The Genius Of Photography

[watutsi]

Given its title , i have always been totally underwhelmed by this forum.A more appropriate title might be " Cameras and Snapshots ".

For anyone actually interested in Photography with a capital P here is a link to one of the best documentaries made about the subject.

5 hours in 6 episodes made by the BBC a few years ago ,it explores the development and language of picture making.

Unmissable for anyone interested in " Photography and the Arts "

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-genius-of-photography/

[MRToMRT]

Personally I have never considered photography as art. I did watch the BBC series and to be honest it only confirmed my view.

I was left with the impression that "art" contained higher percentages of hype and pretension than it did "photography".

Photography is a pastime of the masses, that brings more enjoyment to the picture taker than the viewer. That's why it has such a following and long may it remain so. I just wish it was a cheaper hobby ;+)

[pauljones]

All photographs are not art but there are some artists out there that use cameras that do make art.

[hughden]

Personally I have never considered photography as art. I did watch the BBC series and to be honest it only confirmed my view.

I was left with the impression that "art" contained higher percentages of hype and pretension than it did "photography".

Photography is a pastime of the masses, that brings more enjoyment to the picture taker than the viewer. That's why it has such a following and long may it remain so. I just wish it was a cheaper hobby ;+)

If you wish to experience art in photography, I suggest a visit to 1x.com.

[fimgirl]

I think there's a little art Here

[watutsi]

Personally I have never considered photography as art. I did watch the BBC series and to be honest it only confirmed my view.

I was left with the impression that "art" contained higher percentages of hype and pretension than it did "photography".

Photography is a pastime of the masses, that brings more enjoyment to the picture taker than the viewer. That's why it has such a following and long may it remain so. I just wish it was a cheaper hobby ;+)

"Photography is a pastime of the masses ,that brings more enjoyment to the picture taker than the viewer"

Well said, however why does that negate the fact that in every human endeavor there are those that rise

above the masses to do the exceptional.

Sure there is hype and pretension in all forms of art, but i see no difference between " the artist " [if you believe such a being exists]

creating with the pen the paintbrush or the camera.

[watutsi]

Personally I have never considered photography as art. I did watch the BBC series and to be honest it only confirmed my view.

I was left with the impression that "art" contained higher percentages of hype and pretension than it did "photography".

Photography is a pastime of the masses, that brings more enjoyment to the picture taker than the viewer. That's why it has such a following and long may it remain so. I just wish it was a cheaper hobby ;+)

Reply with a different hat on ;

Art is a subjective term used in our society to determine the quality rarity and worth of a created object.

A photograph by a living photographer [Cindy Sherman] was recently bought for $ 3.8 million

Therefore in this society in which we live Photography is Art, fact.

[quiksilva]

I agree that

"Art is a subjective term used in our society to determine the quality rarity and worth of a created object."

But Art does not determine rarity for that is determined by supply. I'm not sure that I even fully agree that Art determines "worth" either, as the value of a product (as measured in fiscal terms for what else is there?) is determined by what a willing buyer and seller will transact at. Art does however affect desirability of a product and therefore influences demand.

Photography however is not art, but it can be. It is the science of capturing images on photo sensitive material.

In my view scribbles of a pencil, dribbles of paint and a collection of words also do not automatically qualify as art.

I'd disagree, but if you were so inclined you could argue the counter point that all photography is art regardless of the quality of the aesthetics.

But you can not ever reasonably claim that the process of capturing images which in the viewer's subjective opinion are neither suitably creative, imaginative,beautiful or significant is not photography, for all of it is, every single print, snapshot and accidental shot of the inside of a lens cover.

In my opinion only some images will ever be art (to me) and of those that are, some will be of more artistic value than others.

Edited August 22, 2011 by quiksilva

[watutsi]

I agree that

"Art is a subjective term used in our society to determine the quality rarity and worth of a created object."

