Philosophy, Photography, Art

[ilya]

Allow me to get a bit philosophical for a second.

To preface, I think Photography is an Art. One has to be an Artist at heart to succeed and enjoy his/her own work, and have others notice the distinctiveness and uniqueness which sets it apart from every-day junk.

Having said that ~ here is my question - where will photography be in 10 years from now.

In the past 10 years, equipment and software have made this an increasingly easy to enter profession / hobby. And that's not even because of digital, although that's a huge paradigm shift all onto itself.

We now have cameras that basically do all of the thinking. Much of the guesswork is removed. Errors are limited and almost eliminated with the Dummy modes that are Smart, not to mention the comforts of P, Av and Tv. And you can set CFNs to further limit goof ups. Granted we still mess up lots of photos (I know I do), but isn't it getting easier and easier to take a pleasing looking photograph for even the rank beginner. Imagine folks taking pics like lots of folks just picking up a G3, or 300d or 10d are taking now - 10 years ago ? I doubt that very much, though I wasn't into this back then.

Lenses - if you can afford the good stuff a good SLR, you've almost got it made. How's a 70-200 compare to stuff put out 10 years ago. Image stabilization with lightning quick lens speeds. Artificial intelligence in the way of servo focus. DO. RS. ETC. What are we going to see 10 years from now ?

Now software - Photoshop - I have a shoebox full of actions, preset levels, even curves. Now I have this shadows/highlights thing that makes everything look groovy in a few seconds. We have the infinitely forgiving RAW. I can take 30 seconds on a decent photo and make it great. How did that work in a dark-room? It did, but it probably took hours and it took a real pro. Not the likes of me!

So I wonder what the evolution of all this will be. What's the punchline. Are we going to see McCameras that can take a great photo regardless or in spite of the operator? Is a cellphone 10 years from now going to take a picture better then Lglass and 1Ds? Think about it. Kind of scary.

The only thing we may have left is the true zen of Photography. Which is the creative eye, the spirit, that certain X-factor that no one can take away or replace with a gadget that can think for itself. Hmm. I have to go get me some of that.

[defordphoto]

Anyone can shoot a picture. Only the artist can create a photograph.

It will always remain that way.

Take two people. Same subject assignment in the same room. Each person assigned to shoot 12 photos. There will be 24 unique photos. These photos have never been seen before and the same photo will not, and cannot be duplicated.

Each time we activate our shutter we capture a unique moment in time. No one else can duplicate that moment. That moment belongs to the photographer until the end of time. No one and nothing can take that away or change it.

It was once said that a picture is worth a thousand words. I disagree. I think a photograph is worth a lifetime of words. A photograph instills a feeling like no other to the observer. It captures their minds and takes them places they have never been before. It touches their hearts and souls with a gentle caress.

It slaps you in the face with disgust and disdain. It tears at your heartstrings and pulls tears from your eyes. It changes your life.

That is a small sample of what a photograph can do when created by a photographer.

A picture you toss in a drawer.

Was that philisophical enough for you? :)

But, seriously, that's the way I feel about the difference between a photograph and a picture. And (get this) it doesn't matter what type of camera created it. Equipment indeed does not matter. ;)

[timmyquest]

Anyone can shoot a picture. Only the artist can create a photograph.

It will always remain that way.

Take two people. Same subject assignment in the same room. Each person assigned to shoot 12 photos. There will be 24 unique photos. These photos have never been seen before and the same photo will not, and cannot be duplicated.

Each time we activate our shutter we capture a unique moment in time. No one else can duplicate that moment. That moment belongs to the photographer until the end of time. No one and nothing can take that away or change it.

It was once said that a picture is worth a thousand words. I disagree. I think a photograph is worth a lifetime of words. A photograph instills a feeling like no other to the observer. It captures their minds and takes them places they have never been before. It touches their hearts and souls with a gentle caress.

It slaps you in the face with disgust and disdain. It tears at your heartstrings and pulls tears from your eyes. It changes your life.

That is a small sample of what a photograph can do when created by a photographer.

A picture you toss in a drawer.

Was that philisophical enough for you?

But, seriously, that's the way I feel about the difference between a photograph and a picture. And (get this) it doesn't matter what type of camera created it. Equipment indeed does not matter.

I feel like i'm reading my own mind RFM...thats EXACTLY how i feel, kind of spooky, i've pretty much made this same post before.

[ilya]

Jim,

You're a poet and a gentleman.

I agree and disagree. I completely agree, as I said, that you have to be an Artist to create Art versus ordinary junk. It can look good, real good, but still be junk. Important BUT - the junk will appeal to the unwashed masses. That's why people nowadays consider Red Lobster a gourmet joint.

