...one of Britian's most important photographers... oh please!

haha brilliant, i brought this subject up on these boards a while back.
I am infact now starting to write my dissertaton on this very subject. I had to study peter fraser in my first year, he was a guest speaker at my uni, and is a friend of my tutor. You have to bare in mind that this is one photo from part of a series, so has meanign that isnt shown, but would be known by the buyer.
I asked him the very same question, with a garbled response that confused me. a lot of the guest speakers were the same, trying to imply view of society and nature into inanimate objects.

I now have the near on impossible job of explaining aesthetics in photography, there principles and whether subjection of ones personal views creates art. Basically what is art! :eek:

check this guy out for some of the same rubbish,
http://www.babakghazi.co.uk/anindex.html


mrgubby said:
Whoever wins this months competition could we have buckets as a theme , the judges could mark the 'Artists' shot & we could compare our stuff to his :D
Click to expand...


i stopped entering the competitions here because of that very reason.
I feel that although i dont necessarily always like the art that some people produces, i.e above, i observed that the judges on these boards only take into account, technical composition and lighting when making a judgement, putting less emphasis on the "mise en scene" of a photo.

Much of the work produced here and posted on these forums has a distinct lack of it, and only will produce mindless repeating tech skills that anyone who opens a book on how to take a perfectly composed shot could do.
 
Last edited:
im with colin, I understand what you say as there is no bad art but there is. Its a snap shot of a bucket. I understand some things can pull it off but this just isnt. Art, like music is loosing its credablity as anyone can make something by most standards as crap and pull it off as art coz they have some crazyed hyped up nonsense regarding its purpose. Its not art at all and thats my self centred arrogent theory on it.

I could take a picture of a piece of string and explain what the string means in relation to the image and call it art. For me, true art is and should be rare and desireable.

Lets all just admit it. It is a toss picture of a bucket.
 
Personally I think that if art, whether it be a painting, photograph, sculpture et al loses some of it's power if it has to have a little box next to it describing what it is to the viewer.

Surely the purpose is to convey it's message in the form of the art itself.
 
ChroniC said:
Much of the work produced here and posted on these forums has a distinct lack of it, and only will produce mindless repeating tech skills that anyone who opens a book on how to take a perfectly composed shot could do.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that the majority of postings in this photography forum are just naff?

Fstop11 said:
im with colin, I understand what you say as there is no bad art but there is.
Click to expand...

I do agree with you in a way. It is rubbish. But is it bad art or do you just not like it? I prefer to believe that you don't like it. If he says its art and you say its not who's right? If 1000 people say its art and you say it isn't, again who's right? How many people does it take to say something is art before it is actually art? Surely the only person able to truely say whether it is art is the artist in question.
 
This is a person who is trying to make abstract, weird art. Sometimes it works, and I've seen many and as far as I'm concerned, most are pretty worthless. However it is easy to tell that the other artists have some ability in this area. To me, the work of Peter Fraser is his very poor attempt at this type of art; he has failed misserably.

The images instill no emotion, no interest, no lasting effect and no representation. Well done to Peter for being able to con people into buying his prints. They are afterall, very poor emulations of what modern art, or whatever he wants to call it, is.

If modern art is about feelings or ideas, then can someone please tell me what the feeling or idea is that I'm supposed to get from Petet Fraser's images?

A good photograph is art. A good photograph isn't just a capture of a scene. It tells a story, invites the viewer to take a journey through the image. It must hold some interest. If it wasn't for this discussion, who here would really give more than a split second of attention to these photos from Peter Fraser?
 
nomore said:
A good photograph is art.
Click to expand...

I've seen bad photos that is also art. At least technically bad with no thought for composition or decent lighting, yet when you add meaning it becomes art. Art is just so subjective its unreal. I know artists that use photography as a medium for their artwork but they're not photographers. If they posted the pics here for critique they could be slated. However, adding meaning creates the art as if by magic. I've learnt a lot in the past year meeting various artists and photographers. Its been a real pleasure and certainly eye opening.
 
cyKey said:
nomore said:
A good photograph is art.
Click to expand...

I've seen bad photos that is also art. At least technically bad with no thought for composition or decent lighting, yet when you add meaning it becomes art. Art is just so subjective its unreal. I know artists that use photography as a medium for their artwork but they're not photographers. If they posted the pics here for critique they could be slated. However, adding meaning creates the art as if by magic. I've learnt a lot in the past year meeting various artists and photographers. Its been a real pleasure and certainly eye opening.
Click to expand...

You misinterpreted my sentense :p maybe a comma would have helped. I meant what makes a good photograph is art, not what makes art.

I'm not saying that a good photograph is art, I'm saying that an artistic photograph is a good photograph.
 
Last edited:
I don't think photography and art are one and the same....

this is a good photo:

photo

but it's not art, not in any way, it's just a replication of what was there. Art requries the photographer to take a shot to have meaning, photographs often show emotion but i still think this is different from art.

personally, the 3rd shot i like and would think about getting a print of at a reasonable price. the others don't do much for me but it doesn't make them any less worthy as art to someone who likes them.
 
bigredshark said:
I don't think photography and art are one and the same....

this is a good photo:

photo

but it's not art, not in any way, it's just a replication of what was there. Art requries the photographer to take a shot to have meaning, photographs often show emotion but i still think this is different from art.
Click to expand...

