Art

<i>If you don't want to be an artist then you are not one. The point being only you can determine that, not me or anyone else. I might think you are a bad, sh*ty, poor etc, artist and your art sucks but if you say it is art then it is art. Oh, and I'm not giving you a break.</i><p>

Okay. I want to be a Brain Surgeon. All I have to say is I Are One. :) <p>

Would you like anesthesia with that today, Sir?

First of all thanks for your many interesting replys (lots of them) My take on is Photography art is, No it is not, i think it is a highly skilled Hobby and or Profession, when done well (like many members on here). The Digital age as made it much easyer to produce good Photographs for us to call it Art,after all the actual image is created by the Camera (and prosessing softwere) even though there is a skilled (or not) Photographer behind the Lens. An Artist to me is somone who can create somthing with there hands, and simple tools to make a object, or visual effect we call Art. Thanks again for all your response. Terry :-)

Oh by the way this is Art, but not realy Photography.<div></div>

Art:

Artifact

Artificial

 

Art = anything a person deliberatly assembles after a series of decision making.

 

beyond that, it's all categorizing.

No. It is only a medium like many others in which it is possible, but difficult, to do art.

I agree. Monet had it easy; he could move things around at will, change colors etc. A photographer is pretty much stuck with what's in front of the lens.

 

Digital image processing has opened the door to photographers to be much more creative than before.

This "is photography art" thing has gone around more and traveled farther than the clap in the Medieval age. And it's about as welcome.

 

One thing is certain - if all the jerkwater self-impressed declarations read here and elsewhere were to become more well known, then the curators, historians and critics would create domains, fields and categories that would definitely create an "ART IS THIS!" case and you all could take up stamp collecting and reading tea leaves to make a difference. Wait. You are doing that now!

 

Never mind.

I suppose photography is art if you choose to call it such. After all, these definitions are all subjective.

<i>I suppose photography is art if you choose to call it such. After all, these definitions are all subjective.</i><p>

Everything is defined as subjective to the egocentric.

Good ol' Pico, always there with the nasty retort.

of course it's art. why? because i say so.

<b>david lee</b><i><p>

of course it's art. why? because i say so.</i><p>

Darn. What's the emoticon for tongue-in-cheek?<p>

<b>Terry Foster</b><i><p>

Is Photography a form of Art? if so is it expressed through the Camera, or the PC (Photo editing software) </i><p>

Uh, where is the person in your question? And one can make a photograph without a camera and lens or film, or software.<p>

But to the point: why is important whether photography can or cannot be art? Aren't we over-valuing this Art Thing? Is photography less-than because it can be argued that it is not art? <b>What the devil is wrong with photography being photography!</b> <p>

Okay, call me the guy ranting that he doesn't want his photography commingled with the nasty, nitpicking Art arguments! You say it ain't art? You say it is? So what? It's not like what one thinks about an object effects the object. I mean like does it lose archival quality, curl up and turn yellow, drop pixels or blow up if someone doesn't like it? Nope. It is still there, being its subversive powerful self - photography.

I can not believe all the uneducated remarks this question has brought forth. Ignorance is one thing. Broadcasting it for all the world to see is another.

 

By the way, Dominic Rouse, one of photo.net members recently won a world famous Spider Award (in Los Angeles) for his photographic art. When you go to his photos you will see his work is very infrequently viewed and almost never commented on. One of his photos is rated 4.27 average. Of course few photo.net users even know what the Spider Awards are! In short, photographic art seems to be wasted on photo.net. What a shame. I blame a lot of this on the PAST (mis)administration of photo.net.

 

With work from many, many photographers hanging in very famous ART MUSEUMS all over the world I am simply amazed that this question would be asked - and even more amazed at some of the uneducated and ignorant responses.

