When does a photograph become art?

totalfusion

totalfusion

Messages
292
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
OK - so I take a photo and it's pretty good.

I then play around in Photoshop, layer, sharpen, colour, filter, etc.

When does it stop being a photo and become electronic art???

Must admit, I'm not most proficient at software image manipulation (but learning), but was just wondering where the line was.
 
Depends on what the photos are for. For Journalistic photos the line is very clear cut at very minor adjustments. For fine art stuff the line is wherever you want to set it.

Its entirely up to yourself you can call it a photograph, an image, digital art, it doesnt really change anything some people will like it some wont.
 
I suppose simply a photograph depicts en event or a scene as it is or happened,
It becomes art when it is changed to a degree that means it no longer accurately depicts said event/scene.

Of course a straight shot photograph can be art as well, but an image adjusted as above can never simply be called a photograph again.

?
 
As soon as you stop correcting and start enhancing?
 
I would disagree that a photograph becomes art when you start manipulating it. What about photojournalists that document things and display their work in a gallery? I wouldn't call them artists but in some way its art. What about the studio photographer who perfect lights a model so the photo out of cam is perfect? Art, for me, is a way to convey thoughts and emotions. I don't consider myself an artist but I think I have come to understand it. When I had my exhibition on there was one photo that made me understand art.

sm_hdrliv10.jpg


Nearly everyone who stopped at the photo said "Wow, thats scary." I didn't set out to create a scary photo. When I took the photo I simply took what I thought was a good photo. Then I processed it in a way that I was happy with. For people to come along and say "Thats scary" was quite amazing. That building does scare me. It is monsterously huge. Its an imposing giant on the landscape. I feel about 1cm tall when I stand in front of it. So for people to get that is fantastic. They feel as I feel. Yes of course I did process, enhance it, but you can process and enhance every photo. However not every processed photo is art. So for me art is a way to convey feelings and ideas. It should make you stop and think.
 
Great picture petemc - I agree it is rather scary.

This is a good example of what I was trying to understand. I started thinking about it when I entered POTY comp on this site and whilst looking at other entries couldn't help but notice that many of the pics had been obviously Photoshopped (verb: to Photoshop(?)) - a couple in the extreme.

When entering comps I've only ever cropped pictures and nothing else. If I'm producing photos for myself or others I will correct the picture or make it B&W or special color effects (eyes etc.).

Some effects obviously turn the photograph from a photo into electronic art. It's the middle ground that is a gray area. I think I agree with Ashers that "photography is art" (that goes without saying - should have clarified my original post as When does a photo become electronic art).

I also think that pxl8 has the closet statement yet "as soon as you stop correcting and start enhancing". This narrows the gray area but I'm still not 100%.

For me I think it starts to become electronic art when it starts to look tampered with - acid colors, B&W with splash color, etc. Although some of this can be done with filters so simply viewing the picture may be misleading.

Wish I'd never asked now - but could be good for an extended debate ...
 
I'd have thought that anything from a digital camera is electronic art if you want to be pedantic about it.....and surely once you start correcting an image it becomes enhanced.
I really don't know why people get their knickers in a twist over it. You either like the processing or you don't!
 
But photography isn't exclusively electronic. Photos have been manipulated for years. The question of whether photography is art has also been around longer than digital. Its always the way when people get into photography and suddenly find Photoshop. Its like photography started with Photoshop so they ask all the same questions that people have been asking for decades. The simple answer is that Photoshop is based on darkroom techniques, so its perfect ok to edit your photos. I don't agree that it becomes art when you enhance. Erotic art, for example, is all about light and shadow. Its all controlled in a studio. You can set your camera to black and white and get the shot perfect there and then. It hasn't been enhanced but it can be art.
 
pxl8 said:
As soon as you stop correcting and start enhancing?
Click to expand...

I don't agree.What is enhancing?? I would call sharpening enhancing an image but I wouldn't say that it stops being a photographand becomes are. For me there is no line a photo is taken to portray an emotion or capture and event and creat feelings etc. This for me is the same as art
 
Hmmm I'll expand my original comment then. I agree that art is an emotional message so to me a photo becomes electronic art when you stop correcting and start enhancing the emotional response.

For example increasing the saturation is an electronic enhancement. But the point that really needs making is so what? All that matters is the final result is what the creator intended, how they got there doesn't matter. We should appreciate the end product and not be overly concerned with the process.

Btw, excuse any typos I'm playing with my iTouch ;)
 
totalfusion said:
This is a good example of what I was trying to understand. I started thinking about it when I entered POTY comp on this site and whilst looking at other entries couldn't help but notice that many of the pics had been obviously Photoshopped (verb: to Photoshop(?)) - a couple in the extreme.
Click to expand...

:D any inparticular?

Mine is prob one of the ones you are refering to, and i must admit, it did cross my mind that it wouldn't be liked because there is some obvious processing. I agree that there can be too much processing at times and the essence of the photo can be lost, however, i'm hoping that i haven't crossed that line and that its seen to be depicting the seedier side of our urban landscapes. I could be very wrong!

petemc - it completely agree with you, :thumbs: and I think that shot is awesome!:clap:
 
:popcorn:

:boxer:

:lol:

All photography is Art, from the crappest over exposed snap, to a masterpiece, you made it ?, then its Art, how good it is is another thread.
The question is, when is it no longer a photograph, instead becoming another form of art in its own right ?
To answer the question, you have to decide what a photograph is, descriptions from Wiki or whatever, aren't to be taken literally, but they do provide a guide, if you choose to, you can base an opinion on it.
A photo is a photo, the definition doesn't change over night with the advent of technology.
 
There's not even a universally accepted definition of art, so one can never determine when a photograph "becomes" art. I would tend toward the camp who believe that photography is an art form, just as is painting, sculpture, jewelry, tatooing, etc. Any photograph can be used as art...it all depends on the artist's goals, the context in which the photo is used, and the viewer. And, as another poster pointed out, the fact that something is art does not make it "good" art.
 
When it's blurry, poorly composed, badly exposed, photoshopped to death and the taker says "That's just how I wanted it" ;)
 
Surely photos are one art form, and manipulations whether using CGI or darkroom trickery and lab chemistry another related art form?

Or am I missing something.

I tend not to make any manipulations of my photos, other than cropping.
 
You have to use PP tools to get the most from your photography....I mean...where else is there to go after pressing the shutter.


Its interesting, this art thing, every time it crops up I immediately think of Terry Richardson, the equipment he uses and the notoriety and credibility he wins with everyday pas snaps.
Surely were it not for an arty following and maybe the circle of celeb acquaintances, he'd be an unknown, and probably a never to be known.
Therefore, although his work is technically crap (imo), it must be considered photographic art of some kind.
 
As so often happens on TP the original question is mis-read or lost as the thread progresses. As I read it the OP wasn't asking when a photo becomes "art" but when it becomes more than a photo due to the amount of digital manipulation. To put it another way at what point is a photo no longer the main part but just one of many that makes up the whole?
 
:lol:

Strategically put.
Your cup might be half full, but for some its half empty.
 
wilmorh said:
:D any inparticular?

Mine is prob one of the ones you are refering to, and i must admit, it did cross my mind that it wouldn't be liked because there is some obvious processing.
Click to expand...

It did get me thinking - although I like the pic. I do have a few photos that I've turned into electronic art pieces on my walls at home, I've even sold a couple!

What it made me think was that an average photographer - like myself - if a dab hand at Photoshop, could become an excellent photographer in the eyes of the viewer. From this point of perception it means average can take on some of the best around. I live in awe at some of the worlds top photographers and what they can achieve with just a camera - but there is now a whole new "punk-photographer" (in the best possible terms) using software manipulation.

I know manipulation has been around forever within the dark-room and even with poloroid technology (strange but interesting) and I have a lot of time for artistic manipulation of an image - which takes the interpretation to a whole new level and direction. But I still swoon in awe at the putitans who have an eye and the artist within themselves to simply point and shoot :thumbs:
 
pxl8 said:
As so often happens on TP the original question is mis-read or lost as the thread progresses. As I read it the OP wasn't asking when a photo becomes "art" but when it becomes more than a photo due to the amount of digital manipulation. To put it another way at what point is a photo no longer the main part but just one of many that makes up the whole?
Click to expand...

Thanks pxl8 - that's spot on :) - although the question has created a whole breadth of discussion on this.

It's a bit like sampling music - at the end of the day it's all music, but someone interpreting someone elses ideas into a whole new piece of imagery.

Everything we do is art in someones eyes. All I want to know is at what point a photo stops being the photo that was and becomes a piece of electronic art - there is probably no one answer to this question as it's an individual perception - like my music example above.
 
For me (at the moment at least), all photography is art - I take pictures to potentially hang on my wall, show to friends, family etc. The sole reason for taking a pic is to bring visual enjoyment. I might be crap, but I try.

Gary.
 
thed problem is gary, that as a dog you have no thumbs :D
 
totalfusion said:
Everything we do is art in someones eyes. All I want to know is at what point a photo stops being the photo that was and becomes a piece of electronic art - there is probably no one answer to this question as it's an individual perception - like my music example above.
Click to expand...

For me, If I don't easily recognize its created using a camera then its not a photograph.
How else can we categories those that push the boundary's of what is 'seen' as normal I wonder?

As you suggested, film, photography, sculpture, painting etc etc are just general terms to describe the medium ... electronic methods my have been used but inevitably a photograph is printed out on paper as a finished piece of work.

Shouldn't we be asking, why should we think of a standard processed photograph having any more or less rights to label itself as a photograph or photographic art, and on that matter what is art ..?

Is this ‘art’ …or is it artistic.
Its still a photograph though …or what else would you call it.

swangrass.jpg



This is my art too … not very pretty though. … but more real ‘art’ than the shot above I’m thinking.
Not because of the process but because of the story I'm trying to tell.

pianochair.jpg


Its my understanding that a photograph is only truly art when the photographer intended it to be so, without the intent its not art, its an artistic shot probably, a piece of craftsmanship possibly and it will be created using the ‘art of photography. But without reason and an emotive foundation for its being, can we, and should we, really call it all art

Hmmm, bit confusing and hypocritical that last paragraph, hope you get my gist overall …just pondering like. :thumbs:
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Its my understanding that a photograph is only truly art when the photographer intended it to be so, without the intent its not art, its an artistic shot probably, a piece of craftsmanship possibly and it will be created using the ‘art of photography. But without reason and an emotive foundation for its being, can we, and should we, really call it all art
Click to expand...

I've been reading this thread with interest - I know my view but wasn't sure how to put it - thanks for saving me time Adam - I agree entirely :thumbs:
 
totalfusion said:
It did get me thinking - although I like the pic. I do have a few photos that I've turned into electronic art pieces on my walls at home, I've even sold a couple!

What it made me think was that an average photographer - like myself - if a dab hand at Photoshop, could become an excellent photographer in the eyes of the viewer. From this point of perception it means average can take on some of the best around. I live in awe at some of the worlds top photographers and what they can achieve with just a camera - but there is now a whole new "punk-photographer" (in the best possible terms) using software manipulation.

I know manipulation has been around forever within the dark-room and even with poloroid technology (strange but interesting) and I have a lot of time for artistic manipulation of an image - which takes the interpretation to a whole new level and direction. But I still swoon in awe at the putitans who have an eye and the artist within themselves to simply point and shoot :thumbs:
Click to expand...



Thanks for liking it, i've become a bit paranoid about it recently:suspect:...can't think why:shrug: :lol:
 
I`ve had this argument on another forum, in my eyes, if you create something and call it art, then it is. It may not be good art, that can only be decided by others.
Obviously this is just my opinion but i feel it is keeping with the truest meaning.
 
joxby said:
Its interesting, this art thing, every time it crops up I immediately think of Terry Richardson, the equipment he uses and the notoriety and credibility he wins with everyday pas snaps.
Surely were it not for an arty following and maybe the circle of celeb acquaintances, he'd be an unknown, and probably a never to be known.
Therefore, although his work is technically crap (imo), it must be considered photographic art of some kind.
Click to expand...

My god, I could cull images from myspace and facebook into a gallery and still come up with better results than these.

I cant pretend to be an incredible (or even more than adequate) photographer, but I feel could probably (at least) match the images on that site.
 
dod said:
When it's blurry, poorly composed, badly exposed, photoshopped to death and the taker says "That's just how I wanted it" ;)
Click to expand...

