EagleMoon Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 With photography you can only photograph something that is there...you can't photograph something that is only in your imagination. Artistic creativity comes in many forms. Making artistic images of things straight out of one's mind is just one form. Making artistic images of real life people, places, and things is another form. Monet and Van Gogh, two of the most famous artists in the world, used their imagination when they painted their wonderful impressionist works. They used their imagination to paint surreal, dream-like depictions of real life things. Photographers don't use canvas, brushes and paint, but they do use focal length, depth of field, color or B/W film, light filters, film speed, shutter speed......and lots of creative imagination. :) And lighting. The subject has been debated for years. It just depends on who you ask. I would agree that it doesn't take as much skill and time to acquire that skill as it does for painting, for example. Photography is more about composition rather than execution. In my opinion of course. I still consider it art but just not the same type. Maybe it would be better to say that I consider it artistic, but the end result is not the same. I would actually say that the process is different but the end result is more the same. I do admit taking a picture is easier than painting but painting is also easier because you can paint exactly what you want and how you want it whereas in photography you have to wait to get the right moment and use the light and what's around you to make your image. I see your point. But the difference is in the process rather than the end result. It's the skill set that is required to create. Art to me is a combination of that skill set with the addition of imagination. With photography you can only photograph something that is there...you can't photograph something that is only in your imagination. Really? Again, you're wrong. There's many types of photography and cinematography (the art of capturing an image for a movie - the lighting, the set design) usually comes from people's imaginations. And there's plenty of still photographers that create scenes from their imaginations to photograph. It's not just all about capturing something that's preexisting (althought that definitely requires an eye and a skillset to execute well). Here's one example of a photograph created from imagination: http://data3.whicdn.com/images/58026138/original.jpg Oh, you're talking to me? I said "in my opinion", that makes it neither wrong or right. Not true, opinions can be very wrong when they're based on misinformation or misunderstanding of a premise or process. Which I guess you're going to stubbornly stick to. Especially when those opinions are blatantly disrespecting people who have dedicated their time and skills to producing beautiful and meaningful imagery via a field you obviosly know very little about. Your premise that photography doesn't require imagination or that it can only capture something that is "there" is wrong therefore your opinion is wrong. And I'll say it again. Insecure much? If you have no respect for my opinion and have to continually cut me down to make yourself feel better, then I feel sorry for you. If you could hold a civil discussion without all the negativity then it might be worthwhile talking to you. Grow up. No, not insecure (don't know why you keep saying that, does THAT help you feel better?). I think your "opinion" is based on limited understanding of the skills required for the process and execution of great photography and I find your shrugging off of your limited perceptions regarding the art of photography to be shallow and stubborn. "then I feel sorry for you" Please don't. Look in the mirror. Sorry but that's YOUR opinion. Don't you "get it?" And yes, I do have knowledge of photography, I have been in the graphic field for 30 years. I just don't feel the need to flaunt my knowledge about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagegrace26 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 (edited) With photography you can only photograph something that is there...you can't photograph something that is only in your imagination. Artistic creativity comes in many forms. Making artistic images of things straight out of one's mind is just one form. Making artistic images of real life people, places, and things is another form. Monet and Van Gogh, two of the most famous artists in the world, used their imagination when they painted their wonderful impressionist works. They used their imagination to paint surreal, dream-like depictions of real life things. Photographers don't use canvas, brushes and paint, but they do use focal length, depth of field, color or B/W film, light filters, film speed, shutter speed......and lots of creative imagination. :) And lighting. The subject has been debated for years. It just depends on who you ask. I would agree that it doesn't take as much skill and time to acquire that skill as it does for painting, for example. Photography is more about composition rather than execution. In my opinion of course. I still consider it art but just not the same type. Maybe it would be better to say that I consider it artistic, but the end result is not the same. I would actually say that the process is different but the end result is more the same. I do admit taking a picture is easier than painting but painting is also easier because you can paint exactly what you want and how you want it whereas in photography you have to wait to get the right moment and use the light and what's around you to make your image. I see your point. But the difference is in the process rather than the end result. It's the skill set that is required to create. Art to me is a combination of that skill set with the addition of imagination. With photography you can only photograph something that is there...you can't photograph something that is only in your imagination. Really? Again, you're wrong. There's many types of photography and cinematography (the art of capturing an image for a movie - the lighting, the set design) usually comes from people's imaginations. And there's plenty of still photographers that create scenes from their imaginations to photograph. It's not just all about capturing something that's preexisting (althought that definitely requires an eye and a skillset to execute well). Here's one example of a photograph created from