Art or........

[Petraio Prime]

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.

We lack the vocabulary for photography or never bothered to create one for it. We tend to borrow terms from painting. Photography cannot be 'creative' in the same sense we use that of painting. A photographer cannot be properly called an 'artist', even though many photographs are far more impressive than many paintings.

The issue is this: is there a causal relationship between the 'subject' and the 'product'? If there is, it's not art (e.g., a fossil may look like a work of art, but since it's causally related to something it cannot be 'art'). In art, the relationship is intentional, not causal. A painter could set up his easel before the Queen and paint...a dog.

A photograph is always 'of' something else: something that already exists.

 

[Petraio Prime]

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

I like them. Very nice!

 

[Overread]

A painter could set up his easel before the Queen and paint...a dog.

So what you're saying is that any limitation upon creativity nullifies the artist from being an artist and thus also negates the works that they create from being art?

 

[supraman215]

http://www.leemuslin.com/Dtakingroot2.htmlhttp://www.leemuslin.com/Dtakingroot2.html

Just because this was created from a photograph makes it not art?

 

[Petraio Prime]

A painter could set up his easel before the Queen and paint...a dog.

So what you're saying is that any limitation upon creativity nullifies the artist from being an artist and thus also negates the works that they create from being art?

I have no idea what you mean. My point was merely that one could not photograph the Queen and the photo be a dog. It's impossible. There is a causal connection (captured photons) in photography that does not exist in painting or art. Photographs are derivative of reality, of things that already exist. Art is not derivative.

 

[matie1138]

if you modified them to be blurry for a purpose because you want to play with the colors, then I consider it to be art

 

[Overread]

So that casual connection between the real and the artistic makes it impossible for it to be art? Does that mean you only accept art if its totally from within the photographers mind with no input what so ever from outside sources that form physical connections within the mind of the artist at the time?

 

[Petraio Prime]

Untitled Document

Just because this was created from a photograph makes it not art?

Is it a painting? if so, then it's a work of art.

 

[Overread]

Untitled Document

Just because this was created from a photograph makes it not art?

Is it a painting? if so, then it's a work of art.

even if its entirety is derived from a photograph - to put it in your terms - for the art (painting) to be completely connected to the photograph which is in turn connected to the subject

 

[Petraio Prime]

Untitled Document

Just because this was created from a photograph makes it not art?

Is it a painting? if so, then it's a work of art.

even if its entirety is derived from a photograph - to put it in your terms - for the art (painting) to be completely connected to the photograph which is in turn connected to the subject

It isn't connected, not at all. The artist chose to give the painting the likeness of the famous Uelsman photo. Photographs have no choice. Cameras in the same physical place with the same settings would produce identical photographs.

Do you understand that a photograph is of something else, and that a painting is not of something else?

 

[Derrel]

Petraio, your concept that any painting is a work of art fails to account for kitsch. Please explain to us oh great art expert, how a junky, hokey kitsch painting, such as the flowers by a window paintings sold at airports and convention centers are "art". By the definitions you have given us over the last couple of weeks, even these hokey, gaudy, God-awful paintings are "fine art". They meet all the criteria you have ascribed to fine art paintings, and yet they are garbage paintings, designed to be sold to homemakers, college students, old ladies, and low-rent interior decorators, home builders, and hotel managers--as wall "art". They are as the commercials scream, "genuine hand-painted oil paintings, at insanely low,low prices! Hurry! One weekend only you can buy two genuine, hand-painted, original oil paintings on canvas for the low,low price of just $99 each!"

And yet Petraio, this stuff is just kitsch. It's crap. BUT, ACCORDING TO YOUR DEFINITION, it MUST BE ART. As you have written, it "must be art". It has been created by hand. Please enlighten us as to your stance on kitsch.

Dude, your education in philosophy is skimpier than my university education in art. Your blatherings about art are seriously,seriously off the mark. I think you're just a contrarian who likes to go into a place where there's no real competition, and start an argument and feel like you are winning some type of important debate. Your are the Ricky Flame of iCarly fame, as my young son would say...

 

[Overread]

Is it a painting? if so, then it's a work of art.

even if its entirety is derived from a photograph - to put it in your terms - for the art (painting) to be completely connected to the photograph which is in turn connected to the subject

It isn't connected, not at all. The artist chose to give the painting the likeness of the famous Uelsman photo. Photographs have no choice. Anyone in the same physical place with the same equipment and settings would produce identical photographs.

First not true - different photographers might well frame the shot totally differently - if you mean that the gear setup with the same composition of elements (taking away one choice of the photographer) then maybe - but they can still adjust the settings - like in this thread Meshels shots show wide aperture results - myself I might have framed the same but used small apertures - heck I might even have focus stacked the results - bringing the whole question of how one edits the results. I could go with black and white and another with colour to produce two very different looking photos.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Petraio, your concept that any painting is a work of art fails to account for kitsch. Please explain to us oh great art expert, how a junky, hokey kitsch painting, such as the flowers by a window paintings sold at airports and convention centers are "art". By the definitions you have given us over the last couple of weeks, even these hokey, gaudy, God-awful paintings are "fine art". They meet all the criteria you have ascribed to fine art paintings, and yet they are garbage paintings, designed to be sold to homemakers, college students, old ladies, and low-rent interior decorators, home builders, and hotel managers--as wall "art". They are as the commercials scream, "genuine hand-painted oil paintings, at insanely low,low prices! Hurry! One weekend only you can buy two genuine, hand-painted, original oil paintings on canvas for the low,low price of just $99 each!"

And yet Petraio, this stuff is just kitsch. It's crap. BUT, ACCORDING TO YOUR DEFINITION, it MUST BE ART. As you have written, it "must be art". It has been created by hand. Please enlighten us as to your stance on kitsch.

Dude, your education in philosophy is skimpier than my university education in art. Your blatherings about art are seriously,seriously off the mark. I think you're just a contrarian who likes to go into a place where there's no real competition, and start an argument and feel like you are winning some type of important debate. Your are the Ricky Flame of iCarly fame, as my young son would say...

'Art' is a technical term, not a term of praise. It's that simple. It matters not a whit whether it's good or bad....

 

[Petraio Prime]

even if its entirety is derived from a photograph - to put it in your terms - for the art (painting) to be completely connected to the photograph which is in turn connected to the subject

It isn't connected, not at all. The artist chose to give the painting the likeness of the famous Uelsman photo. Photographs have no choice. Anyone in the same physical place with the same equipment and settings would produce identical photographs.

First not true - different photographers might well frame the shot totally differently - if you mean that the gear setup with the same composition of elements (taking away one choice of the photographer) then maybe - but they can still adjust the settings - like in this thread Meshels shots show wide aperture results - myself I might have framed the same but used small apertures - heck I might even have focus stacked the results - bringing the whole question of how one edits the results. I could go with black and white and another with colour to produce two very different looking photos.

No, I edited that to clarify so that you would not make this misinterpretation.

 

[Overread]

Do you understand that a photograph is of something else, and that a painting is not of something else?

Wait what?
Now you don't make any sense at all as you've just classed any artist who works with a scene as not an artist. A painting can be of something else - infact a great many paintings and works of art are of something