Jump to content

Photography is not art???


LittleRushmonkey
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.theguardi...MP=share_btn_fb

Apparently photography isn't art. Now as someone who loves photography I would like to point out the definition of art:

 

[MASS NOUN] The expression or application of human creative skill andimagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power

- photography seems to fit that.

 

And is it the technology? No, it's not you can give a bad photographer a £3000 camera and they will still take bad photos. But give a good photographer a £30 camera I bet you they well still take better photos. A YouTube channel called digital rev have a good playlist called pro photographer cheap camera where they give a professional photographer a really rubbish camera and the photographer still comes out with amazing results. Technology may have opened doors to photographers to things that we couldn't do before but it's still using them things to create a good photo that's the hard part.

 

Ansel Adams (if you haven't heard of him look him up): 'the most important part of the camera is the 6 inches behind it'

 

The photo the critics got on the page isn't even that good IMO.

 

And if photography isn't art, how the hell is this art:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...t-arts-28116274

 

I hate it how some people think that just cause photographers don't sit in front of an canvas or a block of stone for days with a brush or chisel that we don't produce art.

 

Thanks for listening to my little rant :) I know it's just one guys opinion but I've heard it a lot and it really annoys me

Edited by LittleRushmonkey
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :)

Edited by Principled Man
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it's art. Great photography requires skill, talent, imagination, and application just like any other form of art.

 

Lighting in itself is a very subtle discipline that requires an "eye" or in some cases just seeing the light and capturing it properly requires a sense of artistry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It took movie making a hundred years to be recognised officially as an artform.

 

Those who "define" what art is no absolutely nothing about art, as far as I am concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Edited by savagegrace26
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It took movie making a hundred years to be recognised officially as an artform.

 

One hundred years? Not really.

 

Hyperbole, buddy, hyberbole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just look at the work of Ansel Adams, Diane Arbus, Cindy Sherman, Bresson, etc

 

Great photographers all have their own disctinctive styles, moods visions, expression, messages, emotion, etc. And a great photograph can require a lot of work to set-up and creat that image, it's not simply a matter of taking a snapshot like people do wth their phones.

 

Exceptional photography requires exceptional skill and excecution, just like with any other form of art and requires a sense of seeing and capturing that art too. Not just anyone can make a great photograph happen.

Edited by savagegrace26
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.theguardi...MP=share_btn_fb

Apparently photography isn't art.

 

I believe the article is saying that that particular photo is not art in the sense that the did not photographer orchestrate a unique work of art, but instead simply took a snapshot of something that was gorgeous to begin with, and anyone could have taken the same photo (many people have!). Personally, that photo was most definitely NOT worth $6.5M, especially when you could travel to that well-known canyon for a couple thousand dollars and take the photo yourself.

 

 

And is it the technology? No, it's not you can give a bad photographer a £3000 camera and they will still take bad photos. But give a good photographer a £30 camera I bet you they well still take better photos. A YouTube channel called digital rev have a good playlist called pro photographer cheap camera where they give a professional photographer a really rubbish camera and the photographer still comes out with amazing results. Technology may have opened doors to photographers to things that we couldn't do before but it's still using them things to create a good photo that's the hard part.

 

Yes, exactly!

Edited by x1yyz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It took movie making a hundred years to be recognised officially as an artform.

 

One hundred years? Not really.

 

Hyperbole, buddy, hyberbole.

 

I think you were using artistic license..... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 choice of lens, focal length, f-stop, exposure, timing, choosing film stock (for film) not to mention post-production aspects like development time for film (and push-processing and variants) post color-effects, things like adjusting the gamma-levels and all of the crazy things you can do with photoshop which sometimes results in hours of work just to produce one quality image. Photography is in no way a simple process and requires great passion, patience, and dedication to execute well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It took movie making a hundred years to be recognised officially as an artform.

 

One hundred years? Not really.

 

Hyperbole, buddy, hyberbole.

 

I think you were using artistic license..... ;)

 

But when will video games be considered a real artform?

 

I think it started with Frogger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 craft 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.

Edited by savagegrace26
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Art is mainly the manipulation of things to create something that can convey meaning, imagery, a message, etc

 

With music you're manipulating and altering sound. Something that already exists and reshaping it into someting ordered and organized in a specific way to have a desired result and/or effect which can convey meaning, mood, tone, a message, etc

 

Same with photography, only replace "sound" with "light".

 

Photography is the art of light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...