Photography as Art?

[deanimator]

Try this:

Who has the world record for the most expensive photo ever?

 

[TheLostPhotographer]

Lots of good replies already. Very encouraging

Let's look at Andreas Gursky for a start simply because he is the most expensive fine art photographer in todays market.

In particular, his superstore (what do you call them in the states? Megastores?) shots. They're big. They're shots of products on shelves. Lots of them and lots of them for just a dollar.

I know people who will look at them and ask 'is that a painting?'. As soon as they're told 'no - it's a photograph' they'll immediately dismiss it as not having any artistic value.

Then, other people will look and start asking questions. Why is it being presented as art? Why is it so big? Why is there so much repetition? Is it real or, has it been manipulated? If it has been manipulated - why? etc etc etc.

And other people might just look and think 'wow big photo with patterns and stuff - pass the spliff'.

Personally, I think Andreas Gursky's $1 megastore shots are amongst the most important and most influential works of art of the later 20th Century. Throughout history art has played an important role in communicating what the mass media of the day cannot. It's a comment about contemporary society and modern day values. The art 'venue' was the only place to exhibit.

I could go on for much longer here, but I'd be boring to many and wasting my keyboard life expectancy. The 'e' key already needs a thump rather than a tap.

Nice that people are posting with considered thought here.


And, the Becher's... could go on forever here!

 

[crownlaurel]

Are you starving? Then it might be an art.

Someone mentioned art being in the eye of the beholder, but I think it has more to do with the eye of the photographer. An artist sees things differently than the average person and their work goes beyond what most could produce. Anyone can pick up a paintbrush and make swirly lines and circles and maybe even houses and plants, but in the hands of an artist it becomes a whole, a story, maybe even a portal into another world. Anyone can pick up a camera and snap an image. But then there are images that take us somewhere we can't otherwise go (and I am not talking about physical places, but actually transporting the viewer to that moment or that scene...and I think it's more than just emotion). Anyone can capture a moment or even grab great shots, but an artist goes farther than that and grabs you.

Was the collage of outhouses I saw hanging outside the bathrooms at Ryans last night fine art? Maybe if you remove the "ine." But strangely the "artist" took something few people care to ponder and sold it to a restaurant.

Have there been painters who passed swirly lines and circles off as art (or black squares or bulls eyes), yes. They may be quite proud of their feats and conceited about their displays, but they manage to make a good living.

I took an art class in college with a dear friend who inspired me. He was an artist and could draw, paint, create almost anything he wanted. We were both quite shocked when I got an A in the class but he only got a B. The professor explained to us that I had poured my heart and soul into the class and while I may not have produced masterpieces, I sought to improve and create new things...my friend produced incredible pieces, but he was just doing what he had to to get by.

I don't pretend to be anything more than a beginner, (just a mom with a dSLR and a kit lens), but one day I'd like to be able to show people their own world in ways they don't take time to see.

Yes it is a craft. All art is craft to some extent. Maybe art is whatever transcends the basics? Maybe art is what stirs emotions, makes people uncomfortable, angers them, saddens them, fills them with joy, makes them lose where they are for a moment, makes them wonder, makes them think. I've seen photographs (some of this forum) that do that...I hope I can someday.

 

[zakhopper316]

when a photograph of something no longer stands for the object or action being photographed it is art.

if you look at the picture and see and feel one thing or emotion then look at the object or action and feel another, to me it is art.

aka symbolism.

im a motion picture director as my profession.
do you guys consider movies art?

 

[craig]

If your work makes it to MoMa you are global and very much traveling out side local circles. Simply put; you have hit he big time. Now the people I know are mostly known statewide and maybe (probably) nationally.

For me; Irving Penn and Jay Maisel are my heros for bridging the gap between art and commercial. John Stuart andEd Riddell are my mentors.

The terms art and photography have battled since day one. Personally I believe photography is art. It is just that simple.

Love & Bass

 

[craig]

when a photograph of something no longer stands for the object or action being photographed it is art.

if you look at the picture and see and feel one thing or emotion then look at the object or action and feel another, to me it is art.

aka symbolism.

im a motion picture director as my profession.
do you guys consider movies art?

Movies are art. There is no way I could shoot one though. Generally it seems like there are too many people involved. Plus I wold drive myself batty lighting all the different camera angles.

Love & Bass

 

[zakhopper316]

well im blessed to have the best director of photography ever, hes done all of my films but 3. but yes lighting and pulling focus is always fun. when your shooting 24 frames a second versus just 1 frame in photography.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

The tap in my bathroom is exceptionally well made, but it was made with only the purpose of delivering water. Nothing else was intended...or taken. Think about Duchamp´s irritation at the critics when he gave them a ****oir.

(the famous male urinal if you can´t follow the automatic no-brain censor filter here!)

Duchamp was making a serious point when he produced 'The Fountain'.
When asked why he had put up the urinal instead of a piece of 'art' he famously replied: 'it's in an art gallery, it's signed by an artist and you can't p*ss in it - so if it isn't art then tell me what it is.'
This is a question that has been argued ever since.
(But when thinking about this never forget that Duchamp had a wicked and obscure sense of humour).

