Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,556   Posts: 1,545,111   Online: 1047
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 44
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,544
    I think it's all down to intent, whether it be a polaroid, an analogue shot or even a sketchbook and pencil.

    A photograph or drawing of an object could be made for a catalogue or as a technical drawing to use in a factory. Clearly not art, but, if expertly done, could be regarded as a craft or the work of a "craftsman".

    Again, if I photograph a sunset purely to use as a meteorological illustration of clouds, it would not be art. But if I take the same shot to put on my wall or to enter in a gallery, purely with the hope of giving pleasure to a viewer, this would be more likely to be regarded as "art".
    Last edited by railwayman3; 03-08-2013 at 02:18 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    787
    So if the wife says you are a real work of art! Is that a compliment...

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    224
    Quote Originally Posted by Worker 11811 View Post
    I see a two-pronged answer.
    1) What is the photographer/creator's intent?
    2) What is the viewer/public's perception?

    A photograph of a factory on fire would be considered journalism if the photographer's intent was to document the incident but if he made the photo with a different mindset, the very same photo would be considered art. On the other hand, if the photo was printed beneath a headline in a newspaper, Acme corporation on fire!" the public would perceive it differently than if it was framed and hung in a gallery.

    Does the medium in which the photo is presented affect how viewers perceive it?
    To a degree, I think it does but I think the medium is only the intermediary which conveys intent.

    On the other hand, the very same Polaroid or Instax photograph would be perceived as having a different intent depending on whether it was presented in a pile on a coffee table, whether it was mounted in a scrapbook or whether it was framed and hung on the wall.

    So, yes, I think a Polaroid CAN BE considered art if the photographer presents it in a way that conveys artistic intent to the viewer.
    Yes, I do agree that intention as well as presentation is important to determine whether a photo can be considered fine art but then that brings us to the question, instant film to me for now (but that is slowly changing with what has been presented earlier) is something that is spontaneous rather than planned in regards to taking the shots as well as its presentation.

    Perhaps just as photography was accepted as one of the many medium that can be considered fine art, maybe instant film too will soon be accept as well, albeit in a limited fashion considered its one off ness

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    224
    Quote Originally Posted by horacekenneth View Post
    There was discussion recently in another thread (http://www.apug.org/forums/forum238/...lur-grain.html) where I think the conclusion (or one of the conclusions) was that good art is art that communicates the artist's message well. Good art doesn't need a particular medium or a particular set of rules, it just needs a good artist working skillfully in a medium.

    That's a different conversation than what is fine art, which is I think what this thread is really about. A really good work on a Polaroid and a big masterly piece of oil painting - they are both art, and they are both done well and skillfully, but how do we get any further?
    Thanks for the link, had I known this thread has existed, I wouldn't have to open this one. Though it does detract a little considering this is more of a question of, will instant film ever reach fine art level? Once the shot is taken, it can never ever be truly reproduced and will it stand the test of review by people to be considered fine art?

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,331
    Blog Entries
    5
    Images
    50
    yes it is art, all of it !

    just saw a piece in the news about a painter who painted tons of paintings
    were they 'art" ? he didn't think so, he told his family to destroy all his work
    after he died ... but they didn't, maybe they forgot, who knows ...
    sold the house
    and the buyers found all the paintings ...
    now they are in galleries and expositions in NYC and LA and BOSTON
    and some have sold for $500,000.00


    in the end it really doesn't matter if it is considered to be "art" by the creator, or anyone else, does it ?

    btw more songs about buildings and food, the talking heads album is made david hockney ...
    its pretty amazing, and the music isn't too bad either
    silver magnets, trickle tanks sold
    artwork often times sold for charity
    PM me for details

  6. #16
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,337
    Images
    225

    Question about shots taken using instant film; Are they art?

    Look at my gallery I just posted 3 instants, at least 2 of the 3 I think can be art, the tree... Not sure lol


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  7. #17
    Worker 11811's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,620

    Question about shots taken using instant film; Are they art?

    Quote Originally Posted by dreamingartemis View Post
    ... instant film to me for now (but that is slowly changing with what has been presented earlier) is something that is spontaneous rather than planned in regards to taking the shots as well as its presentation.
    Can't spontaneity be artistic?

    I like to perform sleight of hand magic with coins and things. If I met you on the street and saw you with a handful of coins, whereupon I made several of them disappear in my bare hands, with my sleeves rolled up to the elbows, then made them materialize again in your coat pocket, would that be artistic?

    What's the difference between impromptu magic and an impromptu photo?

    Some of my best photographs have been "grab shots."
    Randy S.

    In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni.

    -----

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/randystankey/

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,544
    Quote Originally Posted by Worker 11811 View Post
    Can't spontaneity be artistic?

    I like to perform sleight of hand magic with coins and things. If I met you on the street and saw you with a handful of coins, whereupon I made several of them disappear in my bare hands, with my sleeves rolled up to the elbows, then made them materialize again in your coat pocket, would that be artistic?

    What's the difference between impromptu magic and an impromptu photo?

    Some of my best photographs have been "grab shots."
    Yes. Your magic can be an art, in the sense of a theatrical performance, which entertains and pleases the "audience" or viewer, even if this is just the one person. It's a craft, as well, in the sense that you have perfected the techniques of the magical illusion. Any good actor, dancer or musician is an artist and a craftsperson.

    Same with the improptu photo.... you've identified a subject or event which might produce an artistically pleasing picture, and know enough of the craft of photography to quickly capture a record to a satisfactory technical standard.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    MD
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    291
    Quote Originally Posted by dreamingartemis View Post
    Thanks for the link, had I known this thread has existed, I wouldn't have to open this one. Though it does detract a little considering this is more of a question of, will instant film ever reach fine art level? Once the shot is taken, it can never ever be truly reproduced and will it stand the test of review by people to be considered fine art?

    I don't think the two threads repeat each other at all. Most of the responses here seem concerned with the question can instant film be art and the answer is of course. I think where this gets interesting is trying to figure out where artistic instant film fits with fine art.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    787
    Boy is this subject getting deep! Everyday I see stuff that people try to pass off as art. Some good, some not so good, and a lot of it really really bad. Honestly if it's "art" you want to call it, then so be it. Soon enough someone will let you know how good or bad it is.
    And if it comes out looking like "art" more power to you. I can see where some instant film shots could be called art, but very little of it in my opinion.
    Last edited by 2bits; 03-09-2013 at 07:52 PM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin