fashion and advertising photography are not really artistic. do you agree?

[pico_digoliardi]

Name: "Let's stir the pot... Those that want to generalize *any* artists work, photographer or otherwise as not being art, simply don't get what art is. All images created are in some extent, art.[...] "

 

Step out of your photographer's skin for a moment and look out at the world. Consider the scope, perspective.

 

It matters NOT what your intention is, or how much you work to make your object, how you struggle, or how much you think you know (or how deluded one is). A work is 'Art' only if it fits within a context recognized by critics, curators, historians. Much of what people speak of when they claim their work is "Art" is craftwork. Even the best Craftwork is not necessarily 'Art'.

 

If you want to stir something, try the Fine Art Photography pot; it could use a kick in the butt.

[pico_digoliardi]

Nobody has shot me down in the last several hours, so let me insert the obvious remedy: BECOME AN OUTSIDER. Screw tha Art Establishment.

[GerrySiegel]

Couple professional photographers I know who do commercial work, divide their efforts into two categories.(1) My paid work.(2) My personal work. The personal work falls more clearly for them into the art category, or, if you prefer, artsy fartsy category. Chance to expand boundaries of expectation, do what is fun, and just play. Of course,there is serious art and play art. And now I get quagmired...Tasha,it's all your fault.

[c.r._hips]

Pico, I say this with all due respect; You seem jaded, defeated, overly pessimistic, and slightly burned out in your recent posts. I suppose you are just trying to get us motivated by being insightful. Whatever. Listen man, theres no Artist worth his paint or film who ever gave a damn what critics , Art historians or collectors have to say. Sure we pretend to because we need to survive. Art history has consistantly shown that Art critism and prevailing taste has been wrong at best. Art has always been defined by intent, depth, commitment, and not how much you think you know, but how much you actually do know and want to know. Great Art only comes through the process of creation by an uncontrolabe curiosity about the human condition. Even pure abstract Artists are manipulating primal instincts and human biology when making their symbiotic creative choices. The highest bar that all Artists atain to is the human one. We communicate to eachother through an invisable, subconscious code that ties us all together as human beings. We all have the basic tools to understand and relate to eachother if we can just put aside our individual cultures and belief systems which are designed to keep us apart for a myriad of reasons. When looking at a photo, painting or sculpture , try to let go of everything and absorb what is being given to you. Does it tap in to that invisable code . How does it make YOU feel as a human being? Isn't that the big test all "Art" must pass. It must make you feel. The ESTABLISHMENT hasn't got a thing to do with it.

[GerrySiegel]

I can drink to that last HIPS,Sir. Art in photography becomes more to me a body of work inspired by some purpose and direction. No photograph by itself is what I suggest. By my definition, advertising photographs, may never reach that level in themselves,even the Neiman Marcus catalog elegant ones. The one shot images (the great moments of history ones by Capa et al) convey stunning moments in history,no doubt, that are photojournalism which is coequal but of a different class than what we see as art. Art is the product of an educated or traveled mind and spirit, where there is meaning to be gathered in an assemblage of images over a dimension of time and space. The bar for quality of lighting is less than would pass muster in a PN critique. The bar for purpose OTOH is high, and that purpose has to mean something to a wider audience. Does that register in this context of this "art" talk? I am not sure,but I think so. And it is an idiosyncratic view, as are all personal views,naturally.

[b_hall1]

It has happened often in history that someone's art was not recognized or supported in their lifetime...

 

And one of my points was that if there is some consistent effect within a large body of work then it should be defined as art. In other words if you have a studio signature then you have something...

 

And on a recent cable TV schedule in movie concerning the NY art scene it was explained that the desperate bidding for current art was an attempt to broker art rather than ignore it. However, that probably indicates that the artist needs to maintain connection to art centers to be recognized...and that history can repeat.

[pico_digoliardi]

C.R. Hips: "Pico, I say this with all due respect; You seem jaded, defeated, overly pessimistic, and slightly burned out in your recent posts. I suppose you are just trying to get us motivated by being insightful. Whatever. Listen man, theres no Artist worth his paint or film who ever gave a damn what critics , Art historians or collectors have to say."

 

I hope I made up for that when I suggested that one become an Outsider, although even the Outsider looks like it's becoming a camp. Later I will post a more cogent view of Art and critique.

