Artistic value of photography today?

Ivana again · Feb 22, 2005

I was thinking about something and it really bothers me. I thought to share that with you.
I saw here, on this forum many beatufull picture. And they look really amazing. But most of those pictures are edit with photoshop or some other program to make better picture.
What you think? Dont you think that photography then loose artistic value? I mean where is art of photography then when the place and the moment what you capture isnt the reality, and when its not anymore important talent of photographer but knowlege for working in photoshop.
My opinion is that photoshop is good for some things but not for editing the whole picture.
I dont know did you understand what I am trying to say, but I hope you did.
I really would like to hear your opinion about this?

ksmattfish · Feb 22, 2005

Take some darkroom classes and you will learn that quite a bit of the manipulations that you can do in Adobe PS has been done in the darkroom for decades. There has always been a debate whether photography is too easy to be called art, even before they invented film (see the quote in my signature).

Here are a few other quotes relating to this subject that I like...

"The word 'art' is very slippery. It really has no importance in relation to one's work. I work for the pleasure, for the pleasure of the work, and everything else is a matter for the critics." -Manuel Alvarez Bravo

"In the very beginning, when the operator controls and regulates his time of exposure, when in the dark room the developer is mixed for detail, breath, flatness or contrast, faking has been resorted to. In fact every photograph is a fake from start to finish, a purely impersonal, unmanipulated photograph being practically impossible. When all is said, it still remains entirely a matter of degree and ability." -Edward Steichen

"Photography has not changed since its origin except in its technical aspects, which for me are not important." -Henri Cartier-Bresson

vonnagy · Feb 22, 2005

^ agree with the mattfish

another thing to consider is the amount of time it takes to manipulate a picture in photo. I think a great misconception among many folks that you can output a great picture in photoshop in mere seconds. It can take hours and hours to get it right. If I were to charge folks by the time it took to post process some of my pics - only handful of the super rich could afford them :lol:

Pressing the shutter is only the beginning of journey. I still go back to some pics and think 'man i should go back in fix the sky up a bit' etc, etc.

Floyd · Feb 24, 2005

I recommend you try and source the David Hockney documentary he made in relation to the great masters (painters) and how they used optics to create their pictures. Photography had a considerable impact on all art as it killed most realist painting as there was no longer a need for painting which serves as documentary. Now painting is mostly intent on narrative, pure visual aesthetic, and expression with little emphasis on documentary. Photography is merely painting with light.

Hockney is an intelligent man in the way he composes his phot montages as it is constantly circling an area and documenting it in sections just as the eye and the brain do, the human eye is deceptive in that it fools you in to thinking that everything is in focus due to memory. The eye scans and remembers so as to form a whole image in the mind. This is what Hockney's work does and is therefore more of a mimic to the way we really see things than a normal static single photograph. In the photograph there is less subjectivity and emotion attached, the photograph is more truthful than the eye if we want to be technical as it renders more than we really do see at one time. Besides we could get into the bull**** philosophical question of waht is truth with this.

Just accept that photography is the new documentary painting plus more.

VIVA FILM!

oriecat · Feb 24, 2005

Did you see these articles on Hockney last year? He had some interesting things to say.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,1161451,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1161737,00.html

SQ Bimmer · Feb 24, 2005

There's a reason there are classes held on how to fully utilize photoshop, it's cause it's more complicated than pressing CTRL+SHIFT+L, CTRL+SHIFT+ALT+L, and CTRL+SHIFT+B, and undoing the adjustments that didn't look right!

terri · Feb 24, 2005

Ivana: if you are bothered by the apparent trend in thinking that one no longer needs to concern oneself with pesky details like understanding shutter speed and aperture, because you can learn PS and control your image on the computer by post processing, then I share that concern. But most real photographers have enough respect for the camera to "get it right in-camera", whether shooting film or digital. Still, mistakes will always be made at times, and whether you're struggling with, for example, a too-dense negative in the darkroom for hours, or a too-dark digital image sitting in front of your PC using PS, your basic intent is still the same. If I am interpreting your concern correctly, you are feeling disturbed over a perceived loss of respect for the art of photography, coupled with the cavalier approach towards a great program like PS that will (seemingly) solve the problems of poor image capture. People oversaturate their images on PS constantly, to the point of garishness at times, because they failed to use a lens filter, or over/under exposed their image, or committed some other error that points to a chronic lack of understanding over their camera's functions - be it film or digital. It is my opinion that this attitude is one of the sorriest aspects of photography today - but that it has little to do with photoshop.

