More to photography that just the camera and gear

[Garbz]

art: Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions

Sorry it doesn't matter whether you're a still life photographer or snapping a picture of an animal. If you're in control of some of the elements (composition, and contrast just to name 2 of very many), and you arrange them in the frame in a way to appeal to someone, then you are by definition an artist.

I don't think anyone is saying that using a pinhole camera doesn't make it artistic, but lets face it you can do a lot more, and widen your artistic possibilities with a D3 than a Kodak disposable.

As I was pointing out here. That girl who didn't set up her own camera, didn't set up her lighting, and was getting paid pennies to take as many photos of graduates sitting in the chair as possible did something unique. She arranged my trencher and my hat until she was satisfied it looked good to her. That's art. (and in my opinion making me look good is much more worthy of the title artist than taking a photo of fruit).

 

[jealous]

"Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions"

say what?! this narrows art down to visual medium only - which is rubbish.
arranging objects does not make you an artist, by this definition I am an artist when I hang my washing out and when i park my car between 2 others.

the definition of art (as with everything) has evolved over time and no longer aligns with what it was before the start of the 20th century. because of the camera (funnily enough) the painter no longer felt it necessary to paint in a pre-raphalite manner and so artists the world over said wtf do we do now? creative thinking- IDEAS. this is why modern art is what it is. this is also why most people do not understand modern art and say "i could do that" when the simple fact is that they did not. It is easy to copy but hard to originate.

I agree that a D3 might broaden the options but what i am saying is that it will not make you better because you are less likely to be creative with a machine that does everything. Im not saying you cant be creative but I am saying it does not help one bit. you can have an idea that requires the use of a D3 but the camera is just a tool to communicate your idea, see what im saying? With just a disposable at your disposal you can still do great things if you think.

Im not sure this girl is an artist because she arranged your hat for 10minutes.
In the same vein I think a photo or painting of fruit is no more an artistic endeavour because it is not in line with modern culture.

Why do we hang on to this idea that art is what it was a few hundred years ago when we dont do the same for anything else? politics have evolved, racism no longer makes sense (in most areas) we no longer say cigarettes are good for your manly-ness and classical music has moved aside for music that expresses the current trend in culture (be it good or bad).

In the long run i agree with you bro, there is alot more to photography than the gear.

people need to understand the difference between craft and art.

Its odd that people are encouraged to spend a few G on their first camera when they will learn alot more, alot faster by starting with a disposable or a standard 35mm film camera. this is an odd paradox actually, digi cameras allow you to experiment more but lessen the likelyhood that you will stop and think about your shot.
hah- you cant win.

 

[Garbz]

Read the sentence again. If you did then I wonder why it is you hang out your washing to appeal to the senses or emotions of others, very strange.

By the way that is the dictionary definition. One of many. You know how a word can have many meanings in different contexts? This is the one for visual.

More generic ones are: art "The product of human creativity" artist: "someone who creates art"

Maybe another dictionary: art: "The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colours, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty"

She's not an artist because she arranged my hat. She's an artist because she did so with the intent of getting an emotional response, a pleasant one, to convince me to buy her photos. About the only part of photography that is not art is taking photos of equipment for engineering references.

So a photo of a fruit bowl now doesn't count as art but it does when it is painted? I'm sorry but there are plenty of still life artists who would disagree with you there.


I will say one thing though. It is clear from your tone that what I say will not change your mind, just as what you say won't change mine so I won't take this any further.

.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

But wait... there is this bit of evidence:

Amazon.com: The Art of Photography at National Geographic (Evergreen) (9783822893111): Jane Livingston: Books

Which would seem to suggest that some photographs printed in NG were indeed considered art, either by their photographers or their editors.

The art of... Interesting idea.

The Art of Cooking : Luigi (INT)/ Parzen Maestro Martino/ Ballerini : ISBN 9780520232716 - Buy.com

Does this mean my bowl of spaghetti is art?

:lmao:

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

 

[rufus5150]

There's actually a big debate in the culinary community as to whether the culinary arts are indeed 'art' or more properly 'a craft'. Michael Ruhlman argues the latter, but it's hard to do so with chefs like Grant Achatz and Heston Blumenthal pushing the boundaries of food preparation.

But then again, maybe the analogy isn't so foreign? I would wager a reasonably safe bet that there are far more journeyman photographers (forensic, mall, real-estate, etc) than there are Annie Leibovitzes, just as there are far more heads of unremarkable hotel kitchens and cafeterias than there are Kellers or Adrias, all who call themselves, appreciably 'chef'. And no one denies that there are aspects to photography that are, indeed, art.

