Photography is not art

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.

I think a photograph shows a particular "vision" of the photographed subject, and it is that "vision" what make us feel. It's not only they are skilled to do that, it is... that they know what they are doing

Sorry for my poor language skills, hehe

A subject makes the painter feel a particular way, and in the painting he transmits that.
Same with a photograph.

ATU ought to be very grateful that it has attracted to its member list somebody who knows what Art is.

This is a great relief, I can tell you.

No more sleepless nights, then.

Phew!

If you read my post you should be able to figure it out. There's a sentence in there that literally says "Art is..." among other things

Strawberry Jam wrote:Found it:

Cap'n Crunch wrote:Art is a communication between an artist and an audience.

So Doisneau's photograph Les pains de Picasso, which I posted above, involves no communication between artist(s) and audience?

In photography, the communication is not coming from the artist. It's coming from the subject of the photograph.

You really didn't read my post at all, did you?

Strawberry Jam wrote:I did. But who, if not the artist, had the idea and arranged the picture - and came up with what is rather funny wordplay for the title? It's not as if all that had been just there...

How about this one:



Taking a hike in the mountains, Doisneau just happened on this crazy cello player and decided to take a snapshot. No effort on his part, no idea, no communication, right?

look at this amazing work of art.

what does darth vader symbolize? what is the photographer saying by taking a picture of darth vader with a brita water filter in the ocean? i believe it is a representation of the ultraliberal, profit-driven media- we, the audience, are the brita filter, we are being inundated with a sea of false information by our corporate owners, represented by vader, who is draining us of our contents (representing money) to line his own pockets (the water bottle)

Naked broad with wierd tattoos.



Chick with mask.



Woman and chicken-wire.

In photography, the communication is not coming from the artist. It's coming from the subject of the photograph.

Well, since women don't actually have F-holes on them I'm pretty sure that photograph is altered (it does NOT look like a tattoo). Therefor art must have been involved. Photoshop and such could definitely be considered art.

the only case of which I am aware that I agree with you on Hi-Top is Annie Liebovitz

she fleeced 'art' lovers for years

and now after she fukked everything up and she's broke

she's on a 'fundraising' tour

I personally won't be paying my $20 to get her back on her feet again

I read the wonderful article Eddie posted on Cindy Sherman

and while I'm not prepared to get into a discussion about whether her work is art, I wanted to say that I don't think her compositions are worth $1 million (one of them sold for a million)

she thinks they are.......

if you really think of what value is (kind of like the Oscar Wilde price/value thing)

there is no way that a photograph is worth a million dollars......the value has been exaggerated and inflated way, way, way too much

even just the simple economics replacement theory of value

makes the price tag of her (and Annie Liebovitz's and probably others that I'm not aware of) photographs ricidulously over-priced

pinhedz wrote:

interesting

Strawberry Jam wrote:So what if someone made a painting of this - large canvas, photorealistic - would you consider that art?

I'd have to see it to decide...I have seen paintings (on the internet of course, but they were real) that were indistinguishable from photographs, and in some cases looked even more real. That definitely takes a fuckload of skill but it's not art in my opinion.

As for your photoshop...no. You didn't create anything. You didn't communicate anything. Stop taking things I say out of context, OR ELSE!

Even if it isn't a prepared photograph it's still art

eddie wrote:ATU ought to be very grateful that it has attracted to its member list somebody who knows what Art is.

This is a great relief, I can tell you.

No more sleepless nights, then.

Phew!

I seem to remember......heheheh.....you having this same discussion with Rhone

you both disagreed......but I think you postulated some kind of general definition of art at the time......or examples which you called art and Rhone didn't

(perhaps that's my imagination - perhaps you were chiding him the way you're chiding Hi-Top at the moment - but they are streets apart)

so I guess it's a question that is on people's minds

I think the only person I would trust to explain if it's possible the 'meaning of art' would be Rhone

possibly SJ.....

Rhone and I have some similar tastes in artists.......I think

Marcel Duchamp is one of them

Strawberry Jam wrote:
Doesn't an object have to speak to a large number of people for it to be assigned a high value/fetch a good price?

no, in fact, I think the opposite is true......

look at that 'artist' who paints all those butlers etc.....he 'speaks' to a lot of people......but he's not considered to be a real artist

Strawberry Jam wrote:
On the other hand, van Gogh's paintings were already art when he gave them away to his friends because he couldn't sell them - or weren't they?

yes, they were/are.......but there's a lot more to Van Gogh's story than that......and the appreciation (in value) was influenced in many ways by his history (as well as true merit) - Wiki quotes below

Publication of the letters helped spread the compelling mystique of Vincent van Gogh the intense and dedicated painter who suffered for his art, and died young, throughout Europe and the rest of the world.

