|
Had an interesting discussion with a coworker stemming from the question: Can photography be "art"?
Does photography merely preform the function of capturing reality?
Is it a craft? What defines artwork versus craftwork?
Is there any kind of basic consensus that can be reached or is the definition of "art" to nebulous for words?
Yay! A subject more divisive than alignment! ;)
I think we live in an age where agreement about these kinds of things is way out of reach. There were, however, happier times in regard to art. My two coppers: photography can definitely be art, but should disclose that I come from a family of photographers.
Two questions: 1. Is a greatness or loftiness of subject required to make craft or design art?
2. Is there a level of expertise required to make mere statement art?
|
Yay! A subject more divisive than alignment! ;)
I think we live in an age where agreement about these kinds of things is way out of reach. There were, however, happier times in regard to art. My two coppers: photography can definitely be art, but should disclose that I come from a family of photographers.
Two questions: 1. Is a greatness or loftiness of subject required to make craft or design art?
2. Is there a level of expertise required to make mere statement art?
You are wrong! I have the pictures to prove it! :)
Well, anyone can take a picture, but anyone can pick up a paintbrush too. Taking a good picture that has good lighting, composition, etc, takes real skill not to mention a lot of expensive equipment. It makes my paint and paper habit look ultra cheap by comparison. :)
So, I guess I would say that I think photography can be art. Then again, I say that a lot of 'crafts' can be art and have been considered so in the past. I guess I have a looser definition of art than some.
What is Art?
A miserable little pile of secrets!
I'm assuming that Art = a man
|
Had an interesting discussion with a coworker stemming from the question: Can photography be "art"?
Can it be? In my opinion yes it can be, but typically isn't.
Does photography merely preform the function of capturing reality?
Most of the time I think yes but not always.
Is it a craft? What defines artwork versus craftwork?
Good question, not to mention when is craftwork art in it's self?
Is there any kind of basic consensus that can be reached or is the definition of "art" to nebulous for words?
I doubt it, since what is or is not art is very subjective.
|
It depends upon the function and intention of the photography. Art generally makes a statement of some kind, or projects an ideal, or specifically communicates with the observer in some fashion. My family photos don't really do that; they're just a reminder of an event.
As a rule of thumb, I would say photography is art whenever someone who doesn't know the photographer or the subject can get something out of the picture. Most people's snapshots would be meaningless to a stranger, but real artistic photography can make an impression on anyone.
In general, almost anything can be art based on the same criteria.
(That's certainly a vague answer. What can I say? Books have been written about this question, and there's never been a consensus.)
|
|
What defines artwork versus craftwork?
I would say that a "craft" is a skill set that is learned or can be improved upon. Taking a "craft" to an "art form" to me is kind of the "next step".
I'm very interested in taking pictures right now. The more I learn, the more I understand that in the past I've mostly just taken pictures. I'm hoping to get my pictures more to a point of an "art".
From the Dictionary -- "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance." I certainly feel that some photography would fall under that.
Digital Photography more often just captures reality, though you can wait for the proper moment, however, film photography can be more artistic in its presentation through the proper use of processing.
Same as you can take your captured reality of your digital photograph, and process it through Photoshop, making it artwork instead of merely captured reality.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I don't think there's any objective way of measuring what is and isn't "Art." It's a really subjective question and there are levels of snobbery and philistinism involved.
The Romantics (if I may be permitted to label a genre or movement) did a lot of thinking along these lines. The question was whether to consider art as a mirror, reflecting life/nature/reality, or as a lamp, illuminating it. There's a book about that critical tradition if you're interested.
If you go with the mirror idea, photography is art at its most pure and crystalline. I'd say that even if you think art's more the lamp, photography allows the artist/photographer to insert him- or herself into the work by making choices about how the image is captured: angle, lighting, timing, etc. That's art.
As to the art/craft question, it's not insignificant that "artisan" and "craftsman" are synonyms. If a thing is designed both for function and aesthetics, I'd call it art; the question remains whether it is good or bad art.
But it's a lot like asking whether or not NASCAR is a sport.
|
|
In terms of photography, most photographic artists will take a hundred photos to get one that they would mark as having artistic merit.
The other 99 photographs aren't in any way remarkable. They show a place, or an object, or a person, but don't capture that person in a way that evokes strong feeling.
In other words, "I know it when I see it."
My 2 copper cop-out. :P
|
If the photograph is a relatively perfect capture of the scene before it, meaning that it doesn't look substantially different than that which one would see with their own eyes if they were there, then I would tend to not call that art.
