Photography vs. Art

[KenC]

Anyway...if anybody has some tickets, I would pay DEARLY to go!!! PM me, mmkay?

Why pay when you can get it free here, over and over again ...

 

[Buckster]

I don't understand how this pertains to what I said, but okay. What you just stated is fairly obvious.
Pure subjectivism does not sit well with human thought, however. We like to categorize things. So even though art is opinion...technically it's not...

It's like, the largest grey area in the history of grey areas. There are certain universally accepted concepts that qualify something as art. That doesn't mean it can't be art to you, but that does not necessarily make it art...I hope that makes sense.

Having spent countless hours in museums of modern and contemporary art from MOMA in NYC to SFMOMA on the other coast, LA's museum of contemporary art, Philly, Chicago, Detroit and several others, I'd have to say you'd have a really hard time proving that to me. If a white canvas with a black dot in the middle is art worth tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars hanging in a museum, then why isn't a white photo with a black dot in the middle shot by a 5 year old and blown up to the same size as the canvas art? They have the same visual veracity and appeal.

If I take a blurry Polaroid of my hand, it's crap. But if Andy Warhol did it, it's worth a million bucks today and is considered fine art.

Art "experts" have been caught looking stupid numerous times lauding high praise upon works of "art" that turned out to be painted by kindergarten children, chimps, birds and elephants, proving that it's all bullspit; The Emperor is wearing no clothes.

My my, what a black and white world you live in, Buckster? You come up with an extreme example of a black dot on a page being sold for thousands and now supposedly everything out of the norm is Bulls*** IN YOUR OPINION... opinions like this really highlight your mindset and just how valid vipgraphx's post is. And I love how your post is stated as fact, when it's just an opinion.

Should all Art be pretty paintings of rivers in your world??

It's the idea that someone can actually define art that I'm saying is bullspit.

Art is what we make of it. Either everything is art to someone, or nothing is art. I'm actually more in the first category. I see art all around me, including in nature, made without thought or intent at all. But that's just me.

I make an exception for disco. That crap was NOT art. LOL!

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Having spent countless hours in museums of modern and contemporary art from MOMA in NYC to SFMOMA on the other coast, LA's museum of contemporary art, Philly, Chicago, Detroit and several others, I'd have to say you'd have a really hard time proving that to me. If a white canvas with a black dot in the middle is art worth tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars hanging in a museum, then why isn't a white photo with a black dot in the middle shot by a 5 year old and blown up to the same size as the canvas art? They have the same visual veracity and appeal.

If I take a blurry Polaroid of my hand, it's crap. But if Andy Warhol did it, it's worth a million bucks today and is considered fine art.

Art "experts" have been caught looking stupid numerous times lauding high praise upon works of "art" that turned out to be painted by kindergarten children, chimps, birds and elephants, proving that it's all bullspit; The Emperor is wearing no clothes.

My my, what a black and white world you live in, Buckster? You come up with an extreme example of a black dot on a page being sold for thousands and now supposedly everything out of the norm is Bulls*** IN YOUR OPINION... opinions like this really highlight your mindset and just how valid vipgraphx's post is. And I love how your post is stated as fact, when it's just an opinion.

Should all Art be pretty paintings of rivers in your world??

It's the idea that someone can actually define art that I'm saying is bullspit.

Art is what we make of it. Either everything is art to someone, or nothing is art. I'm actually more in the first category. I see art all around me, including in nature, made without thought or intent at all. But that's just me.

I make an exception for disco. That crap was NOT art. LOL!

I beg your pardon then sir, maybe I hastily jumped to a conclusion from the way your post was written!

It always gets my goat when these debates are started, cos I know fully well someone will come along and say Art is this and art is that. When in reality as you have just stated Art is what we make of it.

 

[DiskoJoe]

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)

2.) Do you pursue photography so that you can take good pictures? Or do you pursue photography as a means of expressing yourself artistically?

You think too much.

Less thinking + more shooting = winning at life.

 

[DiskoJoe]

My my, what a black and white world you live in, Buckster? You come up with an extreme example of a black dot on a page being sold for thousands and now supposedly everything out of the norm is Bulls*** IN YOUR OPINION... opinions like this really highlight your mindset and just how valid vipgraphx's post is. And I love how your post is stated as fact, when it's just an opinion.

Should all Art be pretty paintings of rivers in your world??

It's the idea that someone can actually define art that I'm saying is bullspit.

