Photography is not art

Captain Hi-Top wrote:Seriously. How is taking a picture of something art? You're not even really creating anything. You're only capturing something that already exists. Every other art form (painting, literature, music, poetry, etc) requires you to create something from your heart. A photographer is a only reported, not a creator.

Anyone that thinks this is art can fuck right off: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

Further...if I grant that a photographer is creating something (the photograph, obviously), that still doesn't make it art. Because it's not the PHOTOGRAPH people admire. It's what's IN the photograph. ie, if you show me a picture of the night sky, I am not admiring your excellent composition and mastery of color theory, I'm admiring the night sky. That is what's stirring my emotions. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the photographer. Art is a communication between an artist and an audience. In photography, the communication is not coming from the artist. It's coming from the subject of the photograph.

Now, there are obviously skills involved in being a photographer. It's possible to be a great photographer and it's possible to be a terrible photographer. But how does that make it art? It's possible to be a great basketball player or a shitty basketball player, but basketball sure ain't art.

Discuss.

Hi Captain, if photograhy isn't Art because the photographer is caturing/arranging things that already exist, does this mean that Literature is invalid as Art because the writer is capturing/arranging words that already exist? I thought the genius of Art is the skill and finesse of the arrangement or presentation of things that exist in reality or in the mind of the artist.

My first impression of the Darth Vader photo is that it is a parody of the Temperance Tarot card.

Motherfuckin' art



Motherfuckin' NOT art

...oh dear...I'm glad we're not trying to define poetry.

Methinks our resident enfant terrible has hit the buffers with his contention that photography cannot qualify as art. An artist is an artist, a photographer is a photographer. This doesn't mean that he, the photographer, does not, cannot, produce art. I see art wherever I look. Certain chefs are artists, certain architects, footballers, carpenters, gardeners. They all are capable of producing art. Cartier Bresson didn't need lighting, studios, sets, photofuk, whatever, to create his art. He didn't even crop. The cropping had already been done the instant he took the shot. His timing, observation, composition, humour, soul, all contribute to him being one of the great 20th century artists:











Finally, a literary giant, immortally captured by a photographic giant. Artists both:

blue moon wrote:Hi Captain, if photograhy isn't Art because the photographer is caturing/arranging things that already exist, does this mean that Literature is invalid as Art because the writer is capturing/arranging words that already exist?

You're being too literal (a huge problem around here, it seems). Extend that logic to music and it's not art either. Luckily that's not the logic I'm using.

Strawberry Jam wrote:Why? That's easy: Poetry is when it fuckin' rhymes.

Of course...free verse is obviously not poetry. It's the poetic equivalent of Metal Machine Music- NOT ART.

ANDY wrote:I find no distinction in your argumentations between casual every day photography and photography as an arform.
When I take a picture - which is something I only do rarely, but way too many people are making way too many picture that are be shown to way too many viewers these days in my humble opinion - of my nephew after he ate a bar of chocolate, that's obviously not art: not intended to be either.

But when a professional photographer does is every bit as much as art as what you are describing above; through composition, lightening, perspective, etc. he can portray his subject in such a way that he reveals aspects from it that might not meet the eye from a casual glance at the subject, distort our regular understanding there of, provoke etc. A photographer may choose a certain subject and compostion for merely aesthetic reasons or he may use a certain aesthetic style to enhance aspects of a chosen subject.

I.e. good photographs are not at all mere representations of banal reality, but the result of a skilled reflection upon subject and craft.

precinct14 wrote:Methinks our resident enfant terrible has hit the buffers with his contention that photography cannot qualify as art. An artist is an artist, a photographer is a photographer. This doesn't mean that he, the photographer, does not, cannot, produce art. I see art wherever I look. Certain chefs are artists, certain architects, footballers, carpenters, gardeners. They all are capable of producing art. Cartier Bresson didn't need lighting, studios, sets, photofuk, whatever, to create his art. He didn't even crop. The cropping had already been done the instant he took the shot. His timing, observation, composition, humour, soul, all contribute to him being one of the great 20th century artists:

Both of you are right of course...but I still don't see why the photographs you posted are anymore "art" than the Vader photo.

Captain Hi-Top wrote: I still don't see why the photographs you posted are anymore "art" than the Vader photo.

Here's the thing: where's the 'art' in the Darth Vadar photo? There isn't any. It's fucking staged, for a motherfucking start (you think swearing's great, right? You and me both). Now go back and look at the Cartier-Bresson photos. Apart from the last, of Camus, none of them are planned. They might look as though they are, but they're not. And they're pure art. And another thing: Michelangelo had a bunch of buggerable, pretty boy assistants, and several years, to paint the Sistine chapel. Cartier-Bresson had 1/125th of a second to take most of those photos.

So prepared photos aren't art then?

Captain Hi-Top wrote:So prepared photos aren't art then?

I never said that. But here we have a prepared/ planned/ staged photo of Darth Vadar, that is complete fucking inconsequential toilet, while on the other side we have these Cartier Bresson photos that completely transcend life, as we generally see it, and represent not only art, but genius, and will live for as long as people can gaze up at the Sistine Chapel ceiling, and wonder what Michelangelo visited upon those motherfucking cherubs.

pinhedz wrote:

precinct14 wrote:... not only art, but genius, ...

