I have to disagree with this. I think the possibilities are infinite. I don't think a photograph has to have anything to do with what exists here and now. I did this, a few years ago. It's film, silver gelatin paper, and paint. I think, technically, that makes it a photograph (although there was some argument when I posed the question, here):
Originally Posted by I.G.I.
You may only be able to "photograph" what is here and now however as illustrated by the link above the creative choices are virtually unlimited if you've the mind and time. And the most important aren't afraid to fail with your vision. So keep on clicking away.
Success represents the 1% of your work which results from the 99% that is called failure.
Not an artist (to my knowledge) but most certainly a successful individual.
Originally Posted by blansky
Shoot more film.
There are eight ways to put a slide into a projector tray. Seven of them are wrong.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
anything you want to call Art is art, its just a word.
i've seen food that i would call art its just an opinion ...
and im with eddie..
photography has NOTHING to do with reality
maris .. every other post here on apug you argue that digital image making has nothing to do with photography
Originally Posted by Maris
and then you go into a rant that photographic prints are not photographs but something else, because the negative is in essence the ONLY photograph a "photographer" makes ...
now you suggest HCB wasn't a photogtapher, but an exposure maker??!
is that because he didn't process hos own film? pr some other reason?
i find this point of view to be laughable seeing probably99% of every commercial photographer
or portrait photographer has someone else process and print their exposures ..
do you mean that karsh and others who didn't do everything themselves are jusr exposure makers??
Some of the same old bitter and tired answers from the same old crowd eh? What a load of self serving BS some of you are spooning up from out of the compost heap.
A couple *Facts* I encounter more and more each day as I make the transition from being a commercial photographer to a fine art one:
1. If no one is asking you how you arrived at your final image, then they are not interested in the image at all and are not likely to even buy it, full stop. In every single case that I or a local gallery has sold one of my images, the buyers ask before signing the check, either because they want to hear about the journey I took as an artist so that they can further bond with the piece and share that with who will view it in their home or want to know the level of craftsmanship it took to arrive at the image.
2. I suspect the people on this site who keep parroting that no one cares about how a photograph originated live in a crap art market. Sorry Chris, but Ft. Wayne is likely at best 1/1000th the art market that I live in, I suspect this is over influencing your opinion in that regard.
You can keep beating this tired garbage into the ground, but when it comes to how people view the origination of a piece of art **IN MARKETS THAT ARE WORTH BOTHERING IN** you had better believe that in most cases they care.
Last edited by PKM-25; 12-02-2013 at 01:02 PM. Click to view previous post history.
If a piece of work is created with the only intention of being sold, is it art at all, or just a product successfully positioned and marketed?
Originally Posted by PKM-25
I'm not really the guy to ask because the number one reason I make an image and a print in my darkroom is for me, it's simply my being. I also happen to understand the potential in selling photographs across a large spectrum of uses and clearly see my future best in engaging with people who will buy my prints.
Originally Posted by jernejk
Just because an artist succeeds in realizing and monetizing a market for his or her art does not mean they are no longer making art, are not as free to explore their art or are not enjoying as much as the hobby type....
There seems to be an overwhelming gloom of negativity on this site that perpeutates the notion that people who earn a living from photography do not do it for themselves and do not enjoy it as much as the weekend hobby snapper and that no one cares how an image was made.
It's probably the number one reason I log out and never want to return....people living a lie.
Last edited by PKM-25; 12-02-2013 at 01:14 PM. Click to view previous post history.
yes and no .. no and yes
Originally Posted by jernejk
images are a commodity whether they are sold as a piece of "decorative art" or "commercial art"
some "artists" make decorative art the same way others make commercial art
the lines are blurred .... then there are people who suggest making art is part of their soul and part of who they are
the same can be said about people who make commercial art ( product shots, portraits editorial and annual report work, photojournalism &c ) ...
in other words, its just a game. while some might be called sell outs, because they don't make their own artistic decisions
(an art director, customer, managing editor, client telling them how to work or what to do) ... at the end of the day, its the same thing,
because the buying public, gallerists and collectors become the invisible art directors, clients, customers, managing editors
and often times direct the photographer when making decisions about what to make ...
and if it is a decision about being able to get paid or eating mac and cheese for another night
i am sure after 300 meals of mac and cheese the idea of eating something else sounds pretty good
so "they" make another image that will satisfy the people in charge of their paycheck.