DoughnutPhoto wrote in post #17206578
By that definition, no photograph is art. It's either a photograph (unmodified) or a piece of art (modified to make it look differently). I'd further state that the nature of the modification doesn't matter, so anytime you open up Photoshop and start the RAW convertor, you have an art piece.
Furthermore, the camera doesn't record a scene the way we see it... so until there is a highly sophisticated camera that sees as we do, we are unable to catch a scene in a way that looks like the real thing. Do photographs even exist?
I think it's argueing over labels. I refer to my end results as photographs and I think of myself as a photographer and an artist (as well as an engineer by trade, lol).
By the way, I disagree with the statement earlier on that imagination is linked to intelligence. That's like saying only smart people have imaginations and will automatically take better pictures. I don't think that's the case. I also think it's looking down on many photographers that didn't finish university for whatever reason. If anything, I think intelligence and thinking in defined lines following rules is an obstacle to photography. If you have enough intelligence to understand techniques and how to express your imagination, you're golden!
How do you get that no photograph is art from my statement. That argument was settled almost 100 years ago. Photography can be art and seeing is what it is all about.
And because Adams didn't take the image for exactly what it was but because he photographed it the way he saw it and printed it the way he interpreted it, he made it his thus making it his art. Moving it, as Weston called it, beyond the obvious or making it more than the noun.
Yes photographers exist because again it is the seeing that matters. We choose the moment to push the shutter. Well here, Meyerowitz says it a lot better than I can. But what you, the photographer, decides what to show and not show and how you compose the shot is what matters. The ability to see when the elements all come together and somehow making it yours is the art of it.
Great quote by a couple of the greats and why we (photographers) are needed. Of course if we all follow the same rules and shoot the same subjects and only shoot them as nouns then yes a machine could be programed to probably do that. But it's our take on it that will always keep humans involved when it comes to creating art.
"There are no rules and regulations for perfect composition. If there were we would be able to put all the information into a computer and would come out with a masterpiece. We know that's impossible. You have to compose by the seat of your pants." - Arnold Newman
....."so called “composition” becomes a personal thing, to be developed along with technique, as a personal way of seeing." - Edward Weston
So I don't know how you got I don't think photographs or photography can be art out of what I said. In fact as I have pointed out I was saying just the opposite.
And all great artists have an artistic intelligence. You see it in their work. It's how they communicate.
And labels? I love this quote by Adams:
"Let us hope that categories will be less rigid in the future; there has been to much of placing photography into little niches-commercial, pictorial, documentary, and creative(a dismal term). Definitions of this kind are inessential and stupid; good photography remains good photography no matter what we name it. I would like to think of "just photography"; of each and every photograph containing the best qualities in proper degree to achieve its purpose. We have been slaves to categories, and each has served as a kind of concentration camp for the spirit."-Ansel Adams
I am saying that anything created with a camera is a photograph. Composites have been around since almost the beginning. Henry Peach Robison "Fading Away" 1858 IIRC. All that matters is the work.