Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Notices

Go Back   Film and Darkroom User > General discussions > Art and aesthetics

  ***   Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks   ***

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 16th January 2015, 04:55 PM
Tony Marlow Tony Marlow is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,282
Default

I think Art is defined now by what ever Mr Saatchi says is Art!

Tony
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 16th January 2015, 05:29 PM
David Brown's Avatar
David Brown David Brown is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: North Texas (USA)
Posts: 211
Default

I am always astounded by these threads, which come up periodically on all photo forums. This question, although still debated, was settled decades ago by better men than I. And they always devolve into to trying to define art, which is a red herring. If one (personally) can't define art, then of course one can't accept photography as a art form. I do not understand this false humility among many photographers about their work. The bottom line is: If you do not think your work is art, then it's not.

I wrote the following in my blog 6 months ago. (I'll save you the trouble of going to the link.)

Yeah, but is it art?

Is photography an art? For that matter, what is art?

There are no universally accepted answers as to what makes art “art”. Don’t believe it – look it up. (If you really wish to go down a rabbit hole, go here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/ )

For many, it distills down to: it is art if the artist intends it to be art. Okay, that’s pretty broad, but it contains the kernel of necessary, essential truth; i.e., that art is deliberate. This is implied, even in a dictionary definition along lines such as: Art is the the conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty. Or: Art is the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

This discussion can go on and on. But the point of this small essay was not intended to answer “what is art”, but whether or not photography is art! To even answer that, we must assume that art is, well, art. Art exists, and we know it when we see it. Art is the given.

Once we accept art, the question of whether or not photography is an art is easy to answer. It is summed up very simply by photographer Ruth Bernhard, who said: “Photography is art when it’s used by an artist.”

Paul Caponigro said: “Photography’s potential as a great image-maker and communicator is really no different from the same potential in the best poetry where familiar, everyday words, placed within a special context, can soar above the intellect and touch subtle reality in a unique way.” The analogy of poetry is apt. The poet uses words out of a dictionary. All the words are in the dictionary, and we can all use them. But the poet arranges a few of them in a way that transcends the usual. It is the deliberate act of the arrangement of words that makes poetry.

So it is with photography. The light is there, and any or all of can capture the light on film or a digital sensor. The challenge is to do it in a way that transcends the usual.

That is the hand of the artist.


https://silverdarkroom.wordpress.com...but-is-it-art/
__________________
David
http://www.silverdarkroom.net
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 16th January 2015, 07:57 PM
JohnB JohnB is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Devon
Posts: 66
Default

Interesting discussion.

A piece of art only exists as art when it's labelled as art. What was it before then? Wasn't it just the same thing as before?

For me the term is just a convenient label for certain things that has become elitist. 'Mine is pure art, whereas yours is just a result of craft'. To my mind either everything is art or nothing is art.

Last edited by JohnB; 16th January 2015 at 08:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 16th January 2015, 09:02 PM
MartyNL's Avatar
MartyNL MartyNL is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: based in The Netherlands
Posts: 3,341
Default

Just go out and take pictures...
__________________
MartyNL

“Reaching a creative state of mind thru positive action
is considered preferable to waiting for inspiration.”
- Minor White, 1950
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 16th January 2015, 09:06 PM
Argentum's Avatar
Argentum Argentum is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sceptred Isle
Posts: 3,066
Default

I notice that David Allen is conspicuous by virtue of his abscence from this topic.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 16th January 2015, 09:14 PM
Argentum's Avatar
Argentum Argentum is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sceptred Isle
Posts: 3,066
Default

I also think that "analogue photography" should align itself with the arts and crafts movement...

http://artscrafts.org.uk/roots/ideas.html
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 16th January 2015, 10:29 PM
big paul big paul is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: benfleet essex
Posts: 2,284
Default

it seems a lot of youngster are treating it as art out of date film ,the imposable project, plastic cameras, redscale ,and Lott's of other things that make photographs different ,photography may not be art but are photographers artists..



www.essexcockney.com
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 16th January 2015, 10:58 PM
paulc paulc is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Nestled in the foothills of Norfolk.
Posts: 931
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnB View Post
A piece of art only exists as art when it's labelled as art. What was it before then? Wasn't it just the same thing as before?
With one particular piece of modern "art" in mind, Equivalent VIII was nothing more than a pallet of common garden bricks.

As for photography being art, I would agree with Steve when he said Photography is a medium. Art is what you do with that medium. - I have several prints (including a couple of my own) hanging on my walls that I regard as art.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 17th January 2015, 11:49 PM
Jeff Sheff Jeff Sheff is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Rotherham
Posts: 63
Default

I like Grayson Perry's definition of art "anything can be art but not everything is art" My interpretation of this whole debate is to do with money and art changing hands. Didn't a photo print sell for about $4 million recently? Which I think prompts the debate again. I think the people bringing it up are worried that they paid a lot for a print only for another 100 or so being run off. They should buy art for the pleasure it brings not as an asset class or an edge against inflation.

No one will ever convince me that some of the pieces of artwork I've seen are anything more than a mickey take but if people get pleasure out of producing that stuff then that's fine by me. As long as they don't ask me to buy it.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 19th January 2015, 02:09 PM
Adrian Adrian is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Yateley in Hampshire
Posts: 206
Default

I went to the Constable exhibition at the V&A recently. It raised a lot of questions in my mind about art. Constable took the craft to new levels, sketching in oils outside, painting skies and plants over and over again to perfect his craft. He also made verbatim copies of the great masters - more craft. Art was then a relatively new term to apply to manual image recording.

The images Constable strived to produce followed the compositional and aesthetic tendancies of his day - the compositions were not complex and followed rules - simple landscapes a lot like we'd compose with a camera. He also worked up to the finished painting very much like we do in the dark room by producing intermediate oil sketches of various sizes including 1:1 (e.g. 6 foot wide) to see how the composition worked at full scale. He produced works of art for the RA and to sell, and had prints made from some (which in themselves were usuall re-drawn from the originals as etchings). He also had an extensive collection of prints of his own.

All this actually made me think that what Constable produced was more akin to what a landscape photographer produces and I found many parallels. As I read earlier on this thread, yes, I bet Constable would have used a camera had they been around in his time. And he would have perfected his camera craft both in the field and in the dark room (aka studio).

Did anyone else see the exhibition? I thought it was great!
Reply With Quote
Reply
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Photography dsallen Photography in general 40 19th January 2015 10:17 PM
I'm doing a BA in photography! :-) Terry S Photography in general 18 12th September 2012 01:55 PM
Lo-fi Photography MartyNL Photography in general 33 28th March 2011 11:10 AM
Zen Photography cliveh Photography in general 23 13th September 2010 08:16 AM
The 'why?' of photography les dix Photography in general 18 29th November 2008 05:39 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.