imagination: http://data3.whicdn.com/images/58026138/original.jpg Oh, you're talking to me? I said "in my opinion", that makes it neither wrong or right. Not true, opinions can be very wrong when they're based on misinformation or misunderstanding of a premise or process. Which I guess you're going to stubbornly stick to. Especially when those opinions are blatantly disrespecting people who have dedicated their time and skills to producing beautiful and meaningful imagery via a field you obviosly know very little about. Your premise that photography doesn't require imagination or that it can only capture something that is "there" is wrong therefore your opinion is wrong. And I'll say it again. Insecure much? If you have no respect for my opinion and have to continually cut me down to make yourself feel better, then I feel sorry for you. If you could hold a civil discussion without all the negativity then it might be worthwhile talking to you. Grow up. No, not insecure (don't know why you keep saying that, does THAT help you feel better?). I think your "opinion" is based on limited understanding of the skills required for the process and execution of great photography and I find your shrugging off of your limited perceptions regarding the art of photography to be shallow and stubborn. "then I feel sorry for you" Please don't. Look in the mirror. Sorry but that's YOUR opinion. Don't you "get it?" And yes, I do have knowledge of photography, I have been in the graphic field for 30 years. I just don't feel the need to flaunt my knowledge about it. Just because you've been in a field doesn't mean you have a better understanding of anything. You're displaying a complete lack of understanding regarding photography in general, or you're just referring to a very specific type of photography. Don't you get it? "With photography you can only photograph something that is there" That is very innacurate and misinformed. Photographers can choose what to place in the image, and how to manipulate what is within the image choices with light, composition, depth, color, etc...as well as manipulate things post-photography. That is creating art and not very different as to what musicians do with sound or what writers do with language and what painters do with paint or what sculptors to with marble. Painters manipulate and reorganize the paint to "create" an image with texture, color, depth, etc. Nothing is just "created" out of nothingness from the imagination. It is utilizing and incorporating various elements to craft something. If you've really in the "graphic" field you should understand this. Graphic design (or whatever you do) is manipulating images and elements to "create" something, and that too is a form of art. Now if something (such as a specific photograph or painting) is good art or bad art or has any artistic value, that is open to interpration or opinion. I question your "knowledge" of anything in these fields and/or your understanding of what constitutes "art". Edited December 11, 2014 by savagegrace26 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagegrace26 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 "Grow up" When I grow up I want to be a dentist. This way I can work in the "medical field" for 30 years and I'll have extensive knowledge about feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleMoon Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 "Grow up" When I grow up I want to be a dentist. This way I can work in the "medical field" for 30 years and I'll have extensive knowledge about feet. So I guess your working in the field you do gives you no expertise at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagegrace26 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 (edited) "Grow up" When I grow up I want to be a dentist. This way I can work in the "medical field" for 30 years and I'll have extensive knowledge about feet. So I guess your working in the field you do gives you no expertise at all. No, I'm not working in any field. I said when I grow up. Here: When I grow up I want to be a ________. This way I can work in the "________ field" for 30 years and I'll have extensive knowledge about _______. Fill in with "graphic something", "graphic" and "photography". Edited December 11, 2014 by savagegrace26 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Analog Grownup Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 If a dude can crap in a tin can and people call it art, then by all means is photography an art form. The snapshots I produce is not art, but to say that what Ansel Adams did wasn't art is being obtuse. So, LittleRushMonkey, I too consider it an artform. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagegrace26 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 These people are just a bunch of deluded schmucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagegrace26 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr4zn8k13Yo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagegrace26 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Someone should let them know that they have no imagination... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagegrace26 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 And if anyone wants to quibble that there's a difference between photography and cinematography, yes there is. Cinematography is photography running at 24 images per second (or more nowadays). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagegrace26 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 (edited) What me worry? Edited December 11, 2014 by savagegrace26 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H. P. L. Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 The Guardian is becoming more and more this house of absolutes lately, isn't it?Just because someone writes an article with a witty (more or less) beginning, doesn't make it truer than another man's article that says the opposite.There's no doubt photography is art, at least to me.That said, the point the author makes about that particular photo of the canyon finds me agreeing. That's a very poor photo. Poor in thinking and vision. Made to instantly please you like an episode of X-Factor. Compare it to Ansel Adam's similar subjects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelix Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Photography is art. Painting takes learning a technique, brushes, and media. Proper photography takes learning a technique and how to use the camera, light, media. Great photography can stir emotion and feelings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleRushmonkey Posted December 11, 2014 Author Share Posted December 11, 2014 They could at least be consistent :rfl: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2013/jan/10/photography-art-of-our-time Photography is the serious art of our time. It also happens to be the most accessible and democratic way of making art that has ever been invented. Written by exactly the same guy on the same site. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleMoon Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 They could at least be consistent :rfl: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2013/jan/10/photography-art-of-our-time Photography is the serious art of our time. It also happens to be the most accessible and democratic way of making art that has ever been invented. Written by exactly the same guy on the same site. This doesn't surprise me. Like I said, this debate has been going on for a long time. Most likely since the digital age and now with people and their cell phone cameras it's questioned even more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagegrace26 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Taking a picture with your phone isnt "photography", it's taking a picture with your phone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagegrace26 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 (edited) If you text me a pic of your naked body I guarantee you that is not "art" Just because photography is a form of art doesn't mean everything produced with it is "art". Intent matters. Same with movies, musiic, etc. They are art forms but that doesn't mean Baby Geniuses is '"art". Edited December 11, 2014 by savagegrace26 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagegrace26 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 (edited) ... Edited December 11, 2014 by savagegrace26 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleRushmonkey Posted December 11, 2014 Author Share Posted December 11, 2014 (edited) Taking a picture with your phone isnt "photography", it's taking a picture with your phone. Well, you can take great pictures with phones. You can still use a phone to do photography. You don't need any fancy gear to be a photographer or take great photos, you just need a camera and a good eye for photography. Although saying that I've been shooting with an SLT/SLR for a couple of years now and when I was given a phone to take photos on I kept looking around on it for shutter speed and aperture (I managed to find ISO!! :yay: ). A phone can do everything a mid range point and shoot camera can now days. Edited December 11, 2014 by LittleRushmonkey 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagegrace26 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Taking a picture with your phone isnt "photography", it's taking a picture with your phone. Well, you can take great pictures with phones. You can still use a phone to do photography. You don't need any fancy gear to be a photographer or take great photos, you just need a camera and a good eye for photography. Although saying that I've been shooting with an SLT/SLR for a couple of years now and when I was given a phone to take photos on I kept looking around on it for shutter speed and aperture (I managed to find ISO!! :yay: ). A phone can do everything a mid range point and shoot camera can now days. It was a tongue in cheek post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagegrace26 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Taking a picture with your phone isnt "photography", it's taking a picture with your phone. Well, you can take great pictures with phones. You can still use a phone to do photography. You don't need any fancy gear to be a photographer or take great photos, you just need a camera and a good eye for photography. Although saying that I've been shooting with an SLT/SLR for a couple of years now and when I was given a phone to take photos on I kept looking around on it for shutter speed and aperture (I managed to find ISO!! :yay: ). A phone can do everything a mid range point and shoot camera can now days. It was a tongue in cheek post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleRushmonkey Posted December 11, 2014 Author Share Posted December 11, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleRushmonkey Posted December 11, 2014 Author Share Posted December 11, 2014 Taking a picture with your phone isnt "photography", it's taking a picture with your phone. Well, you can take great pictures with phones. You can still use a phone to do photography. You don't need any fancy gear to be a photographer or take great photos, you just need a camera and a good eye for photography. Although saying that I've been shooting with an SLT/SLR for a couple of years now and when I was given a phone to take photos on I kept looking around on it for shutter speed and aperture (I managed to find ISO!! :yay: ). A phone can do everything a mid range point and shoot camera can now days. It was a tongue in cheek post. And that was a double post... :P :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleMoon Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Taking a picture with your phone isnt "photography", it's taking a picture with your phone. Well, you can take great pictures with phones. You can still use a phone to do photography. You don't need any fancy gear to be a photographer or take great photos, you just need a camera and a good eye for photography. Although saying that I've been shooting with an SLT/SLR for a couple of years now and when I was given a phone to take photos on I kept looking around on it for shutter speed and aperture (I managed to find ISO!! :yay: ). A phone can do everything a mid range point and shoot camera can now days. Very well said, LRM. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CygnusX-1Bk2 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Photography was part of my Art School training. A paintbrush is a tool for creating an image as much as a camera is. Art is not a device, it is a method that yields an end result. It is up to the participants of the end result to determine their value of the work. If Dadism is art then anything can be. And that was the whole point to Dadaism. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now