Photography as Art?

[mysteryscribe]

Is that also true of a blind dingbat

 

[Hertz van Rental]

I'd like to see your examples of photography that isn't art also.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=81926
Sorry, Alex.

Art is a great deal about pushing boundaries, ideas and communication.

As for "anyone can be an artist" - that depends upon what your definition of an artist is.
Like most professions it takes a certain kind of person to be able to do it.
I think this whole concept of 'anyone can be an artist' is just wishfull thinking. Some people are just not cut out for it. Believe me, I know from experience having taught Photography and some Graphics and Art.
It is true to say 'anyone can paint a picture' which is, I think, what people really mean when they say it. In the same way as 'anyone can take a picture'. But there is a world of difference between painting a picture and being an artist, as there is a world of difference between taking a picture and being a photographer.
It takes not just technical skill and knowledge of the medium, but an attitude of mind and a way of looking at the world. And those are things not everyone is born with or can develop.
If it were otherwise then our whole notion of Art would be totally different - we would not see it as 'special' and have dedicated places to show it because we would all be able to do it.
It's like saying everyone can be a juggler or a trapeze artist. You know it isn't true because you have people who just don't have the co-ordination, and people who are not prepared to do the long hours of practicing. Even the ones that can get through it all will only be passable. They won't have that extra something that allows them to entertain a crowd.
Can anyone be a concert pianist? A brain surgeon? A theoretical physicist? An Olympic gold medalist?
Of course not. So to say 'anyone can be an artist' is to either ascribe qualities and abilities that aren't there to people or you are de-valuing the meaning of the term 'artist'.

 

[JC1220]

"So why bother about art - a word so abused it is almost obsolete."
Edward Weston, 1930

 

[Hertz van Rental]

"So why bother about art - a word so abused it is almost obsolete."
Edward Weston, 1930

Exactly so. Artists rarely mention the word.
The only people who seem to obsess about it, ask 'what is art?', try to define it or shell out big bucks to own it are people who aren't artists and who have never produced any art

 

[TheLostPhotographer]

...
If it were otherwise then our whole notion of Art would be totally different - we would not see it as 'special' and have dedicated places to show it because we would all be able to do it...

There are of course great artists and 'not very good' artists just as there are brilliant jugglers and people like myself. However, I can juggle a little and if the interest took me I'm sure I could improve. Likewise, if anyone is interested enough they can learn to improve their art skills.

Sure, the genius players in any field are born with something that most of us don't have and can never be taught. I see people learn great photographic skills and start thinking with the mind of an artist when they didn't before. Everyone has an ability - just some have a better potential than others.

 

[Chris of Arabia]

Everyone has an ability - just some have a better potential than others.

That sounds suspiciously like my guitar playing skills. My guitar collecting skills on the other hand are worthy of a gallery of their very own...

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Everyone has an ability - just some have a better potential than others.

People may have 'an' ability but not necessarily in Art. Believe me, I know. I've taught it on occasion.
I've had students who, even after two years of being taught Art, have trouble holding the pencil let alone putting it to use. But this same person may well be able to memorise facts like you wouldn't believe - but with depressing regularity their 'ability' has been only the ability to make farty noises with their armpits.
Everyone may well possess 'an ability' but the real truth is that we each have a different ability (as well as a different degree of potential). It's a bitter pill to swallow but most people just don't have much artistic talent at all - which is why Photography is so popular. It's easier to fake it in Photography :lmao:

 

[crownlaurel]

Likewise, if anyone is interested enough they can learn to improve their art skills.

I disagree here. Our brains somehow function differently to differing degrees. The artist is dominated by the right brain. As seen in some historical accounts of artists' behavior (Bernini for example...oops, I mentioned a non photographer here), reason or logic isn't always a strongpoint. A scientist tends to be dominated by the left brain. We're not all extreme examples of artist nor scientist but most of us tend to one direction or the other. Some people are cooks. They may follow recipes but they don't create. Others view recipes as starting blocks. I watch a meal cooked, take note of the ingredients and recreate it with my own style and new ingredients. Then there are cooks (some are chefs, but some never took classes) who can create from scratch somethign entirely new and different. Those are eth artists (opps, again, a non photography example...sorry, I can't put forth photography as art without discussing art in other forms).

Here is an excerpt from a speech by von Helmholtz touching on the differences of perception of the artist from most of us (myself included) http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/helmholtz.htm

It is not necessary for me to add further examples; our daily life is more than rich enough in them. Art, most clearly poetry and the plastic arts, is based directly upon such experiences. The highest kind of perception, that which we find in the artist's vision, is an example of this same basic kind of understanding, in this case the understanding of new aspects of man and nature. Among the traces which frequently repeated perceptions leave behind in the memory, the ones conforming to law and repeated with the greatest regularity are strengthened, while those which vary accidentally are obliterated. In a receptive, attentive observer, intuitive images of the characteristic aspects of the things that interest him come to exist; afterward he knows no more about how these images arose than a child knows about the examples from which he learned the meanings of words. That an artist has beheld the truth follows from the fact that we too are seized with the conviction of truth when he leads us away from currents of accidentally related qualities. An artist is superior to us in that he knows how to find the truth amid all the confusion and chance events of daily experience.

