is there any art in point and shoot?

Am i a photographer, an "artist", if i walk around and take photos on the

spot, or am i a "point and shooter"?

is it art to see a flower, find the perfect angle and exposure and capture

that image, or am i just snapping a quick photo. i don't generally plan out

my images, i find it overwhelming and terribly difficult to think up something

origional. are there others out there like me?

Dan--

 

Generally, I think artists are driven to find their own voice, which includes some originality.

 

One can be an artist with a point-and-shoot camera.

 

It's more about the expression and emotion and also about the relationship between the

expression and emotion and the tools used. The tools themselves, I think, are less

important in and of themselves.

 

Often artists will create as well as capture. Not always.

 

I suspect there are many others out there like you.

 

Why is the term "artist" important to you in this regard?

 

--Fred

The way I see it, Dan, a camera's no different than a brush or a chisel in the hands of an artist. If you can mindlessly "point & shoot" and somehow create something you and perhaps others consider beautiful, then I guess you're an artist. Chimps and elephants given paint and brushes have created what some call art.

 

Generally, though, an artist will be inspired by his subject to see in it something he wants to abstract and present in a thoughtful manner in whatever medium he's working. We've had many discussions on what consititutes art that you might find interesting and there seem to be as many opinions as there are contributors to the discussions.

 

Many of us, I'm sure, share your frustration at finding what they consider original, but maybe it's not as important as you think. Perhaps it's best to simply find subjects that appeal to you, look for what's especially attractive about them and photograph it in a way that means something to you. Don't worry about being original -- with so many people using so many cameras for so many years, being original's almost impossible. But, you can stil be good! And, most importantly, you can still have fun!

"Am i a photographer, an "artist", if i walk around and take photos on the spot, or am i a "point and shooter"?...are there others out there like me?"

 

I don't think about making art -- leave that to the viewers. I just "push the button" when something catches my eye.

I have certainly seen a lot of photos made with low-end Polaroids or Holgas (cameras that are essentially point & shoots) that I would classify as art.

 

But that is not the same thing as the art of using something.

 

Or is it?

 

Don't worry too much about it.

<p>Dan,</p>

 

<p>At what point do you go from being a beginner at anything to being an expert? There's no one point that you can point to and say, "right there!". It's a process of getting better and better with a long period of in-between-ness.</p>

 

<p>For Dick, <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070912145048.htm">better than chimps and elephants.</a></p>

 

<p>-Julie</p>

It is what you make it. Point and shoot cameras can take some good images if pointed by an artist.

Capturing right thing at a right time is also an Art and that involves a large amount of experience. Things that are made up or artificially setup or posed; are very normal and we get people to do that, by just paying money!!! [sorry that case I don?t deny that a foresight is artificial or easy]. May be I feel that an expert is the one we can capture the right moment with the help of a perfect tool.

The art is in the artist and not the camera.

Yes of course it may be art--if done by an artist. But there is art and there is Art. The question is, "is point and shoot photography on the same level of art as what Michelangelo or Rembrandt did, and why?"

Who says a "point-and-shooter" can't be an artist? I don't think anyone can (or has the right, in my not-so humble opinion) to determine

weather you're an artist; only you can make that decision for yourself. I like to think of myself as an artist, one who just happens to uses

cameras to express it. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people on this site think I'm a hack, but it wouldn't matter much to me if they did.

 

As for originality, you can drive yourself nuts trying to come up with something original. My experience so far is that my own style had to

develop more organically than that, and I trust will always be a work in progress. I couldn't force anything unique to me as an artist, it just had

to grow on it's own. I say just take the best photos you can, and if they're original, so be it. A lot of images I've see on this site aren't

particularly "original," they're just freakin' good!

 

I think it's Ansel Adams who said the most important part of any camera is the 12 inches behind it, and he could probably "wow" all of us with a

drug store disposable.

Dan,

 

When I ask someone to give me their definition of art, I've never been satisfied with the standard answers like "it's subjective" or "art is the work of an artist". Those answers don't help me. I know it's a difficult question, but the goal is to learn something useful about art. A couple years ago, I found an article about art written by Leo Tolstoy. I posted it in this forum a long time ago. Here it is again: http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361r14.html

 

I've read it numerous times. Each time I read it I enjoy it more. It is beautifully written as you would expect from Tolstoy. It may come across as a little arrogant the first time you read it because he is arguing against the popular opinion of the time - that art is equivalent to beauty.

 

I really like simple yet enlightening examples when I'm trying to learn something new. In paragraph #7 of the article, Tolstoy gives a concise, seemingly trivial example, but it has stuck in my mind since the first time I read it. The example discusses a storyteller and how he draws the listener into his experience. Anyone who has heard a mesmerizing speaker, seen a gifted musician, or read a great novel can relate to it. What Tolstoy is saying seems pretty obvious when you read the paragraph. I recommend keeping the example in mind when looking at photos or other art. It helps to cut through the BS to what is essential about the work.

 

After reading the article a few times, it's become easier for me to understand why one photograph works for me and another does not, and with regards to the photographers that I consider masters of the art, I'm able to understand to a greater degree what sets them apart. I don't want to imply that the article gives an objective definition of art. It doesn't... yet another reason I like it.

Thanks,Julie! Of ocurse, that begs the question, "If you let maggots squiggle paint around on paper, are they the artists for their contributions, or are you as their mentor?" Hmmmmmm . . . think I'll forward that to some of the art teachers in the guild and see what they think.

Degas said "art has nothing to do with words written on paper".

Point and Shoot.....

 

Call it what you want.....

 

"think I'll forward that to some of the art teachers in the guild and see what they think".

 

Being an art teacher is nice...show me what they can do..then i will believe,maybe.<div></div>

Or,is ot about the glasses they wear.....<div></div>

Or,is it about the glasses they wear....<div></div>

Ooops

Andy Warhol could be called (by some) the ultimate "point and shooter", having a strong connection to photography and in particular coin operated photo booths (arguably the quintessential point and shoot of cameras). Many of his most popular works were silk screens of photos taken by these booths or his favorite, the Polaroid camera.

 

He is known to have put a bunch of "instamatic" type cameras in the hands of his friends with instructions to shoot what-ever they wanted...

 

Art? Maybe. Was he an artist with the point and shoot...?

Dan, my two cents in this conversation is that yes, you are a point and shooter. You become an artist when you are experienced... like Jimmy Hendricks said.

 

In these times when many were brought up with constant praise and pats on the head, and everyone is a winner, "what IS Art" has become a confused definition. If you want your point and shooting to become "Art," then you must know the history of what has gone before you, and what is going on NOW, and then add something.

"You become an artist when you are experienced..."

 

You become an artist when you choose to be one. Some choose not to make art. There's no spectrum of experience that runs from "point and shooting" to art.

These are all done with a point and shoot camera:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=809476

 

Regards

Great work Antonio. Just shows that it's the artist that matters, not the equipment, despite what all the camera companies with their marketing departments would like us to think.

Here's a different spin on the question. Right now the Art Institute of Chicago has a photography exhibition of Ed Ruscha's photos, and quite a few of them, too. I went to see it the other day, and frankly, it's garbage--a bunch of real travel snapshots, P&S shots, some of which were ideas for later paintings. Yet, because he did them, the AI is treating them like art. There's no justice in the world, obviously.

 

And they pulled a couple of real fine exhibitions off the walls to hang that crap, too. I'd argue that if the point of the exhibition was to show the relationship to his painting, and that's the only legitimate reason I can see, they should have taken down some paintings to hang the show, not devastated the photo gallery.

Some are mistaking "point and shooting" for p&s camera.