But Art does not determine rarity for that is determined by supply. I'm not sure that I even fully agree that Art determines "worth" either, as the value of a product (as measured in fiscal terms for what else is there?) is determined by what a willing buyer and seller will transact at. Art does however affect desirability of a product and therefore influences demand.

Photography however is not art, but it can be. It is the science of capturing images on photo sensitive material.

In my view scribbles of a pencil, dribbles of paint and a collection of words also do not automatically qualify as art.

I'd disagree, but if you were so inclined you could argue the counter point that all photography is art regardless of the quality of the aesthetics.

But you can not ever reasonably claim that the process of capturing images which in the viewer's subjective opinion are neither suitably creative, imaginative,beautiful or significant is not photography, for all of it is, every single print, snapshot and accidental shot of the inside of a lens cover.

In my opinion only some images will ever be art (to me) and of those that are, some will be of more artistic value than others.

The fact that a photograph can sell for $ 3.8 million is because it must be an edition of 1 and therefore unique [rare]

If it was an edition of 20 it would not be regarded as so desirable and its value would be a fraction of that amount,

but the image remains the same.

As to your other points, as they are all so blatantly obvious , i agree with you.

My original reply was a somewhat flippant way of saying in todays terms Art is as much commerce as aesthetics.

[quiksilva]

The fact that rare photographs of high artistic value can fetch large sums at auction is as equally obvious as the points I made in my post.

Although quite how those particular images fetched those sums is beyond me. It's not scarcity alone, and I'm quite sure it's not aesthetics.

Would you pay US$3.8m for this?

or US$ 2.7m for this?

Is it just speculation? Or is it truly a case of beauty (and hence value) being held in the eye of the beholder?

Edited August 23, 2011 by quiksilva

[watutsi]

There was a time when most people saw no value, artistic or otherwise in the pictures

of Van Gogh and Picasso.Their work was regarded as untalented rubbish because the

viewers did not understand this "new language"

Probably not much different today.You have to understand some of the context of Shermans

photographs to appreciate them.Its not the same as looking at a Cartier Bresson.Also i think

she is regarded as an artist who is using a camera to say what she wants to say rather than

a photographer in a more conventional sense

It is irrelevant if any of us would pay $3.8 million, the fact is someone did.

I am no fan of Cindy Sherman, and do not know the story behind these astronomical prices,

i'm just playing devils advocate but i do think it is partly about the aesthetic, most definitely

a large part of hype and a gamble that the market in that particular artist will continue to rise.

Another gamble when you are paying these prices for a one off photograph is how will the print

look in a 100years or more ?

[MRToMRT]

I think there's a little art Here

I have to admit, after looking at that link - I agree with you!

[fimgirl]

Therefore in this society in which we live Photography is Art, fact.

Not fact - supposition.

Subject still under debate

Edited August 29, 2011 by fimgirl

[IanForbes]

Ah, the "what is art" subject. We could debate this for months and still not come to a conclusion. A photograph might tell a story or it could just be visually appealing, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is art. The same is true for many paintings and sculptures. In many cases it is just a manual handicraft. And, there is NOTHING WRONG WITH HANDICRAFTS!

[watutsi]

Therefore in this society in which we live Photography is Art, fact.

Not fact - supposition.

Subject still under debate

Please tell this to the worlds major art dealers ,who are now paying millions of dollars for particular photographs.

I'm sure they will be very upset, so break it to them gently.

[watutsi]

In more recent times " Photography is not Art " is an argument from the 1970's when more and more artists [as opposed to photographers]

started using photography as their chosen medium.As an argument it has really had no credence for about 30 years.In that time

"Fine Art Photography" has become very much part of the mainstream art world.

For all the "nay sayers" on this forum, i'm curious what you regard as Art, or is your argument no more than " i know what i like"

Art is ; a french urinal [Marcel Duchamp] ; a pile of bricks [Carl Andre] ;a room half full of sump oil [Richard Wilson] ;

a shark in formaldehyde [Damien Hirst] and of course not forgetting ; artist crucified to VW Beetle [Chris Burden].

Something as benign as a photograph slips very easily into this lexicon of Modern Art.

Then there are those arguing over the phrase "photography is art" as it implies all photography is art. This is as moronic as saying

"painting is art". Painting is not art, painting is pushing paint with a brush.However a painting that is done with elements of

passion , skill ,intellect , and creativity can be art. Exactly the same applies to a photograph.

In the real world [perhaps i should be more precise, in the Art World] this supposition is no longer up for debate. I'm sure

The Flat Earth Society still has a few members but it is time to move on regarding the idea of photography as art.

[IanForbes]

In more recent times " Photography is not Art " is an argument from the 1970's when more and more artists [as opposed to photographers]

started using photography as their chosen medium.As an argument it has really had no credence for about 30 years.In that time

"Fine Art Photography" has become very much part of the mainstream art world.

For all the "nay sayers" on this forum, i'm curious what you regard as Art, or is your argument no more than " i know what i like"

Art is ; a french urinal [Marcel Duchamp] ; a pile of bricks [Carl Andre] ;a room half full of sump oil [Richard Wilson] ;

a shark in formaldehyde [Damien Hirst] and of course not forgetting ; artist crucified to VW Beetle [Chris Burden].

Something as benign as a photograph slips very easily into this lexicon of Modern Art.

Then there are those arguing over the phrase "photography is art" as it implies all photography is art. This is as moronic as saying

"painting is art". Painting is not art, painting is pushing paint with a brush.However a painting that is done with elements of

passion , skill ,intellect , and creativity can be art. Exactly the same applies to a photograph.

In the real world [perhaps i should be more precise, in the Art World] this supposition is no longer up for debate. I'm sure

The Flat Earth Society still has a few members but it is time to move on regarding the idea of photography as art.

I would agree with you there. However, I also know that a few well known "artists" have pulled the wool over critics eyes by coming up with outlandish ideas and calling it "art". The critics are too full of their own importance to question the motives of the artist. A case in point, Andy Warhol once came to the Vancouver art gallery and stacked up a bunch of empty Brilo boxes, and called it art. I saw a guy trying to take a photo of one of the big paintings on the wall and he accidently backed into the Brilo boxes and knocked a few over. The silly twit of a room attendent got all upset. I just re-stacked the boxes and nobody would have known the difference, but the room attendent was still running around saying "Oh dear!, Oh dear! What will happen now?" All I could do was shake my head at the ridiculousness of it. Avante Guard art is mostly just crap and an artist's spoof at the public and critics. I'm sure that some photography would fall into the same boat.

[quiksilva]

I think these outlandish ideas highlights, supports, and yes sometimes even mocks the argument that any medium can be used to create Art.

Art to me has a concept that the artist is trying to portray through a chosen medium, whether its one of beauty, comfort, terror, humour or even nothing (Zen), I can appreciate all of it as Art but I still only like what I like.

I do however resent the notion that you can go so far as to assign only those photographs that meet a subjective artistic standard with a special designation e.g. "Photography with a capital P".

I think to do so is arrogant, because whilst technically and artistically some photographs can be better than others, this does not and should not earn that photograph a special designation.

Photography can be used as a medium in applied art or fine art, and as such may then have more (albeit subjective) value, but it's still just photography. The added value is in the Art, not in the medium per se.

Edited September 5, 2011 by quiksilva

[dimfo]

also look at and nicely tributes

http://tutorialmurah.blogspot.com/2009/11/contacts-photographer-reveal.html

[VerbalKint]

art is a word

[IanForbes]

art is a word

Yah, but its only a 3 letter word. I prefer the 4 letter words.

[VerbalKint]

What I mean is, who gives a **** (4 letter word) what label you put on it; art, snapshot, how much money collectors want to pay for it, or what critics say about it.