Whose art is it?

[Norma Desmond]

"it is quite possible that the sculptor was considering this view of it when designing it."

 

Great point, Jonathan.

 

Doubtful that sculptors intend their work to be viewed primarily from a handsome, linear

perspective.

[Norma Desmond]

Meant to add that some handsome, linear renditions are amazingly artistic photographs.

<p><p>

Terrible internet reproduction (imagine WAY more contrast and life and a less warm tone)

but <a href="http://wernermantz.nl/index.php?page=home">HERE'S</a> a

straightforward photo of the "Kolnische Zeitung" by Werner Mantz, 1928.

<p><p>

Metaphorically speaking, of course, I think an artist/photographer, even with a

straightforward perspective, can capture the soul of a

building or sculpture.

[DickArnold]

I am a Viet vet. I was at the Wall on the fifteenth anniversary of the War. It was raining. It made one of the nurses in the nurses sculpture look as if she were crying. It moved me and I photographed it and enlarged the picture. I wanted to display it for a one time use. I contacted the sculptor and got permission and credited the real artist. I still have the picture in the cellar. But, it certainly wasn't my creativeness. I dearly love that sculpture and the nurses it represents. I won't display my photo again. Speaking of art appreciation, what Maya Lyn did with the Viet Nam wall is unbelievably appropriate to the failure that was Viet Nam. A black scar in the ground enobled with the names those men and women who participated in that war shows that the endeavor never rose to the nobility, courage and sacrifice of those who died there. It is both sad and yet uplifting. I have been there many times and have taken many photographs. None of which has done that memorial true justice.

[xpiotiavos]

That is a good point, Jonathan, that the sculptor could have considered that view when designing the work. I tend not to think so, though, because I had my camera set up almost directly underneath the sculpture--the black background is the sky. The sculpture itself is also much larger.

 

 

Without others' work, almost NO form of photography could exist. From that point of view, "dual authorship" must be acknowledged in every photograph ever taken (unless, of course, you're taking pictures of your own sculpture, painting, face, etc.). Photography, I think, is unique in that regard--it's ALMOST as if photography is a second-hand art form.

 

But to me, that doesn't make a photograph any less the property of the photographer. Ansel Adams could certainly not take credit for the existence of the stunning landscapes he captured; he is, on the other hand, given credit for the creative way he captured and presented them. I think that idea extends into every form of photography: as artistic photographers, we strive to capture an object, person, or scene in such a way as to convey a concept or emotion that extends beyond the subject matter itself.

 

That's what I was trying to do in the first photo I posted. I was trying to convey something beyond the sculpture itself. I was acting as an artist.

 

In the second, I was merely trying to record the scene. I was acting as a documenter.

[Julie H]

I find myself agreeing with everybody's points, even though they are contradictory. To try to locate the apex upon which authorship/artistic ownership hinges (if there is such a thing), please think about the following:

 

First:

Edward Weston, on the beach at Point Lobos, makes a picture of a rock. No question, that image is his: it's his art.

Andy Goldsworthy shows up and puts a second rock on top of the one just photographed. Edward likes it, adjusts his camera to a good location/angle and makes a picture. Is that picture Edward's or Andy's?

Andy adds another rock. Edward makes another picture. And so on until the sculpture is finished. Edward is still seeing great stuff in the rocks, still making pictures. At what point, if ever, do his images stop being Weston photos and start being Goldsworthy art?

 

Second:

Edward Weston, on the beach at Point Lobos, makes a picture of a rock. No question, that image is his: it's his art.

A first year student from the local art college shows up and puts a second rock on top of the one just photographed. Edward likes it, adjusts his camera to a good location/angle and makes a picture. Is that picture Edward's or the student's?

The student adds another rock. Edward makes another picture. And so on until the sculpture is finished. Edward is still seeing great stuff in the rocks, still making pictures. At what point, if ever, do his images stop being Weston photos and start being the student's art?

 

Third:

An aspiring photographer from the local camera club, on the beach at Point Lobos, makes a picture of a rock. No question, that image is his: it's his art.

Andy Goldsworthy shows up and puts a second rock on top of the one just photographed. The photographer likes it, adjusts his camera to a good location/angle and makes a picture. Is that picture the photographer's or Andy's?

Andy adds another rock. The photographer makes another picture. And so on until the sculpture is finished. The photographer is still seeing great stuff in the rocks, still making pictures. At what point, if ever, do his images stop being 'his' photos and start being Goldsworthy art?

 

Fourth:

Edward Weston, on the beach at Point Lobos, makes a picture of a rock. No question, that image is his: it's his art.

A professional stone mason shows up and puts a second rock on top of the one just photographed. Edward likes it, adjusts his camera to a good location/angle and makes a picture. Is that picture Edward's or the stone mason's?

