I have a question?

<p>Ok, I have been wanting to ask this ? for a while...At what point does a photograph become art? For example. Take a look at this link. <a href="http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/755802-post495.html">http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/755802-post495.html</a><br>

When I first saw the image, my first thought was, ''what an amazing photograph'', Then to the posters credit, I read his esplanation....So it went from an Amazing photo, to what a great photoshop job..Image by adobe is how I saw it and see it now....<br>

BUT.....Most of us manipulate images to a certain extent. I usually crop and convert to black and white and add some simulated grain and contrast to my images to give them more of a film look..So is this now a photo by Adobe?</p>

<p>Ok, Here is an example. Here was a picture I made today, but as in many street photos, I had to take it fast so I do not miss the moment. Hence, I was shooting straight into the sun with the ISO set way high at 1600 and ended up with a poorly exposed photo, but I like the image...To save it, I added fake film grain and added a blue tint to it, while burning the outer edges...As a result, I rather like the finished product, but is it now ''ART''? Did I go to far? Is it still a photograph? This has been a ? that has been running through my head for a long time now...Where is the limit? Is there a limit? Am I smoking crack?<br>

<strong>Original, crop only..K20D with Vivitar 24mm</strong><br>

<img src="http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/pp128/jgredline/Street%206/IMGP5701a.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<strong><br /> </strong><br>

<strong>Photo by adobe?</strong><br>

<img src="http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/pp128/jgredline/Street%206/IMGP5701g.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>As my students would start out, "According to Webster's Dictionary art is..."<br>

Anyway,<br>

Art ultimately is something that derivers an emotional response. So IMHO a photograph becomes art when you read something more in it than just the image.</p>

<p>Here is a short selection of random personal thoughts on art:<br>

"Art is something we feel, not something we think, so an explanation of art will most likely kill it"<br>

"Meh"<br>

"It's whatever you want it to be, as long as you find enough people agreeing with you"<br>

"Art is something that was done really, really well"<br>

I cannot yet reach an agreement on this issue, but I'll be happy to contribute confusion in any debate around what constitutes art :)</p>

 

<p>Artists and those who love art have asked the quesiton, "What is art?", for centuries, if not millenia. I doubt if there is any nice, concise definition. I think that it is any image, object, written, spoken or sung work that evokes an emotional response in the audience.</p>

<p>I would exclude a simple snapshot from this definition. While a snapshot may bring on strong emotions, this is usually simply sparking a memory of the event depicted, or the person(s) in the picture.</p>

<p>True art touches you where you live; in your soul.</p>

<p>As far as using Photoshop, it is just another tool in the artists arsenal. It does not lessen the value of the art any more than the choice of brushes used to create an oil painting does. One may have a preference for images with minimal post processing, but that is merely a matter or personal taste, just as one may prefer watercolors to oils or sculpture to drawings. A work of art must be judged on its own, irrespective of the tools used in its creation.</p>

<p>That's why it doesn't matter whether a photograph was created with a Nikon, Canon or Pentax camera. They're just tools.<br>

Most of us here are really involved in two hobbies; creating "artistic" images; and buying and playing with expensive toys, our cameras. There's nothing wrong with the latter hobby, but we shouldn't fool ourselves that it is anything else. When we worry about how many megapixels our camera has or how many frames per second it can shoot, we're losing sight of the artistic side of this hobby.</p>

<p>Paul Noble</p>

<p>I agree with the Noble thoughts expressed. Incidentally, that's a great shot, Javier!</p>

<p>Javier, taking Douglas's comment a bit further, a completely un-post processed photo can have the ability to evoke emotion in a viewer, a very manipulated image of a boring, ordinary house for sale in a real estate advert will most likely evoke no emotion in any viewer. </p>

<p>So, whether or not a photograph is art has nothing, in my humble opinion, with how much it has been manipulated, either before, during or after the exposure. And making a photo look like a painting does not make it art. I have seen many paintings I would not call art, and many photographs not touched by image manipulation software that are definitely art. </p>

<p>But, like beauty, art is in the eyes, mind and heart of the beholder. Everybody's mileage varies.</p>

<p>I too agree, its emotion. And I agree, its a wonderful shot.<br>

The title for my shot should be *Can You Feel This*, forgot to proof...<br>

~Jack</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Javier (and everyone else of course),<br>

