I have this internal conflict about photography that I end up debating with friends.
On one hand, I think photography is nothing more that capturing something beautiful at the instant when you press the button. The more money you spend on equipment and the better your subject matter, the better your 'art' is.
On the other hand, I feel like there are some things that only really talented photographers can capture correctly. Yet I wonder if this ability is nothing more than experience coming in handy.
I have argued the subject in both directions depending on how I felt that particular day so I have no real answer.
What do you think?
Last edited by Esel_Gesi on Thu, 13th Jan 2011 21:22; edited 1 time in total
Seems like a pointless discussion because it deals with abstract notions like "art" and "beautiful" and "subjectivity" that are completely relative and social constructs that lack concise meaning/definition. I would however say that there are different categories of photography, for instance documentary photography and journalist photography that is less of an art and more of a craft. Ie. you are a skilled craftsman if you perfect this. Because it requires a combination of experience, skill, composition and uses less creativity.
On the other hand there is more creative photography which uses more elements such as post-processing in a dark room or in photoshop, combinations and manipulations of the image either done to change the image for it to have a certain mood, et cetera. It distorts reality in a way that makes it more of an art.
Good points fisk. What about architecture photography? Would you consider the architecture the art, the photography of the architecture or both? I'm guessing both because It's the way that the photographer captures the architecture?
i don't think it's a pointless discussion unless you think that since it's not going to have some definitive answer as an outcome it's not worth discussing.
Give people pencil and paper, everyone can make a drawing but only a few can create something arty. I think it is a bit the same with photography.
I think that with the countless number of photos one can take with digital cameras these days that everyone, regardless of talent level, will come up with at least one really good photo for every thousand bad ones. Someone drawing will likely never be able to draw something "good" without some talent to begin with.
I think you could call pretty much everything art, as long as your creation is intended to be art. Question is how many people will like it? I think it's perfectly logical to edit a picture in Photoshop and call it art. It's painting with pixels essentially.
Lopin18 wrote:
I think you played too much Fallout 3, Pedo Perk acquired.
Good points fisk. What about architecture photography? Would you consider the architecture the art, the photography of the architecture or both? I'm guessing both because It's the way that the photographer captures the architecture?
i don't think it's a pointless discussion unless you think that since it's not going to have some definitive answer as an outcome it's not worth discussing.
Regarding the architecture, depends on what you do with it. If you just shoot it, plain and simple. Then you are simply documenting reality. The architecture itself might be art, but finding an interesting angle is more about composing a shot, which I would consider more of an experience/craftsmanslike feat than anything.
If you however did a lot of creative stuff with it, like double exposure, long exposure to make it moody and using post-processing or filters/gels to color it, et cetera. Then yes it becomes more of an art.
any creative work that requires skill and a good eye, should be concidered art... so yes.. id say it definately is worthy enough to be considered art.
i mean fuck... some pretentious snob paints 4 black vertical lines on a canvas and some equally snooty fucks go OMG ITS SO MAGNIFICENT , then yeah... i cant imagine why anyone wouldnt consider a beautiful photo unworthy of being called art.
@Esel_Gesi: As Fisk already said it is all kinda subjective but take a look at the work of the COBRA artist K. Appel:
http://www.google.com/images?&q=karel+appel+paintings
I am pretty sure that a lot of people can come up with paintings like that but when he did it, it was art.
For some photography you need to have an eye for detail and composition to really capture the spirit or the mood and some photographers are real good in that. I guess that is the subjective artistry.
If you don't believe photography is art, it's very easy to check out the Amazing Pet thread, or just look for any post by Chiv. He posts amazing angles and pictures of his pet cat that almost seem unreal in the poses.
It it's art or not is dependent on the reason and object. A picture of your family @ christmas can't really be classified as art unless it's put into an artistic context. So my answer would be yes AND no. It's all dependent on what you're trying to do.
I have this internal conflict about photography that I end up debating with friends.
On one hand, I think photography is nothing more that capturing something beautiful at the instant when you press the button. The more money you spend on equipment and the better your subject matter, the better your 'art' is.
On the other hand, I feel like there are some things that only really talented photographers can capture correctly. Yet I wonder if this ability is nothing more than experience coming in handy.
I have argued the subject in both directions depending on how I felt that particular day so I have no real answer.
What do you think?
The stuff u have sent me is art....but not all photography is art
I'm still conflicted and I probably always will be haha.
I realize it's not an all or none situation because the pictures my girlfriend takes at bars, is not art. Yet, I've taken some really stylized photos in my day with the intent of them being 'artistic' but I dont know if I consider them art or not :/
I think photography is nothing more that capturing something beautiful
Isn't that the description of art in general? Capturing beauty?
Ok, let's forget all the modern art bullshit because to me, that's no art but photography definitely is.
You will get a better range of responses and perhaps the definate answer you are looking for by asking the same question in an art or photography forum Esel_Gesi, rather than in a gaming forum mate.
Art is capturing a moment. Not all photography is an art. Some is stylized. Some are artsy. But for photography to be art you'd have to create it first.
That's art. Taking pictures of landscapes/fancy cars/ sunsets/ breasts/ asses/ clits/ and cocks... isn't art... it's just capturing a moment. Capturing child birth in a purdy picture where you don't vomit... is an art
I'm still conflicted and I probably always will be haha.
I realize it's not an all or none situation because the pictures my girlfriend takes at bars, is not art. Yet, I've taken some really stylized photos in my day with the intent of them being 'artistic' but I dont know if I consider them art or not :/
If your intention was to create art, it's art. Whether it's good art or poor art is an entirely different matter.
Art is capturing a moment. Not all photography is an art. Some is stylized. Some are artsy. But for photography to be art you'd have to create it first.
That's art. Taking pictures of landscapes/fancy cars/ sunsets/ breasts/ asses/ clits/ and cocks... isn't art... it's just capturing a moment. Capturing child birth in a purdy picture where you don't vomit... is an art
I totally agree that the Dali photos are all art because he is creating something that only exists for a moment in time. He was so awesome. haha
@xyzg I'm not looking for a definite answer to anything because I don't think there is a definite answer. Just looking for a discussion. Also this is not a gaming forum for me ha. I haven'e set foot in that part of the forum in a couple years.
@Yondaime I guess accidental things could be art as well. I might just be frustrated with photography. I feel like there is nothing new to do with the especially since everyone and their grandmother has a digital cam.
I'm still conflicted and I probably always will be haha.
I realize it's not an all or none situation because the pictures my girlfriend takes at bars, is not art. Yet, I've taken some really stylized photos in my day with the intent of them being 'artistic' but I dont know if I consider them art or not :/
Maybe ur personal conflict comes through your art and thats why its good...?
yes of course it's art. In fact it straddles a line between science and art.
It requires technical skill, and the artist palette is comprised of framing, using light, motion blurring, and colour tone and so on. All of this conspires to build an interpretation personal to the artist in much the same way that an artist would use a pencil or brush.
Elevating reality to the level of art is the field of the skilled photographer, and the fact that many of them make it look easy is all the more evidence of how much of an art photography truly is.
So stop debating, and reflecting on inner conflict and get on with it!
when it comes to import taxes, photography is seen not as art though (because you can import that much cheaper or without extra costs if it is for an exhibiiton, which you cannot with photos afaik).
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
, then yeah... i cant imagine why anyone wouldnt consider a beautiful photo unworthy of being called art.
Capturing child birth in a purdy picture where you don't vomit... is an art 
