Photographic Art - a serious question

[BillN_33]

Pure art, Bill!

That's what i was told when it was placed first - the rest of the images must have been poor that is all i could say and I sent "white sticks" to all who voted - it was a very minor challenge…… but that's what you get if you buy a Leica

 

[BillN_33]

Bill you are having trouble rising above the prosaic! .

i stopped taking prozac a few years ago - the tablets were doing me no good, I lost all my inspiration and bought a Canon

 

[droj]

You wouldn't make any art with a Canon, they just don't do it. But as you've found, Leicas do it automatically.

 

[Testudo Man]

It just reminds me of the one my daughter 25 years ago had which we have still kept in the loft area on the barn

and the first thing I notice about the image is that bit of car bumper on the RHS

Is it a classic?

Not sure what you were asking mate? Is your daughters old bike a classic? or, Is the yank car in that pic a classic?

I like old American Cars, so yeah the 2 cars in the pic are classics(to me)...But Yank Tanks are not considered classics, to those that drive the...shall we say... "finer" cars in life!

Bit like Art/Photography really..."One mans meat, is another mans poison".

 

[BillN_33]

You wouldn't make any art with a Canon, they just don't do it. But as you've found, Leicas do it automatically.

 

[droj]

No, sorry, not art. It's a record shot of delirium tremens.

 

[BillN_33]

No, sorry, not art. It's a record shot of delirium tremens.

I can only offer a Kronenberg

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Some of these shots are good compositions
Some are interesting for what they are.
Only Ed's "wall and cloud" seems to be more than its parts.
Billn's blur is certainly very visually interesting but may only be a happy accident.

Where each of us defines "art" can change with the company the images share space with, and so with expectation.
If you put " blur and wall" in an exhibition of contemporary art, they would be measured by those standards.
How they would fare is another matter.

 

[BillN_33]

Some of these shots are good compositions
Some are interesting for what they are.
Only Ed's "wall and cloud" seems to be more than its parts.
Billn's blur is certainly very visually interesting but may only be a happy accident.

Where each of us defines "art" can change with the company the images share space with, and so with expectation.
If you put " blur and wall" in an exhibition of contemporary art, they would be measured by those standards.
How they would fare is another matter.

I indicated that I don't do art and that my art is by accident - I just tried to drag a few images out to get others to post which I have not been successful in doing

don't be afraid guys post some of your images …. art is subjective

Both Blur's were intended as they were taken for a specific purposes … i.e. to satisfied a photo Challenge

 

[TimmyG]

William egglestone I think is one of the first images in that book

Now considered a classic, it was initially greeted in many quarters with incomprehension, even as an outright affront.


Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/william-egglestons-big-wheels-17143399

I like this image. I can relate to it as it uses a low angle to make the subject look more imposing (I use this "trick" all the time with my macro work). I also like the fact it's in colour (albeit with muted tones). Reading the article in the link, this had more impact as this was around the time colour was first being used in the "photographic art" world. I'll be honest, I don't really understand why some people choose to shoot in black & white nowadays, unless they are using film and processing it themselves.

OK, I accept HCB is different, but he was a pro

My point at the start of the thread was I would like to see some images from Forum members i.e. normal people, that they consider to be art ………. god know we have posted loads of Bugs, bird, flys etc., …. by the hundreds.

I am trying to find some of mine which are different so that you can throw criticism at them

here's another - the blur was intended as I took it with my M8 at 1/4 sec and f11

I like the colour and sense of movement you have captured here, but is it art in the same vain as the Tricycle shot? I don't think so.

I remembered I did a series of abstract images when I was a passenger in a car down some dark roads. I just left the shutter open and moved the camera around, and I ended up quite liking the end results. I call them "One Minute Road Trips", here see what you think:

http://timgarlick.co.uk/one-minute-road-trips/#jp-carousel-1044

Again, I don't think these could be classed as art in the same way as the above.

