Art or........

[Overread]

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

you edited to remove all choice that the photographer has. If you remove all the choices present how can anyone be creative in any field? Remove enough choices and artists works would not differ either.

 

[mishele]

Be nice...........don't get my thread locked...........:hug::

 

[Overread]

'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....

I have to side with Petraio here as well - I mean its the only way that the Tate Modern can be explained as "art"

 

[mishele]

 

[Petraio Prime]

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

No, they are not 'of' something, not in the same sense of 'of'. The artist creates the painting out of nothing but canvas and paint, and can add or subtract from what he sees, or create things that do not even exist (or no longer exist).

A photograph is 'of' something that exists, meaning that without that something that exists...there is no photograph of 'it'.

A painter who paints a scene is not doing the same thing a photographer does. There is no causal necessity with the painting.

 

[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]

But you are still leaving out the development stage of a photograph (as I've mentioned before). Be it film or digital I can use darkroom/computer methods to significantly change the output from what I saw - in both dramatic and subtle ways.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

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

:thumbup:

Oh, I survived the earthquake in Ohio.

 

[Overread]

Love the effect in this one, really brings out that watercolour feel. However something seems off to me about the position of the infocus/sharp part. I don't know what but something just seems a little off - might be the heavy red middle being too dominant - might be a bit too much dead space just under the sharp part whilst the rest is a riot of effects and colour?

 

[Petraio Prime]

But you are still leaving out the development stage of a photograph (as I've mentioned before). Be it film or digital I can use darkroom/computer methods to significantly change the output from what I saw - in both dramatic and subtle ways.

So what? If you modify it too much it is no longer a photograph at all. If you scrape off the emulsion on half the image, glue feathers to it, soak it in wine, blood, and turpentine, what have you...so what?

 

[Overread]

But you are still leaving out the development stage of a photograph (as I've mentioned before). Be it film or digital I can use darkroom/computer methods to significantly change the output from what I saw - in both dramatic and subtle ways.

So what? If you modify it too much it is no longer a photograph at all. If you scrape off the emulsion on half the image, glue feathers to it, soak it in wine, blood, and turpentine, what have you...so what?

Um so its a part of the photographic process and as such you can't just ignor it nor try to defect the argument into how far one has to edit a photo before it becomes less of a photo.
I'm not quite sure where you are going with the next sentence as you would still have art at the end of it if the artist so wish to call it so (since art is not a quality based term)

 

[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...

'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....

Sorry Petrtaio, but you are flat-out wrong on that. "bad art" is not art, it is kitsch. Your ludicrous assumption that ALL hand-painted paintings are "fine art" is patently false...paint-by-number paintings would therefore be art...your definition of art as "hand work" fails to account for the differences between folk art and fine art...by your definition ANY work done by hand is art, and unfortunately, the art world does not agree with your fringe views.


And please, explain to us all about kitsch and fine art; by your definition, there would be no kitsch, and everything that was painted would be fine art. Which is preposterous. Your definition would put paint splatters on canvas drop cloths in the same,exact place of fine art as the work done by Renoir, Degas, Van Gogh, or any other acknowledged painter. Which is, of course, patently ridiculous! Your views on fine arts are certainly amusing to me, but you seem to repeatedly fail in your explanations--all you do is cite a one-sentence proclamation and fail to address repeated learned comments with simple re-statements of preposterous, fringe positions. Your knowledge of the fine arts is laughable. And, I thought that just yesterday you didn't want to associate with 'photographers'..and yet here you are, trying to gain converts.

Your definition of art and fine art is simply preposterous...something that has been made by hand is not by default fine art...I could take a lump of clay (or feces for that matter) and squeeze it in one hand, and it would by your definition, be fine art. That is preposterous!

 

[Petraio Prime]

But you are still leaving out the development stage of a photograph (as I've mentioned before). Be it film or digital I can use darkroom/computer methods to significantly change the output from what I saw - in both dramatic and subtle ways.

So what? If you modify it too much it is no longer a photograph at all. If you scrape off the emulsion on half the image, glue feathers to it, soak it in wine, blood, and turpentine, what have you...so what?

Um so its a part of the photographic process and as such you can't just ignor it nor try to defect the argument into how far one has to edit a photo before it becomes less of a photo.
I'm not quite sure where you are going with the next sentence as you would still have art at the end of it if the artist so wish to call it so (since art is not a quality based term)

If you destroy its photograph-ness it becomes 'art' then. Quite the opposite of what you think. The more you scrape it, put feathers on it, soak it in wine...the more it approaches 'art' and ceases to be a photograph. Or if you paint over it then of course it's art...you're using it as a canvas.

 

[Overread]

Your definition of art and fine art is simple preposterous...something that has been made by hand is not by default fine art...I could take a lump of clay and squeeze it in one hand, and it would by your definition, be fine art. That is preposterous!

It is art as defined by the Tate Modern
Tate: British and international modern and contemporary art
where such examples include and empty room, trash, cat litter trays and some old coffee mugs (that one was worth a few hundred £1000 and was cleaned away by the cleaners!). Even such fine works as bit of bluetack on wall.

Now fine art and such we can debate till the end of the earth as to what that is

 

[Petraio Prime]

Your definition of art and fine art is simple preposterous...something that has been made by hand is not by default fine art...I could take a lump of clay and squeeze it in one hand, and it would by your definition, be fine art. That is preposterous!

It is art as defined by the Tate Modern
Tate: British and international modern and contemporary art
where such examples include and empty room, trash, cat litter trays and some old coffee mugs (that one was worth a few hundred £1000 and was cleaned away by the cleaners!). Even such fine works as bit of bluetack on wall.

Now fine art and such we can debate till the end of the earth as to what that is

They are wrong. Photography can be exhibited, so what? That does not change what 'art' is.