Art in Photography

[Ed Sutton]

Are you sure? :-S anyone can take a good picture not everyone can draw a good picture, not even debatable

Highly debatable. But not by me today. Well maybe a little...

Anyone can take a technically proficient photograph while not everyone can make a technically proficient drawing. However there are lots of people with pencils and cameras who, no matter how technically proficient, can't make (as per your initial comment) great pictures.

 

[TimmyG]

Ok, I'm ready for this thread!

 

[Carl Ayling]

They are free scoring atm! We need a wicket and very soon!!!!!!

Got one!

Cor! 120 Potentially embarrassing if our batsmen fail ! Fingers and everything else crossed.


My proficiency with both pencil and camera are very borderline - I follow the instructions in both cases and end up with toot in both cases but it's my toot - mine, all mine I tell ya. Iain, you're right in the sense that it is more drawing than photography but it's the principle I was talking about rather than that specific (very poor) example when I asked whether the merged media qualified to be treated as photography or is it a case that as it's "contaminated", it's unworthy?

 

[simon ess]

is it a case that as it's "contaminated" and is unworthy?

Those are very pejorative terms and completely unnecessary, IMO.

It is what it is.

As I said before, what people choose to call it is entirely up to them.

However, as this is a photography forum, I suppose it's reasonable to ask if it's photography.

Frankly, I don't care. For me, if a camera of some sort was used at some point, it's worthy of display in this forum.

 

[Carl Ayling]

... is unworthy to be classified as a photograph per se.

Ah! Not to be interpreted as deragatory at all .. .thank you Simon

 

[posiview]

Are you sure? :-S anyone can take a good picture not everyone can draw a good picture, not even debatable

Depends how you define 'good'

I beg to differ.

Totally agree. When I bought my first DSLR 6 years ago, I thought taking (good) photographs was easy. How wrong I was. It really is very hard, for me, that is, to produce some that makes people go WOW, or encourages them to think about my photographs.

As a conservative estimate, I'd say 95% of the photographs I take are rubbish. Which is why I'm trying to be more thoughtful about what I photograph.

Cheers.

 

[petert]

Of course photos can be artistic, there is a certain level of skill and creativity but it's all done through computers which without you have nothing, to compare that to the skill and talent level of someone who produces wonderful paintings and drawings with nothing but a blank canvas, paint/pencils and their hands is ridiculous.
You can take a great picture without meaning to, you can't with real art

 

[Bythesea]

Of course photos can be artistic, there is a certain level of skill and creativity but it's all done through computers which without you have nothing, to compare that to the skill and talent level of someone who produces wonderful paintings and drawings with nothing but a blank canvas, paint/pencils and their hands is ridiculous.
You can take a great picture without meaning to, you can't with real art

Technical skill with your tools, whether that be a paintbrush, pencil or camera, means that you can produce a technically competent image. It does not make it art.

 

[Carl Ayling]

Present a single subject to both a photographer and an oil painter and both will capture their interpretations of that subject in their respective mediums. Arguably it is easier/simpler for the photographer to get a likeness than it is for the painter ... if the final result is to be measured in those terms. Art is never quite that ... it is all about the interpretation (think of cubists!) and so they are both artists in their own right. However, what sets the painter apart is the creative element of not necessarily needing a subject to draw or paint, just a very creative imagination. A photographer can artistically create an image but is dependent upon "props" in order to do the same thing. The absence of that dependency makes the painter more of a visionary. Is that a fair analysis? (I think we are drifting from the initial topic but such a great debate - thanks to you all).

 

[petert]

Technical skill with your tools, whether that be a paintbrush, pencil or camera, means that you can produce a technically competent image. It does not make it art.

Depends what you consider Art, as I said earlier what is to one may not be to another,whether it's competent or not is irrelevant.

 

[Carl Ayling]

There are several definitions of art but in essence it is the use of creative skill to produce something that is to be appreciated. Some include "use of imagination" and "produce something out of the ordinary". Interesting then to classify the results of images taken on a tablet or mobile or even a lomo camera where technical skill is virtually Nil but, in theory at least, requires some consideration of subject and composition. My goodness, what about selfies? Should we define what constitutes art - do we need to? I personally think it's the creative element that distinguishes - a snap is just a snap until unless you apply some creative element. On the basis that art is creative skill then ANY drawing/painting is art but not every photograph is.

 

[viewfromthenorth]

I tend to distinguish between decorative art and idea driven art. I'd contend that you don't necessarily have to have huge amounts of technical skill to produce either, in any media.

 

[ghoti]

Technical skill with your tools, whether that be a paintbrush, pencil or camera, means that you can produce a technically competent image. It does not make it art.

