- Messages
- 6,408
- Edit My Images
- No
It could well be, the Celestial Canopy certainly adorned many an internal ceiling in stately homes all across Europe.
and the site receives a small commission
Art in Photography
- Thread starter Carl Ayling
- Start date
It could well be, the Celestial Canopy certainly adorned many an internal ceiling in stately homes all across Europe.
- Messages
- 4,517
- Name
- droj
- Edit My Images
- No
A lucid explanation. This is about where it's at!
OP
- Messages
- 3,925
- Name
- Carl
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So if I have this right, an end product that contains an element of photography is treated as such and so, getting back to the very original question, an image produced from a marriage of "traditional art craft" and photograph is acceptable in a photographic forum such as TP.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
While I do a bit of astro-photography myself, and appreciate the technical craft it entails, it's not really art. It's craft. The intent is to merely record - to capture. There is no creativity going on here at all. Sure, you process the images, and can change the colours, but why is that creative? Don't get me wrong, the whole idea of capturing photons that have travelled through space for millions of years unimpeded until they hit my telescope mirror is mind bending... but it's a scientific process. There's no creativity going on, no matter how much you process the imagery. It can be fantastic decorative art, but decorative art doesn't require creativity - it just requires craft skill. Astro photography has been used in art however. Mishka Henner produced a book called "Astronomical". What makes this art, is not the imagery within, but the concept that makes people think. You can't just SHOW an image and go "ta dahh!" and call it art, no matter how beautiful it is, you have to think about the work and how you get the concept across, and often, being "nice" has got sod all to do with it.
Why is it important that it's art to you?
You can't just decide what a word means Peter. I can't just decide what is art and what isn't any more than you can decide what is a dog or not. There's decorative art, which is basically craft skills to make pretty things, and there's contemporary art practice - work that elucidates, enlightens, speaks of something, or challenges beliefs or perceptions. Art is concept driven and has purpose beyond merely creating an image, or a sculpture (or anything else) for the sake of it alone.
What is subjective is whether you LIKE it, of course, but as many of us always point out in these threads, whether you LIKE it is not a measure of how GOOD it is and LIKING something does not make it art (no matter how much you want it to be). This is the difference between decorative art and conceptual art. Decorative art HAS to be look good, and HAS to be LIKED because its only purpose is to hang on a wall as decoration. Keith Arnatt's images of dog turds are indisputably art, but no one would ever hang them on the wall. Why are they art? Because he's taken the idea, developed it, and produced work that does exactly what he set out to do, which is to show the complexity and beauty in dog sh*t... and to outrage people to some extent, and he's probably pleased to see that it works on that level too.
Basically, if someone asks you what the work is about, and you have no answer, then it's not art as most people in here are discussing it. If there's no concept, then it can't be contemporary art as we understand it now. It may well be decorative artwork however, but that's a different stripe of cat/dog
Your statement that because work may be influenced by other things is meaningless too. That's always happened, and always will. The first image of a person was made on a piece of ivory around 26,000 years ago (that we know of), so by this argument no portrait created since then can be art, because it's no longer original. Clearly a silly standpoint, as original and creative portraits are taken all the time. That first ever likeness of a human being wasn't art... only when someone sat there and thought... Hmmm.... I'm going to make this picture of a woman have the head of a deer, because then it's a representation of nature, and the bountifulness of the world that provides for me... I can do this because it's the women that appear to "give" life."... That's when it became art, when it started to use crude symbolism to represent an IDEA. Usually it was theological, but it was an abstract, conceptual thought... it then started to become critical in nature.
I don't understand why some people (and it does mainly seem to be photographers) always want to redefine the rules to suit them, despite having no great interest, or knowledge about art. All of a sudden, art is "subjective" and "anything can be art if you want it to be". Many decry art as a load of b******s, but then seek to redefine their own work as art... on their terms. This is particularly annoying when the person saying these things (not any particular person in here) has previously had no great interest in art, never read about the subject, has no knowledge, never goes to galleries, can't name more than a handful of artists, and has no clear idea of what defines art.. suddenly comes out with "Art is what you want it to be"... "It's subjective".... "one man's art is another man's blah blah..." "Marmite"....
