1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Photography art? You must be joking...

Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Damien_Demolder, May 21, 2007.

  1. radiogandy

    radiogandy Well-Known Member

    I note from your profile that one of your pet hates is 'people with closed minds'. Have you perhaps ever thought...........etc? [​IMG]

  2. Woolliscroft

    Woolliscroft Well-Known Member

    Picky maybe, but the question was "Can photography be art?" not "Is photography art?". There is a big difference. Certainly it can be, but it is not automatic. I freely admit that my own work is largely data recording and makes no greater pretensions. Likewise most family snaps would never claim to be art. But I look at some people's work and there is absolutely no doubt.
  3. BigWill

    BigWill Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff

    Indeed..................I have often considered "dingoes kidneys" from afar and have contemplated and cogitated upon them for many hours..........................but at the end of the day I've reluctlantly come to the conclusion that they're just the entrails of an Austrailian wild dog! :D ;)

  4. Bettina

    Bettina Well-Known Member

    Exactly. :)
  5. Footloose

    Footloose Well-Known Member

    I cannot see why a photographic image cannot be defined as art, when you consider some of the non photographic codswollop which is sold as 'Art'. It seems to be ok to sell photographs of 'Installations' as art, which is in effect one medium to make money off another, so I think there is a degree of hypocricy employed by non-photographers who make money in this manner.

    Maybe I am going to take this discussion off on a tangent, but I think the following is relevent:

    I would also guess the problem with photography is that unlike other forms of artistic endeavour, photography offers the artist the potential to mass-produce their work in quantities that prevents the 'Art collector' from being absolutely sure that only a limited number of issues of a photograph are made.

    There is also this perception by the public at large, that associates photography with 'throw-away consumerism'. Interestingly, I get the impression that images produced on Film, hold greater value than those taken on a digital camera. Maybe, Art will eventually take photography under it's wing, but I suspect it will be mainly from images taken on film. Art collectors demand a level of 'exclusivity' that digital imaging denies them, as the original can be destroyed, to prevent duplication.
  6. Done_rundleCams

    Done_rundleCams AP Forum Ambassador to Canada

    Re: Photography art? You must be joking.// In the words of an old.....

    ....photo editor of mine... <u> " If it's not News....It's Art :rolleyes: "</u>

    which is, I'm sure, why he always told me I had nice art to go with the text :D

  7. velocette

    velocette Well-Known Member

    Re: Photography art? You must be joking.// In the words of an old.....

    Who cares.
  8. Damien_Demolder

    Damien_Demolder Well-Known Member

    Re: Photography art? You must be joking.// In the words of an old.....

    Do I detect the quintessentially post-modern absence of a question mark¿

    You might be right of course. Perhaps that should have been an option.
  9. mark_jacobs

    mark_jacobs Retired

    Re: Photography art? You must be joking.// In the words of an old.....

    Ed, are we talking publicly funded art? ;)
  10. Damien_Demolder

    Damien_Demolder Well-Known Member

    Re: Photography art? You must be joking.// In the words of an old.....

    No. I said art. :D
  11. bladtheinhaler

    bladtheinhaler New Member

    Another Newbie introducing himself - Hi y'all!

    Photography, is still looked down on by some. A poor relation to water colour, oils etc etc. But isn't this just showing their lack of understanding of the medium?

    The interpretation of our world and its contents is an obsession that humankind has seemingly always struggled with. Whether the marks are made with crushed stones, oils or light sensitive technology - whether the results are wholly previsualised or partly accidental, the result for me is art. Is not the human desire to transform the 'everyday' and to share experience the basis of our obsession?
  12. Damien_Demolder

    Damien_Demolder Well-Known Member

    Well said Blad. And welcome to our forum.

  13. ermintrude

    ermintrude Hinkypuff

    *Chokes on coffee* can it get that bad? :eek:

    Would you be Blad the Paler back again perchance?
  14. Clodhopper

    Clodhopper Well-Known Member

    So is it?

    Sorry, I should say Can it be? I had to vote to see the results of the poll so far, and must admit to being faintly surprised.

    Art is so subjective so I guess that a photograph becomes art when the art gallery director says so... What I don't understand is why do some photographers want to be considered artists? What is wrong with being a very, very good photographer? Maybe I just live too near too many artists!

    When it comes to digital imaging a whole new can of worms is opened. Then imagination can run riot, but so much depends on the imagination of the viewer too. You can get away with a bad watercolour, no matter how whacky & unreal it looks, because it is 'art'. Try the same thing with a photo, in an attempt to be 'artistic' and it can be considered to be cheating, or at the very least, a bit dodgy. :(

    I consider art to be something that, via one or more of the senses, stirs the soul and raises emotions, not necessarily pleasant ones... So yes. in some cases, photography may be considered to be art. Strange as it may seem, I love fashion & documentary photos from the first half of the last century, and I feel that some of those may be approaching 'art'. Modern images rarely have the power to shock or imspire; full marks to the togs for trying to be different & try new stuff though.

    But, I do feel a true artist is able create something purely from their imagination, a totally believable work of fiction or fantasy. Give an artist a box of paints and a blank paper and they can draw something from inside their mind. This cannot be done with a camera. There must be something tangible to focus on, a subject to capture.

    I know some superb landscapers and I think they would be the first to admit that they are not artists - anyone standing next to them with the same camera set-up could get the same result. The arty bit is knowing where to stand, how to set up the studio lights, how to arrange the composition, etc ;)

    There is so much crap in the art world right now that sometimes I think all it takes to get anywhere is just to have enough cheek to exhibit some dingoes kidneys (in formaldehyde) and call them art. :)

    Bugger, I've rambled on. I've already got my coat on
  15. fabs

    fabs Well-Known Member

    To be honest, I can't even understand why this is being debated!

    If a pile of bricks in the middle of the floor at the Tata Gallery can be considered art (and sell for £10K!!!) then surely any image produced by any member of this forum must be considered art as well.

    Now who'll offer me £10,000 for one of my creations?? :D :D
  16. Clodhopper

    Clodhopper Well-Known Member

    Sorry, got loads of bricks, but if you have any old pantiles the same profile as the ones on my barn roof I'll give you 10p each for them. :D
  17. fabs

    fabs Well-Known Member

    10p??????????????? My, you drive a hard bargain.

    Have to say I almost fell off my chair. My eyes seemed to miss the "L" in Pantiles!!!!!
  18. Clodhopper

    Clodhopper Well-Known Member


    :D :D :D
  19. def_fid

    def_fid New Member

    If the c**p that tracy Emin produces is art............I rest my case.
  20. TheFatControlleR

    TheFatControlleR :Devil's Advocaat: Forum Admin

    An insightful first post. Thank you for your contribution...

Share This Page