Photographic Art - a serious question

Well, as a Grumpy and Abrasive Northerner myself, I have to say i'm a little upset at the turn this thread has taken in the last few posts. I'm going to be charitable however and work on the premise that Bill has at least had his question answered, rather than the whole exercise was actually a wind-up.

My own views on the question "is photography art" is pretty much, "Not as often as the Photographer or the Audience Thinks, but every now and then, yes."
 
My own views on the question "is photography art" is pretty much, "Not as often as the Photographer or the Audience Thinks, but every now and then, yes."

I would certainly agree with that.

My post was a genuine question …………. if you look at anything thing that I have said or posted in other sections, my postings are mixed with humour and an interest in wildlife, and maybe other subjects

I had a genuine interest in whether it was possible for me to go out and attempt to create "photographic art" or indeed if it really exists, but my conclusion is that me me it would be an illusion at best.

So yes, for me the question has been answered until the next time that it is raised.

If I have upset the sensitive well on the one hand I am sorry but on the other I am not surprised

C'est la vie
 
Last edited:
Well, as a Grumpy and Abrasive Northerner myself, I have to say i'm a little upset at the turn this thread has taken in the last few posts.

Me too. Suggesting Northerners aren't grumpy and abrasive is a slight on our heritage. Off out to walk the whippet now.
 
But, to contribute to the original premise of the thread... I've a couple of images that in certain ways could fit the bill, at least partially....

122-1383236390-4a0992871cf4f719b1041c75464966f5.jpg


Pretty much sprang from a chance comment one of my friends had made, about someone who was suffering from "delusions of grandeur" (Ok, it was in a pub, and it was the landlord thinking he was the country squire all of a sudden because he was allowing the villagers to use his front lawn for the village soapbox derby) - and the whole conversation went on from there - I went home that night and started writing down things that might illustrate the phrase, and this idea came to mind... The thought that a chess-piece had dreams of being one of Enzo's Prancing Horses was too good to pass up...



99-1383235271-58f6a2e10aa548a6966b73ce52ea227b.jpg


This simply came about because when I looked at the Pears from the tree, the curved one just looked so folorn and depressed... At the time I was working on a loose series of shots that were visual puns or plays on words - I thought "what could make a Pear Depressed..." then the light bulb moment, and "Ahhh, what if it's not part of a Pair..." which gave me my original title "When is a Pear not a Pair... When it's a Gooseberry" Technically, not fantastically well executed, I can see all sorts of flaws with the set and lighting, and it's not massively original, lots of people have come up with fruit/veg as pseudo-humans in shots... but it managed to catch the emotion I wanted to portray, and as such was probably my favourite shot of the dozen or so I came up with for the POTY in 2011.


And then, for me theres this shot, that i've had people (normal non-photographer people) rave over and call all sorts of artistic things... but for me it'll never be anything more than a Highly Satisfying Lighting and Craftwork Exercise...

104-1383235431-8c36e9d843e5da513bc5b47e2c509c7e.jpg


Yes, there was an awful lot of work went into sourcing the props - incluuding making the table that everything is on, and creating the faux "stucco rustico" wall as the rear of the set. Not to mention weeks of research into all the symbolism behind all the bits and bobs on the table. I even created a "back story" about why most of the stuff on the table would have been there. But in the end, it'll never really be anything more than a technical piece for me.
 
Me too. Suggesting Northerners aren't grumpy and abrasive is a slight on our heritage. Off out to walk the whippet now.

There could by "pockets" in Lancashire were this does not apply ……. some kind of anomaly
 
Images are good it's a photography forum ….. the prancing horse works for me, (I better say as an image), particularly as it "sprang from a chance comment"

please post more images
 
Last edited:
Okay, I'll contribute an image that I call art because although I didn't realise it at the time it was a commentary on how we interact in public places. I shot this from the hip hoping to capture the meaninglessness of consumerism and our rush to get from one experience to the next looking to fill the void left by the last fulfilled desire.

5157986844_21edb1f308_b.jpg
 
And then, for me theres this shot, that i've had people (normal non-photographer people) rave over and call all sorts of artistic things... but for me it'll never be anything more than a Highly Satisfying Lighting and Craftwork Exercise...

104-1383235431-8c36e9d843e5da513bc5b47e2c509c7e.jpg


Yes, there was an awful lot of work went into sourcing the props - incluuding making the table that everything is on, and creating the faux "stucco rustico" wall as the rear of the set. Not to mention weeks of research into all the symbolism behind all the bits and bobs on the table. I even created a "back story" about why most of the stuff on the table would have been there. But in the end, it'll never really be anything more than a technical piece for me.


My thoughts on this particular image of yours are ... if that image was replicated as oil on canvas then it would most certainly count as art. So why not the photograph.
 
My thoughts on this particular image of yours are ... if that image was replicated as oil on canvas then it would most certainly count as art. So why not the photograph.

But for ME Stuart it'll only ever be a technical exercise, BECAUSE that's how the thought process began for me. The fact that there's quite a bit of research and work gone into crafting the props and getting them at least loosely correct is just a function of my being (at the time) of restricted mobility, and with masses of time to spare on a hobby that I love, with very few distractions, and having to try and compete in a "peer voted" competition on TP against far more talented photographers who weren't restricted to shooting on a tabletop in a bedroom. So, and it pains me to admit it, most of the research went into the "eye candy" side of things, but the real thing I took from the exercise were a greater appreciation of what I could do using my recently acquired lighting kit. Well - that and orders for four similar shots printed on canvas when a friend took them to the Goth Weekend over in Whitby....
 
Last edited:
It's obvious really. It's only art if it's accompanied by a pretentious artists statement!


Steve.
 
I'll have another go

a few different "pictures"

twin_t.jpg







art_5.jpg







art_6.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure if you're just posting random images from the web now Bill - if you are, please post them as links rather than directly showing other peoples images and inviting critique on them... if they ARE yours, you certainly have a far wider portfolio than you imply in other posts within this thread.
 
I'm not sure if you're just posting random images from the web now Bill - if you are, please post them as links rather than directly showing other peoples images and inviting critique on them... if they ARE yours, you certainly have a far wider portfolio than you imply in other posts within this thread.

Bloody Cheek, Mark and a total insult … pathetic …… which I suppose goes with some of the comments on the thread

THESE ARE MY IMAGES

you clearly have no idea about me and it is really sad that you can suggest something like that - open you eyes and look at other sections of the forum ….. cannot you see my copyright indication or are you that short sighted

most of you "artists" seem afraid to post your images

Here's another which is the only one I regard as anywhere near art
 
Last edited:
Bloody Cheek

THESE ARE MY IMAGES

you clearly have no idea about me

most of you "artists" seem afraid to post your images

If they're your images, its fine, no problem. I must add, it's rather difficult for the mod team to keep track of the entire memberships overall portfolio of shared work... However, we do have to respond when contacted by other members stating that you appear to be "carpet bombing" with images - I guess SOMEONE has to ask the hard questions :shrug:

I certainly have no issues with posting some of my work, along with a certain amount of "back story" to them... though I must admit, I've barely picked up a camera over the last couple of years since a major change in my personal circumstances, so it's not exactly current.
 
Last edited:
If they're your images, its fine, no problem.

I certainly have no issues with posting some of my work... though I must admit, I've barely picked up a camera over the last couple of years since a major change in my personal circumstances, so it's not exactly current.

What do you mean IF - they are

and it's not part of a portfolio, they are just "pictures"

duck_stare.jpg
 
Last edited:
most of you "artists" seem afraid to post your images

That's a little unfair.

As for your last four photographs none of them appear to me to be pictures in the way that the backlit one does. They don't say anything more to me than what they depict.

I don't consider this one of mine to be anything more than a graphically manipulated photograph which could serve as an element of graphic design or an illustration. I certainly wouldn't consider it art.

graphicdaw by davelumb, on Flickr
 
What do you IF - they are
That's a little unfair.

As for your last four photographs none of them appear to me to be pictures in the way that the backlit one does. They don't say anything more to me than what they depict.

I don't consider this one of mine to be anything more than a graphically manipulated photograph which could serve as an element of graphic design or an illustration. I certainly wouldn't consider it art.

graphicdaw by davelumb, on Flickr

Has anyone questioned you honesty on this forum?

I do not consider any of my stuff to be art - I have constantly said that - I was trying to encourage constructive conversation - not have my honesty questioned, especially by a Moderator …….. can he not read EXIF ………… maybe it goes with the turf for artists ……. questioning honesty

duck_stare_1.jpg


Thank God there is sanity in the Nature forum
 
Last edited:
a) dave was referring to the "artists sharing their shots" part as he snipped and quoted.

b) for some reason, you have taken offence to how i worded my enquiry as to if they were your shots - for that I apologise. I will admit at the time I was working on a ipad mini and the small watermark wasn't obvious, and I didn't have the facility to check exif. However, your shots, no problem, post away...

I must admit, I don't venture into the fur and feather sections if i can possibly avoid it, as the whole genre fails to hold any interest for me, so I'd never seen your work shared to realise that the watermark was from your portfolio.
 
. However, we do have to respond when contacted by other members stating that you appear to be "carpet bombing" with images - I guess SOMEONE has to ask the hard questions :shrug:

Carpet bombing with images ……. reported by other members ……….sad

I'll take them all down - they are linked to my web space … so were never a (resources) burden on you
 
Last edited:
Carpet bombing with images ……. reported by other members ……….sad

I'll take them all down - they are linked to my web space … so were never a burden on you

Not necessary, as I said above - as I was participating in the thread anyway, I kind of had to ask the question - and as it's been answered for all to see, it's not a problem to display them... though it's entirely up to you of course. Personally I'd have loved to have seen some form of explanation as to why you considered each of the images displayed to have possibly been Art rather than "just an image you liked" - not necessarily some high falutin' "Artistic Statement" cobblers, just a little snippet of the thought processes behind the shot much as i'd done.

Please don't take any silence from me for the next couple of hours as a lack of interest - i've some paying work to do now which has to over-ride spending time on here trying to keep the forum working (somewhere) near the rules.
 
Not necessary, as I said above - as I was participating in the thread anyway, I kind of had to ask the question - and as it's been answered for all to see, it's not a problem to display them... though it's entirely up to you of course. Personally I'd have loved to have seen some form of explanation as to why you considered each of the images displayed to have possibly been Art rather than "just an image you liked" - not necessarily some high falutin' "Artistic Statement" cobblers, just a little snippet of the thought processes behind the shot much as i'd done.

Please don't take any silence from me for the next couple of hours as a lack of interest - i've some paying work to do now which has to over-ride spending time on here trying to keep the forum working (somewhere) near the rules.

Plagiarism has never been my scene but maybe it is common in the world and minds of so called artists as they constantly strive to fulfil their frustrations and inner failure(s)

I posted 3 images in one go and am accused of "carpet bombing" …….. did you not look at posting #206 …….. but I suppose it depends who you listen to

I can now understand why Van Gogh really cut off his ear
 
Last edited:
Plagiarism has never been my scene but maybe it is common in the world and minds of so called artists as they constantly strive to fulfil their frustrations and inner failure(s)

I posted 3 images in one go and am accused of "carpet bombing" …….. did you not look at posting #206 …….. but I suppose it depends who you listen to

I can now understand why Van Gogh really cut off his ear

Ear today, gone tomorrow........ It was very sad his family were left to pick up the pieces.
 
And then, for me theres this shot, that i've had people (normal non-photographer people) rave over and call all sorts of artistic things... but for me it'll never be anything more than a Highly Satisfying Lighting and Craftwork Exercise...

104-1383235431-8c36e9d843e5da513bc5b47e2c509c7e.jpg


Yes, there was an awful lot of work went into sourcing the props - incluuding making the table that everything is on, and creating the faux "stucco rustico" wall as the rear of the set. Not to mention weeks of research into all the symbolism behind all the bits and bobs on the table. I even created a "back story" about why most of the stuff on the table would have been there. But in the end, it'll never really be anything more than a technical piece for me.

According to @jerry12953 though, it's not a photograph, as the creativity was in the creation and arrangement of the objects ;)

To me it's a well contructed still life in the vanitas tradition... it's chosen medium is irrelevant, and no one can argue with the quality of the work. Can it be art though? It's a replication of early renaissance still life, so it would have been.... it's a few hundred years late though. Bloody nice craft skills on show here though.
 
Plagiarism has never been my scene but maybe it is common in the world and minds of so called artists as they constantly strive to fulfil their frustrations and inner failure(s)

FFS Bill... we get it, you think we're a bunch of charlatans, ok... but just back off with the hostility, OK? You're just getting personal and insulting now. Reported.... not for all that crap you mentioned further up... no idea who did that, or why... I'm reporting you for being insulting, and bringing the debate down to a personal level.
 
FFS Bill... we get it, you think we're a bunch of charlatans, ok... but just back off with the hostility, OK? You're just getting personal and insulting now. Reported.... not for all that crap you mentioned further up... no idea who did that, or why... I'm reporting you for being insulting, and bringing the debate down to a personal level.

David, with all due respect

charlatans - what have I been accused of? … look at both sides of the discussion

I posted 4 very different images to further the debate and encourage comment …….. but what happened …… one of the "so called artists" reported me for suspected plagiarism and carpet bombing ……… I was then told by a Moderator "IF" they were my images then "certainly (I) have a far wider portfolio than you imply in other posts" …………

what bigger insult on a photography forum can you have than the outright suggestion that you have posted someone else's images and passed them off as your own or being accused of carpet bombing when someone posted the same number of images in the same thread a few posts earlier, and all this by a Moderator …….. come on, what are you guys on and what creditability should I have for you now ……… and don't brush it aside as being some "crap" because that suits you

who brought the debate down to a personal level?

my question was a serious one ……… and at least my images are genuine but my feelings towards you are now more of sorry than hostility

but again in your enthusiasm you appear to display an inability to understand what is written

"Plagiarism has never been my scene …………………. but maybe it is common in the world and minds of so called artists as they constantly strive to fulfil their frustrations and inner failure(s)"
…………..
? is there any truth in the italicised part of this statement or not? ……. maybe if you feel there is not you should try to understand more "artists" at a real life level, especially with reference to failure, as this is what drives many forward.

As far as I am concerned neither side has proved it's case ……… but my feeling, (and only mine), would fall firmly towards "that photography is not an art", it is more of a recording medium

Report away as that seems "par for the course" on this thread, albeit for erroneous reasons,……. but maybe it is the only reaction that some (artists?), here, have available, again indicating a lack of imagination or of a genuine frustration to contribute …………….

and by the way I take it as a compliment that you, (you in the plural), had thought that my images are "too broad in scope" to be mine

If the weather warms up there could still be the odd Damselfly around, or I could just photograph some plastic dog excrement on a polystyrene pavement ……... but anyway we can all look forward to Christmas as it is just around the corner …. what a cheery thought!……….boom, boom

happy_Xmas.jpg
 
Last edited:
who brought the debate down to a personal level?

Let's see......

BillN_33 said:
most modern artists are "con" artists and most photographers who call themselves artists are just as bad
BillN_33 said:
Good luck to them and you photographers who think that you are artists …………… it is becoming a tragic joke
BillN_33 said:
stop trying to intellecturalise it and "get a life"
BillN_33 said:
my interest is photography, not bu!!sh1t
BillN_33 said:
most of you "artists" seem afraid to post your images

Antagonistic, childish ranting. You're not debating art, you're just making comments about the PEOPLE who create art, and doing so in a very insulting way.

While I'm equally as sceptical about birds on twigs Bill, I'm not calling that genre a tragic joke, nor am I going to suggest you need to "get a life", and I'm not calling it bullsh1t, and I'm not making stupid challenges to you to post work.

Incidentally those on here debating with you do post work.

If you don't get it, fine. You already pretty much summed up your standpoint in post #184

BillN_33 said:
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

So stop being concerned about it then.. leave the thread... go shoot birds and stop trying reduce what we do to "b****x".


After all... art is in galleries... birds on twigs aren't. Go work out why instead of behaving like a child.
 
Last edited:
To me it's a well contructed still life in the vanitas tradition... it's chosen medium is irrelevant, and no one can argue with the quality of the work. Can it be art though? It's a replication of early renaissance still life, so it would have been.... it's a few hundred years late though. Bloody nice craft skills on show here though.

That's me all over David, Late to the Party as usual.:D Thanks for the positive comments on the quality of the work / craft skills - as an Image, I like it, and, while i'm aware of a few problems with it (the quill pen has no reason to be there, especially as it's sans inkwell, the cover of the book under the skull is skewed and the pages of the book are missing below it - to name just two problems) it still means enough to me that it's still on the wall in my office, and has been for the last few years, where other shots have arrived and gone...
 
Photographic Art is a very contentious subject (as this thread illustrates!).

To consider the question 'when is photography art?' we have to ignore whether the image is technically perfect or not because it's simply not the prime aim when using a photographic medium to create art. Of course it can combine art with technical perfection.

One of the strongest components in judging whether an image created with a camera is art, is composition. Hence Cartier-Bresson's picture posted earlier. Composition always has a strong 2D graphics element. And the more abstract the subject, the more easily it is judged to be 'art'. But again as Cartier-Bresson's same example, art and record photography can overlap and the line between them can be blurred.

Any image which goes further than just being a shot for the record, might qualify to be seen as art if it's an image which you would be happy to hang on a wall - That's why AdFab's Jennifer Saunders wanted art, dahling, give me art!

It doesn't really matter. All that matters is that you, the photographer, can express yourself using a camera and that you enjoy the results.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the positive comments on the quality of the work / craft skills -

Credit where it's due.

I've nothing against work that is pure craft skills.. if it's done well. I've nothing against pretty landscapes... if it's done well. I've nothing against any form of photography... if it's done well.

Some people just need to get their head around the fact that calling your work NOT art, is not an insult - It's a description. If you judge whether it's art by the same standards you'd judge whether it was a good photograph, then you're doing this wrong.

I admire great work from all genres, whether it's art or not.
 
Back
Top