The Art

[m.stevenson]

Some time I feel like the art part of photography is looked down on. As in if i take a picture and it is lacking "correctness" as in exposure, lighting etc. that it is almost looked down on even if I'm just showing what and how I see things...

Just a Thought

 

[The Shoe]

Problem is, art is subjective.

If everyone herds into a mindset that, for example, all landscape photographs must employ certain rules (thirds, horizontal etc...) then they can all feel good by huddling close to one another all coming to the same conclusions. Such as that yes, indeed, this person's photograph is not good because it is not completely level, or there is an even amount of sky and earth showing.

 

[Flash Harry]

My opinion is if you want to be an artist and have any ability whatsoever then pick up a paintbrush, if you want to create artistic photographs then you need technical ability first to get the best out of the equipment.

I'm sick up to the back teeth of photographers who reckon their work is art to justify technically abysmal photographs or captures which are just plain badly focussed/exposed or massively overprocessed junk. Yes art is subjective but don't be producing garbage to give it the "art" label. H

 

[OlyNikonLearner]

I was raised in a school of thought (and practice) that saw photography as the only way to stop life for one split second and capture that very briefest moment's reality on film. I still believe the same today.

Is this art? In a way, it is and always was; "Art" of course in the sense that some photographers do possess that instinct, that frame of mind that allows them to position themselves, without much thought, for that shot that makes the history books.

Just one cursory review of the careers of some of the best photographers ever will tell you this story of "correct position." Most of these guys had none of the gadgets we have today... but they produced photos that will bring up emotions in most people we rarely get otherwise in life.

Yes, photography is an Art ... as much as an exercise in technical ability. All of the Arts have a technical side which, if you are the artist, you possess.

Part of the Art is not/is not post-processing in order to create whatever "work of art" this particular software tool can produce. In fact, I never really believed in tweaking with your images.

Stand up and be counted for what you can do in capturing that briefest of instances, camera in hand, eye in the diopter.

As simple as that.

 

[Derrel]

Photography can be art...it can be a craft...it can be a mechanical process...it can be a scientific process...it can be a digital process...it can be a digital and mechanical process...it can be a hybrid process...it can be done to satisfy artistic yearnings for creating meaningful works, or it can be done to catalogue one's stamp collection, or for garnering higher sale prices on e-Bay crap...the art, science, and craft of photography intersect at different positions within the different photographers around the world. Some photographers are artists, some are scientists, some are craftspeople, some are multiples of one or two of those things,while some rare ones are all three.

I find it disconcerting how many people get in to photography,buy some fancy new digital equipment, and after two or three years start openly running down people who have spent most of their life around the art and craft of photography. They even start blogs and run other people down in an effort to stroke their insecure egos. They act like they are anything but "newbies",and develop egos about how great they are, and they set up model mayhem web pages and shoot "creative" stuff. Crap,mostly.

These people are known as the "Digital Adams". Look up the term.

 

[oldmacman]

Although I don't feel as strongly as Flash Harry, I agree with his sentiment and add that art does employ a visual language. When you stray from the principles and elements of design, those who are trained in applying those concepts will call you on it. If you have made artistic decisions and know why you have applied concepts in a particular way, then ignore those who are too ignorant to understand. Being an artist does require a thick skin.

My pet peeve, as a media art teacher, is when students tells me they like what they have created but cannot tell me why it works visually. Everyone will have a "happy accident" once in a while. To be good consistently requires thought and understanding.

 

[white]

Some time I feel like the art part of photography is looked down on. As in if i take a picture and it is lacking "correctness" as in exposure, lighting etc. that it is almost looked down on even if I'm just showing what and how I see things...

Just a Thought

Depends on where you show your photographs, and to who, I guess. Artists tend to understand each other, so you can experiment and make overprocessed and technically poor 'junk' and not be criticized for breaking compositional rules. That's been my experience. At school we all kind of encourage each other to experiment and have fun making images.

 

[auntieofjed]

the thought that a picture can capture the past. can show somebody else something they can not see. unsaid thoughts.

 

[Mendoza]

Rendering your impression of a person, place, or thing, or a reflection of your state of mind in an image, or the essence of something, begins as a non-technical impulse.
It's simpler to criticize an image based on its technical "shortcomings" because there are more objective rules, norms, or guidelines everyone is supposed to follow. But like The Shoe said, art is subjective and there's the rub.

 

[JG_Coleman]

Some time I feel like the art part of photography is looked down on. As in if i take a picture and it is lacking "correctness" as in exposure, lighting etc. that it is almost looked down on even if I'm just showing what and how I see things...

Just a Thought

It's important to understand, though, that art of any type has really always been this way. Painting, drawing, music, writing; all of these arts follow certain schools of thought and put forward certain standards that, for better or worse, loosely dictate what is considered good or bad.

On one hand, this makes individuals somewhat spiteful... the feeling is, "This is my art, why isn't it respected as such?" It's an understandable sentiment.

On the other hand, though, such standards are what allow us to have coherent art forms.... it's how we are able, as a society, to produce art that people can understand.

I think that there is a certain double-bind that characterizes most types of art. On one side of the coin, it is emphasized that our art should come thoroughly and entirely from our own instinctive, artistic sense: "You should create art that you like"... "You shouldn't worry about impressing others"... "Don't let people dictate to you what your art should be". Many beginners in artistic fields seem to focus on this to the exclusion of anything else and wind up with a kind of "me-against-the-world" attitude... a resentment towards a society that seems to heartlessly reject their artistic efforts and send them back to the drawing board.

But, what these individuals ignore is that all forms of art are about communication. Art should be created to uniquely reflect the creator, but at the same time, it needs to be able to speak to others... to convey to others what the creator experienced with a certain amount of fidelity. If a painting, musical piece, or photograph cannot do that, then indeed, it is something of an artistic failure. No worries... the great painters made countless paintings that they never showed anyone because they deemed them flawed. Likewise, the greatest photographers took many thousands of exposures that got a one-way trip to the trash bin. Nobody strikes gold everytime.

As I mentioned on another thread some time ago: compare art (as communication) to language. I can convey so much more to someone using a refined and trained language like English, rather than just haphazardly barking sounds at people I meet.

Abiding by certain conventions doesn't rob individuality from art... in fact, it allows us to speak much more through our art than if we just offered up whatever we happened to create.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Some time I feel like the art part of photography is looked down on. As in if i take a picture and it is lacking "correctness" as in exposure, lighting etc. that it is almost looked down on even if I'm just showing what and how I see things...

Just a Thought

The most impressive photographs have always been and always will be the ones where the photographer 'disappears', and you are unaware of any 'manipulation'. Too much photography today is total crap, utterly worthless garbage, with nothing but manipulations, technique for the sake of technique, without an ounce of merit. Most of the so-called 'HDR' is like that (and 'HDR' is a misnomer anyway!).

If you think that a correctly exposed and in-focus photograph is a waste of time you're wrong.

Especially since digital has become popular, photography has gone rapidly downhill. Everyone wants to play with images in the computer instead of finding something interesting to photograph. It's easy to sit on your butt and play with the image on the screen instead of taking the time to learn your equipment so well it becomes part of you, and making the effort to go out and find interesting subject matter.

The world is full of interesting things to photograph, and they look better in focus, correctly exposed, and unmanipulated. This takes, skill, patience, and dedication, things that are not popular these days. Everyone wants the easy way out, the path of least resistance. I don't buy it. It isn't 'art', it's just laziness and lack of talent or skill.

 

[fwellers]

Petraio, I won't bother to quote your jibberish in my response, and I'll keep it brief.
I just want to say that your polarizing opinion is very narrow and short sighted. While it's true there is great value in well thought out and well composed shooting of interesting subjects, circumstances, juxtapositions etc... there is also no doubt that a well crafted post processing can create magnificent images !!
I find your view to be very small minded.

 

[Flash Harry]

You still need a decent image to begin with imo before your manipulations can be called "art" or have the term "magnificent" applied, I'm still waiting to see my first magnificent image, from anyone. H

 

[Petraio Prime]

Petraio, I won't bother to quote your jibberish in my response, and I'll keep it brief.
I just want to say that your polarizing opinion is very narrow and short sighted. While it's true there is great value in well thought out and well composed shooting of interesting subjects, circumstances, juxtapositions etc... there is also no doubt that a well crafted post processing can create magnificent images !!
I find your view to be very small minded.

It takes work, talent, time, effort....before you press the shutter release...

Cleverly manipulated crap is still crap.

 

[fwellers]

Yes but your post seemed to say that once you start manipulating in post, the image becomes crap.