is there any art in point and shoot?

[albert_richardson1]

Originality means that you do things in ways other people don't. You seem to be looking for some sort of magic in it. You are an original when you look around you to find that there isn't anything quite like your (ideas, work, outlook, etc. & etc.) no matter where you go. No other replies like this one ... get it?

 

There is nothing to gain by complaining about the work you have to do to get the result you want. Is it art or is it a snapshot? There are infinitely many camera positions and angles, and lighting and color variations for every subject. It's much harder to exactly what someone else has already done than it is to make something to suit yourself, and when necessary, your client. In short: Get off your butt and do the work that needs to be done to get the result right. If you can't see the difference putting some effort into your photographs makes, then perhaps you should be doing something different.

[alan_seguin]

Point-and-shoot art is the equivalent of dropping a bucket of paint on a canvas and having a work of art result. Yes,it can happen. Yes, the work is art. No, the "creator" was not an artist. An artist is a person who sets out with a goal to create something that others can recognize as having achieved that special "something". The point-and-shooter stumbles upon art with the luck of the Irish. Treasure it! It will probable never happen again!

 

You are not the only person to find it difficult to "think up something original". You do not have to be original to produce good art. There is nothing "original" in a portrait, a flower, an insect, or any other subject that already exists on earth. If you can use your talent to express an idea or your skills to create a moment of emotion then you are an artist my friend. To answer your question, the artist can see the flower,find the perfect angle and use his skill to capture the image and create the art.

 

Regarding your approach of not planning out your images, how can you evaluate whether you have succeeded in what you have set out to do without an objective? Again, you are relying on the luck of the Irish and I wish you the most of it.

 

To summarize your question of if there is any art in point-and-shoot the answer is yes, art can be found but you have to be lucky and it is a hard way to fame through luck.

[michael_darnton1]

http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_9_20_99.html

[don_e]

"Again, you are relying on the luck of the Irish..."

 

Actually, one relies on one's ability to recognize and react to the the presenting photographic moment.

 

"An artist is a person who sets out with a goal to create something that others can recognize as having achieved that special "something"."

 

I'll agree with that.

[ananda1]

Luck factor makes sometimes a snapshot into ART. However, We never blessed with luck always.

[don_e]

"Luck factor makes sometimes a snapshot into ART"

 

But art is "...something that others can recognize..."

 

In the two years I've been a member and reading and posting to this forum, I've seen a consensus on two things: a) art is subjective, and b) it is the subjectivity of the viewer that matters.

 

So, the "luck" has nothing to do with whether one is a point and shooter or has dictatorial directorial control of the studio or location. The "luck" is whether or not the photographer fulfills the subjective requirements for art of the viewer (buyer, client, prospect, boss, critic, rater, critiquer) -- which is why, for the purpose of this forum and this site, I don't give a rat's ass about photographic art.

[ananda1]

Don

" a) art is subjective, and b) it is the subjectivity of the viewer that matters."

I agree with this, what I mean to say was, everytime a snapshot can't be an art thats it.

[ananda1]

Its my openion.

Vince link is interesting, I will read it in my free time.

[mike_stemberg]

Dan, if you believe that you are 'creating' than you are an 'artist'. And about this using a 'point-and shoot' ....I know of several people that own fully fledged SLR's but have never ventured beyond the 'Full Auto' stage ......

[bler]

the art is in what you create, not HOW you create it....

[mohamad]

You very right there Matt

[steve_sharf1]

Dan's first question is a good one and has been the focus of a long debate over the whole history of photography. This question has recently been discussed at length in this same forum just a few weeks back in the following thread:

 

"Why take a photo over drawing or painting?" by qi peng (2008-02-19)

 

I tend to side with the arguments made by the renowned photographer/philosopher Susan Sontag in her work "On Photography" whereby she claims that much of photography is "shopping", and by statements made by Cartier Bresson throughout his career where he equates the act of shooting a photograph with hunting. Bresson made many disparaging comments about the value of photography throughout his life. While he was known more for his photographic work, he was a painter as well and thought little of the artistic merit of photography.

 

The issue about photography that troubles me the most is that most photographic works in my opinion, relate very little of the internal workings of the "artist" who produces the image as opposed to a painting for example. There is not the overwhelming message, or idea in the photograph that can point you to any true individuality in the work compared to other art forms. If there is, then I would argue that the individuality can be reproduced exactly. The light waves that are captured are out there already. The photographer is capturing them with a mechanical device made to capture an image.

[don_e]

"The issue about photography that troubles me the most is that most photographic works in my opinion, relate very little of the internal workings of the "artist" who produces the image as opposed to a painting for example."

 

Well, there's Photoshop.

 

"There is not the overwhelming message, or idea in the photograph that can point you to any true individuality in the work compared to other art forms. If there is, then I would argue that the individuality can be reproduced exactly."

 

How do you photograph things that aren't there anymore? It is possible to copy a painting exactly, however.

 

"The light waves that are captured are out there already. The photographer is capturing them with a mechanical device made to capture an image."

 

They may be out there, but far, far away, in a distant galaxy, that photo of a street scene in 1864.

[steve_sharf1]

I agree that manipulation re. a darkroom or photoshop adds something from within the person doing the manipulation. The trouble I have is that it there is too much of a "craft" element to the manipulation exercise that relies too heavily on the technological process. The result is a final image that doesn't provide enough of a subjective statement in comparison to the complete subjective statement contained within most painting. I think the reverse is true of photography. Most of it is too reliant on the image that is "out there" already. Most of photography attempts to maintain most of the captured image and while it may be changed the process of changing it is too capable of being emulated by someone else therefore allowing less of any absolute individuality to come through.

 

I have previously used the example of an Ansel Adams print. He spent years writing excellent instruction on methods in which to simulate his work. The final product, if one follows his books,is a print that can be identical in technique. If one were in the same location, practicing the identical technique at the same moment, with the same camera, how would one tell the difference?

 

Don: I disagree with your statement that a painting can be copied. You can come close but there will be too many indicators that will prevent them from appearing identical. In the case of the masterpieces of which we are familiar, the experts have and will eventually know who painted what.

 

That is not my point though. I state again,: give the identical paints and brushes to two painters and ask them to simultaneously paint the same scene, and two very different results will emerge.

 

Don:you state above,:"How do you photograph things that aren't there anymore?" I am not sure what you're getting at, but how do you paint whats not there anymore? Just because an image is transient, and one has captured it, doesn't add individuality, or artistic merit to a photograph.

[don_e]

"Don:you state above,:"How do you photograph things that aren't there anymore?" I am not sure what you're getting at, but how do you paint whats not there anymore? Just because an image is transient, and one has captured it, doesn't add individuality, or artistic merit to a photograph."

 

How do you paint what is not there anymore? From memory or from a photograph.

 

Your arguments are weak, I think. How to overcome that? Probably not possible because you privilege art. Interestingly, that is what those who argue photography is an art assert as well.

 

I can happily agree with HCB, but from the perspective of preferring photography to art.

[don_e]

"...a mechanical device..."

 

The weakest part of your arguments is the pose of technical naivete, as if the mechanical (and electronic and photochemical) devices automagically produce photographs.

 

You should drop that.

[steve_sharf1]

Don has stated: "How do you paint what is not there anymore? From memory or from a photograph."

 

Were the impressionists painting from memory and photographs? No. They were capturing fleeting moments, particularly in terms of light. There is no way that you could have painted these scenes from memory or from a photograph. That was what the impressionist movement was all about. What is gone in painting the moment is gone just as in photography.

 

Painting captures the moment, I believe, with a greater degree of a personal message; a subjectivity, than does a photograph. By stating this I do not demean photography or privilege painting. I state simply that painting translates an image with a subjective idiosyncratic quality because the image is formed within brain and rendered onto a canvas and is not "caught" by a device.

 

Many photographers are troubled by this argument. It suggests that there is less original creativity in the art form than in painting. I do not believe the argument is weak at all. If it were a weak hypothesis it wouldn't have prevailed for almost 196 years with the likes of Sontag and Bresson being troubled by it.

[don_e]

"I have previously used the example of an Ansel Adams print...If one were in the same location, practicing the identical technique at the same moment, with the same camera, how would one tell the difference?"

 

But one wasn't. Adams was. He saw what was there. He was there. He worked out how to photograph what he saw and develop it. One didn't. Adams bagged the shot. One didn't. Afterwards, after seeing Adam's print, after reading his books, one might attempt to copy Adams.

 

There's where originality, individuality, and uniqueness abide.

[don_e]

"Were the impressionists painting from memory and photographs? No."

 

Actually, some were hobbiests (Degas and Monet, I think). Photography suggested some effects to them -- motion blur, for one.

[steve_sharf1]

Don:"Actually, some were hobbiests (Degas and Monet, I think)" ??

 

What are you suggesting with your term "hobbiests"?

 

Monet built his entire estate at Giverny in order to create a massive garden that would enable him to capture the light required to create "the moment" in his paintings. The vast garden is still there to visit. He came from money but I think it is a real stretch to call him a hobbiest.

 

With all respect, you have responded several times to my comments though I'm not sure what your argument is.

[don_e]

"What are you suggesting with your term "hobbiests"?"

 

Both owned cameras, took photos, and their painting was influenced by photography

 

"With all respect, you have responded several times to my comments though I'm not sure what your argument is."

 

In order to make a distinction between art and photography, you have chosen to argue from a position of technical naivete in which photography is an activity in which a image is "caught by a device" rather than "formed within the brain" to be "translated" to some medium -- and that the photograph lacks a "subjective idiosyncratic quality".

 

This hardly requires refutation and you should know better. However, if you don't, my apologies.

 

That is what I am arguing against, not whether or not photography is art.

[steve_sharf1]

Don: I'm surprised that you claim the argument hardly requires refutation. It is not my argument as you claim. It is an argument that , as I stated above, began with the advent of photography close to 200 years ago. It is an argument dealt with at length in countless articles and books including, as I stated earlier, Susan Sontag's renowned photographic philosophical treatise "On photography", and Bresson's famous "The Decisive Moment". It is an argument that I heard at length while studying film and painting in university and one that is often discussed here on Photo.Net. I'm honoured that you think that it is an argument for which I am responsible but, I do not take credit for it.

[don_e]

"I'm honoured that you think that it is an argument for which I am responsible but, I do not take credit for it."

 

"You have chosen to argue..." I didn't say it was original.

 

The argument requires no refutation for those who understand that cameras don't capture images or spit them out like pez.

[steve_sharf1]

Don: Here is another source, written by a guy who thought seriously about cameras spitting out images. Paul Levinson's book, "The Soft Edge" deals with what he calls the elimination of subjectivity in photography and discusses it in relation to the impressionist movement. The discussion relates how impressionists were able to capture a fleeting image, like photography, and do so while providing artistic subjectivity that photography cannot do.

 

That was, and is my point. All of the authors I have previously mentioned, (Sontag, Bresson, Levinson) were(are) not lacking in intellect as you seem to suggest.

[don_e]

I'll add Levinson to the pressing weight of your authoritative citations. I have none. Although I'll agree with HCB, but with due regard for the effortless snobbery of an aristo.

 

What I do have is the weight of my experience and meditation on photography, painting, and computer art, and it comes to a different conclusion than those you cite.