Is wedding photography art?

[dhbebb]

<p><em>how creative[is] someone if they can't adapt to folks they don't find attractive?</em><br>

A legitimate question, to which i can only answer that I do not consider myself to be an artistic Proteus and have my limits - specifically, I will not photograph pornography (defined as images of sex where the only interest is money) and most definitely not situations which are so hard-core that they involve the infliction of pain or self-mutilation, of which IMHO tattooing is one form. I'm showing my age here - I know perfectly well that tattoos are a common form of body decoration, when I think of them, I think of people like Amy Whitehouse, whose tattoos increased in line with her alcoholism and (sadly terminal) lack of self-esteem. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Well, David, regardless of whatever your age has to do with it, you've just given a textbook example of stereotyping, which is often where the roots of discrimination are to be found. Thinking of people with tattoos in terms of the life led by one person with a tattoo . . . you couldn't have provided a better example. I'm sorry to hear it but thank you for it, especially as it sheds light on some of the issues raised in the article which started this thread. </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm showing my age here - I know perfectly well that tattoos are a common form of body decoration</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Tattooing has been a common form of body decoration for thousands of years, you must be really old.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I think of people like Amy Whitehouse, whose tattoos increased in line with her alcoholism and (sadly terminal) lack of self-esteem.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>David, I presume that you are talking about Amy Winehouse.</p>

<p>You seem to be positing some kind of casual link between her tats and her tragedies. Which might be cause and which effect, if there were to be some causal relationship (which I doubt)?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[DrBen]

David Bebbington wrote: "To my mind, there are two separate and distinct questions here: my answer to the first, as to

whether wedding photography is art, is most definitely "no!" Wedding photography is the application of craft skills at a very

high level to pleasing a paying customer – no wedding photography is of any interest whatsoever unless you know the

people in the pictures."

 

 

By that definition, the frescoes on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, executed for pay by a highly skilled craftsman named

Michelangelo to please a paying customer, Pope Julius II, are not art.

 

 

Art historians see it very differently, concluding that the work is a masterpiece without precedent, that was to change the

course of Western art.

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>JDM, it appears that your<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2016/0715/Is-wedding-photography-art-A-wrinkle-in-religious-liberty-debate"><em> link</em></a> was brilliant strategy, a Trojan Horse that got past the Photo.net security apparatus.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Now, Now. Would <em>I</em> try to sneak something by?</p>

<p>Perish the thought. I'm no troublemaker.</p>

<p>I just thought people ought to be aware that the courts were dealing with these matters. :|</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>@ Lannie - yes, for Whitehouse read Winehouse. I cannot help but feel that her tattoos were a graphical representation of her mental disintegration. So sad!<br>

@ Jeff - yes, in view of the many facets of modern culture which I truly loathe, I am certainly getting old. The fact is in the region in which I grew up (Manchester UK), tattoos were seen only on sailors, ex-jailbirds and assorted would-be hard nuts. Another fact is that many who have tattoos done come to regret it:<br>

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2594272/One-six-people-hate-tattoos-50-believe-ink-makes-look-common.html<br>

@ Fred - I may well be guilty of stereotyping. Just as background info, I might mention that I did collaborate on projects over a period of around 15 years with a photographer called Marie Muscat-King, who has done extensive projects with tattooed people. She handled the studio sessions, I did quite a bit of printing and assisted her in mounting a large exhibition in the local library. In the course of this, I met a number of her subjects, whom (I hope) I treated with all due civility while not feeling any inclination to change my views of tatoos!<br>

@ Benoit - I stand by my views. Successful wedding photography requires great photographic craft skills, plus organisational and business ability. Art is precisely nowhere - or could you imagine a wedding photographer who concludes that his/her subjects are shallow materialistic a**holes and produces corresponding images?</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Craft, but some express it artistically. Wedding photography is also a service, and in the U.S. you can't deny service on the grounds of race, religion, ethnicity, gender or orientation. </p>

[Tony Parsons]

<p>Fred G wrote :<br>

'Viewers seeing rats have an emotional response, which doesn't make rats art any more than viewers having an emotional response to wedding pictures makes them art.'<br>

Rats, being natural creatures, are not created by humans, therefore the inclusion of them in a discussion concerning art is both disingenuous and facile. Images of rats, no matter in what art form they appear, can be artistic. <br>

Tony</p>

[Supriyo]

I think what Fred was trying to convey is, anything that triggers an emotional response doesn't necessarily have to be an

art. When my daughter makes a mess on the floor, it triggers an emotional response in me. Doesn't mean, my daughter

created an art. It's pretty clear what he wanted to say. Let's not waste time arguing over the semantics.

[Robin Smith]

<p>No need to get on your high horse Fred. I am not a stranger to gay people, so I really don't need a lecture from you on this or other similar matters. You like to generalize discussions, so do some of us: so when I give an opinion you cannot assume I am expressing what I would need. It is more a view on what others may prefer.</p>

<p>Since you seem to be prickly about it, perhaps it would indeed be sensible for you, for example, to ensure that someone taking your wedding would be on the same page as you, which is all I am (obviously) saying.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Since you seem to be prickly about it</p>

</blockquote>

<p>LOL. Robin, your deflection wasn't terribly successful, but I love the pun! ;-)</p>

[Supriyo]

<blockquote>

<p>perhaps it would indeed be sensible for you, for example, to ensure that someone taking your wedding would be on the same page as you</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

While I understand this from a practical standpoint, I find it difficult to accept why a professional wedding photographer would have to be on the same page as me to shoot my wedding. A professional should be able to transcend his/her beliefs and prejudices and deliver a decent enough result. After all, wedding photography for most part is a service, not art, as most of us seem to agree. My point is, where does one draw the line on what has to be disclosed and what not. If denial of service based on race is considered discrimination, so should sexual orientation be, in my opinion. I understand the delicate balance at play between religious freedom and secular civil rights, and I don't pretend to have the solution for it, but nevertheless it hurts me to think that a professional person cannot separate his/her religious beliefs from the service he is providing.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>By the way, to answer a question slightly different from the OP, taker a look at today's POTD. To me, it's done quite artfully.</p>

[thomas_k.]

<p>I think in a documentary film about William Eggleston there was a talk about him photographing a wedding. Was it art?</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Since you seem to be prickly about it --Robin Smith</p>

<p>LOL. Robin, your deflection wasn't terribly successful, but I love the pun! ;-) --Fred G.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is edifying. The OT Forum lives--here and there, in the interstices.</p>

<p>Yea! Way to go, JDM.</p>

<p>It is always interesting to see what can give these old threads a new. . . burst of energy.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I think in a documentary film about William Eggleston there was a talk about him photographing a wedding. Was it art?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>If Eggleston did it, it <em>became</em> art.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>I think in a documentary film about William Eggleston there was a talk about him photographing a wedding. Was it art?</em><br>

If Eggleston did a wedding, it would most likely be as an editorial commission rather than on behalf of the happy couple unless the HC were close friends of his and were conversant with and receptive to his style. Given this style and WE's curt vocal manner, a confrontation between him and the average bride's mother is something I'd like to see!</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>....<em>if</em> <em>one wishes to be in business, one can't discriminate</em>.<br>

Absolutely not true. As a translator/technical journalist, I have for some years not advertised at all, but when I did at least have an entry in professional directories, I would ask prospective customers what their work was about and refuse anything to do with, for example, armaments or the nuclear industry. Similarly, when I was listed in a professional photography directory (BIPP), I turned down plenty of customers who did not interest me (after a short while, I changed my listing to "Does not accept commissions"). Aside from this, any creative is bound to have areas in which he/she is stronger and weaker - I cannot imagine any photographer accepting all types of work without discrimination.<br>

<em>Wedding photographs will always stir emotion in the viewer.</em><br>

I stand by my earlier statement - no wedding photographs are of any interest to anyone who does not know the subject (either because they are family or friends OR because they are a celebrity).</p>

 

[stephen_behr]

<p>I would venture saying that photography can be "artistic" but not ART pe se. I also paint realism paintings and illustrations. I have to create an image in my mind and then paint it. That is art.</p>