Art is what we make of it. Either everything is art to someone, or nothing is art. I'm actually more in the first category. I see art all around me, including in nature, made without thought or intent at all. But that's just me.

I make an exception for disco. That crap was NOT art. LOL!

I beg your pardon then sir, maybe I hastily jumped to a conclusion from the way your post was written!

It always gets my goat when these debates are started, cos I know fully well someone will come along and say Art is this and art is that. When in reality as you have just stated Art is what we make of it.

If art can be a white canvas then it can and is everything around us.

 

[imagemaker46]

Would these images be considered a photographs or art?

 

[Buckster]

Would these images be considered a photographs or art?

Yes.

 

[rexbobcat]

My point exactly as in my first post sorry to use you as an example. ITs ALL OPINION...there is no fact in opinions!

I don't understand how this pertains to what I said, but okay. What you just stated is fairly obvious.
Pure subjectivism does not sit well with human thought, however. We like to categorize things. So even though art is opinion...technically it's not...

It's like, the largest grey area in the history of grey areas. There are certain universally accepted concepts that qualify something as art. That doesn't mean it can't be art to you, but that does not necessarily make it art...I hope that makes sense.

Look no offense but, I would rather not argue about opinions with a youngster. The reason is that as you age and mature you realize certain things that you did not understand when you are younger. I am not an old man but I am not a youngster in school.

Lets use painting as it is probably easier to comprehend than photography ( in the end the same rules apply )

Ok You take Van Gogh vs Jackson Pollock.

Van Gogh

Jackson Pollock

In my opinion Van Gogh is an artist and his paintings are Artistic where as Jackson Pollock's paintings are just splatter paint that makes patterns and takes no skill to do and even a child can do. This is not Artistic in my eyes but, He was regarded as a mostly reclusive artist and his "ART" was hung in museums.


A child paints a picture at school during "ART" time and brings it home to his parents. They frame it and hang it on a wall and tell their child I lover your art work your such an artist!

Who can take that feeling and belief away from them? No one because it is an opinion and there is no grey line with opinions.



Opinion -a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

1. persuasion, notion, idea, impression. Opinion, sentiment, view are terms for one's conclusion about something. An opinion is abelief or judgment that falls short of absolute conviction,certainty, or positive knowledge; it is a conclusion that certainfacts, ideas, etc., are probably true or likely to prove so: politicalopinions; an opinion about art; In my opinion this is true. Sentiment (usually pl. ) refers to a rather fixed conviction, usually based onfeeling or emotion rather than reasoning:


I think the same applies with just about everything. If you as the person viewing the photograph truly think it is a piece of art than so be it and who cares who agrees and disagrees with you. IT's your opinion!

This is an area of philosophy waaaaaaaay beyond my ability of explanation.

I mean...I understand where you're coming from. But you are judging art based on a very shallow criteria. Even the ugliest piece of art is judged as art for more reasons than whether your child could do it or if it looks good. You have to take into account social/historical context, intent, etc...

Like I said in another thread; there is a difference between liking art and appreciating it. Some creative works just can not be truly appreciated because there is nothing below the surface of what they are aesthetically.

I look at art from an academic perspective. I think that might be the difference in our opinions. Art is subjective in theory...but...so is the idea that killing children is wrong...Subjectivity is too vague to survive in its true form in human society.

I'm sure that I will be called ignorant, however; it's kind of hard to be ignorant when you understand both sides and you simply choose one.

 

[rexbobcat]

Would these images be considered a photographs or art?

I don't know enough about the photographs to have an opinion one way or the other.

Can they not be photographic art?

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Would these images be considered a photographs or art?

I think they are great pieces of Art! But then again, I feel any powerful and impactful photograph that makes you step back and think is a piece of Art no matter what it is. When I studied art I learnt the guidelines are very blurred, if everyone sticks to guidelines placed in a textbook when creating photographs then creativity will die with it and if artists such as Pablo Picasso had continued to paint 'life like' portraits instead of breaking the rules, then Art may not have become as open to creativity as it is today.

 

[imagemaker46]

Would these images be considered a photographs or art?

I think they are great pieces of Art! But then again, I feel any powerful and impactful photograph that makes you step back and think is a piece of Art no matter what it is. When I studied art I learnt the guidelines are very blurred, if everyone sticks to guidelines placed in a textbook when creating photographs then creativity will die with it and if artists such as Pablo Picasso had continued to paint 'life like' portraits instead of breaking the rules, then Art may not have become as open to creativity as it is today.

