I have a question?

<p>I agree mostly with Tim and Laurentiu. I think your original is a great capture. It spotlights the subjects and captures <em>their</em> feelings, contrasted against a de-emphasized mass of humaninty going about their mundane tasks. One of your best shots, Javier!!</p>

<p>Pure still photography is in capturing a moment in time. The impact of the moment depends on the circumstance (the raising of the Flag on Iwo Jima for example). The art of this pure photography is in the photographer's ability to see it from a certain perspective, angle, just the right timing of action, and lighting, to fully bring out the impact that is present. Lighting can be manipulated by using altered exposure, filters, flash, etc.</p>

<p>Then there were pioneer photographers, like Ansel Adams, who also used post process tools to enhance reality, and thus enhance the impact of reality. This went beyond on-the-spot capture of the moment.</p>

<p>Then came advanced use of post process to do just about anything the imagination can come up with. Pin some one's head on another's body- or on a donkey's ass! Whatever. The realm of the free-hand artist is thus entered. A foot in both worlds. After all, a free-hand artist can come up with anything the inventive imagination can conger, not bound by reality at all. It is still photography in the sense that the manipulation is of real subjects captured, but in terms of use of post process manipulation to an extreme, the reality of the moment can be totally altered rather than enhanced, and the end result is the product of pure creative imagination- less like a photographer and much like the free-hand artist.</p>

<p>It is not that any of this is bad, it is just that these distinct categories, and the type of art in each should be recognized for what it is.</p>

<p>Hi all, <br>

First I have to admit I've really only skimmed the responses here (limited time today), but what I have caught shows you have all put some thought into this question at one point or another. All intelligent and thought provoking answers. <br>

Speaking as a musician and photographer, I have always felt art was about the details - the choices the artist makes. Therein lies the intentions of the artist. The details you control or choose not to control to make your statement and the content (which is the art's choice) are what makes it art. It may not speak to everyone. "Chance" music, when the composer leaves certain elements of the musical composition to random chance, is no less art than Mozart or Bach, but I'd venture to say the latter have more broad appeal. How successful you or your work is is a matter of how well it communicates your intentions to your audience. <br>

That's my take on it; I suppose it's a rather loose and generous definition of the term. <br>

Good topic, though, Javier!<br>

Sean</p>

<p>I can add a little here too. Whether or not a picture is painted or photographed is not the point. It is whether the painter or photographer has communicated with the viewer on some level. As many photographs are ordinary so can a painting be ordinary. Painters often use different techniques, e.g., cropping, color, shading, etc., to project their vision. A certain A. Adams is a good example of a photographer who manipulated his work to express his vision. He spent many more hours in the darkroom than he did in the field. One of his most famous works was manipulated by the use of a red filter which darkened the subject thus fulfilling his vision of 'Monolith.' I like to manipulate an image to see what else I can get out of it challenging myself to see better. Just my ¢¢.</p>

<p>I actually noticed the contrast between the couple and the background people only after ME posted his crop. I liked the crop, but I felt something was missing, so when I went back to the original to see what got cut, I realized there was actually a contrast I didn't initially observed. And then I liked the shot even more.<br>

So, maybe art is something that stimulates the discovery of meaning. But then the definition broadens so much that it would include tarot.<br>

Can an art form be just a pretext for thinking that will often result in other meaning beyond the original intent being attributed to the artistic work?<br>

Another aspect is that "art" is really a measure of success, especially as it reflects on the "artist". Will take painting as an example. Are all painters artists, or only the successful ones? When does a painter become an artist, and can an artist fall back to being a mere painter, or does artistry imply tenure?</p>

<p>Laurentiu C wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Another aspect is that "art" is really a measure of success, especially as it reflects on the "artist". Will take painting as an example. Are all painters artists, or only the successful ones?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One of my favorite pop rock bands from the 70s, 10cc, answered that question better than anyone else in my book with the line</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Art for Art's sake, money for God's sake</p>

</blockquote>

<p>'Nuff said.<br>

ME</p>

<p>So much to ponder and more questions. I really appreciate all the responses and comments. The various opinions is also very cool. I will be back in a bit with a few more comments. I have to ponder some things here.</p>