I disagree that equipment doesn't matter. Its a noble thing to say, and I've even said it before myself, but it just isn't true in the absolute. Can you compare pics of any of your USSBA boats taking a hairpin at 150mph with equipment you got now, against you taking the same picture with a Olympus Pen EE. Don't think so.

Same for the soccer mom, he/she is going to appreciate and fawn over the nice boket and sharp frozen motion of Johnny kicking the soccer ball that she took with the 300D. She couldn't have done this 10 years ago with the family Polaroid.

Sorry, no. Equipment does matter a lot in the every day, in the practical terms, in the less then-hanging-in-a-gallery sense. Or in the commercial sense ~ any photography requiring good equipment to compete with others for livelihood.

Where equipment doesn't matter is in the less practical, more poetic sense. Such that you give a real pro two hours and a pinhole camera to find 10 good shots of anything in a 2 block radius in Harlem, and give a hack a 1Ds to do the same. No contest. But how often does that happen.

I don't know what will happen in 10 years. I do know, which is my point, that equipment will make it that much easier to take a quality photograph. Software will allow you to make it stunning. Will it have soul ~ not in the hands of a regular joe. However, how many joes will learn this stuff quickly, and through law of percentages, will begin to get "it" because they hit the ground running and dispense with the tough stuff we have gone through - exposures, apertures, focusing, post-processing the hard way, etc.; or the harder stuff you more seasoned folks have gone through with the chemicals and such.

Point is we talk a lot about equipment, what's the best thing to buy or not to buy, what's Canon going to put out next to help us take that picture easier, better, faster. But we don't talk enough about how to take a good picture. Its not a bad thing, and it is what it is, and I totally enjoy talking about this stuff. That's the shingle on the forum door. But maybe we should have a forum as to how to start to learn the Zen of Photography. :)

Open for debate 8)

[defordphoto]

Where equipment doesn't matter is in the less practical, more poetic sense. Such that you give a real pro two hours and a pinhole camera to find 10 good shots of anything in a 2 block radius in Harlem, and give a hack a 1Ds to do the same. No contest. But how often does that happen.

That is the point I was trying to make. In creation of the actual photograph, equipment has nothing to do with it. But on the other hand...


I don't know what will happen in 10 years. I do know, which is my point, that equipment will make it that much easier to take a quality photograph. Software will allow you to make it stunning. Will it have soul ~ not in the hands of a regular joe. However, how many joes will learn this stuff quickly, and through law of percentages, will begin to get "it" because they hit the ground running and dispense with the tough stuff we have gone through - exposures, apertures, focusing, post-processing the hard way, etc.; or the harder stuff you more seasoned folks have gone through with the chemicals and such.

Point is we talk a lot about equipment, what's the best thing to buy or not to buy, what's Canon going to put out next to help us take that picture easier, better, faster. But we don't talk enough about how to take a good picture. Its not a bad thing, and it is what it is, and I totally enjoy talking about this stuff. That's the shingle on the forum door. But maybe we should have a forum as to how to start to learn the Zen of Photography. :)


I agree with you here. Equipment does matter to take a picture—absolutely—but the creation of the photograph is from within. It wasn't until I wrote the post above that I really understood what Ken was saying in article he wrote that we discussed in the eqipment-doesn't-matter thread a week or so ago.

[gsmx2]

I think this sums up my thoughts on equipment. Equipment expands capabilities, it does not create abilities. Years ago, my father shot slide with a 35mm camera and my step-mother shot slides with an Instamatic. His slides put you to sleep; her slides had me sitting on the edge of my seat.

Now she shoots 35mm and he shoots APS. Her photos are still beautiful. She has ability; he does not.

Equipment can expand abilities and lack of it limits capabilities. To get deep depth of field on a cloudy day, you need a small apeture, and to do that, you need a tripod. Got a tripod, you get the picture; no tripod no capability to get the picture.

What today's technology has given us is the ability to be amazingly creative in a very short period of time. As someone said on another forum, "I used to shoot what I could afford. Now I shoot what I want." Last week I shot 70 shots of pelicans on Sunday and 100 shots at the beach on Monday. Never in my wildest dreams would I have done that as a hobby with film.

And it allows us the capability to correct errors. An interesting thread started with a picture of a hot air balloon and the question, "What would you do with this?" For different people created four entirely different shots through post-processing. An amazing thread.

For me, the worst thing about digital camera is that it is making me a lazy photographer. I know I can crop, adjust, contrast, lighten or darken at will. I hope we don't all become lazy in our art.

