Styles

[Arch]

Well photographers aren't 'artists'.

:waiting:

I realize this may come as a shock, but photographers are not artists.
'Artists' use brushes and paint (or chisels)....easy enough to understand.

Well its not a shock to me because i disagree with you.
The whole is photography an Art, is it an Art medium, is a photograph considered Art because an Artist says it is - argument goes waaaay back and is something many people and critics alike cannot agree on. You say it like it is set in stone, it is not.

The main problem we have at the moment with this arguement is what technology has progressed and how it has made an impact on not only the photographic process itself, but to the post processing. This changes the old fashioned view of a mechanical device recording a scene and a lab printing it for you, therefore not Art.

 

[Petraio Prime]

:waiting:

I realize this may come as a shock, but photographers are not artists.
'Artists' use brushes and paint (or chisels)....easy enough to understand.

Well its not a shock to me because i disagree with you.
The whole is photography an Art, is it an Art medium, is a photograph considered Art because an Artist says it is - argument goes waaaay back and is something many people and critics alike cannot agree on. You say it like it is set in stone, it is not.

The main problem we have at the moment with this arguement is what technology has progressed and how it has made an impact on not only the photographic process itself, but to the post processing. This changes the old fashioned view of a mechanical device recording a scene and a lab printing it for you, therefore not Art.

The word 'art' has a specific meaning, like 'gold'. It means "made by hand'. Photographs are not 'works of art'; but 'works of skill'. Gold isn't silver because we have distinct words for theses two elements. If you are a silver miner and insist that what you bring out of the ground is gold, well sorry, language and metallurgy just doesn't work that way. You don't make photographs more important or meaningful by calling them 'art', just as you don't make silver more precious by calling it gold. Words have meanings. Get to know and understand what 'art' means.

And the more manipulation a digital file suffers, the less it is a photograph and the more it approaches 'art'.

'Medium' in art also has a meaning (oil, acrylic, watercolor, etc.). You're misusing that term as well. 'Photography' is not a 'medium' of art.

It matters not in the least whether you agree or not. You have no authority to change the meanings of words, any more than the silver miner does. Photographs are not works of art and cannot be works of art. It's impossible, because 'art' means 'made by hand'; works of art are representative (symbolic); photographs are not 'made by hand' and not representative, but iconic. Photographs have a causal connection to something else of which they are photographs. Works of art do not have such a causal relationship; the relationship is representational.

If you disagree, it means you don't understand what the word 'art' means.

Photographers mistaken believe that bestowing the term 'art' to their work makes it more important. It doesn't. Photographs are different, neither better nor worse than art. This is not something that you can disagree about; you just have to accept it.

 

[gsgary]

Now you are talking through your arse

 

[Petraio Prime]

Now you are talking through your arse

I'm terribly sorry you feel that way, but you see you're simply not qualified to 'disagree'. No-one is. Words have meanings. 'Art' means 'made by hand'. This is really very, very, very simple. It has absolutely nothing to do with the technical skills (or lack thereof) of the photographer. The most brilliant photographer on the planet is not an artist. A 6-year old with a paint brush and canvas is.

 

[nchips1]

Now you are talking through your arse

I'm terribly sorry you feel that way, but you see you're simply not qualified to 'disagree'. No-one is. Words have meanings. 'Art' means 'made by hand'. This is really very, very, very simple.

Really?

any field using the skills or techniques of art

And we use design principles, do we not?

 

[Petraio Prime]

Now you are talking through your arse

I'm terribly sorry you feel that way, but you see you're simply not qualified to 'disagree'. No-one is. Words have meanings. 'Art' means 'made by hand'. This is really very, very, very simple.

Really?

any field using the skills or techniques of art

And we use design principles, do we not?

Sometimes. But that's not the criterion.

It's really very simple.

 

[nchips1]

I'm terribly sorry you feel that way, but you see you're simply not qualified to 'disagree'. No-one is. Words have meanings. 'Art' means 'made by hand'. This is really very, very, very simple.

Really?

any field using the skills or techniques of art

And we use design principles, do we not?

Sometimes. But that's not the criterion.

Sometimes -- if you're good, always.

No where in the current definitions do I see "made by hand," sir. And thus we resort to how "real" art is made: Most fundamentally the design principles, and we use them. Just like a painter can paint repeating lines, it takes a photographer to capture repeating lines in nature, or where ever, too.

 

[Arch]

I have my understanding of what art is, I attended Art college for 5 years, degree etc... you cannot impose your idea of art on anyone else. This is regardless of the exact definitions of words, of course silver cannot be gold, but this doesn't mean that some forms of art should be separated simply because of what action was taken in its creation. It is not an exact and definite process.

Duchamp presented the idea back in 1917 with 'the fountain', art is not necessarily a physical action but more 'intellectual interpretation'.

This idea still persists in allot of modern art, I don't see why photography is any different or exempt from this idea.

And the more manipulation a digital file suffers, the less it is a photograph and the more it becomes 'art'.

Well yes, this is kind of my point. Technology can take away a need for any manual craft (which is another argument itself), but what is truthful about it, is that the action of using brushes (albeit digital) and creating changes in colour and focus points contribute to the act of making a photograph art.

It matters not in the least whether you agree or not. You have no authority to change the meanings of words, any more than the silver miner does. Photographs are not works of art and cannot be works of art. It's impossible, because 'art' means 'made by hand'

See, this is where you fail.
As I said before the 'old fashioned' way of thinking is that the photo comes out of a mechanical device and then printed, therefore not art. But this does not happen anymore!
I for one, like to spend a good while with an image I have taken and add to it, by hand.

You said yourself that digital photo manipulation creates art. Therefore, unless you contradict yourself, my action of creating an image is art.

We can all start another huge debate about whether digital art is art, but that's another thread. I will say though that I know a few digital artists that create characters for comic illustrations and games, and IMO they are very much artists.
Therefore, what is and isn't art is not set in stone, which is my original point.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Really?

And we use design principles, do we not?

Sometimes. But that's not the criterion.

Sometimes -- if you're good, always.

No where in the current definitions do I see "made by hand," sir. And thus we resort to how "real" art is made: Most fundamentally the design principles, and we use them. Just like a painter can paint repeating lines, it takes a photographer to capture repeating lines in nature, or where ever, too.

'Art' is not causally connected to anything. The 'relationship' is intentional, not causal. What causal connection exists between a paining and its subject matter? None. A photograph is impossible without the existence of some other thing of which it is a photograph. This is not true of 'art'. 'Art' has no causal connection with its 'subject'.

 

[Derrel]

Now you are talking through your arse

I'm terribly sorry you feel that way, but you see you're simply not qualified to 'disagree'. No-one is. Words have meanings. 'Art' means 'made by hand'. This is really very, very, very simple. It has absolutely nothing to do with the technical skills (or lack thereof) of the photographer. The most brilliant photographer on the planet is not an artist. A 6-year old with a paint brush and canvas is.

Art means, "made by hand"????? WTF? Where did you come up with that preposterous definition??? I kind of think gsgary said it best when he wrote, "Now you are talking through your arse."

Made by hand,eh? What about the use of the machine-tools, like the paint brush and the hammer and chisel? Those implements are "tools", so therefore any painting done with tools, like brushes, or sculpture done with chisels and hammers on stone quarried using machines cannot be art. Sorry Petraio, but your definition of what art means must have come from some oddball cranky art professor somewhere in your past, because the narrow,oddball definition of art meaning "made by hand" is one I have never heard.

Art is typically defined as something that uses the elements and principles of design, and which is designed to evoke an emotional response in the viewer; "how" or "with what" that art work was made or constructed with is typically **not** a part of the definition of art, or fine art. Seriously man, you ought to be out trolling the Atlantic for billfish...some place where you'd have a chance of being skewered when landing a fish after your trolling efforts had resulted in a hook-up.