<p>Good trains of thought here.</p>

<p>Eloquent as usual Paul.</p>

<p>One thought: I hesitate to tie popularity with the definition of art. That would in the modern world prevent Pentax from being a "serious artist's" tool - because it is not a popular enough camera brand. And would that mean that Britney is a better ARTIST than the amazing first violinist at the Royal Philharmonic?</p>

<p>One thing I have discovered is how one can really mix things up to explore one's <em><strong>own</strong> </em> appreciation of "art". Here is a new favorite of mine:</p>

<ul>

<li>Take a few music videos by very talented and very good-looking dancers (but maybe you don't enjoy the music that much) like Shakira or Jennifer Lopez, and mute the sound while playing Mozart loudly in good quality earphones!! What a revelation! Now that is art!!!! </li>

</ul>

<p>I don't think it's necessary to distinguish between photography and art. Whether an image is conceived behind the lens or at the computer it is still a valid artistic expression. If it's good art, then it should be appreciated. I think this question comes up most often when people fail behind the lens then try to jazz it up on the computer. Great photoshop work rarely gets questioned, because if it's great you probably can't tell that it's photoshoped. As mentioned earlier in the thread, most of the popular manipulation techniques are obvious fads. It's very popular right now to make otherworldy images that bear no resemblence to reality. What attracts me to photography is the idea that my photographs capture the truth. They may be far from objective, but without question they have an element of truth. As with literature there is definitely a place for fiction, but to stand on its own it must have truth and emotional resonance. Photography is a means of telling a story, communicating emotion and perspective. Photoshop is just a bit of style to be mixed in.<br>

In short, good photography is good out of the camera and better with a little help. Bad photography is still bad photography no matter how much glitz you add in post.</p>

<p>ME: I have no idea what 10cc were talking about. Sounds like a circular reference including undefined concepts.<br>

One of the points I was trying to make with success was that if you're getting really good at something, people will start calling you an artist, regardless of whether what you're doing is an established art form.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>That would in the modern world prevent Pentax from being a "serious artist's" tool</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is no such thing as an "artist's tool" - there are just tools. Nobody builds tools for "artists" - you just build tools to answer certain requirements and specifications.</p>

<p>I agree Laurentiu. But in that case, if any tool can be used to produce art, then the definition of art is only in the mind of the creator and the appreciator, irrespective of tool, of popularity, of measurable success, etc.<br>

 <br>

If you pick up a camera to make art, well done. You have accomplished your goal. It is art. Wether other people agree with you is an entirely other matter, but they have no right to define your work as non-art.</p>

<p>Javier, if you've taken a photograph, then you've created Art. The question is whether or not it is good Art or bad Art. You were trying to say something with your photo so you took the tools available to you and used them on your photograph to make your point clearer. Painters do it, musicians do it, writers do it... Photographers do it too.</p>

<p>Here is an excerpt from <a href="http://enticingthelight.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/the-more-things-change/">an article</a> I wrote earlier this year that I think applies to our discussion:</p>

<p><em>A camera can capture a scene literally, but that’s not how human vision works, nor memory. Because of this limitation in our perception (or is it an advantage?), we, as artists, have to manipulate images in one way or another, either before or after shooting (or both!), in order to reproduce, not reality, but our vision, both literal and metaphorical. After all, it has never been the artist’s goal to reproduce reality, but rather to transmit the emotion reality evokes.</em></p>

<p>As for your photo, it is superb in every interpretation. And it is Art, whether you like it or not.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The question is whether or not it is good Art or bad Art.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You've just changed the problem from defining what is "Art" to defining what is "good Art" - a definition is still needed.</p>