 

[nass]

I think it's easy to get hung up on an overly narrow elitist vision of what art should and shouldn't be, and many of us have probably trodden inadvertedly down this path at some point. Is photography art? and what is art photography? are questions that many of us may have asked ourselves at some point, I personally gave up on those questions and rather than seeing art as the destination I tend to see it as the process. As in it is an artistic process, one that involves composition, light, aesthetics, all that sort of artistic stuff. As to what makes for good or bad art I don't really know. You'd think that popularity might be a factor - as in if something is photographed and a lot of people like it, it might be good - but then again if you apply it to food that would make McDonalds the world's best food, which it's obviously not. Bottom line I tend to do stuff that pleases me and if it does please others then that's great. And it's an artistic activity (artistic certainly doesn't preclude craft), but whether it's art in any way I wouldn't know. Some might call it so, others might not, that's just the way the cookie crumbles. A label doesn't make me lose sleep.

 

[Bythesea]

I didn't post in the the other thread, though have read it, and my view is that you can use cameras to make art, and you can use cameras to make pictures. They are not necessarily the same. Equally, you can make photographic art without using a camera. My opinion is that whether or not something is art is not connected in any way to the techniques being used, but what the thought process behind the picture was.

I think that most of the photographs posted on TP are not art. Yes, there are a lot of well taken, well exposed, perfectly composed pictures around, but the techniques used do not make them art. For a photograph to be art it needs to show something that the photographer wants to express, and not just that they are able to use a camera accurately to produce the picture they saw in their mind before they pressed the shutter. And there is nothing wrong with taking good photographs as an end in itself. Being willing to put a picture on your wall does not make it art, but if you like it who cares.

I also believe that it doesn't have to be able to stand on it's own to be called art. If the artist needs to explain the intentions then fine, I am willing to listen. I may not agree that they have succeeded in those intentions but sometimes I do. And good on them for trying.

Now for my example. I have a lot of camera gear, but do not take very many pictures. The reason for that is that I do not take pictures as record shots, but only take them when I feel I have an idea that I want to record. Recently that has been about the transient nature of vision. We can look closely at something and get a lot of detail and information out of it. However, much of what we see is peripheral, and is moving. To try and capture this thought and make people think about what they see without seeing, I have been taking photographs where I use a long shutter speed and move the camera during the exposure (ICM) - to try and give the impression of what we might see out of the corner of our eye. Below are a couple of images that try to show this. I imagine most people who might have taken something like these would have thought them mistakes and deleted them, but these were deliberate. I can't imagine many people would hang them on the wall either (though I would) but that isn't the point behind them.

Anyway, that was a bit of a ramble but these are what I would consider "art" pictures taken by a forum member as was requested.

View attachment 22274 View attachment 22275

 

[BillN_33]

Thanks Brian, just what I want to here and read, very helpful

 

[DG Phototraining]

I struggle with 'Art', but a few images I take I do so in what I consider an 'arty' manor - like this one, but I've no idea if its 'Art' and there is no fancy explanation or meaning behind it, it just 'is'



Barnsley_Wedding_Photographer-025 2 LEEDS ART by DG Phototraining on Talk Photography

Dave

 

[Byker28i]

I'm waiting for pokeyhead to join in.

 

[BillN_33]

I'm waiting for pokeyhead to join in.

I've just suggested that it would be great to have a "photographic art" forum

get a few of the "bird boys" to join in and the Mods will have a "great" time

 

[Byker28i]

I'll be honest, I don't really understand why some people choose to shoot in black & white nowadays, unless they are using film and processing it themselves.

There's the 'history' of using monochrome for documentary, street, portraits. Whilst colour can add impact, so it can also detract the eye. Without colour brings further attention to light, darks, texture etc. I'm thinking bill brandt as an example.

 

[Byker28i]

I'm waiting for pokeyhead to join in.

I should quantify that as he did some movement landscapes that I thought were a good example.

 

[Byker28i]

A couple of mine

 

[BillN_33]

you've posted three images - artists are never very numerate - I've worked with a few

They are all good but the third or last appeals to me

 

[Pookeyhead]

I'm waiting for pokeyhead to join in.

Too much talk of composition and stuff in here.. makes my head hurt. I'll let John Baldessari speak on my behalf

 

[XA2inmypocket]

 

[Ed Sutton]

That's the whole point Dave - I would rather take good "record" shots i.e. Dragonflies and Birds, (have a look at my postings), ………. and that is where the whole debate and "bouncing around" started, but I am trying to understand and appreciate the other side of the argument and get real life examples from Forum members to illustrate their point - after all I and we have posted hundreds of Dragonfly, Damselfly, insect and bird shots …….. but I have hardly seen any "art" photography ……… (I generally do not venture into the nude and glamour section as I regard most I have seen as little more that what is published in male magazines - not that I look at those anyway)


Art - or just Damselflies ………. just Damselflies to me

Just a damselfly (or a demoiselle) but to me that's more than a record shot.