Open for debate.

gsm x2

[Belmondo]

I don’t consider myself a capable enough photographer to insinuate myself into any discussion of the deeper meaning of photography as an art form. I know it when I see it, but can’t come close to creating it on my own. I do know that as time goes by, equipment will continue to improve and I will become a better ‘picture-taker’ on the strength of that fact alone. But then, so will everyone else.

Art is relative to its time. Today’s most talented people do things that were undreamt of a decade ago. Some of it is art; some of it is just technical ‘WOW.’ I don’t have any idea where technology ends and artistry begins, because it is a very fine and vague line that my discriminating eye can’t discern.

In some ways, I long for the good old days when art was a matter of composition, a good negative, and creativity in the darkroom. Many years ago I had the good fortune of running into Ansel Adams and a group of his protégés as he conducted a walking seminar around Yosemite Valley. Since I was not an invited participant, I stayed a respectable distance from the group, but tried to remain close enough to hear what he was saying. His passion was palpable, and to this day, I hold that experience among my life’s most special. I remember how little of his discussion was about the mechanics of taking the picture. He talked about other things – shape, flow, depth, motion, and other magical things that I simply could not relate to. Although I didn’t have any idea what he was saying (still don’t), I knew I was in the presence of someone very special. His love of the art form was a key component of his genius.

By today’s standards, his equipment was downright primitive, yet the quality of his work is rarely approached by all but a few of the most gifted individuals working in the medium today. I guess the lesson should be that regardless of what technology brings us in the next 10 years, it cannot elevate us to the elusive rank of photographer/artist. Only our abilities can do that, and it is unlikely that many of us will attain that lofty status, regardless of the magic the folks at Canon will create for us.

[ilya]

In some ways, I long for the good old days when art was a matter of composition, a good negative, and creativity in the darkroom.
I can't relate but I agree completely.

I remember how little of his discussion was about the mechanics of taking the picture. He talked about other things – shape, flow, depth, motion, and other magical things that I simply could not relate to. Yes! (do those come in an .atn file? :twisted: )

Only our abilities can do that, and it is unlikely that many of us will attain that lofty status, regardless of the magic the folks at Canon will create for us
No question.

[vsolanoy]

I just picked a book up today that contains some of Henri Cartier-Bresson's writings called The Mind's Eye -- haven't read the whole book yet, but what I've read so far is that he actually talks about photography as art and goes so far as calling the camera a sketchbook that has the unique ability to capture events as they unfold in a fraction of a second, but he also goes on to say that what constitutes a good story with pictures is a question of personal artistry and understanding the same rules that govern the creation of a good drawing/painting/sketch also govern the photography.

To make a long story short, it's not the tool that makes art, it's how the artist uses the tool that makes something artistic. Advanced cameras and more powerful software can't make everyone an artist (just ask professional cinematographers about the zoom lens for video) or make every photo artistic... there's something that inherently unique about each person that results in art unfolding...

The book got mediocre reviews on Amazon, but I'm finding it the most enlightening photography book I've ever read. I've been trying to improve how I take pictures (and I need LOTS of improving) by coming up with a philosophy of how I should take my photos. This book is really opening my eyes to what photos can do, but the potential of them to capture fleeting moments forever, no matter how mundane.

If you're tired of highly technical books that provides step-by-step instructions to photography, I highly recommend this. It's highly philosophical and at times poetic... so it may drive some people crazy.

Just don't let Aperture on the cover scare you away...

Victor

[nosquare2003]

What a big topic! "Art" is a word that scares me sometimes.

Does equipment matter? IMHO, no it doesn't. There will certainly be some ways to take good photos with available equipments. In some situations, limitation can be a source of creativity. (Certainly, creativity can also be enhanced by improvement in technology.)

[iwatkins]

Great topic. Lots of good points already made.

Equipment does matter in so much that if it limits your ability to get the shot that you visualise, it is letting you down. You can of course just throw money at that problem, or wait 10 years and your cellphone will do it all. :D

The real issue, as already pointed out, is that you cannot (at this time) build the essense of what makes a good photo in a processing chip.

I am a geek. I'll admit it. I love gadgets, I love logic, I live, breathe and work (boo) with computers. I have very little of the artist tendencies in me. This however doesn't stop me feeling emotions when I see a photo that triggers a response.

My goal is to be able to look at a scene/subject and visualise how a shot would come out and whether it would trigger an emotional response. I then need to frame it correctly and then do all the technical stuff like exposures etc. to try and capture that. 99 times out of a 100, I get home to find the image I thought I had nailed turns out flat and boring and triggers no emotional response (and I was there and took in that scene with my two eyes, so there is no hope for someone who wasn't there and can't have their emotional "memory" triggered). No amount of Photoshop tweaking brings it back.

I'm rambling and I need more morning coffee.....

Cheers

Ian

[woodsmth]

As long as we are being philosophical..... can making art out of photography actually be learned or is it something you must be born with? Is it in the eye or is it in the soul?

[Sunshine]

I am very new to this board and digital photography, but I feel I have to put in my two sense. A great photographer envokes feelings when his or her art is viewed. It takes raw talent to bring out those feelings. Anyone can take a $8000 camera and snap a photo, but does that photo bring out emotions? Great photography is an art. Even with all the best equiptment in the world, you still need a good eye, talent and knowledge to create beautiful photography. It will still be this way 10 years down the road.
Dana

[defordphoto]

As long as we are being philosophical..... can making art out of photography actually be learned or is it something you must be born with? Is it in the eye or is it in the soul?

It's best when you have in your genes, but with dedication yes, it can be taught. To the right person. There definitely would be some people that would never learn the Art of Photography. But they could still take pictures.

Just like most of us could never become a Grand Pianist, but sure, we can play chopsticks. And then some of us could become very good/excellent pianists with much effort and dedication.

Sunshine: Good points.

[Man-Fai Wong]

And perhaps to my surprise, virtually all posters seem to agree to some degree that the art in photography involves some amount of raw talent that cannot be learned, but can be enhanced and/or developed/nurtured to its full potential. I think I agree w/ this as an admirer of art of various forms as well as being an observer-type w/ all aspects of life, etc. This notion of raw/innate, unteachable talent combined w/ what can be learned/taught/developed to push towards the full potential applies not only art, but to all sorts of other human activities, eg. sports, all sorts of "professions", all sorts of game-type competition, ability/disposition to deal w/ all sorts of social interactions, life events and so on, etc.

Anyway, perhaps not so surprisingly, while everyone agrees that art is big in photography, it does seem that some may feel or assume that art can be measured objectively based on what I'm hearing. There is very little mention about art being subjective although some have hinted at that.

So since we all seem to agree that art is a key component of good photography, then what is this art? Can it be measured objectively (or nearly so)? Or is art completely subjective and relative?

If you feel strongly that art can be measured (maybe not in an exact way, but still doable w/in reason), what ground are you standing on? What way do you measure it? Should mass appeal factor in significantly or at all?

If you feel strongly the other way, what ground are you standing on? What do you say to the so called "canons" of the various art forms then? Do they really not at least represent the pinnacle of their respective art forms w/ reasonably few exceptions?

And should this particular polemic discussion about art really matter? What about this whole thread about art in general? Why or why not?

_Man_

PS: My apologies for sending this deeper into the philosophical end, but just writing out loud I suppose as I often do. :D

[defordphoto]

Oooo! Break out the popcorn Sam. We're gonna be here awhile...I'll pop in a little later after dinner....Good post Man-Fai!

[Belmondo]

And should this particular polemic discussion about art really matter? What about this whole thread about art in general? Why or why not?

Because sometimes we feel the need to talk about the deeper meaning of things other than sensor dust.

Ultimately, any discussion by photographers on the subject of 'photography as art,' is really a discussion about the common pursuit of perfection that binds us all together.

[Sunshine]

Art is anything we create from deep within our soul. Hell, I think my
two & 1/2 year old's scribble is art (I do have it framed). They say "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." If it brings out your emotions, is it art? I would say yes.

[ilya]

Talent exists ~ some people can act, throw a ball, write, paint, or make a music instrument dance in a way that reaches out and grabs you emotionally.

Chance and fate govern whether each individual finds the niche where they can shine.

Most folks who practice a given trade, profession or hobby are competent people who understand and love their pursuits, but few possess the talent to soar to new heights, to achieve that higher calling.

Take Michael Jordan, or Ansel Adams, or Tchaikovsky. Don't misunderstand, I'm not equating fame with talent. I just named a few examples that would fit that elusive definition. There are hundreds of unknowns with incredible talent in their chosen field who will remain in obscurity, for every individual who achieves fame. On the other hand, there are hundreds of practitioners who achieve fame for a period, but who will be forgotten over time.

Hard work, dedication, competence, and drive will bring many without talent to prominence, but include talent in that equation ~ and you have the artist who can change minds with their writing, the sax player who can leave audiences gasping, the actor who can assume personnas that ring with truth, or the photographer who can tell a story with a single image.

So did Petr Ilyich Tchaikovsky have talent since birth ~ of course (he began composing at age of 10). We call this artistic genius. When this "talent" is developed and encouraged we see great artists. If you view "talent" as a continuum, eventual skill then depends on both talent and development. This is why some photographers are great and some will never even be "good." Having said that one must also remember that photography is also a means of self expression and should be encouraged, regardless of whether one has a little bit of talent, none at all, or a great deal on the undeveloped end of the continuum.