No... it's not. No matter how much you want it to be true... it's not. At points in history it was, sure. There's tons of stuff in the V&A that is heralded as seminal work of its time, but if created today, would be utterly ignored and dismissed as sentimental, decorative crap, and that's the point.
People with this attitude are just ignorant. I mean ignorant literally, not as an insult. What they really mean is they LIKE it, so it must be art, but however, they are mistakenly thinking LIKING it is a measure of it's worthiness as art. I'm ignorant of many things, but I have the wisdom to keep my mouth shut about them so I don't look like a complete knob, and I certainly wouldn't dream of wading into a debating society or meeting about a subject I have little knowledge of and start saying that "I'm as right as you are.. it's all subjective" when I talk my load of ill informed b******s, because I'd just be disregarded as uninformed and ignorant. If you want to take that stance that flies totally in the teeth of established wisdom, then you need to take a leaf from the book of the scientific principle and prove it. Write a paper, essay or a manifesto... produce worth that challenges the status quo... because THAT'S what artists do. Just sitting their saying "I know what I like" makes you irrelevant. If you genuinely feel you're right, then do something about it. Making a nice pastoral landscape and just calling it art isn't enough. Tell me WHY it is without banging on about craft skills.
People seek to give worth to their work by wanting it to be art because they somehow feel that's necessary, but when it's disregarded as art by the art world, they feel hurt, and then lash out at the art world as being pretentious and elitist, and just go into a huge, childish sulk and start slagging off anything that actually is art, and become evangelical about it, taking every opportunity to belittle art they can... yet somehow, deep down, they try to redefine art on their terms because they still want people to respect their work as art... as if that's the ONLY measure of whether an image has worth or not.
Here's an idea... why not just be happy with what you produce and stop trying to measure your pastoral landscapes, wildlife shots, social portraiture, lightpainting etc etc... against contemporary art and making it confrontational. Why not instead just say "no.. it's not contemporary art... it's just a ****ing nice photograph" and market it as such (many in here do, and do this well). None of these stupid arguments would ever actually happen if people just were honest about what they do. The vast majority of work I see in here is not art. So? A lot of it is still bloody great imagery, so why get upset if it's disregarded as art? Stop measuring it as art then. I get just as frustrated when I post something in here and it gets measured against the camera club ideal. Why do people do that? Clearly it's not intended for that audience, so why point out that it's not using the rule of thirds, or that "it needs a crop" or some b******s like that?
Learn to accept the differences between decorative art and conceptual, contemporary art - know where your work sits, and stop trying to force a square peg into a round hole. Ultimately, you'll be happier. Try to show your decorative art as conceptual art and it will not be well received as such (and vice versa), so stop it
It's for THIS reason I think it's a great idea to have more of the forums for project based, or conceptual work. Not to be elitist, but to just put stuff where it belongs. Now we have ONE such forum. a certain member who is a regular detractor of all things art not long ago tried to rally the troops and get people to post ordinary decorative stuff in there though in some sort of anti-elitist protest. I don't get it... When people post conceptual work in the normal forums, it gets trashed, and when we get our own forum, people want to trash it too. Why the antagonism? It's like stupid religious people arguing over who's imaginary friend if best... stop it.
There's nothing wrong with work that's not contemporary art. Decorative art is equally as important. In fact, there's more of a sustainable market for it actually. Most artists are actually quite poor. They do it for the love of doing it, not to be rich. I know loads of artists, and together, we don't have a pot to p**s in!! I know strictly commercial photographers who earn 5 times as much as I do. I spent over 20 years earning more than I do now with purely commercial photography! The irony is, even THEY still get uppity when you suggest that their work is purely decorative... despite the fact that you actually love it (the very quality decorative art requires) and they are more successful (commercially) than you are. Utterly, utterly baffling. They want it to be regarded well by other artists, but are not prepared to produce work that could even begin to be considered as contemporary art. That's like being a great long jumper, but insisting that your gold medal be for 100 metres. You'd be laughed at for such a suggestion, and this is no different.