For me, for something to be considered "art" it has to involve a "creative element." Meaning, the artist has to have made some sort of conscious decision to alter reality (adding filters to the photograph, adding special effects such as blurring or compositing additional layers, etc) for it to become "art."
It is in the creative application of the artists vision that changes the image into something new that makes it become art to me.
Me taking a kodak of a squirrel is not art. A highly skilled artist who takes that same photo but then alters it in some way makes it art.
Cuchulainn makes a point about if a photograph evokes an emotional response in the viewer then it is art. Well certainly I can not define what is art for someone else but for me, that still wouldn't be "art" as were I to see that moment that the photographer captured in person I might experience the same emotional response. To me, while the photographer captured an intimate or emotional moment it didn't really make him an artist. Note that I'm really not trying to denigrate the truly talented artists out there.. of which I've met a few. Their photo's destroy anything I could imagine taking and whenever I see the photos of their children I think to myself... "that is amazing" but I don't think of them as "artists".
Meh. Just me maybe.
|
|
In other words, "I know it when I see it."
My 2 copper cop-out. :P
I don't think that's really so much of a cop-out, actually.
I heard a really great speech by Tracy Hickman once about writing (a different kind of art, I think). He talked about the reader's role in contributing to the finished product of the novel. The book doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot until someone opens it up and reads it--and then it may mean very different things based on the experiences and mindset the reader brings to the novel. In essence, he spoke of creating a story as a partnership between the author and the audience.
So, how can something really be "art" until someone sees it? And wouldn't it depend on the viewer? I'm not sure how to define art either, but yeah, I know when I see it. And I'm truly amazed by artists who can make millions of people throughout many centuries say, "Wow, that's art," when they see the painting or read the poem.
In terms of photography, most photographic artists will take a hundred photos to get one that they would mark as having artistic merit.
The other 99 photographs aren't in any way remarkable. They show a place, or an object, or a person, but don't capture that person in a way that evokes strong feeling.
In other words, "I know it when I see it."
My 2 copper cop-out. :P
Ansel Adams is a prime example, he would often spend hours waiting for just the right time to take his photos. Obviously his photographs are famous.
In other words, "I know it when I see it."
My 2 copper cop-out. :P
I don't think that's really so much of a cop-out, actually.
I heard a really great speech by Tracy Hickman once about writing (a different kind of art, I think). He talked about the reader's role in contributing to the finished product of the novel. The book doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot until someone opens it up and reads it--and then it may mean very different things based on the experiences and mindset the reader brings to the novel. In essence, he spoke of creating a story as a partnership between the author and the audience.
So, how can something really be "art" until someone sees it? And wouldn't it depend on the viewer? I'm not sure how to define art either, but yeah, I know when I see it. And I'm truly amazed by artists who can make millions of people throughout many centuries say, "Wow, that's art," when they see the painting or read the poem.
Of course, someone who opens an RPG based novel is going to have certain impressions based upon their own experience with said RPG. If they have no experience, the novel may be very confusing, and nonsensical; however someone with much experience in the game will be able to know what the characters are doing.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Before you can address the question "can photography be art?" you need to sketch an answer to the more basic question: "what is art?"
Here's a classic discussion: Three dudes, Artimus, Belial, and Celsius, are all given a canvas, and all paint the thing dead matte black and hang it over their beds.
Artimus explains that he painted a scene of a family of black leapards fleeing hunters but finding themselves trapped in an ancient abandoned mineshaft, on a ledge next to a great gaping drop of unknown depths. The poignancy of the leopard father, knowing that he'll never see his children again, is brought forth in the inky blackness obscuring everything in the painting.
Belial explains that looking at the black canvas helps him feel depressed and all emo.
Celsius explains that he hangs the black canvas over his bed because of its light-absorption and heating properties.
Which of those identical canvases is art?
Ansel snaps a picture of a galloping horse, to capture the spirit of the wild animal. He makes sure the lighting and composition are aethetically appropriate.
Eadward snaps a picture of a galloping horse, to provide evidence that all four feet are off the ground at the same time.
Indigo snaps a picture of a galloping horse, to check to see if he has film in the camera.
Which of those identical pictures is art?
|
|
Hrmm... I had an art teacher in high school who said the difference between just taking a picture (and thus capturing a moment for memory) and art was the time and effort put into the picture.
If the artists takes the time to arrange, think about and consider the composition of the photo, then it's art. I think that meshes with what a few others have said here.
-J
Photography is definitely art, and here are some pictures to prove it.
To elaborate the difference between photography and painting or
drawing is that a photo is tied to reality while drawing or painting is tied
to the artists imagination but both are about showing you the world
through artists eyes.
|
|
Photography is definitely art, and here are some pictures to prove it.