(ETA: Going over both Gargz's definitions of 'art', cooking at high levels fulfills either)

 

[c.cloudwalker]

:thumbup:

I was hoping someone would make some such comment. If we go by the definition of art as an arrangement of various elements that appeals to the senses, food can definitely called one. It appeals to the eye, to the nose, and to the taste buds. Thus it appeals to more senses than most of what we usually call art.

And let's not forget that craft is a synonym for art. Today it is used somewhat negatively. A lower form of art. But once upon a time a craftsman was considered an artist. There were lower class craftsmen and then, there were master craftsmen.

The problem with that is that we can call just about everything an art. So, someone invented the "fine arts" which are usually defined as "any art form developed primarily for aesthetics and/or concept rather than utility." Today, I believe, this is what most people think of when they talk of art. And food does not fit in there.

Personally, I couldn't care less about defining art. I like these threads/discussions more as a mental exercise than as a search for truth and so I will often add oil to the fire for the sake of the exercise.

 

[JerryPH]

Thats it... enough of this, you must all now call me CHEF Jerry... LOL!!

Today's menu... creme de Macro served with a side dish of selective colour and bokeh.

:lmao:

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Thats it... enough of this, you must all now call me CHEF Jerry... LOL!!

Today's menu... creme de Macro served with a side dish of selective colour and bokeh.

:lmao:

You asked for it... :lmao:

 

[jealous]

I didnt say a photo of fruit IS NOT art put a painting IS, i said neither are.

anyways, what I am getting at is that the definition of art is so deeply engrained that we struggle to see otherwise. to be quite honest a dictionary definition doesnt mean crap. the idea that the arrangment of things to appeal not only narrows this to visual media but also only to things evoking postive reaction - which is not true about art.

If you are not willing to be open to the idea that art is progressive ideas and not representation then I think you are limiting the potential artist within you. Just because art school told you that you are an artist doesnt mean you are actually an artist. they should change it to "visual regurgitation school" i think.

being a craftsman is not a bad thing, im not saying that. And i have a lot of respect for those at the top of their craft. But re-hashing whats in front of you is not art. da vince said the 3 levels of drawing are observation, memory and then imagination. I feel this can be applied to all visual art forms. infact i would argue that it is the final step that takes it into the realm of art and not simply craft. when you can apply your craft to an idea - you have art - in this day and age.

it may have been different in the past but that is the past, we live in the now...unless you are devoutly religious then you live in the past. (ok I just crossed the line im sorry, no harm intended).

 

[rufus5150]

anyways, what I am getting at is that the definition of art is so deeply engrained that we struggle to see otherwise.

Actually, the meaning of 'Art' has been debated for centuries and we're constantly seeing it otherwise.

to be quite honest a dictionary definition doesnt mean crap.

Yes, a codified way to enable us to be sure we're talking about the same thing 99% of the time is useless. :thumbup:

the idea that the arrangment of things to appeal not only narrows this to visual media

Musicians arrange notes. Chefs arrange flavors and textures. Poets and authors arrange words and sentences and paragraphs.

but also only to things evoking postive reaction - which is not true about art.

No one said positive (although garbz stated that, in one specific case, she arranged things such as to elicite a pleasureable emotive rsponse). The important part that was eliciting an emotive response, the pleasurable part was anecdotal.

it may have been different in the past but that is the past, we live in the now...unless you are devoutly religious then you live in the past. (ok I just crossed the line im sorry, no harm intended).

Yes, way over the line.

 

[Crazydad]

If you are not willing to be open to the idea that art is progressive ideas and not representation then I think you are limiting the potential artist within you. Just because art school told you that you are an artist doesnt mean you are actually an artist. they should change it to "visual regurgitation school" i think.

So by your definition works by Monet, Degas, DaVinci, etc. are not art. Not to mention sculptors like Michelangelo, Frederic Remington, and Rodin. Their works are just "visual regurgitation".

While I freely admit a lot of art is progressive, it seems very elitist to state that anything not (in your opinion) "progressive" is not art. And that goes for music (Mozart - not progressive, therefore not art), writing (is Shakespeare progressive enough?), etc.

And yes, you went way over the line...

