|
|
Post by GeneW on Oct 1, 2006 11:41:20 GMT -5
Whenever I hear the question "Is photography art?" I immediately think of this pearl of wisdom from Groucho Marx: "Well, art is art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water! And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now, uh... Now you tell me what you know."  Gene |
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Oct 1, 2006 11:44:47 GMT -5
This topic is like the Bokeh topic and much too deep for me to comment on other than to say yes and no.
Bob
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Oct 1, 2006 12:04:12 GMT -5
Was it Archie Bunker who said "If I can do it it ain't art."?
Mickey
|
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Oct 1, 2006 12:33:33 GMT -5
"Is photography art?"
I suspect that the correct answer should be "Who cares?" I'll just take 'em and let Fuji sort 'em out!!
Regards - John
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Vincent on Oct 1, 2006 16:32:43 GMT -5
I think any picture that draws your attention and makes you appreciate it is art.
It can be a gorgeous landscape, a catalogue photograph or anything in between.
If it's good....it's art.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Oct 1, 2006 16:50:43 GMT -5
Oh well...
If it takes imagination to create it, and imagination to appreciate it - then it's art.
Simple as... Then of course you have the interpretation of appreciation and creation, but that's another matter.
Regards - John
|
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Oct 1, 2006 19:37:30 GMT -5
I think photography can be an art form. But like painting what's good and what's bad is subjective. I have know some photographers why considered themselves "artists" who were so full of themselves they were unbearable.
|
|
|
|
Post by herron on Oct 1, 2006 19:47:18 GMT -5
Of the millions of photographs that must be taken every day, I think only a very few could be considered art. Most of the folks who use cameras don't consider themselves artists, nor are their motivations artistic. The vast majority of pictures are usually a mere recording of images for personal use. However, in the hands of an artist, the camera can become a creative tool — much like a paintbrush and canvas. I think we've seen evidence of that here in this forum. In photography, like painting, it is the artist's vision and skill that make the difference between ordinary materials and an extraordinary experience. I love Groucho.  Ah, Archie, but would it have been, if you had the vision to think of it first?  |
|
|
|
Post by Just Plain Curt on Oct 1, 2006 20:51:35 GMT -5
Since the Canadian public paid millions for a navy blue sheet of wood with a blue stripe, I've read about an artist canning his own feces, and Maplethorpe's work (agree or disagree, some work should be at the least listed as questionable) are all considered art, then I believe a properly exposed, nicely focussed image should be considered art. Hope not to ruffle any artistic feathers here, just one redneck's opinion, LOL.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randy on Oct 1, 2006 23:09:32 GMT -5
I would think it would depend on the contex. If a picture is composed by an artist, then it may be art. If a person aims his camera and says, "hey, that would be a neat shot" then it's just a shot. I don't think we should consider most of the photos here as art except maybe some of the photos like the ones KAMERA took of the art players recently, now those were art in my opinion.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Oct 2, 2006 3:42:12 GMT -5
Hey Curt,
Wasn't it a red stripe?
I pay a great deal of attention when my tax dollars are squandered.
Mickey
|
|
|
|
Post by Just Plain Curt on Oct 2, 2006 5:00:22 GMT -5
Hi Mickey,
Yep, red stripe, DOH. Don't know where my head is these days, thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by herron on Oct 2, 2006 8:45:50 GMT -5
I would think it would depend on the contex. If a picture is composed by an artist, then it may be art. If a person aims his camera and says, "hey, that would be a neat shot" then it's just a shot. I don't think we should consider most of the photos here as art except maybe some of the photos like the ones KAMERA took of the art players recently, now those were art in my opinion. I agree, Randy. Those art player shots by KAMERA certainly do qualify. But IMHO there have also been quite a few other pieces of art displayed here...most notably (for their frequency) from GeneW and Rick. To me, a photograph is art when it stirs the imagination, or the soul, or when it makes you consider the ordinary in extraordinary ways. That is what the eye of the artist does, and what distinguishes a "neat shot" from a work of art. To make that distinction, it all comes back to the mind behind the camera! |
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Oct 2, 2006 8:56:24 GMT -5
IMHO photography, like paining or sculpting, is both an art and a craft. If you're lucky enough to be born with an artistic sense it's both. If all you've got is a good knowledge of the technicalities of photography you can still produce good pictures, but then it's only a craft.
PeterW
|
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Oct 2, 2006 9:08:44 GMT -5
IMHO photography, like paining or sculpting, is both an art and a craft. If you're lucky enough to be born with an artistic sense it's both. If all you've got is a good knowledge of the technicalities of photography you can still produce good pictures, but then it's only a craft. PeterW That is close enough to what I feel to agree totally with you. You are lucky indeed if you have a natural gift to see artistically, if that is the correct word, as most have to work very hard to develope that kind of seeing. What a struggle that is and for me the hardest part of photography to get a grip on. Bob |
|
