any resources of photography that is actually art, and not just perfected craft?

<p>I have trouble finding pictures that i like. I think that sites like 500px.com have almost exclusively pictures that are perfected craft - but nowhere close art. These pictures does not contain any kind of emotional message from neither author or subject of photography. They are simpy uninteresting.<br>

Only place worth visiting online i know is americansuburbx.com. I'd like to know more of these, especially places with user-generated content.<br>

Do you know anything?</p>

 

<p>Not completely true about 500px, but I understand what you are saying. Try jpgmag.com. You have to wade through a lot of bad snapshots, but the good stuff is there for the finding.</p>

<p>There are a few photos in the galleries here, should be 100% user generated too. :)</p>

<p>How do you define art?</p>

<p>What is perfected craft, and what is art?<br>

The fact that you find them uninteresting does not mean they're not art. The fact that they are crafted extremely well does not mean they're not art.<br>

They're just not to your taste. Which is fine, can happen.</p>

<p>I find interesing photos (to my taste) everywhere. Flickr, here, pbase, facebook, 500px, google image search... plenty good stuff out there. And even more stuff I do not like, but I'm not too bothered by that.</p>

<p>500px are postacard pictures. Amazing, perfect, postard pictures. These pictures are result of great experience and knowledge. However, soul is the missing piece. These pictures were created merely with brain, not heart. They are not affected by personality of creator. These are pictures you just admire visually, rather than experiencing emotionally.<br />Learning rules of composition, perfecting exposure and spending few hours in photoshop is not enought to create art, and these are only components of pictures such as these on 500px.<br />I undersand that such explanation is not sufficient to define art, and my complains remains unclear, but this is the best i can do.</p>

<p>Try the better photo art blogs (google that). They're infinitely more selective and well edited. </p>

<p>Try black and white magazine, and for that matter color magazine. also lenswork.</p>

<p>Another source for good artwork imho is deviantart.com.. its a mixed bag but you can find some great stuff and great ideas.</p>

anybody who truly work's at any field of en devour will become a skilled person and their results will show it. but to see the main stream of the run of the mill facebook is where its at :

<p>Hi Pawel, Americansuburb is one of my favourites too for (mainly) contemporary photographs with an American angle. But have you tried the 'concientious' blog at jmcloberg.com? It is very well regarded and also one of my favourites. It is an excellent overview of contemporary art photography with a more European angle ( though it covers the whole world too - check out their extensive archives). Also the photobook video reviews are highly reccomended.</p>

<p>As your reference to americansuburbx.com clearly illustrates, the truth is the old saw:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Art is in the eye of the beholder</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Regardless of the question of technical perfection or not, much of what is there would be described by some people as merely "trendy". Look a the contemporary (with the artist/photographer) reception of Robert Frank or Diane Arbus to see how touchy this issue is. Dismissal of other points of view about these issues is not too productive, as those controversies show very clearly now that we can see them in historical perspective.</p>

<p>"Interesting" is also another trait coming from the observer, not the photographer.</p>

Just a side thought: I think that non-artists, like myself, tend to romanticize the artistic work a little bit. We sometimes think

that art is something that comes from the "soul" through some kind of purely innate talent or divine inspiration. Pablo

Picaso said that "inspiration exists, but it has to find you working". In fact, true artistic expression comes through mastery

of the craft. One has to master the craft in order to fully express his/her soul. The technique also influences the

expression, just as much the language influences the thought. Therefore perfectioning the craft also helps to perfection

the expression of the soul. Joseph Haydn was a very methodical worker, with strict working routines. Does it make his

music soul-less? Leonardo da Vinci is the quintessential workaholic. He scrupulously perfected and documented every

aspect of his technique in any field. In this sense he was obsessed by his craft. Does it make of him a lesser artist? I

doubt "artists" who work only by the soul. I tend to believe they produce random pieces whose style they cannot

reproduce consistently. Even improvisation requires perfection of the craft, otherwise it is just random noise. Pawel, I am

not implying you meant any of this. This is just a side remark. I just sometimes don't get this "soul" thing. All the best!