The stone mason adds another rock. Edward makes another picture. And so on until the sculpture is finished. Edward is stll seeing great stuff in the rocks, still making pictures. At what point, if ever, do his images stop being Weston photos and start 'belonging' to the stone mason? [if you say the stone mason **ever** has 'ownership', what does that mean about photos of any man-made object?]

 

Fifth: Same scenario, but with the art student moving the stones and the camera club photographer taking the pictures.

 

Sixth: Edward Weston finds a rock sculpture on his beach and photographs it. The identity of the sculptor is never discovered. Or it turns out to have been made by the neighbor's five-year-old son.

 

Seventh: Substitute a chimpanzee for either Andy or Edward...

 

This question also applies to photos in art (as opposed to art in photos). As far as I can tell, all photo realistic painters work exclusively from photos that they themselves have made. I have a video of Chuck Close in the studio making a self-portrait photograph from which he will make a painting. He sits, overseeing operations from his wheelchair, while assistants set up the camera and insert the film holder. They then put the cable release in his hands. Because of his disablity, he is unable to both hold the cable and push the plunger, so an assistant holds it against his hand. He is then manages to make the exposure by pressing with the palm of his hand. That little palm movement makes all the difference in 'ownership'.

 

-Julie

 

[erlend sæteren]

Sometimes an artist hires a photographer to participate in producing the piece of art.

 

The photographer is often contributing so much that he or she feels that he/she should be

mentioned as partly creator.

 

A am thinking about three artworks from Norway. In these works the photographer is not

credited, and therefore he/she is not the artist, but only a contributor in the team, a

craftsman. But off the record, in his hart , the photographer is the artist together with the

artist.

[jtk]

Julie,

 

What's relevant is that Weston made some photographs, and they're appreciated, and that Close made some paintings, and they're appreciated...

 

Whereas, only a student's (monkey's, photo instructor's) mother appreciates her/his "art".

 

One should at least recognize that "art" is not produced by "artists," it's produced by individual humans of accomplishment..and one should admit that labeling it "art" elevates the work over roadside Elvis on Velvet ONLY if it can be quickly sold for as much.

 

Weston could speak of "art" with a straight face, Close and Goldsworthy can, but you can't (as you just demonstrated) and I can't. :-)

[xpiotiavos]

John, how does one become a "individual human of accomplishment" without first producing fine art? Weston, Goldsworthy, Adams, and a host of others produced fantastic art long before they were recognized as great artists.

 

The amount of recognition a person is given does not determine whether or not he/she is capable of producing good artwork, and it certainly does not determine their legal right to their own creative work.

 

I've owned a camera for less than a year, and I wouldn't hesitate to speak of some of my work as art--and I'd do it with a straight face. I doubt anyone would buy it, and it may not be all that good, but it's still something I've created. It's my art.

 

Likewise, you've got some great photographs in your PN portfolio. Don't sell yourself short by not referring to your work as art.

[jtk]

Adam,

 

Some of us are struggling to become "accomplished", which means we're not where we want to be. Passion without struggle doesn't accomplish anything.

 

Others are instantly satisfied when they step over the lowest possible bar, one that means absolutely nothing.

 

The photos you show are beautiful. You know how to relate to people and to use a camera in that noble cause. Why lower yourself to "artist?"

 

My photographs are gleaned from thousands of failures. I'm unsatisfied. You do good work, evidently. Look at what the "artists" among us produce. Aren't you better than they are in the absolute sense?

 

"Art" is a devolving label but my photos aren't devolving. They're living along with me, and we are simply what we are.

[xpiotiavos]

You may be giving my work too much credit, but thank you for your words.

 

I definitely know what you mean when you say you're not satisfied. Like you, I've taken gigabites worth of photos that I'm not happy with. I'm learning with every click of my shutter.

 

"Art" is something inherently hard to define, and the term seems to bring to your mind something much different than it brings to mine.

 

To me, art is the attempt to use a particular medium (be it photography or poetry) to incite in another person the emotions that we ourselves are feeling.

 

You've called relating to people a noble cause. I agree. In fact, I think that relating to people is the chief component in art.

 

As far as "the 'artists' among us", no, I don't think I'm better than them, at least not inherently. I may (or may not) be more practiced, but I don't think I'm inherently better or worse than they are.

[vince_smith2]

Julie,

 

When someone asks about ownership, I naturally assume that they're asking about who legally owns the object in question. There have already been posts about how the law applies to the case you're describing. Those explanations make sense to me.

 

However, it sounds like you might be talking about who deserves the credit. I would judge that the same way I judge any photograph. If I see two pictures of a flower, one of them might have better lighting and composition and show the flower in a unique way. Even though they both have the same beautiful subject, there's more to the image than that. It may be more difficult to analyze a photograph as a whole when the main subject is a previously created work of art, but it's still the same idea. Is it just a beautiful flower (or previously created work of art), or is it a great photograph of that subject? If it's a great photograph, then the photographer deserves at least some of the credit. It's not an all or nothing answer. How much credit the photographer is due will always be highly subjective. The tendency will probably be for the viewer to give much of the credit to the original artist even if the photographer is brilliant simply because duplicating other people's work in any way is generally frowned upon.

[Julie H]

Vince,

 

Yes, I mean credit, though I would think the law would follow credit.

 

Very true that it assignment of credit is subjective. I'm interested in hearing different perspectives on why and where each person assigns credit.

 

I think this has bearing on the concept of photography as art. For example, in your answer you use the word 'duplicating.' I'm not sure that word would be used if we were talking about any other art form (without getting into counterfeiting).

 

-Julie

[vince_smith2]

I'm no expert, but it sounds like the law does NOT precisely follow the artistic 'credit' because of the technology involved and its ability to 'duplicate'. It would be difficult to enforce a law that could make decisions like, "You've duplicated someone elses work using modern technology without getting permission from that person, but what you did is really good so I'm going to let it slide." Forcing a photographer to get permission whenever they prominently feature someone else's work makes sense. It limits what great artists can do, but prevents mass stealing. It also makes sense that things like buildings are not protected from being photographed (except for security reasons). There would be a never ending stream of law suits if they were protected.

 

I agree that assigning credit gets into your definition of art. For me, a great work of art communicates feelings and creates a bond between the person who created it and the viewers, as well as creating a bond from viewer to viewer. It's like when one person in a group starts laughing and everyone else begins to laugh with them. In trying to evulate a work, the key elements are uniqueness, clarity, and sincerity. It's possible to create a unique photograph that includes a previously created work of art. As I said before, it takes a little more effort to separate your feelings toward the original work from your overall feeling toward the image.

[a few images]

Photographing architecture does not make me an architect, it makes me a photographer.

 

Photographing artwork does not make me an artist, it makes me a photographer.

 

My photography may be viewed as artwork and as such I may be called an artist, however, that's the opinion of the viewer and not my title.

[tommyyearginjr]

<i>"So, my question is, when an artistic photograph contains art, when does the photograph itself become 'the' art, and then, whose art is it? Does it belong to the photographer, the artist whose artwork is shown, or to both?"</i><br><br>The artwork in the photograph, of course, doesn't belong to the photographer. But the focal point of the photograph, if it isn't the artwork itself, does.<br><br>For example, a photograph of someone posing in front of the Washington, D.C. Mall could become the focal point of the picture, or maybe the Washington Monument is the focal point of the picture. It depends on what the subject the photographer is, and how it is treated in the final image.<br><br>Point of view is unique to every photographer. What happens to the artwork that just happens to wind up in the picture is not the main thing (unless you are making for yourself a photographic reproduction of the artwork)--it's the story the photographer is trying to convey to the viewer.

[hakim]

I was taken by my perception of this painting having 'joined' a couple at their table in a coffee shop and asked permission to photograph them. I am still learning the ABCs of exposure etc but is a clear example of what I understand the 'question' to be.

 

The picture on the wall with the couple was my interest, not the picture. The couple with the picture was my interest, not the couple.

 

This photo was taken in my desire to learn about photography, how to use my D70, composition etc. It is not for profit or publication.

 

How would you see this photo in the context of this thread?

 

With thanks. Hakim

[hakim]

A photo would help!<div></div>

[Matt Laur]

Hakim: I'd say that your use of the painting as an element of the image you produced (especially with regard to the intended use) falls well on the "fair use" side of the fuzzy boundary we've been discussing. Since you aren't likely to ever exhibit your photograph in a context that would demand that you even give thought to the topic, it seems fairly moot.

<br><Br>

Were this to have become an iconic photograph for the ages, and you thought as you took it that it might be just that (or, that you were likely to end up selling it for commercial use), doing some fact-recording - like getting the artist's name or other info off of the exhibited work - would likely have been in order, just in case. But I think you're right that this is a good example, and your interest in it and potential use of it suggests a sort of non-issue.

<br><br>

As for making your photograph better... the backlighting from the window is one of those problematic things that's always hard to fuss with. When you see a window like that intruding into the frame as you compose, try moving (in this case) to the right so that your angle might exclude it. Beyond that, this one's all about focus! I might also have crouched down a bit so that the bottom of the painting moved below the table surface, making the painting's face more connected to the party. Good instincts on this shot... "seeing," as they say.