Can you claim to be a great photographer when using modern high tech gear ?

Next question then if you have to use post production software to make a photo good/great then was it really any good in the first place ? Wouldn't a good/great photographer have got it right first time ? Is it really a photo anymore if a computer was used to mess with it ? Could you create a great photo using software without ever having taken a photo ? I bet the last is possible !
I'm not knocking post production here just asking the question ? I personally only lighten or darken my images or do a contrast stretch on Black and white stuff to make up for the fact my Digi cameras in particular are are old and were basic in the first place, this is mainly as I don't really enjoy sitting in front of a PC and in no way am I making out my photos are so great they don't need it or couldn't be improved !

ps there seems to be two discussions in one on this thread how did this happen and lastly all art is naff (joke)
Suggest you start here for an introductory insight into traditional printing. Many great, iconic photographs undergo heavy manipulation during the printing phase such that they capture the photographer's vision. There's little difference between traditional (film/paper) and modern (digital) processing/printing techniques (;)), asides from the considerable skill required to dodge, feather, burn and mask in real time as the paper is exposed. It shouldn't come as a surprise to realise that many photographers worked closely with master printers to create the images we've become familiar with.
 
modern camera's brilliant photos
old wet plate and the like sh**e photos they should be all smashed up and sent into space !
 
Could you create a great photo using software without ever having taken a photo ? I bet the last is possible !

And in the darkroom. Google May Ray as the easiest name off the top of my head. Or "photograms" or "rayograms" if you prefer. No software, no camera.
 
I have absolutely no problem with that.
The whole concept of art is subjective, and open to interpretation.
I wouldn't dream of trying to force my opinion of what is art and what isn't on anyone else, but neither should anyone else,
( not referring to you Wooster :) )

I am wondering what you are calling craft, technical ability ?
Being able to envision an image or shot ?
Just not sure about the term craft and what it encompasses (y)

I doubt there's an answer to your question, but it has moved this thread into a more interesting area.

First off, I completely agree with you, Derek.

For my tuppence worth, which means little to most people, I would say "craft" is the activity of refining something using an unusual level of skill and care in order that it reaches a high standard of function. In the case of your pictures, their function, it seems to me, is to appear as attractive and interesting as possible with the materials you have used. By this definition, they succeed admirably. They are certainly enjoyable to look at and most people would struggle to replicate them due to the technical level of skill involved. Certainly no non-photographic people could produce them. They also require an "eye" for design colour and spatial arrangement which is not to do with purely technical ability and some might argue this is a crossover into the sphere of art.


However, "Art" for me is an object or action that stimulates a dialogue between a creation, and an observing individual which elicits a response in the individual that stimulates the individual's spirit, including perhaps the emotions or intellect, usually at a deep level and in a manner that changes their perception of the world in some way. It shows that individual, an aspect ( either internal to them or external of them) of how they experience the world which was previously hidden from them. In this way, most objects which are nice to look at are crafts though some also fulfil the criteria I've mentioned to make them art.

This ignores the artist's motivation, ideas and insight, which are important but no longer relevant after the creation takes on a life of its own after it is completed.

What I do disagree with 100% is that there is some one meaning to an artwork and understanding it is dependent on one's knowledge, intellect or education. That is a complete misunderstanding of art in any form, and is a function of a fragile ego. The intention of the artist is irrelevant.

When we look at a piece of art, be it painting, music or a photograph we can't help being so conditioned by our own experience, knowledge and emotional development, and therefore we are experiencing it at such a personal and totally subjective level that we are only experiencing ourselves ( ie our own response) in a way we have not realised before. When we see some personal truth in a piece of art and claim that that is the "true meaning" of it, it's just our inflated opinion of our own importance and nothing else. It is everything to do with ego and nothing to do with understanding either art, or the world, and especially spirituality and humanity.

All alleged ”meaning” is totally subjective. but this doesn't diminish it's validity, nor it's importance to the individual who experiences it.

Does this mean all attempts at art are equal? Is “The Wasteland” no better than “ The Good Ship Venus”? Of course this isn’t the case.

Not all artistic efforts are susceptible to evoking a complex or original thought or level of response. Some will be at a banal level of making us laugh or, as is the case with a lot of popular music evoking the desire to tap a foot or dance and then going nowhere else: more serious artworks will take you on a journey. The Rolling Stones cannot to be seen as the equals of Mozart. Similarly, the latest blockbuster might make you gasp but it won’t make you consider humanity’s struggle for meaning or whether we should pursue goodness or happiness! Try elsewhere for that.

Also, if the above criteria are already met, we can admire the objective use of "craft" in the creation and execution of the art-piece. Technique and skill are inessential but interesting factors in judging eh value of some artworks.
 
Last edited:
However, "Art" for me is an object or action that stimulates a dialogue between a creation, and an observing individual which elicits a response in the individual that stimulates the individual's spirit, including perhaps the emotions or intellect, usually at a deep level and in a manner that changes their perception of the world in some way. It shows that individual, an aspect ( either internal to them or external of them) of how they experience the world which was previously hidden from them. In this way, most objects which are nice to look at are crafts though some also fulfil the criteria I've mentioned to make them art.
Do you really consider art only to be something (or action) that affects the observing individual's view of the world? That makes it seem so transient given your definition. From an individual perspective, (given your definition) I'm struggling to understand how today's art becomes tomorrow's craft.

Similarly, would you describe something that evokes repulsion, hatred and negativity as art?

That said...
When we look at a piece of art, be it painting, music or a photograph we can't help being so conditioned by our own experience, knowledge and emotional development, and therefore we are experiencing it at such a personal and totally subjective level that we are only experiencing ourselves ( ie our own response) in a way we have not realised before. When we see some personal truth in a piece of art and claim that that is the "true meaning" of it, it's just our inflated opinion of our own importance and nothing else. It is everything to do with ego and nothing to do with understanding either art, or the world, and especially spirituality and humanity.
I entirely agree with this statement.
 
Last edited:
When we look at a piece of art, be it painting, music or a photograph we can't help being so conditioned by our own experience, knowledge and emotional development, and therefore we are experiencing it at such a personal and totally subjective level that we are only experiencing ourselves ( ie our own response) in a way we have not realised before. When we see some personal truth in a piece of art and claim that that is the "true meaning" of it, it's just our inflated opinion of our own importance and nothing else. It is everything to do with ego and nothing to do with understanding either art, or the world, and especially spirituality and humanity.

All alleged ”meaning” is totally subjective. but this doesn't diminish it's validity, nor it's importance to the individual who experiences it.

Well put.
 
I doubt there's an answer to your question, but it has moved this thread into a more interesting area.

First off, I completely agree with you, Derek.

For my tuppence worth, which means little to most people, I would say "craft" is the activity of refining something using an unusual level of skill and care in order that it reaches a high standard of function. In the case of your pictures, their function, it seems to me, is to appear as attractive and interesting as possible with the materials you have used. By this definition, they succeed admirably. They are certainly enjoyable to look at and most people would struggle to replicate them due to the technical level of skill involved. Certainly no non-photographic people could produce them. They also require an "eye" for design colour and spatial arrangement which is not to do with purely technical ability and some might argue this is a crossover into the sphere of art.


However, "Art" for me is an object or action that stimulates a dialogue between a creation, and an observing individual which elicits a response in the individual that stimulates the individual's spirit, including perhaps the emotions or intellect, usually at a deep level and in a manner that changes their perception of the world in some way. It shows that individual, an aspect ( either internal to them or external of them) of how they experience the world which was previously hidden from them. In this way, most objects which are nice to look at are crafts though some also fulfil the criteria I've mentioned to make them art.

This ignores the artist's motivation, ideas and insight, which are important but no longer relevant after the creation takes on a life of its own after it is completed.

What I do disagree with 100% is that there is some one meaning to an artwork and understanding it is dependent on one's knowledge, intellect or education. That is a complete misunderstanding of art in any form, and is a function of a fragile ego. The intention of the artist is irrelevant.

When we look at a piece of art, be it painting, music or a photograph we can't help being so conditioned by our own experience, knowledge and emotional development, and therefore we are experiencing it at such a personal and totally subjective level that we are only experiencing ourselves ( ie our own response) in a way we have not realised before. When we see some personal truth in a piece of art and claim that that is the "true meaning" of it, it's just our inflated opinion of our own importance and nothing else. It is everything to do with ego and nothing to do with understanding either art, or the world, and especially spirituality and humanity.

All alleged ”meaning” is totally subjective. but this doesn't diminish it's validity, nor it's importance to the individual who experiences it.

Does this mean all attempts at art are equal? Is “The Wasteland” no better than “ The Good Ship Venus”? Of course this isn’t the case.

Not all artistic efforts are susceptible to evoking a complex or original thought or level of response. Some will be at a banal level of making us laugh or, as is the case with a lot of popular music evoking the desire to tap a foot or dance and then going nowhere else: more serious artworks will take you on a journey. The Rolling Stones cannot to be seen as the equals of Mozart. Similarly, the latest blockbuster might make you gasp but it won’t make you consider humanity’s struggle for meaning or whether we should pursue goodness or happiness! Try elsewhere for that.

Also, if the above criteria are already met, we can admire the objective use of "craft" in the creation and execution of the art-piece. Technique and skill are inessential but interesting factors in judging eh value of some artworks.

Well that is a well thought out, well presented and informed reply.
I don't necessarily agree on all of it, although you have made some very valid points. Replying on a tablet and can't edit text enough to highlight the salient points.
As a couple of posts suggested Google as a way to find and learn more about other photographers, I just thought I'd Google the definition of Art,
Here is the definition of Art according to the dictionary

art1

ɑːt/

noun

1.

the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

"the art of the Renaissance"

synonyms:fine art, artwork, creative activity

"he studied art"

2.

the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance.

"the visual arts"

Now to me although that is a pretty narrow view, it does hit on a salient point, creative skill, imagination, beauty or emotional power, now for me, my light art images qualify on everything bar the emotional side of that definition. Again, for me they do, maybe not everyone, but then, it doesn't need to be a consensus.
Keep in mind my previous post, as I have said, I generally just take photos, nothing more than a record type of shot, as my flickr stream will show if anyone feels like wading through the mundane shots in there.

Because of this thread and the route it has gone down, when I was out today I saw something, and to me I thought I could see a meaning beyond what it was that I could see, visually.
Wow, deep for me :)
Anyway, there was a rectangular clay flower pot, that used to have a rather small but pretty flower in it, on the bench outside the local pub, the snow and frost killed it earlier in the year. Now the pot is empty of flower and soil, having been re- purposed as an ashtray.
There was however 2 little signs of life within this clay cauldron of death, (trying to paint a picture here :) ) it was this juxtaposition that made me stop and take some shots.
The shots I took are not visually beautiful, I get no real enjoyment from having taken it, other than as an experiment on art,
( my tag line on the pentax forum is "I know what I like, if not always why" ) this has been there since I realised years ago that I don't always understand or get art.

Anyway here is the image I took today, I shot this, I don't really like it, but I'm willing to post it to try and understand, to learn, it's not even a technically good shot, but then maybe that adds something to it, or maybe it's just crap :)

Any opinions either way ?

Out of the Ashes

why3sm by dr.shutter, on Flickr
 
Just a personal opinion here: I don't find the spirograph light type images appealing at all, but I would still consider them art. For me, art is all about the image, not the process. If you can see it in a frame, exhibit or gallery then it is art. The process, in my very humble opinion, is the craft.

I don't need to feel any connection with an image before I'll deem it art. I don't need to know the history behind it either, though that can be interesting, it's not an essential in my book. A lot of it to me can be just faff, controversy is always great though.

There's plenty of great works of art through the centuries that I have been pretty 'meh' about. I can still see the 'greatness' - let's say Michelangelo's 'David' that does nothing for me on a personal, emotional, intellectual or psychological level, yet I still look to it as a piece of art. I don't agree that there should be some emotional connection, or any at all. Art can be cold too.

One Artist I always liked was Salvador Dali, because his images always had something hidden, or blatantly obvious, or both. Swans reflecting Elephants, very obvious, or was it? He often placed himself within the images too, he was in this one, facing away from the obvious, why? ... that kind of thing intrigues me, also it was a good looking picture overall, I had a poster print of it on my wall as a teen alongside my Nirvana, Adam and the Ants and Alice in chains posters.
 
Last edited:
Struggling to answer TBH Steve, didn't consider pose or how the picture would even convey a personality as it was - to me it was just a picture and the only one I've got really.

Probably a waste of time for both of us. I guess I assumed there was some intent around the photo you posted, even if it was a sub-conscious intent,
 
Probably a waste of time for both of us. I guess I assumed there was some intent around the photo you posted, even if it was a sub-conscious intent,


Why do you care about his avatar so much? I'm genuinely interested,, possibly more so than your interest in why you want to know so badly. It's odd, weird, creepy even. His avatar poses no threat to you, he's not thinking about you while pondering, he's not imagining bludgeoning you or your family to pieces or sacrificing your cat to the God of ISO! Why in Lucifer's name do you care so much? why are you badgering the man about a simple f'ing avatar image?

Would you like to know the thought process behind mine? I flicked through some old pics, saw this one, thought 'that'll do for a change' - BINGO! Heysus Christy!

Are you a spikey mushroom in reality? If not then quietly STFU

As for mine, as an add-on, it's an optical illusion, at a glance it may look like a double elbow shot, but look closer it's a mirror on a wooden table. You can't even unsee it, even though you never did ... because you were so infatuated with Fraser's avatar!
 
Last edited:
This question puts the onus on technical ability and takes away from the art form. We all know you can have technically capable photographers without vision and those who have a great eye but are not as technically focussed.
 
Do you really consider art only to be something (or action) that affects the observing individual's view of the world? That makes it seem so transient given your definition. From an individual perspective, (given your definition) I'm struggling to understand how today's art becomes tomorrow's craft.

Similarly, would you describe something that evokes repulsion, hatred and negativity as art?

.

I would argue that art should change one's experience of an object, or idea, so that they see it in a new way. To view a picture of the same landscape over and over and to have the same response is craft, today tomorrow and for ever. To allow someone to experience a new aspect of it due to it's presentation is art, again today tomorrow an forever.

I would most definitely describe something that evokes repulsion, hatred and negativity as art.
 
Last edited:
Probably a waste of time for both of us. I guess I assumed there was some intent around the photo you posted, even if it was a sub-conscious intent,

I'm also curious. Why *do* you seem to care so much about the reasoning behind his avatar? It's not a problem of course, but to question someone like that out of the blue is bound to put them on the defensive.
Are you trying to make a point pertinent to the rest of the thread? If so, it might be good to mention it because I'm left a little baffled here.
 
Normally I don't really discuss much online but I'm on holiday just now, took a bit of time out to read the comments and I've enjoyed this thread. I doubt any of us have brought human knowledge forward in massive leaps, but It's made me ponder on the topic. Thanks all for your contributions :)
 
Last edited:
I'm also curious. Why *do* you seem to care so much about the reasoning behind his avatar? It's not a problem of course, but to question someone like that out of the blue is bound to put them on the defensive.
Are you trying to make a point pertinent to the rest of the thread? If so, it might be good to mention it because I'm left a little baffled here.
Well, art is communication and has intent, or at least that is my belief and is a common theme amongst those who reflect upon it (though not necessarily here). I was trying to demonstrate that we are all trying to communicate with what we post, and our avatar seemed an obvious choice. It does surprise me that Fraser has only one picture of himself, but he took this as a studio photo and he must have liked it, else why keep it and post it as an avatar? I think the answer might show some trace of art. What a terrible thought
 
Back
Top