That is a good photo and you could say its a work of art. Most paintings are considered artworks but are they all meaningfull? If you hang a photo in a gallery and say nothing about it will people assume its art and look for the meaning in it? I have prints in galleries and people have called me an artist, but I often wonder why. I've spoken to other artists and mentioned how their work has meaning and its something I can only dream of achieving, and yet I'm in an 2 art galleries so I must be an artist.

The only answer I have is that art is personal. Its taking something inside you and giving it to the world. My photos take my view of the world and I give that view to others so they can see things as I do. Surely thats meaningfull in a way?
 
Photography is a cheap way to "tacky fame"

So many people are just taking photos of stuff and calling it art. An artist should in my opionion show a style of his personal self in all of his work.. But with photography its different, we only have styles really and so Im not even sure anymore I can call photographers artists... The phraze is used too much its lost it meaning..


The thing for me is this. Film photographers should really only be in the line for a title of artist.
 
cyKey said:
That is a good photo and you could say its a work of art. Most paintings are considered artworks but are they all meaningfull? If you hang a photo in a gallery and say nothing about it will people assume its art and look for the meaning in it? I have prints in galleries and people have called me an artist, but I often wonder why. I've spoken to other artists and mentioned how their work has meaning and its something I can only dream of achieving, and yet I'm in an 2 art galleries so I must be an artist.

The only answer I have is that art is personal. Its taking something inside you and giving it to the world. My photos take my view of the world and I give that view to others so they can see things as I do. Surely thats meaningfull in a way?
Click to expand...

True, to me, my photographs are representations of scenes, in general the ones people like and comment on are the ones which are just scenes to me, beautiful scenes maybe but all i've done is chosen the right composition and setting to capture it as best I can, i don't consider this art really.

the shots which have an emotional content in them generally aren't as good as the emotion that i felt when i was there, and what the photo means to me isn't the same for others.

I think the dividing line is that art should be thought provoking and show the photographers individual style and (dare i say it) for all the good photos the OCUK competitions get not many of them could be called art by those guidelines (in my opinion of course)
 
Fstop11 said:
Photography is a cheap way to "tacky fame"

So many people are just taking photos of stuff and calling it art. An artist should in my opionion show a style of his personal self in all of his work.. But with photography its different, we only have styles really and so Im not even sure anymore I can call photographers artists... The phraze is used too much its lost it meaning..


The thing for me is this. Film photographers should really only be in the line for a title of artist.
Click to expand...

While I think you do take some stunning photos, you just lost quite a lot of the respect I had for you with that post. I just don't know where to begin with so much crazy talk. So I will simply post what others define as art;

# One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts.
# A person whose work shows exceptional creative ability or skill: You are an artist in the kitchen.

A person whose creative work shows sensitivity and imagination.

Most often, the term describes those who create within a context of 'high culture', activities such as drawing, painting, sculpture, acting, dancing, writing, filmmaking, photography and music — people who use imagination, and talent or skill, to create works that can be judged to have an aesthetic value. Art historians and critics will define as artists those who produce art within a recognised or recognisable discipline.
Click to expand...
 
Photographer - Artist.

a photographer who takes photographs in the real world by creative means such as going into a public area and by using a combinations of technique, applied skill and application of personal style. Those are artists (if the results are pleasing)

cykey, in the past you have taken photos inside a modern art structure which really does boast the artist style of "abstract" I remember when I first saw them and I thought "wow, its art in itself"
I mean your choice of style with those photos are just incredible and with your experience you have taken your time to really compose and execute nicely.

Mr bucket sure took no time in composure of that. He thought "ah ha, its a bucket, I'l just stick another one in there and snap away"
When you pitch something like that agaisnt the likes of a (and lets face it, a rubbish picture of a bucket" There is the line between difference.

Its very hard for me to take on this bucket photo style of work and call it art. When I was studying in college, I remember people in art studies piling any old bits of stuff and made it into a unorganised and messy pile, stuck a piece of paper next to it and called it art. I think its a bloody joke to be honest.
 
Would you be considered artist if you can design websites, creat flash content and cd-rom application with authoring tools such as flash, director, photoshop, after effects etc?
 
Fstop11 said:
Photographer - Artist.
Those are artists (if the results are pleasing)
Click to expand...

For me, the crux is the issue around 'pleasing' - the guys work obviously pleases those who are prepared to pay thousands of pounds for a print! Its a completely different discussion around whether the 'pleasure' they get from owning his pictures is valid or not. This kind of debate always reminds me of when the guys from KLF (was it Jimmy Caulty and Bill Drummond?) burnt a million quid, years ago. Big debate over whether that was art - they tried to say it was art (art as a protest against art - discuss.... ;) - but was it?

Eye of the beholder for me, every time - my personal view on the bucket chap - the 3 pics posted at the start of this thread did nothing to get me to investigate further, but when i've more time.....but till then....amateur, but youve got to love his sales skills....if I could take a mediocre pic of a bucket and rake in thousands of pounds, i'd be doing it! Wouldnt we all? :p
 
nolimit said:
Would you be considered artist if you can design websites, creat flash content and cd-rom application with authoring tools such as flash, director, photoshop, after effects etc?
Click to expand...

not in my book but other may have a different opinion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom