Photography vs. Art

[imagemaker46]

Are they yours?

Yes they are, they were done 40 years ago. The original transparencies were caught in a basement flood, I kept 80 and mounted them in glass 25 years ago. The impact of the muddy water changed the emulsion and this was the end result.

The top one is fantastic, you can send me a copy if you like!

I'm in the process of finding a gallery that is interested in the images. The archery one is my favourite. Looks pretty amazing as a 13x19.

[Ads]

[OscarWilde]

People often confuse art with "art the like." These are not the same things. Just because you want to say its not art does not make it so. And to trivialize the work of Jackson Pollock in this way is a bit absurd.

Not saying it isn't art... but you can trivialize Jackson Pollock any way you want. I used to paint houses and by the end of every month my drop cloths ALL looked like Jackson Pollock paintings. Art? Maybe. Skilled? Not at all. So trivialize any way you want!

He was a sham. A genius. But a sham. I bet he went home every time he sold a painting and said to himself "Wow.... these people are idiots!" And then in public he would just gobble up all the **** the art "critics" threw at him and bend it and throw it back!

Every successful artist is just a wolf in sheep's clothing... They find a way to manipulate the sheep into giving them money! And yes, I would know... I've been painting my entire life! (Well... as long as I can remember)

[vipgraphx]

Back to the Topic of Photography vs Art - it will never get solved. Just as I said in my first post its all opinion and opinions are not fact and somewhat relevant.

I think we have come full circle after 5 pages of opinions. I think we should be able to agree on one thing. To each his own, lets agree to disagree, lets respect that we all our own opinion and thats where it ends.


Cheers!

[Derrel]

The original transparencies were caught in a basement flood, I kept 80 and mounted them in glass 25 years ago. The impact of the muddy water changed the emulsion and this was the end result.

Dear Imagemaker46,
Hey...I have six cardboard boxes full of 35mm transparencies, pretty much all so-so to middlin' in quality. Do you think maybe you could see your way clear to writing out a description of just exactly how much flood water a guy would need to turn crummy, boxed-up Kodachrome and Ektachrome slides into similar (yet entirely different and all-original!!!) works of art?? I mean...does it take like 2,3,4 days' worth of soaking? Or is it more like a two-week soak because you couldn't get back in the house due to the smell of methane gas and stuff? I'd really, really like some guidance on how best to soak my old transparencies, from an expert like you! I'd be happy to pay you like $5 via PayPal for the recipe and any tips! Thanks in advance!
-Derrel

[DiskoJoe]

People often confuse art with "art the like." These are not the same things. Just because you want to say its not art does not make it so. And to trivialize the work of Jackson Pollock in this way is a bit absurd.

Not saying it isn't art... but you can trivialize Jackson Pollock any way you want. I used to paint houses and by the end of every month my drop cloths ALL looked like Jackson Pollock paintings. Art? Maybe. Skilled? Not at all. So trivialize any way you want!

He was a sham. A genius. But a sham. I bet he went home every time he sold a painting and said to himself "Wow.... these people are idiots!" And then in public he would just gobble up all the **** the art "critics" threw at him and bend it and throw it back!

Every successful artist is just a wolf in sheep's clothing... They find a way to manipulate the sheep into giving them money! And yes, I would know... I've been painting my entire life! (Well... as long as I can remember)

That was Willem De Kooning.

[DiskoJoe]

The original transparencies were caught in a basement flood, I kept 80 and mounted them in glass 25 years ago. The impact of the muddy water changed the emulsion and this was the end result.

Dear Imagemaker46,
Hey...I have six cardboard boxes full of 35mm transparencies, pretty much all so-so to middlin' in quality. Do you think maybe you could see your way clear to writing out a description of just exactly how much flood water a guy would need to turn crummy, boxed-up Kodachrome and Ektachrome slides into similar (yet entirely different and all-original!!!) works of art?? I mean...does it take like 2,3,4 days' worth of soaking? Or is it more like a two-week soak because you couldn't get back in the house due to the smell of methane gas and stuff? I'd really, really like some guidance on how best to soak my old transparencies, from an expert like you! I'd be happy to pay you like $5 via PayPal for the recipe and any tips! Thanks in advance!
-Derrel

Try pissing on them.
http://www.warholstars.org/aw76p.html

[DiskoJoe]

Back to the Topic of Photography vs Art - it will never get solved. Just as I said in my first post its all opinion and opinions are not fact and somewhat relevant.

I think we have come full circle after 5 pages of opinions. I think we should be able to agree on one thing. To each his own, lets agree to disagree, lets respect that we all our own opinion and thats where it ends.


Cheers!

This is good stuff. Im bored at work and people are posting. Good stuff. Nothing like a little art debate for good conversation. At least were not talking politics.

[bentcountershaft]

Art is an indefinable abstract construct. It's the idealized notion of something and nothing more.

[Compaq]

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.

This. Art is a corrupt concept. It's the name that sells, not the piece of "art".

[Nikon_Josh]

People often confuse art with "art the like." These are not the same things. Just because you want to say its not art does not make it so. And to trivialize the work of Jackson Pollock in this way is a bit absurd.

Not saying it isn't art... but you can trivialize Jackson Pollock any way you want. I used to paint houses and by the end of every month my drop cloths ALL looked like Jackson Pollock paintings. Art? Maybe. Skilled? Not at all. So trivialize any way you want!

He was a sham. A genius. But a sham. I bet he went home every time he sold a painting and said to himself "Wow.... these people are idiots!" And then in public he would just gobble up all the **** the art "critics" threw at him and bend it and throw it back!

Every successful artist is just a wolf in sheep's clothing... They find a way to manipulate the sheep into giving them money! And yes, I would know... I've been painting my entire life! (Well... as long as I can remember)

And what makes you such an expert can I ask? Your another of the close minded people that has been discussed already in this thread! You come forward with your 'opinions' stating them as fact. If the world of Art was governed by people like you I'd be very concerned!

[OscarWilde]

People often confuse art with "art the like." These are not the same things. Just because you want to say its not art does not make it so. And to trivialize the work of Jackson Pollock in this way is a bit absurd.

Not saying it isn't art... but you can trivialize Jackson Pollock any way you want. I used to paint houses and by the end of every month my drop cloths ALL looked like Jackson Pollock paintings. Art? Maybe. Skilled? Not at all. So trivialize any way you want!

He was a sham. A genius. But a sham. I bet he went home every time he sold a painting and said to himself "Wow.... these people are idiots!" And then in public he would just gobble up all the **** the art "critics" threw at him and bend it and throw it back!

Every successful artist is just a wolf in sheep's clothing... They find a way to manipulate the sheep into giving them money! And yes, I would know... I've been painting my entire life! (Well... as long as I can remember)

That was Willem De Kooning.

De Kooning is closer to Picasso than Paint splatter... Paint splatter is definitely Pollock.
File:No. 5, 1948.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[charlie76]

Whether a photograph is art or not depends on the intention of the photographer. Consider a random example...a sports photographer (random example, no offense to sports photographers) that shoots a ton of boring, genetic photos, and all he wants to do is go home and eat dinner. He cares not for style or form. What if he accidentally gets an interesting, aesthetically attractive shot? Is his careless shooting automatically transformed to art later....just cuz he got lucky? I say no...he doesn't get credit...credit goes to the subject...or the shot becomes something that we can chuckle at when we think about how lucky somebody got. Imagine somebody getting really lucky...then being praised for the photo like he is a photography genius?!? It's all about the intention of the photographer

[Buckster]

Whether a photograph is art or not depends on the intention of the photographer. Consider a random example...a sports photographer (random example, no offense to sports photographers) that shoots a ton of boring, genetic photos, and all he wants to do is go home and eat dinner. He cares not for style or form. What if he accidentally gets an interesting, aesthetically attractive shot? Is his careless shooting automatically transformed to art later....just cuz he got lucky? I say no...he doesn't get credit...credit goes to the subject...or the shot becomes something that we can chuckle at when we think about how lucky somebody got. Imagine somebody getting really lucky...then being praised for the photo like he is a photography genius?!? It's all about the intention of the photographer

How do you prove intent? If he was just "lucky" but claims he was inspired at that very moment, after patiently waiting for just the right time, how do you prove otherwise? Flip side of that, if someone claims he just got lucky but is actually being modest and worked his ass off to learn how to get a shot and then worked his ass off some more to actually get it, how do you prove otherwise?

[charlie76]

How do you prove intent? If he was just "lucky" but claims he was inspired at that very moment, after patiently waiting for just the right time, how do you prove otherwise? Flip side of that, if someone claims he just got lucky but is actually being modest and worked his ass off to learn how to get a shot and then worked his ass off some more to actually get it, how do you prove otherwise?

Good point...