DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Is photography art?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 105, (reverse)
AuthorThread
08/09/2007 07:15:45 PM · #1
Some seem to think it is not.

Some seem to think painting is more difficult then creating a work of art starting with an image then photoshopping it.

Does that even matter which is more difficult?

Does it matter what medium you use to express your art and should you be discounted because it is not a traditional art form?

Though 2 very different mediums I think they have an equal place in the art world.

So is photography art?
08/09/2007 07:17:27 PM · #2
In definetly... no doubt... no question...
08/09/2007 07:17:44 PM · #3
Yes photography is art.
(but it is very different than painting. I assume my comment is what pushed you to start this thread).
08/09/2007 07:17:58 PM · #4
Absolutely.
08/09/2007 07:19:00 PM · #5
Originally posted by zxaar:

pushed you to start this thread).


Not pushed I took your suggestion that we would be "killing the main discussion" in the other thread.

Message edited by author 2007-08-09 19:20:41.
08/09/2007 07:20:00 PM · #6
In a way it is more difficult to create art from reality (as in photography) than it is in creating art purely from imagination (painting).

Yes photography is art.

And the two do intermingle. I'm not sure if anyone here has every painted a photograph by hand. It's quite fun and can produce very interesting results.

Message edited by author 2007-08-09 19:22:20.
08/09/2007 07:22:35 PM · #7
Art is about intent. Art is a product of sheer will. If you take a photograph with the intent of creating art, then it's art. If you don't consider it art, then it's not. It is really that simple.

After that little issue is settled, let the critics walk it up the good art/bad art metric ruler.

edit: The point is, if you're an artist of any resolve whatsoever, you really won't give a rip if someone else thinks your photo is or is not art.

Message edited by author 2007-08-09 19:24:30.
08/09/2007 07:26:07 PM · #8
Originally posted by rich:

Art is about intent. Art is a product of sheer will. If you take a photograph with the intent of creating art, then it's art. If you don't consider it art, then it's not. It is really that simple.

After that little issue is settled, let the critics walk it up the good art/bad art metric ruler.


Interesting you should say that. In the other thread it was suggested that we cannot know the artists intent. (Not by me)

If that is the case can it be art?

Edit: (I just read the edit of your post and I agree)

Message edited by author 2007-08-09 19:27:12.
08/09/2007 07:27:52 PM · #9
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

In a way it is more difficult to create art from reality (as in photography) than it is in creating art purely from imagination (painting).


actually, I believe that all art is created from reality.
08/09/2007 07:31:33 PM · #10
It depends on who's taking the photo. :)
08/09/2007 07:31:53 PM · #11
Art has nothing to do with 'intent'. Because regardless of weather or not you 'intended' something to be a piece of art, someone else may find it so.

There has been many things I would not dare call art... However, in Major Galleries in Major Cities (i.e. NY, LA) these pieces sell for thousands of dollars or more. Why? Because someone found it intriguing enough to call art, and found someone willing enough to pay for it.

Intent has nothing to do with nothing.

Art, is what it is, a simple generic term used to describe all of the forms of communication. Communication is to relay thoughts and ideas to stir emotions.

One mans trash is another mans treasure. What else is there really to say?
08/09/2007 07:33:53 PM · #12
Originally posted by rich:

It is really that simple.



It is never really that simple... when two people disagree, there is nothing simple about it.
08/09/2007 07:37:43 PM · #13
Originally posted by littlegett:

What else is there really to say?

Well, since this is like the 10,000th thread on the subject, I'm sure someone will think of something else to say. :)

Of course, we'll never come to a consensus on the subject, because it means different things to different people.
08/09/2007 07:38:27 PM · #14
Originally posted by littlegett:

Originally posted by rich:

It is really that simple.



It is never really that simple... when two people disagree, there is nothing simple about it.


You are actually defending my post, at the same time as you counter it.

Of course art is about intent, especially when you don't understand it, or find it worthless, or banal, or blah blah blah whatever else you might think.

The point I was making is that the artist is creating something; intentionally so. And he/she knows not everyone will get it. That does not necessarily matter. The point is that the artist had an idea of what they wanted to create, they created it, and they consider it art. Whether you or anyone else considers it art as well is pretty much irrelevant.
08/09/2007 07:40:38 PM · #15
I, as an artist have an idea that I must create.

I have a mental picture of the result I want.

I use the tool's of my craft and start to bring my vision to fruition.

Once achieved I sit back and view my finished work.

I show my work and start the process again.

Could be a painter, photographer, musician, architect etc.

So is the act of creation itself the art?

Message edited by author 2007-08-09 19:41:29.
08/09/2007 07:42:41 PM · #16
Originally posted by Mick:

Well, since this is like the 10,000th thread on the subject, I'm sure someone will think of something else to say. :)


Sorry Mick I was in a rush to start it again. I should have looked for an old thread...
08/09/2007 07:44:22 PM · #17
Only Canon's can create art :-P
08/09/2007 07:44:43 PM · #18
What if you don't have the mental picture you want to create? Rarely do I ever sit and think, "This is what I want the finished product to look like" before I start. Maybe that's why I suck ass, I dunno.

I think there is art to photography but not all photography is art. Just like there is art in music, which is another thing I suck at by the way. :D
08/09/2007 07:46:53 PM · #19
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Some seem to think it is not.

Some seem to think painting is more difficult then creating a work of art starting with an image then photoshopping it.

Does that even matter which is more difficult?

Does it matter what medium you use to express your art and should you be discounted because it is not a traditional art form?

Though 2 very different mediums I think they have an equal place in the art world.

So is photography art?


I had to check the date on this one. Old thread dredging has become an artform around here lately. LOL>
08/09/2007 07:49:25 PM · #20
Originally posted by rich:

Art is about intent. Art is a product of sheer will. If you take a photograph with the intent of creating art, then it's art. If you don't consider it art, then it's not. It is really that simple.



Is it really that simple? My question to test this proposition:

Can a person be an artist and produce art if they don't know or consider themself to be an artist?


08/09/2007 07:50:47 PM · #21
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

I, as an artist have an idea that I must create.

I have a mental picture of the result I want.


So ... I think, therefore I art? ;)

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Anyway, painting, sculpting, and photographing are just three activities. They all have the potential to produce utter garbage (witness everything I've painted) and pure sheer beauty. But what one person calls art, another calls garbage.

So no, photography isn't art, and neither is any other activity. But they can be used to create art.

Maybe you meant to ask "is a photograph art?" in which case I'll go back to it depends on who you ask about a specific photo.
08/09/2007 07:52:58 PM · #22
Well, if someone can collect urine in a jar, put a cross in it, and call it art, I'm really not sure that anyone can say that my daily BM's aren't a new and exciting creation that should be held up for public inspection. Oh, but only if I toss in a Torah, Cross, Bible, Koran, or possibly the collected works of Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan. Martha Stewart books must make excrement into art, I'm sure. I'm mean, the juxtaposition of plasticized pseudo-perfection smothered in poo could only be called art. It's the Dichotomy, the pure visceral angst, you know. The more flashy words, even if used wrong, that describe your work the more likely it is that you are an arteeest.

Art, as always, is in the eyes of the beholders. Usually, if no-one wants to look at it, it's still art. If everyone wants to look at it, it might not be.
08/09/2007 07:53:07 PM · #23
Originally posted by levyj413:


So no, photography isn't art, and neither is any other activity. But they can be used to create art.


Good answer.
08/09/2007 07:57:56 PM · #24
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by Mick:

Well, since this is like the 10,000th thread on the subject, I'm sure someone will think of something else to say. :)


Sorry Mick I was in a rush to start it again. I should have looked for an old thread...

No apology necessary. I only wanted to point out that this has been hashed and rehashed millions of times by millions of people, yet people always seem to have plenty to say on the subject. I have no problem with that as it gives me a place where I can post silly comments. :)
08/09/2007 08:04:25 PM · #25
Originally posted by fir3bird:

Originally posted by rich:

Art is about intent. Art is a product of sheer will. If you take a photograph with the intent of creating art, then it's art. If you don't consider it art, then it's not. It is really that simple.



Is it really that simple? My question to test this proposition:

Can a person be an artist and produce art if they don't know or consider themself to be an artist?


That's an interesting hypothesis, and one I had not considered. I was approaching this from the lofty perch of the artist, essentially "I consider it art so what does it matter if you do?" philosophy. Not so much in an arrogant way. More as someone who believes strongly enough in their work not to be dissuaded by what other people think.

So if I understand correctly, someone creates something without themselves thinking it is art, but you or another third party does perceive it as art. I suppose in that case equal rules apply - who is to tell you that you can't consider it art, even if it is not your creation?

Thus, I think I have concluded that art follows the rules of a NOR gate.

' . substr('//farm2.static.flickr.com/1337/1066101674_365a32772c_o.jpg', strrpos('//farm2.static.flickr.com/1337/1066101674_365a32772c_o.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Seriously. All I am trying to defend here is some kind of notion allowing individuals to decide for themselves what is and is not art. To stand on the other side of that is really pretty arrogant in my opinion - tantamount to saying that the only opinion that matters is your own (not you literally, you know what I mean.)
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 10/25/2020 08:12:07 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 10/25/2020 08:12:07 AM EDT.