Art or........

[Bitter Jeweler]

 

[Petraio Prime]

These are very nicely done, but no photograph can be a 'work of art' in the technical sense of 'art'. It is thus fundamentally different from painting and sculpture.

Can you enlighten us with your supreme knowledge? What is the technical sense of art?

A lot of people equate photography and painting, using the term 'art' to refer to them both. There is even a group who practice what they erroneously call "fine-art photography". This usage is incorrect and fundamentally so.

Technically speaking, precisely speaking, the 'fine arts' include painting (watercolor, oil), sculpture (glass-blowing) and architecture (a building is a big sculpture in a way) etc.

These all involve manual manipulation of something, some material that we shape or form or apply, and which is distinct from the 'subject'. A photograph is always a photograph 'of' something else...to which it is causally related. A painting or sculpture or building is not 'of' something else...nor does a painting stand in a causal relationship to something else...which must already exist. A photograph is 'non-fiction'. All 'art' is 'fiction'.

The arts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[mishele]

Doesn't the flower become fiction as soon as I choose the DOF? It is not longer what you see in real life. It is as I want you to see it. (BTW.......I don't want you to think I'm taking your statement personally........just having a fun debate)

 

[Petraio Prime]

Doesn't the flower become fiction as soon as I choose the DOF? It is not longer what you see in real life. It is as I want you to see it. (BTW.......I don't want you to think I'm taking your statement personally........just having a fun debate)

No, it doesn't. It's just applying the laws of physics.

 

[Derrel]

Doesn't the flower become fiction as soon as I choose the DOF? It is not longer what you see in real life. It is as I want you to see it. (BTW.......I don't want you to think I'm taking your statement personally........just having a fun debate)

Uh-oh...Mishele, you've just applied a bit of logic to shoot a hole in a bogus,pretentious argument...look out...

 

[mishele]

Arch.........nothing to see here.......lol

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Doesn't the flower become fiction as soon as I choose the DOF? It is not longer what you see in real life. It is as I want you to see it. (BTW.......I don't want you to think I'm taking your statement personally........just having a fun debate)

Uh-oh...Mishele, you've just applied a bit of logic to shoot a hole in a bogus,pretentious argument...look out...

LOL


Who is this troll?

"A photograph is always a photograph 'of' something else..." Funny, that is how I see most painting until abstract came along.

 

[Arch]

Arch.........nothing to see here.......lol

Hmm... maybe, maybe.
i was going to redirect ppl to the other 'is photography art' thread, but ok we will let this roll... guys, just try not to start that debate off again, please?

 

[mishele]

Arch you posted in my thread w/ out commenting on my work......how rude...

 

[Overread]

These are very nicely done, but no photograph can be a 'work of art' in the technical sense of 'art'. It is thus fundamentally different from painting and sculpture.

Can you enlighten us with your supreme knowledge? What is the technical sense of art?

A lot of people equate photography and painting, using the term 'art' to refer to them both. There is even a group who practice what they erroneously call "fine-art photography". This usage is incorrect and fundamentally so.

Technically speaking, precisely speaking, the 'fine arts' include painting (watercolor, oil), sculpture (glass-blowing) and architecture (a building is a big sculpture in a way) etc.

These all involve manual manipulation of something, some material that we shape or form or apply, and which is distinct from the 'subject'. A photograph is always a photograph 'of' something else...to which it is causally related. A painting or sculpture or building is not 'of' something else...nor does a painting stand in a causal relationship to something else...which must already exist. A photograph is 'non-fiction'. All 'art' is 'fiction'.

The arts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So your main argument is that art cannot be art unless you are manipulating something that is physical into something new? If that is your argument what of digital artists (those who work with painting programs in computers) is that then not art akin to the artist with the paintbrush?

Doesn't the flower become fiction as soon as I choose the DOF? It is not longer what you see in real life. It is as I want you to see it. (BTW.......I don't want you to think I'm taking your statement personally........just having a fun debate)

No, it doesn't. It's just applying the laws of physics.

how are the other kinds of art also not just applying the laws of physics to the materials they work with?

 

[supraman215]

They look like paintings... I dig :sillysmi:

nchips1... I dunno where you came from (seems like out of no where to me), but every comment I've seen from you has made me laugh. I like you. You entertain me. :lmao:

Lotta love on this thread.

 

[Rudha]

In my humble opinion all definition need to be updated from time to time....makes appreciate life better (no i did not smoke anything )

EDIT: Loved your work especially #1 it's the colors for me

 

[supraman215]

No sarcasm! I was being serious! I wasn't paying attention to my punctuation.

You need to shed that NE PA cynicism. :greenpbl:

J/K

 

[Petraio Prime]

Can you enlighten us with your supreme knowledge? What is the technical sense of art?

A lot of people equate photography and painting, using the term 'art' to refer to them both. There is even a group who practice what they erroneously call "fine-art photography". This usage is incorrect and fundamentally so.

Technically speaking, precisely speaking, the 'fine arts' include painting (watercolor, oil), sculpture (glass-blowing) and architecture (a building is a big sculpture in a way) etc.

These all involve manual manipulation of something, some material that we shape or form or apply, and which is distinct from the 'subject'. A photograph is always a photograph 'of' something else...to which it is causally related. A painting or sculpture or building is not 'of' something else...nor does a painting stand in a causal relationship to something else...which must already exist. A photograph is 'non-fiction'. All 'art' is 'fiction'.

The arts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So your main argument is that art cannot be art unless you are manipulating something that is physical into something new? If that is your argument what of digital artists (those who work with painting programs in computers) is that then not art akin to the artist with the paintbrush?

Yes, digital painting is 'art'. Photographs are not.

 

[ifi]

+1 for Art :thumbsup: