- #1
BadgerBadger92
- 120
- 36
I am an artistic photographer and am wondering if others think it is an art or not and why
My first reaction is that the definition of an artistic person and an art form are different. I need to think about that more...I am an artistic photographer and am wondering if others think it is an art or not and why
I think so. Good composition. Interesting lighting and contrast. I see potential there. Keep it up.Here is some of my work. Would this be classified as art photography?
Would you consider these art? As an experienced photographer, the technical use of a camera is easy. You just need to consider aperture, shutter speed, ISO, and filters. What is hard is finding a creative image that expresses your imagination and feelings. Read a few books on photography to see what I mean.Photography is more technical than creative. EXPECTING Photography to either be Art or not be Art, is something not right.
Here is a video I made on the greatest photographs of all time.Photography is more technical than creative. EXPECTING Photography to either be Art or not be Art, is something not right.
I strongly disagree with that interpretation. It only proves why most "photographers" are not artists because of this view. Everyone can take a photo, i.e. can handle the technique, but few can make a photo, i.e. express the subtleties of a situation.Photography is more technical than creative.
Absolutely.I am an artistic photographer and am wondering if others think it is an art or not and why
I see that only as a limiting, but not determining factor. It's easy to produce a ton of photos, and by chance some of them may have artistic value: but to produce artistic value with taking photos is always limited by the camera (I'm not referring to the capabilities of the equipment here, but in general: the function. The as-is.).Photography is more technical than creative.
A wedding photographer has technique and may be limited by kit. I think we are talking about more as an art form.I see that only as a limiting, but not determining factor. It's easy to produce a ton of photos, and by chance some of them may have artistic value: but to produce artistic value with taking photos is always limited by the camera (I'm not referring to the capabilities of the equipment here, but in general: the function. The as-is.).
Maybe exactly that 'going against': to rebel against the limit of technicality matters somewhere too.
...
Just some random ramblings here, don't shoot![]()
It CAN be. Google "Ashes and Snow". That guy has some absolutely astounding stuff and IIRC he spent several years getting the couple of dozen shots he took on exhibit around the world. What he has done goes WAY beyond technical virtuosity.Do You Think Photography is an Art?
Just about everyone can learn to use a camera and manage the technicalities of operating it. After that, taking the picture is more of a hunt. I see no strong Art about it. I see documentation. The exceptions might exist, but not certain if there are strong enough things in those possible exceptions to make them Art. Maybe photography is in support of art, like in film-making. Maybe W. Wegman's cleverly arranged and then photographed Weimaraners is one of these exceptions. In those examples, maybe the Art is what was recorded and the way. But managing the camera? Not art; but skill and technic knowledge.I strongly disagree with that interpretation. It only proves why most "photographers" are not artists because of this view. Everyone can take a photo, i.e. can handle the technique, but few can make a photo, i.e. express the subtleties of a situation.
So? Kishon didn't see the art behind modern art. Fortunately, this is irrelevant. But you are right in so far as most photos are far from being art, same as most songs won't become evergreens.I see no strong Art about it.
If it’s so easy, give it a try.BadgerBadger92,
If they are art, I am unsure. They ARE documentation. Photographers are like hunters who look for something worth seeing or worth being shown and shared.
Just about everyone can learn to use a camera and manage the technicalities of operating it. After that, taking the picture is more of a hunt. I see no strong Art about it. I see documentation. The exceptions might exist, but not certain if there are strong enough things in those possible exceptions to make them Art. Maybe photography is in support of art, like in film-making. Maybe W. Wegman's cleverly arranged and then photographed Weimaraners is one of these exceptions. In those examples, maybe the Art is what was recorded and the way. But managing the camera? Not art; but skill and technic knowledge.
This implies working/living in a visually interesting area (which I do) or the personal resources to travel to photograph interesting subjects. As a painter I enjoy seeing photographs, using photos as the basis or inspiration for many realistic paintings.If it’s so easy, give it a try.
Taking pictures does not mean that you just walk around taking pictures. It requires imagination and feeling like any other art form. Photography in this sense is harder than a medium like painting. You need to find your vision around you.
You don’t need a beautiful place to take a good picture. There is a quote from William Eggleston when he was talking to a new photographer. He said-This implies working/living in a visually interesting area (which I do) or the personal resources to travel to photograph interesting subjects. As a painter I enjoy seeing photographs, using photos as the basis or inspiration for many realistic paintings.
I once witnessed a beautiful cloudburst while driving the valley rim; too occupied remaining upright to attempt pictures. A local newspaper published b&w photos of the storm clouds that I used to refresh my mental image and then paint in acrylics on canvas. Years later I strive to capture the nature of the lightning against the black. The black clouds, black rocks shadowed from the sun.
Photography retains many disadvantages of flat painting with different but extensive technical limitations. Subjects may evoke deep response but rarely the technique. Certainly, still and moving photography surpasses all other art forms depicting erotica excepting, perhaps, sculpture and certain woodcuts.
The mark of a creative person is that they can find beauty in the most mundane things.This implies working/living in a visually interesting area (which I do) or the personal resources to travel to photograph interesting subjects.
Or tragic! Since this thread started, I always have the photo of "working men" and of this running little girl in mind who was the victim of an incendiary bomb during the Vietnam war.The mark of a creative person is that they can find beauty in the most mundane things.
If it’s so easy, give it a try.
Exactly what I was going to put but the images were not appropriate. She is still alive, the injuries were extensive to her arms and back so it just looks like a naked kid running away.Or tragic! Since this thread started, I always have the photo of "working men" and of this running little girl in mind who was the victim of an incendiary bomb during the Vietnam war.
Another iconic picture is the student in front of a Chinese tank at the Tiananmen Square demonstration. But I also remember some aesthetic photos.The 'Falling man' did not have a happy ending from 911 but certainly had that quality.
This is still very shocking to me. I did a little googling and found this video from the photographer:The 'Falling man' did not have a happy ending from 911 but certainly had that quality.
This is still very shocking to me. I did a little googling and found this video from the photographer:
So sad.
I think the problem here is that, were it to be framed as art, does it then inevitably also get framed as exploitation?I watched about three-quarters of the "Falling Man " video. From seeing that much, the original posted question, "Do you think Photography is an Art?" has very little value. Trying to decide, for the specific example, if the "Falling Man" video is art or something else, is a waste effort. It was interesting and useful, without regard to Photography being art or not.
This one?I watched about three-quarters of the "Falling Man " video. From seeing that much, the original posted question, "Do you think Photography is an Art?" has very little value. Trying to decide, for the specific example, if the "Falling Man" video is art or something else, is a waste effort. It was interesting and useful, without regard to Photography being art or not.
The video if you watch it assesses the reaction to that photo, in the US and globally.I think the problem here is that, were it to be framed as art, does it then inevitably also get framed as exploitation?