Photography is of no Art and of no Rules

[rashed]

<p>Photography is of no Art and of no Rules, many these days will come with such statement without even feeling shy or even knowing how much they are humiliating photography!<br>

<br>

If photography is of no Art and have no rules why people have to go to University or collages to study the Art of photography?<br>

<br>

If photography is of no Art or having no Rules, why we are bothered with light physics and other technical aspects?<br>

<br>

It is easy then to just pay a little of money buy a camera, snap shoot an image, post it on a site, wait for a kind possibly a soft ware programmer to pass through, pick your image , post it on his site first page and make a hero and a photographic master out of you .<br>

<br>

And they come and say photography is not been humiliated, what more humiliation could take place more than this.<br>

<br>

I just like to know, why I have to go teaching myself photography, why I need to learn from others, well to learn what, having a camera in hand and shooting an image?<br>

<br>

I always thought carpentry is having rules and measurements, otherwise when the carpenter built a door without rules his door will a sort of twisted all over and will not fit the place it is designed for.<br>

The mechanical Engineer to not need rules, why he need one, to open a nut or close it?<br>

<br>

I really feel so sad that we left all of those great colleges and Universities fooling us with rules and taken our money and time away, what a waste.</p>

 

[Charles_Webster]

<p>Only you believe there is no "art" to photography.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>I think you will find most people on this forum don't feel photography is as easy as clicking the shutter. And anyone who does feel that way should just have a look at the home page of this site at the current crop of great images. If they still haven't come around, hand them a camera and let them take their shot.</p>

<p>Photography is merely a more subtle art than say painting, but it's still an art. There's a bit of science in it too, but it's mostly an art.</p>

[rashed]

<p>So sorry my friend Charles, I can see you went at the San Francisco Art Institute in the 60's, bravo my friend, this is how photography should have been and should always be.</p>

<p>All of my respect for you my friend.</p>

[rashed]

<p>My friend <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=198003">David W. Griffin</a>, I was only trying to bring to the attention that some how to some people here and not all, photograpny is a dead easy hobby of point and shoot, I do not beleive so my self other wise I will spend my time searching of knowladge to teach my self and improve my skill.</p>

<p>Thank you my friend and wishing you all of the best.</p>

[ernest-b]

<p>Rashed,</p>

<p>Irony does not translate easily into a second language. It often becomes a blunt weapon.</p>

[ernest-b]

<p>"...despite your best intentions," I should have added.</p>

[rashed]

<p>I understand my friend, I am so sorry that I do not find my English helping me to put this is a proper lay out, my friends <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=1663629">Charles </a>and <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=198003">David </a>, took it a different way because of my poor English.</p>

<p>Thank you a lot my friend Ernest , thank you a lot.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Rashed is fully right in his irony and I think it is a powerful answer to the ever repeated message from many on PN that all is subjective and "rules" are only there to be overseen and even better not to be known of. For me the repeated affirmation of "no art, no rules" is a bad excuse for lack of ability to formulate a qualified critic of photography as works of art. Just my personal understanding of what is going on.</p>

[ernest-b]

<p>Anders,</p>

<p>You are making your point--which is, in part, a defense of irony--simply, clearly, and <em>without irony</em> .</p>

<p>Just sayin'.</p>

[rossb]

<p> I believe most people think of photography as Art. I certainly do. However, it's not likely I will look at your Art unless it's film based. Computer work does not generally get me fired up, however I do want to see "Avatar" at the movies this week end. But yes, Photography is Art. </p>

[starvy]

<p>photography has the potential to reach an artistic level, however it does not always reach such heights. i took a picture of my favourite mug today. it was resting on the windowsill next to my laptop. the light coming through the open blinds made it quite a complex shot. my effort is not art although through my very basic dslr, i possess a tool to potentially create art.<br>

under my desk are my old water colour easel, pads, tuves of paint, many brushes, arabic gum and such paraphernalia. my water colours were never art.<br>

like watercolours that get displayed in art galleries (it is very hard to be taken seriously as a artist who paints watercolours), the photographs considered as works of art had been put together by an individual who had intentions of creating art, had understanding of the basic processes to create the artwork, and lastly, it is accepted as a work of art through a conferral of status.<br>

the 'better' universities in this country don't see photography as a serious academic subject. the most talented students still want to do medicine or law or go for one of the more prestigious humanities subjects. the kids who has been good at art take arts courses. you don't have to go to university to be a photographer.</p>

[matt_needham]

<p>"Photography appears to be an easy activity; in fact it is a varied and ambiguous process in which the only common denominator among its practitioners is in the instrument." -Henri Cartier-Bresson</p>

<p>Why be concerned with those you think of as foolish? Photography is not humiliated by the fact that the majority of photographs created won't even make it to the level of mediocre. That is the way it has always been. Look up the definition of "photography" in the dictionary. It's incredibly vague and general, and there is plenty of room for all sorts of different tools, materials, techniques, and ideas. </p>

<p>Anyway it's more than apparent that a disregard for what the masses consider art and the rules is not a barrier to success. One example: http://www.terryrichardson.com/</p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>it's not likely I will look at your Art unless it's film based.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> And I won't read any book unless it's written in Latin. And I won't listen to any music unless it's played on the lute.</p>

[rossb]

<blockquote>

<p>And I won't read any book unless it's written in Swahili. And I won't listen to any music unless it's played on the lute.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's OK with me. Do as you wish. I suppose if a Swahili author playing a lute was showing computer Art I might just have to check it out. I might even snap a picture of it with my D200.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<blockquote>

<p>However, it's not likely I will look at your Art unless it's film based</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Fundamentalism in photography, who would have thought.</p>

<p> </p>

[machts gut]

<p>Maybe it has something to do with the Dunning-Kruger-Effect</p>

[steven_f1]

<p>To the person making the painting, sculptur, or picture, it is art because he belives it is art.</p>

<p>To a individual it is art if they are <em>willing to aquire it</em>.</p>

<p> </p>

[theadore_horvath]

<p>Rashed, your meaning is perfectly clear. Great satire!<br>

Ted</p>

[gordonjb]

<p>Vision without technique stands a chance of being defined as art.</p>

<p>Technique without vision is dead in the water.</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<p>The problem with statements like this is that they attempt to quantify and become an all encompassing assessment of a method of expression that can be many things. For example, all writing is not art - there is a great difference between a service manual and play by Shakespeare. Photography is no different. It can be many things. Photography uses specific physical principles, but those are not rules anymore than the speed of light is a "rule."</p>

<p>The speed of light is a critical physical operative that one must be aware of if you are working in certain areas of physics. Although the speed of light seems to impose certain limitations on the absolute speed of physical objects with mass, you will not find a physicist today that will unequivocally state it is impossible to exceed the speed of light - as that would imply that everything is totally known about small particle physics, time, parallel dimensions, and parallel universes to name a few variables - and what exactly happens inside of a black hole?</p>

<p>If you're talking about the over discussed "rules of composition" - once again, this is an area that you will find is not quite what you think it may be. Composition in Japan is different than composition in China which is different than Western composition. The people who espouse the rules of composition are working within very limited compositional methods - and are mainly following composition by imitation. Not very creative, and not much more than an easily followed formula.</p>

<p>Once you become familiar with different types of composition, you find that there is no best way. There is only the final composition that shows your interpretation of the subject - but that involves far more than simply placing a subject on a predetermined grid system within a square or rectangular format. If you read the book, "The Power of the Center: A Study of Composition in the Visual Arts," you will never find grid-based, compositional formulas even discussed as there are far better ways to approach and discuss composition. Likewise, you will not find grid-based, composition by imitation discussed in "Composition: Understanding Line, Notan, and Color." Both books will give far more meaningful approaches on how understand and compose two dimensional art - whether it is drawing, painting, or photography - than grid-based compositional formulas.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I really feel so sad that we left all of those great colleges and Universities fooling us with rules and taken our money and time away, what a waste.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Having graduated from three different art schools, I can state that at no time were any of the institutions trying to "fool" me with rules. While I was made aware of physical and chemical requirements for working in photography and certain graphic concepts, at no time were they ever espoused as "rules" that had to be followed with no deviation or questions.</p>

<p>I would suggest that you can learn whatever you want to, and follow whatever methodology you want - but nothing will lead you to successful photographs except a lot of visual exploration and finding your own unique way of seeing - which cannot be taught.</p>

<p> </p>

[rashed]

<p>Thank you my friend <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=86165">Steve Swinehart</a>, that was a great wisdom.</p>

[rossb]

<blockquote>

<p>Fundamentalism in photography, who would have thought.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Probably a better term would be "boring". The DSLR is a snapshot machine and I enjoy mine. It is very useful for many purposes but as Art, the process has been dummied down from capture to print. For me it lacks credibility. I think the problem with it is everyone has photoshop and knows it's all just a few clicks of the mouse type thing. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Rashed, people can't humiliate photography. They can only humiliate themselves. And there is no paucity of those who do.</p>

<p>When learning is accompanied by creativity, anything can happen. </p>

<p>Excuses abound by people for bad work. An excuse doesn't change a lousy photograph.</p>

<p>I think some photographs are art and some aren't. I think some photographs that are art are good art and some photographs that are art are bad art.</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<blockquote>

<p>Probably a better term would be "boring". The DSLR is a snapshot machine and I enjoy mine. It is very useful for many purposes but as Art, the process has been dummied down from capture to <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/#" target="_blank">print</a>. For me it lacks credibility. I think the problem with it is everyone has photoshop and knows it's all just a few clicks of the mouse type thing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Simplistic at best. The tool does not dictate the result - the person using the tool does. The process cannot lack credibility - only the person using it can.</p>

<p>This seems like a problem involving either laziness or a lack of imagination, and not related to the use of any specific type of technology. If you cannot make credible, interesting images using digital technology, then changing technology won't help - unless you're one of the people that thinks appreciating a process is more important than appreciating the final image.</p>

<p> Do you believe these statements to be true with scanned film as well? </p>