What is apparent in some posts here is a confusion of technique with art. In art the technique should only be obvious after first having been moved by the picture. Simply using a technique for effect isn't enough.

This is another of the few pics I've posted before on this forum. I used the technique to make a point, as I explained in the original post. I wouldn't call it art - as I said in the macro thread I find the word far too loaded. Which, I think, is why it causes problems with interpretation, and why I prefer to talk about making pictures. If you make good pictures there's a chance that others might consider them to be art.

Cartier-Bresson was a photojournalist, most of his pictures were taken on assignment. But he was striving always to make good pictures. His famous pictures stand alone, outside of their original purpose and use because of that. He was looking for form - what he called the geometry of the picture - as well as content. When form and content come together in his 'decisive moment' something above a mere document is created. That something might be where the art is.

Many years ago I heard Merce Cunningham ( a choreographer) quoted as saying "Perception and not art is ordered". It stuck in my mind, and I think informs the way I approach making pictures.

 

[Pookeyhead]

If you're serious about this thread... stop just posting pictures, and let us know the concepts behind them, as THAT'S what determines whether it's art... it's context. The above image is certainly saying a lot, and I'm wondering what the reason is behind it's creation.

 

[droj]

Are you implying that all art must be conceptual, David?

 

[Pookeyhead]

Are you implying that all art must be conceptual, David?

It lends it a great deal more credibility, yes. Even if you didn't have any idea what you were trying to make before hand, you should have at least analysed it to see what you do have. You must have an opinion as to why you regard it highly... something to say about it.

 

[droj]

Yes, that's fine with me. I agree.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I think anything shot with a purpose beyond the technical, or derivative, can be art. That's why so many horrible photographs can be art, and so many achingly wonderful, technically superb images are just empty.

I just shoot in response to something these days. I've long since got fed up of making pretty pictures. If I have something to say I often say it with a camera. I also don't post much in here any more as it's clearly not the right place to publish such work.

My work is project based, and very long term lately. I don't publish stuff until the project is finished. I've not shot a single image for ages now (meaning I've not shot one image in isolation.. not that I've not shot even a single image)... it's all ongoing stuff. Currently working on a documentary series on astronomers, and another project on desire paths in urban environments. If anyone is interested I'll post them when completed. I do still make work in response to stuff though, and they tend to be single image responses.

I was having a conversation with a student the other day (not one of mine.. a young FE student). He was going on and on about Japan, and talking with such authority on the subject, and it got me thinking.. how does he know all this.

"How old are you?" I asked.

"17" he replied.

"So you've never been to Japan then?"

"No" he said... rather defensively. He'd got it all from the internet.

The conversation moved on and we ended up talking about what would happen if he went there? Would he even know how to get from Narita airport to Tokyo? Does he even know how long it takes to get there? After hearing him go on and on about Harajuku, I wondered if he'd even be able to actually get there, or even if he'd know if he was there when he was. Does he realise that there are no street names, and that far fewer people speak English than he thinks, and even if he asks directions, would he understand them... give there are no street names.

It led me to start thinking about the vicarious nature of knowledge acquired this way, and how young people seem to believe that this third hand knowledge had parity with real, concrete experiences.

I asked him where he had actually been... in reality. "Blackpool and London" he replied.

"Oh.. where in London?"

"Dunno... it was a school trip... not sure where we went".


So Blackpool then.


I asked him to do me a favour as an experiment, and write down, or copy and paste the URLs of all the websites he visits that night and mail them to me.

He did. I looked at the IP addresses, and content of where he'd been on the net (I never asked him for any "personal" browsing habits ). He'd been to so many places, gathering information, and obtaining knowledge, and I couldn't help but compare his real life, experiential knowledge to this vicarious knowledge and it just wound me up how kids place so much faith in the knowledge of the world in digitally delivered, packaged, and mainly erroneous internet web sites. I got annoyed. Not with him.. he was a nice lad, but I got annoyed generally. I just had to find a way to say something about it.

Is it art? I think so. It's in response to something... delivers opinion.. says something. Is it a great photograph? No... just a simple image of a map with some pins in it, and some anchor words. Does art need to be a great photo? I don;t think so. Is a great photo always art... I don't think so.

 

[Byker28i]

Shame you don't post, although I agree this forum seems to mostly reward pretty pictures. Perhaps we need to challenge this slightly more, but with the explanations.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Shame you don't post, although I agree this forum seems to mostly reward pretty pictures. Perhaps we need to challenge this slightly more, but with the explanations.

Nah.. tired of all the negativity towards anything that's not pretty pictures. Just here to talk now. You explain what you're doing, and people just make comments on it's composition.. LOL

I only post what could be classed as conventional. Fortunately I still shoot stuff that has a broader appeal... some of it is in my gallery if anyone is interested.

 

[Steve Smith]

I think it's easy to get hung up on an overly narrow elitist vision of what art should and shouldn't be

It's worth remembering that just because something is art, doesn't mean it is automatically good. As with just about everything, there is good and bad art and everything in between.


Steve.

 

[Byker28i]

Nah.. tired of all the negativity towards anything that's not pretty pictures. Just here to talk now. You explain what you're doing, and people just make comments on it's composition.. LOL

I only post what could be classed as conventional. Fortunately I still shoot stuff that has a broader appeal... some of it is in my gallery if anyone is interested.

Same with the bird stuff. Conceptually as a series it worked great.

Currently sat in a recycling plant. The piles of tin cans in the early morning light...

 

[DG Phototraining]

I like pretty pictures - I feel bad for admitting it now reading through this thread

We have an Art gallery near here, the Hepworth, so I popped in one day for a look, I didn't get it at all. A party of mentally challenged people were in and one young lad asked his carer "What is it?" looking as an amorphous sculpture, she replied "Whatever you want it to be", he looked as perplexed as I was. I went for a closer look as it was a nice 'blob' but then I read the note that said it represented something about humanity's struggle with the environment and it suddenly went from 'nice blob' to WTF

A week later I took my son & daughter too (16 & 22 at the time) and they summed the whole gallery up as - WTF

I guess we don't get Art then

Dave

 

[BillN_33]

Shame you don't post, although I agree this forum seems to mostly reward pretty pictures. Perhaps we need to challenge this slightly more, but with the explanations.

it would be nice if something more positive, (and helpful), came from the thread - not that there isn't anything positive at the moment

 

[Bythesea]

I like pretty pictures - I feel bad for admitting it now reading through this thread

We have an Art gallery near here, the Hepworth, so I popped in one day for a look, I didn't get it at all. A party of mentally challenged people were in and one young lad asked his carer "What is it?" looking as an amorphous sculpture, she replied "Whatever you want it to be", he looked as perplexed as I was. I went for a closer look as it was a nice 'blob' but then I read the note that said it represented something about humanity's struggle with the environment and it suddenly went from 'nice blob' to WTF

A week later I took my son & daughter too (16 & 22 at the time) and they summed the whole gallery up as - WTF

I guess we don't get Art then

Dave

There's nothing wrong with liking pretty pictures, and I don't think anyone is suggesting there is, so I don't think you need to feel bad.

Equally, if you don't get art then you don't get art. I don't have any problem with that. Personally I don't get people wanting to go to watch live football matches. Just can't understand why anyone thinks that is a good way to spend time and money. However, if that is what they want to do then fine, I don't want to stop them and won't go round telling everyone they are wrong to be doing it.

And that is where I think the problem lies - a number of people (not pointing the finger at anyone here) seem to enjoy telling everyone that what they are interested in is rubbish, just because they "don't get it".

 

[Byker28i]

One of my Tutors recently wrote:

We recently had this exchange in my house.

5 year old: “Mummy. Your job is not very important is it?”

Me: “Is it not? Why not?”

5 year old: “No. Because you just take pictures don’t you?”

Since then this topic has cropped up in various guises just before bedtime or walking home from school. It has clearly taken root. So we continue with my darling daughter interrogating me on why pictures are important and me scrambling for some sensible and convincing answers that will make sense in simple terms. Nothing like what comes out of the mouth of babes to keep you grounded.

The main reasons of my defence are…

Pictures are important because:

1. They help you understand the world.

Throughout history people have made artistic responses to culture, society and events that help us understand what is going on behind the scenes. From Orwell and Kafka to Gilbert and George art helps us see circumstances from a different perspective from the authorised version. This is an important role of the artist. Often artists have a responsibility, a heavy responsibility that could result in imprisonment or worse, to tell the story of an underlying truth. To wake people up and speak up against a system.

2. They help you understand yourself.

Sometimes art is less gung ho. Sometimes it’s just about someones struggle with their personal history (Tracey Emin springs to mind). Sometimes art is made to express something that it is difficult to put into words and sometimes that is OK. To get to a point of deeper understanding or empathy with yourself. It can be therapeutic and healing to engage in such art.

3. They connect you to other people.

Why is Tracey Emin so popular? You might well wonder! But it really is important to be connected to humanity. When we see a picture or a sculpture that validates something of our own experience, whatever that might be, it gives us a sense of stability. These shared experiences, even if they include messiness, bring connection and hope.

4. They connect you to something bigger than yourself.

Often artists have described their creation as something that came to them. Jeanette Winterson said of her first and brilliant novel Oranges are not the only fruit that it felt like it was downloaded into her from a force. This pull or force is an amazing feeling and although it doesn’t happen often, and there is of course a place for the hard grind, the feeling of creating something that comes from somewhere Other is motivating to say the least.

5. Beautiful things help you feel better.

This is described well in the video below. But who doesn’t love beauty?!

What do you think about the 5 purposes of art outlined in this video?

 

[Pookeyhead]

I like pretty pictures - I feel bad for admitting it now reading through this thread

We have an Art gallery near here, the Hepworth, so I popped in one day for a look, I didn't get it at all. A party of mentally challenged people were in and one young lad asked his carer "What is it?" looking as an amorphous sculpture, she replied "Whatever you want it to be", he looked as perplexed as I was. I went for a closer look as it was a nice 'blob' but then I read the note that said it represented something about humanity's struggle with the environment and it suddenly went from 'nice blob' to WTF

A week later I took my son & daughter too (16 & 22 at the time) and they summed the whole gallery up as - WTF

I guess we don't get Art then

Dave

I like pretty pictures. Everyone does. I sometimes get the feeling that I'm regarded as anti-pretty. I'm not. I do a fairly good line in pretty pictures myself.

I'm just not proud of it. Any competent photographer who was there at the same times could have taken that, It's not art. It's a technically great image, and compositionally it works well, and it's beautiful... but it's not really doing anything other than look pretty.

Nothing wrong with pretty pictures... it's just highly questionable as to whether it's art or not. I don;t think it is, even if I did take the image. It's just pretty. As so many competent amateurs can, and do take stuff like this... in their millions... I just don't see the point in expending the energy, and money to produce more of the same.. even though occasionally I can't resist the temptation to to just shoot something impressive visually. I do understand the appeal of doing this kind of work.

As for the art gallery you visited, well.. some art is more challenging than others, and some art if just pretentious b****x. Even I will admit that! However... so much of it is not. A great example of how art photography can be wonderfully shot, witty, clever and thought provoking, and controversial all at the same time, is Christina De Middel's afronauts.

Quite rightly it was nominated for the Deutche Borse prize in 2013, and quite wrongly didn't win.

I love this. It's thinking photography.

@Byker28i I've no problem with those values, but remember the pretty that was see in art should also serve a purpose, and you need to understand why you do it. You need to understand why classical rural landscapes were painted (in the main) and why they were popular. It was just that we like pretty things for pretty's sake, as the video suggests, they serve a purpose in society.. AT THAT TIME. Values 2, 3, 4, and 5 are bang on. ! is actually... but there's caveat... know why you're doing pretty and why pretty is popular. There have been times in history when pretty has not served it's purpose, and that's when tension arrives.. that's when there is a dissonance between popularise art and the art that the art world wants to produce. It parallels socio-political developments. It's no accident that Dada and surrealism hapepned when it did, and it's no accident that pop art happened when it did.. etc etc..

Pretty is so popular now for 2 reasons... we're going through some pretty sh1tty times. It's not all out war like WW1/Dada perhaps, but it's a slow, relentless drip of discontent with class division, political stagnation, relentless and brutal, faceless economic growth demands/Resource shortages.. all of it. In times of woe, art, movies, literature and games take on a new meaning.

HOwever... (always a however) there's a more insipid, brainless reason this time around, and that is the sheer ease by which people can produce art now. There are no barriers to it any more. Art has been truly democratised by technology. The very devices you carry to make phonecalls, check your e-mail and consume porn with (be honest... it happens) are also the devices that can fuel Flickr, Instagram etc. There's an increase in teh vernacular that sits awkwardly with established artists, and those that have studied it. We don't think it's bad, but we think it's a double edged sword. Historically art movements, while driven from the ground up, were always driven by artists and "bohemian" types for want of a better word... now it's everyone. The result is images that have not been created for a reason, but have been created because it's just so damned easy to create them.

From the outside looking in, this democratisation has not made it easier to access or understand art at all, it's actually confused the issue as to what art is, what it's for and what constitutes art in the first place. So someone instagramming their meal is not art. It could well be of historical importance, in as much that it's part of a canon that will be significant historically, and is already responsible for artists response to it, but in and of itself, it's not art, because it was not considered. Some things become art after the fact though, so we'll wait and see.

Art for me is always a response to life. That need to make a point. To say something. SOmehow... it shows.. it comes through in the image, or it's story. A great landscape (even a pretty one) CAN be art if the person taking it was just so moved by the innate beauty that they absolutely MUST capture it and show it. However, the vast majority of pretty landscapes I see are just taken because they want a slice of the action, and want the attention received via social media, or the recognition from their peers. They don't really give a sh1t about the subject they shoot... they just want to make cool stuff to show off with, and receive prise vicariously via people they'll never meet. I can sniff out the bullsh1t and so can anyone who knows anything about art.

I've seen some pretty shoddy landscapes technically, but they're moving.. I can tell the author was just so overwrought with a need to show me. I've seen some technically good stuff that lacks that... and has just been reduced to a platform to show off (overdone) processing skills, and to pander to what's popular on Flickr.. and that shows too.

I have a friend who shoots landscapes, and he's only been doing it for a year or so. He's making the same progress we all make. He's feeling his way through the processing wall a little bit... relying on the shiny things, but he keeps going back to the same places, over and over again... he's clearly in love with his subject. There'll be that need to capture the soul of the place burning in him. He'll find a style, and he'll do good work.. of that I'm sure. Considering the steepness of the learning curve.. he is already actually.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Once you have a certain level of understanding 'pretty pictures' are, if not easy to make, but unfulfilling. You already know the rules required to make them. Most people prefer to stay within a comfort zone of the easily described, but some people feel a need to make pictures that challenge them to make - not technically but intellectually - even if they wouldn't describe what they do as art.

Art? Documentary? Landscape? Semi-abstraction? Socio-political comment? Pretty? It's just a picture. The viewer and the context decide what it is beyond that.

 

[BillN_33]

I have one without the barbed wire

 

[Solo man]

An interesting thread, and both Dave and Bill's images above have at least made me think, and not just glance and continue to the next image.........
For myself, I have really struggled to grasp the whole idea of ' photographic art' (even more the idea of creativity) . When I joined the forum as a relative beginner to photography, and being as uncreative as a brick, I honestly thought 'art' was just about pretty pictures.(I've been fortunate that I've had a lot of help from a member here(thank you ), and through that help I've been trying to develop my photography on a more creative level, I still don't think I'm producing 'art' though)

I have taken images that for me stretched me on an intellectual level, as in I worked around a concept,(but didn't focus on 'issues- social or otherwise'), just images that were grouped together to convey 'something'...but I never thought they were art. They were just images based on an idea.... not even very good ideas(so I thought), which is probably why I never post them anywhere)

So....for me, it's an interesting point raised by Dave @Ed Sutton ... are intellectual images, those where the photographer has put a bit of thought into them, classed as art?. Are some of us producing art, but we don't know it.?

This is one image taken from my 'Portals to a parallel world' set.

This is one image taken from a set titled 'Where once we were free'...

And an image taken from a set titled 'If you blink'...