Photographic Art - a serious question

BillN_33

BillN_33

Messages
12,617
Edit My Images
No
Photographic Art - a serious question

Can you guys post what you think is your photographic art - I may have used the wrong words as I am clueless about even how to start

I'll look through my images to see if I have taken anything by accident that I may consider as such and post if for comments

It is a genuine request - I would just like to know even how to start the process

please exclude all this "nude" stuff ……. there's plenty of that stuff on the web already

The best I can do, I think, and I have no idea why, other than it looks back and then forward and causes me to think about the (my) past and the future is below …… plus the chimney is majestic and the "art" graffiti is not! plus I quite like the tyre tracks going round and round the island …… maybe they remind me of the world today and life for many

as you can see, I'm struggling, help me out!

title: which way next
 
Last edited:
You know what they say - 'Art is subjective' bla bla bla... but for me personally, in imagery, anything that makes me take a second look, something that makes me stop and wonder about the image, keeps my attention... I've attempted 'art' in many of my images, in my portraits whereby I'm trying to hold the viewers attention; make you feel part of the image. I've tried still life as well, but more along the quirky lines. Sometimes it's not always about the image, but about the presentation as well... This is such a loaded question!

Couple of examples that I might consider to be art, personally speaking of course:

Nice pear(s) by Beth Botterill, on Flickr

Runaway by Beth Botterill, on Flickr
 
Was that your intent when you shot it, or something you thought about whilst reviewing it?

I think that could be a key differentiator, but I am no expert.

I have this piece which I call "Dolly"

Dolly by Tim.Garlick, on Flickr

This is primarily a comment on modern day cloning. Dolly is the name of the sheep that was first successfully cloned by genetic researchers (she got her name as the cells used in the process were taken from the mammary gland). Here I have shown 4 "clones" of the same image which in itself is a "clone" of several famous pieces by Andy Warhol. Art meets science, but both are copies of something that has come before.

Oh alright then, I was just copying a tutorial from a magazine when I was first learning to use photoshop, but you get the idea ;) I've had a look through my images, but I don't think I've got anything that fits my own definition.
 
Last edited:
Art is an umbrella term without clearly defined edges of meaning. There are many kinds of art. As it stands Bill your photos above are more documentary than art - your treatment of the subject isn't radical enough. Say as a wild example if you'd had a wide angle to fill the frame with the bollard right in front of the lens from ground level, with the chimney oof in the background, you might've achieved something more emotionally engaging?
 
Isn't it what is says to other people (as well as) me ……… that's why no title is good

how about the following

red.jpg
 
Try not to get self-conscious and hung up about making art and concentrate on making good pictures. That's hard enough.

I posted this in a camera thread and someone called it art. It was just playing around with composition to me. It's an okay picture (that wouldn't work so well without the pigeon) but it's been done a thousand times before.

liverpool-7.jpg
 
I suppose I don't associate what I regards as "good pictures" with "art"
 
BillN_33 said:
I suppose I don't associate what I regards as "good pictures" with "art"
Click to expand...
Would you rather make a good documentary photograph (like your roundabout picture), or an art photograph? More to the point, does it matter if it's a good picture?

"When the stuff is too journalistic and documentary then it is journalism, if it is too conceptual and arty then that is another thing, but where the two meet - that is interesting."
Tom Wood

Now that is really difficult.
 
I'll try and be sensible in this thread, and cut out my style of humour, which ive used in that other thread, from which this came.

Im artistic in nature, do you remember that kid in the school classroom that could draw/sketch better than most...that was me.
Did i continue in life and further/develope that talent, no i didnt...do i think about artistic content/outcome with my style of photography, 99% of the time, i doubt it very much.
Ive only just recently started thinking about composition in my images, for the most part, i just take close up record shots of my chosen subjects in UK wildlife.
However, every now and again, i do slap on my artistic hat, and think about the shot Im trying to capture.

Are these shots artistic...who knows...but my intention for them at the time of shooting, was artistic...well, at least in my mind.

Aerial view of a Marbled White Butterfly(male) perched on a Pyramid Orchid, poor light, and light rain.

Marbled White on Pyramid Orchid (uncropped). 14th-June-2014. by Testudo Man, on Flickr



Again, in this next image, i was thinking about an artistic crop, from a macro shot of a Comma Butterfly.

Comma Butterfly. 22nd-August-2014. by Testudo Man, on Flickr
 
That's the whole point Dave - I would rather take good "record" shots i.e. Dragonflies and Birds, (have a look at my postings), ………. and that is where the whole debate and "bouncing around" started, but I am trying to understand and appreciate the other side of the argument and get real life examples from Forum members to illustrate their point - after all I and we have posted hundreds of Dragonfly, Damselfly, insect and bird shots …….. but I have hardly seen any "art" photography ……… (I generally do not venture into the nude and glamour section as I regard most I have seen as little more that what is published in male magazines - not that I look at those anyway)


Art - or just Damselflies ………. just Damselflies to me

art_1.jpg



art_2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Testudo Man said:
I'll try and be sensible in this thread, and cut out my style of humour, which ive used in that other thread, from which this came.