To elaborate the difference between photography and painting or
drawing is that a photo is tied to reality while drawing or painting is tied
to the artists imagination but both are about showing you the world
through artists eyes.
What about a photograph(s) that is edited, filtered and/or otherwise altered (via photoshop, etc) to create an image that is no longer tied to reality and comes from the artist's imagination?
In what ways is this image more or less tied to reality than this painting?
|
|
I am thoroughly pleased with the responses so far. A number of very good comments and thoughts have been expressed.
I understand that it is easy to make jokes in messageboard threads, but I would greatly appreciate it if those of you who aren't interested in posting thoughts or comments relevant or helpful to the thread could refrain from interrupting.
thanks
|
|
She-Thing = Awesome.
this image
Agreed. I'm a big fan of digitally manipulated photos. But are they art? Are photorealistic paintings/drawings still art?
|
|
Agreed. I'm a big fan of digitally manipulated photos. But are they art? Are photorealistic paintings/drawings still art?She-Thing = Awesome.
this image
In short, I say yes.
In long, I think it has to do with the intent of the artist. Remember the picture of the little Afghan girl on the cover of National Geographic with the green eyes? The photo was snapped quickly but has become one of the enduring images of the 20th century. It should be considered art because its intent is to evoke an emotional response. I think that is what defines art.
The Bayeux Tapestry is very much like a photograph, but I would call it art as well. The means of producing art may be different, but its intent seems to be the same.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I guess I ultimately don't understand the question - why would they not be art? It seems that the implication is that because anyone can take a photo, a photo cannot have artistic value. However, anyone can draw a picture, but not every picture has artistic value. A camera is a tool, just like any other tool, and it can be applied to create art. The fact that what it captures exists independent of that moment of capture is irrelevant. The angle of the lense, the way a picture is framed, the time of day, the lighting, all of these elements are captured by the camera. The fact that you could go and see the thing that was photographed doesn't detract from the artistic expression which comes into play in the way a person chooses to capture it at a particular time and from a particular angle with a camera.
|
|
I guess I ultimately don't understand the question - why would they not be art? It seems that the implication is that because anyone can take a photo, a photo cannot have artistic value. However, anyone can draw a picture, but not every picture has artistic value. A camera is a tool, just like any other tool, and it can be applied to create art. The fact that what it captures exists independent of that moment of capture is irrelevant. The angle of the lense, the way a picture is framed, the time of day, the lighting, all of these elements are captured by the camera. The fact that you could go and see the thing that was photographed doesn't detract from the artistic expression which comes into play in the way a person chooses to capture it at a particular time and from a particular angle with a camera.
It was argued to me by coworker that a picture of a flower is just a picture of a flower, nothing more. The picture merely served a function of showing the flower that was seen by the photgrapher. If the picture looks nice, it is just a well crafted picture.
My coworker explained that art is something passive, something created from the imagination of another person that you are subjected to.
You listen to music some one wrote.
You look at a picture someone painted.
But looking at a photo is merely looking at a bit of reality that has been captured in an image. You *use* a photo to remember what a bit of reality looks like. Like how you use a chair to sit in.
Agreed. You can give a camera and ask 100 different individuals to take a picture of the same exact content. Some may be artistic while others may simply be a shot taken and you move on. A lot of it is pretty much within the eye of the beholder. I can remember looking at old Life and National Geographic magazines and be at awe with some of the photos taken. There's a reason why certain photographers are good behind a camera as what they do is inspiring while others just don't have an eye to put into perspective whatever it is that they're shooting.
It was argued to me by coworker that a picture of a flower is just a picture of a flower, nothing more. The picture merely served a function of showing the flower that was seen by the photgrapher. If the picture looks nice, it is just a well crafted picture.
My woman did her thesis on Georgia O'Keefe and while hers were more painting oriented, she'd say otherwise to your co-worker.
Any chance it's someone who won't touch things with a 10' pole? :P
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
It was argued to me by coworker that a picture of a flower is just a picture of a flower, nothing more. The picture merely served a function of showing the flower that was seen by the photgrapher. If the picture looks nice, it is just a well crafted picture.
Was it Cosmo? He's a philistine, you can't listen to him.
Yeah, I don't get that argument. It assumes that there is only one way to take a picture of a flower. You could take an infinite number of pictures of a flower. Some might be designed to just show what a flower looks like in the simplest science book text type of way, an abstract image of a concrete thing. But, you can take a picture of a flower from varying ranges, angles, etc. that suggest something about the flower.