I too have have been pondering this question of late. It is somewhat interesting to me that at various points in the history of photography, photographs have been regarded as <em>not</em> art and, by extension, photographers as not artists. Many photographers have been frustrated or even angered by this assertion and have argued that they are indeed artists. Now, however, we have this debate somewhat turned on its head in that we have such potential to generate "digital art" now that many of us are wanting to be recognized as photographers and <em>not</em> as artists - a touch of irony, no?<br>

Now, do I know of a straight, clear path out of this debate? Unfortunately (and predictably, no doubt); no I don't. I am, however interested in the discussion. <br>

FWIW I tend to fall on the minimal manipulation end of the spectrum with my pics. There are several reasons for this: One, I'm fairly new to digital photography and, therefore, have not amassed the skills to be an effective post processor. Two, I have always sought to get what I want in the frame the first time and so, as I have transitioned to digital, this has still driven me to leave the photo as captured. I must admit, however, that my new found freedom to instantly review and later correct/alter my photos is changing the way I think when looking through the viewfinder. For better or worse? I don't know yet - different without valuation at this point, perhaps. Three, when I do set to work on editing a photo, I often find that I lose sight of whatever it was that led me to compose the photo in the first place. Sometimes, a simple crop or adjustment is obvious and will clearly enhance my original intent but, often, when I begin editing a photo I get lost in looking for a picture within the picture, if you will.<br>

All that said, please don't think that I disapprove of those who engage in extensive post processing because I do not - I simply don't have the skill, or vision, or impetus or whatever to do so myself. I have seen some extensively manipulated photos that are moving and impressive and I have seen some that are unpleasantly "overcooked" (a subjective judgment to be sure), and I have seen some, I expect, where the post processing is so subtle and seamless that I fail to know it is there. So, when does a photo become art, or was it always art and when does it become graphic art as opposed to photographic art? I don't know but count me as one of the people asking the question.<br>

T</p>

 

<p>Emotion is very subjective - when a photograph ceases to generate emotion in viewers, does it cease to be artistic, where it once was? And if that is true, then art is just a sign of the times and of the sensibilities of people in a certain time. Like fashion.</p>

<p>The question of "what is art?" has troubled people since the term <em>art</em> was first used.</p>

<p>The common saying "Art is in the eye of the beholder" is only half right, since art is also in the hands and mind of the creator.</p>

<p>More than that, I can only recommend that you pick up a few good art theory/philosophy type books. Three old classics of different traditions are --<br>

<br /> Benedetto Croce, <em>Aesthetic</em> <br /> Arnold Hauser, <em>The Philosophy of Art History</em> <br /> Suzanne K. Langer, <em>Philosophy in a New Key: A study in the symbolism of reason, rite, and art</em> .</p>

<p>If you're not confused now, you will be after you read some philosophy of art books like these. However, you will be confused in an educated way, not out of ignorance.</p>

<p>As for your shot, the vignetting definitely helps, but I'd do some cropping too. Here's just one sort of possibility, worked over quickly with a fairly heavy hand in Adobe Camera Raw and all, but sort of heading in the same direction you seemed to be going in the second shot. Is it art? Eh? It's a photograph, anyhow. You could go in a thousand different ways depending on what you are trying to accomplish.</p><div></div>

<p>Wow, Great responses. I would have to say that Timothy seems to be thinking along the same lines as I am. Lets take Jacks edit of the image. (which I love and wish I could do that, or even see that!) At that point, I would see it as ''ART'' and yet when I look at JDM's image, which I love as well, looks more like a photograph to me. My Edit with the blue tone would be someplace in the middle for me...</p>

<p>Now I never considered ART as something that moves me. Yet, I can think of quite a few images that I have seen here in POW threads that move me...Do those then become ART? or are they just some great Photos?</p>

<p>Man, I love Jacks edit...I am jealous! right about now ;-)<br>

Folks, keep your opinions coming. This is fascinating, I am sure not only to me, but to many readers and followers...<br>

Wayne, thanks for the kind words :)</p>

<p><strong>" 24mm lens" " the ISO set way high at 1600" "...Original, crop only...."</strong><br>

Javier, my friend, you've already started the "artistic process" by your choice of lens, setting the ISO and selecting out a portion of the picture. You were just continuing on that path with your further steps to make the photo fit your creative, artistic vision. Does it allow us to see what you see? Does it evoke a response from us? If so, than it is art.<br>

Since art evokes an opinion, mine is that I prefer the original crop but would like to see the full original, just out of curiosity.<br>