People are mental.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 7,973
- Name
- Sara
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's not important to me whether it's art or considered by people to be art. People on this thread have made a compelling case for it not to be considered art, which I take on board....... I just didn't consider myself scientific that was all.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Think again. It's a MASSIVE technical learning curve. There's a great deal of science. There's huge amounts of technical expertise required. Patience, study, research... then there's a decent scope, mount, tracking/tracking scopes... stacking of imagery, processing.. then, and I leave this until last because it's the most important, astronomical knowledge.
Your work is excellent, and richly deserves the credit it has received. It would belittle the work to call it art actually, not because art is not important, but because doing so ignores the real achievements you've made.
However.. initially in this thread, you were defensive when someone suggested it was not art. Why? I know you may have changed your opinion now, but why did you feel that then?
Just curious as to why... I've got no agenda here.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 6,408
- Edit My Images
- No
David, get off your high horse ! Wev'e had this conversation before, some of what you are saying is a given. However, I frequently attend art galleries, I try to understand what the artist is trying to comnicate or achieve. I read the background information. I respect it for what it is,but I don't necasarilly like it or agree it works. That is not ignoarrance but the ability to study, learn and reflect on it and then form a considered opinion !
TheBigYin
Moderator
- Messages
- 16,655
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
While I do a bit of astro-photography myself, and appreciate the technical craft it entails, it's not really art. It's craft. The intent is to merely record - to capture. There is no creativity going on here at all. Sure, you process the images, and can change the colours, but why is that creative? Don't get me wrong, the whole idea of capturing photons that have travelled through space for millions of years unimpeded until they hit my telescope mirror is mind bending... but it's a scientific process. There's no creativity going on, no matter how much you process the imagery. It can be fantastic decorative art, but decorative art doesn't require creativity - it just requires craft skill. Astro photography has been used in art however. Mishka Henner produced a book called "Astronomical". What makes this art, is not the imagery within, but the concept that makes people think. You can't just SHOW an image and go "ta dahh!" and call it art, no matter how beautiful it is, you have to think about the work and how you get the concept across, and often, being "nice" has got sod all to do with it.
Why is it important that it's art to you?
You can't just decide what a word means Peter. I can't just decide what is art and what isn't any more than you can decide what is a dog or not. There's decorative art, which is basically craft skills to make pretty things, and there's contemporary art practice - work that elucidates, enlightens, speaks of something, or challenges beliefs or perceptions. Art is concept driven and has purpose beyond merely creating an image, or a sculpture (or anything else) for the sake of it alone.
What is subjective is whether you LIKE it, of course, but as many of us always point out in these threads, whether you LIKE it is not a measure of how GOOD it is and LIKING something does not make it art (no matter how much you want it to be). This is the difference between decorative art and conceptual art. Decorative art HAS to be look good, and HAS to be LIKED because its only purpose is to hang on a wall as decoration. Keith Arnatt's images of dog turds are indisputably art, but no one would ever hang them on the wall. Why are they art? Because he's taken the idea, developed it, and produced work that does exactly what he set out to do, which is to show the complexity and beauty in dog sh*t... and to outrage people to some extent, and he's probably pleased to see that it works on that level too.
Basically, if someone asks you what the work is about, and you have no answer, then it's not art as most people in here are discussing it. If there's no concept, then it can't be contemporary art as we understand it now. It may well be decorative artwork however, but that's a different stripe of cat/dog
Your statement that because work may be influenced by other things is meaningless too. That's always happened, and always will. The first image of a person was made on a piece of ivory around 26,000 years ago (that we know of), so by this argument no portrait created since then can be art, because it's no longer original. Clearly a silly standpoint, as original and creative portraits are taken all the time. That first ever likeness of a human being wasn't art... only when someone sat there and thought... Hmmm.... I'm going to make this picture of a woman have the head of a deer, because then it's a representation of nature, and the bountifulness of the world that provides for me... I can do this because it's the women that appear to "give" life."... That's when it became art, when it started to use crude symbolism to represent an IDEA. Usually it was theological, but it was an abstract, conceptual thought... it then started to become critical in nature.