[ilya]

And should this particular polemic discussion about art really matter? What about this whole thread about art in general? Why or why not?


Actually, there doesn't seem to be much controversy, as all here mostly in fundamental agreement with each other. Yea, it should matter because frankly I'm getting a bit weary of lens-urbation and lens-trailer references :D In seriousness, we don't talk about the stuff that matters enough. Not meant in derision.

[woodsmth]

"Art" can probably never be defined , as it is subjective. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" as they say. But as I look at all of the pictures posted on this fine forum , I see alot of "good" photographs , and a few "great "photographs . Then there are the few , that when I view them , they go past my eye , past my mind , and hit me square in the middle of my chest! These are "art". ( In my humble opinion)

[defordphoto]

Art is subjective without a doubt. Is it measurable? Sure, by the measurebators that measure everything, everyday, but I digress as that means little or nothing in truly measuring art in my eyes. In fact, much of the so-called measured art of the ages is not art in my eyes, but it becomes accepted as that and so, it is.

I see many pictures. I see few photographs. A picture represents. A photograph absorbs your entire being. Touches your heart. Embraces your soul.

There is a such a photograph here posted in the last day or two that I consider Art.

http://www.scotsdigital.com/hand.jpg

Yes, there are many more wonderful photographs on this board, but this recent one absorbed me from the moment I saw it. It speaks to me. It allows me to meet the child. Observe a Father's embrace and wonder of the Mother. And the three together. Maybe another photo is coming? This photo makes me want more.

That, to me, is Art. Capturing one speck of time, but offering so much more as you gaze upon the photograph.

[vsolanoy]

And should this particular polemic discussion about art really matter? What about this whole thread about art in general? Why or why not?

Because sometimes we feel the need to talk about the deeper meaning of things other than sensor dust.

Ultimately, any discussion by photographers on the subject of 'photography as art,' is really a discussion about the common pursuit of perfection that binds us all together.

I think this discussion is one of the best I've seen in a long time. I've been questioning my photography, what makes bad photos bad, and what makes great photos great (not too many of these for me :( ). This is helping me understand things a lot better than just technical exercises. I'm trying to figure out how to interject that element that captures "life" in the way that I see in Henri Cartier-Bresson's work.

Victor

[sjprg]

One of the reasons I wish to see the technology improve is that it gets in the way of really capturing the image you wish. I for one would like to have a camera and lens that lets me forget the problems of exposer, lens settings, et al, and allows me to concentrate on the image itself. Digital is a great step forward in this respect. I find I don't need to spend near as much time futzing with the camera to try and get what I'm looking for. I don't always succeed, but I feel closer.

[Man-Fai Wong]

"Art" can probably never be defined , as it is subjective. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" as they say. But as I look at all of the pictures posted on this fine forum , I see alot of "good" photographs , and a few "great "photographs . Then there are the few , that when I view them , they go past my eye , past my mind , and hit me square in the middle of my chest! These are "art". ( In my humble opinion)

Well, while it might be impossible to rigorously define "art", a working definition is probably good to have just so people can be on roughly the same page. Otherwise, there's no point in mentioning "art" at all, ie. just shoot and look and like or dislike. Of course, the large majority of people feel that way about photography -- we're probably the exception here.

I personally don't really know what's "art" in photography although as I learn and see I do get more and more of a sense of it -- and IMHO, it's rarely what many people might think is art. And Jim says it very well in his last post:

Art is subjective without a doubt. Is it measurable? Sure, by the measurebators that measure everything, everyday, but I digress as that means little or nothing in truly measuring art in my eyes. In fact, much of the so-called measured art of the ages is not art in my eyes, but it becomes accepted as that and so, it is.

I see many pictures. I see few photographs. A picture represents. A photograph absorbs your entire being. Touches your heart. Embraces your soul.

...

That, to me, is Art. Capturing one speck of time, but offering so much more as you gaze upon the photograph.

I think I would agree that true art should have that timelessness aspect and should be either thought-provoking or heart-moving (or both). The image should "speak" to the viewer, not just be pretty, so no, I don't think it's "beauty" that counts as people seem to often mistaken for "art". The idea that art is subjective is almost certainly true, but that's about all it has in common w/ "beauty" me thinks.

OTOH, if one's definition for "beauty" has little to do w/ "being pretty", then ok, I guess. :D

On another note, does it take an "artist" (of some sort) to truly see and appreciate "art"? Hmmm... :?:

Also, does your religion(!) take a role here in understanding "art"? I have to believe "YES" although that would be a sensitive discussion. :D

_Man_

[CyberDyneSystems]

Some of the questions are;

"Where does Creativity come from?"

