Is photography art?

Well I had the misfortune to catch some woman randomly prancing about a stage dressed as a tree a while ago.

Apparently it represented a tree's life through the seasons of the year. It was in fact the biggest load of total arse I've ever laid my eyes on. It also won some kind of arty farty prize for being..........well art, yet every single person I spoke to came out in disbelief at the utter trash they had just been tortured with.

If that crap can pass as art then surely even my pathetic photo's can.
 
OP to answer the question you will first need to ascertain what 'art' is, and in the world of modern art, or The Emperor's New Clothes as I view much of it, it would indicate that anything can be art.

Personally I think photography can be art for the reasons already covered, use of light/framing ect to produce a captured image. That does not mean I would view every photograph as a piece of art, most are just photo's (although if the right person took a picture of their left leg (or something equally random) they would still win the Turner prize)
 
Yes, without a doubt. But much like I armed with a paintbrush and an empty canvas would be hard pushed to create something deemed praise-worthy, much can be said of any goon with a camera.

"Painting with light" isn't just about making smiley faces with torches at night, but that's literally what photography is. The craft has been neutralised somewhat since digital killed film, but the end result is the same and other crafts (now more IT related) have taken over.
 
peps1 said:
Not its creator?
Click to expand...

Nope, not for me. There's plenty of rubbish out there that people are trying to pass off as art that I wouldn't give the time of day or consider as art at all. Of course there are also the people who do find it as art and what's more are willing to pay for it.

There are some general concepts that people agree on as art; painting, sculptures etc. Things then become more subjective as the medium of delivering art widens in concept. To me art by its very nature is widespread in its appeal and can be found everywhere you care to look.

Is all photography art? Probably not, but the amount of work, preparation, design and ultimately artistry that go into making up some shots that you see can surely elevate it to art in my opinion.
 
Whether you like a piece of art should not be confused as to whether it is art.

There's a lot of bounding around here of what is essentially a created word. For me "art" is something that includes something that either wholly is or has an aspect of pure aesthetics. This is when art and design as words merge, but they are just words. The difference I think is function needs to be more prevalent for it to be design and visa versa. Therefore a bridge is not art, although it can be artistic and aesthetically pleasing, and similarly a painting cannot be design as it performs no function.
 
Last edited:
Jusr photocopying a scene verbatim isn't really art. So your holiday snaps are probably out, and most of the stuff in the big post your pictures here thread too, but you only have to look at the Man Ray, and other example above to see that photography can be art.
 
Russinating said:
Whether you like a piece of art should not be confused as to whether it is art.

There's a lot of bounding around here of what is essentially a created word. For me "art" is something that includes something that either wholly is or has an aspect of pure aesthetics. This is when art and design as words merge, but they are just words. The difference I think is function needs to be more prevalent for it to be design and visa versa. Therefore a bridge is not art, although it can be artistic and aesthetically pleasing, and similarly a painting cannot be design as it performs no function.
Click to expand...

Totally disagree, paintings do perform a function be it to entertain or contribute to the overall design and function of a room. What basis have you decided that a bridge cannot be art? I disagree and can see the art in building design and understanding the decisions made for purely aesthetic purposes. Which is why for me art is in the eye of the beholder. That is nothing to do with not liking something at all, it's purely not considering it art in the first place.
 
Rojin said:
There are some general concepts that people agree on as art; painting, sculptures etc.
Click to expand...

These are crafts/medium at most, throughout art history it took till around the end of the 13C before people even bothered to record the names of sculptures, painter, engravers....Giotto di Bondone (1266/7 – January 8, 1337) is probably one of the first from western culture.

Before the 13C painting and sculpting was regard the same as fishing, farming or any other job semi skilled work, not warranting recording.

What change, did the quality of work transcend a purely visual aesthetic? (that's what I think).

I certainly don't think if someone knows what food they like the taste of, ergo that makes them a good chef......so, in the same vein I just cant agree with the thought "Art is in the eye of the beholder"

I also think Art become far less subjective the more you study its history.
 
Art is beyond subjectivity. If it inspires thought - from something as simple as "that looks nice" to the deeply controversial stuff, it is art.
 
peps1 said:
These are crafts/medium at most, throughout art history it took till around the end of the 13C before people even bothered to record the names of sculptures, painter, engravers....Giotto di Bondone (1266/7 – January 8, 1337) is probably one of the first from western culture.

Before the 13C painting and sculpting was regard the same as fishing, farming or any other job semi skilled work, not warranting recording.

What change, did the quality of work transcend a purely visual aesthetic? (that's what I think).

I certainly don't think if someone knows what food they like the taste of, ergo that makes them a good chef......so, in the same vein I just cant agree with the thought "Art is in the eye of the beholder"

I also think Art become far less subjective the more you study its history.
Click to expand...

You're not making a lot of sense. You're saying something wasn't art as people didn't think it was, but then that it did become art because they eventually decided it was worth it, but saying you can't see that art is in the eye of the beholder? I'm not saying that I'm right your wrong, I just do feel that art is where you find it. Nobody can tell me something is art if I don't believe it is, you can call me an un cultured peasant if you like :D
 
Rojin said:
You're not making a lot of sense. You're saying something wasn't art as people didn't think it was, but then that it did become art because they eventually decided it was worth it, but saying you can't see that art is in the eye of the beholder? I'm not saying that I'm right your wrong, I just do feel that art is where you find it. Nobody can tell me something is art if I don't believe it is, you can call me an un cultured peasant if you like :D
Click to expand...

No, Im saying a craft became a Art (why, is a epic topic in itself)......I cant emphasise enough how much Craft and Art are not the same thing.

saying "no one can tell me its art" is shooting your self in the foot, as it seem you only want to engage with aesthetics you find please (don't get me wrong, this is not uncultured, its the norm).....but aesthetics by there very nature apply to aspects of craft more then Art.

The fact you are even taking part is this thread rules you out of the uncultured peasant camp ;)

Look at something like "The Disasters of War" by Francisco Goya
francisco-jos-de-goya-y-lucientes-the-disasters-of-war_b.jpg


82 etching of graphic disturbing images of war.

By their nature they are not beautiful, the etching if far from a stunning example.....

its Goya himself selecting this subject matter that make them works of Art, not the craft or their aesthetics beauty.

And here is Goya's may 3 1808, just because I love the painting!
goya_may3rd.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ah but you see that's where my interpretation of art differs slightly, art has to have an appreciative audience in order to become art. Otherwise it's just a bunch of etchings you knocked out for your self while you were bored? Of course as an artist you can know immediately that you are creating art as you are doing so in order to please an established market, even those way out there on their own little planet will still have an audience to appreciate and elevate their work. Ultimately if no-one takes any interest in someone's work it will make no more impression than the pre 13C work described earlier, so even if the creator intended it to be art, it wouldn't be recognised as such.
 
Ok, so what about Van Gogh?

Only sold one painting during his lifetime, did his painting only become Art when they started selling?

And if so, what where they before they sold?

(I need to get my post count up to 100 for the free shipping, so im not letting go of this topic!!!! :p)
 
:D

Well exactly, he probably felt pretty damn unappreciated when he passed away! How many countless others still never saw the posthumous fame that he eventually achieved once people took notice of his work? How many pieces of his work never made it to be appreciated as art, but were used as kindling? We'll never know. Of course you can't have art unless someone creates the object in the first place, but until its actually appreciated as art by a collective it just remains an object that can easily be classified as a nice bit of craft.
 
I think of art as anything that makes me feel something, so in that respect, yes, photography is. Some photographs are better and elicits a lot more emotion.

An unmade bed, in my eyes, makes me feel indifferent, so is not art in my eyes, but is in someone else's.
 
Fundamentally, photography is a science. What people choose to do with it is the art, as everyone will have their own unique result. Whether people choose to call their results art or not is their choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom