Photography vs. Art

DScience · May 4, 2012

GeorgieGirl said:
Nope. Mine is even more certain.

Okay, so i've updated my definition of good photographer and good photo. Still have the same opinion?

GeorgieGirl · May 4, 2012

DScience said:
I would like to try and lead a discussion based on the topic of photography as an art. I have thought about this topic a lot, and have many questions to ask you all. I thought it may flow better if I began with one at a time.

Art = the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

1.) Do you believe that a good photographer is also a good artist? Consequently, do you believe that a good photograph is automatically a piece of art?
(Good photographer = one who can produce properly exposed photos regardless of anything else)
(Good photograph = one that is properly exposed regardless of any other feature)

No, this is not the (definition) that I feel is what qualifies someone to be a good photographer or to be an artist.

Majeed Badizadegan · May 4, 2012

DScience said:
GeorgieGirl said:

Nope. Mine is even more certain.

Click to expand...

Okay, so i've updated my definition of good photographer and good photo. Still have the same opinion?

Try not to alter the original post in any way when people have already been discussing it (15 replies). It's much better to amend your definition later in the thread than to change the Original Post and diminish the chance for those who haven't seen the thread yet to see the original verbiage.

KmH · May 4, 2012

DScience said:
I've updated with a clear definition of art for us all to work with. So, with that said, has anyones opinions changed?

There is no clear definition of art.

Art is in the eye of the beholder.

Balmiesgirl · May 4, 2012

What one may find is art another may perceive as junk. It's in the eye of the beholder.

DScience · May 4, 2012

KmH said:
DScience said:

I've updated with a clear definition of art for us all to work with. So, with that said, has anyones opinions changed?

Click to expand...

There is no clear definition of art.

Art is in the eye of the beholder.

Click to expand...

So art is a meaningless word? I think all words have clear definitions, depending on what context they are used in. :O)

DScience · May 4, 2012

Nice replies people, I like the great dialogue we're having. (sorry to the person who doesn't like updates to the original post)

I updated with a new question! Very curious to see replies.

DScience · May 4, 2012

KmH said:
Art is in the eye of the beholder.

Click to expand...

Never heard that one. But I have heard another quite commonly used statement: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Thus art is art, and whether or not it's good art (beautiful) is thus subjective to the one perceiving the piece, I would argue.

GeorgieGirl · May 4, 2012

Here is an alternate to that Art is in the Eye of the Beholder idea....

If we start out with the concept that a good photographer is one who consistently has demonstrated skills that result in an image that is exceptional more often then not, then the idea of him (or her) is that they are good. Good meaning that they are accomplished at what they do, as in He's Good at What He Does.

A photographic image is an form of Art.

Here on this site there is a member who is a jeweler. The creation of jewelry is a form of Art. It comes from one's mind and is formed into something that is tangible and that can be seen and viewed by others. Just like a photographic image.

Liking it or not liking it is not the criteria for it to be a form of Art.

rexbobcat · May 4, 2012

I just go by the formal elements of art. I also take into account the intent of the piece.

One example is that I don't view fashion magazine photography as art because of its purpose. It's the difference between porn and tasteful nudity. Porn is indeed nudity, but it's purpose is to satiate a shallow need (in my opinion). It's also made to be mass-produced.

Traditionally, art has typically been one-of-a-kind type deals. That's why the market is so much more different than others. If a photograph is taken to be bulk-produced, I don't typically consider it art. However, if someone has a very specific photograph and they sell it on an individual basis then I'm more inclined to see the work as art.

There are other factors as well. This is just one of the main ones when judging whether a photograph is art, or if it's simply artistic...if that makes sense.

(On a side note: I HATE discussing this. It's like trying to discuss religion or politics on the internet. It never ends well and it changes no one's opinion)

rexbobcat · May 4, 2012

GeorgieGirl said:
Here is an alternate to that Art is in the Eye of the Beholder idea....

If we start out with the concept that a good photographer is one who consistently has demonstrated skills that result in an image that is exceptional more often then not, then the idea of him (or her) is that they are good. Good meaning that they are accomplished at what they do, as in He's Good at What He Does.

A photographic image is an form of Art.

Here on this site there is a member who is a jeweler. The creation of jewelry is a form of Art. It comes from one's mind and is formed into something that is tangible and that can be seen and viewed by others. Just like a photographic image.

Liking it or not liking it is not the criteria for it to be a form of Art.

That seems like a VERY vague description of art.

Oh, by the way y'all, there has beena new world record set for the most money paid for a painting: 117 million dollars I believe for The Scream by Edvard Munch. His son auctioned it at Sotheby's

vipgraphx · May 4, 2012

So like I said in my first post in this thread...you will find yourself full circle, two pages of opinions that at the end of the day leave you saying hhmmmmmmmm!

DScience · May 4, 2012

rexbobcat said:
I just go by the formal elements of art. I also take into account the intent of the piece.

One example is that I don't view fashion magazine photography as art because of its purpose. It's the difference between porn and tasteful nudity. Porn is indeed nudity, but it's purpose is to satiate a shallow need (in my opinion). It's also made to be mass-produced.

Traditionally, art has typically been one-of-a-kind type deals. That's why the market is so much more different than others. If a photograph is taken to be bulk-produced, I don't typically consider it art. However, if someone has a very specific photograph and they sell it on an individual basis then I'm more inclined to see the work as art.

There are other factors as well. This is just one of the main ones when judging whether a photograph is art, or if it's simply artistic...if that makes sense.

(On a side note: I HATE discussing this. It's like trying to discuss religion or politics on the internet. It never ends well and it changes no one's opinion)

Thanks for the interesting insight. Sorry for bringing the topic up, but I am a philosopher deep down and this topic is close to my heart. Anyway, I agree with some of the things you said. I also feel that not all photography is art, and actually I hold a probably very narrow opinion that there are two separate areas: photography for the purpose of taking a photo of something (person, inside of a house, snapshot of your child) is not necessarily art (it can be in certain circumstances); then photography for a purely artistic endeavor.