When does Creativity manifest itself? (at what age)

Is Creativity determined at birth?,.. or does it develop at an early age aided by suroundings and teachings?

Can it develop in later years?

This is both a phylisophical and scientific question that has yet to be fully answered convincingly. But it is one of the questions that makes art,. and artistry,. creativity, so wonderfull.

For me it has allways been a difficult thing,. creativity,. not because I wasn't creative,. quite the contrary,. I spent my entire youth drawing,. building, making ... "creating" stuff... some would call some of it art.

But,. as it happens I had very different parents,. My mother IS an Artist,. a performer and a spiritual soul... (as was my Grandmother, a painter of known talent)

My Father is a tradesman of the highest calibre,. he retired from stone Carving just recently,. and his skill was literally world renowned. (he carved the JFK Memorial,.. and his students are currently carving the lettering for the WWII War Memorial in Washington, as examples)

He is also A Scientist, a Biologist,. Naturalist,. and devout Atheist. (as was my Grandfather, a physiologist by trade,. he designed the "mummy sleeping bag" among other things for the US army) My father posseses A nearly purely anylitical mind,. that somehow also has the eye of the greatest artist where working his craft is involved. Many do call him an artist, but that just pisses him off! :)

So I was left with these conflicting traits burried deep within me,. the right brained artist,. and the left brained perfectionist,. the spiritual and the anylitical... (you may have noticed that I am more my fathers "Spock" than my Mother's "Kirk" but the passion is still in there!)

So,. was it through their teachings,. their presence that I inhereted any gift at all,. or was it just IN ME.

I never like to believe in the genetic aspect,. I like to think that we are all born with equal potential for all things.

Anyway,. for photography I am very happy,. I had at one point intended to go to Art School,. but in my Senior year I became disatisfied with my art work,. I struggled to find an Art where my anylitical left brained tendancy would not be in constant conflict with my right brained desires for creativity...

If only I had discovered photography then...

[ilya]

:arrow: This thread is getting interesting.

Art can be simply defined as the production of something beautiful. Beauty then is defined as the combination of qualities giving pleasure to the sight or mind. The qualities of an "art" photograph that give us pleasure, i.e. composition, context, texture, color etc are qualities also found in any photograph. So whether or not the photographer intended for a photo to be art, its an individual choice as to whether or not the composition etc... appeals, and is therefore in our eyes beautiful, and is therefore art.

Perception of an object as art is something subjective and personal. Sunshine said it well, to her a child's drawing is art. To another, it may be doodles. The photograph Jim posted is nice, but it doesn't do the same for me as it does for others.

So what is a uniting aspect to Art. Capital A kind of Art. :?: Can we delineate Traditional Art from personal art, with a lower case a? Meaning that we can pretty much agree that stuff hanging in a gallery art is art, and that is by virtue of a painting or a photograph having been given critical acclaim by persons we choose to vest with our trust as being able to recognize art as such. Then, personal art can be the occasional photograph on a forum that touches us, or that drawing made by a child. The only flaw in that logic is that while the stuff hanging in a gallery would be construed as Art by many, it may look like a dog's breakfast to others, and that wouldn't make the others any less aware or cultural.

Going further, what types of photography can be considered "art-ful". Can photo-journalism produce art? How about any form of commercial photography? Sports? Do we dare adopt Ken Rockwell's definition of Artists and Whores?

Man: Interesting and flammable topic of religion into this. I will limit my observation to this logic: Everyone who works at B&H is a devout Jew. B&H is good. Therefore, Judaism is good. :D (I can say this, I'm half jewish).

[Man-Fai Wong]

Some of the questions are;

"Where does Creativity come from?"

...

So,. was it through their teachings,. their presence that I inhereted any gift at all,. or was it just IN ME.

I never like to believe in the genetic aspect,. I like to think that we are all born with equal potential for all things.

If you're more like your father, then I guess you're not "religious"(?) either. Certainly, the mention about "genetic", but not a spiritual equivalent, suggests that much. OTOH, maybe I'm just reading too much into that.

I don't like to believe it's "genetic" either, but that doesn't mean I have to believe everyone's born equal "for all things".

Anyway,. for photography I am very happy,. I had at one point intended to go to Art School,. but in my Senior year I became disatisfied with my art work,. I struggled to find an Art where my anylitical left brained tendancy would not be in constant conflict with my right brained desires for creativity...

If only I had discovered photography then...

I don't profess to have real artistic talent, but I can agree w/ that statement about photography for myself also as I learn and grow in this new hobby of sorts.

When I was growing up, some people suggested I have some talent, but I was never really allowed to explore it much, let alone encouraged, by my pragmatic parents, who come from a largely repressed, pragmatic world. Often, I really wish things were different, but alas, well, nowadays, I do what I can to encourage others while also allowing myself to explore a little -- but mostly through appreciating others' works. Maybe this all ended up for the best (for me anyway) since I'm not a disillusioned, starving "artist" at least.

BTW, unlike me, my sister did receive some encouragement and opportunities to explore (w/ help from me of course), so she went on to study photography in college. But by the time she was done w/ her BA, I guess she lost track of what photography really means to her, so nowadays, I'm more enthused about photography than she is -- she's still "finding herself" I guess. Interestingly, I have actually seen very little of her work and chatted only a little w/ her about photography -- maybe I'll get to see something from her trip to India these last couple weeks.

_Man_

[CyberDyneSystems]

The fact that Photography can indulge my creative side to my hearts content,. while at the same time occupy the engineer in me with the numbers, details, measurements,. and most impotantly GEAR! he he

[Man-Fai Wong]

:arrow: This thread is getting interesting.

Heheh. You mean it didn't start out that way? :D


Art can be simply defined as the production of something beautiful. Beauty then is defined as the combination of qualities giving pleasure to the sight or mind.

See, I think here's where I have to start to disagree unless you also define "pleasure" to mean more than just what people normally think of the word. If "pleasure" refers to whatever stimulates the mind, then ok. But if "pleasure" only refers to a fuzzy warm feeling, then no, I disagree w/ the whole premise behind this definition of "art".

So whether or not the photographer intended for a photo to be art, its an individual choice as to whether or not the composition etc... appeals, and is therefore in our eyes beautiful, and is therefore art.

And the use of "appeals" again runs along the same line as "pleasure" so far. Must art appeal or give pleasure in the traditional sense of those words?

In my "working definition", I tried to stay away from such words due to their apparent connotations. "Timelessness", "thought-provoking" and "heart-moving" do not need to "appeal" nor give "pleasure" in the traditional sense.

When I watch the film "The Joy Luck Club", I am deeply moved to tears throughout much of my first viewing -- and still somewhat so in repeat viewings. Is there anything all that appealing or pleasurable about this film to make it art, assuming one can call it that? And of course, there are plenty of other films that move people to tears and do not appeal or give pleasure in the traditional sense, so what about them?

In fact, someone might laugh at such films and find "pleasure" because he/she finds them laughable, and clearly, he/she would not consider them to be art.

Yes, perhaps, I'm simply arguing semantics now, but maybe not.

Perception of an object as art is something subjective and personal. Sunshine said it well, to her a child's drawing is art. To another, it may be doodles. The photograph Jim posted is nice, but it doesn't do the same for me as it does for others.

I think perception of what art is seems subjective also given what I'm hearing. For me, it has nothing to do w/ "appeal" or "pleasure" in the traditional sense. Yes, I once assumed that to be true, but that seems more like what the average person likes to think (or was taught to think).

Yes, while I would be skeptical about some of the "art" that makes it into art galleries and museums nowadays, that does not mean the more modern(?) notion about art (being more than just "appeal" or "pleasure" giving) is wrong.

So what is a uniting aspect to Art. Capital A kind of Art. :?: Can we delineate Traditional Art from personal art, with a lower case a?

I think if there's a uniting aspect, it's that art is personal and subjective, not too much more. "Traditional Art" vs "personal"? If you want to classify that way, it'd be more like "traditional" vs "modern" or "progressive" or "new" or the like. In the western classical music world, a popular current term is "new music".

Meaning that we can pretty much agree that stuff hanging in a gallery art is art, and that is by virtue of a painting or a photograph having been given critical acclaim by persons we choose to vest with our trust as being able to recognize art as such.

But who's "we"?? Ah, see, you can't avoid it. It's still personal, except you're choosing to trust some critics to point the way for you. The ones you trust would obviously align w/ your beliefs about "art" OR would brainwash you into their beliefs about "art". :D

Then, personal art can be the occasional photograph on a forum that touches us, or that drawing made by a child. The only flaw in that logic is that while the stuff hanging in a gallery would be construed as Art by many, it may look like a dog's breakfast to others, and that wouldn't make the others any less aware or cultural.

Ha ha. Well, there you go. :D

Going further, what types of photography can be considered "art-ful". Can photo-journalism produce art? How about any form of commercial photography? Sports? Do we dare adopt Ken Rockwell's definition of Artists and Whores?

Ha ha. Well, supposedly, Ken Rockwell's "definition" was just poking fun even though I don't doubt it reflects a little of what he actually believes.

Anyway, maybe the real questions are: Can YOU produce art in your photo-journalism, commercial photography, sports, etc.? Not the other way around. IMHO, asking if PJ-ism can produce art is the wrong way to think about art (or to think about how to create art in one's PJ-ism).