Im artistic in nature, do you remember that kid in the school classroom that could draw/sketch better than most...that was me.
Did i continue in life and further/develope that talent, no i didnt...do i think about artistic content/outcome with my style of photography, 99% of the time, i doubt it very much.
Ive only just recently started thinking about composition in my images, for the most part, i just take close up record shots of my chosen subjects in UK wildlife.
However, every now and again, i do slap on my artistic hat, and think about the shot Im trying to capture.

Are these shots artistic...who knows...but my intention for them at the time of shooting, was artistic...well, at least in my mind.

Aerial view of a Marbled White Butterfly(male) perched on a Pyramid Orchid, poor light, and light rain.

Marbled White on Pyramid Orchid (uncropped). 14th-June-2014. by Testudo Man, on Flickr



Again, in this next image, i was thinking about an artistic crop, from a macro shot of a Comma Butterfly.

Comma Butterfly. 22nd-August-2014. by Testudo Man, on Flickr
Click to expand...
When I saw that first one it made me think of a clock rather than a butterfly and flower. It's because of the rotation, but had you posted it in the macro section I would have told you to rotate it back. In this context I quite like it. I think context is important.
 
Paul, all I see it a good image, a natural image of a Butterfly and a flower

I too was OK at Art - I had to be as I went to a Northern Grammar School and out of 22 there were only two "boys" in the class ……… but I was never an artist in any way ……… I was just someone who did "painting" etc.

I just want to see some art images from the guys who make comments of the wildlife etc., shots, in the other threads, that's all …… as I am sick of told what photography should be or is!
 
Last edited:
TimmyG said:
When I saw that first one it made me think of a clock rather than a butterfly and flower. It's because of the rotation, but had you posted it in the macro section I would have told you to rotate it back. In this context I quite like it. I think context is important.
Click to expand...

Cheers for that Tim, Im not a regular on this forum, so a lot of my work hasnt been posted up yet! But just recently, Ive tried to be more active on here, rather than lurk in the shadows!
Believe it or not, it was you who commented on the composition of one of my snake images(approx a year ago) which made me re-think my approach to photography, and hopefully ive took your advice on board, and made improvements...so thanks for that mate.

Here is a shot of the more conventional Butterfly images seen, before i went for something a little arty/different.
Again, like the the 1st shot, this is not cropped either.

Note- I left the rain drop (just above the butterfly) to the left of the image, intact. The fact that it was raining/dull on the day, made it even better, because it was not ideal butterfly conditions, yet we still managed to see the early emergence of these beautiful Marbled Whites.

Marbled White on Pyramid Orchid (uncropped). 14th-June-2014. by Testudo Man, on Flickr
 
The point of the Thread is Photographic art NOT Butterflies and bugs ….. that's why I started a separate thread ……. you are just proving the point that there is an infestation of these creatures
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
The point of the Thread is Photographic art NOT Butterflies and bugs ….. that's why I started a separate thread ……. you are just proving the point that there is an infestation of these creatures
Click to expand...
LOL sorry Bill, you know we just can't help ourselves ;)
 
BillN_33 said:
Paul, all I see it a good image, a natural image of a Butterfly and a flower

I too was OK at Art - I had to be as I went to a Northern Grammar School and out of 22 there were only two "boys" in the class ……… but I was never an artist in any way ……… I was just someone who did "painting" etc.

I just want to see some art images from the guys who make comments of the wildlife etc., shots, in the other threads, that's all …… as I am sick of told what photography should be or is!
Click to expand...

Cheers Bill, I think the "other thread" just got a little "stiff"...as is quite often the case, when well known forumites resort to seeing who can "urinate the highest". Im pretty sure in the real world, in a social setting, they wouldnt speak to each other, how they type to each other. But with the "safety net" of being behind a screen, 100's of miles apart, the warrior unleashes within.;)

I wouldnt let it bother you...you, like me...are a grown man...I doubt a faceless forumite could tell you what is right, what is wrong, what is art, what is macro...Its all just like minded peoples opinions being thrown around...Some offer an opinion, some believe their "own forum hype" and drive their elitist opinions down your throat...Its all a bit laughable really...which is why i injected a little humour to that thread.
 
Testudo Man said:
Cheers Bill, I think the "other thread" just got a little "stiff"...as is quite often the case, when well known forumites resort to seeing who can "urinate the highest". Im pretty sure in the real world, in a social setting, they wouldnt speak to each other, how they type to each other. But with the "safety net" of being behind a screen, 100's of miles apart, the warrior unleashes within.;)

I wouldnt let it bother you...you, like me...are a grown man...I doubt a faceless forumite could tell you what is right, what is wrong, what is art, what is macro...Its all just like minded peoples opinions being thrown around...Some offer an opinion, some believe their "own forum hype" and drive their elitist opinions down your throat...Its all a bit laughable really...which is why i injected a little humour to that thread.
Click to expand...