I don't understand why some people (and it does mainly seem to be photographers) always want to redefine the rules to suit them, despite having no great interest, or knowledge about art. All of a sudden, art is "subjective" and "anything can be art if you want it to be". Many decry art as a load of b******s, but then seek to redefine their own work as art... on their terms. This is particularly annoying when the person saying these things (not any particular person in here) has previously had no great interest in art, never read about the subject, has no knowledge, never goes to galleries, can't name more than a handful of artists, and has no clear idea of what defines art.. suddenly comes out with "Art is what you want it to be"... "It's subjective".... "one man's art is another man's blah blah..." "Marmite"....
No... it's not. No matter how much you want it to be true... it's not. At points in history it was, sure. There's tons of stuff in the V&A that is heralded as seminal work of its time, but if created today, would be utterly ignored and dismissed as sentimental, decorative crap, and that's the point.
People with this attitude are just ignorant. I mean ignorant literally, not as an insult. What they really mean is they LIKE it, so it must be art, but however, they are mistakenly thinking LIKING it is a measure of it's worthiness as art. I'm ignorant of many things, but I have the wisdom to keep my mouth shut about them so I don't look like a complete knob, and I certainly wouldn't dream of wading into a debating society or meeting about a subject I have little knowledge of and start saying that "I'm as right as you are.. it's all subjective" when I talk my load of ill informed b******s, because I'd just be disregarded as uninformed and ignorant. If you want to take that stance that flies totally in the teeth of established wisdom, then you need to take a leaf from the book of the scientific principle and prove it. Write a paper, essay or a manifesto... produce worth that challenges the status quo... because THAT'S what artists do. Just sitting their saying "I know what I like" makes you irrelevant. If you genuinely feel you're right, then do something about it. Making a nice pastoral landscape and just calling it art isn't enough. Tell me WHY it is without banging on about craft skills.
People seek to give worth to their work by wanting it to be art because they somehow feel that's necessary, but when it's disregarded as art by the art world, they feel hurt, and then lash out at the art world as being pretentious and elitist, and just go into a huge, childish sulk and start slagging off anything that actually is art, and become evangelical about it, taking every opportunity to belittle art they can... yet somehow, deep down, they try to redefine art on their terms because they still want people to respect their work as art... as if that's the ONLY measure of whether an image has worth or not.
Here's an idea... why not just be happy with what you produce and stop trying to measure your pastoral landscapes, wildlife shots, social portraiture, lightpainting etc etc... against contemporary art and making it confrontational. Why not instead just say "no.. it's not contemporary art... it's just a ****ing nice photograph" and market it as such (many in here do, and do this well). None of these stupid arguments would ever actually happen if people just were honest about what they do. The vast majority of work I see in here is not art. So? A lot of it is still bloody great imagery, so why get upset if it's disregarded as art? Stop measuring it as art then. I get just as frustrated when I post something in here and it gets measured against the camera club ideal. Why do people do that? Clearly it's not intended for that audience, so why point out that it's not using the rule of thirds, or that "it needs a crop" or some b******s like that?
Learn to accept the differences between decorative art and conceptual, contemporary art - know where your work sits, and stop trying to force a square peg into a round hole. Ultimately, you'll be happier. Try to show your decorative art as conceptual art and it will not be well received as such (and vice versa), so stop it
It's for THIS reason I think it's a great idea to have more of the forums for project based, or conceptual work. Not to be elitist, but to just put stuff where it belongs. Now we have ONE such forum. a certain member who is a regular detractor of all things art not long ago tried to rally the troops and get people to post ordinary decorative stuff in there though in some sort of anti-elitist protest. I don't get it... When people post conceptual work in the normal forums, it gets trashed, and when we get our own forum, people want to trash it too. Why the antagonism? It's like stupid religious people arguing over who's imaginary friend if best... stop it.
