Where does photography stop and painting begin?

[Dave442]

Photography and painting have both been used to give a depiction of an event as witnessed by the creator of the work. Just as painting, as a medium, can be further used to create a work that comes from the mind of the artist, so too an image taken by a photographer can be manipulated to create a final work of art.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

There is art and there is documentary. A full frame photo of a beautiful flower may be art, in spite of the fact that it is growing in a manure pile in the middle of a junk yard.

 

[AlanKlein]

Photoshop can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

 

[Ysarex]

Photoshop can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

Sure it can.

Just a deflated Xmas yard balloon -- a sow's ear for sure:

A simple PS adjustment and it becomes my best Xmas card ever.

Joe

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Actually Photoshop can make a silk purse from most anything then put it in the hands of a sow.

While I personally enjoy a photo of a dog catching a Frisbee over dogs playing poker around a table, I have seen both.

It is like comparing the detailed landscapes of the Hudson River School paintings to Picasso.

 

[smoke665]

I have to disagree with the premise that Ps is the magical software that can turn something bad into something great. Maybe something better than the original, but it can't create something out of thin air. Severely blown highlights can't be recovered, and uninteresting subjects (though improved) will still be uninteresting, to name a few. While a composite can comprise several non related images, you still need good exposures to work with.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Smoke

You correct except, what is bad and what is great depends on the viewer.

I marvel at the craftsmanship that went into an 18th century parqueted wooden desk only to see it sell at auction for a fraction of what some non-descript sea shore painting sold for.

Beauty was they say is in the eye of the beholder..........thank God or I would still probably be single.

 

[smoke665]

ou correct except, what is bad and what is great depends on the viewer.

I'll be the first to acknowledge that my taste in art will never expand to include the atrocious who's only intent seems to be shock and disgust. As to value, the monetary value of any item is that which someone is willing to pay at a specific point in time. Many years ago at an estate auction for my mother, we sold an old ornate hall tree and mirror that had sat in her basement for years. Overtime the moist conditions had not been kind to it. The piece in question was in a hot bidding war between two people from the big city, finally selling for $6500, a price I thought was outrageous for the condition. I thanked the winner for his purchase and commented that it was a lot for that piece. With a grin he said not really, as I already have a committed buyer who is paying $45,000 for the piece once restored. The fact that the desk you mentioned sold low, could have been a sharp buyer who recognized a deal that no one else did, or no one at the auction knew the true value of the item.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Art work is a classic example of "taste". I recently visited a museum the featured the "Hudson River School" of art in one room and abstract art in another, with a multitude of style in between. They even has an early Picasso.

You might find a copy of a Hudson River painting in my house but a will leave Mr. Picasso to those who like that style.

I would be a dull world if everyone liked the same stuff.

 

[Fujidave]

Art work is a classic example of "taste". I recently visited a museum the featured the "Hudson River School" of art in one room and abstract art in another, with a multitude of style in between. They even has an early Picasso.

You might find a copy of a Hudson River painting in my house but a will leave Mr. Picasso to those who like that style.

I would be a dull world if everyone liked the same stuff.

For some reason I never liked any Picasso, but loved John Constable here in the UK.

This is my all time favourite.


The Hay Wain - Wikipedia

 

[Dave442]

I would put Picasso in my favorites list of painters, but then again I grew up in the basement of the Contemporary Arts Museum in Houston.

 

[Jamesaz]

Absolutely my last thoughts on this: Why is painting considered more 'art' than the use of any other media and why do people buy into that idea? Not just photographers but also ceramicists, printmakers, color pencil artists and even (gasp) sculptors can be willing participants in this illusion. (Pretty much all art is illusory anyway, except for music which has it's own hierarchy of 'serious orchestral' and the lesser regarded 'popular' but can't be illusory because it's sound)

Perhaps it comes from a belief that, because there are some practical applications to justify photo, ceramic, litho etc. they don't carry the popular gravitas of painting but I know painters that have day jobs as house painters so.....

This is not an attitude I've found to be widespread among actual artists. Gallery owners however, will tell you that photography is a hard sell and and the attitude mentioned above is a contributing factor.

This gallery analysis is based only on my personal experience and pertains only to fiber prints from film negatives (not landscape). I would imagine digital photography would have even more hurdles in that environment.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Jamesaz,

Maybe it is because almost everyone can capture a classic, artsy, or emotionally moving photo from time to time . But not everyone can put brush to canvas or chisel to stone.

In my research on camera history I discover that the use of the Camera obscura and camera lucida which allows the artist to trace a projected image on a paper, then fill in the details, has been used for centuries; even in portrait work.

Their is no rhyme or reason to artwork, which is why a particular artist's paintings can double or drop to half it value, solely on the whims of the art world. Contemplating such things is similar to the medieval challenge of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. There is not correct answer.

One can just enjoy what they enjoy and marvel at the tastes or others. Kind of like beer.

 

[bribrius]

Ughh.

People are doing "digital painting" now. Neat for a cheap print, looks good.
But compared to brush and oil i think it borders insulting. Look at the great actual paintings, the talent, hands on. No simple "undo, or revert back" , Digital editing, like the way it went in movie special effects, neat to look at. But something just cheesy or talentless in it. Computer geek vs. Artist. Not even the same world.
I paint and photo (neither much anymore). But i see a vast difference between someone putting oil on canvas and someone staring at a computer screen with algorithms. Please .Please. Let digital editing and digital painting NEVER be put in the same category as true painting. It is like sculpting vs buying a 1000 dollar 3d printer. Just no, just no. Make it go away!! It must be what people bad with art but good with technology do.
"Digital artist" sounds like a oxymoron.
I am happy to note that, seeing digital paintings being devalued, borderline worthless from what i can see. Gives me hope that the general public sees the difference between a paint brush and a computer algorithm

 

[Ysarex]

Ughh.

People are doing "digital painting" now. Neat for a cheap print, looks good.
But compared to brush and oil i think it borders insulting. Look at the great actual paintings, the talent, hands on. No simple "undo, or revert back" , Digital editing, like the way it went in movie special effects, neat to look at. But something just cheesy or talentless in it. Computer geek vs. Artist. Not even the same world.
I paint and photo (neither much anymore). But i see a vast difference between someone putting oil on canvas and someone staring at a computer screen with algorithms. Please .Please. Let digital editing and digital painting NEVER be put in the same category as true painting. It is like sculpting vs buying a 1000 dollar 3d printer. Just no, just no. Make it go away!! It must be what people bad with art but good with technology do.
"Digital artist" sounds like a oxymoron.
I am happy to note that, seeing digital paintings being devalued, borderline worthless from what i can see. Gives me hope that the general public sees the difference between a paint brush and a computer algorithm

Whether a watercolor is inferior to an oil, or whether a drawing, an etching, or a photograph is not as important as either, is inconsequent. To have to despise something in order to respect something else is a sign of impotence. --Paul Strand

Joe