|
Post by jennyandernie on Oct 2, 2006 10:19:54 GMT -5
I teach A level photography and it is an Art subject; unfortunately most art teachers know very little about photography hence the need for someone like me lol.
Because it is an art subject and moderated by art examiners the "arty" aspect does tend to be viewed as more important than the abitilty to take a good photograph and understand darkroom and processing techniques.
I agree with PeterW; it is both an art and a craft depending upon ones skills. This is very apparent amongst the students; some create very artistic photographs but have little knowledge of the craft. Only a very few ever aquire the technical knowledge.
Ernie
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Oct 2, 2006 12:28:58 GMT -5
Personally, I tend to view most of my shots in a historical context -- freezing a moment in time --whether it's a photo of a family member, or a landscape.
When I was younger I spent a lot of time trying to shoot "artsy" pictures--some of which I thought were rather good. But 10 years later most of the artsy stuff has little meaning.
The photo that I shot in a field across from our house in 1979 of the setting sun shining through a "puffball" making it look like a lightbulb won a prize in the Western Idaho Fair photo competition that year. Today it's just a photo that could easily be repeated. On the other hand a photo of our three daughtes standing in that same field in 1979, didn't win any prizes, cannot be duplicated today but is priceless to me.
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Oct 2, 2006 15:31:44 GMT -5
Bob - that's what I meant. It takes imagination to create it. There's got to be an idea in your mind saying "Hey - that would make a good picture".
OK - the exceptions are endless. For instance, a mother grabbing her polaroid to capture her child taking it's first steps. And the child's father, to whom the shot means that a huge investment is starting to pay off. And the cynical old uncle, forced to look at the photograph, saying "Yeah, yeah, yeah" under his breath. Maybe that isn't art - but you'd be hard-pushed to convince the mother that it wasn't.
In the absence of a reliable definition, perhaps we should shelve this discussion.
Regards - John
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Oct 2, 2006 21:41:25 GMT -5
My introduction of this topic was tongue-in-cheek. I'm certain most of us have long since given up trying to define photographic art. I tell people, "I don't know -- I just take pictures."
Gene
|
|
|
Post by Randy on Oct 3, 2006 6:31:25 GMT -5
I think Wayne summed it up best folks. There are times I know that are lost forever because I was too "busy" to get the camera out and shoot some pictures. But like we once covered before, I was in my video mode and shot VHS stuff on the camcorder instead. I think most ART photos are just happy mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Oct 3, 2006 15:36:10 GMT -5
Nice definition Randy.
Let's go back to the original meaning, where art wasn't something concocted by an artist, but work produced by an artisan.
Regards - John
|
|
|
Post by herron on Oct 3, 2006 23:12:33 GMT -5
"Art is in the eye of the beholder."Seems to be true. If you like it, it's art. If you don't like it, it's (garbage, junk, eyesore) not art. Guess that's why some folks like Vermeer and Rembrandt, and some like Picasso and Kandinsky. Makes for interesting, and sometimes heated, discussions.
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Oct 18, 2006 14:00:41 GMT -5
I tend to think the contemporary approach is: can it be sold for big $$$s, then it's art. My extension of the lemma: it is the art of selling. My stuff (either watercolor, or photographs) is not :-( . Bad luck. I take it easy, and state, that my engineering skills are a form of art. And it earns my money. In German "art" means "Kunst", and this is tightly related to the verb "können", which means "to have skills". I think, that while pure technical skills in generating art were overly weighted in the reception of art in the past (i.e. before ca. 1900), now this aspect is severly under- estimated. I saw a square canvas, the upper 90% deep brown red, the lower 10% a normal red. It were labeled: "2 reds" and sold for somewhat less than 100'000$. According to the first lemma it must be art. But I really don't care. I try to compose my pictures well, try to get good colors, and I like it, when I and other people, who see them, do like it, too. Best regards Peter PS: I know of a renowned dealer of modern art, who only got Dutch masters in his private rooms. Of course, these can't be bought for peanuts...
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Oct 18, 2006 14:15:04 GMT -5
Hi Peter S
Not sure what you mean by 'lemma' - not a word I've heard before, but other than that I agree with everything you've said!
Regards - John
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Oct 18, 2006 15:05:23 GMT -5
Dear John, sorry for the tech speak: I leant the word lemma from mathematics, where it means a statement, may it be a fundamental hypothesis (read axiom) or a statement, which had been proven. See here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LemmaBest regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Oct 18, 2006 15:13:45 GMT -5
No problem Peter S
It was axiomatic that Kodak was the best film. But then Fuji came along !!
Regards - John
|
|
|
Post by kamera on Oct 19, 2006 0:58:59 GMT -5
I like the description that Ron Herron gave. You can never tell what a photo you take will elicit from the mind of others, but hope that it does appear good enough to at least make them look and think about what they are seeing.
I guess art is in the eyes of the beholder. I do not take photos saying they will be art or artistic or artsy but rather for the joy of engaging in my hobby or the few small paying jobs.
In many cases, I feel people more enjoy looking at the 'usual' type shots than those classed as art. For example...in our seasonal and nostalgic categories.
Ron Head Kalamazoo, MI
|
|