest grey area in the history of grey areas. There are certain universally accepted concepts that qualify something as art. That doesn't mean it can't be art to you, but that does not necessarily make it art...I hope that makes sense.

Having spent countless hours in museums of modern and contemporary art from MOMA in NYC to SFMOMA on the other coast, LA's museum of contemporary art, Philly, Chicago, Detroit and several others, I'd have to say you'd have a really hard time proving that to me. If a white canvas with a black dot in the middle is art worth tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars hanging in a museum, then why isn't a white photo with a black dot in the middle shot by a 5 year old and blown up to the same size as the canvas art? They have the same visual veracity and appeal.

If I take a blurry Polaroid of my hand, it's crap. But if Andy Warhol did it, it's worth a million bucks today and is considered fine art.

Art "experts" have been caught looking stupid numerous times lauding high praise upon works of "art" that turned out to be painted by kindergarten children, chimps, birds and elephants, proving that it's all bullspit; The Emperor is wearing no clothes.

[vipgraphx]

My point exactly as in my first post sorry to use you as an example. ITs ALL OPINION...there is no fact in opinions!

I don't understand how this pertains to what I said, but okay. What you just stated is fairly obvious.
Pure subjectivism does not sit well with human thought, however. We like to categorize things. So even though art is opinion...technically it's not...

It's like, the largest grey area in the history of grey areas. There are certain universally accepted concepts that qualify something as art. That doesn't mean it can't be art to you, but that does not necessarily make it art...I hope that makes sense.

Look no offense but, I would rather not argue about opinions with a youngster. The reason is that as you age and mature you realize certain things that you did not understand when you are younger. I am not an old man but I am not a youngster in school.

Lets use painting as it is probably easier to comprehend than photography ( in the end the same rules apply )

Ok You take Van Gogh vs Jackson Pollock.

Van Gogh


Jackson Pollock


In my opinion Van Gogh is an artist and his paintings are Artistic where as Jackson Pollock's paintings are just splatter paint that makes patterns and takes no skill to do and even a child can do. This is not Artistic in my eyes but, He was regarded as a mostly reclusive artist and his "ART" was hung in museums.


A child paints a picture at school during "ART" time and brings it home to his parents. They frame it and hang it on a wall and tell their child I lover your art work your such an artist!

Who can take that feeling and belief away from them? No one because it is an opinion and there is no grey line with opinions.



Opinion -a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

1. persuasion, notion, idea, impression. Opinion, sentiment, view are terms for one's conclusion about something. An opinion is abelief or judgment that falls short of absolute conviction,certainty, or positive knowledge; it is a conclusion that certainfacts, ideas, etc., are probably true or likely to prove so: politicalopinions; an opinion about art; In my opinion this is true. Sentiment (usually pl. ) refers to a rather fixed conviction, usually based onfeeling or emotion rather than reasoning:


I think the same applies with just about everything. If you as the person viewing the photograph truly think it is a piece of art than so be it and who cares who agrees and disagrees with you. IT's your opinion!

[pgriz]

Successful art can/should create an emotional reaction. How that art resonates with any particular person depends on their perceptions, belief structure, values, biases, and experiences, which is to say that it depends on the individual. One problem that comes up often in art appreciation is that many (maybe most) don't have confidence in their reactions, and seek the opinions of experts (however you want to define that) to guide them. Leading to a form of group-think. It gives the impression of consensus, but it is a hollow consensus as it often is based on imitation.

Good technical execution does not in itself make art. Think of music that brings tears to your eyes - is it the emotional reaction you get, or is it the technical perfection that you notice? I'm willing to bet that the emotional reaction will win every time.

Photography as art is not about "pretty". It is about making us see something to which we were blind, to care about something to which we were indifferent, to make us angry about something about which we were ignorant. If it makes us question our-selves about our assumptions, then I think it has achieved its purpose.

[Derrel]

Are tickets still available for the bout between Art and Photography? I was just on ESPN a while ago, and they had a short news piece that said there was some serious trash-talkin' going on at the weigh-in; apparently Art started talking chit to Photography, and called him a second-rate, instantaneous flash-in-the-pan, and said he would, "Fade like an old newspaper in the sun!"

Then Photography got totally,totally up in Art's face and said he was a, "Useless, snobbish waste of time, and only good for lining the walls of snooty,yuppy art galleries."

Apparently, their handlers had to pull them off of one another, and there was a rumor, unconfirmed by ESPN, that Art bit off, "A small piece of Photography's left ear," during the fracas. Shades of Mike Tyson!