.....provided you also give it a pretentious title! :D
 
does it become art when someone else appreciates it?
tend to agree with the pretentious title thing too.
in the art world , it pays to be able to talk [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER].
" this piece is called effects of jam on borris. it was created with the existentialism of the donut factory workers of bulgaria as its main inspiration" etc.
they realy make me laugh.
i prefer.
" i took /set up this photo cos i liked the setting/idea. then i photoshopped it till i realy liked it.
if you set out to capture an image/idea whatever, its your art.
who cares if its anyone elses.
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Is this ‘art’ …or is it artistic.
Its still a photograph though …or what else would you call it.

swangrass.jpg


/QUOTE]

Well, I think it's Art & artistic, I don't think you need to attach an emotive foundation as a qualification for it to be called art, after all, if it was created by hand with pencils not software, it still contains no feeling imo, but I would still call it art.
There are pretentious Art critiques, who see a marked difference between Art and art, Art being the stuff that is preserved for the public record and art being the work of hobbiests, internet photographers and such, that ofcourse is just elitest crap, but its a bridge us mere mortals are not allowed to cross.

I'm undecided whether it is a photograph or not.
I'm not concerned with pigeon holeing images into neatly titled boxes, just because there isn't a word universally accepted that categorizes what it is, doesn't mean it still satisfy's the criteria for a photograph.
I'm sure there is a grey area, in between the the black of anything goes and the white of untouched straight off the ccd/film, the middle ground definition.
If we had that, this thread wouldn't exist, because, despite the fogging of the thread with art definitions, and the slightly misleading title, imo the op's question is still, when is a photograph not a photograph.
:)
Click to expand...
 
TheKrikkitWars said:
My god, I could cull images from myspace and facebook into a gallery and still come up with better results than these.

I cant pretend to be an incredible (or even more than adequate) photographer, but I feel could probably (at least) match the images on that site.
Click to expand...


Don't get me wrong, I actually like some of his photo's, theres more to a shot than technical perfection, but has he earned his reputation, does he deserve credibility ?
His success suggests he does.......:shrug:
 
joxby said:
Don't get me wrong, I actually like some of his photo's, theres more to a shot than technical perfection, but has he earned his reputation, does he deserve credibility ?
His success suggests he does.......:shrug:
Click to expand...

Neither the composition nor the technical photography is great...

He appears to have found a niche in vernacular photographs, Almost like stock photography only with photos anyone could have taken. The bit that makes him special (IMO), is finding the situations that people want that sort of photo of, and selling them.
 
At what point an image becomes art is mute point. Is it when paint is applied to canvas, the shutter clicks or Photoshop finishes rendering?

I am reminded of the famous quote by the celebrated painter (artist) Delaroche “from today painting is dead” said upon seeing a photograph for the first time. Did he mean that the “old” art of painting had been superceded by a superior art? If so must we conclude that photoshoped images are the new superior art which should kill off the old art of “pure” photography.

Clearly people still paint and this forum has a film user section so ultimately it would seem Delaroche was wrong.

My view would more closely mirror that of Duchamp, that anything is art if the artist says so. It would not matter to a photogrphic artist if an image is adjusted in the darkroom or computer, if it is intended as art then it is art at the point the artisit declears it to be.

It is up to the art critic to decide if it is good or worthy art!

This last point is broght to focus by Manzoni's canned excrement. It was produced by an artist who declared it to be art. This was intended as a joke about the art community. The fact that the cans are now regarded as valuble art shows (IMHO) that in the same way you can find good and bad artisits one can also fine good and bad art critics.

Paint pots and Photoshop don’t produce art, artisits do.

With this much twodle perhaps I should open a gallery ;)
 
joxby said:
I'm undecided whether it is a photograph or not.
I'm not concerned with pigeon holeing images into neatly titled boxes, just because there isn't a word universally accepted that categorizes what it is, doesn't mean it still satisfy's the criteria for a photograph.

:)
Click to expand...

No your right, I was trying it on a little..... thats the thin line again eh, do we satisfy the criteria or move the goal posts.

... I like to think of my processing as not being that far from the original take generally, but even that swan shot (extremer than most of mine) has had only had its colours and hue altered, agreed, its not natural, but then a B&W manipulation would be even more unnatural considering the digital camera I'm using to capture it ... I could argue.


ilikebowens said:
....

This last point is broght to focus by Manzoni's canned excrement. It was produced by an artist who declared it to be art. This was intended as a joke about the art community. The fact that the cans are now regarded as valuble art shows (IMHO) that in the same way you can find good and bad artisits one can also fine good and bad art critics.
Click to expand...

The joke was on the critics me thinks.... But doesn't it also show that the statement made by the artist, tough in cheek or not, is also a show of 'free speech' as shown through his grotesque but nonetheless effective piece of work.

It doesn't have to be pretty to be good art after all.


----

Soz, I know this thread is about the other actual Op's question... :D:lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top