|
|
|
-
It is what it is, the issues are if and how you appreciate it.."Art" is just a pompous label..EC
-
Snapshots are art also. I suppose there are some scientific applications where photography is totally divorced from art, but outside of that narrow field, I think all photography involves some form of artistic decision.
-
I would define snapshots as documentation rather than art. Likewise, photographs illustrating a process or product would be illustration rather than art. I think it is entirely possible for documentation and illustration photographs to be artistic but I wouldn't automatically consider then to be art.
Steve.
-
As one of my art professors said in college, and he was a very good and sought after painter, 'Art is defined by how much someone unrelated to the artist will pay to take the piece home with them.'
-
Irresispective of any merit attributable to the linked images, the idea that photography does not have the potential to be considered as fine art in its varying formats is completely ludicrous; and from another point of view, just because someone takes up oil painting does not mean the results can necessarily be thought of as "art" purely due to the medium.
Tom
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
Well now, wait a minute...
I'm no artist, but I've bummed around art museums a lot...here's what I see:
Starting at the bottom of the photograph we have three small rectangles laid on two larger squares of different tones--somewhat like modern artists do to introduce tension...
That fence is angled across the frame, adding a little uneaseiness (he could have repositioned himself to get it flat, but chose not to).
The road to the right leads the eye to that prominent structure (signs?) in the town; a town which is laid out on one plane and which the eye absorbs in one sweep. There's almost nothing to keep the eye from sliding out of the right side of the frame.
The mountains are jagged. He couldn't alter that. But it does add tension; it does argue with the expanse of flat-toned sky above it.
And look at the wires on top. A snapshooter might have repositioned to eliminate them, and a lesser photographer might have cropped them out, but there they are, angled across the image, interfering with the sky space. And if you eye picks up both the fence and the wires at the right side of the composition, your brain might say they will meet sometime in the distance (or future).
I like it. It's ominous. It's desolate. I feel a chill.
-
My Grandmother takes snapshots: one roll of 24exp lasts a year. She makes some artistic decisions along the way: should she point the camera here or there, that flower or this one, is the scene worthy of a photograph? She decides based on what looks best; then when she takes the film to the chemist to be printed, the assistant asks her: matt or gloss? When she chooses she makes another artistic decision based on what looks best.
-
 Originally Posted by Tom Kershaw
Irresispective of any merit attributable to the linked images, the idea that photography does not have the potential to be considered as fine art in its varying formats is completely ludicrous
I don't think anyone is suggesting that it doesn't have the potential, just that it isn't automatically art (or fine art) just because it's a photograph.
Steve.
-
The x-ray photograph my dentist took of my teeth last year is definitely not art. There are photographs which are incredibly good art. Somewhere between the two is a point at which it becomes art. The problem is that I don't know where there point is and most other people don't either. Of those that do know where that point is, all of their points will be in different places.
Steve.
-
 Originally Posted by Steve Smith
The x-ray photograph my dentist took of my teeth last year is definitely not art.
Steve.
This is true. Outside of these scientific applications (another example would be speed cameras), all photography involves some sort of thought into how it is to be created. I see that thought process as the definition of art.
|
|