These two images are scans of the original transparencies that have not gone through any computer software.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Would these images be considered a photographs or art?

I think they are great pieces of Art! But then again, I feel any powerful and impactful photograph that makes you step back and think is a piece of Art no matter what it is. When I studied art I learnt the guidelines are very blurred, if everyone sticks to guidelines placed in a textbook when creating photographs then creativity will die with it and if artists such as Pablo Picasso had continued to paint 'life like' portraits instead of breaking the rules, then Art may not have become as open to creativity as it is today.

These two images are scans of the original transparencies that have not gone through any computer software.

Are they yours?

 

[imagemaker46]

I think they are great pieces of Art! But then again, I feel any powerful and impactful photograph that makes you step back and think is a piece of Art no matter what it is. When I studied art I learnt the guidelines are very blurred, if everyone sticks to guidelines placed in a textbook when creating photographs then creativity will die with it and if artists such as Pablo Picasso had continued to paint 'life like' portraits instead of breaking the rules, then Art may not have become as open to creativity as it is today.

These two images are scans of the original transparencies that have not gone through any computer software.

Are they yours?

Yes they are, they were done 40 years ago. The original transparencies were caught in a basement flood, I kept 80 and mounted them in glass 25 years ago. The impact of the muddy water changed the emulsion and this was the end result.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

These two images are scans of the original transparencies that have not gone through any computer software.

Are they yours?

Yes they are, they were done 40 years ago. The original transparencies were caught in a basement flood, I kept 80 and mounted them in glass 25 years ago. The impact of the muddy water changed the emulsion and this was the end result.

The top one is fantastic, you can send me a copy if you like!

 

[DiskoJoe]

I don't understand how this pertains to what I said, but okay. What you just stated is fairly obvious.
Pure subjectivism does not sit well with human thought, however. We like to categorize things. So even though art is opinion...technically it's not...

It's like, the largest grey area in the history of grey areas. There are certain universally accepted concepts that qualify something as art. That doesn't mean it can't be art to you, but that does not necessarily make it art...I hope that makes sense.

Look no offense but, I would rather not argue about opinions with a youngster. The reason is that as you age and mature you realize certain things that you did not understand when you are younger. I am not an old man but I am not a youngster in school.

Lets use painting as it is probably easier to comprehend than photography ( in the end the same rules apply )

Ok You take Van Gogh vs Jackson Pollock.

Van Gogh

Jackson Pollock

In my opinion Van Gogh is an artist and his paintings are Artistic where as Jackson Pollock's paintings are just splatter paint that makes patterns and takes no skill to do and even a child can do. This is not Artistic in my eyes but, He was regarded as a mostly reclusive artist and his "ART" was hung in museums.


A child paints a picture at school during "ART" time and brings it home to his parents. They frame it and hang it on a wall and tell their child I lover your art work your such an artist!

Who can take that feeling and belief away from them? No one because it is an opinion and there is no grey line with opinions.



Opinion -a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

1. persuasion, notion, idea, impression. Opinion, sentiment, view are terms for one's conclusion about something. An opinion is abelief or judgment that falls short of absolute conviction,certainty, or positive knowledge; it is a conclusion that certainfacts, ideas, etc., are probably true or likely to prove so: politicalopinions; an opinion about art; In my opinion this is true. Sentiment (usually pl. ) refers to a rather fixed conviction, usually based onfeeling or emotion rather than reasoning:


I think the same applies with just about everything. If you as the person viewing the photograph truly think it is a piece of art than so be it and who cares who agrees and disagrees with you. IT's your opinion!

This is an area of philosophy waaaaaaaay beyond my ability of explanation.

I mean...I understand where you're coming from. But you are judging art based on a very shallow criteria. Even the ugliest piece of art is judged as art for more reasons than whether your child could do it or if it looks good. You have to take into account social/historical context, intent, etc...

Like I said in another thread; there is a difference between liking art and appreciating it. Some creative works just can not be truly appreciated because there is nothing below the surface of what they are aesthetically.

I look at art from an academic perspective. I think that might be the difference in our opinions. Art is subjective in theory...but...so is the idea that killing children is wrong...Subjectivity is too vague to survive in its true form in human society.

I'm sure that I will be called ignorant, however; it's kind of hard to be ignorant when you understand both sides and you simply choose one.

People often confuse art with "art the like." These are not the same things. Just because you want to say its not art does not make it so. And to trivialize the work of Jackson Pollock in this way is a bit absurd.