Man: Interesting and flammable topic of religion into this. I will limit my observation to this logic: Everyone who works at B&H is a devout Jew. B&H is good. Therefore, Judaism is good. :D (I can say this, I'm half jewish).

Haha. Hmmm... Is Hollywood really creating art? Lots of Jewish people there. :D OTOH, I guess you might tell me they are not "devout", but rather very liberal. ;) BTW, I'm Christian, which has Jewish roots, and I believe in the Bible, which is maybe 70% "Jewish". Does that allow me to say what I just said too? :D

_Man_

[Man-Fai Wong]

The fact that Photography can indulge my creative side to my hearts content,. while at the same time occupy the engineer in me with the numbers, details, measurements,. and most impotantly GEAR! he he

I knew what you meant, which is why I agreed. :D

FWIW, I studied Comp Sci in college, but don't make a good comp scientist because I'm not rigorous about it and tend to think deductively, instead of inductively. Maybe I should call myself an "intuitive" comp scientist, but that probably doesn't make much sense. :D Actually, Comp Sci is a compromise of sorts between me wanting to become an artist vs my parents wanting me to become a doctor (or something similar). :D Would be ironic if I actually worked upto a PhD in Comp Sci specializing in art-relevant subjects like graphics, maybe AI, etc. :D

_Man_

[ilya]

ilya wrote:
This thread is getting interesting.

Heheh. You mean it didn't start out that way?


Nah, the first post was pretty much rambling into oblivion :roll:

There is a lot here. But real quick, as we can be here all night :!:

Pleasure was intended as that stimulating the mind and therefore the more cerebral senses. I do get a warm fuzzy feeling from some of the posts by folks like doug rowan or charlesu on share photos :twisted: (though artistic nudes are also an avenue not yet discussed)

Re: working definition ~ we are trading adjectives, and they need not be mutually exclusive, you agree? I do find some films to definitely be in the category of art for all of the descriptive terms you and I have selected. I tried to keep mine simple and generally encompassing on purpose. But ok, then the question is what are those "required elements" to categorize art as art? Trying to find those could be a fallacy, as we would then be attempting to categorize something that shouldn't be...

Perception of art being subjective is what makes it so difficult to define art. You can't get away from that, unless I misunderstand what you're saying.

The rest of it - I'm asking more questions then offering answers. I'm merely trying to understand and seek a healthy discussion.

Can *I* produce Art you ask? No. I'm not there, and I'm not sure I'll ever be. I'm in this for several reasons - stuff with buttons and microchips appeals to me, my family is my favorite shooting subject, and there is a tiny bit of creativity in the back of my brain that gets stimulated by all this.

My question still stands as posed, is PJ-ism and Commercial photography capable of producing art using any definition you and I banter about, or any other definition?

Yes, lots of liberal Jews in California. So is that why there isn't a successful national reseller on the West Coast, as you have to be a devout Jew to succeed in photo retail? :D

Yes, you can say whatever you want, as can I. I think PC-ness is out of control in this country.

PS, Ken Rockwell is full of himself, but the 7 levels of Photography was one of the funniest things I've read on the topic.

[pradeep1]

I have a friend who is a cardiologist. He is quite wealthy. He has three cameras. One for negative film, one for slides, one for digital. They are all the top of the line Canon pro bodies. He has L glass on all of them...actually, he probably owns all the L-series EF lenses made, excluding the big monsters. He has the latest and greatest computer with Photoshop CS. His investment is probably close to $40,000 for his photographic "hobby".

But you know what, he sucks as a photographer.

I've seen his work. No amount of technical wizardry is going to make him a better photographer. I can take him with my little camera almost any day.

When I left the film world and got my first digital camera, a G3, I noticed that over a relatively short amount of time, I was improving considerably in my photography ability. I asked my close and trusted photographer friend if I was improving or if the equipment I was using, the G3, made it so easy to take pictures...that I was fooling myself into thinking higher of myself than I should.

He said that I was getting better because of the nature of the tool. It occurred to me, I have seen photos of his, taken with his G3, and they are not as good. I have seen photos takes by my favorite G3 user, Scott Dommin, and mine are not as good in comparison.

But I am learning and getting better. The equipment helps you take flight, much like wings do. But you still have to provide the thrust of discipline, knowledge, passion, and experience to power the process of this type of flight.

[CyberDyneSystems]

It's true that better equipment helps you do better work,,. that is true of any tool of the trade,. but the incremental help is also bolstered by another phenomnon known as practice!

Have you noticed that as you get better tools it happens to coincide with your own increase in experience... so is it the new tool? or the time you spent learning to use it?



The truth is it's both :wink: