How do you decide what makes a photograph "art?"

[yistigay]

What are the most important elements that make a photograph "art?"

Thanks

 

[Josh66]

Intent.


That's pretty much it.

 

[Atlas77]

Can you tell me whats art? What makes something art?

All photographs are art, photography itself can be seen as an art form. Even things you see everyday around you are art. Everything is designed somewhere isnt it? Your shoes are even art

 

[robertwsimpson]

I think you are asking about elements that make photos "appealing as art."

there are so many... important ones are composition and exposure... after that, you can do all kinds of things to a photograph to make it say different things.

 

[Pugs]

I agree with the poster who said that "intent" makes it art. In terms of what makes it "appealing art", if it evokes some sort of emotional response in me, then I consider it "appealing". The degree of the response dictates the degree of its appeal.

Well, actually that's not entirely true. I've seen some "art" that has absolutely disgusted me. I did not find those things appealing in the least. I've also seen some "art" that has thoroughly angered me , or saddened me, or anguished me, and I DO consider those to be appealing art.

I'm interested in what others have to say on this!

 

[robertwsimpson]

I don't have an emotional response toward just about any photo that I haven't taken myself. I have emotional responses toward more snapshots that I have taken than anything else. I think that a photo that follows certain "rules" or breaks them with a certain intent appeal to me. I like structure, though.

 

[Pugs]

Hm...

I guess at a certain level, my aesthetic sense agrees with yours. I just commented on the water drops on a CD thread and there was no emotional response for me. There was, however, a great deal of aesthetic enjoyment. The pic that enjoyed the most, I would have enjoyed more if it had followed the "rules" as I see them.

Interesting. Defining one's aesthetic sense is difficult... or at least is for me...

 

[yistigay]

I like the intent concept...but what kind of intent do you think makes something art?

 

[Josh66]

I don't think "art" can really be defined. If you meant for it to be art, it's art.

"Art" is made, intentionally. I guess it's possible to make art accidentally though. Everyone gets lucky sometimes. Better to be lucky than good, right?

Damn...now even my original "intent" response seems wrong...lol. Maybe "desire" would be better...? If you want it to be art, it is.

 

[yistigay]

I have a sense that generally speaking, art is something that we know when we see. We'd probably mostly all be in agreement if we put up 5 images and decided together if we should label them art or not...I'm just not sure we'd be able to define why...so the why is my big question.

 

[Josh66]

...but what kind of intent do you think makes something art?

Just the intent to create something more than just fodder for the family photo album. But even that (fodder...) might look like art to other people...

There are two different perspectives here - that of the creator, and that of the viewer. "Art" will not necessarily be the same thing to them.

For the creator, I'll go with intent. With the exception of "accidental art".
For the viewer......? Who knows... There's no way to know what other people are thinking.

 

[Josh66]

I have a sense that generally speaking, art is something that we know when we see. We'd probably mostly all be in agreement if we put up 5 images and decided together if we should label them art or not...I'm just not sure we'd be able to define why...so the why is my big question.

I agree. Just for fun, I looked it up in the dictionary...

I actually like this definition:

the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

 

[KmH]

What are the most important elements that make a photograph "art?"

Thanks

Form and content, context, line, direction, movement, implied shapes, light, color, emotion, texture, perspective, balance, scale, proportion, rhythm.....just to name a few.

What is most important varies from image to image but over the last couple thousand years it has become apparent that there are certain elements that make an image worth more than just a casual glance.

I would recommend getting Mark Getleins book "Living with Art" to gain a perspective on what does and doesn't work. The current edition (#8) is somewhat expensive at $299.00 new, but you can find used previous editions for as little as $5.00:

Amazon.com: Living with Art 8th Eighth Edition: Mark Getlein: Books

 

[Overread]

As far as I have worked out - with regards to art in general - the following things are needed (in part or all together)

1) A person with a few million £/$s in the bank calls it art

2) A person with a degree in "something"art from a top university says its art (bonus points if its an art snobby uni)

3) A person with a skill at flogging stuff to people with a few million £/$ in the bank flogs it as art

4) A 5 page essay on all the possible inner meanings of the created work (should be included with the art or should be generated by viewers/reviewers of the art) Note this is possibly the most important part and really should always be included

Note - actual tallent and artistic skill are not prime requirements

Basically that appears to be what art is in the real world - a world filled with Mona Lisa's; bluetack on the wall with finger print and dirty coffee mugs.


After that all other definitions of art in the real world get very wordy and long and tend to be written by people with art degrees from universities.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Overread, your post makes me want to puke and I certainly hope that you are not trying to become an artist.

In DC there was once a man who ran a photo gallery that launched a certain number of the better known art photographers in town yet he was pretty much hated by most of them. Why? Because he wasn't a snob.

The man loved photography and gave a chance to anyone whose work he liked. His gallery, depending on the year, would be open for 3, 6, 9 months only because he was a waiter. Yes, some waiters in DC make excellent money but it's still not much when you consider the costs of running a gallery. He put every extra dollar he had into his and most of his shows were people who had never shown before and he was rewarded by your kind of attitude.

You can complain all you want about the snobs on the viewing/buying side but what about your snobbism? That of the rejected wanna-be?


To answer the OP, photography has always had a hard time establishing itself as a valid art form with collectors mainly because of 1/ the possibility of reproducing the work forever (unlike a painting or sculpture) and 2/ what is the life of a photo print? Paintings last forever with a little bit of care but we don't really know how long a photo will.

And from a recent talk with a gallery owner, digital photography has brought the problem to the forefront big time. What is the life of a digital print? Is a digital print even a photo print? I'm actually wondering if digital has not just killed art photography...

For those reasons I moved to painting full time some years ago. I'd always sold more paintings than photos when I was trying to be an art photographer so it was not a hard decision to make. And to be honest, I couldn't care less what media I create in. So long as I create and say what I want to say, I'm happy. And if someone buys the stuff, I'm ecstatic.

AND I went from selling a work for a few hundred dollars to selling for a few thousands. Should I complain?


To answer the OP more directly, no element makes a work of art a work of art. It is a combination and nobody knows what exactly that combo is.