Is the other kind art without genius?

It's a common knee-jerk reaction to declare every bad job to be not-art (or not-jazz, not-blues, not-folk, or not-whatever), if it's badly done.

Aren't some works just poor art? Or do we declare the work of the poor artist to be artless--and therefore not art?

So, are you suggesting that everything is art? If I point a camera at the sea, and crack off a shot, I'm not going to run around shouting, "That's art". Should I?

pinhedz wrote:

precinct14 wrote:So, are you suggesting that everything is art?

Putting words in my mouth doesn't do anything to answer my question.

If you can't answer my question, that's OK. But I'll give y
ou another chance; the question is: do you consider works of art executed poorly--art without genius--to be not art, because they are not good?

Many people seem to think that way: bad = not art.

First of all, we need to achieve a consensus on what constitutes art. Captain Hi-Chair has thrown his hat into the ring, by throwing photography out. Is that fair? I think not.

Secondly, you need to not feel so threatened by my asking you a question.

Peace.

Am I an artist just because I paint paintings? Of course I'm not.
It's not ALL about what you're doing, it's about how you're doing something that could get classified as art.
Trying to define that line it's the hard part.

hmmmmmmm I don't think so even if I seem to say the opposite

well I said it's not ALL about what you're doing (but how); it plays a part what you're doing.
You can't be an artist just because you collect dog mess, can you? Even if you were a genius...

guacamayo wrote:Am I an artist just because I paint paintings? Of course I'm not.
It's not ALL about what you're doing, it's about how you're doing something that could get classified as art.
Trying to define that line it's the hard part.

Is this art

Y/N

Artist's Shit, 1961- Piero Manzoni.

Uzi wrote:Pinehedz is correct, a bad artist is still an artist

Except he's not quite sure, now that he's discovered Woody Allen's quote about himself not being an artist, since his films can't compare with Bergman's, Kurosawa's, Bunuel's and Fellini's.

Pinhedz would like me to answer this question:

'do you consider works of art executed poorly--art without genius--to be not art, because they are not good?'

My answer is no- even though the question confuses the issue by contradicting itself, asking me to first of all accept these works as (bad) art, then asking me to consider whether they're not art.

Bad art must still be art. Of course, it could also be something else, that's good, at the same time. I could exhibit a pile of fresh manure, and call it Great Steam Journeys. This could be considered to be bad art. On the other hand, it would qualify as good compost.

guacamayo wrote:I think you're forcing yourselves into thinking that bad art is still art

Not really. A bad clock is still a clock.

pinhedz wrote:Usually when people say "That's a work of art," all they really mean is "That's really good."

That should be in the 'say summink pinheded' thread innit.

Usually when people say "That's a work of art," all they really mean is "I rather like that."

When randomly pulled over and questioned by Danish police, in a 2007 traffic survey, 17 out of 20 Copenhagen housewives agreed that "That's a work of art" was higher praise than "That's really good".

eddie wrote:
Artist's Shit, 1961- Piero Manzoni.

If I owned a tin of that I would have to undo it, would you?

This thread is beginning to take on artistic pretensions, with surrealistic inflections.

I agree with the topic starter that photography is not art. To me, art also needs to involve a little work on my part. How does pushing a mere button qualifies me as an artist? I think photography couldn't be considered an art even if the photographer can turn into a tiny smurf, entering inside his camera and pulling the shutters manualy in order to make the photo. Someone compared a famous photographer to a famous painter, I don't know the photographer because I am not in the domain, but I know about Buonarotti. It is true that the photographer got only a fraction of a second to capture the moment and take the photos, but he only pushed a button and knew his camera very well in order to set it up for that particular moment. You can easily repair what you fucked up in photography by taking another shot, but in painting, it is almost never turning back. Michelangelo mixed his paint and took him months to finish his painting because he did it with his own hands, not with a tool that does the working part for you. Michelangelo did not only thought, but he also worked hard to finish his painting. The photographer got lucky, he thought it was a good opportunity to photograph. That doesn't make you an artist. That just makes you quick and better-aware of your surroundings than most people. Everyone can do that.

"Music is not art?" someone said. Today music is not art, just like photography. Fruity loops now generate random patterns. You just need a good ear to compose some modern day music. It takes time to compose classical music because you need to compose for many instruments, you need skill to read music and to compose. Mozart was a genius because he did marvelous sounding works in such a short time. His final work, The Requiem took one night to complete, and did not pushed a single button. They say that Salieri helped him to write the work because he was too ill. How many photographers can brag about a tremendous thing like that? What about Beethoven? He got deaf and still could compose marvelous works. And to a composer, ears are his most precious tools. When a photographer loses his camera or breaks it, he can buy another one. I never saw a photographer photograph without his camera.

Photography is just a craft, yes, photographers are of great importance in today's world and I respect that, but don't expect to be praised like Michelangelo or Mozart because they did a lot of work to accomplish this. Just remember: when people like your photos, they just praise your photos and not your skill, or pseudo-art. You are just useful and you do moderate amount of work (if it includes post-processing and editing in photoshop).

I respect photography as a craft, but I cannot consider it art...

pinhedz wrote: (I'm sure Paladin wishes he could have said it like that ).