Photographic Art - a serious question

It seems I'm not alone in understanding what is, or isn't, art....
So, I'll add another image, it's one of the few images that I have taken, that I thought(at the time) would be classed as 'art'. Now, having read this thread, I'm not sure.

This is an image I took last year, it has a little write up to it, kind of explaining why I took it.

So... is it art, or just an image?

8901084381_7e24e9196c_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
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?
Click to expand...

No, I'm not being dogmatic about it, but I am saying that there seems to be a qualitative difference between a photograph of a construction, still life or sculpture and a photograph of something found out in the landscape, for example. Someone mentioned Andy Goldsworthy above and he would be firmly in the first category, although I believe he does take his own photographs and must therefore ALSO be a pretty damn good photographer. But I'm sure he doesn't describe himself as one!

So much so-called "art" photography - ie the sort of stuff that gets shown in the photography galleries - seems also to be in the first category and I would argue that it doesn't really have a place there.
 
jerry12953 said:
So much so-called "art" photography - ie the sort of stuff that gets shown in the photography galleries - seems also to be in the first category and I would argue that it doesn't really have a place there.
Click to expand...

I would agree that the trend in photography galleries is towards 'art that uses photography'. This is a great shame as it further reduces the exposure that 'straight photography' gets.

Straight photography is varied and fascinating enough in itself.

http://www.paulgrahamarchive.com/writings_by.html
 
Ed Sutton said:
I would agree that the trend in photography galleries is towards 'art that uses photography'. This is a great shame as it further reduces the exposure that 'straight photography' gets.

Straight photography is varied and fascinating enough in itself.

http://www.paulgrahamarchive.com/writings_by.html
Click to expand...


That looks like a really interesting piece by Paul Graham. I'll read it later.......
 
Both pieces are worth a read, IMO.
 
Ed Sutton said:
I would agree that the trend in photography galleries is towards 'art that uses photography'. This is a great shame as it further reduces the exposure that 'straight photography' gets.
Click to expand...
So how do you view Dalston Anatomy, where the photography is as I see it integral to the work, and the work was arranged to be photographed?
 
Ed Sutton said:
I would agree that the trend in photography galleries is towards 'art that uses photography'.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure it is. I've seen a great deal "straight" photography exhibitions lately. I'd say "straight" photography is alive and well.
 
Solo man said:
So... is it art, or just an image?
Click to expand...


Without a doubt, art. Your statement just gives me context. The title detracts from it... it's a bit childish and unnecessary.

What you write could be tightened up considerably into something very powerful, and once read, lends a whole new perspective to what would otherwise be dismissed as a simple still life macro image.

There's clear intent in the work. You've got something to say, and it's important. The words and text work together.

There's a reason that academics often refer to all works, whether imagery, words, as "texts". Semiotics makes no distinction between the two, and in fact makes it clear that one can not exist without the other. Images often carry their own narrative and need nothing more, but that's only because some images are so forceful and recognisable, WE as viewers provide the words.. but the words are always there.
 
droj said:
So how do you view Dalston Anatomy, where the photography is as I see it integral to the work, and the work was arranged to be photographed?
Click to expand...

I think I first saw it in BJP and my initial reaction was "Meh"... It looks like the kind of stuff you might see in a design magazine or such like. I read the piece about it and I've read some more stuff about it on-line but it's not the kind of work that interests me. Although it was immediately obvious that it would be critically acclaimed.

That's not to say I've dismissed it out of hand it - which sounds like I'm hedging my bets! I didn't think much of Richard Mosse's Infra photographs when I saw them online and in magazines. The concept seemed lame too. However, when I went to the show at Open Eye in Liverpool I changed my mind entirely - they made far more sense seen as large prints. That's not the only time seeing work as it's meant to be presented has had a completely different effect than seeing selected snippets.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I've seen a great deal "straight" photography exhibitions lately. I'd say "straight" photography is alive and well.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's dead, or that it isn't shown - I saw some at the Tate Liverpool not so long back. I just feel that photography galleries are leaning away from it when they are (to my mind) the places that ought to be promoting it.

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places. I don't get out much...:D
 
Pookeyhead said:
Without a doubt, art. Your statement just gives me context. The title detracts from it... it's a bit childish and unnecessary.

What you write could be tightened up considerably into something very powerful, and once read, lends a whole new perspective to what would otherwise be dismissed as a simple still life macro image.

There's clear intent in the work. You've got something to say, and it's important. The words and text work together.

There's a reason that academics often refer to all works, whether imagery, words, as "texts". Semiotics makes no distinction between the two, and in fact makes it clear that one can not exist without the other. Images often carry their own narrative and need nothing more, but that's only because some images are so forceful and recognisable, WE as viewers provide the words.. but the words are always there.
Click to expand...

Thank you for taking the time to reply...
This was taken last year, and was my first real attempt at trying to 'say' something with an image...so, it has no real title, nor did I ever get round to saying something more solid... I couldn't find the right words... I guess it didn't help that family and friends didn't 'get' it, so, I never did anything with it after that.
 
Ed Sutton said:
I didn't think much of Richard Mosse's Infra photographs when I saw them online and in magazines.
Click to expand...

Me neither. Is the subject not enough to carry this work. Reducing such a subject to eye candy dilutes it for me. He can bang on about infra red's military uses as a tenuous justification for using it all he wants, but I get a whiff of BS.

Ed Sutton said:
I'm not saying it's dead, or that it isn't shown - I saw some at the Tate Liverpool not so long back. I just feel that photography galleries are leaning away from it when they are (to my mind) the places that ought to be promoting it.

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places. I don't get out much...:D
Click to expand...


Anything appropriating photography, or photography appropriating something else will always get recognition. Honest, straight photography will always be the foundation of photography though. Collage seems to be a popular thing for those who are ashamed to be photographers lately :)
 
Solo man said:
I guess it didn't help that family and friends didn't 'get' it, so, I never did anything with it after that.
Click to expand...

I often wonder how many people's creativity is stifled by their peers or family, or teachers, or authority figures.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I often wonder how many people's creativity is stifled by their peers or family, or teachers, or authority figures.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt there are many who have lost confidence and the desire to carry on... if you're told something often enough, you're bound to start believing it yourself.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Me neither. Is the subject not enough to carry this work. Reducing such a subject to eye candy dilutes it for me. He can bang on about infra red's military uses as a tenuous justification for using it all he wants, but I get a whiff of BS.
Click to expand...

I thought it was a load of BS, but seen 'in the flesh' the prints have a presence and as with any large scale print that contains fine detail you see more than in a magazine or web reproduction. The transformation of natural and camouflage colours made me think about concealment. Would they have been any more 'honest' as natural coloured pictures, or even as black and white? Maybe that's part of their point too. :thinking:
 
Ed Sutton said:
I thought it was a load of BS, but seen 'in the flesh' the prints have a presence and as with any large scale print that contains fine detail you see more than in a magazine or web reproduction. The transformation of natural and camouflage colours made me think about concealment. Would they have been any more 'honest' as natural coloured pictures, or even as black and white? Maybe that's part of their point too. :thinking:
Click to expand...


It just didn't add anything for me. It wasn't about honesty.. I don't believe I mentioned that. Something about it seems contrived.. like documentary just wasn't enough.. we need a technique.. yeah.. that's cool now... Maybe I'm being cynical. The images are stunning... but I always avoid letting that sway my opinion. I'm not saying it's awful or anything... I just wonder if it would have had the acclaim if it was shot on any other film stock. If not... what are we celebrating?

I've seen them for real.. it was at the open eye in 2012. Yes, they look amazing.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
I just wonder if it would have had the acclaim if it was shot on any other film stock.
Click to expand...

I guess that's unknowable. The same could be said of any number of works shot on unusual film or media such as large tintypes. Or even for the use of large format to make documentary projects. Is the medium part of the message?It must be or why use photography in the first place.
 
Ed Sutton said:
I guess that's unknowable. The same could be said of any number of works shot on unusual film or media such as large tintypes. Or even for the use of large format to make documentary projects. Is the medium part of the message?It must be or why use photography in the first place.
Click to expand...

This is true. Something just didn't sit well with me, and I think it revolved around that question... Would be as acclaimed shot on anything else. I think that suspicion will always taint work for me. The medium IS part of the message, yes, but when it's so visible, and so much a part of the appeal, especially with such a powerful subject it just makes part of my mind itch a bit. As I said... it's not as if I think it's rubbish... I'm probably just disappointed that Lorna Simpson didn't bag the Deutsche Borse and he did.
 
most modern artists are "con" artists and most photographers who call themselves artists are just as bad

the worst or (best) con artist is the one who has the ability to con himself

art is becoming worthless and "people" will pay a fortune for it

it is part of the disease of man which most artists have caught

Good luck to them and you photographers who think that you are artists …………… it is becoming a tragic joke

stop trying to intellecturalise it and "get a life" - most of you just take "pictures" - that's all we do and that's all it is
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
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

chimney_BW.jpg


chimney.jpg
Click to expand...

BillN_33 said:
most modern artists are "con" artists and most photographers who call themselves artists are just as bad

the worst or (best) con artist is the one who has the ability to con himself

art is becoming worthless and "people" will pay a fortune for it

it is part of the disease of man which most artists have caught

Good luck to them and you photographers who think that you are artists …………… it is becoming a tragic joke

stop trying to intellecturalise it and "get a life" - most of you just take "pictures" - that's all we do and that's all it is
Click to expand...

Can I take it then that your first post was disingenuous b****x?

Just wondering.
 
simon ess said:
Can I take it then that your first post was disingenuous b****x?

Just wondering.
Click to expand...

Simon, If that is your take, yes

I started the thread, have tried, posted images, asked for images, read thru what has been said and the question has been answered for me

my response is what I now feel ………. I felt initially that there was some art in photography and maybe some hope, but to use your word I think that it is now all "b****x" and you know what, it is quite a relief, one less thing to be concerned about
 
Last edited:
So your response to the discussion about the relationship between photography and art is based on a thread on an internet forum?

Interesting.
 
simon ess said:
So your response to the discussion about the relationship between photography and art is based on a thread on an internet forum?

Interesting.
Click to expand...

I did not say that as you did not know what my views were before but this subject was brought up earlier, in other TP threads and is a constant source of reference and as such I thought that "expert" opinion on here, TP, could/would influence me, it has, I am now even more sceptical
 
You're right, of course. I only know what you told us your views were.

But it doesn't matter.


BillN_33 said:
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



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

BillN_33 said:
I felt initially that there was some art in photography and maybe some hope,
Click to expand...
 
Ok Bill, let's leave out photography for a minute and consider other forms of cultural expression. Let's even skip painting and sculpture and leave the visual arena altogether. Do you enjoy music? Can music be art?
 
Last edited:
droj said:
Ok Bill, let's leave out photography for a minute and consider other forms of cultural expression. Let's even skip painting and sculpture and leave the visual arena altogether. Do you enjoy music? Can music be art?
Click to expand...

yes - but I'm out of any discussions on here - my interest is photography, not bu!!sh1t, (no offence to you Simon), I would rather continue photographing nature
 
None taken Bill.

Your position on the subject is your position, and I'm very happy for you to hold it.

Clearly, I take a different position.
 
simon ess said:
None taken Bill.

Your position on the subject is your position, and I'm very happy for you to hold it.

Clearly, I take a different position.
Click to expand...

would it be useful to have a

photographic art - post your images thread

plus comment on the last if you wish and/or just post an image

or something along those lines
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
most modern artists are "con" artists and most photographers who call themselves artists are just as bad

the worst or (best) con artist is the one who has the ability to con himself

art is becoming worthless and "people" will pay a fortune for it

it is part of the disease of man which most artists have caught

Good luck to them and you photographers who think that you are artists …………… it is becoming a tragic joke

stop trying to intellecturalise it and "get a life" - most of you just take "pictures" - that's all we do and that's all it is
Click to expand...


Looks like the thread has been productive for you then. At least you know realise where you and your work sits in the scheme of things.

I don't understand the hostility though: While I'm more than prepared to believe you've had a cathartic realisation during this thread, your language makes me more inclined to think that you've started a thread, realised you're in over your head, and now you're just having a tantrum :) No one's been unpleasant to you, so why are you being unpleasant to others?

BillN_33 said:
would it be useful to have a

photographic art - post your images thread

plus comment on the last if you wish and/or just post an image

or something along those lines
Click to expand...

I thought that's what this was. Art promotes conversation though.. and debate. It just does. What did you expect, comments on the use of thirds, or the cropping?
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
While I'm more than prepared to believe you've had a cathartic realisation during this thread, your language makes me more inclined to think that you've started a thread, realised you're in over your head, and now you're just having a tantrum :) No one's been unpleasant to you, so why are you being unpleasant to others?
Click to expand...

I agree, much of what has been expressed is thankfully "over my head" but the thread has helped to clarify and confirm my feelings as to the place that photography has in any "art" debate

The "art" of conversation has never been one of my strong points and I apologises if I have offended anyone
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
most modern artists are "con" artists and most photographers who call themselves artists are just as bad

the worst or (best) con artist is the one who has the ability to con himself

art is becoming worthless and "people" will pay a fortune for it

it is part of the disease of man which most artists have caught

Good luck to them and you photographers who think that you are artists …………… it is becoming a tragic joke

stop trying to intellecturalise it and "get a life" - most of you just take "pictures" - that's all we do and that's all it is
Click to expand...


Being a grumpy old man myself I tend to agree with you about most modern or post modern art. However I do have to reconsider sometimes when I remember that some of the greatest artists of the past were considered revolutionary and probably even worthless in their own time, Turner for example.
 
jerry12953 said:
Being a grumpy old man myself I tend to agree with you about most modern or post modern art. However I do have to reconsider sometimes when I remember that some of the greatest artists of the past were considered revolutionary and probably even worthless in their own time, Turner for example.
Click to expand...

Thanks Jeremy

I'm certainly gumpy, male and old and "northern" - my abrasive response was probably influenced (too much) by a news item I saw last night on TV showing a (modern) art exhibition, "buyers day" and my reaction was certainly "bo!!0x"
 
BillN_33 said:
Thanks Jeremy

I'm certainly gumpy, male and old and "northern" - my abrasive response was probably influenced (too much) by a news item I saw last night on TV showing a (modern) art exhibition, "buyers day" and my reaction was certainly "bo!!0x"
Click to expand...


Right... not only does anyone who makes work you don't understand need to "get a life" you're also saying northerners are are abrasive and grumpy.

Any other prejudices you wish to reveal? :)
 
Pookeyhead said:
Right... not only does anyone who makes work you don't understand need to "get a life" you're also saying northerners are are abrasive and grumpy.

Any other prejudices you wish to reveal? :)
Click to expand...

Never liked Marmite …….. cannot stand Seagulls ……….. Audis are not my cup of tea …………Ryanair are terrible ……. I'll never ever holiday in Malta …….. plus many many more

also I never said Northerners were abrasive or indeed that I was abrasive …………. what I said was that I am Northerner and that my response, in my above posting, was abrasive and I also indicated what it may have been influenced by………… although I could agree that some Northern are abrasive.

I could even suggest that part of my comments were "in jest" ………… but that would be in the eye of the beholder …….. and your eyes seem to be closed to such (my) inferences most of the time

My comment about "get a life" has certainly been reinforced by your response …….. but that's only my "northern" opinion ……….. other people may differ

I wouldn't worry David, (and I'm sure that you aren't), it's only MY opinion
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top