 

Yes, a little burned out. All work, no play. Stuck on a critical academic project in which I can't make the clients happy.

 

Thanks for the redirection, C.R..

[grant_lupton1]

Joseph, "All images created are ... art". If this is the case, we cannot differentiate between art and non-art. And if there is no differentiation the designation "art" becomes redundant.

 

By way of analogy, all athletes are winners, some just don"t make gold, silver or bronze (eg the UK in the winter Olympics). Then again, who gives a flying f... about fourth place?

 

Grant.

[pico_digoliardi]

"All images created are ... art". If this is the case, we cannot differentiate between art and non-art. [...]"

 

If everything is Art, then nothing is.

[marbing]

I also, do not agree that fashion and advertising photography is not artisitc. A photographer is given a job...he may have been hired by someone or he might have given the assignment to himself...within the confines of that job..he exercises his 'art'. He may be selling nuts and bolts but the presentation must reflect well on the product and produce an image that is pleasing and successfully sells.

 

Yes, there is a group of people who want to claim that 'Everything is art' but, I think that is so their efforts cannot be dismissed because, if everything is equal then anything THEY do is as 'good' as anything the old masters or any other photographer does. It is a way of preventing an objective assessment of their work by denying standards.

[grant_lupton1]

Looking through any of the standard fashion mags � Vogue, Elle, etc I am still struck by the beauty of the majority of work.

 

Of course, magazines/photographers use perfect models, exposure, composition and lighting almost like a production line.

From a photographic viewpoint much of this work may be regarded as almost clinical, but from a consumer position, one sees a fantasy world attainable by buying the clothes and therefore looking like the model(s). And this fantasy aspect may be where the attraction lies for me (my interest in ladies dresses... Sorry, I don"t wish to talk about that).

 

The difference is between mediocre and outstanding (artistic), ie that which produces the most money.

 

Grant.

[edgreene]

If you've never assisted in a fashion or product shoot, you'll never know there is no *<i>artistry</i>* in it. Nothing *<i>creative</i>* about it. It's damn hard <i>grunt</i> work, with every light, every gobo and scrim precisely placed for one thing and one thing only: <i>to get the motherloving shots</i>. Not one artistic bone is contemplated or used. Each image is shot by craftsmen so there is <br>1. Correct exposure and movement in the clothes. <br>2. Room for ad copy. <br>That's for fashion. For product shooting, it's even more precise, with the photographer using color (<i>those Big Mac*s must have the same color and texture of a real Big Mac</i>) <i><b>and</b></i> and light meters and banks of HMI lighting.<p>Too many people and too much forum time is taken up on that old, pretentious *<i>photographer as artist</i>" bromide.<br> Pretentious in that by now hundreds of millions of new, instant *<i>artists</i>* have been created in that income taxes let them buy a digicam, some of them enough for an DSLR. <br>Once they learn how to load the battery and turn that mother on, they jump into equally pretentious forum conversations about how they've become *artistic* all of a sudden.<br>If anything they*ve only learned how to manipulate their images with some photo editing program.<br>But they have not yet conquered composition, donﾒt know diddly about exposure, could not operate a light meter or set up studio lights or manage the noise screwing up their shots, or how to shoot noise free at ISO 100.<br>Even their vaunted new DSLRs have recurring exposure problems, especially with exposures, exposures they <I> post process</I> to death trying for white balance and color fidelity.<p>More accomplished DSLR owners, professionals mostly, have the same troubles but they donﾒt b*tch and moan on forums. Nor do they post tens of millions of faulty out of focus images, or images that are greenish, or supposedly <I>Sepia</I> (<I>everyone is by now familiar with those infamous greenish-purplish failed B&W shot</I>) images because try as they might, those very same multi-thousand dollar DSLRs somehow manufacture the same difficult to *manipulate* images my nearly $900 (when first issued) 5MP Prosumer P&S digital body renders.<p>Almost without exception, product, fashion and commercial/product shooters use <I>medium format digital backs</I> for their shoots.<br> Those in the same crafts but still using film have an easier job of it in that film is <I>100% predictable</I> while digital, even a $75,000 3-pass digital back-is not; not predictable or consistent without a ton of <I>post processing</I>.