The last statement I believe holds true for the Artist Photographer. And the rest of us aspire to become what the Artist simply is.

 

[TheLostPhotographer]

...
The last statement I believe holds true for the Artist Photographer. And the rest of us aspire to become what the Artist simply is.

If you're referring to the last sentence;

An artist is superior to us in that he knows how to find the truth amid all the confusion and chance events of daily experience.

then I would disagree. Many Artists using Photography as a medium are equally talented with other materials.

I've always had a problem with the left brain, right brain theory also. Where did Da Vinci think from. He was as great an artist as he was a scientist. (going back to painting - I guess there are far more examples).

Science is a big part of any art for myself. When I'm sketching I'm thinking about the physics of the subject not just looking at a shape. When I'm painting I'm thinking about the properties of the paint, how the colours will mix, interact, compliment and contrast. This thought process happens alongside a sort of involuntary creative thought process - the feeling.

I enjoy the science of photography as much as I enjoy the art of photography. I think the lack of physical interaction between medium and artist is part of the problem people have for accepting art as photography. Call it the craft of photography if you like - the burning in in the darkroom or, the subtle manipulation in PhotoShop is as close as photography gets to sketching or, painting. Lighting is possibly an exception.

But, I can get as much pleasure out of enjoying a Thomas Struth photographic landscape as I can from a great Turner landscape. To my mind and way of seeing they are very equal mediums when it comes to art. There is no difference between an artist and a photographic artist.

 

[crownlaurel]

If you're referring to the last sentence; then I would disagree. Many Artists using Photography as a medium are equally talented with other materials.

I've always had a problem with the left brain, right brain theory also. Where did Da Vinci think from. He was as great an artist as he was a scientist. (going back to painting - I guess there are far more examples).

Science is a big part of any art for myself. When I'm sketching I'm thinking about the physics of the subject not just looking at a shape. When I'm painting I'm thinking about the properties of the paint, how the colours will mix, interact, compliment and contrast. This thought process happens alongside a sort of involuntary creative thought process - the feeling.

I enjoy the science of photography as much as I enjoy the art of photography. I think the lack of physical interaction between medium and artist is part of the problem people have for accepting art as photography. Call it the craft of photography if you like - the burning in in the darkroom or, the subtle manipulation in PhotoShop is as close as photography gets to sketching or, painting. Lighting is possibly an exception.

But, I can get as much pleasure out of enjoying a Thomas Struth photographic landscape as I can from a great Turner landscape. To my mind and way of seeing they are very equal mediums when it comes to art. There is no difference between an artist and a photographic artist.

Here's where I think your fault of logic stands. You seem to want the entire medium to be considered art, but you yourself have stated it clearly when you say "There is no difference between an artist and a photographic artist." Exactly, but there IS a difference between the average picture taker and the Artist Photographer. There may be some gray area in between where someone is an artist but maybe not an Artist. The art is produced, not by the medium, but by the artist using whatever means to express his art.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

the burning in in the darkroom or, the subtle manipulation in PhotoShop is as close as photography gets to sketching or, painting. Lighting is possibly an exception.

Then you have forgotten Advertising photography where you start with an empty studio and build the picture up from scratch. You have total control over everything so the final image is exactly how you want it to be. And you have almost as much control over a good fashion shoot or studio portrait.
Most people, when they talk about Photography and Art in the same sentence, think of Photography as going out with a camera and taking what presents itself or of High Street photographers.
But images can be constructed and it's a whole different way of working.
The other mistake you are making is to try to compare Photography to Painting or drawing. They are different media and so have different ways of being used.
It's like saying drawing doesn't come close to painting. Or painting doesn't come close to sculpture. Or sculture doesn't come close to writing. Or writing doesn't come close to music.
They are all comparissons which cannot be made because they are pointless comparissons.

 

[Mike_E]

So many words for such a simple subject. Either you are an Artist or you are not. Photography has plenty of room for both types. Be as good as you can at whatever you do.

Here's a saying for you to help you on your way...
'-child, every dawn sets alight a new day. Go out and play before it's all burned away!'.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Either you are an Artist or you are not.

Quite true, but what is being discussed here is how you differentiate between them.

 

[Mike_E]

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. (too minimalist more likely). Whether someone is or isn't is not up to them and ultimately only history will judge. After all, who would have dreamed that a bunch of stacked soup cans would be considered Art?

The only thing that is certain is that if the photo doesn't get made then it is Definitely not art. If you are spending your time worrying whether or not what you are doing is art then you cannot be doing art because you really aren't doing anything.

Live, Laugh, Love and make photographs that move you along the way. If your's is a spirit worth remembering and you leave behind a body of work then you will be remembered.

If not then you will have Lived, Laughed, Loved and enjoyed a fine hobby and die a rich person because of it. (Rich in the only coin of the realm that you can take with you )

Ooops, gotta go, the neighbor's burning his lunch and ... . Hey, it could be art. LOL

mike

 

[Alpha]

I'm of the opinion that you need a great eye and great technical ability to be a great photographer (that is, to have intentionality and a useful measure of control over your images). If you have neither, you will always be poor. If you have one or the other, then you may be particularly suited to specific types of photography. And if you have both, then the sky's the limit.

Who cares about art.