 

[gsgary]

Art is anything that stimulates thoughts and emotions

 

[Petraio Prime]

Now you are talking through your arse

I'm terribly sorry you feel that way, but you see you're simply not qualified to 'disagree'. No-one is. Words have meanings. 'Art' means 'made by hand'. This is really very, very, very simple. It has absolutely nothing to do with the technical skills (or lack thereof) of the photographer. The most brilliant photographer on the planet is not an artist. A 6-year old with a paint brush and canvas is.

Art means, "made by hand"????? WTF? Where did you come up with that preposterous definition??? I kind of think gsgary said it best when he wrote, "Now you are talking through your arse."

Made by hand,eh? What about the use of the machine-tools, like the paint brush and the hammer and chisel? Those implements are "tools", so therefore any painting done with tools, like brushes, or sculpture done with chisels and hammers on stone quarried using machines cannot be art. Sorry Petraio, but your definition of what art means must have come from some oddball cranky art professor somewhere in your past, because the narrow,oddball definition of art meaning "made by hand" is one I have never heard.

Art is typically defined as something that uses the elements and principles of design, and which is designed to evoke an emotional response in the viewer; "how" or "with what" that art work was made or constructed with is typically **not** a part of the definition of art, or fine art. Seriously man, you ought to be out trolling the Atlantic for billfish...some place where you'd have a chance of being skewered when landing a fish after your trolling efforts had resulted in a hook-up.

You're simply mistaken. Photographers are not artists. No discussion is possible with photographers on this topic. You simply don't have the knowledge even to discuss it. I am a philosopher. I have a degree in philosophy and have studied this topic in depth You have not. I'm telling you what 'art' is. I'm not asking for your opinion on this matter, on which you have no knowledge. It's rude to try to discuss things that you're utterly unqualified to discuss.

Drop it, because you simply have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Arch]

You're simply mistaken. Photographers are not artists. No discussion is possible with photographers on this topic. You simply don't have the knowledge even to discuss it. I am a philosopher. You are not. I'm telling you what 'art' is. I'm not asking for your opinion on this matter, on which you have no knowledge.

Im telling you YOUR wrong.

There, you have been told.

 

[nchips1]

I am a philosopher.

Then you're on the wrong forum.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Now you are talking through your arse

I'm terribly sorry you feel that way, but you see you're simply not qualified to 'disagree'. No-one is. Words have meanings. 'Art' means 'made by hand'. This is really very, very, very simple. It has absolutely nothing to do with the technical skills (or lack thereof) of the photographer. The most brilliant photographer on the planet is not an artist. A 6-year old with a paint brush and canvas is.

Art means, "made by hand"????? WTF? Where did you come up with that preposterous definition??? I kind of think gsgary said it best when he wrote, "Now you are talking through your arse."

Made by hand,eh? What about the use of the machine-tools, like the paint brush and the hammer and chisel? Those implements are "tools", so therefore any painting done with tools, like brushes, or sculpture done with chisels and hammers on stone quarried using machines cannot be art. Sorry Petraio, but your definition of what art means must have come from some oddball cranky art professor somewhere in your past, because the narrow,oddball definition of art meaning "made by hand" is one I have never heard.

Art is typically defined as something that uses the elements and principles of design, and which is designed to evoke an emotional response in the viewer; "how" or "with what" that art work was made or constructed with is typically **not** a part of the definition of art, or fine art. Seriously man, you ought to be out trolling the Atlantic for billfish...some place where you'd have a chance of being skewered when landing a fish after your trolling efforts had resulted in a hook-up.

You're simply mistaken. Photographers are not artists. No discussion is possible with photographers on this topic. You simply don't have the knowledge even to discuss it.

A camera is not a 'tool'; it is a machine.