[grant_lupton1]

Ed, I doubt anyone would question the amount of hard work involved.

 

As outlined, the whole process is formulaic, artistry absent. But if two photographers are given the same brief, would the results be the same?

 

I'm assuming, here there is some latitude in the process. If not, then a chimp could be trained to stick to the rules and replicate the results, at far less cost.

 

Rules (lighting, exposure, composition) may be tantamount but these are applicable to any (most) good photography or art. The difference surely lies in the way one can operate within the rules, eg adjust the lighting slightly, shift the composition.

 

By way of extreme analogy, it would be difficult to envisage anything more mechanical than flying a combat aircraft, ie one cannot go beyond the bounds of its design or subvert the laws of physics. But two pilots will be have different success rates.

 

Re your point about digital. A professional photography magazine here in the UK raised concerns about the rise and possible dominance of digital vs film. It wasn't the medium itself, but the sheer number of new participants encroaching the market; their professional position and earning capacity could be undermined.

 

What digital has revealed to many is the potential for producing work on a par with professionals for far less effort (I use film, not digital, so I've no axe to grind, here). Exposure, depth-of-field, colour saturation, perspective, sharpness, all can be corrected, enhanced or manipulated after the picture is made. Oh dear, not professional, at all.

 

These are what you, and I, would regard as aspects of a craft learned over years, similar to an apprenticeship. Now it seems, via digital, almost redundant. A cynic may argue that our friend above, the chimp, could be given a camera and shoot randomly. Regardless of the results, they can be improved.

 

Entry into product, fashion or commercial photography may not be so simple but it's only a matter of time.

 

So what's left, what separates the pro's from the parvenus, the good from the mediocre? Artistry.

 

Grant.

[c.r._hips]

Well said Grant. If technique was all its about, a chimp could rule the world. What separates

the really talented from the legions of journeymen is the ability to get the unique vision

across even though the job, assignment or atmosphere may not require it, or even care. The

photographer who cares will eventually be the cream that rises to the top. Hips

[edgreene]

Tasha Wee: <i>Subject: fashion and advertising photography are not really artistic. do you agree?</i><p>Yes, they are not <i>artistic</i>.<p>As a former practicing PJ (31 years), and Portraitist (1956 and counting), and using the old tired, truly tired bromide about the photographer making the shots, Monkeys have no chance, even those who entirely walk on two legs. <p>Digital production is easier, yes, but no amount of *<i>shoot until you get it right</i>* practice will stand you in good stead up against someone who is classically trained, which is why most schools of photojournalism still demand the use of manual focus film cameras (<i>not all of them of course</i>) for their new students.<br>You still must master English to write successfully, or even to learn French, Spanish.<bR>Yes, you can muddle through until you get conversant, but you'll never learn the language well enough to write within the language without formal training.<br> For instance, living in New York (Brooklyn), I'm surrounded by many languages. I am somewhat conversant in Spanish (Castilian and Pachuco), Italian, Mandarin Chinese and formal (conversational) Arabic. Could/can I write in any of those languages? Hell no!<p>My point is given my experiences with analog cameras, no D-SLR could long befuddle me. At the same time, hundreds of millions of new owner of D-SLRs, people with no training at all in the craft of photography, thus without a clue regarding the craft, continue to flood forums with neophyte questions about exposure, filters, *crop factors*-etc.<p>Certainly they could check out and read books from their public libraries. But that's not likely, considering they want to *learn* by shooting over and over ad nauseum.<br> Their poorly constructed products are slathered all over Internet forums, them posting the products like kid's coming home from school with finger paintings: *<i>See mommy, I painted this just for you</i>*. Please!<p>Just as often, they delve into whether the <i>*craft*</i> of photography is art. Worse, they, the instant photographers, call themselves *<i>artists</i>*, while again their products are mere finger paintings.<br>The differences between them and <i>*professionals*</i>?<br>Each of them, given an assignment requiring shooting a series of specific and demanding shots, and worse, a specific timeline to finish, the trained person, with light meter and other tools will likely complete the assignment on time. <br>The untrained photographer will first get confused, use the wrong tools, and finding some of the specs confusing, try to make the images anyway. <br>When the product of one is compared to the other, the *<I>shoot until I get it right</I>* personﾒs product would be shown for the amateurish gar-bage it is.<br> But as long as those kinds of competitions donﾒt take place, the new digi-camera owners can brag they are somehow <I>equals</I> in the craft.

[mike dixon]

Ed, what exactly do anti-digital rants and comparisons of untrained, inexperienced amateurs to trained, experienced professionals have to do with the original question? Is it your assertion that the fashion and advertising fields are dominated by untrained newbies just blasting away with digicams?

[edgreene]

*<i>Repeatability</i>*, the hallmark of professional, if not well-trained photographers.<br>A person who cannot <i><u>consistently</u></i> repeat their results are amateurs at best.<br>Classically trained photographers, given a list of specs, <I>can repeat their successes</I>, unlike amateurs, who would at best muddle through.<p>There are instances where a person walks onto a Football field, and not ever having played the game, become a member of a team, maybe even a starter.<br>A person entirely untrained as a Ballet dancer however would have far less success in becoming an accomplished Ballet dancer. <p>Because a person can instantly see an image with digital cameras would not let them complete a fashion or advertising campaign with any degree of success. How could they, not knowing diddly about the immutable behavior of light, proper exposure, or gobos or scrims?<br>How could they, never having had the training or responsibility of shooting on (and within) a budget? <br>Or handle the rapidly changing light condition on an outdoor shoot? <br>Trained persons would complete the assignment, maybe with some difficulty but nonetheless complete the assignment.<bR> An untrained person? You can hear them now, muttering as they continually change ISOs and settings in the rapidly failing light�

[mike dixon]

Ed, I still don't know what point you're trying to make regarding art in fashion and advertising. And I don't know where you've encountered all these inexperienced, untrained newbies claiming that they're masters of the craft. Questions from inexperienced shooters about technique are probably the second biggest source of forum discussion on photo.net (with talk about equipment being the biggest source). Newbies claiming that they are artists are pretty rare in my experience.

[grant_lupton1]

CR, thank you. Unique vision is the key. Lousy pictures abound (I've got plenty myself), but so do technically perfect, even beautiful, pictures.

 

But the latter can degenerate into cliche (eg Yosemite) and we become bored and increasingly cynical. Which isn't a bad thing, really as it should provide an impetus for improvement and developing one's unique vision or eye.

 

Ed, I wouldn't dispute your point re the validity of training, and possibly of greater value, (your) extensive experience.

 

Assuming a minimum, photography schools turn out competence (which is debatable as far as UK schools go) but what then differentiates them? If everyone knows the set-ups, what else is there? Or is it the case that one never fully learns, only improves through years of practical experience?

 

How long does it take to be competent at exposure, for example? Whatever it is, and whether we approve or not, digital is incredibly forgiving in this respect and therefore circumvents to a large degree prior requirements. This is progress (inasmuch as it makes tasks less onerous).

 

"repeatability" could also be interpreted as repetition or monotony or lack of originality which may be the case (I'm not referring to yourself, here) for those whose credentials are based purely on experience, ie those lacking any artistic merit.

 

A favourite fashion photographer of mine is Cecil Beaton. Does his work lack artistic merit? Indeed, isn't his, or any other photographer's, recognition based not on competence but on something above and beyond the mechanics (which can be taught to anyone)? Or perhaps only a select few are able to be taught.

 

I think it a disservice to deny any artistic integrity in fashion and advertising. And one doesn't need to be a digital amateur to produce piss-poor work and mediocrity.

 

Grant.

[edgreene]

Mike Dixon:<i>Ed, what exactly do anti-digital rants</i><p>I don't do *<I>anti-digital rants</I>* I do express a dislike of those who are not, by any recognizable standard that is, equals in the craft.<p><i>...and comparisons of untrained, inexperienced amateurs to trained, experienced professionals have to do with the original question?</i><p>Sorry you cannot see the relevance. Only rank amateurs would make the statements being made today regarding *art*. Only rank amateurs would insist that reading the manual of their shiny new D-SLR makes them competent photographers. Only rank amateurs pooh-pooh the need for training and knowledge of the craft in order to be accomplished photographers.<p><I>Is it your assertion that the fashion and advertising fields are dominated by untrained newbies just blasting away with digicams?</I><p>That in itself is a vastly different thing than what Iﾒve said. One, I never asserted <I>anything</I> about any class of photographers <I>dominating</I> any field or ﾑblastingﾒ away at anything. That is your erroneous supposition of what I have written or what I did say. Second, I <I>never</I> equivocate, never use ﾑweaselﾒ words in my statements. I say what I mean so there is never any need to reinterpret my words. They are what they are.<p>Regarding dominance of the fashion and advertising fields of photography: only professional photographers need apply.<br>It goes without saying then that any applicants need to have years of experience in the craft, own and use a sack of digital backs, medium format cameras, powerful software programs and the $7, 000 laptops to run them, qualities and attributes no ﾑnewbieﾒ with a brand new D-SLR has.<p>I am past wondering what the ﾑphotographerﾒ of the year 2015 will know about the craft vis-à-vis their self-taught skills. Nearly nothingﾅand the craft will be the worse for it.

[Spearhead]

Ed seems to be interested in ranting about digital rather than responding in any way to the original question. Wasted space...

[edgreene]

Jeff:<i>Ed seems to be interested in ranting about digital rather than responding in any way to the original question.</i><p>I don't do rants, unless my resisting the ease with which unleared people call themselves artists. And no, photography is a craft, not an 'art'; never has been.

[root]

Ed, do believe in a "photographic eye?"

[c.r._hips]

I hope that I am not the only one, but I hav'nt got a clue of where Ed is coming from. There is alot of anger though. Ed misses the big picture of why we create in the first place. Because we must. Art schools are full of painters and photographers who will become competent in their craft( prfessional maybe) and never contribute anything worthy of being called Art. Perhaps Ed feels he could have filled in for Richard Avedon and made a comparable result. Learning the craft is only the starting point, not the end in itself. My wife is perhaps the best cake decorator in the world. She never went to pastry school. She is an Artist at what she does because she is at one with her medium as a mode of self expression. People from pastry schools know all the basic skills but generally they are not Artistic. They will make the same thing over and over, always the same. The last thing a real Artist wants to do is the same thing over ad-noseum. That is what a good ad agency will look for in a photographer too. The ability to break new ground, not trample the same patch meaninglessly. Ed I dont know your experience but I dont think you would be making these statements if you understood the creative impulse. Try to remember that being professional really has nothing to do with being an Artist. Generally people who are passionate about their medium become equally passionate towards their craft. Digital photographers have a craft as well. It may speak a different language from yours, but it speaks. I personally believe that there will be a backlash to digital. My daughter is 16 and quite talented in photography. She is of the digital generation, but there is a powerful attraction to hands on darkroom experience. People usually rebel when things get too easy, we like journey more than the result,I think. Process is so rewarding, and my daughter prefers her minota x700 to her rebel xt any day. So cheer up, the future will never be what we think.

[michaelseewald]

As Ansel Adams once said, "what good is a sharp photograph of a fuzzy idea?"

 

Because you have your 'craft' down to a science, as Ed states, you are then a proficient craftsman. Great, but to what end? I've seen 'newbie's' that had more artistic bent after one year of practice than many a person shooting for decades. Not saying skill is not important, as I find it very important in my work, but it's not the end all by any means. It has more to do with inspiration, not perspiration Ed. And thus, many photojournalists and commercial artists are just that; and many are not.

 

Even painters and sculptors were considered craftsmen hundreds of years ago. And impressionistic painters were rejected as artists for a decade or two and could not get shown in most art galleries, and definitely not a museum.

 

Photographic art was not considered an art, and in many cases is still not- especially in most of Europe, all of Asia and to Ed in Hawaii- until recently to most of the masses. I was glad to see a photograph, a piece of 'non-art' to many, was just sold for 2.9 million two weeks ago! And many photojournalists and advertising photographers are getting top dollars for their 'art' too, and are being shown in museums- a requirement for Pico's standards (sometimes).

 

Bottom line, anyone can say what they do is art, but the question is, is it good art? And of course, it's all subjective- beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

Great question though Tasha, and I hope you have opened your eyes, and your heart, to the myriad of great answers posted before mine of how they can be art- and a great art at that for many of us.