Apparently Dana White called for security, and both Art and Photography headed back to their separate dressing rooms. On the way back, according to ESPN, Photography grabbed a camera from a press shooter, and literally threw it at Art, hitting him in the backside, and, some said, lowering his possible fight-readiness for the bout.

Anyway...if anybody has some tickets, I would pay DEARLY to go!!! PM me, mmkay?

[gsgary]

No to 1 and 2 photographic art does not have to be perfectly exposed, some photographers can take a perfectly exposed and focused photograph but they cannot produce art

[bentcountershaft]

Where's Petraio Prime when you need him. He'd line all of us out.

[Village Idiot]

Nope. Mine is even more certain.

So the people that work at portraite mills like Olan Mills, Picture People, Sears, and Wal Mart are all artists and their photography is all art?

[Nikon_Josh]

My point exactly as in my first post sorry to use you as an example. ITs ALL OPINION...there is no fact in opinions!

I don't understand how this pertains to what I said, but okay. What you just stated is fairly obvious.
Pure subjectivism does not sit well with human thought, however. We like to categorize things. So even though art is opinion...technically it's not...

It's like, the largest grey area in the history of grey areas. There are certain universally accepted concepts that qualify something as art. That doesn't mean it can't be art to you, but that does not necessarily make it art...I hope that makes sense.

Having spent countless hours in museums of modern and contemporary art from MOMA in NYC to SFMOMA on the other coast, LA's museum of contemporary art, Philly, Chicago, Detroit and several others, I'd have to say you'd have a really hard time proving that to me. If a white canvas with a black dot in the middle is art worth tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars hanging in a museum, then why isn't a white photo with a black dot in the middle shot by a 5 year old and blown up to the same size as the canvas art? They have the same visual veracity and appeal.

If I take a blurry Polaroid of my hand, it's crap. But if Andy Warhol did it, it's worth a million bucks today and is considered fine art.

Art "experts" have been caught looking stupid numerous times lauding high praise upon works of "art" that turned out to be painted by kindergarten children, chimps, birds and elephants, proving that it's all bullspit; The Emperor is wearing no clothes.

My my, what a black and white world you live in, Buckster? You come up with an extreme example of a black dot on a page being sold for thousands and now supposedly everything out of the norm is Bulls*** IN YOUR OPINION... opinions like this really highlight your mindset and just how valid vipgraphx's post is. And I love how your post is stated as fact, when it's just an opinion.

Should all Art be pretty paintings of rivers in your world??

[Nikon_Josh]

My point exactly as in my first post sorry to use you as an example. ITs ALL OPINION...there is no fact in opinions!

I don't understand how this pertains to what I said, but okay. What you just stated is fairly obvious.
Pure subjectivism does not sit well with human thought, however. We like to categorize things. So even though art is opinion...technically it's not...

It's like, the largest grey area in the history of grey areas. There are certain universally accepted concepts that qualify something as art. That doesn't mean it can't be art to you, but that does not necessarily make it art...I hope that makes sense.

Look no offense but, I would rather not argue about opinions with a youngster. The reason is that as you age and mature you realize certain things that you did not understand when you are younger. I am not an old man but I am not a youngster in school.

Lets use painting as it is probably easier to comprehend than photography ( in the end the same rules apply )

Ok You take Van Gogh vs Jackson Pollock.

Van Gogh


Jackson Pollock


In my opinion Van Gogh is an artist and his paintings are Artistic where as Jackson Pollock's paintings are just splatter paint that makes patterns and takes no skill to do and even a child can do. This is not Artistic in my eyes but, He was regarded as a mostly reclusive artist and his "ART" was hung in museums.


A child paints a picture at school during "ART" time and brings it home to his parents. They frame it and hang it on a wall and tell their child I lover your art work your such an artist!

Who can take that feeling and belief away from them? No one because it is an opinion and there is no grey line with opinions.



Opinion -a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

1. persuasion, notion, idea, impression. Opinion, sentiment, view are terms for one's conclusion about something. An opinion is abelief or judgment that falls short of absolute conviction,certainty, or positive knowledge; it is a conclusion that certainfacts, ideas, etc., are probably true or likely to prove so: politicalopinions; an opinion about art; In my opinion this is true. Sentiment (usually pl. ) refers to a rather fixed conviction, usually based onfeeling or emotion rather than reasoning:


I think the same applies with just about everything. If you as the person viewing the photograph truly think it is a piece of art than so be it and who cares who agrees and disagrees with you. IT's your opinion!

I think your bang on the money here! Its all opinion and only close minded people like to say that their opinion is the TRUTH! Everyone has an opinion and should be allowed to believe it and express it, thats the benefit of living in a free society, right?