Art or........

[Overread]

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

Even though photography is (by definition even) painting with light? The manipulation of light as it is cast upon a photographic medium (film, slide, plate, sensor). The use of light and physics to create something whilst working within the medium that is light?

Surely you are not saying that each and every photograph taken is a perfect rendition of the scene before the photographer as seen by their own eyes?

 

[Petraio Prime]

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

Hey, buddy, you watch your mouth! I'm originally from Central PA! :greenpbl:

Philly, huh?

Gadzooks! Yes? No?

I always have felt that Pennsylvania is the Leica (35mm) state, in its proportions. Ohio is almost square, the Hasselblad state.

 

[supraman215]

Hey, buddy, you watch your mouth! I'm originally from Central PA! :greenpbl:

HA

Philly, huh?

Tiny town, Doylestown

 

[mishele]

Reading, Pa. here!!!! Well kinda......

 

[Petraio Prime]

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

Even though photography is (by definition even) painting with light? The manipulation of light as it is cast upon a photographic medium (film, slide, plate, sensor). The use of light and physics to create something whilst working within the medium that is light?

Surely you are not saying that each and every photograph taken is a perfect rendition of the scene before the photographer as seen by their own eyes?

The derivation of the word photograph is 'writing with light'. Now if you were to take a piece of film and, by hand, spray it with a light source (led or something) that would be art. But if a lens is involved, no, it's not. The lens forms an 'image'. Art does not have 'images' but 'representations'. The relationship is not causal in art. In photography it is.

Ever see those reproductions of David or of the Mona Lisa? Those are not works of art. They are mechanically reproduced copies. Same with photographs. They are copies of reality, non-fiction. Art is original, fiction....

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

This old nugget.

WTF cares, really?

REALLY?

 

[supraman215]

Reading, Pa. here!!!! Well kinda......

I didn't realize the OP was from the area too. Now I don't feel so bad taking the tread so far OT. I was worried we were gonna get yelled at.

So I'm the only one living near civilization? :lmao:

 

[mishele]

We will meet in Doylestown..........=)

 

[rickabobaloey]

This old nugget.

WTF cares, really?

REALLY?

:thumbup:

 

[Overread]

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

Even though photography is (by definition even) painting with light? The manipulation of light as it is cast upon a photographic medium (film, slide, plate, sensor). The use of light and physics to create something whilst working within the medium that is light?

Surely you are not saying that each and every photograph taken is a perfect rendition of the scene before the photographer as seen by their own eyes?

The derivation of the word photograph is 'writing with light'. Now if you were to take a piece of film and, by hand, spray it with a light source (led or something) that would be art. But if a lens is involved, no, it's not. The lens forms an 'image'. Art does not have 'images' but 'representations'. The relationship is not causal in art. In photography it is.

Ever see those reproductions of David or of the Mona Lisa? Those are not works of art. They are mechanically reproduced copies. Same with photographs. They are copies of reality, non-fiction. Art is original, fiction....

So you accept that a photograph of say, lightpainting (that of using a torch, LED to draw images using a long exposure) is a form of art? And that in the same branch of photography is similar things like blurry waterfalls and the rest?

But you don't accept it as art if there is a lens involved? Why? All it does is focus the light upon the capturing medium. Or are painters who wear glasses or paintings behind glass made lesser now?

Also what about pinhole photography? No glass there!

 

[Overread]

This old nugget.

WTF cares, really?

REALLY?

Not me... but you know what I *DO* care about????

That you DIDN'T SHARE YOUR POPCORN WITH ME!

::runs away and cries::

he never shares his popcorn

 

[Petraio Prime]

Even though photography is (by definition even) painting with light? The manipulation of light as it is cast upon a photographic medium (film, slide, plate, sensor). The use of light and physics to create something whilst working within the medium that is light?

Surely you are not saying that each and every photograph taken is a perfect rendition of the scene before the photographer as seen by their own eyes?

The derivation of the word photograph is 'writing with light'. Now if you were to take a piece of film and, by hand, spray it with a light source (led or something) that would be art. But if a lens is involved, no, it's not. The lens forms an 'image'. Art does not have 'images' but 'representations'. The relationship is not causal in art. In photography it is.

Ever see those reproductions of David or of the Mona Lisa? Those are not works of art. They are mechanically reproduced copies. Same with photographs. They are copies of reality, non-fiction. Art is original, fiction....

So you accept that a photograph of say, lightpainting (that of using a torch, LED to draw images using a long exposure) is a form of art? And that in the same branch of photography is similar things like blurry waterfalls and the rest?

But you don't accept it as art if there is a lens involved? Why? All it does is focus the light upon the capturing medium. Or are painters who wear glasses or paintings behind glass made lesser now?

Also what about pinhole photography? No glass there!

No, what I meant was taking an LED or light source such as a flashlight and shining it directly on the film itself. A pinhole is like a lens. It forms an image. Art does not and cannot contain 'images'.

 

[Overread]

How does it form an image? All it does is focus light upon a certain point. It forms a photo when it interacts with this medium in photography whereupon the reflected view is captured in the photo.

However the artist can manipulate both the reflecting setup (the lens assembly); the medium that records the light; the subject itself; the light that lands upon the subject to be reflected onto the medium (or even the light that shines directly into the setup).

You just seem to view all forms of photography as records of real world events whilst dismissing any artistic creativity that the photographer has - both compositionally and technically.

 

[mishele]

If you guys are going to keep going on this art thing I'm going to keep posting pictures.....lol

 

[Overread]

please do You're giving me ideas for when I next drag the camera out and find some flowers!
Great photos mishele