Interesting…

[TwoWheeler]

I took part in a small art contest/exhibit yesterday. In amongst the oils, acrylics, watercolors and mixed media, it was only myself and three other photographers.

Nothing was said or done to make me think so, but I couldn’t help shake the feeling that, in “art” circles, photography is viewed as a bit of a redheaded stepchild - like it’s not “real” art because we start with what’s there, not a blank canvas.

Thoughts?

 

[chipman]

They may have a point. It takes a lot more effort and talent to paint a BIF than to aim a camera and spray and pray until you have 100 frames to choose your best image. Some could say they create an image, we copy images.
I have no talent for painting, I never got past first grade finger paint. But I have won prizes for my pictures. Different style, different way of expressing beauty. Is it art? It's not a banana taped to a wall.
And I'm too old to worry about people who have to put a label on everything.

 

[TwoWheeler]

They may have a point. It takes a lot more effort and talent to paint a BIF than to aim a camera and spray and pray until you have 100 frames to choose your best image.

True, but the flip side is, they can paint something the way they want it to be. They’re not constrained by the way it is. They can paint a landscape without leaving the living room.

Different style, different way of expressing beauty. Is it art?

My definition of “art” is “expression”. If you feel that thing you have done expresses what you want it to, it’s “good”. When you share it with others, it also becomes “communication” and that’s where it sometimes falls flat.

It's not a banana taped to a wall.

Is the photography equivalent a picture of a banana taped to a wall?

And I'm too old to worry about people who have to put a label on everything.

Yeah, I don’t really give a rodent’s posterior either, I just thought it was an interesting observation.

 

[THXGEEK]

Interesting...

If you mark an 'X' on a street corner and tell 10 artists to paint what they see from that exact spot, I'll bet no two paintings are the same. Did they use canvas or some other paper? Oil-based, acrylic or watercolor paint? What colors? What direction were they looking for inspiration? They each created something unique.

Now ask 10 photographers to do the same but with their cameras. No two will be alike - guaranteed! Color, B&W or infrared? Intense bokeh or focus-stacking? What perspective - low or high angle? What about filters? Exposure? What about post processing? They each also created a unique piece of art.

Which gets to my larger point: Art is where you chose to find it and (as stated above) as you chose to express it.

Final thought - didn't they invite any sculptors to their little exhibit?

 

[TwoWheeler]

Final thought - didn't they invite any sculptors to their little exhibit?

There were two. (And one of them won 2nd prize).

This is mostly just a thought exercise, but I also realized a couple of things:

While they may claim they start with a blank canvas, so do I. My neurotic shooting style is that I don’t set out to shoot any one particular thing; I go somewhere and see what presents itself to me. I’m the blank canvas. (Or I try to be…)

The other, somewhat amusing thing I noted was that they are just as hung up on the whole “storytelling” thing as some photographers seem to be. They went around had each artist tell about their artwork and how it related to theme “Roots”. None of the stories lined up with what I got out of the artwork. It brought to mind how I often hear photographers talking about how pictures should tell a story, when damned few of them actually do. They go on about how a photo says this or that when in fact someone who knows nothing of the story gets little to nothing out of it. The person talking about the photo is the one telling the story.

 

[ShipleyNW]

I don't know what art is. I don't know how artists think, especially when judging art.

I consider myself a craftsman. I gather found materials from the environment and assemble them in a way that I hope will make sense to my viewers, catch their eye and hopefully keep them long enough to guide them through the scene in a way that, well, tells my little story, even if the story is just, let me show you why I wanted to be in this place at this moment.

Is that art? I don't know. I'm the wrong guy to ask. Whatever art is, it doesn't affect my craft much. It's all a spectrum from garbage through craftsmanship to art. The viewer gets the only vote on where a piece lands. Beyond that, it's out of my hands and I'm good with that. I strive for art, sure, but I don't know where the line is. A good picture, consciously crafted, makes me happy enough.

I spent a lot of years as a pretty serious fly fisherman. There's at least as much art to putting a fly in the lip of a fish as there is in composing a good photograph. The goal with fly fishing is to get the attention of the quarry, set the hook, keep it on the line, touch its life, then let it go. Those are my goals when making and sharing pictures as well. Catch and release.

