Photography vs Art

[aplumpton]

<p>The question of photography and computer art is a no-go, simply because it ignores other aspects of photography and art. Photography with an attempt at recoding realistic colours may be either record ("what", "where", "when") photography or it may be art photography, depending upon the ability and inclination of the photographer.</p>

<p>Photography can involve the photographer personally assembling or modifying the subject matter (rather difficult with many landscapes) with an objective in mind, and, especially when using the black and white medium, also involve use of the darkroom as an added approach in the image creation. Is that different to art photography which adds the computer to the creative image manipulations? Yes, and no. Yes when the photograph no longer exists as the primary imput to the image creation, when it risks no longer being a photograph, let alone an art photograph.</p>

[stp]

<p>Arthur, I think we're intentionally avoiding other aspects of photography and art. This question came up, as I recall, primarily in relation to landscape photography. The art aspect is being restricted to photography and digital art produced on a computer. I think we need to restrict the scope for now only to keep the question more manageable.</p>

<p>So with the understanding that we've put arbitrary sideboards on the scope of photography and art, I think the original question(s) is still valid. I've tried to summarize the primary question, and I hope my summary is valid and not simply my own spin.</p>

<p>I see the questions as being:</p>

<p>1. Do two categories exist (understanding as Arthur said that many other categories also exist) as distinct kinds of art: photography and computer art (including computer art that may have begun as a photograph but has few or none of the original pixels remaining)?</p>

<p>2. If the eventual answer is "yes," then can we also agree that a photograph can be manipulated to varying degrees and in various ways, and that there is a continuous path of manipulation from a photograph to a piece of digital art?</p>

<p>3. If the eventual answer is "yes," what are some examples of the different kinds and degrees of manipulation that can be applied to a photograph? Do some generalities emerge regarding insignificant versus significant manipulations, and possibly regarding the distinction between a photograph versus digital art (the two end points of that continuous path)?</p>

 

[gordonjb]

<blockquote>

<p>with the understanding that we've put arbitrary sideboards on the scope of photography and art, I think the original question(s) is still valid.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The fact that the original assertion puts arbitrary sideboards on the scope of photography and art undermines it and illustrates how useless the notion is in practical terms. Arbitrary lines of exclusion may be of interest semantically but I do not see this as benefiting the photographer creating an image. On the contrary it is a artificial, restrictive and superfluous distinction.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Stephen, I think you should recall that the great black and white landscape images were often wrought from negatives that sometimes communicated only part of what the photographer either saw ("the record") or wanted to see (which was sometimes "the art"). "Moonrise over Hernandez" of Adams is perhaps one of the best known manipulated images, but just one. While I agree with the often implied perception that the overuse or poor use of Photoshop often leads to digital disasters that may be claimed as art, the meaningful artistic use of Photoshop is really little different from meaningful darkroom creations or modifications. As long as the photographed image is the main element of the final image and that final image can claim to be art, then the product can make some claim to being photographic art (vis-a-vis sculpted art, or painted art).</p>

<p>Some, however, are put off by the presence and popular importance given to heavily Photoshopped images that they simply have little interest in competing in photograph rating systems other than those that are sponsored by artistic circles or established photographic societies. </p>

[stp]

<p>Gordon, the original questions dealt with the relationship between photographs that were relatively unmanipulated versus photographs that were heavily manipulated (so much so that some folks considered them to be digital art rather than photographs). That's what led to the "arbitrary sideboards on how far out we would go regarding the scope of photography and the scope of art. I think the sideboards are valuable in that they help to focus the discussion on a specific aspect of art versus photography, rather than the much wider notion of art as a whole versus the full range of photography (which I think quickly becomes unmanageable because they contain so many facets; e.g., I don't think we want to deal with astrophotography, microphotography, sculpture, or computer-generated fractals). Perhaps if we were thinking of this question as degrees of manipulated photographs and how that relates to photography and art (rather than the broader notion of art versus photography), we wouldn't be hindered by the various interpretations of the basic question.</p>

<p>As I see it, the basic question of whether and when a heavily manipulated photograph enters the realm of digital art is very useful in practical term, and it may not be just a semantic argument. Yes, the sideboards are artificial and restrictive, but only for the purpose of facilitating a more focused discussion.</p>

<p>Arthur, your statement, "....the meaningful artistic use of Photoshop is really little different from meaningful darkroom creations or modifications" is (IMO) an assumption on your part, and I think this assumption needs to be explored and discussed more fully; that was one of the intentions of the original question. For example, I don't think I necessarily agree with that statement, simply because I have a hard time equating the power of the computer with that of darkroom manipulation. Others may disagree, but that's why we should have a more thorough discussion.</p>

<p>Also, the main question deals with the relationship between the manipulated unmanipulated photograph. While we often assume we're talking about the extensive use of manipulation via computer-based photoshop, perhaps it's equally valid to talk about darkroom manipulation in this continuum from manipulated to non-manipulated photos. Therefore, just because one might be able to equate photoshop manipulation with darkroom manipulation, that may not necessary render the original question moot; the original question may still be valid. I'm thinking of darkroom manipulations that revealed "ghosts" in the photograph that was such a sensation in the early days of photography.<br>

And once again, that original question is whether a heavily manipulated photograph, at some point in the manipulation process, enters another realm of art, and if it's done via computer, that new realm would be computer art. I always return to the end points of that continuum: a film transparency versus an artistic image which may have started as a photograph but in which the original pixels are nearly entirely transformed into something else. If those two extremes can be considered to be essentially the same, then the question has been answered and there is no need for more discussion. But of those two extremes are not essentially the same kind or class of artistic expression, then a discussion of their relationship is warranted.</p>

<p>From my perspective, they are not the same, because one was captured, the other was created. One was seen and experienced, the other was never seen (except in a creative mind) or experienced. One was a (more or less) accurate representation of a moment in time (lots of room for discussion on this point), while the other was never intended to be a more or less accurate representation of a moment in time.</p>

<p>Some folks believe that it's only the final product that matters (i.e., whether the image "works"), while others believe that the process used to arrive at the final product is also an important consideration and/or an important part of the final product.</p>

<p>All of this suggests to me that there is a difference of opinion that would be worthwhile exploring in a discussion. However, whether the internet and postings in a forum is going to be a workable vehicle for this kind of discussion is very much up in the air, in my mind. It just may not work in this forum.</p>

[rossb]

<p>Don't really care about the digital vs film thing. The digital world has dummied it all down and film photography is harder. The end is a picture of something and I like my own rating system.<br>

1: The Good<br>

2: The Bad<br>

3: The Ugly</p>

<p>I guess for me to buy a ticket to view photography art it would have to be old B/W. I sometimes go see Adams or some of the old masters work when it's around close enough to go see. I am not likely to go and see a digital art show but if Sabastio Salgado's stuff were around I would check it out.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"As I see it, the basic question of whether and when a heavily manipulated photograph enters the realm of digital art is very useful in practical term"</em></p>

<p>Please give a few examples of how the answer to this question makes a practical difference. It is possible that it makes a practical difference in the "art world." For instance, what kinds of work will a certain gallery or competition accept or what will get classified where in the history books. But I can't think of a practical use for it in terms of making or viewing photographs themselves. Some specific examples might prove fruitful here.</p>

[gordonjb]

<blockquote>

<p>Perhaps if we were thinking of this question as degrees of manipulated photographs and how that relates to photography and art</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In practical terms the degree of manipulation is not easily determined even if drawing a line in the sand were of some use. Beyond bad photo-shop technique which is often obvious there is an entire realm of manipulation which is not detectable to to the viewer. A well executed composite will leave no traces as will cloning out objects. Just how saturated the colour in the original scene were is something only the photographer can know. Did the original scene have more contrast than the print we are viewing ? Was there a lamppost which was removed ?<br>

What impact on the viewer would this information have ? For my own purposes it has no impact which is why I define the need to make such distinctions as useless. There is bad photography which is sometimes the result of poorly executed or heavy handed manipulation and there is good photography which is also sometimes the result of heavy handed manipulation. The same tools in different hands will produce different result. Limiting the tool box will not change that.</p>

[stp]

<p>Ross, this is no way a film versus digital discussion.</p>

<p>Gordon, from the examples you gave, I would tentatively conclude that you don't care how the image was made (whether it was captured or created, experienced or not experienced, real or not real) as long as it "works," or as long as the manipulation was done well and was essentially undetectable. So are you saying that the two endpoints that I've mentioned before (an unaltered transparency or an unaltered digital file versus a heavily manipulated photo in which nearly all of the pixels have been altered in some way) are essentially the same thing (i.e., that extensive manipulation has not altered fundamental character of the base photograph where the extensive manipulation was applied)? Lastly, would you call a person who graduated from art school with a degree in computer art and who created his/her digital creations by starting with a photograph or a montage of photographs a "photographer?" From your response, I would guess your answer would be "yes" to all of these questions, and therefore you can see no point in this discussion.</p>

[stp]

<p>Sorry, double post.</p>

[rossb]

<p>Sorry, I do not know the lingo over here. You guys talk about the same topic over and over endlessly and have your own thing going.. I thought photography(traditional) was different then digital photography. But when you are talking about manipulation as art you are talking about stuff that toddlers are doing. Not many folks out there take it as much more then fiddling around in a computer. It is just a way to fix up a snapshot. </p>

[stp]

<p>Ross, I think the issue is that there is a great range of digital manipulation made possible by computer software, and some folks are asking if this newly expanded range of photo manipulation has, at some point, pushed what has been considered "photography" into a realm of art that is better described as "computer art" or "digital art." At least that's my take on the basic question, and there are a number of interesting sub-questions that spin off of this.</p>

[gordonjb]

<p> My point was not whether I "care" or not about how the image was made. My point was that you want to measure degrees in order to re-label or exclude in a visual field where detecting the degrees you wish to quantify is simply not possible. You cannot look at an image and say " that one has been altered by 53.5 % so it no longer qualifies as photography however this image has only been altered by 42.7 % so it remains photography. I also was not suggesting that the distinction has anything to do with quality. I was trying to illustrate that a small amount of careless alteration may well be visually more apparent than a large amount of well executed alteration and this further compounds the notion of putting images in one camp or another. Beyond serving no purpose it is not doable on a practical level. If a concept serves no purpose nor can it be put into practice then it has no value to me.<br>

To answer your last question if the person you propose took the photographs which they used for the montage then yes they are a photographer.</p>

 

[gordonjb]

<p>When I was in school I used to take a selections of strips of film and pile them on a glass plate. I would use some excelerant such as lighter fluid and set fire to them. I would extinguish the fire by dropping a second glass plate on top sandwiching the molten and semi-molten negs. I then contact printed this onto sheet film and use this to make a print. Was the resulting print photography? </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Maybe we'd be best off calling it an original Gordon. Or, more importantly, I'd just want to SEE it rather than LABEL it.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>A bit too much seasonal food and drink may well have an effect on my concentration on this interesting OP, and possibly also on my critical abilities. That notwithstanding, I would like to isolate and discuss one concept or condition that Stephan mentioned, which is that of the postulated continuum that may exist between the “descriptive photograph” and the “computer art derived from a photograph”.</p>

<p>It is interesting to see that progression (or regression, if you prefer) as some continuous function, much like the mixing together of two different liquid substances (say ethanol and water) where the simple phase diagram reveals to us a complete miscibility (mixing) in any and all proportions (I hope I have chosen a true chemical analogy of such continuity) from 100 – 0% to 0 – 100%.</p>

<p>The question becomes that of "Is such a continuum possible, or is there a discontinuity that prevents a perfect mixing of the two species"? Let’s replace ethanol and water by "descriptive photography" and "digital art loosely based on an original photographic image". Do they form a continuous solution, or are there concentrations (degrees if you wish) where the two are immiscible? I'm inclined to think that a miscible result is possible in some cases, but that generally a discontinuity will occur at some point where the product is no longer what one would call a photograph. Or, if one is coming from the other side, where the non-photographic intent of the digital art becomes obfuscated and one has the impression of seeing a photograph rather than a non-photographic creation.</p>

<p>While it’s not an example that I prefer (as it is not normally derived from digital art), I think an example of the latter case can be considered in the hyper-realistic movement of painted art (in Canada, that might be represented by works of Alexander Colville or Paul Béliveau, in the USA by Chuck Close and Denis Peterson, or in Europe by others) where pictorial elements are added to create the “illusion” of a reality, which in fact either <em>does not exist</em> or cannot be seen by the human eye. Such hyperrealism or photorealism often uses subtle non-realistic elements and probably can be easily situated in a miscible range (continuum) of creation between descriptive photography, at one end, and photographically free painting at the other end.</p>

<p>While similar cases of a continuum exist in photography and digital art, the more general case of a discontinuous relation between digital art and photography is often confronted. I think it is difficult to invoke external criteria (rather than a simple "I like it" or "I hate it") that separate when a work is no longer photographic, that is, where the discontinuity between photography and digital art is reached.</p>

<p>I believe that we can more easily say when a work "tends" to be less important as a photograph or when digital art "tends" more toward being (or revealing its origins as) a photograph, while not discerning the actual break point between the two. I think that the zone of immiscibility is most apparent when the digital manipulation or creation is <em>massive change</em> and the zone of immiscibility of the photography - digital art phase diagram then is displaced more to the side of the descriptive photograph, where the manipulator is clearly not adhering to the qualities of the original photograph, or to photography, as such.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Stephen, my apologies for Stephan (the obfuscation perhaps created by the seasonal food and drink...).</p>

[inoneeye]

<p>Gordon, I would love to see some of your gordograms - gbstracts?</p>

[stp]

<p>Gordon, I understand what you're saying about an inability to measure degrees of manipulation. But I think you're jumping ahead and coming to a conclusion before other very important preliminary discussions have taken place. For example, I'm not yet certain that there is agreement that two different art forms exist: photography and digital art that started with a photograph. For another example, I have a feeling that some kinds of manipulation are more significant than others when considering the relationship between photography and digital art; we haven't yet discussed this issue. Until those questions (and others) are addressed, I don't think the fact that there is an inability to accurately measure degrees of manipulation is relevant just yet; it may be in the future, but not just yet.</p>

<p>Also, I would strongle agree that a photographer who took a series of photographs and put them into a montage is a photographer and has created a photograph. I agree so strongly that I obviously had something different in mind (and I just don't have the time right now to go back through the pages to find that statement). This is one of the drawbacks of having this kind of discussion on-line: it's so easy to say one thing and have it interpreted as something else, and it takes time to make these clarifications. It's so much easier when doing this face-to-face.</p>

<p>Arthur, I think your analogies are useful in clarifying the issue. I don't think we'll ever find a bright line that separates the two (assuming they are separate art forms), but we may be able to find a zone and make that zone as narrow as possible. I'd like to talk about the different kinds of manipulation that we do: cloning, color saturation, making composites (Gordon, this would be a good conversation -- I can think of some composites made of photographs taken by the same photographer that are so surreal because of additional manipulation that whether they are photographs or digital art is, IMO, an open question), changing colors, HDR (including HDR where the effects are readily apparent versus HDR that is so subtle that it's undetectable and essentially is mimicking the human eye), etc. etc. If we were able to talk about kinds of manipulation, we might agree that some are more important than others in moving a photograph to the realm of digital art (just let this be my own assumption for now). If we talk about categories, then we may avoid Gordon's predicament of trying to quantify percentages -- that's why I thought Gordon might be getting too far ahead in his last post; I think we may be able to avoid the predicament Gordon described.</p>

<p>Anyway, I'm in western Washington at the moment and need to get on the road to eastern Washington before the next big snowstorm hits, so I'm taking off for an 8-10 hour drive. I bought some film in Seattle and would like to use some of that on the way back.</p>

<p>In the meantime, I regret that I entered this conversation at a late stage. I've tried my best to contribute by framing the questions as simply and logically as possible from my point of view, and I hope we can still have a useful discussion.</p>

[rossb]

<p>Stephen, thank you for your response. I guess I do not know the answer to that question or questions. For myself when viewing photography art I do like to know the process used to shoot and print the photograph. As much information as possible makes the viewing more enjoyable. In my area near Monterey Ca I have never seen any photography art shown that was of a digital method. It all seems to be film based. However I do not go to galleries often. I will bow out of this conversation now but I will keep reading to see what you all say. I just finished a 3 day march around Disneyland carrying my DSLR and at the moment I am sick of the thing and wish I had a lighter camera.</p>

<p> </p>

[stp]

<p>I'm going to end my participation in this thread. I think Jeremy has posed an important question that deserves to be discussed, partly because it appears in so many POW discussions. However, I've concluded that the internet or PN thread is not the best avenue for a discussion like this. It's too easy so misinterpret or make incorrect assumptions about a posting, it takes too long to clear these up, and the main question is relatively complex and requires (IMO) an agreed-upon framework to tackle the various aspects of the central issue. That's just too hard to accomplish in an unstructured forum like this. Everyone has valid points of view, and if we were sitting face to face I think we'd have a great and productive discussion. Cyberspace just isn't the place for this. However, I've been able to clarify a few points in my own thinking, and I hope it has served a useful purpose for most, even if we didn't make much headway on the main question regarding photography versus digital art.</p>

<p>Best wishes to all for a great 2011, and may we continue in the coming year in the pursuit of photography, a passion that unites all of us.</p>

<p>Steve Penland</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I would like to add my own best wishes for a 2011 of fulfilling photographic explorations and creation to all fellow contributors.</p>

<p>Reservations about the extent of the development of the subject are I think prompted not only by the nature of Internet discussions (the tendency to add to only immediately previous discussions, much like the familar party example of whispering something from one person to the next and comparing the end result with the inirtial statement), but not uniquely so. They are also influenced to some extent by the choice of the title of an OP, in this case "Photgraphy versus Art" (a very broad theme) and perhaps by the fact that it began by the continuation of an interaction started elsewhere between two contributors. It may have been better to introduce the subject more specifically, based more specifically on the following, which was mentioned amongst many things in the OP,</p>

<p>"the nature of photography and the role of digital manipulation"</p>

<p>and to present specific examples of the latter as much as responses to a prior unfamiliar (to many) conversation, the conditions or specific issues of the latter that not all of us might have been famiar with. Notwithstanding, and in agreement with the statement that it is not easy to pursue the subject on a forum such as this in the rigorous manner of other exercises (I can think of my own past experience of the demanding focus required in school debating or much later in defending a research thesis or communication), the present OP, as Stephen has said, has produced/is producing a lot of valuable ideas from others that we can interact with as we choose.</p>

<p>With appreciation to Jeremy for opening this theme (I have gotten a lot out of it, despite some obfuscation and various different intrerpretations of the theme), I would venture to suggest that if we want to have more focussed discussion on a topic like "photography versus art" we should probably define the question or postulate quite narrowly. Something analogous to "The role of the centre and symmetry in photographic composition, or their avoidance", or, with relation to this particular OP, "Digital manipulation and aesthetics in photography". This is just a personal preference, while recognising the advantages of less focussed discussions as creative processes.</p>

[stp]

<p>Arthur, those are good points. I've tried to state some of the questions as narrowly and specifically as possible, and I think the use of specific examples would be a great approach. There have been some photos posted recently that, as I was making comments, I thought would have been good examples for this discussion.</p>

<p>It may be the holiday season, or it may be that folks are simply tired of the question (we've been at it for a number of weeks). Perhaps we'll still dance around this and occasionally address the question in future postings, although quite frankly I'm going to be reluctant to bring it up because I don't want to derail someone's thread (which was Jeremy's reason for bringing the discussion to this specific thread).</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Taste is subjective. Whether or not you like hot peppers or chocolate is similarly subjective. This is as it should be in art. It is the differences in that personal subjectivity that differentiates one artist from another. Without those differences art would devolve into a boring sameness. Creativity is the ultimate reflection of subjective taste.</p>