<b>Steve Bingham</b> <i>[...]With work from many, many photographers hanging in very famous ART MUSEUMS all over the world I am simply amazed that this question would be asked - and even more amazed at some of the uneducated and ignorant responses.</i><p>

 

Steve, we understand that many persons have a great investment in willful ignorance. Their view is entirely self-fulfilling. It permits one to say things like "If I say I am doing art, then I am doing art!" without having to qualify it against the world. By maintaining this state of mind they create a perfect feedback loop; they will always be right in their own limited view. And I am NOT saying it is a Bad Thing! <p>

 

What IS Bad is the unwarranted angst. It is unfortunate that some of those in question elevate Art to some level that makes them feel "less than", as if their play, therapy, hobby, passion should automatically be world important or famous. It should suffice that their work makes them happy! But some become angry. It's silly. <p>

 

Perhaps some actually know or suspect how difficult it is to be a practicing artist - that the practicing artist studies the domains of art and knows at least his own field very well in order to make works that speak to the same. The practicing artist rarely stands alone; he listens, looks, studies and trials his ideas within the domain-field he seeks, and keeps working to communicate to his peers. That is hard work. <p>

 

The many fairy tales of the lone artist as a great, defiant and idiosyncratic individual have fostered persons who wish it were true. It is not true. It rare, and as many beautifully brilliant lone individuals exist in everyday endeavors that the later should be subject of praise, but Hollywood, European myth makers prevail. <i>If someone thinks they are the lone brilliant artist, then he should be brilliant enough to rise from the myth.</i> Further, keep in mind that <i>if one claims he is self-taught, he had best have an outstanding instructor.</i> (One cannot be outstanding in a field of one.)<p>

 

Now I make silly comments sometimes because I can, and often because I am often laid up home, ill. (Old age ain?t for sissies.) Nobody reads it anyway. For example, this comment: Photography is unique in the visual 'arts' because anyone can make a picture without understanding what is happening, what they made. It is also tightly coupled with "ownership" of "gear" for many. Just those two things are, as far as I can understand, rather unique to tools within the domain of the visual arts, and they are compelling obsessions which distract the would-be artist and even the consummate 'professional' at times.

is breathing a form of respiration?

 

Is sleep a form of resting?

 

is napping a form of sleeping?

 

is water a form of beverage?

 

is meat a form of food?

 

is light a form of radiation?

 

is matter composed of atoms?

 

Photography is a form of expression. Some times what gets expressed is "art", mosttimes

its not.

 

Cameras, lenses, film ,chemistry, silver, and yes digital media and processing are just the

tools that get used.

just for the record: i was trying to make a duchamp quote in a funny style. ( there goes my

carrer as a stand up comedian...)

sorry. "career". ( with this kind of writing, dave barry does not have nothing to fear...)

<b>Ellis Vener</b> [... snipped part I don't fathom ...]

<i>

Photography is a form of expression. Some times what gets expressed is "art", mosttimes its not.

</i><p>

So, you believe "art" should titilate the senses even when it leaves the mind numb? You know, with all the claims that art should elicit an emotional reaction, I find it strange that many don't realize that the intellectual AH HA! is one powerful emotion.

<p>

<i>Cameras, lenses, film ,chemistry, silver, and yes digital media and processing are just the tools that get used.</i><p>

"Just the tools" is a way to minimize considering the possibility that the tool-user is obeying the tool rather than the opposite.

<b>david lee</b> <i>

just for the record: i was trying to make a duchamp quote in a funny style. </i><p>

Marcel Duchamp could be hilarious and possibly bitterly correct at the same time.

<p>

While it doesn?t have quotes, here?s a cool site: http://www.understandingduchamp.com/

absolutely

especially for the humor impaired.

I appreciate your response to my previous statement, Pico. Actually I applaud it (not that it really matters).

yes.

But then so is a roll of toilet paper sprayed with silver paint.

It's all about venue.

 

What's considered art in one place (and therefore worth selecting, discussing, promoting, selling, etc.) may be considered pedestrian or junk or trite or whatever somewhere else. I show my work on a regular basis on this site, in a camera club, and at an art league, and the differences are striking. I can't think of any images that have been well received in all three venues.