I, of course, would have started out with a longer lens, as you know, and would have cropped out the background, in camera. But that's my vision.<br>

As for the giraffe picture, it is that, a picture, a creation of the "photographer" but not a photograph of something real. It's a collage, but it doesn't tell us so. Even the photographer calls it a cheat. It's art imitating art. An interesting concept.<br>

When people develop b&w film is it art by Rodinal, or enlarger brand or crop mats? Do we pose the model to the left or right, window light or silhouette, dressed or nude? etc, etc, etc. All are artistic choices.<br>

And your pictures and your question -- Did you PP the couple in? you didn't remove the men in the background? you didn't create the pool of light the couple is in? Then you are a photographer. Are you an artistic photographer? I think you have received that decision in this forum many times. Are your photographs art? yes. Are they Art? See responses from others above.<br>

Don't think about it too much, you'll put your camera away and take up stamp collecting. Ask your son if he thinks about Art.</p>

<p>Howard</p>

 

<p>Emotion alone is not it, as the kind of emotion generated also matters. Some concept of beauty should apply.<br>

And since art has to withstand criticism and analysis, it should appeal to more than just the subconscious. It has to stimulate the intellect.<br>

This is probably why sometimes an education process allows one to better appreciate work he would not have cared much about beforehand. Intellect is shaped through education.<br>

Sometimes art is about expressing things in a new way.<br>

Louis Armstrong once famously said: "Man, if you gotta ask, you'll never know!"</p>

<p>I think Doug hit on it; the photo becomes art when it starts to mean more than itself.</p>

<p>I think the "photo by Adobe" is a whole other matter. That's Aristotle's spectacle. When you see the effect more than you see the subject, I think the spectacle is too much; especially if it's the latest effect application.</p>

<p>The trouble with the latest effects is that the first two you see look great. The next 25 go from boring to burning your eyeballs out. In 20 years, we'll be able to spot today's latest and greatest software effects like a 1980s mullet. We'll be known for oversaturation, masking, HDR and some flash in the pan texture effects.</p>

<p>I feel that, looking back, that stuff will backfire on us like a plaid leisure suit with a butterfly collar.</p>

<p>I think tonal shifts, even when they're extreme, are alright. Add in contrast compression and expansion, focus decisions; those are all tools which have been around for a long time. You probably can't miss with those. If it's a basic technique that requires no sophisticated equipment; it'll have longevity.</p>

<p>Overall, it goes back to aesthetic; it's your photo; make it look how you want. If I posted a wedding pic done in my favorite hydroquinone only developer, half the wedding forum would have a stroke. They have their conventions for their types of photos. You're not going to please everybody.</p>

<p>Your photos look like your photos anyway. Just keep doing that. My 2¢.</p>

<p>Javier, I stopped worrying about whether photos in general were art a long time ago. Like at least one other thing, you know it when you see it. It doesn't matter how (what tools and methods) the work ended up being there--it's the results that matter.<br>

<br /> Photography and art have always been co-conspirators. The <a href="http://www.cealive.com/2009/12/04/worlds-oldest-photographs/">earliest photographs</a> from the 1820s and 1830s are very artful--the photographers exercised intention. When I critique photographs, the one thing I look for above and beyond any technical issues or prowess is intention. This lets me know that the photographer thought about--and then acted on--taking the shot under consideration. [Now of course luck cannot be dismissed with some photography, but that's another thread.]<br>

<br /> Your shot is very artful. I would place it moreso than the original example you linked to because it is more creative and less formulaic. You have a wonderful talent of capturing humanity. That's important these days because we (people) seem to be going against each other a little too much in my opinion. Any window into others' joys and hurts can be a powerful way to develop insight and empathy. And photography excels in instant communication more than most media.<br /> I couldn't resist putting my own spin on your shot. Technically B&W helps deal with the noise issue, and I think it works emotionally too.<br>

<br /> <img src="http://www.smugmug.com/photos/732068090_S9Y4p-L.jpg" alt="" width="442" height="600" /></p>

<p>Nice work Javier.</p>

<p>ME</p>

<p> </p>

<p>One thing I like in Javier's original framing is the contrast between the protagonists living in the moment and the background people looking like zombies wondering around aimlessly.</p>

 

<p>Laurentiu, I agree with you. Since it's only art we're talkin' here, here is the bigger scope. It would be interesting to clone in a couple more disembodies to complete the background gestalt.<br>

