Jump to content

Is it art?


vic_.

Recommended Posts

Herr Hans Beckert made some important points in another section of

this forum (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?

msg_id=0074HY), and since a lot of you don�t venture outside the

Leica section of photo.net I thought I�d put these up here. (Note:

I�m not trying to ridicule Herr Beckert, he makes a very convincing

argument.)

<P>

<BR>Photography is absolutely NOT 'art'. A photograph is made by

mechanical device: the lens. If you paint the light onto the film

with your hand and a flashlight, then it is art.

<P>To all who have not gotten the point

<BR>[snip personal info]

<BR>1. 'The hand': The point is that in photography, the image itself

is CREATED BY A MECHANISM. Of course we have control of the

mechanism, but that does not make it art.

<BR>2. 'Uniqueness': No two painting or sculptures could ever be

absolutely identical, whether made by the same artist or two

different ones. Subtle differences are apparent in even the greatest

copyists' work. Photographs CAN be absolutely identical, and if you

put a motor drive on a still life, you can reel off 36 exposures that

are for all practical purposes, identical. If my assistant pushes the

shutter accidentally, his is indistinguishable from mine.

<BR>I have no opposition to saying there are 'artistic elements' in

photography that are shared with painting: composition, etc., but

these do not make it 'art'.

<BR>No doubt, no question: photography CANNOT be art!

[End of selected quotes]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 168
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I guess if "important points" and "convincing arguments" consist of making up your own completely unfounded and outright silly definition of art, and then making a couple of tiresome and extremely obvious observations about how photography doesn't fit your bogus definition, then yeah.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<I>No, art must be made by hand. -Hans</I><P>

Since music except the purely vocal kind of song) is made with instruments, then

music is clearly not an "art." <P>Since sculpture is made by either casting metal,

carving stone with a chisel, or with a potter's wheel -- all of which ae clearly

machines. Sculpture is not "art".<P>

Since a brush or even a stick is a kind of tool, paintings made by any method other

than daubing paint directly onto canvas paper or board , are most definitely not "art".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose 'uniqueness' (as summarised by Vic at the beginning of this thread) is

related to 'orignality'. That means, had I been Ansel Adams' assistant and shot side by

side with him with identical everything (that is, lens, film, composition, developement

...) and got a somewhat identical looking print, I would have compromised his

masterpiece by relegating it non-art ? Far from it. In this regard, originality counts,

it's just the nature of photography as an art-creating process that facilitates a close

copy. Not with me ? Think of copying a piece of work that was awarded a Nobel Prize

for Literature. What say you gentleman ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...