Gombrich would disagree. The story is very far from its end.
Originally Posted by chriscrawfordphoto
David started a thread some time ago here on APUG introducing this as his blog. I guess he didn't think that he would need to identify it as such again.
Originally Posted by ROL
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
It is my blog, and my darkroom. I had not realized that my name was not in the "about the blogger" page. (I will correct that forthwith.) The blog is, of course linked to my website, and the blog is in my signature line here on APUG, where I do indeed use my real name.
Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick
once in a blue moon it is art ... most of the time it is just a photograph
Conceptual, abstract, interpretive or a mix of these as photographs may (not very often!) be considered as art in terms of the processes and practice involved. But a straight photograph is not art by any stretch, and never has been. Since when was a photograph determined to be art? How, and why?
I do not consider my own photographs to be art, but more records of passing time and moment, as photographs. Nice to look at, certainly, but I bat away any reference to "pretty art" — it is an ignorant platitude. I spend my money on traditional indigenous and well-established brush artists, but not photographers — I once did, but not at all now. I can definitely tell established, learned and market-savvy practitioners from the technocentric, vocal and pushy fakes populating today's digital sphere.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Art is what you get to call stuff after you spent a quarter mil that will never come back on "education", everything else is finger painting.
Originally Posted by David Brown
I tend to agree with the statement found in the book titled "The Fine Art of Photography" by Paul Anderson
"A fine art is any medium of expression which permits one person to convey to another an abstract idea of a lofty or ennobling character, or to arouse in another a lofty emotion."
C'mon-- that's not a darkroom. Everybody knows darkrooms have to have black walls.
Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick
I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.
Whether photography is art may not ultimately be settled to universal satisfaction in this thread but it has been decided in a court of law; and a very long time ago too.
Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour
1861 in France saw photographers Mayer and Pierson bring a copyright action against the photographic duo of Betbeder and Schwabbe. The ruckus was over pirated pictures of Lord Palmerston. Mayer and Pierson claimed copyright protection under the French copyright laws of 1793 and 1810. The catch was that those laws protected only works of art so the court's decision hinged on whether photography was art or not.
Mayer and Pierson lost! Photography apparently was not art according to the judgement of 9 January 1862.
Mayer and Pierson appealed the decision on 10 April 1862. Their lawyer, a Monsieur M. Marie, gave an eloquent defence of the art of photography using many of the ideas now raised in this very thread. The court reversed its previous decision and declared on 4 July 1862 that photography was art.
The battle was not over. Later in 1862 a group of famous painters including Ingres petitioned against the decision. The arguments they used bear a striking resemblance to the anti-art-photography sentiments that also echo in this thread.
Finally on 28 November 1862 the French court threw out the painters' petition and photography has enjoyed secure status as art ever since; at least in France it has.
Photography, the word itself, invented and defined by its author Sir John.F.W.Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. Quote "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..". unquote.
No. It's a medium which can be used to create art. Equally it can be used to create documentation, illustration, etc.
e.g. a series of photographs to illustrate the assembly of a piece of flat pack furniture would not be considered art.
There is sometimes some overlap. It is quite possible that a photograph which was produced for a utilitarian purpose could be considered artistic even though that was not the intent. But a photograph does not become art automatically just because it is a photograph by the same reasoning that putting a new coat of gloss paint on my front door is not considered to be art just because it's painting.
Last edited by Steve Smith; 07-09-2014 at 02:55 AM. Click to view previous post history.
"People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.