Photography vs art (not every photo is art)

[twmeyer]

same damn point, you just like honking your "photography is the center of the universe" horn. <p>In case you hadn't noticed, a lot a blokes play sports with intensity far beyond their capability, people yell "spoken word" at coffee shops to compensate for the fact that it sucks as poetry, and open mic night at the local is the night to stay home, and more proof of my "Ken Griffey" theory. Ever heard of Kareoke? Now <i>that's</i> a working man's art. Yeah photography is hugely popular, blah blah blah... That's the usual ego driven photo-centric view of the world so common here at photo.net... t<p><p>Sometimes the only difference between "art" and "not art" is a couple of decades.

[v.anisimov]

"...Ever heard of Kareoke?.." (sic)

 

To me, karaoke is way more difficult than photography. More people realise they can't sing than photography enthusiasts that can't photograph.

[pico_digoliardi]

Vladimir Anisimov: "Almost everyone I know wanted to be a writer at some stage in their life."

 

Your culture must be very different than, for example, contemporary USA. When I was a lad more children did wish to write because writing was how we communicated over long distances and reading was the most widespread means of solitary entertainment.

 

In another thread perhaps we can discuss how literacy might contribute to making photographs, or if there is such a thing as photographic literacy.

[grant_lupton1]

Pico, Inciting structuralism is irresponsible.

 

Grant.

[pico_digoliardi]

<b>Grant Lupton <i>Pico, Inciting structuralism is irresponsible. </i><p></b>

 

Huh? I was just speaking of things that happened in real life, within my lifetime. Do ya mean I gotta be dead before I mention these things? Man, that's gonna be real hard to do!

[john_macpherson]

Vladimir - "Pico is right. Why photographers so insecure? Becauase anyone can get a camera and start taking pictures. Writing, drawing etc requires skill and even talent - photography doesn't."

 

With respect - what a load of complete and utter bollocks.

 

Digital is great, and so empowering. With one digit I can take photos (and be an artist), and communicate (being a writer I guess). Well I tell a lie, I used two digits to type this.

[v.anisimov]

John MacPherson - please explain your "load of complete and utter bollocks".

 

I stand by my original statement. It is more difficult to write or draw than take pictures with a camera. That's why you and I are taking taking pictures, not drawing them like Van Gogh, for example.

[root]

"It is more difficult to write or draw than take pictures with a camera."

 

All three are very easy . . until you attempt to measure output quality. In the case of photographic quality, exposure and focus used to be more difficult than it is now, but the quality of tools for drawing and writing have improved as well, but I assume you're talking about quality of content, not mechanics. In that regard, there are many aspects of photography, writing, and drawing that most of us will find equally illusive, no matter how long we work at it.

[v.anisimov]

"...All three are very easy..."

 

Absolute nonsense.

 

Writing requires at least some knowledge of the language and cohesive thoughts. You can't just go "tree I hey yellow arghh!"

 

Drawing requires at least some physical coordination and preferrably some spacial thinking.

 

Photography - at its basics - requires none of the above. You don't need a language, motor/physical skills or clear head to point a cemara somewhere and push the button. There are blind photographers taking pictures by sound.

 

NB: elephants and monkeys don't draw, they get set up by their handlers to do so. Give them a boxy camera with a big button - FAR OUT - they'll take some great pictures particularly if rewarded. Push the button - get a banana. MUCH easier than "take this brush, put in paint and touch this canvas".

[root]

Your argument seems to be based on the assumption that there is some sort of minimum level of quality implicit in the act of pressing the shutter release on a modern camera. Are you saying that there is no photographic equivalent of gibberish?

 

And if you can demonstrate that it is easier to learn to push a button, than to draw a few lines or spell a few words, is that significant? . . . or are we ultimately more interested in how easy or difficult it is to say something meaningful using any of these means of expression.

[v.anisimov]

Carl - let's call it a day. You lost, I won. No need to "demonstrate" to you "that it is easier to learn to push a button, than to draw a few lines or spell a few words". It should be obvious to anyone with a drop of intelligence. What a boondooggle of thread

[root]

You know, it's getting to the point where you have to check previous comments first to see if someone is capable of a civil intelligent discussion.

[mikael_pettersson1]

There is some really interesting things about art that you can learn from Wittgensteins

philosophical investigations. The only problem is that you have to know how to read the book

to aktually undersand it.

[mrstubbs]

"Rather than depicting a scene, they're attempting to affect the viewer and the room in which the piece is displayed."

 

Each viewing pane in photo.net gives a slightly different view of an image. Therefore each view will have more or less impact.

 

Take your image and frame it traditionally for a space and it may look odd or out of place among other images in that space. Change the method of display and it will be different.

 

Deciding, or being convinced, an image is art or otherwise, will be influenced by your perspective.

 

Where are you. When are you. How are you.

[g.r._ash]

The classification of art as we know it began in the 1800's in Germany in an attempt to index the human expression and I struggle with the utility or futility of that endeavor. Personally, I have always felt that there are two aspects about an art object to be considered idea/originality and craft. I believe this is true regardless of the tool used be it paintbrush, welding torch or camera. Most fine art needs to have a balance of the two to be fine art in my opinion. Occasionally you can have a piece that is so original that craft is secondary. Duchamp is a great example. Sometimes the craft can be so extrodinary that originality is not so important. Tiffany might be an example. Often times neither the originality or the craft is there and the piece fails. Noteriety and success are not necessarily the hallmarks of good art just of marketability to the lowest common denomonator. Not to say all mass produced art is bad case in point the edo period wood cut prints as one of many examples. I think the biggest problem is the definition of art like art it is self is not easily condensed to a simple formula or archetype. In some ways I say good art it like good wine if you like it is good. It may not be a good financial investment but for your own consumption it is perfect. In general though it comes back to art pieces originality and craft. An original and well crafted art piece regardless of format is going to more often capture the imagination of the viewer and stimulate those "higher functions" of meaning, thought and emotion than a poorly executed copy of some current style or once original object.