People have a somewhat different attitude to 'art' produced with a camera that to 'art' produced by other means.
Everyone owns a camera and can take picrures so it devalues the creative process.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

lighting and pulling focus is always fun. when your shooting 24 frames a second versus just 1 frame in photography.

The old joke was that stills photographers are obviously superior to a film crew: it takes a whole bunch of people shooting 24 frames per second to get what a good photographer can get in one shot :lmao:

 

[TheLostPhotographer]

...

im a motion picture director as my profession.
do you guys consider movies art?

Yes. Definitely.

I recently visited and exhibition pf photographs by the Turkish film director Nuri Bilge Ceylan. Stunning photographs that manage to portray a film type story in a frozen moment. The 'ordinary' subjects become film stars. They view the camera with a challenge that gives them an assured and confident persona. You can view the photographs here: http://www.nuribilgeceylan.com/

Follow links to Turkey CinemaScope. Well worth a view.


Impressed by his photography I went to see one of his films; The Climates. It was beautifully shot. Slow, lingering scenes without dialogue and a contemporary Sergio Leone style sound track. It was definitely art, but as a film it totally lost me. When he introduced the film he made a joke about people falling asleep because it was a very slow film. Stunning visually, but boring as a film for me. Art nonetheless I'm sure.

 

[crownlaurel]

Orig: Hertz...

People have a somewhat different attitude to 'art' produced with a camera that to 'art' produced by other means.
Everyone owns a camera and can take picrures so it devalues the creative process.

But by the same token, anyone can buy canvas, a few tubes of paint, a palate and brushes. We give 3 year olds brushes, tempura paint and paper plates. You can even get a "paint by numbers" for $5 at Hobby Lobby. Yet few would argue that painting is art.


I set out to find the official definition of art and was rather surprised to see that different dictionaries define it differently...even in its purest form, art seems to be a bit subjective. The American Heritage dictionary defines art as:

art 1

(ärt) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
2. 1. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
   2. The study of these activities.
   3. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
   4. A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
   5. A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/art

The earliest etymological reference (same link as above, scroll down page to etymology dictionary) is "c.1225, "skill as a result of learning or practice," from O.Fr. art, from L. artem" and "Meaning "skill in creative arts" is first recorded 1620; esp. of painting, sculpture, etc., from 1668."

 

[fmw]

To be blunt if a 2 year old paints something is it art because it used a brush and paint ?

It might be. Certainly it is free expression. Some painting is only craft. An example would be decorative painting.

 

[fmw]

Orig: Hertz...


But by the same token, anyone can buy canvas, a few tubes of paint, a palate and brushes. We give 3 year olds brushes, tempura paint and paper plates. You can even get a "paint by numbers" for $5 at Hobby Lobby. Yet few would argue that painting is art.

I would. Perhaps not for the person filling in the numbers but for the designer of thing in the first place. It may not be good art or fine art but design is always art for me.

I set out to find the official definition of art and was rather surprised to see that different dictionaries define it differently...even in its purest form, art seems to be a bit subjective. The American Heritage dictionary defines art as:




The earliest etymological reference (same link as above, scroll down page to etymology dictionary) is "c.1225, "skill as a result of learning or practice," from O.Fr. art, from L. artem" and "Meaning "skill in creative arts" is first recorded 1620; esp. of painting, sculpture, etc., from 1668."

A lot of what people define as art is not beautiful so many would disagree that the definition requires the product to have beauty. Some creations that people define as art are ugly and some disgusting.

 

[deanimator]

I may not have been clear enough with my comment about Duchamp...but actually I wrote it that way deliberately...
...just as Duchamp deliberately presented the critics with his "found object". He did it to get the reaction...in this case, the adulation that he knew they would give it. This allowed him to then berate them for their shallowness...and express his disappointment.

I wanted to see if it would evoke a reaction...such as the "who is Struth?" and "So Weston seems to be under-rated", and similar comments found here.
Which president was it who said "Never underestimate..."? (you know the rest)

Well...the problem often just lies with the critics, the audience, and what they´ve been exposed to.

Maybe then the real problem of "what is art?" is simply one of western culture! :shock:

 

[TheLostPhotographer]

Perhaps a good why to define what you consider to be art photography and what you don't is to post a link to Two examples with a quick explanation as to why is is or, isn't art in your opinion.


A photograph that isn't art IMO:

It's from the front page of the website of a national UK daily. It's a news photograph. Although, perhaps a little artistic interpretation is going on? Nothing really happening, nothing to photograph as news so, a little creativity has been used. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if photographs similar to this one will be exhibited as part of an art installation in the future. But, not real fine art photography for me.


A photograph that is art:

This is a fine art photograph because I took it and I am presenting it as art.

It's as simple as that. If the photographer/artists presents their work as art in an art context then it should be viewed as such. Whether the viewer thinks it's good or, bad is totally irrelevant. Whether I manage to draw the viewer in to anything beyond the immediate image is possibly relevant and the measure of my artistic ability/failure. Of course, I will argue that it needs to be viewed in the right environment and not as a low res on screen jpeg.

Many would refuse to look at a photograph like this as anything other than architectural, documentary or, just a snap shot even if it was presented in a prestigious art gallery.


Any more examples from anyone else?