There's nothing wrong with work that's not contemporary art. Decorative art is equally as important. In fact, there's more of a sustainable market for it actually. Most artists are actually quite poor. They do it for the love of doing it, not to be rich. I know loads of artists, and together, we don't have a pot to p**s in!! I know strictly commercial photographers who earn 5 times as much as I do. I spent over 20 years earning more than I do now with purely commercial photography! The irony is, even THEY still get uppity when you suggest that their work is purely decorative... despite the fact that you actually love it (the very quality decorative art requires) and they are more successful (commercially) than you are. Utterly, utterly baffling. They want it to be regarded well by other artists, but are not prepared to produce work that could even begin to be considered as contemporary art. That's like being a great long jumper, but insisting that your gold medal be for 100 metres. You'd be laughed at for such a suggestion, and this is no different.
People are mental.
Perfect! sums up how I feel about the whole art - craft - photography debate 100%.
OP
- Messages
- 3,925
- Name
- Carl
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Enjoyed the intellectual discussion. Worth airing and providing an outlet for people's viewpoints. I particularly liked that we went way way beyond the original very simplistic question, analysed and defined everything even marginally associated, and then came to a sensible compromise. An interesting journey thanks to all the participants.
- Messages
- 7,973
- Name
- Sara
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I didn't mean to come across as defensive at all, so my mistake
My reason for considering it art is less to do with it being art, more to do with my lack of scientific and technical knowledge. For example I have zero astronomical knowledge which you say is the most important thing of all - In this context I would take this as knowing about the night sky, various physics knowledge about how the universe works etc. I have zero understanding on any of this and probably even less desire to know it. In my mind I simply aim to create pretty pictures.... ergo I considered what I do as art.
Probably best to stop here as I feel I have deviated the thread enough, it's not as astro thread after all and what I do is pretty specific
OP
- Messages
- 3,925
- Name
- Carl
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Look out for the next (gotta be less contentious) topic in the series - Religion in Photography. Coming to a forum near you.
Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,284
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
It may surprise you to know that I wasn't talking to you specifically just because there was a quote from you further up.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 6,408
- Edit My Images
- No
It may surprise you to know that I wasn't talking to you specifically just because there was a quote from you further up.
Nevertheless, you didn't agree with my 'marmite analogy' which triggered my reply !
- Messages
- 8,757
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
I don't think the thread has gone anywhere near the question originally posed in the opening post, its meandered on to the inevitable what is art instead of what is a photograph.
There'll be lots of "science" and quotes from dictionary's but its clear to me it can't be condensed and expressed so simplistically.
- Messages
- 63
- Name
- Adrian
- Edit My Images
- No
I misunderstood. I thought you were asking essentially if photography is art. The answer being, as far as I'm concerned, is it depends on the creator's intentions. So are you in fact asking if photographs should be composited/montaged with other creative disciplines? Or something else?
OP
- Messages
- 3,925
- Name
- Carl
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Nobody has actually disputed the concept of a marriage between the two forms of media. Whether it is right to regard that as tacit acceptance that the two can co-habit, is arguable but reasonable to assume from the responses. The view that a composite which includes a photographic element can be considered a photograph, I suggest supports that principle. I haven't seen anyone come out against that view. The main point of contention appears to centre around whether photography per se can/should be classified as art but no-one has applied such a qualification to a sketch or painting. I would contend that an image formed by knitting the two media forms together is art irrespective whether or not the photographic element on it's own is deemed as such because the artwork (of whatever quality and likeability) over-rides all.Phew - hope that makes some sense.
Hi Adrian. My original question was to establish whether the TP forum was exclusively for photographic material and excluded anything that deviated in the form of composites - I raised it as a question in case I inadvertently upset anyone by posting some of the images I like producing. Of course, as you say, the discussion has gone on from there and it really has been an interesting and thoroughly absorbing one .... so much so in fact that I wish I had asked the "Is Photography Art?) as a direct question.
- Messages
- 63
- Name
- Adrian
- Edit My Images
- No
Ahh! I totally totally missed that!! Go to the states and ask if photography is art. I read some years back that in the U.S. they employed curators of photography in their major galleries decades before any major gallery in the UK did. That aside, I'm new here so I'm totally unqualified to say but if I was the king of the forum I'd say if it involves photons being recorded at any stage by any means, it's photographic and I'd love to discuss it. Bring on the X-Rays as art debates!! Or Young's double slit experiment!
- Messages
- 63
- Name
- Adrian
- Edit My Images
- No
Ooops, not sure what I did to make that video appear twice although if you watch it through there may be a clue!!
- Messages
- 8,757
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
The first few posts alluded to dispute, by post 12 the thread was re-routed to what is art, and thus the answer to a question you didn't ask unfolds for 2 1/2 pages, but it is/has been a popular shtick just lately.
An assumption of convenience ?
- Messages
- 4,517
- Name
- droj
- Edit My Images
- No
Concept? It's do-able & has been done, thus is no longer a concept - it exists. Neither are you the first, but your effort in itself shows that the cohabitation is possible.
No, it is no longer a photograph. A photograph has been used in it.
Which brings us back to what qualifies as art!
Of course not - look at some of the heavily-processed stuff that people show on here!
OP
- Messages
- 3,925
- Name
- Carl
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Watched the video Adrian - how weird is that with the double slit electron. There are things that we have to accept as no amount of analysis will help explain .. hmmmm possibly but humankind has never allowed a small thing like that stop it's . Even among those sharing the same language, words can carry differing meanings so is there any hope of coming to a definitive answer to the "Is Photography Art" question. The answer has to be qualified in some way but how (I say "has to" because I cannot visualise selfies in general ever being referred to as art). Creativity, imagination comparatively easy to demonstrate in contemporary art forms but arguable in photography it seems.
Ha ha - You may well ask John. Best we can do is somehow gauge the reaction; I'm not in any position to do that with any conviction but just a gut feel from reading through the submissions. I could well be wrong.
Hi Rog. This really is the prime issue. Only so I can understand why you feel that way, would you consider a photographic image blended with a PS texture a photograph or not? (Genuine question - no hidden agenda).
- Messages
- 4,517
- Name
- droj
- Edit My Images
- No
Not really. It would've BEGUN as a photograph. The distinction can be delicate, and may hinge on the type of modification employed.
Some interventions are inescapably photographic (and maybe refer to traditional processes), but many digital modifications are just what that phrase suggests - they've escaped the corral - they're somewhere else. Outer space, possibly ...
The example that you proffered is in the realm of the graphic arts.
Some interventions are inescapably photographic (and maybe refer to traditional processes), but many digital modifications are just what that phrase suggests - they've escaped the corral - they're somewhere else. Outer space, possibly ...
The example that you proffered is in the realm of the graphic arts.
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 3,925
- Name
- Carl
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yeah, I think that delicacy as you put it is in part why we are unable to be more definitive. Who adjudges what is acceptable? The image I posted up as the starter to this thread predominantly features the sketched hands so the photographic element is acting in a subordinate supporting capacity. In the image that follows, the roles are reversed with the portrait being primary. Because there is no means of measurement, I would argue that there are only two choices, either (a) all images that contain an element of photography even if supplemented, are accepted as photographs or (b) rejected as such regardless of scale/degree of the supplementation.
Torment by Carl Ayling, on Flickr
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
No I don't agree with your Marmite analogy. You can't decide what's art or not based on what you like. Liking it has nothing to do with it.
Yeah, I think that delicacy as you put it is in part why we are unable to be more definitive. Who adjudges what is acceptable? The image I posted up as the starter to this thread predominantly features the sketched hands so the photographic element is acting in a subordinate supporting capacity. In the image that follows, the roles are reversed with the portrait being primary. Because there is no means of measurement, I would argue that there are only two choices, either (a) all images that contain an element of photography even if supplemented, are accepted as photographs or (b) rejected as such regardless of scale/degree of the supplementation.
You're talking about it technically.
What's the image about?
OP
- Messages
- 3,925
- Name
- Carl
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes, I think that is so David because I question the extent to which post-exposure (sorry, not sure of the technical term) manipulation of photographic images is relevant to it's qualification or otherwise to be treated as a photograph.
This image is intended to represent a person over-burdened and tormented by a mixed bag of issues, jostling and muddying the mind and preventing clear thought. It formulated by two images, blended in PS - no technical prowess required or involved.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
If it's derived from lens based imagery, it's a photograph surely. This is merely a composite of two photographs, so why would anyone question whether this is a photograph?
As has been discussed to death on this forum before - every single photograph you have ever seen has been subject to "post exposure manipulation".
Last edited:
Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,284
- Edit My Images
- No
Except for those which haven't... Such as photographs taken on slide film and given a standard development process.
Steve.
You know, I had originally explicitly excluded slide film and negatives from the post but I changed my mind and edited it out.
All development is post-exposure manipulation. Important creative decisions are made about how the final image will look during the development process. Does it matter that it's a "standard" process? I'm not sure I believe it does. It's still a method that's been developed to manipulate the exposure to give a certain aesthetic. There's not a magic, natural way to get the image from the initial exposure. All methods are the result of experimentation by technicians to give a result that they agree is a "best-fit".
OP
- Messages
- 3,925
- Name
- Carl
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes - but there was some question that the "delicacy" of manipulations would define the status of an image as a photograph but of course it's not easy to define that so the question remains whether an image can/should be regarded as a photograph regardless of extent or nature of manipulation .... or not. (This is an academic discussion so may not suit all potential participants)
If any manipulation at all makes something "not a photograph" (as implied by your "or not") then there is no such thing as a "photograph". It's all chemistry or digital design.
The minute you hit "click" on any camera, there are trillions of potential images on your film or in your RAW data. What one of those images you end up with is the result of the processing protocol you choose to follow. There's no magic "correct" image (though some will look more pleasant to most people than others).
OP
- Messages
- 3,925
- Name
- Carl
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Not me implying that at all @ghoti - it was another participant in this thread. I contend that until/unless we define degree or variety, that any image that has a photographic element regardless of scale of post-exposure manipulation, should be categorised as a photograph.
Last edited:
I'd probably argue that if you're adding something non-photographic to a photograph, and that this significantly changes how we read the image then it is probably not really a photograph. It's more composite art which includes photography.
Your textured photograph probably is a photograph because it is a composite of two photographs. Both elements of the image are photographic.
I'm not sure why it has to be black and white, though. It seems clear to me that there will be grey areas and I'm not particularly troubled by that.
Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,284
- Edit My Images
- No
All development is post exposure 'something' but I don't think manipulation is the correct word. If it's a standard process, I don't see how it can be a manipulation any more than following a recipe to make a cake is.
C41 film sent to a lab for development and printing by a standard process could just about be described as manipulation as the printing stage adds a bit of automation but it's not usually in the photographer's control.
Steve.
- Messages
- 6,408
- Edit My Images
- No
You've missed my point completely. Once you've established the artists intent, determined its artistic value(s) - (or not). Then your left with an image of questionable or intrinsic artistic value. So what ?
Putting that to one side, it is what it is and in the final analysis you either accept it for what it is, agree or disagree, or like it or dislike it. Surely you teach students to place things into context and also practice this yourself at Blackpool and Fylde ? You can't just selectively ignore one piece of information and use a small chunk of it to form a misguided an inaccurate statement as it lacks substance and depth.
- Messages
- 21,341
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Some pieces of work spring to mind but I can't for the life of me think who they were by.
The first was photographs of a series relating to the artists life with phrases physically scratched into the photograph.
Then the photographers gallery ran a series of collages
I can remember an artist I saw at the venice biennial
A Taiwan artist, Kamolpan Chotvichai challenges the formal limitations of canvas by meticulously hand-cutting her images, creating sinuous ribbons along various parts of her anatomy. Her goal is to dissolve her form, based on an understanding of the Buddhist teachings of the three characteristics of existence: anatta (the eternal substance that exists beyond the physical self); dukkha (sorrow and dissatisfaction) and anicca (impermanence). She obliterates her identity, eliminating her face and literally stripping away her physical form, in the process relinquishing attachment to her body.