His father and uncle sent him to Paris to work in a dealership. However, he became resentful at how art was treated as a commodity, a fact apparent to customers.

Strawberry Jam wrote:
Giving something the right price tag - how do you do that in a market economy? Is there anything like a right price tag at all?

A question is a question is a question.

I think Piero Manzoni tried to discuss this by putting shit in a can and calling it art.......but it remains a question

Wiki quote below

His work eschews normal artist's materials, instead using everything from rabbit fur to human excrement in order to "tap mythological sources and to realize authentic and universal values"

ANDY wrote:If you were to interpret the criteria of the original post to the extreme, it's unclear to me how you could save painting or sculpture from the same damnation of not being art.
A painter who paints a landscape doesn't create anything, he merely re-creates what is already there. And people aren't interested in the painting either, they are interested in what's in the painting. Up yours, monsieur Monet!

I imagine the counter-argument might be that a painter has to do the job of painting the painting and that his art lies in the part of the creation. But I see no reason why you shouldn't conclude than that art is merely craft and skil.
And it does take some craft and skill to take a good photograph too.

In Andy's book photography has as much right to be considered art as any other discipline of the plastic arts.

The art comes from the fact that nobody except photorealists (or hyperrealists, really) ever makes their painting look EXACTLY like real life. There's no point. The art comes from the fact that the human touch adds, creates and communicates things that aren't really there. It's not a perfect image of what the artist is looking at, it's his interpretation of what he's looking at.

This is a painting:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Fruitbowlwithmelons.jpg

And while it's obviously extremely difficult to paint like that, it has no value whatsoever that I can see. It might as well be a photograph, and if it were, it still would have very little value as far as I could see. What makes it art? I've told you why it isn't art, now you tell me why it is.

Do you believe a picture of a urinal is art? What about this:

guacamayo wrote:Even if it isn't a prepared photograph it's still art

Why?

Strawberry Jam wrote:That's my point exactly. Of course my photoshop isn't art. So art doesn't seem to be in the process of altering an image. But that's what you seemed to suggest in your response to the Man Ray pictures Felix posted (btw, great alternative titles, Felix!).

No, it's not what I suggested.

So it should be considered art, shouldn't it?

Maybe. I'll have to think about it some more.

Or does it take both the creation/communication thing AND the manipulation of the medium? Then it would be art if the cellist had been photoshopped into the picture? Is that it?

I think it could be. I've seen plenty of photoshops that are a hell of a lot more artistic than the bullshit that passes for "art" by the pseudo-intellectuals. I don't see why a face-swap is less artistic than just pointing a camera at something and pressing a button. It takes much more imagination and skill, certainly, except in the case of some prepared photos.

Or, since you seem to have an issue with photorealism, would it be art if Doisneau had not only photoshopped the musician into the picture, but afterwards also given the whole thing a nice watercolour effect with Photoshop?

I don't see why that would be any different than the previous situation.

I like the fruit bowl and melons and I like the blue abstract you posted Captain

Nah Ville Sky Chick wrote:I like the fruit bowl and melons and I like the blue abstract you posted Captain

kind of like, duh?

where are these pictures - ain't seen no melons or blue abstracts.....hhehehehe

fuk and I'm not even drunk

silly me - didn't see the recent posts.......

I'm sure you're all waiting desperately for my opinion.....heheheh

here it is

I think the blue abstract is art by my amazing...heheheh.....standards,

but I don't like it........(so maybe it isn't art - if the definition of art is 'things Catherine likes')

I will not deign to give the melons a decision (from which you can pretty much guess what I think of them)

Nash, the blue abstract is by Congo the chimp:



See the "Non-human animals- can they make Art?" thread in this section.

eddie wrote:Nash, the blue abstract is by Congo the chimp:



See the "Non-human animals- can they make Art?" thread in this section.

Ha Ha, that's OK, the answer is yes, animals can make art

Captain Hi-Top wrote:Photoshop and such could definitely be considered art.

Motherfucker fuckin' nailed it there, fuckin' motherfucker did. Yo! Krispy Kreme breakfast to go- motherfucker.

Nah Ville Sky Chick wrote:Ha Ha, that's OK, the answer is yes, animals can make art

I don't know, it's definitely somethin'...