after a interesting discussion was cut short by an overly defensive, and ignorant user on deviant art about the subject, I am still left with the question unanswered and would like some input from other, hopefully more open minded people.
So the question again is photography art, and should a photographer be regarded similarly to a fine artist?
Without a doubt. It does however, have a different kind of impact on the viewer. When I first look at a photograph, I am more tempted to take it at face value- to see it's beauty (or whatever emotion it is trying to invoke) than to see it's deep meaning or what it could have meant to the artist. This feels a little more shallow whereas when I look at a painting I immediately try to locate the symbols and the meaning of the piece. I say this as somebody who is largely separated from photography, but I know a good photograph when I see it- it is easy to differentiate a photograph full of time and involvement from a photo that is part of a string of quick, thoughtless snapshots. The problem here is there are far too many "artists" looking for an easy gig in photography who, in their ignorance produce the equivalent of a bad drawing because they are unwilling to put forward the effort that good photography really takes. The young and naive art critics of the world see these bad images and are imprinted with a bad first impression. Over time, they will come to their senses and be able to comprehend the complexities of the art world. I've been there. Isn't a large fraction of art supposed to be about having an open mind? It's like a flowering bud- always opening up, and when it reaches it's limit, it produces fruit. All the while it is a thing of nature's perfection...and humor.
should a photographer be regarded similarly to a fine artist: -- i appreciate the artist a lot more. it takes time to make a great photograph, but it takes so much more time to make a fine drawing. you can draw anything you can imagine, but you can't photograph anything you imagine. photography is limited even with editing tools. i do appreciate photography in a different way, but i am always amazed so much more by the traditional artist.
If you're a good photographer than it is an art. Capturing the meaning of a significant moment, being in the right place at the right time is often times an intention not a mere accident, to see the right figure or form, and to capture it well. Takes a lot of time and patience. Think of nature photographers. Etc. Who wait months to see a bird doing its mating dance. Boring as hell but take something you are interested in. Taking war photos, you might have to travel with the soldiers for quite a while before you get a significant shot and then it might not even turn out well. To capture a certain expression etc.
Visually art is more entertaining unless you happen to capture that golden eyed girl on the cover of Time Magazine but that's a once in a lifetime shot. But that last bit is my own personal opinion. Yet still both depend on the same thing, an interesting meaning, story, or activity that catches the eye, beautiful forms and contrasts, composition, etc.
Many artists might feel cheated thinking that photography is easier but true photography probably isn't. If you're just out to capture basic composition than yes. I could go outside and take pictures of grass and make it look good in photoshop. But then again I could also draw furry people having sex and get a thousand hits in a night so what's the big difference? I don't think the photography hacks are doing any better than the art ones. XD And the same cheats work for photography as for art. There are dudes who do nothing but take pictures of vagina's of course they are going to get millions of hits and attention it plays off human sex drive. Same shortcut works in art except that it might take you a bit more time, but a lot less embarrassment without the hassle of having to hire models, pay them, and try to tell them 'this is art'. Counterbalance the pro's and cons and photography really isn't so simple as it seems. That's my point.
And the same boring shit exists for art as photography. Some art might as WELL be photography in my own personal opinion. If you are painting stores or buildings or boring landscapes without adding your own touch or hyperbole or some beautiful colors etc.. making something more beautiful in some way, then I hope you're only studying but this isn't art. I'm sorry Hitler, and all you other bridge painters. lol If that stuff gets you off so much than go take a picture instead.
Is photography art?
Devious Comments
The problem here is there are far too many "artists" looking for an easy gig in photography who, in their ignorance produce the equivalent of a bad drawing because they are unwilling to put forward the effort that good photography really takes.
The young and naive art critics of the world see these bad images and are imprinted with a bad first impression. Over time, they will come to their senses and be able to comprehend the complexities of the art world.
I've been there.
Isn't a large fraction of art supposed to be about having an open mind? It's like a flowering bud- always opening up, and when it reaches it's limit, it produces fruit. All the while it is a thing of nature's perfection...and humor.
--
i appreciate the artist a lot more. it takes time to make a great photograph, but it takes so much more time to make a fine drawing. you can draw anything you can imagine, but you can't photograph anything you imagine. photography is limited even with editing tools. i do appreciate photography in a different way, but i am always amazed so much more by the traditional artist.
--
wind up your consequence
--
"It's a fool who plays it cool and makes his world that much colder" -paul mccartney
Visually art is more entertaining unless you happen to capture that golden eyed girl on the cover of Time Magazine but that's a once in a lifetime shot. But that last bit is my own personal opinion. Yet still both depend on the same thing, an interesting meaning, story, or activity that catches the eye, beautiful forms and contrasts, composition, etc.
Many artists might feel cheated thinking that photography is easier but true photography probably isn't. If you're just out to capture basic composition than yes. I could go outside and take pictures of grass and make it look good in photoshop. But then again I could also draw furry people having sex and get a thousand hits in a night so what's the big difference? I don't think the photography hacks are doing any better than the art ones. XD And the same cheats work for photography as for art. There are dudes who do nothing but take pictures of vagina's of course they are going to get millions of hits and attention it plays off human sex drive. Same shortcut works in art except that it might take you a bit more time, but a lot less embarrassment without the hassle of having to hire models, pay them, and try to tell them 'this is art'. Counterbalance the pro's and cons and photography really isn't so simple as it seems. That's my point.
And the same boring shit exists for art as photography. Some art might as WELL be photography in my own personal opinion. If you are painting stores or buildings or boring landscapes without adding your own touch or hyperbole or some beautiful colors etc.. making something more beautiful in some way, then I hope you're only studying but this isn't art. I'm sorry Hitler, and all you other bridge painters. lol If that stuff gets you off so much than go take a picture instead.
Previous PageNext Page