It's easier to see these types of tricks in movies. When you have a shot of a person's eyes staring off the screen and the next shot shows an object, it creates the impression that you are seeing what the person is looking at. The image of the object is not just a shot of the object, the sequence of images communciates a concept. Similarly, an object might be placed closer to the camera or in the center of the screen to suggest it's importance (sorta like how in Eyes Wide Shot, every shot of Tom Cruise with his hand has his wedding ring in the center of the screen). That's not just a shot of Tom Cruise, or his wedding ring, it communicates an idea about the ring, about the character, about the situation that exists in the abstract outside of the actual objects being filmed.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Sara Marie,
All art is "a bit of reality captured". All art. Every medium. If it weren't, if it were wholly novel and seperate from reality, it wouldn't be sensible. A listener / observer / smeller / audience member experiences the artwork and is taken by either its representation, or presentation, of reality to understand something.
A picture of a flower, just to record the physical form of the flower, is dull art.
A picture of a flower, to evoke the state-of-mind of peace characterized by a flower on a summer's evening, is competent art, and probably good material for an advertisement. But it still records some aspect of reality.
A picture of a flower, able to open the door into the fragility of the human condition, records a sublime aspect of reality, and might be high art.
|
|
It was argued to me by coworker that a picture of a flower is just a picture of a flower, nothing more. The picture merely served a function of showing the flower that was seen by the photgrapher. If the picture looks nice, it is just a well crafted picture.Was it Cosmo? He's a philistine, you can't listen to him.
Yeah, I don't get that argument. It assumes that there is only one way to take a picture of a flower. You could take an infinite number of pictures of a flower. Some might be designed to just show what a flower looks like in the simplest science book text type of way, an abstract image of a concrete thing. But, you can take a picture of a flower from varying ranges, angles, etc. that suggest something about the flower.
It's not that easy to take an "artistic" picture of a flower. I've taken hundreds of pictures of flowers -- still not really happy with most of them. You have to find a "perfect" flower in the first place -- not always the easiest. Then you have to make sure that the lighting is right so that the shadows don't fall in the wrong places, yet still brings out the color without washing it out. You have to figure out what about the flower you want to be your "subject" or what you want to emphasize -- the "flower" isn't enough when you are taking a picture of a flower. And so on. There is definitely an "art" to it.
At the same time, what then makes a painting "art" or merely a "well crafted" painting?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Upon further reflection, I think the key ingredient that separates art from stuff that isn't art is aesthetics. If a thing is created with aesthetics in mind, or if it is received aesthetically no matter what its intent, it falls into the realm of art. It still might be bad art, but art it is. Even highly commercialized art, for instance, cereal box design, is still creative and designed with an eye for aesthetic appeal. Am I going to hang it on my wall? No. But someone cared enough about it to make it different from other cereal boxes.
At the same time, what then makes a painting "art" or merely a "well crafted" painting?
Or is a painting just a primitive photo?
Photography definitely qualifies as art in my mind. There are a few points where I (respectfully) disagree with certain others. Those who say that art must have a meaning or a message to it are being a bit snooty in my view, since art can never have an objective meaning: some will see it simply as a scene it is depicting or what it is (I count myself as being one who would say "beautiful painting" if I happened to see it in a gallery) others could see meaning in it, but what that meaning IS will be quite different amongst different people. Those who say that there must be elements of an artists touch in the work: If we were to have one person photograph a scene, and another person draw or paint it and the finished products looked identical would that automatically mean that both are not art? I rather doubt it. Also take a look at the work of war artists from the First World War and preceding conflicts (maybe even Second World War as well); those artists captured the scenes in a realistic manner; or a number of landscape painters, taking the scene before them and simply committing it to canvas accurately so that it looks like it could be a photograph-that still counts as art. Finally aesthetics, this is once again in the eye of the beholder (I'm actually surprised nobody has made a joke about that phrase given where we're posting, however that would be a serious threadjack...), as different people will see different things as being aesthetic or not. This actually reminds me of science a bit since the so-called harder sciences (mathematics, physics and chemistry) will look down their noses at so-called softer sciences (such as biology, ecology, psychology) decrying them as "not real sciences" despite all of them utilizing the scientific method to conduct research and make discoveries. I don't think we would ever be able to find an "artistic method" that would be arts version of the scientific method but it could help clarify things.
Everything can be art, its entirely subjective
to the viewers tastes. I also believe there's
no such thing as bad art...well universally bad.
Even Rob Liefeld has his fans...wherever they may
lurk...
It's all art, just like the design on your cereal box, the road signs on the way to work and the logo on your coffee cup are too.
Now whether it's good art or not is a whole different can of worms.
I see you come from the Warhol school. Well, at least it didn't ruin your minis.