Sergiozal · Mar 11, 2005

What is the difference between use a ambar warm filter in your camera or do it in PS? Use B&W film or convert it?
It depends on what you (the artist, the journalist, whatever) want: To give a sensation, or be true in the photo, like to show exactly what you saw in that moment.
I think that if you shot it wrong, you cant make it better in PS, perhaps just a little, but you will never transform an ordinary shot into an extraordinary one.

SQ Bimmer · Mar 14, 2005

Sergiozal said:
What is the difference between use a ambar warm filter in your camera or do it in PS? ...

Well, one method takes up more film or memory card space, the other method lets you play around with it in photoshop while only having to shoot 1 photo! I think you get the drift...

Kent Frost · Mar 14, 2005

Ah, the good ol' "Does photoshop ruin the taste of photography?" debate.

I'll answer the same way every time.

Every image is different. No matter what you do to get your final result, whether in the darkroom or with photoshop, that image is no less original and no less YOURS than it was when the light of the image passed through the glass in your lens.

John E. · Mar 15, 2005

PS or no PS. Garbage in, garbage out.

deb · Mar 17, 2005

Well, let's approach the question logically.

Art is the creation of something using a combination of tools, talent, skill, knowledge, perception, ideas, medium, etc. with the intention of either invoking emotion or having someone find the creation aesthetically pleasing.

Some people create sculptures of garbage, and consider it art.

Some people paint with oils on canvas and consider it art.

Some people carve objects of wood and consider it art.

Some people capture and manipulate light and consider it art.

Does it matter whether you sculpt with a chisel or a chainsaw? Does it matter if you capture light on film and manipulate it chemically or capture it and manipulate it electronically?

Art, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

What I consider art and what others consider art will be as individual as each person.

I've seen PS manipulations that require great skill, perception, planning and use the elements of color, contrast, texture and light as well as any other artistic medium.

By the same token, I've seen PS manipulations that are about as much art as my grandchild's fingerpainting. However, I will point out, that my grandchild's finger paintings have value to me.

So yes. I'd say that PS manipulations can be considered art.

Astro · Mar 17, 2005

Ivana again said:
I was thinking about something and it really bothers me. I thought to share that with you.
I saw here, on this forum many beatufull picture. And they look really amazing. But most of those pictures are edit with photoshop or some other program to make better picture.
What you think? Dont you think that photography then loose artistic value? I mean where is art of photography then when the place and the moment what you capture isnt the reality, and when its not anymore important talent of photographer but knowlege for working in photoshop.
My opinion is that photoshop is good for some things but not for editing the whole picture.
I dont know did you understand what I am trying to say, but I hope you did.
I really would like to hear your opinion about this?

I think you are right about craft of photography becoming somewhat extinct because of modern technology. True craftsmen are fewer and fewer. But this is the way things have been for centuries. Take printing for example: from Gutenberg press to desktop publishing and 6-color printing. Of course some old craft is going to be lost along the way. But one thing is for sure, no photoshop can help you if you dont have a talent for photography.

Hertz van Rental · Mar 18, 2005

deb said:
Art, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

What I consider art and what others consider art will be as individual as each person.

No one person can decide what Art is. Art is defined by Society and changes as Society does. So the decision as to wether something is Art or not is a consensus - and is generally made in retrospect.

What individuals are really doing when they consider something to be 'art' is merely expressing a personal preference.
Saying that something is Art does not make it so.
Take a look at a lot of work promoted in Galleries as 'art'. It's similar to furniture: just because it's old doesn't make it an antique (but you will usually find a mug on e-Bay to buy it).

No process that has creative potential ever dies out - it just ceases to be popular.

ksmattfish · Mar 18, 2005

According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language "art" is...

1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.

2.
a. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
b. The study of these activities.
c. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.

3. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.

4. A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.

5. A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.

6.
a. A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
b. A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.

7.
a. Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.
b. Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice (Joyce Carol Oates).

8.
a. arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks.
b. Artful contrivance; cunning.

9. Printing. Illustrative material.