<img src="http://www.smugmug.com/photos/732091895_nh8gQ-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>ME</p>

<p>I enjoy exploring the idea of art. It is something that I do think entwines with photography a lot, irrespective of how you define either art or photography.</p>

<p>However, I do think that with Javier's starting point in mind - the giraffe sunset - there is one line that I don't like being crossed:</p>

<ul>

<li>If you claim a shot is untouched - straight out of the camera - then it should be exactly that. Software manipulations can be exquisite. Many (if not all) photographs can be more impactful with manipulation, whether it is just a touch of saturation, or whether it is large scale adobe skills at work. But claiming something that it is not is misleading and can be – um – "irritating", to the viewer. </li>

</ul>

<p>Standing in the role of a student of the technical nature of photography (leaving art aside for now) over the last few years, I have been confused and frustrated by my inability to see how something was achieved with a camera, that is, until I started to understand the "Adobe world" a little more.</p>

<p>In terms of art, I have clear tastes. But I don't interpret everything outside of those tastes as "not art". That would just be insufferably arrogant.</p>

<p>So - whatever you want to do with a camera or a computer will certainly lead to art - just don't try to mislead me!!! Cause I'm trying to learn too!</p>

<p>Damn, I just woke up and now I have to <em>think</em> ?! I'll get you for this Javier.</p>

<p>Is it art? Yeah (remember that "art" is short for artifice.) Are there limits? No. <em> But</em> I think that Truth is fundamental to the aesthetic power of photography. It's nice to look at but somehow it really <em>does</em> matter that that giraffe picture is not the direct product of experience. </p>

<p>Where's the line? I dunno. For some reason, though, taking something <em>out</em> of a photograph (which I do from time to time) is different from putting something <em>in. </em> The pnet sages seem to agree<em> </em> on that point--see <a href="../photodb/manipulation">here</a> .</p>

<p>And that really<em> is </em> a wonderful capture, Javier, and I've enjoyed the several (artful) treatments.</p>

 

<p>Of all the versions of this image (so far) I much prefer the first one, because it looks like something that came out of a camera, rather than something that's been more-or-less mucked-around with. It might be better in B/W, but the vignetting is annoying because lenses do not vignette that way: lenses are round so they vignette at the corners much more than at the edges.</p>

 

<p>I think a photograph becomes art when a shot becomes a "capture".</p>

<p>Wow, what a question.<br>

Photography is a mode of expression. Just as music, literature, theater, painting, etc. can evoke an emotion, so can photographs. The camera becomes the vehicle to produce that emotion, from the photographers POV. Art can be real, objective or relative... so can photos. I really don't know where one can draw the line on manipulation and say that a photo is no longer that... or should it matter?<br>

Is it manipulating when you use a polorizer or graduated filter on your lens for a shot? What about double exposures? Isn't that adding to an existing photo thus changing the definition of "what is a photo"? Is it manipulating when you use a different paper stock on your prints? Do you consider Ansel Adams work art or photographs?<br>

Am I rambling? My wife would say "as usual" but in the end, I'd just like to agree with Dave H. - great photo and great treatments of that photo! BTW, Javier, you're original is artistic as hell!</p>

<p>Defining Art is like trying to define Charm. (What Lady Brideshead had too much of). In some sense, interacting with other people in a way that is pleasing. In photography, for me it is when someone other than the photographer would like to hang it on their wall.</p>

<p><em>Emotion alone is not it, as the kind of emotion generated also matters. Some concept of beauty should apply.<br /> ... it should appeal to more than just the subconscious. It has to stimulate the intellect.</em><br>

Laurentiu, you are absolutely right.<br>

<em>Javier's original framing is the contrast between the protagonists living in the moment and the background people looking like zombies wondering around aimlessly.</em><br>

And the tension between being connected and disconnected.<br>

Thank you for allowing me to see that.<br>

Javier, it's Art if it can support a thread this long with comments as thoughtful and thought provoking as we have seen here. Hearts and minds are engaged.</p>

<p>Photography as "art"...? Pfft, that's just a joke to me...</p>

<p>If you wanna see a photographer's art, just ask to see his paintings, drawings, sculptures or whatever, not a fraction of a percent of his machine-made recordings ("portfolio")... If he/she doesn't have anything more than some snaps to show, then he/she can be safely dismissed as a clueless (and/or pretentious...) scam merchant.</p>