<p>Ummm... I don't think something that started out as "just a photograph" can become "art" through photoshop.... unless it's because it's been included as part of a larger work, as in a collage or assemblage. IMO, "art" starts out as art. Snapshots do not elevate themselves to become works of art the day the photographer becomes famous. And likewise, works of art are never just snapshots because the artist is unknown. For my purposes, art is intentional and is something that the artist has created for a purpose. If by "art" you actually mean "digital illustration" then yes, a snapshot can become a digital illustration with a few clicks of a mouse. And yes, that is often pawned off as "art".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You've just changed the problem from defining what is "Art" to defining what is "good Art" - a definition is still needed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure Laurentiu: Good Art is that which <em>you</em> like, it's that which moves you, it's that which stirs up emotion in you. I'm serious, I don't think we need to go any further than that, nor get any more esoteric. Let others write doctoral theses about what constitutes good Art—my definition works fine for me.</p>

<p>A related topic I wrote about in January; might be of interest to some:</p>

<p><a href="http://enticingthelight.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/image-manipulation-is-it-worthy-of-being-photography/">Image Manipulation: Is It Worthy of Being “Photography”?</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sure Laurentiu: Good Art is that which <em>you</em> like, it's that which moves you, it's that which stirs up emotion in you. I'm serious, I don't think we need to go any further than that, nor get any more esoteric. Let others write doctoral theses about what constitutes good Art—my definition works fine for me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But how can we talk about art and artists without agreeing on what those are through a definition that is precise and not subjective (not about what *I* like). I am just pointing out a problem - in the absence of a definition we all agree upon, everyone discussing art here is really having a sort of monologue, talking about the things they like, about their personal concept of art. My big question is: why don't we simply like it(*) and talk about how it moves us and what emotions it stirs in us and what thoughts it stimulates in us, instead of using this label - art?<br>

(*) where "it" is the object formerly qualified as art</p>

<p>As a separate note, I don't think a preoccupation with creating art is healthy. People should just try to improve their skills and their intellect and apply them to their craft - striving for perfection in your field is important, not this pursuit of art - that will come sooner or later if you're successful and it doesn't mean anything else than that some other guys finally figured out what you were doing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am just pointing out a problem - in the absence of a definition we all agree upon, everyone discussing art here is really having a sort of monologue, talking about the things they like, about their personal concept of art.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I suppose that's why I tend to stay away from this type of discussion :-)</p>

<p>And that's why I suggest we call it <em>all</em> Art, then we can spend our time discussing whether or not we like it, and why.</p>

<p>Maybe some inspiration from my "friend" Salvador Dali:</p>

<ul>

<li>"Drawing is the honesty of the art. There is no possibility of cheating. It is either good or bad." </li>

<li>" Have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it. "</li>

<li>"Painting is an infinitely minute part of my personality.” </li>

</ul>

<p>Interpolate with "photography" where possible.....Keep clicking!</p>

<p>Misere,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>if you've taken a photograph, then you've created Art.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I took my car to the crash repairer last week. The guy took a digital photograph of the scratches I wanted repaired, and a photograph of the number plate. I don't think these photographs are Art (or even art). My friend takes photographs of houses for real estate agents. She doesn't call those photographs art. She used to do line drawings of houses for the same agents. She didn't call those drawings art either, but she is recognised as a successful artist for other work she does.</p>

<p>My point is that the intended purpose of the photograph, or drawing, has to be a factor in deciding if it is art or not, along with the quality of the finished work.</p>

<p>I agree that all photographs are not art. Some are just for the purpose of doing a job- from forensic work to making pics of a kid's birthday party.</p>

<p>I do not quite agree with Patrick. Art is not restricted by definition as having to always be something that is planned or layed out. Sometimes it is spontaneous. Take music and improvisation, for example.</p>

<p>In photography, there are various distinct categories like fashion, scenic or landscape, journalistic, etc. and any of these can convey meaning, have an impact on the viewer and and be artful. It can be planned, or it can be very opportunistic. With street photography, one knows not what may occur from one moment to the next, although in some circumstances, a degree of planning can be appropriate. This is true in other forms of journalistic photography, and in other categories as well.</p>

<p>Unlike free-hand art, in many cases like Javier's shot, the photographer does not create the scenes, but has the eye and technical capability to extract something meaningful in a scene that may otherwise go unnoticed, and present it in a dynamic way. One could indeed plan and make the same scene, using models and photoshop to superimpose them on the background, conveying the same meaning and effect. But IMHO, this is not as meaningful as capturing an actual occurance where this meaning is manifest in reality, and capturing it from the best angle and lighting at just the right timing. That is a different kind of talent, and knowing the scene is truly from reality has its own degree of effect.</p>

<p>There is even an art to sports photography in capturing the drama in a way that brings its impact to the viewer.</p>

<p>Well, I really don't know what to say. It seems like ''ART'' is like street shooting. There are many different definitions and and while some are dogmatic in their beliefs, others like myself are not.<br>

But If I can go back to the OP and in particular <a href="http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/755802-post495.html">this image</a> , To me, this is not a photograph, but it is created and thus to me it is ART. Yes, it is an image we can see with our eyes and yes it did start out as a photograph, but someplace, there has to be a line drawn. One thing I never do is enter photo contest, because to often it comes down to who has the best PP skills...Sure, I can do the very basics, but even then, I try to get the capture right the first time or as close as possible...One of the reasons I like street shooting is because many rules are thrown out the door....Motion blur or out of focus? Cool, crooked? cool, over exposed? cool,...Under exposed?, cool...rules of thirds? What rule?...Capturing the moment is what it is about...Sure you still want to do your best with exposer, composition, etc...But it comes secondary..</p>

<p><strong>Example...</strong> Another reason I enjoy street shooting so much is because it requires getting out there in the trenches and doing it. The main reason I like short lenses for street shooting is because ''I'' become a part of the scene. With a short lens, I am forced to get in and personal. Sure it means I will get cussed out at times and certainly get my fair share of dirty looks, but by far I have had many great encounters and some wonderful emotional captures..With a lenses from 10-35mm which is what I use 99% of the time, I basically have a 30 foot space to work with. Most often I am in the 5-15 foot range to get a good picture....Perhaps the technique or how I go about it could be considered an ''ART'', but I would not consider myself an artist, though many I am sure would...In truth, I do not even consider my self a photographer...As far as PP goes, I personally draw the line when you begin to add things that where not there. I see people adding moons to landscape shots, clouds, suns, etc and too me that is ''ART''...Taking things out as in cloning is also OK, by my view, ''with in reason''.....</p>

<p>As far as the Image I posted above, I have cropped off the sides about 15% or so to give it more of a square or portrait view as I like that better than the landscape view for street images.I also left the people in the back ground to give it some context, which is another reason I like lenses with tons of DOF..This of course is a style thing and part of the overall ''ART''.....</p>

<p>I tell you, I have enjoyed this conversation very much and hope more people will contribute. I will go back and read the entire thread in one passing tomorrow during work....<br>

By the way, the image I posted, was just as an example...To me it is borderline art, but that is me. :)</p>

<p>Let me add some fuel with some "what if" scenarios:<br>

~~~<br />You look at Javier's image and you like it. It looks great and it makes you think: "that is art in my book!"<br>

Now, imagine that one of the following would happen:<br>

A - you find out that Javier paid the people in the picture to sit in that pose and the whole scene was directed by him<br>

B - you find out that the photo is a collage and the people have been pasted in from a separate shot<br>

C - you find out that the image is computer generated (Javier works at ILM)<br>

How would these affect the way you feel about the image and your appreciation of its artistic attributes?<br />~~~</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Peter Barnes wrote:<br>

I took my car to the crash repairer last week. The guy took a digital photograph of the scratches I wanted repaired, and a photograph of the number plate. I don't think these photographs are Art (or even art). My friend takes photographs of houses for real estate agents. She doesn't call those photographs art. She used to do line drawings of houses for the same agents. She didn't call those drawings art either, but she is recognised as a successful artist for other work she does.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I once attended an exhibit featuring a collection of Michaelangelo's sketches and drawings depicting ideas he would later paint and sculpt. The museum showcasing them considered them very much Art.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My point is that the intended purpose of the photograph, or drawing, has to be a factor in deciding if it is art or not, along with the quality of the finished work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The intended purpose... Interesting... Allow me to introduce you to <a href="http://enticingthelight.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/the-cat-that-fought-back/">Cooper.</a> Is it his intention to create Art...?</p>

<p>Don't think I'm picking on you, Peter—I'm just trying to fan the flames a bit :-)</p>