The Art

[Overread]

Nah. See what you don't get is light can be treated like an artistic medium the same as paint or graphite.

But you can't hold it and shape it with your hands. That's why photography is not and cannot be art.

Can't do that with music either and yet that is considered an art form Heck the singing doesn't involve the opposable thumbs at any stage

And yes light can be held and shaped with our hands - using a tool - like one would use a paintbrush to control paint or a pencil to control graphite

 

[table1349]

Well, thank you. I didn't realize I was deficient in my understanding of what "art" is. I'm married to an artist (watercolours, conté, charcoal, etc.), and in my immediate family is a writer, a poet, a singer, a musician, a folk-craft maker, and a craftsman specializing in metal. In my slightly wider circle of family and friends we have more musicians, photographers, potters (ceramics), and woodworkers.

As for your reference, it points out that art has fulfilled many functions over the span of history, including being an instrument of state propaganda, a method of enforcing conformity, a way of showing status, a form of rebellion and a form of self-expression. Prior to the invention of the printing press, "art" was an important method of disseminating information (along with songs and storytelling).
There is a correlation between the wealth of a society, and the degree that "art" is practiced by the population. Art, like any other human endeavor, evolves with the times and occupies new ground as it becomes available. It happens that "self-expression" (that you claim has little to do with art) IS one of the main drivers of the current understanding of what art is.

As for your last point (#2), is anyone seriously arguing this point in this thread?

Yes, apparently. Are you an art historian? What has the fact that you are married to an artist have to do with anything?

And all art throughout history has been "made by hand"; that is the common element, and that is why photographs cannot be called 'art'.

Sieg Heil Mein Philosophical Fuher!

As you reject the though of a photograph as being art, I reject you as being a rational intelligent member of the human species. You are the irrelevant element in this entire thread.

Of course, that is just my OPINION!!! Oh wait, that's what the definition of ART is .... merely individual opinion.

 

[Overread]

And all art throughout history has been "made by hand"; that is the common element, and that is why photographs cannot be called 'art'.

So long as we exclude any art made by feet *yes some people draw with their feet or make other artistic impressions*, mouth *yep singing as well as other things, I'm sure there are some who have drawn with their mouth and lips holding the brush and not hands* then maybe we might be able to uphold your view that art can only be made my hands and hands alone.

However if I use a brush to paint a picture have I done the painting or has the brush been the painter - it has after all been controlling and placing the paint upon the canvus *my selection of which paint, where and when to place being as irrelevant as my selection of aperture, shutter speed and ISO of course)

 

[usayit]

Photographs cannot be works of art because of what the word 'art' means.

References to what "art" "means"?

If none.. then I reject this and any prior.

 

[pgriz]

Yes, apparently. Are you an art historian? What has the fact that you are married to an artist have to do with anything?

And all art throughout history has been "made by hand"; that is the common element, and that is why photographs cannot be called 'art'.

To your first question, No, but one of my daughters is. To your second question, when you see it being created on a daily basis, you get a certain sense of what's involved, not to mention participating in discussions with other family members in terms of their art.

Your last sentence is an opinion, and is certainly not shared by either the members on this forum (unless they are the silent majority), or by the wider community which has a somewhat less restrictive view of the term than you do. You are, of course, perfectly entitled to hold whatever opinion you choose, but if you are being an advocate trying to get others to come to your viewpoint, you are apparently not succeeding. That too is fine, history records many promotors of "new/old/radical/conservative" ideas who shouted in the wilderness... Unfortunately, this somewhat pointless hijack of the OP thread colors my perception of you (not that you care, of course), and your contribution to other threads, however noteworthy, may cause a reflective "here we go again..." reaction.

'nuff said.

 

[Petraio Prime]

And all art throughout history has been "made by hand"; that is the common element, and that is why photographs cannot be called 'art'.

So long as we exclude any art made by feet *yes some people draw with their feet or make other artistic impressions*, mouth *yep singing as well as other things, I'm sure there are some who have drawn with their mouth and lips holding the brush and not hands* then maybe we might be able to uphold your view that art can only be made my hands and hands alone.

However if I use a brush to paint a picture have I done the painting or has the brush been the painter - it has after all been controlling and placing the paint upon the canvus *my selection of which paint, where and when to place being as irrelevant as my selection of aperture, shutter speed and ISO of course)

When I speak of 'hands' you know what I mean. A lens, though, is something entirely different.

The basic meaning of 'art' is human interference

Consider Shakespeare's usages, for example in Hamlet:

"More matter, with less art."

"Madam, I swear I use no art at all.”

"But farewell it, for I will use no art.”

“O dear Ophelia, I am ill at these numbers; I have not art to reckon my groans; but that I love thee best, O most best, believe it.”

Basically, it means cunning or ingenuity for the purpose of creating some false notion or impression.
​

 

[maris]

Whether photography is art may not ultimately be elucidated in The PhotoForum but it has been decided in a court of law; and a very long time ago too.

1861 in France saw photographers Mayer and Pierson bring a copyright action against the photographic duo of Betbeder and Schwabbe. The ruckus was over pirated pictures of Lord Palmerston. Mayer and Pierson claimed copyright protection under the French copyright laws of 1793 and 1810. The catch was that those laws protected only works of art so the courts decision hinged on whether photography was art.

Mayer and Pierson lost! Photography apparently was not art according to the judgement of 9 January 1862.

Mayer and Pierson appealed the decision on 10 April 1862. Their lawyer, a Monsieur M.Marie, gave an eloquent defence of the art of photography using many of the ideas now raised in this very thread. The court reversed its previous decision and declared on 4 July 1862 that photography was art.

The battle was not over. Later in 1862 a group of famous painters including Ingres petitioned against the decision. The arguments they used bear a striking resemblance to the anti-art-photography sentiments expressed in this thread.

Finally on 28 November 1862 the French court threw out the painters' petition and photography has enjoyed secure status as art ever since; at least in France it has.

 

[Overread]

When I speak of 'hands' you know what I mean. A lens, though, is something entirely different.

The basic meaning of 'art' is human interference

And framing, composition, selection of the subject (in the case of studio work even creation of the whole subject and background!) selection of settings to capture the light as well as processing of the final resulting data from the recording medium don't count as human interference?
Heck we can use flash and other light modifications to interfere as well!!

As for lenses being different - how so? All it does is reflect light - if light reflection is bad then what about self portraits being drawn from a reflection in a mirror

 

[Petraio Prime]

When I speak of 'hands' you know what I mean. A lens, though, is something entirely different.

The basic meaning of 'art' is human interference

And framing, composition, selection of the subject (in the case of studio work even creation of the whole subject and background!) selection of settings to capture the light as well as processing of the final resulting data from the recording medium don't count as human interference?
Heck we can use flash and other light modifications to interfere as well!!

As for lenses being different - how so? All it does is reflect light - if light reflection is bad then what about self portraits being drawn from a reflection in a mirror

'Art' is not dependent causally upon the 'subject' but has an independent existence.

A portrait artist could set up his easel in front of the queen of England and paint......a dog.

http://www.shela-nye.com/shu/photos/King%20Charles.jpg

There is no causal link between the portrait ad the 'subject'. A painting can be of something that has never even existed. A photograph can be only of what is in front of the lens, now. It is an optical image. A painting is not an image at all but a representation.

 

[abraxas]

"It is an optical image. A painting is not an image at all but a representation."

OT - So, can an optical image can be made into a representation?

-

 

[Overread]

'Art' is not dependent causally upon the 'subject' but has an independent existence.

A portrait artist could set up his easel in front of the queen of England and paint......a dog.

But in order to draw the dog the artist must first have seen a dog or a likeness of a dog. All art as a casual relation to the subject, the only difference being that an artist can combine independent subjects together to form something that is otherwise considered unique, but in fact simply combines subjects in a different manner.
You could argue that the photographer has to obey the fact that the subject is there in front of them at that moment in time whilst an artist is not so constrained but then it becomes a time factor - and art can indeed be done at that instant in time.

The only way art can be as you describe is if you take an artist who has never had any input - visual, audio etc.. into their life and get them to create art.

 

[Petraio Prime]

'Art' is not dependent causally upon the 'subject' but has an independent existence.

A portrait artist could set up his easel in front of the queen of England and paint......a dog.

But in order to draw the dog the artist must first have seen a dog or a likeness of a dog. All art has a causal relation to the subject, the only difference being that an artist can combine independent subjects together to form something that is otherwise considered unique, but in fact simply combines subjects in a different manner.
You could argue that the photographer has to obey the fact that the subject is there in front of them at that moment in time whilst an artist is not so constrained but then it becomes a time factor - and art can indeed be done at that instant in time.

The only way art can be as you describe is if you take an artist who has never had any input - visual, audio etc.. into their life and get them to create art.

An artist could imagine and paint anything at all, including representations of impossible objects:

http://ccs-pk.chace-school.net/files-2008/escher-waterfall.jpg

http://www.flirtingwithdisaster.net/images/site_graphics/Impossible-Terrace.jpg

Alien life forms:

http://www.dicksatisfaction.com/alien_wire.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_56uq77msz_g/SfbYVk2cPvI/AAAAAAAAATQ/i9iEXR9yWRo/s400/mars2-16-09.jpg

Figures from the past whose actual appearance is unknown:

http://www.newsbiscuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/jesus.jpg

You really need to read Scruton's essay, Why Photography is not Art.

A photograph is limited to what exists at the moment of exposure and is before the lens.

 

[Overread]

Those are all just composite creations based on former subjects that the photographer has seen - there is a casual link between those former components and the final work that the artist draws. Sometimes this is called reference material other times its stuff that the artist sees and simply recalls or combines on the fly.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Those are all just composite creations based on former subjects that the photographer has seen - there is a casual link between those former components and the final work that the artist draws. Sometimes this is called reference material other times its stuff that the artist sees and simply recalls or combines on the fly.

Though it is true our fancies are based in part on experience, it does not follow that a painting has a causal connection to anything else in the outside world. A photograph has a direct and immediate causal connection to something that exists: Photons.

'Causal', not 'casual'.

 

[Overread]

But that means that if a painter sits down and paints a portrait of the person in front of them then its not art?

Your whole argument seems to be that photography must be real whilst art does not have to be real and yet art can contain real parts - thus surely photography can be art to as it fits this last section.