Art

[thomas_sullivan]

yes, photography is art. And it is expressed thru the photographer. Cameras and photo editting are only tools.

 

However, all photography is not art ("uncle joe's" snap shots of "aunt martha", for example...one would hardly call that art), just like not all paintings are not art (paint by numbers, for example...one would hardly call that art). But put a camera and photoshop........or a canvas and brush......in the hands of a truely gifted person, and the image transends whatever it physically is...it becomes a part of that artists mind. Their minds, heart, and soul put into a physical form.

 

We have hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years of painting history and teaching and practice for todays painters to study and benefit from. We have about 150? years of photography history to study and benefit from. Photography is a new art form, It's taken paining this long to get to where it is. Give photography half that time, and I think it will reach an art form that far surpasses painting.

 

IMHO

[thomas_sullivan]

....to continue that thought. Photography is NOT like painting. It is totally different. It has yet to find it's own, because everybody is still comparing it to painting. Photography and painting are NOT the same thing. And photography will not come into it's own until photographers, of all people, STOP thinking it is like painting. The whole thought process is different. Why should the end result then be considered "like" it. Half the pics taken look like paintings because the photographer has been told that he can't do this, and can't do that. Well, maybe painting can't do that and this......but photography can......and should. We have yet to even remotely see what photography can really do.

 

It is art.......Not like any other form of art in the past.....it is it's own art form. 150 years is nothing in the long run. Photographic art is just starting to take off.........leave it be, it's doing great so far.

[pico]

Where is H.P.? I'd expect him to inject his often-used Joker picture at this point!

[conor_mack]

Yes photography is an art. It is painting with light. The problem with photography is the consumer aspect. Everyone has a cell phone.... 10 to 1 they have a camera in that cell phone and if not they have a digital camera waiting for them at home.

 

Photography misses out on a lot of art movements and history (accept performance but is photography the real art there anyway?) because the photo community is so scattered. It is so excessable(please dont comment on my spelling) that everyone is breaking into their own worlds, unlike the fixed(in a way) paintings and sculptures you can see in any gallery in chelsea. OF course this leaves out the scattered few(adam fuss comes to mind).

 

We need to exploit photography's better aspects. We take an actual objects or the real worl, and create our own. Painters like Dali and Migritte need to create entirely with their mind where as photograhers such as Jerry Uelsmann takes actual objects and distorts or manipulates our world to illustrate his own perspective.

And yes the mindset of the artist(yes i mean photographers!) helps push for the acceptance of art. What about artists liek Acconci who puts a microphone next to himself as he masterbates for an audience? Normally, that would jsut be creepy or preverted but with a good philosophy and mindset backing his work, it becomes art. Why can't photography be art if masterbation is?

 

So in general i think photography is an art form but the photographers are to stuck in the commercial aspect to really organize and push photography further. I am currently working on a big collaberation in which i would love for some who are interested to message me or email me (thevirus5085@aol.com) to take part of hear about my project. I will discuss further in the email.

-conor mack-

[vallery]

Pico : Nobody reads it anyway.

 

Sure we do and it creates a lively exchange of ideas (isn't that considered ART?).

 

Art is the pursuit of excellence no matter the cost.

 

Is Photography a form of Art?

I look at a camera as a tool (i.e. pencils, paint, kazoo ) for the Photography medium.

 

if so is it expressed through the Camera, or the PC (Photo editing software)

Some photos are thought out and staged and some are not. The end result [photo]is where we begin to categorize so we can identify the input for the 3% we use of our grey matter. I am trying to impart that I feel that the process begins there and we look for tools that appeal to us for a means of expression.

 

As far as Photo editing software (or what some call the Dry darkroom), it just doesn't matter when the end product is considered Art. Whether someone used wetroom techniques or dry techniques - it is all post production manipulation.

 

Of course, there is that environmental aspect that influences our likes and dislikes of what we consider art.

[peter_stacey]

For my part, I can pick up a brush, take some paints and throw it all together on a canvas.

 

Just because I have the tools and I use them, it doesn't make my painting art (or even artistic). It can be just a load of crap.

 

However, Rembrandt, Picasso, Monet, Michelangelo, Van Gogh, etc. could all produce art with the very same tools I would use.

 

So I think it's possible for photography to be art, but only if performed by an artist, in this case, a photographer who produces the art.

 

Mostly photography is not art, but I defeintely think there are some people out there who have a quality in their work that provokes to the same degree as a paiting or sculpture or drawing, etc.

[joe hauser]

Is Photography a form of Art?

 

Sure it can...even an idea can be. If it even matters to anyone it becomes an acceptance issue. The work I like the most has nothing to do with acceptance. If the intent and motivation of the person that creates the work is true, and conveys originality then the media or tools used to make it become less important.

 

It's a big grey area that goes nowhere...

 

Remember the Abstract Expressionist who's paintings were in such high demand but he just couldn't get it together to produce enough to satisfy the high demand for his work. Finally his agent decided to send the artist and his assistant to a small island where he could concentrate and produce more great art. The plane dropped them off and the agent said he would be back in 3 mo. and wanted a dozen paintings. Now, days before the plane was to return the artist had not even started one painting. Frantically he laid out a big canvas and started in on one of his large "Jack the Dripper" works which took him all of the day to finish. The next day the assistant who was getting quite worried about keeping his job and realized there was no way a dozen painting were going to be finished noticed the plane approaching and freaked out. The artist freaked out himself yells to the assistant to grab a pair of scissors and cut the only painting into 12 pieces.

[danielransom]

No one argued against Monet's brush, or Michelangelo's chisel.

 

 

There was, of course, much arguement about their "art".

[twmeyer]

"...<i>Wanting one's work to become Art in this world is like asking a Madame to acknowledge we are a good lay</i>"<p>Well who would know better? If you want an expert opinion, ask an expert... t