A question of art?

[viewfromthenorth]

You also need to take into account an artists wider body of work, especially when it comes to photography. Martin Parr is someone who you either love or hate (or love and hate), and taken in isolation some his photos are mere snapshots, but looked at as a collection either in a gallery or a book, you start to see what he's getting at.

Atget is different inasmuch as for the most part his work was intended primarily as record shots, but you still need to look at the wider body of work to gain any appreciation for it.

 

[Voyager]

I think I'm questioning this because I'm torn right now. I've been wanting to find a primary focus (hah!) for my photography because I can't do everything. From all the sub-disciplines that photography offers I believe I've settled on a small project that I'd like to do. It could last a year or it could roll on for ages. I've discovered someone in USA has done something similar recently on a much grander scale, but that requires access that I'd never get.

It's part documentary, but there would be a lot of creative interpretation from me at the same time. It'd make sense to maybe a couple of dozen people in my circle of friends but I'd also like to think that some of them might be recognised as valuable insights some day too.

I've already said that I know nowt about art so I hope it doesn't sound too pompous, but a creative expression of emotion with a bit of alternative/fringe lifestle mixed with good technique has to count for something, doesn't it? :shrug:

Do it. Do it for yourself. Do it because you want to. Do it because you think it is worthwhile.

(I take pictures on film, I don't digitise them, I don't post them on Flickr. I print some of them large and hang them on the wall. If friends like them I give them to them. I enjoy what I do and I only do it for me. It pleases me that my 'photography' is like this.)

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

The first rule of art photography is …don’t talk about art photography.

Anyhow I guess one of the questions I was trying to ask was, when someone posts a photo that's a bit off the wall, breaks every rule or whatever, are you ever prepared to look beyond the aesthetic value and seek a deeper meaning to it? Is there a space for personal 'art' on forums like these? :shrug:

Im prepared to if the poster tells me ... then at least I can understand thier aims and intent and decide for myself if I think it works or not.

Personally Id like to too talk about my own art ...its something we don’t do enough of here at TP. I’ve certainly looked elseware for inspiration and reassurance and Im not particularly shy of an opinion about my own art attempts, just slightly perhaps, but overall I just haven’t felt comfortable laying that stuff on the good folk here. :shrug:

Personally I would never put any of my theory based photography on here, it has to be shown in a certain audience and I dont think this forum is. It would probably get ripped to shreds and for all the wrong reasons. But this is a super forum none the less.

I have a simlar fear ... mass missunderstanding is not constuctive in anyway, so why bother taking all the flack I'll say to myself.

----


How does one talk about art constructively anyway? Speak of the intent, show the photo, speak how the intent works, or not. Should we discern between art and artistic or are they in fact very close and the ‘art’ hype is just misunderstood dogma.

Personally id like a few of you more academically trained artists to take the lead and show me how … I’m imagining you may have a more constructive method to demonstrate an art posting simply because you may have already been trained in such a way ..?

 

[Bruja]

Well I may be alone but I disagree with that. I rarely give a toss about the technical background to an image as I'm not that technical myself however my concern and interest with any image is on (I guess) the artistic side: composition, colour, meaning, story....all that stuff

Yes of course the technical stuff is important in knowing how an image is achieved and realised but for me thats secondary to the image itself and the emotions and feelings, on whatever level, that image conveys.

Hmmm that all sounds a bit arty farty but its been a long week

I'm another non technical person but I know what I like.

Something that speaks to me, even if it's just 'what the fluck?'

It might be an emotional impact, it might make me question, or I may just like looking at it without being able to say what it is about the picture that makes me feel that way.

I have taken (and sold) some pictures that I considered 'Art' and that the buyers did too whereas some might just regard them as 'nice snaps' and I have felt for a few months now that there is nowhere on this Forum to show them other than in General Photography as I take a lot of detail/abstract shots.

For me the debate about what constitutes 'Art' is a little like the artificial distinction between amateur and professional photographer. I am a Photographer and I don't have a studio and I don't make a living from it but that doesn't matter. It's the same with 'Art' - if I think it is it's because of some of the reasons above.

Photography is both art and science and we'll never get a consensus of what constitues 'ART' but it doesn't mean we don't produce it.