Money is evil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrigan
Photography for money is evil.
As soon as money is involved, the work is not "pure".
What a load of hogwash.
Michael
Printable View
Money is evil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrigan
Photography for money is evil.
As soon as money is involved, the work is not "pure".
What a load of hogwash.
Michael
photography is evil.Quote:
Originally Posted by blansky
we are all evil.
I mean, duh, we are human ... and humans are just plain evil.
like the "fruits of the DEVEEEL"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrigan
Ok so we cross off all the works by Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Titian, Botticelli, Rembrandt, Renoir, Picasso, Monet, etc. Clearly by your standard their work is not art but someone's paint by numbers is. Glad we got that all straightened out, now let's replace that tacky Sistine chapel ceiling with some Elvis's on black velvet.
Exactly.
Sorry Harrigan, but put on a thin black knit and wake up and smell the beaujolais :).
I think Harrigan should be congratulated - as far as I can recall, this is the quickest and largest amount of agreement on a subject concerning "art" that I have witnessed since I started visiting APUG :p .
FWIW, to me, for photography to be considered "Fine Art Photography", it must something different than a simple record, or illustration, or representation that is intended to fulfill another purpose (such as sell another product).
The photograph must be created with an intention that it convey an impression, message, view, emotion or feeling, and with the expectation that it accomplish its task by being viewed, in person. It might reasonably be expected to be hung on a wall, or a desk, or a shelf, with a frame (although other display options are a possibility (murals?).
I guess I am trying to say that a "Fine Art Photograph" is the reason for its own existence. It needs to either stand on its own, or in the case of photographs in a series, in conjunction with other parts of the series. The photograph needs to be and make its own statement, to be a Fine Art Photograph.
It is certainly possible that other types of photography can both accomplish other purposes and at the same time be imbued with artistic purpose and vision (e.g. travel photographs, journalism or cinematography).
I acknowledge that this description tends to exclude from consideration photographs that form part of more multi-disciplinary and multi-media forms of artistic expression. I expect there is some way of rewording the description to include those as well, but I cannot quite figure out how.
Matt
I don't think that " photography that is intended to be viewed, and might reasonably be expected to be on a wall" defines it well enough. There is all sorts of photography that will fulfill these criterior.
For the sake of discussion. Should FA include my photo of my cat, favourite fishing spot ... great uncle Jock Macdougle?
Many think it should be absolutely pure/meaningful/angst-ridden from the emancipated heart and graft of years at the technique grindstone for naught in commercial compromise. I have met people like this who after a lifetime of pure, meaningful, angst ridden technical graft, they add unsold and extremely unsatisfied to the list.
So perhaps it is somewhere in between. That is, something that someone else wishes to own so much they'll pay money for it. If you're lucky they want to buy for the reasons you made the image.
If it is this, then I suggest the point at which art is regarded as Fine Art is defined by the art market. when as D.G. put it so eloquently earlier, it can be defined legitimately in the tax system.
I understand your sentiments, but can't agree with you. Every print I make is with the express purpose of selling it; both as a means to share the image with others, and to make a living doing what I love most in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrigan
lots of egos here. very few people understand art. any real artist can take a great photo, but few photographers make "art". evreything gets called "art" today....the breakdown of authority....everyone is an artist, musician, journalist, writer, critic, etc. on the internet.
What do you consider your work to be?Quote:
Originally Posted by stevebarry
not much of anything yet....but you havent seen any of it....so whatcha gettin at?Quote:
Originally Posted by roteague