a masterpiece...for arguments sake...

[DanielScala]

what makes a photo a "masterpiece".. is it solely having all of the elements of the photograph turn out perfect.. ie. form contrast color focus... and so on???? can an image still be powerful or considered a "masterpiece" if one or more of these elements is off? i have many photos that i have purposely and accidentally disregarded certain aspects, and some have been more powerful to me than those with everything by the books...of course i produce my art as a form of expression, so my belief is that if the photo portrays how you were feeling in the moment you took it, it is a work of art...but thats just my opinion.. is it too distracting to have these elements..."outside the box" if you will....?? what does everyone else think???

 

[abraxas]

...what does everyone else think???

There's the problem.

 

[jvgig]

a masterpiece is a photograph (or any other form of art) that can hang in a gallery for hundreds of years and still illicit the same response from the public. There are no composition/exposure rules, no subject matter concerns. All it has to do is appeal to some universal human emotion better than the picture next to it.

 

[ksmattfish]

what makes a photo a "masterpiece"..

The sales agent.

 

[Hawaii Five-O]

Most art work is under appreciated and criticized when you are alive. But then after you die, people feel bad they were so mean to you and then put it in a museum and sell it for 5 million dollars to relieve some of thier regret. Most of time art critics just blind fold each other and twirl until dizzy and then point while blindfolded to pick the next masterpiece on the wall.

 

[Battou]

One must aquire the title of Master....Then every thing they pump out is the work of a master and is called a master peice....

There are no master tradesman in photography tho...thus it reverts to the blindfold as C677T said.

 

[William Petruzzo]

Any piece of artwork is made a "masterpiece" based on intention. Break the word apart can give a good idea too. Master and Piece. A "master" is someone with great skill. When it comes to artwork, every aspect of their art is created and formed with intention. If an artist creates something and intends that everyone who views it should hate it, and they do, then he's created a masterpiece.

But it seems that that would only be accurate when applied to artistic matters. For example, if an architect artistically designs a building and intends for it to crumble and it does, then in a sense it was a masterpiece. But, of course, in terms of architecture which is bound by many rigid rules, it would be a blazing failure.

That's my two cents anyway. When I consider artistic photography, I try to judge it based on the intention of the photographer not always just the technical success of capturing a "good" image. I consider a masterpiece to be one that fully succeeds in every one of the artists intentions.

 

[sabbath999]

It has my copy write symbol on it.

 

[Alpha]

Masterpieces are defined like the fed defines porn. No idea but you know it when you see it.

 

[Trenton Romulox]

Masterpieces are defined like the fed defines porn. No idea but you know it when you see it.

Haha. I'm gonna have to agree with this.

 

[joecoulsonphotography]

I've taken alot of Master pieces of s*&! over the years.

 

[Overread]

It cannot be defined easily as its so dependent on who is looking at the photo - something like a Van Gogh is considered a masterpiece by some and a load of rubbish by others == though stuff in the Tate Modern is all rubbish except to those that work their and who buy the rubbish (I mean seriously dirty coffee mugs a masterpiece?)

I think Alpha has it right though - its hard to classify them as they don't really have a classification to follow.

Myself when I look at my own works I consider a master peice to be one of two things:
1) the best photo I have taken thus far (changes a lot at the moment)
2) a photo which when I look at the final result is exaclty what I wanted when I pressed the shutter (not got many of these --- yet)

 

[Hawaii Five-O]

I think it is also who you know, that helps your art work move up the ranks, aside from your talent. Like others have said , if you work under a master artisan, your work will get noticed faster.

I think way back in the day it may of been easier to be renowned for your photo work work because it was new, but now there are thousands and thousands of photographers. Many who want to be art photographers.

art Photography is a finicky and competitive arena I think.

 

[DanielScala]

thanks for everyones opinions...i agree and disagree with them all...lol... all of this is true...like i said.. if i myself evoke a certain feeling...any feeling...from one of my photographs...i consider it a masterpiece... then i guess from there on out.. its making others feel the same way...which... if done... is not really you "selling" the photograph...but it selling itself... so i guess it just has to capture a moment in time that is meaningful and can be picked up by anyone...this kinda makes me think that in comparison to other mediums like paint and pencil...its more of finding the moment rather than creating it... and than using your knowledge of our medium to capture it...rather simple logic but im just putting it in to perspective for myself....thanks everyone!!