Art in Photography

Steve Smith said:
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.
Click to expand...
To take the cake analogy further: the recipe didn't magically fall from heaven. It's not the one correct way to make a cake. It's a method that someone else has tried and tested and has decided gives a pleasant result. There will be other recipes using the same ingredients which will give a range of different but also pleasant results.
It's the same with film development. You could just follow someone else's recipe (use their methods of manipulating the exposure). Or you could experiment yourself. Or you could hand it to someone else to develop for you. You'd likely get different (but acceptable) results in each case.
 
ghoti said:
To take the cake analogy further: the recipe didn't magically fall from heaven. It's not the one correct way to make a cake. It's a method that someone else has tried and tested and has decided gives a pleasant result. There will be other recipes using the same ingredients which will give a range of different but also pleasant results.
It's the same with film development. You could just follow someone else's recipe (use their methods of manipulating the exposure). Or you could experiment yourself. Or you could hand it to someone else to develop for you. You'd likely get different (but acceptable) results in each case.
Click to expand...

No there isn't there is one standard set of chemicals used at a standard temperature for a standard time. Slide (E6) is a Standardised process. Variation from that standard will not produce a pleasant results, likely it will produce nothing at all. Don't ask me how I know....


B&W is different, its hardly manipulation though.
 
droj said:
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.
Click to expand...

Photography is a craft; it requires technical skill. And in the same way as craft (or studio) pottery, print making and the like, it can regarded as art.
What makes it art is for the individual to decide; for me it requires prolonged consideration, intent and (probably) the creation of a body of work. As David said, liking it has little to do with whether it is art or not.

It does often seem to me that a lot of very good photography is poor art, while a lot of 'art photography' shows remarkably poor technique. There are rare cases when the two combine; that's why the likes of Kirsty Mitchell* and Miss Aniela* get so very much attention.

*perhaps not the best examples; I don't mean to suggest that it's necessary to spend hours in photoshop to produce photography which qualifies as art.
 
I certanly used to uprate ISO 400 fims to ISO 1600 and also increase the temparture to gain some artistic effects (C41 / ID11) in the 80s, very mixed results but siome quite pleasing. Never tempted to experiment with E6 though.
 
Carl Ayling said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why?

This is a pointless naval gazing activity. Why are you trying to reduce an artistic activity to some formula that determines if it's still a photograph or an image? Really...who cares? Why the need tp pigeon hole and categorise everything? You can't reduce art to a scientific calculation, so why are you still bothered if it's a photograph or not?
 
juggler said:
Photography is a craft; it requires technical skill. And in the same way as craft (or studio) pottery, print making and the like, it can regarded as art.
Click to expand...

It is never art. It is a craft or medium which can be used to create art.


Steve.
 
Steve said:
Why?

This is a pointless naval gazing activity. Why are you trying to reduce an artistic activity to some formula that determines if it's still a photograph or an image? Really...who cares? Why the need tp pigeon hole and categorise everything? You can't reduce art to a scientific calculation, so why are you still bothered if it's a photograph or not?
Click to expand...
Maybe pointless Steve. I'm not trying to reduce anything - why do you say that? In fact I don't believe there is or can be a formula. Clearly from the exchanges there are people that do care and do distinguish. I can see both points of view - it is an academic discussion and some find it quite engaging, others don't.
 
juggler said:
It does often seem to me that a lot of very good photography is poor art, while a lot of 'art photography' shows remarkably poor technique. There are rare cases when the two combine; that's why the likes of Kirsty Mitchell* and Miss Aniela* get so very much attention.

*perhaps not the best examples; I don't mean to suggest that it's necessary to spend hours in photoshop to produce photography which qualifies as art.
Click to expand...

Certainly not the best examples.

Is 'eye candy' on the bingo card? :D
 
Blank_Canvas said:
I certanly used to uprate ISO 400 fims to ISO 1600 and also increase the temparture to gain some artistic effects (C41 / ID11) in the 80s, very mixed results but siome quite pleasing. Never tempted to experiment with E6 though.
Click to expand...
Why were they "artistic" effects? Making your photography look unusual just for the sake of it looking unusual isn't art. I'm not saying it's without merit...it's an interesting and possibly pleasing exercise in craft.
I find that this idea that anything shot from a weird perspective or with unusual processing or with counterintuitive focus is automatically "arty" belittles both art and craft.
 
Byker28i said:
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.
773861_77ef9333a1b44463afb35a37736e6234.jpg_srb_p_374_422_75_22_0.50_1.20_0.00_jpg_srb
Click to expand...
That's very beautiful and definitely an artistic statement, but I wouldn't call that piece, as a whole, photography.
 
ghoti said:
Why were they "artistic" effects? Making your photography look unusual just for the sake of it looking unusual isn't art. I'm not saying it's without merit...it's an interesting and possibly pleasing exercise in craft.
I find that this idea that anything shot from a weird perspective or with unusual processing or with counterintuitive focus is automatically "arty" belittles both art and craft.
Click to expand...

Unfortunetly, I'm not in a position to show you but it fitted the brief. You'll just have to accept my word that it was !
 
Blank_Canvas said:
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.
Click to expand...

The point I'm trying to make is that Like or Dislike is irrelevant to establishing whether something is a work of art, so the whole marmite thing is also irrelevant. Nothing more.
 
LOLZ
 
You see I said thread was going to round in circles without any real outcome so what's the point :-D
 
petert said:
You see I said thread was going to round in circles without any real outcome so what's the point :-D
Click to expand...
Oh no, revived just when I thought it was safely dormant. I thought it was a great academic discussion which, if nothing else, served to highlight the differing views about the acceptability of images formed from merged media (if that's the right expression). Interesting that the discussion veered off to examine what constituted art and to a lesser extent, photography but logical to do so in order to understand the issue. Polar opposites were revealed and aired. My interpretation onIy but I analysed the outcome as allowing such images to be posted for the membership to shun or embrace and for the result to be self-decisive.
 
petert said:
You see I said thread was going to round in circles without any real outcome so what's the point :-D
Click to expand...

I can think of many topics/subjects where people can discuss the pros and cons of a position and where there will never be agreement. So what's the point of talking about politics, economics, physics, chemistry, history, biology - indeed anything? Even less is there any point in discussing art, photography (and whether saying this is tautological), music and literature. So let's all pack up and go home.
 
Good idea before everyone gets dizzy :-D and so fascinating a subject (st)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top