Underground baths in the Real Alcazar

When I take a technically solid photo of beautiful architecture, is it

anything more than putting a beautiful painting on a copy stand and

copying it to film?

 

In other words, am I an artist or just a photocopy clerk with a

portable photocopier?

 

Thanks,

Clark

qood question (the one you posted in the critique request with this pic). my prof used the same argument on me when i did a local historic landmark photoessay, and everyone ooohed & aaahed over my pics...

Think of the hundreds, even thousands of people who have bathed there before. Imagine only one in a dozen would have actually noticed the architecture, and an even fewer number even appreciate it for what it is. You've eliminated all the distractions of a public bath and focused in on what the original architect intended for those ceiling supports for, Art. Just because you're photographing art doesn't simply mean you're taking somebody else's credit, (the only exceptions being paintings or photographs themselves), it means you've shown enough appreciation for the art around you to capture it the way you see fit.

This photograph caught my eye immedietly in the thumbnail form, and if I myself were in those baths I might have strolled through those hallways without noticing the very scene you've frozen. Congrats.Though this is just my opinion, should you believe otherwise.

Not everyone would have seen this the way you did ... the perfect symmetry of the groined arches and their reflection in the water ... the absolute peace inside the building. A "photocopy clerk" wouldn't have made this beautful picture.

I like to photograph sunrises and sunsets. Every time I come across one that is exceptionally beautiful, I turn my eyes toward where I imagine Heaven to be and I say "Thank you, God." In the situation here, you contribute your eyes and your sense of composition (something machines don't have) as well as you knowledge of things like exposure, dof, and film. So I don't even think that should be the question, and you shouldn't be wasting your time by trying to answer it. Assuming the architect was a man, I think your question ought to be who was the architect? What were his beliefs and goals? How can I bring the viewers of my photograph closer to him and his time and culture and whatever else? How can I reach out and touch this man and bring him and his thoughts to my audience in the 21st Century?

Do you really have to ask??? It obviously moved you, and made you think of it as more than just a structure... works for me too! Has a ineteresting "mood" about it, and in this case the centered coposition works well.

This age-old question can still only be answered subjectively. Perhaps in some ways, photography in general is not an art but just a skill of finding the most pleasant compositions and colors. On the other hand, intuitively photography certainly is an art form. So your question really has no objective answer. However, just as you ask whether a good photo of a building is your art or the architect's, someone might ask whether a great photograph of a flower is so good because of the artistic vision of the photographer, or just because it is a proper copy of the beauty of nature?