Take most examples of photo-realistic drawing that you see popping up in some news story every now and again. Technically impressive and neat parlour trick but not terribly interesting and, after you've seen it a couple of times, you're just get a bit "who cares?"

 

[Carl Ayling]

Take most examples of photo-realistic drawing that you see popping up in some news story every now and again. Technically impressive and neat parlour trick but not terribly interesting and, after you've seen it a couple of times, you're just get a bit "who cares?"

One can argue the same though of a photograph - realistic representation but not interesting - but I would probably admire the drawing more because of the skill factor involved to achieve. One developed on a blank canvas, the other on a blank sensor. Does that mean that to qualify as art, the final result has to be interesting .... maybe?!? Who judges ???

 

[petert]

Tbh whether it's it's photograph, painting or whatever the subject has to be the most important thing, no point everything else being done brilliantly if.the subject is boring and uninteresting though that will be just an opinion which will vary from person to person

 

[Carl Ayling]

Tbh whether it's it's photograph, painting or whatever the subject has to be the most important thing, no point everything else being done brilliantly if.the subject is boring and uninteresting though that will be just an opinion which will vary from person to person

I agree Pete.

 

[TimmyG]

Tbh whether it's it's photograph, painting or whatever the subject has to be the most important thing, no point everything else being done brilliantly if.the subject is boring and uninteresting though that will be just an opinion which will vary from person to person

I disagree. In photography, good lighting can make dull subjects interesting. And I've seen loads of paintings where I can't find a subject at all, but they still retain interest. Subject is one of the factors that can contribute to a great image, but I'm not sure it's the most important.

 

[petert]

I disagree. In photography, good lighting can make dull subjects interesting. And I've seen loads of paintings where I can't find a subject at all, but they still retain interest. Subject is one of the factors that can contribute to a great image, but I'm not sure it's the most important.

Disagree seen plenty of photos with great lighting on what is a rather uninteresting subject and it still.remains uninteresting

 

[swag72]

As an astrophotographer, I have to spend many hours processing one image as when they come out of the camera they are virtually black and there is nothing at all to see. Masses of manipulation goes into my images, because without it you will see nothing, I'm not creating anything that isn't already there, just processing it so that you can see it ............ Is this art or photography? I tend to think of it as the two combined.

 

[petert]

As an astrophotographer, I have to spend many hours processing one image as when they come out of the camera they are virtually black and there is nothing at all to see. Masses of manipulation goes into my images, because without it you will see nothing, I'm not creating anything that isn't already there, just processing it so that you can see it ............ Is this art or photography? I tend to think of it as the two combined.

It's a good use of technology

 

[ghoti]

As an astrophotographer, I have to spend many hours processing one image as when they come out of the camera they are virtually black and there is nothing at all to see. Masses of manipulation goes into my images, because without it you will see nothing, I'm not creating anything that isn't already there, just processing it so that you can see it ............ Is this art or photography? I tend to think of it as the two combined.

I'd argue astrophotography, particularly the deep sky stuff, is among the least artistic genres of photography. It has more in common with scientific imaging than with art. Very skilful craft/tech but not what I, personally, would categorise as art. It rarely offers much scope for reinterpretation or perspective.

Sure, I can look at an image of Messier 16 or whatever and be inspired and find myself lost in contemplation. But there's not a great deal that a different image of M16 by a different photographer could add to that experience. How does one reinterpret Messier 16 (except in a purely technical way)?

 

[Carl Ayling]

That is a very thought-provoking question Sara. This thread has meandered a bit and although skirted around the subject, have not clearly reached a conclusion whether craft is art. From my perspective, art is anything that involves an element of creativeness. In the case you have put forward for instance, the subject is there so already created in that sense. Yours is a craft that enables that creation to be presented in a pleasing and worthwhile way - a skill, a very laudable skill and one that any sensible person would crave for but nevertheless it is craft, not creative art. Just my view. I suppose the follow-on question now is at what point does craft become an art ... if it does at all ?!?!

 

[TimmyG]

Disagree seen plenty of photos with great lighting on what is a rather uninteresting subject and it still.remains uninteresting

And conversely I've seen countless images of subject that should be interesting, but poor composition or lighting leave them look dull and mundane. Subject is important, yes, but other factors carry a lot of weight.

That is a very thought-provoking question Sara. This thread has meandered a bit and although skirted around the subject, have not clearly reached a conclusion whether craft is art. From my perspective, art is anything that involves an element of creativeness. In the case you have put forward for instance, the subject is there so already created in that sense. Yours is a craft that enables that creation to be presented in a pleasing and worthwhile way - a skill, a very laudable skill and one that any sensible person would crave for but nevertheless it is craft, not creative art. Just my view. I suppose the follow-on question now is at what point does craft become an art ... if it does at all ?!?!

I don't think your definition of art as "anything that involves an element of creativeness" holds true. It's much more complicated than that. Perhaps a better question to ask is, "why does it need to?"

Take a recent example of astrophotography, the recent flyby and subsequent images of the planet (they made it a planet again right?), Pluto. Now that was no doubt billions of dollars worth of research and equipment, not including all the accumulative impacts of all previous research, development and creativity that managed to make this project possible. All the highly skilled people involved, who have been working on this event for their entire career in some cases, all working as a team, across corporations and governments to get that camera into space and send it out to the farthest edge of our solar system. And then, get the images taken back to earth.

Now the images itself is pretty much the same as, say something I might take with my biggest lens of the moon. I probably have more creative control over lighting, as long as I time it right (the NASA scientists could probably do the same if they had factored it into their calculations, but it may have delayed the project by several decades). They didn't want to be artistic, nor did they need to in order to inspire people across the world. Art isn't the only thing that can inspire. Astrophotography, along with many of types of photography (or creativity for that matter) can stand up perfectly well on its own merits without the need to start classifying it as art.

 

[Carl Ayling]

I probably have more creative control over lighting, as long as I time it right (the NASA scientists could probably do the same if they had factored it into their calculations, but it may have delayed the project by several decades). They didn't want to be creative, not did they need to in order to inspire people across the world. Art isn't the only thing that can inspire. Astrophotography, along with many of types of photography (or creativity for that matter) can stand up perfectly well on its own merits without the need to start classifying it as art.

Absolutely - doesn't need to be art to inspire. A person at the very top of their profession or sport can inspire without having any claim on art but over-abundant evidence of craft.There is certainly a skill to lighting a subject just so in order to bring out its best features or show it in .... well, best light for want of a better expression (sorry). Art & skill seem to be inextricably entwined and yet, there surely must be a distinction .... otherwise anybody with a proficiency in anything - football, cookery !?! - can claim to practice art. Perhaps they're right - I don't know but it does seem logical that the distinction should be creativity.

 

[ghoti]

Absolutely - doesn't need to be art to inspire. A person at the very top of their profession or sport can inspire without having any claim on art but over-abundant evidence of craft.There is certainly a skill to lighting a subject just so in order to bring out its best features or show it in .... well, best light for want of a better expression (sorry). Art & skill seem to be inextricably entwined and yet, there surely must be a distinction .... otherwise anybody with a proficiency in anything - football, cookery !?! - can claim to practice art. Perhaps they're right - I don't know but it does seem logical that the distinction should be creativity.

Art doesn't have to look nice or be lit "just so" or even be technically good. I can think of many pieces of art I like that would be technically abysmal (if you judged them solely on technical/craft skills).
Something can be art because it attempts to communicate an idea. It challenges you to think about something beyond the substance of what you are immediately presented with. It offers another human's intellectual perspective on a subject (rather than just a physical perspective). And it does so intentionally.

 

[adrianlambert]

Well said Ghoti. Art can be created with anything. Even cameras!! I think the UK is a bit behind some other countries in its acceptance of photographic works as mainstream art. By mainstream I mean commonly on display in major art galleries. This type of photographer often doesn't tend to let gear and technical concerns over burden them preferring to focus on the conceptualising and creation. There are often references to photography within their concepts which is quite interesting. It's a great thing to put some time into reading about. Look up Martin Parr. He's a great place to start as far as British contemporary photography is concerned. You may not find his pictures 'pretty' but they reveal aspects of what British life is about and what it is to be British.

 

[swag72]

I'd argue astrophotography, particularly the deep sky stuff, is among the least artistic genres of photography. It has more in common with scientific imaging than with art. Very skilful craft/tech but not what I, personally, would categorise as art. It rarely offers much scope for reinterpretation or perspective.

Sure, I can look at an image of Messier 16 or whatever and be inspired and find myself lost in contemplation. But there's not a great deal that a different image of M16 by a different photographer could add to that experience. How does one reinterpret Messier 16 (except in a purely technical way)?

I would totally disagree here - Using mono cameras and filters and then subsequent blending in Photoshop into the relevant channels means it can be totally artistic...... I can create an image that is as near to what we would see (if we could) or something totally way out with regards to colour. Is this not creativity?

I've stuck the two images together to show what I mean. Taken with different camera's and filters but scaled to show the same part.

 

[petert]

This could go on and on and on and on, Art is only a word if you want to use it to describe something, do,if you don't , don't. Simple

 

[ghoti]

I would totally disagree here - Using mono cameras and filters and then subsequent blending in Photoshop into the relevant channels means it can be totally artistic...... I can create an image that is as near to what we would see (if we could) or something totally way out with regards to colour. Is this not creativity?

I wouldn't call it art. An interesting technical exercise but not something I'd consider artistic. But you can be creative without producing "art", so beyond being technically interesting, is it creative? It depends. Did you have the idea? Or is it someone else's idea and you've copied their procedure as an entertaining technical project? In the latter case I certainly wouldn't consider it a terribly creative exercise. If you had the idea and worked out how to do it - developed the method - then, yes, it is creative. In my opinion. If you just played with colours until you settled on something visually appealing then that would also be a creative exercise (but not art), although somewhat less interesting.

 

[ghoti]

This could go on and on and on and on, Art is only a word if you want to use it to describe something, do,if you don't , don't. Simple

Except that if we followed this advice language would become incomprehensible and society would collapse.
I find it interesting to discuss what we mean by art. If you don't find it interesting then you don't really have to read the thread. Simple.

 

[petert]

Except that if we followed this advice language would become incomprehensible and society would collapse.
I find it interesting to discuss what we mean by art. If you don't find it interesting then you don't really have to read the thread. Simple.

I'm backing out as it's becoming very boring, no ones going to change their opinions so.what's the point? Discussion is one thing, pointless discussion is another which is exactly where this thread is going :-o

 

[ghoti]

I'm backing out as it's becoming very boring, no ones going to change their opinions so.what's the point? Discussion is one thing, pointless discussion is another which is exactly where this thread is going :-o

Bye then.

 

[Blank_Canvas]

Art and photography are both totally subjective. One man's marmite is another man's jam. Every image created or taken today is based consciously or subconsciously from someone else's work.

 

[Carl Ayling]

I find it interesting to discuss what we mean by art.

I wholeheartedly agree. It is a description used a little too freely in my mind - for what purpose, who knows - maybe just to gain kudos !?!?

 

[Bythesea]

Art and photography are both totally subjective. One man's marmite is another man's jam. Every image created or taken today is based consciously or subconsciously from someone else's work.

If you are considering whether or not someone can like a piece of art then yes, that aspect is subjective. However, not liking something does not mean it isn't art, just as liking something does not mean it is art (though it might be). As to whether it is photography, if there is some form of technology capturing light for some part of the image then I would say that photography is involved. I'm not sure how that could be considered subjective.

 

[Carl Ayling]

Yes, I'm with you Brian. However, at what point does photography become art - surely not all photography is art otherwise even "selfies" become art. I see that threads in the Talk Photography forums use both descriptors. There is for instance a thread is entitled "Whatever happened to camera-craft" whilst the other "OCA The Art of Photography Course Discussion - Part 2".

 

[Blank_Canvas]

If you are considering whether or not someone can like a piece of art then yes, that aspect is subjective. However, not liking something does not mean it isn't art, just as liking something does not mean it is art (though it might be). As to whether it is photography, if there is some form of technology capturing light for some part of the image then I would say that photography is involved. I'm not sure how that could be considered subjective.

The image. The camera is merely the medium to record it, as in that paint, brushes or clay is just another medium to record what the artist creates.

 

[droj]

Technical skill with your tools, whether that be a paintbrush, pencil or camera, means that you can produce a technically competent image. It does not make it art.

Yes, of course!

Also, historically the word 'art' has been sometimes synonymous with the word 'craft', and is still occasionally so used. Thus, as in all discussions, you must define your terms.

 

[viewfromthenorth]

Could astro photography be considered art? From a decorative perspective, certainly, and if it was presented in a way (not necessarily in a visual sense) that expressed some kind of idea that challenges its audience to think something other than 'nice picture' or 'What settings did you use' then it could also be considered art.

 

[Bythesea]

Yes, I'm with you Brian. However, at what point does photography become art - surely not all photography is art otherwise even "selfies" become art. I see that threads in the Talk Photography forums use both descriptors. There is for instance a thread is entitled "Whatever happened to camera-craft" whilst the other "OCA The Art of Photography Course Discussion - Part 2".

For me, whether or not something is Art is dependent on the intent. Also, as has been stated, you need to define Art, and this is where most arguments come in. You can have something that looks nice - Decorative Art, something which looks nice and meets certain criteria (usually decided by the people who sell it) - Fine Art, and then you have images that are created to provoke thought or emotion beyond the actual image itself - and I would call this Art.

Decorative Art and Fine Art, by their nature, are going to be very subjective. You will either like it or not, and judge it on those lines. They also are usually technically competent or better. There is nothing wrong with producing this type of work and/or liking it, and in the various threads on this subject it often seems that people who like these forms seem to think that those who appreciate "Art" are somehow demeaning them - this is not the case, it's just different.

Art on the other hand, can be technically poor but still successful in achieving the aims of the artist (whatever the format). It is also possible that you could think a piece successful without actually liking it. The skill of the artist is in the creation of thought beyond the image itself - it often is technically competent or better but equally might not be.