What Makes Photography "Art"?

BTW if you have an MFA what are you doing working in a hospital? Just wondering.

 

As a pro photographer/graphic designer I am at the top of the game in medical photography (also have a BS in biology). I enjoy photographing the 1st, the amazing, & the most bizarre medical cases as well as working with docs on the cutting edge of medical science.

<i>I enjoy photographing the 1st, the amazing, & the most bizarre medical cases as well as working with docs on the <b>cutting edge</b> of medical science.</i><br><br>

 

Now I'm thinking scalpels and things. And it has me thinking a room full of macro grass might be comforting for folks that feel as uneasy around that sort of stuff as I do. It is definitely more original than more flowers or mountains. Assuming this is a place that has patients and not just researchers, or that even researchers need a place to breathe. Prolly the choice of grass more about creating a space of comfort/zen than of reflection and questioning. Just a thought.

you go to whoever is in charge and say, ' may I speak with you?',, then when you are given the opportunity,, you politely tell them you don't think the wall hangings are attractive and you aren't the only one who thinks they are not very artistic.,,, BUT all of this would have to wait till YOU found something that can/could adequately replace them. it is easy to criticize but not so easy to do sometimes.

I'm starting to see this may be a place to zone out & the photos are just wallpaper to create an environmental feel (Soyent Green). I am Zen with that. I still would have chosen a different collection with more creativity in the capture.

I was just thinking of Soylent Green. Grunewald's Crucifixon was painted for a hospital, but that was a different time, and times change.

 

 

--

 

Don E

Go ahead and let them buy the stuff. Let it be hung up and displayed. Don't say anything, Soon the pictures will come down and move to some office spaces where they will fall off the wall, then they will be stored in that little room where the janitors keep their stuff and the paper for the copier is stored. At this point some of the glass will break. You will be contacted on what to do with this art work. Accept the task immediately. You will now be the happy owner of some 20 expensive picture frames into which you can insert some better stuff. All of this will take about a year.

<b>Thomas Gardner</b> <i> What's art?</i><p>

What is what?<p>

What is 'is' is what you are looking for. Soylent green is in your face. It's a classic.

<I>"I would add to the above that if you list nudes as art you should specify female nudes. The reson for that is simply that most viewers on this site are simply not used to seeing a dick."</I>

<P>

Ben you continue to amaze me.

Photos of cut grass instead of photos of cut glass ?

 

So that makes my post not relevant...

"What is what?"

 

Look to the end of your question for your answer.

 

Without definition as to the word "art," there's only capricious (whimsy) at best for an answer and the moment you define art, art dies.

<p>I think your question would have been phrased better as: <i>What makes a

photo "Art"?</i> My point being that the "art" is present in the photograph <b>

not</b> the act of photography i.e. photography is not an art. :))</p>

 

<p>I recommend you consider some of the photography of Alfred Stieglitz

specifically his <i>Equivalents</i> series including <i>Grasses, Lake George</i>,

1933 as well as some of the conceptual photography of Jan Dibbets including <i>

Perspective correction - square in grass, Vancouver</i>, 1969 a good description

of which is contained in Lucy Soutter's article

<a href="http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2479/is_5_26/ai_54421750/pg_1">

The photographic idea: reconsidering conceptual photography</a>.</p>

<p>The point being that the non-aesthetic almost "dead-pan" style of these types

of photographs is usually a clear indication that they should not be taken at

face value.</p>

 

<p>Cheers...John.</p>

"The point being that the non-aesthetic almost "dead-pan" style of these types of photographs is usually a clear indication that they should not be taken at face value."

 

Nicely put. It's something that seems to be overlooked by many photographers when looking at conceptual art. Usually the reaction is "My 2 week old daughter can do better than that" or "If you have to read a description or have an art background to understand something then the photographer has failed" etc. etc.

 

As I always say, some photography is meant to be dealt with at some point behind the retina.

Stanley Marsh, 3, an eccentric Texas millionaire and ardent supporter of "the arts" is the only person I know who has ever definitively answered the question, "What is art?"

 

On his ranch, leaning against a barn, are three large plywood letters, an "A", an "R", and a "T". He keeps them there so that, when anyone asks him, "What is art?", he can say, "It's those three letters leaning against my barn."

 

His explanation is about as good as it gets. For the rest of us, art is subjective. Mr. Marsh can prove his answer.

There are countless situations in which photography is employed that have nothing whatever to do with 'art'. Rather it is employed merely as a tool in the same manner that paint and brush can render the Mona Lisa or decorate a barn!

Witkin photographs are art. i don't like them one bit and i wouldn't hang them in a

hospital. ( or anywhere else).

Art is both human and divine. When humans make art we are doing something to show others or sometimes even yourself, a feeling.

 

Nature is it's own art, we can only capture bits and pieces of it.

 

Human art is expression.

It is a very simple question with a very simple answer. What makes anything art? It depends on who you ask.

The best response I can think comes from a quote by E H Gombrich when introducing "The Story of Art"

 

"There is no such thing as Art - only artists"