 

[chipman]

Now you can sit at home and make your pictures. Don't need a camera to upset the paint crowd. -

AI-Generated Models Now Appear in 'Vogue' Magazine

The images were paid for by Guess.

petapixel.com

 

[Archibald]

Sure, photography is art. But not always good art.

There are photographers who do absolutely stunning work with colors, mood, and composition. This is art IMO.

There are others who take vacation pics or pics of the kids on their phones. If that is art, it is very low on the scale.

It's what the maker puts into it, and what the viewer gets out of it, that makes it art.

 

[TwoWheeler]

I don't know what art is.

The best definition I could come up with is “expression by means other than verbal”.

I don't know how artists think, especially when judging art.

I apparently don’t either; the first and third place awards, I could agree with but the 2nd place one -while I really liked it - I couldn’t see how it related to the alleged exhibit theme: “Roots”.

On the other hand, perhaps my entry was too literal:

• Join to view EXIF data.

I consider myself a craftsman.

That’s an interesting take. While I have been a toolmaker for 45 years and consider what I do a “craft” (..sometimes…) I don’t consider it “art” - even though I will sometimes do stuff just for aesthetic reasons.

On the other hand, I don’t consider my photography to be a “craft”. To me, “craft” seems more…. deliberate? technical? calculated? Dunno.

(Now, with all this talk of “craft”, I want a beer, dammit….)

The viewer gets the only vote on where a piece lands.

In my very narcissistic definition of “art” , the viewer’s vote doesn’t count. It’s nice if someone likes your work, and can relate, but that’s the icing, not the cake. If I look at it HONESTLY and like it, that’s enough.

There's at least as much art to putting a fly in the lip of a fish as there is in composing a good photograph.

Is that “art” or “skill”?

Now you can sit at home and make your pictures. Don't need a camera to upset the paint crowd.

Yeah, that’s a whole different kettle of fish…

Sure, photography is art. But not always good art.

…have you been looking through my catalog?????

There are photographers who do absolutely stunning work with colors, mood, and composition.

Someday I hope to be one of those…

I’m not sorry I went - I like to try to keep my mind open - but I don’t think I’ll repeat the experience.

 

[ShipleyNW]

That’s an interesting take. While I have been a toolmaker for 45 years and consider what I do a “craft” (..sometimes…) I don’t consider it “art” - even though I will sometimes do stuff just for aesthetic reasons.

When I think of craft I think of a furniture maker. They have to build a solid product that is fully functional to its purpose. Beyond that they're free, even expected to ... make it pretty, make it unique, make a statement with it. At some point that can cross over into art and some are better at that than others. It's on a spectrum.

The closer you get to art, the less you need that sturdy functionality. I've made some pictures that crossed over into art, I believe. But it was always serendipity. As much as I look, I don't have the vision to find it on demand. But I am a good craftsman. I know my tools and I know how to use them in concert to craft an image that serves a purpose. If you miss the mark on art and you miss the mark on craftsmanship all you have is a wobbly piece of furniture that's too ugly to sit on.

On the other hand, I don’t consider my photography to be a “craft”. To me, “craft” seems more…. deliberate? technical? calculated? Dunno.

Deliberate -- I use the phrase, "on purpose" -- yeah, I'd describe how I shoot that way. I think everyone should approach photography that way. Isn't that what the rules of light, the rules of optics, the rules of composition are about? I don't like to be surprised in post. Sometimes it's, wow, I didn't even see that. A lot of times it's, damn, how did I not see that? Don't like it either way, don't like missing stuff at the scene. When I'm framing up a shot, I want everything I'm doing to be done on purpose.

But then you'll say, but isn't art about breaking rules? Yes, break them, but break them on purpose.

In my very narcissistic definition of “art” , the viewer’s vote doesn’t count. It’s nice if someone likes your work, and can relate, but that’s the icing, not the cake. If I look at it HONESTLY and like it, that’s enough.

I'm an old newspaper photographer and my goal with photography is to engage a viewer. You have an instant to catch a viewer's eye. I use the tools of the craft to set that hook. Make them pick my image to linger on a little bit. Then I use the tricks of light and composition to guide them though a tour of my work. If they stay long enough to see what I brought out to show, I call that a win. I hope they understood it, I hope they liked it, but that part's out of my hands. I don't get to vote or even lobby anymore.

I do have many shots that I like a lot that didn't go over well. The people are idiots.

 

[TwoWheeler]

When I think of craft I think of a furniture maker. They have to build a solid product that is fully functional to its purpose. Beyond that they're free, even expected to ... make it pretty, make it unique, make a statement with it.

That's pretty much where I'm at, particularly now that I'm on the research side of things. People come to me with often nothing more than a vague idea what they want. As long as what I make is functional, I can make it however I want and as cool-looking as I want - and I usually do, just because.

But it's not art.

I've made some pictures that crossed over into art, I believe. But it was always serendipity. As much as I look, I don't have the vision to find it on demand.

That serendipitous vision is what I'm chasing. I got back into photography as a way of opening my eyes to what's around me instead of spending so much time in my own damned head. It's essential for my mental wellbeing to look for beauty/interest around me - ugly is only a click away.

I go out with almost no preconceived notions. "Ok, Ms. Nature show me what you've got today..." Yeah, I go places where I'm more likely to find stuff but whether it's a landscape, a macro, an abstract cool pattern or whatever, is ear elephant. (Plus, even if I find nothing, I get a nice hike out of the deal and exorcise the Hellbeast),

I suppose it's like hunting, where finding the quarry is a major component of why I go in the first place. The capture is the other half and that's where the technical side comes in - knowing how to get what you see. The more the equipment and the process get the hell out of the way, the better.

I'm an old newspaper photographer and my goal with photography is to engage a viewer.

Ah, I am a lifelong practitioner of antisocial distancing. Almost no friends, no family and no social media presence. I harbor no illusions about anyone else even looking at my stuff, much less liking it, so I shoot for an audience of one.

I am fully aware that my hard drives -literal and metaphoric - have a finite lifespan and 50 years down the road, (probably a lot less) no one is going to give a rodent's posterior about my "art".

....and I'm OK with that.

 

[ShipleyNW]

I go out with almost no preconceived notions. "Ok, Ms. Nature show me what you've got today..." Yeah, I go places where I'm more likely to find stuff but whether it's a landscape, a macro, an abstract cool pattern or whatever, is ear elephant. (Plus, even if I find nothing, I get a nice hike out of the deal and exorcise the Hellbeast),

Bingo. That's the finest rationale there is.

Bringing up my newspaper work again (we're talking 40 years ago) my job was to bring back a good picture every time. That was the floor. Still is. Spin me around and drop me anywhere and I'll find a good picture. Will I achieve art? Not at all. Gave up on that early. But I want it to be good because I'm a good craftsman and I'll find a way to build a good shot with the material I'm given.

But sometimes the material is awesome. Sometimes obviously, right place, right time. Sometimes it shows itself surprisingly, subtly, shyly. When that happens, I'm looking for art. I'm going to work that scene as hard as I know how, pay attention to details, use the right tools and see where it see where it goes. Do I ever really make art? Who's to say? I do have some pictures I'm particularly proud of.

Still, I'll never be embarrassed by just a good picture. Strive for art but settle for craftsmanship.

Another thing newspapers taught me, today's art is tomorrow's fishwrap. You put it out there and you move on. Catch and release. Maybe that's why photography is considered a lesser art.

 

[Archibald]

So it's only art if it's good?

 

[TwoWheeler]

Bringing up my newspaper work again (we're talking 40 years ago) my job was to bring back a good picture every time. That was the floor. Still is. Spin me around and drop me anywhere and I'll find a good picture.

I "found" this the other day. Is it a good picture? Technically, yes, but while it's "pretty" and I got the technical stuff right, it leaves me emotionally flat. I asked my wife why that was and she said "You could have taken it with your phone and posted it to IG, like all the thousands of others and no one would notice it for more than .002 seconds". I was a bit offended that she denigrated my technical skills as being phone level, but I think she's right. about the rest of it.

• Join to view EXIF data.

Is it "art"? Not really, to me.

I'm looking for art. I'm going to work that scene as hard as I know how, pay attention to details, use the right tools and see where it see where it goes.

This, this right here is what I struggle with. Once I find something, I need to SLOW DOWN and work the scene, not just blaze away like a ^%$ tourist with an Instax. Part of the problem is I often don't know why something grabs me, so I don't know how to capture it, what to include, what to leave out, what to emphasize. Being able to do stuff in post is extremely helpful at times, but if I miss it in the field, sometimes there's no saving it. Maybe taking "pretty" shots is practice?

Do I ever really make art? Who's to say?

Yes, you are the judge - and that's not as narcissistic as it sounds.

I do have some pictures I'm particularly proud of.

Those are art, even if no one else "gets" them. If no one else gets it, the disconnect is in communication, not whether or not it's art. It's not a "failure" if no one else gets it, because everyone's POV is different.

I have a picture of an old fieldstone wall. It's a tight crop of just the wall. Almost no one else gets it. One person said "You have a picture of a wall on your wall". Fair enough. A friend of mine got at least something out of it - he noticed all the shapes and textures of the stones and moss and said "There's a lot going on there". Better yet.

But, when I look at it, I think about the person(s) who built it...and now their hard work has fallen to ruin. (I'm a ray of sunshine like that). I also think about how, even though the stones were taken from disparate places, and just stacked without regard to anything other than fit, with time, they all now "belong"; they're harmonious. If you were to Photoshop out one of the stones and "replace" it with a brick, the result would be jarring and ugly.

Strive for art but settle for craftsmanship.

I suppose, but "craftsmanship" gives results like above, and those leave me feeling like I "cheated" by going with "pretty".

Another thing newspapers taught me, today's art is tomorrow's fishwrap. You put it out there and you move on. Catch and release.

Some of my photos still resonate with me, long after I've taken them. I occasionally go back through my catalog (it's actually more of a kitten-log) and end up nuking stuff from my favorites folder. The ones that don't get voted off the island over time and after many, many run-throughs, are the real winners.

So it's only art if it's good?

No, it's only art if I say it is. "Good" is in the eye of the beerholder.

Don't know if this is coming off as whiny or esoteric, but I enjoy stretching my brain around stuff like this.

 

[akkwamarine]

Our camera club is exhibiting with other clubs in a Regional Major Gallery. There are other exhibitions running in the the Gallery which included quite a few photographs, supposedly high end art, quite frankly, they were terrible. The quality of their photographs was abysmal and they really did not have a story or message. The exhibition by the amateur camera club photographers, was much stronger.

 

[TwoWheeler]

The exhibition by the amateur camera club photographers, was much stronger.

I’ve seen stuff on here I liked way better than some of the “pro” stuff.

 

[ShipleyNW]

So it's only art if it's good?

Yeah. I guess I have an aspirational definition of art. Art takes the maker's creative best. I'd say that passes through good. If it doesn't, how do you know it wasn't an accident? Where do you start when you try to do it again?

 

[Archibald]

Yeah. I guess I have an aspirational definition of art. Art takes the maker's creative best. I'd say that passes through good. If it doesn't, how do you know it wasn't an accident? Where do you start when you try to do it again?

I don't think there is a very precise definition of art. But my concept is more operational. If someone puts paint on a canvas, or sculpts a block of marble, that creates art. I don't think it matters if anyone likes it, or even sees it.

A house painter once cut a rectangle out of his old coveralls, framed it, and entered it into an art contest. It won a ribbon. Was it art? Apparently it was.

Accidents - random things - play a big role in art, IMO. There is beauty in cracks in dried mud, fall colors, textures in rusted surfaces, raindrops on cars, peeling paint, grain in wood, stormy skies, even brush strokes in paintings. They are important elements in art.

 

[Bucolic Old Sir Henry]

Bringing up my newspaper work again (we're talking 40 years ago) my job was to bring back a good picture every time. That was the floor. Still is. Spin me around and drop me anywhere and I'll find a good picture. Will I achieve art? Not at all. Gave up on that early. But I want it to be good because I'm a good craftsman and I'll find a way to build a good shot with the material I'm given.

Sounds very familiar. I started out as a journalist with a camera bag and a notebook, and when I went out on assignment I had to return with a story and pic to go with it. Good discipline. The only time I failed was when I went to the Charles Wells brewery to do a feature on beer making, and after a quick tour the head brewer took me into the tasting room, then the brewery tap pub, and then - I eventually got the train home. Fortunately I got the pix before lunch, but I had to phone him for the story the next day, hungover and feeling guilty.

Where I really learned about image making was when we had three or four people covering an event, all with cameras, competing to see who could get the most pictures into the magazine. One would be a real pro (with pix in the National Portrait Gallery), and what he taught me is still what I aspire to do: compose in camera, look for the critical moment.

In my view, the craft in photography is knowing how to use the tools to get the desired result. The art is knowing what result you want, and the effect you want to have on the viewer.

Another thing newspapers taught me, today's art is tomorrow's fishwrap. You put it out there and you move on. Catch and release. Maybe that's why photography is considered a lesser art.

I don't think it's any kind of lesser art. People working in other visual arts might sometimes be a bit snobbish about their chosen medium, but photography has been around longer than acrylic paints and is just as valid an art form as any painter inspired by Picasso or Pollock.

 

[ShipleyNW]

I don't think there is a very precise definition of art. But my concept is more operational. If someone puts paint on a canvas, or sculpts a block of marble, that creates art. I don't think it matters if anyone likes it, or even sees it.

A house painter once cut a rectangle out of his old coveralls, framed it, and entered it into an art contest. It won a ribbon. Was it art? Apparently it was.

Accidents - random things - play a big role in art, IMO. There is beauty in cracks in dried mud, fall colors, textures in rusted surfaces, raindrops on cars, peeling paint, grain in wood, stormy skies, even brush strokes in paintings. They are important elements in art.

My definition of art is probably too constricting and it's just something I made up anyway. I don't know what the definition of art is, but I approach it methodically, deliberately, which might explain why I don't think of myself as an artist. I'm just a guy who's good at making good pictures and maybe, occasionally, stumbles towards art.

Your definition is way too broad, though. Art as a participation award. The guy down at the jail could call himself a fingerprint artist. Churn out art all day every day and get paid for it. Still, I think his experience and craftsmanship would play a bigger role in his art than some of the examples you give.

I know a lot of photographers who I consider artists. I've had some peers in that category. They come back with true art a lot. Home run hitters. I'm pretty good with a camera but I don't hit a lot of home runs. And the shooters who do, it's no accident. They're both talented in the way they see and know their craft well enough to execute that vision. And even on a bad day, their pictures are still good.

Art can just happen, but most of the time it's gotta be made by the artist. The ability to make art is almost as important as the ability to see art. And it does make for a good fallback if you fail to see art that day. Craftsmanship is easier to learn than artistry, but harder to fake.

So, I don't know what art is but I know what is not art when I see it. The difference is almost always execution. Good idea, maybe, but couldn't pull it off.

 

[Archibald]

Sometimes I think there are two kinds of photographers - record photographers, and artistic photographers.

Most of us are record photographers. We record something, meaning we photograph something that is in front of us. Our genres include portrait, wildlife, architecture, sports, photojournalism, landscapes. We do good work with precision and proper composition.

Artistic photographers are different. They are not interested in the subject, but in artistic renditions. They look for forms and colors. The results are often abstract and quite beautiful to look at. Freeman Patterson was a Canadian photographer who practiced this kind of photography. There are others who do very extensive post-processing of otherwise ordinary images to create stunning work.

IMO both types are art, yet the second type is way more artistic.

Of course there is a spectrum here, with some practitioners blending record photography with artistic photography.

I'm very much a record photographer who would love to go more into artistic photography, but I find that very challenging.