<p>Try featureshoot.com, which updates just about daily. Also has an useful list of links in the right margin. Not user generated, but a good place to find interesting photography.</p>

<p>1x.com is a lot of fun as well. <br>

Google+ is very worthwhile for photography, but it takes a while to get the hang of how it works. It helps if you can search for a few favorite artists and then see who they are connected with (they call it circles). There is also a fair amount of dross but that's show biz.</p>

<p>ME</p>

<p>I'm reminded of a favorite quote from Chuck Close: "Amateurs look for inspiration; the rest of us just get up and go to work."<br /><br />He says this in the context of craft and mastery of it as being foundational to expression through a particular medium.</p>

<p>B&W magazine</p>

<p>"inspiration exists, but it has to find you working"</p>

<p>I like that one.</p>

<p>The only thing I would add is that you CAN be inspired by someone ELSE'S work, which may spur you on to working with that inspiration.</p>

<p>Paulo, great points.</p>

<p>If an image has soul (to you, as a viewer), it is because you see that in the picture. The photo may trigger something inside you that resonates with your emotions. It is *not* a characteristic of the photo itself, as the next viewer may not see it, shrug and continue.<br>

So what are great sites for some to find interesting photos may be horrible to others. <em>De gustibus</em>.....</p>

<p>Though not user-generated I find these sites inspiring<br>

http://fractionmagazine.com/<br>

http://zoltanjokay.de/zoltanblog/</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Art is in the eye of the beholder</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd say <em>taste</em> is in the eye of the beholder.</p>

<p><em>Art</em> is in the hands of the artist, and the eye of the curator, the critic, the historian. It is also culturally determined. It is personal and it is inter-personal.* And there may be criteria like beauty, expressiveness, and representation, among others, to consider. </p>

<p>I like to think of it more as a discussion than a definition and as being more communal and historical than individual or current.</p>

<p>I think that the debate of soul versus craft misses the mark in regard to art by avoiding the very important intermediate characteristics that the last post begins to mention (criteria) and that include many other facets including the evocation of compositional beauty, symbolism, passion, vision, emotion, a certain communication between humans, an unexpected and/or enigmatic image/subject, and an image that convinces one of something more significant than just a pretty place or a pretty picture that is nonetheless well-crafted. The characteristics of a spiritual or secular soul relate to the person more than to the work, although some of the above characteristcs present in a creative work may come from the mental state of the artist.</p>

<p>Craft is like a language. Once you have sufficiently mastered it, it becomes a matter of what you say and not the nature or perfection of the language alone. </p>

<p>You will find many artistic images in some of the numbers of the former Time-Life series on photography, in some of the work on the blog sites mentioned by Luis, and in some images on the present site (although your definition and examples of art may differ from those of others). </p>

<p>Arthur, well said. Art and photography are not about pitting craft and inspiration against each other. Art and good photography grow out of their integration.</p>

<p>For some reason, another old saw springs to mind:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A distinction without a difference.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that in most cases photographer is the tool, and camera is the master.</p>

<p>This is not the photographer who decide to take picture of sea during sunset, while applying rule of thirds. We know it will look good and this is why we are doing it. Our pictures reflect cravings of the medium, rather than photographer's personality.</p>

<p>Photography is not reflection of our lives, but addition to them. It has nothing to do with who we are outside photography. We just take pictures of what we think will look good at the screen, and often that's the only criterion. This is commercial photography, even if nothing is advertised directly. </p>

<p>Hey look, if you peruse through images here on this site, as well as any other site where people post their own images, you will find "art" if you know what you want. If you want someone to pre-select images for you to make it easy, you are just being lazy. Actually, your post seems to me more like a "troll" just to elicit responses. Yeah, of course many photographers try very hard to make "pretty" pictures, but that has been going on for a long time, big deal. Some people make a very good living doing just that. Then you have the people who are trying very hard to be "cutting edge." They often make images that are so conceptual that hardly anyone can relate to them, but this is often what art galleries are looking for, and they make a good living doing that too. What appeals to anyone is entirely personal. To me "art" is the product of any person expressing their creativity. I have seen a lot of images that I like very much here on this site. I don't need a bunch of crap about "what is photography," thank you. </p>

<p>Pawel, I very much in agreement with Fred and Arthur above.<br>

Have you tried to look at <a href="http://www.saatchionline.com/">Saatchi online</a> galleries and you will find many good photographical works from around the world, that some curators would designate as art (browse the database with "Photography" as category). At least I find sometimes more inspiration there, than in purely photographical sites like this one or Flickr.</p>