Photographic Art - a serious question

Ed Sutton said:
Once you have a certain level of understanding 'pretty pictures' are, if not easy to make, but unfulfilling. You already know the rules required to make them. Most people prefer to stay within a comfort zone of the easily described, but some people feel a need to make pictures that challenge them to make - not technically but intellectually - even if they wouldn't describe what they do as art.

Art? Documentary? Landscape? Semi-abstraction? Socio-political comment? Pretty? It's just a picture. The viewer and the context decide what it is beyond that.

DL2_6827.jpg
Click to expand...


I don't see, or feel, anything unfulfilling about taking or seeing pretty pictures - in fact just the opposite

What I do see & feel about images like this one (no offense intended) is that its boring and pointless, it doesn't 'say' anything to me and the only question it raises is... why bother to take it?

The white window shot is just.. ok I guess, the wolf and homeless shot are just poor snaps and again say nothing at all to me

So as I clearly don't even understand why you guys would even take those shots I think I'd best leave this thread to those of you who do get it :)

And don't take that personally, I was in London so went to see Bailey's exhibition too and I thought that was a waste of £15

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
I don't see, or feel, anything unfulfilling about taking or seeing pretty pictures - in fact just the opposite

What I do see & feel about images like this one (no offense intended) is that its boring and pointless, it doesn't 'say' anything to me and the only question it raises is... why bother to take it?

The white window shot is just.. ok I guess, the wolf and homeless shot are just poor snaps and again say nothing at all to me

So as I clearly don't even understand why you guys would even take those shots I think I'd best leave this thread to those of you who do get it :)

And don't take that personally, I was in London so went to see Bailey's exhibition too and I thought that was a waste of £15

Dave
Click to expand...

Dave

as you should have gathered I do not understand photographic art and I'm a record shot, pretty pictures person…… but some images do say things that words maybe cannot describe …… and there are lots out there that do that …… so in that respective the feelings that they give you are more emotional than from a pretty picture ….. so if you move this forward a little maybe you get somewhere near approaching "photographic art"
 
Last edited:
DG Phototraining said:
I don't see, or feel, anything unfulfilling about taking or seeing pretty pictures - in fact just the opposite

What I do see & feel about images like this one (no offense intended) is that its boring and pointless, it doesn't 'say' anything to me and the only question it raises is... why bother to take it?

The white window shot is just.. ok I guess, the wolf and homeless shot are just poor snaps and again say nothing at all to me

So as I clearly don't even understand why you guys would even take those shots I think I'd best leave this thread to those of you who do get it :)

And don't take that personally, I was in London so went to see Bailey's exhibition too and I thought that was a waste of £15

Dave
Click to expand...
Dave, thanks for your comments, and I am not at all offended that you think my images are more like snapshots lol.

I am new to the whole 'being creative' thing, and still struggle with concepts and photography having something to say, so, I don't always 'get it' either... and so I kind of feel like you do as well when I look at my images(another reason why I don't post, as I feel a bit like a fraud!).....

So, when I took those images(not that long ago), I also thought they were snapshot-ish, and not at all worth a second look. In fact the wolf image was a bin shot because from the comments I see most of on here, it looks not quite sharp, not quite level, not very well composed, certainly doesn't 'pop', doesn't really have a lot going for it.... a snap shot then.
But, when I took the image(and the others in that particular set), I was struck by the irony of them.... here we have man, who in his quest to conquer the world, turfing out anything that he didn't want in it, then had to go and build a zoo to put these animals in, and now man has to feed, provide, look after etc the animals in them.... it would have been much easier(and cheaper)to have left the animals where they were really... the irony of that was not lost on me, as in essence we lost a part of our freedom too.
So, that's my explanation for why I took that particular set.
Whether others see it the same way I did, is neither here nor there I guess. At least I could explain my reasoning.
I do however deal with a lot of negativity from family and friends about the type of images I take.... as they don't 'get it' either.
 
Pookeyhead said:
As for the art gallery you visited, well.. some art is more challenging than others, and some art if just pretentious b****x. Even I will admit that! However... so much of it is not. A great example of how art photography can be wonderfully shot, witty, clever and thought provoking, and controversial all at the same time, is Christina De Middel's afronauts.

Quite rightly it was nominated for the Deutche Borse prize in 2013, and quite wrongly didn't win.
Click to expand...

I agree, same with this years, I thought Lorna Simpsons were intriguing
 
DG Phototraining said:
I was in London so went to see Bailey's exhibition too and I thought that was a waste of £15
Click to expand...

I liked Bailey's exhibition. Not as art (although his iphone images were interesting, but as a portrait/person photographer I thought he did a great job.
 
DG Phototraining said:
I don't see, or feel, anything unfulfilling about taking or seeing pretty pictures - in fact just the opposite

What I do see & feel about images like this one (no offense intended) is that its boring and pointless, it doesn't 'say' anything to me and the only question it raises is... why bother to take it?
Click to expand...

No offence taken. You at least got the point that my picture is meant to look boring! However it only appears to be pointless when posted out of context. Which was one reason for posting it. It was taken as part of an ongoing, and somewhat woolly, project which is (in part) about the irony of conservation bodies claiming to want to get people closer to nature while excluding them from it. The fact that the grass between the reeds has been mown hints at the managed nature of conservation areas - and the fact that privileged people are allowed in them. At least those are some of the reasons behind it. I also happened to like the fluffy white clouds!

I don't think it's an art project, I'd call it more documentary with a viewpoint if I had to stick a label on it. I'd rather call it a photography project.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I think anything shot with a purpose beyond the technical, or derivative, can be art. That's why so many horrible photographs can be art, and so many achingly wonderful, technically superb images are just empty.

I just shoot in response to something these days. I've long since got fed up of making pretty pictures. If I have something to say I often say it with a camera. I also don't post much in here any more as it's clearly not the right place to publish such work.

My work is project based, and very long term lately. I don't publish stuff until the project is finished. I've not shot a single image for ages now (meaning I've not shot one image in isolation.. not that I've not shot even a single image)... it's all ongoing stuff. Currently working on a documentary series on astronomers, and another project on desire paths in urban environments. If anyone is interested I'll post them when completed. I do still make work in response to stuff though, and they tend to be single image responses.

I was having a conversation with a student the other day (not one of mine.. a young FE student). He was going on and on about Japan, and talking with such authority on the subject, and it got me thinking.. how does he know all this.

"How old are you?" I asked.

"17" he replied.

"So you've never been to Japan then?"

"No" he said... rather defensively. He'd got it all from the internet.

The conversation moved on and we ended up talking about what would happen if he went there? Would he even know how to get from Narita airport to Tokyo? Does he even know how long it takes to get there? After hearing him go on and on about Harajuku, I wondered if he'd even be able to actually get there, or even if he'd know if he was there when he was. Does he realise that there are no street names, and that far fewer people speak English than he thinks, and even if he asks directions, would he understand them... give there are no street names.

It led me to start thinking about the vicarious nature of knowledge acquired this way, and how young people seem to believe that this third hand knowledge had parity with real, concrete experiences.

I asked him where he had actually been... in reality. "Blackpool and London" he replied.

"Oh.. where in London?"

"Dunno... it was a school trip... not sure where we went".


So Blackpool then.


I asked him to do me a favour as an experiment, and write down, or copy and paste the URLs of all the websites he visits that night and mail them to me.

He did. I looked at the IP addresses, and content of where he'd been on the net (I never asked him for any "personal" browsing habits :)). He'd been to so many places, gathering information, and obtaining knowledge, and I couldn't help but compare his real life, experiential knowledge to this vicarious knowledge and it just wound me up how kids place so much faith in the knowledge of the world in digitally delivered, packaged, and mainly erroneous internet web sites. I got annoyed. Not with him.. he was a nice lad, but I got annoyed generally. I just had to find a way to say something about it.


fBu8ccW.jpg


Is it art? I think so. It's in response to something... delivers opinion.. says something. Is it a great photograph? No... just a simple image of a map with some pins in it, and some anchor words. Does art need to be a great photo? I don;t think so. Is a great photo always art... I don't think so.
Click to expand...


The question that comes to mind for me is this

"Is it a photograph?"

I hope this doesn't come across as flippant. I'll try to explain why I posed the question. The concept was translated into something physical using maps and a bunch of pins. That is where the creativity lies, not in the picking up of the camera and pressing the shutter button.

Discuss?

(Maybe later......)
 
Last edited:
Ed Sutton said:
No offence taken. You at least got the point that my picture is meant to look boring! However it only appears to be pointless when posted out of context. Which was one reason for posting it. It was taken as part of an ongoing, and somewhat woolly, project which is (in part) about the irony of conservation bodies claiming to want to get people closer to nature while excluding them from it. The fact that the grass between the reeds has been mown hints at the managed nature of conservation areas - and the fact that privileged people are allowed in them. At least those are some of the reasons behind it. I also happened to like the fluffy white clouds!

I don't think it's an art project, I'd call it more documentary with a viewpoint if I had to stick a label on it. I'd rather call it a photography project.
Click to expand...

Actually I liked your photograph and understand more or less exactly why you took it. Unless viewers understand your concerns and your thought processes, though, it will seem just rather boring. Most people will not "get it". I've done a fair bit of stuff like that myself which is maybe a bit quirky, a bit witty, slightly ironic, and does actually ask questions of the viewer. In my opinion there is a place for that type of image on the walls of a gallery and perhaps that does make it "art"? And placed alongside a series of traditional images of the landscape (or wildlife) that image would be given an extra little bit of context. It might help to explain it to the non-initiated.
 
jerry12953 said:
The question that comes to mind for me is this

"Is it a photograph?"

I hope this doesn't come across as flippant. I'll try to explain why I posed the question. The concept was translated into something physical using maps and a bunch of pins. That is where the creativity lies, not in the picking up of the camera and pressing the shutter button.

Discuss?

(Maybe later......)
Click to expand...

No flippancy detected, or taken :)

But it's a photograph. You are deciding whether it's a photograph because it's a map and some pins, so why don't you question a photograph of a person by saying "the concept was translated into something physical using a person"? Does a photograph become a photograph only when it's of certain things? What of still life? Is this not still life then? What if it was a nicely arranged bowl of fruit, would I not be just translating my concept with fruit? :) Fruit, or map pins... or clouds, or people, or blancmange... still a photograph.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
No flippancy detected, or taken :)

But it's a photograph. You are deciding whether it's a photograph because it's a map and some pins, so why don't you question a photograph of a person by saying "the concept was translated into something physical using a person"? Does a photograph become a photograph only when it's of certain things? What of still life? Is this not still life then? What if it was a nicely arranged bowl of fruit, would I not be just translating my concept with fruit? :) Fruit, or map pins... or clouds, or people, or blancmange... still a photograph.
Click to expand...

The creative content is in the arrangement of maps and pins on the wall which is the result of your thought processes. The photograph is your attempt to preserve it for posterity.

I agree there are some grey areas here (well grey expanses) and you have rightly pointed them out.
 
In my quest to get everyone to post images and get feedback - here is another one from me

Urban Townships are supposed to be dismal places and they can be, certainly dangerous - and the SA Government are gradually, but very slowly, knocking them down and building units in lines of exactly the same "houses" - not really houses, but small 2/4 room concrete units - as you can see there are "houses" of all shapes and sizes "illegally" built over the years - large and small - all "the owners" seem to be getting in return are small uniform concrete units in regimented lines ………. will they be happy?

I have a few more in a series that shows regimented modern estate type houses built for the "middle class" alongside original Townships which are gradually being replaced by small concrete units



image taken with a long tele
 
Last edited:
jerry12953 said:
The creative content is in the arrangement of maps and pins on the wall which is the result of your thought processes. The photograph is your attempt to preserve it for posterity.
Click to expand...

Yeah.. but it's the same if I arrange a bowl of fruit for a still life... the "creative" content would be the fruit, and the photograph my attempt to preserve it. I'm not sure what you're saying, but it seems t be that it can only be a photograph if the object you're photographing was something found and not created by you. Is this correct?
 
I'm working on an idea that I would consider to be photographic art. It's very much ongoing as I don't put enough time and effort in.

It is in the form of a series and is very much pre-considered, although each individual shot is "found", if that's the word. It just happens to fit the theme.

It's about the language of chairs. How they take on very different meanings according to their type, how they are arranged and according to their environment.

I find it fascinating, even if no-one else does. Finally, it might be rubbish art but I believe that it is art. Others may have a different view.:)
 
jerry12953 said:
In the spirit of the original post I'll submit this for consideration. I don't know whether it's art or not but it seems to have similar intentions behind it as Ed Sutton's picture above. View attachment 22364
Click to expand...

I don't know if it's art either. But it does make a point.
 
jerry12953 said:
I hope this doesn't come across as flippant. I'll try to explain why I posed the question. The concept was translated into something physical using maps and a bunch of pins. That is where the creativity lies, not in the picking up of the camera and pressing the shutter button.
Click to expand...

The question for me is more "Why make a photograph to illustrate the idea? What does it being a photograph bring to it that making a graphic doesn't?"
 
Ed Sutton said:
The question for me is more "Why make a photograph to illustrate the idea? What does it being a photograph bring to it that making a graphic doesn't?"
Click to expand...
Nothing. But that's how he chose to do it. That doesn't make it better or worse.
 
BillN_33 said:
In my quest to get everyone to post images and get feedback - here is another one from me ...
Click to expand...
Bill I thought your point was to do with art? In which case this post and image of yours is irrelevant.
 
jerry12953 said:
In the spirit of the original post I'll submit this for consideration. I don't know whether it's art or not ...
Click to expand...
I'd classify this on various grounds as 'light documentary entertainment'. Alternatively, 'a snapshot with meaning'.
 
"as you can see, I'm struggling, help me out!"

Then if that is how you feel Bill.........Then ask yourself why you picked up A camera in the first place, their you may find your answer.
 
I think I'm getting it now ….basically if you want to produce photographic art what you should not do with the camera is take a photograph
 
Well if you dont take the photograph you will not record the scene speaking from a Landscape point of view............. camera is just a tool to assit the PHOTOGRAPHER;)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Kevin O'Brian said:
"as you can see, I'm struggling, help me out!"

Then if that is how you feel Bill.........Then ask yourself why you picked up A camera in the first place, their you may find your answer.
Click to expand...

I am only struggling with photographic art - 99% of my shots are "record images" as I have always said, which I am really happy with, in fact "over the moon" and cannot wait to get an even longer lens ……….. at least respect my comments or why not post one of your images? - bird, insect, Damselfly or even "art"

I pick my camera up mainly as part of my interest in nature … really simple
 
Last edited:
Bythesea said:
My opinion is that whether or not something is art is not connected in any way to the techniques being used, but what the thought process behind the picture was.
Click to expand...
Almost, but what about emotional process? Are you invalidating that?

Bythesea said:
I think that most of the photographs posted on TP are not art. Yes, there are a lot of well taken, well exposed, perfectly composed pictures around, but the techniques used do not make them art. For a photograph to be art it needs to show something that the photographer wants to express, and not just that they are able to use a camera accurately to produce the picture they saw in their mind before they pressed the shutter. And there is nothing wrong with taking good photographs as an end in itself. Being willing to put a picture on your wall does not make it art, but if you like it who cares.
Click to expand...
That's pretty lucid.

Bythesea said:
Now for my example. I have a lot of camera gear, but do not take very many pictures. The reason for that is that I do not take pictures as record shots, but only take them when I feel I have an idea that I want to record. Recently that has been about the transient nature of vision. We can look closely at something and get a lot of detail and information out of it. However, much of what we see is peripheral, and is moving. To try and capture this thought and make people think about what they see without seeing, I have been taking photographs where I use a long shutter speed and move the camera during the exposure (ICM) - to try and give the impression of what we might see out of the corner of our eye. Below are a couple of images that try to show this. I imagine most people who might have taken something like these would have thought them mistakes and deleted them, but these were deliberate. I can't imagine many people would hang them on the wall either (though I would) but that isn't the point behind them.
Click to expand...
May I refer again here to my point about emotional process? And another point, which is that if we're driven to make a mark, it should embody truth rather than mere effect? (That's not a comment on your attached images, which I happen to endorse).
 
Kevin O'Brian said:
Well if you dont take the photograph you will not record the scene speaking from a Landscape point of view............. camera is just a tool to assit the PHOTOGRAPHER;)
Click to expand...

That shows a real deep understanding of my comment

Are your landscape photographs "art"
 
BillN_33 said:
I am only struggling with photographic art - 99% of my shots are "record images" as I have always said, which I am really happy with, in fact "over the moon" and cannot wait to get an even longer lens ……….. at least respect my comments or why not post one of your images? - bird, insect, Damselfly or even "art"
Click to expand...

As long as you are happy with your shots then thats all that matters Bill, I was simply Quating what you said in your first post "as you can see, I'm struggling, help me out!" so please!!!! I hope you are not having POP at ME here lol PS my images are within my signature again first post I thought I would try and offer some advice.
Regards
Kevin
 
A relevant anecdote from 1970's Manchester. The Natwest Bank regional headquarters tower block, in the city centre, had 3 floors below ground. Basement level 3 included the kitchens and the directors' dining room - in this last was a big long table with chairs, and on the walls hung a series of abstract paintings. They were uniformly and utterly vapid - meaningless. I'd guess that they'd been chosen and included by a commissioned interior designer. Not art, but tokenism. Wallpaper stuff, faking culture. To me, an abandonment of telling it like it is, a denial of honesty.
 
droj said:
Certainly not I wouldn't dream of it.
Click to expand...

Happy days..... sounds like some fantastic works of art on them walls in Manchester back then in th 70's Rog, only asked because I know the feeling when a person comes along willing to pay for your hard earned trips out with the black box, always nice to know that your feelngs are shared by others especially when it comes to them wanting to hang it up in their living rooms/hotels etc.
 
Last edited:
I was just about to start chomping on a bale of hay, but now I feel a little hoarse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top