3 of 3
3
Is Photography really an art form?
Posted: 30 June 2014 03:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

Cuthbert, I applaud your tenacity here. I get your points. However I’m neutral here.
In fact I would recognize that photography when viewed or presented as art-is art.
In fact I have seen many photographers and photos which I personally would call art.

But I get all of your points. Unfortunately you have fallen into the age old argument…
“What is art?” 
There’s no objective viewpoint there.
Plus, out of respect for the very thing itself(because it’s art, and important for life), we must defer to the one or the many who portray
it as art.
What good does proclaiming something as “non-art” achieve? Nothing. It’s all taste.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 June 2014 03:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
DarronS - 30 June 2014 12:12 PM

This could have been an interesting thread, but Cuthbert’s stubbornness has ruined any chance for meaningful discussion.

Hey Foto, I’ll get you back on the topic. I know it’s your passion.
I love any photos of urban scenes or factory scenes from 1890-1980. All of ‘em.
They are truly art to me. Especially the ones that were done as art, so to speak.
They take me back and really move me.
I know there’s a bunch of artists who did this kind of photography, I’ve seen lot’s of their works.
I just can’t remember their names right now.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 June 2014 11:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4858
Joined  2007-10-05

Go back and read Cuthbert’s post. He made a clear distinction between film and digital photography, calling digital photography nothing more than a “point and click” exercise, thus exposing his unfamiliarity with what it takes to make a good photograph. He said he “would love to hear” our opinions, but has avoided discussing anything that refutes his opinion. If you want to discuss what makes an artistic photograph I’d love to have that discussion. I used some of my photos as examples because I own the copyright and can post them where I wish. Perhaps I should post links to some excellent photographers who use digital cameras.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2014 07:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2425
Joined  2007-07-05
DarronS - 27 June 2014 07:16 PM

What Mac said. If you think differently I challenge to come out shooting with me sometime. Hacks get lucky once in a while; artists see the final result before taking the photo.

Has digital photography changed the probability of hacks getting lucky along with digital post-processing?

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2014 08:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4858
Joined  2007-10-05

No, but it has increased the number of hacks who take bad photos then oversaturate them in post-processing trying to make up for poor lighting in the original.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2014 10:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  834
Joined  2014-06-20
MzLee - 28 June 2014 06:25 PM
CuthbertJ - 26 June 2014 11:27 AM

I’ve always thought the answer was No, it isn’t an art. In the olden days maybe you’d have to master some techniques to actually produce the pictures, but with digital cameras that’s pretty much gone. I’m sorry, but to me it just seems like it’s a matter of point and click. And to make things “artsy” you use black and white, and maybe throw the main subject off center. I’m sure many will disagree, and I’d love to hear your opinions.

I think photography “can” be art but often isn’t.

Art is not about the subject or the medium, it’s about the human expression of emotion and the human reception of that expression. Sometimes a rose is just a rose and sometimes it’s the freaking Mona Lisa.

MzLee


Anything can be seen as art, but often isn’t.  The only way for this discussion to have any meaning is for Cuthbert to say, unequivocally, what he thinks art is. Then we can either agree or disagree. Meanwhile, we have no idea what his parameters are or what he’s talking about.

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2014 10:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  834
Joined  2014-06-20

In a nutshell, art is human communication.  If a work of art communicates something meaningful to another person, it’s art. No one can determine whether his own efforts amount to art.  Art is in the eye of the beholder. No beholder, no art.

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2014 06:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

I might add, no communication, no art.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2014 01:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  834
Joined  2014-06-20
Occam. - 01 July 2014 06:08 PM

I might add, no communication, no art.

Occam

Indeed!

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 3
3