 

[jealous]

So by your definition works by Monet, Degas, DaVinci, etc. are not art. Not to mention sculptors like Michelangelo, Frederic Remington, and Rodin. Their works are just "visual regurgitation".

While I freely admit a lot of art is progressive, it seems very elitist to state that anything not (in your opinion) "progressive" is not art. And that goes for music (Mozart - not progressive, therefore not art), writing (is Shakespeare progressive enough?), etc.

And yes, you went way over the line...

every artist you named was very progressive for their time. but to work like any of these people now is regurgitating yes.

rufus - I see every point you made but in the future could you attempt to not be so dismissive and narrowminded? we are not constanly seeing the definition of art change for if we were we would not hold on to the idea that to be a good painter you must paint in a classical style, and we would not be teaching our kids and art students that same way we have for the last few centuries.and I never said a dictionary is useless but the definition of art is. the arrangment thing again was reffering to how the point was originaly presented (visual composition etc) which makes it visual no? and yes mucisians arrange notes etc so what? arranging notes doesnt make good music.

I never said this is the way it must be and my opinion is final. i encourage you all to develop your own opinion rather than get all feisty because someone disagrees with what you have been taught and cant let go of.

Im trying to encourage thinking here. so open the mind to an idea instead of closing it off straight away. you dont have to agree but straight out denial and snapping back is immature guys c'mon.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

It's a lot easier to be open minded when the ideas offered make sense but in your last few posts a lot makes very little sense. To me.

Just a few examples:

racism no longer makes sense (in most areas) I personally don't or will ever think that it ever made sense, no matter what the area.

arranging objects does not make you an artist Ok, but what else is there to art?

every artist you named was very progressive for their time. but to work like any of these people now is regurgitating yes I guess that makes every living musician a regurgitator since they're working the same way as musicians have always worked. They have been re-arranging seven notes in pleasant ways since someone invented the scale. arranging notes doesnt make good music Fine but what does if not that?

it may have been different in the past but that is the past, we live in the now True, kinda of hard to live in anything but. However, only people who don't study history would say such a thing. The NOW is the sum of all past experiences including those long, long before you were born. People who study history know there is very little new under the sun.


See what I mean.

 

[MelissaMarieImagery]

I work for lifetouch studios - a "school portrait" place similar to what you are discribing, people come to the studio and get anything from school to baby photos, family shots, etc, and yes - our lights are preset and our camera is locked on the settings, but I went to school for 2 years for photography, and shot for 2 more before that on my own, and am always allowed to use my own creative ideas when shooting.

We get to set up the shots, and make them our own, even if the lighting is all the same. I am very sure to pay attention to detail like striaght lines, fixing hems and necklaces, adjusting coats and buttons and hair, as well as composing an interesting shot that the customer (and even the company) will like. I am constantly being praised at my studio for the work I do and customers are always impressed.


Just because the mechanics of it is "done for me" that it is no less art - I am always able to express my artistic impulses in my shoots, different camera angles and zooms, props, placement, and sidelighting - all leading up to a great image

Art is expression through a creative means, and I express myself every day at my job.

 

[jealous]

good point about history, I agree that now is the sum of history.

I also agree that racism never could make sense BUT what i was trying to get across is that we often (throughout history) have made mistakes that many people of the time believed in whole heardtedly, that did not make them right though did it?

for you to ask "what else is there to art?" i must beg of you to consider the point i have made several time thus-far. ideas. ideas ideas ideas. Obama is an artist, as is Banksy. different in the way that one uses words and the other paint but both are artists in the way that at the core they are communicating ideas through their craft. Ideas that shape culture and aim to progress society. sometimes in an obvious way, sometimes not.

Im sorry that the way i argue about arrangement is unclear. Ill do my best to be as clear as possible.

with the regurtitation aspect, i feel Im not being clear again (sorry bout this). when i refer to regurgitation I refer to a painter in 2009 painting just like caravaggio (nothing new, same technique, same subject matter) and claiming artist, is out of their mind.
as with music, playing mozart and claiming artist is crazy too. sure the craft is amazing but the idea is old and stale. the latest movement in music that I feel is really pushing musical ideas and creating art is the hiphop DJ, using old music(craft) and musical theory (technique) and making brand new sound through new ideas (e.g holding down a record and pulling it back to make a noise, a noise previsouly considerd as awful has turned into something quite powerful)

but a dude playing guitar riffs in his room is not artist until he combines the craft he is learning with an idea (hendrix)


can you kinda see what i mean?