Thanks Paul, but I would genuinely like to see some good photographic art from forum members ……. there must be some around as there are some really talented photographer on here - I'm not getting annoyed or anything I am really interested in having a good, but I have no idea where to start @Byker28i book maybe a good start

I spend a lot of time trying to get good Dragonfly and bird images
 
Last edited:
Byker28i said:
William egglestone I think is one of the first images in that book
Tricycle_Memphis.jpg
Click to expand...


I have a 1976 R90S tucked away in storage ….. less than 5,000 miles ……. maybe I should get some young female to sit on it
 
Byker28i said:
William egglestone I think is one of the first images in that book
Tricycle_Memphis.jpg

Now considered a classic, it was initially greeted in many quarters with incomprehension, even as an outright affront.


Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/william-egglestons-big-wheels-17143399
Click to expand...

Im pretty sure someones gonna come along and say that the image is "all a bit central", and what an error to leave the front of the 50's/60's yank car in it, surely that should have been cropped out?
 
Byker28i said:
Hasn't that been done in a Channel advert?
Click to expand...

never noticed, but I saw it when it was in the Guggenheim - mine is better than that but I have stored it so long it is getting really dusty

don't have any really good images but here is one …. I have stripped it down a little to safeguard the painted parts

para.jpg
 
Last edited:
Probably hard to make art of an insect / bird image but far from impossible. You could fiddle with composition, lighting, but the result would still most likely remain in the realm of design (or craft, if you like), not art.
 
droj said:
Probably hard to make art of an insect / bird image but far from impossible. You could fiddle with composition, lighting, but the result would still most likely remain in the realm of design (or craft, if you like), not art.
Click to expand...

any image art will do me ……. that's what I want to see, not a bird or a bee but some photographic art and not a nude
 
It's art when it makes you look in a new way, beyond the prosaic. Eggleston achieved this with the tricycle via adopting a low viewpoint, and this made the message - a way of looking, a shift of context. Not, note, a prettification.

I can imagine a lot of people who post on here suggesting that he should've cloned out the car-nose on the right ... but it's an essential part of the image.
 
Last edited:
droj said:
It's art when it makes you look in a new way, beyond the prosaic. Eggleston achieved this with the tricycle via adopting a low viewpoint, and this made the message - a way of looking, a shift of context. Not, note, a prettification.
Click to expand...

Thanks

the Eggleston image - if that is photographic are, it beats me ……………… but maybe if you look at something long enough you can convince yourself of anything
 
BillN_33 said:
Thanks

the Eggleston image - if that is photographic are, it beats me ……………… but maybe if you look at something long enough you can convince yourself of anything
Click to expand...

OK Cartier -Bresson - try this one...
HenriCartierBresson.HyeresFrance.1932.jpg


The photo above was taken in 1932 in Hyeres, a small town on the French Riviera, and has been featured in many retrospectives on Cartier Bresson’s work. The decisive moment here nicely juxtaposes the fleeting biker with the spiral staircase; the poignancy of the moment is accentuated by the fact that although the photo seems as if it was taken accidentally or on the spot, we can also imagine Cartier-Bresson crouching over those railings in Hyeres for hours, waiting for the right instant.

I prowled the streets all day," Cartier-Bresson explained, "feeling very strung up and ready to pounce, determined to 'trap' life – to preserve life in the act of living."

I had this on my wall when I started my Art degree, as I didn't see how this was art...
 
Last edited:
His, (Egglestone), composition is dead centre - he has not cloned that bit of a car out on the RHS and that auto appearing in the centre of the bike must be just lucky - the sky is blown as are the roof tops
 
Last edited:
droj said:
It's art when it makes you look in a new way, beyond the prosaic. Eggleston achieved this with the tricycle via adopting a low viewpoint, and this made the message - a way of looking, a shift of context. Not, note, a prettification.

I can imagine a lot of people who post on here suggesting that he should've cloned out the car-nose on the right ... but it's an essential part of the image.
Click to expand...

Yeah I guess, maybe the 50's/60's car nose represents the past, and the 70's car under the porch represents the present??...or some s**t like that?
 
Bill you are having trouble rising above the prosaic! You're considering craft as the end point, rather than as a vehicle to express something else. The image in question includes the poular snapshot as one of its references, and subverts it. That's why it's art! Art doesn't need bloody rules, just vision.
 
Last edited:
OK, I accept HCB is different, but he was a pro

My point at the start of the thread was I would like to see some images from Forum members i.e. normal people, that they consider to be art ………. god know we have posted loads of Bugs, bird, flys etc., …. by the hundreds.

I am trying to find some of mine which are different so that you can throw criticism at them

here's another - the blur was intended as I took it with my M8 at 1/4 sec and f11

italy_blur.jpg
 
Testudo Man said:
Bill, you are looking at the Tricycle image all wrong...Put your arty farty hat on, and look again;)
Click to expand...

It just reminds me of the one my daughter 25 years ago had which we have still kept in the loft area on the barn

and the first thing I notice about the image is that bit of car bumper on the RHS

Is it a classic?
 
Last edited:
Pure art, Bill! Like your above posting.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top