DSLRUsers.com

I thought this might be an interesting topic to explore.

I have definite ideas as to how photography may or may not be considered an artistic endeavor.

I think it depends on the intent of the photographer. But, it's certainly a lot more complicated than that, because simply viewing a photo doesn't always make photographer intent obvious.

We all have our own guidelines as to what we consider to be "artistic", but that's rather like the infamous saying about porn. "I can't define it, but I know porn when I see it."

So, what do you think? Are we, as photographers, artists or something else? Does it matter to you?

An interesting question Kerry

In my business I have always looked upon my role as a designer and photographer as being a whole. This would encompass ”art” within photography along with photoshop skills to accomplish an end result.

When not working, I loosen up and just take photographs for pleasure - but, I suppose, there is always an element of art lurking in the back of my mind

In my opinion, I think the major fundamentals of composition and lighting are neceassary in an art work whether it be a painting or a photograph. The subject is secondary as can be shown in the painting of the Mona Lisa or one of Van Gogh's self portraits.

As a photographer i take photographs. I try to take good photographs where the composition and lighting are to good effect, but even when nailed, it doesn't necessarily mean it's art.

I have a B&W photo of a lighthouse on my living room wall that i photographed. It is a nice picture, well exposed, composed and lit, but it doesn't look like art to me, just a photo of a lighthouse. It's no different had i painted it. It would just be a painting.

So i guess i don't know what art is. But if i go to an art gallery, i see paintings or photographs similar to what i have taken, but they are art. I get confused and i have no idea why those works are art and mine are not. There must be something missing in my work.

If I was to put it down to one word, I think the main ingredient in art is "Creativity" it's what separates one photo from another when they're both taken at the same time, from the same place by two different photographers.

Storyteller and visual interpreter with an artistic bent perhaps for without a slight lean AT LEAST toward the artistic how do we account for all the elements that make that visual interpretation memorable, that is, composition, colour, line, form, light and shade etc ? Hell now my head hurts
cheers
marco

KerryPierce wrote:I think it depends on the intent of the photographer.

IMHO this is what sums it up.
If I pick up a camera and snap the family holiday then I am capturing a moment in time. I have not deliberately set out to create a piece of art. However if I am wanting to add a feeling or generate an emotion out of the photo, then I have become an artist, and what I am creating is a piece of art. (Having said that I consider myself very much an apprentice artist)
I think that is what separates the majority of the people on this forum from the "happy snappers" in the general population. We are wanting to create an image the will make others stop, look and think about what we are looking at. you only have to look at the present challenge to see the vast range of "art" on display.

I believe eyeryone has an artistic talent. Some people are great at ART some are great at photography. Some are great at almost anything creatively. But then there is the dark side of art. Bullshit artists. Ive met my fairshare.

Quiet a few bullshit artists make a lot of money out of their artform. Its a pity most other forms of art, unless you are in the top grade can't make so much money.

Sorry for being outside the box Kerry!
Jethro

This is an interesting one Kerry. Near my home is a gallery selling the work of local artists, everything from paintings to pottery, to sculpture. Saturday purely out of interest I dropped in to see if they would be interested in displaying some of my work. At first there were very interested but pointed out that I would need to join their local art group. Then they asked what sort of work I did. When I said photography, they lost interest immediately and said that photography is not art. Go figure

Oneputt wrote:This is an interesting one Kerrie. Near my home is a gallery selling the work of local artists, everything from paintings to pottery, to sculpture. Saturday purely out of interest I dropped in to see if they would be interested in displaying some of my work. At first there were very interested but pointed out that I would need to join their local art group. Then they asked what sort of work I did. When I said photography, they lost interest immediately and said that photography is not art. Go figure

I have had similar reactions from art galleries.......... they will only display your work if you are very well known or famous.........

I am a photographer, recording a moment in time, so that in the future my mind can see that moment for how it was, not what I think it was - we have all experienced blurring of an event as time passed. When I take the photo, I try to record what is there not what I want to be there...My "art" is that I can often "see" that which is worth recording for the future.. As for my photographs, are they art? well to many that want to hang them on their walls, I guess they must be but to me they are a technical challenge which forces a bit of creativity on my part to best represent the scene at he time with the available resources.. Am I an artist? I do not think so, however I do think I am not too bad at my art...

Killakoala wrote:So i guess i don't know what art is. But if i go to an art gallery, i see paintings or photographs similar to what i have taken, but they are art. I get confused and i have no idea why those works are art and mine are not. There must be something missing in my work.

Perhaps what is missing is a price tag?

Mal wrote:If I pick up a camera and snap the family holiday then I am capturing a moment in time. I have not deliberately set out to create a piece of art. However if I am wanting to add a feeling or generate an emotion out of the photo, then I have become an artist, and what I am creating is a piece of art. (Having said that I consider myself very much an apprentice artist)

I agree 100%. Skill or success as an artist, does not define an artist. Van Gogh had to start somewhere.

Oneputt wrote:This is an interesting one Kerry. Near my home is a gallery selling the work of local artists, everything from paintings to pottery, to sculpture. Saturday purely out of interest I dropped in to see if they would be interested in displaying some of my work. At first there were very interested but pointed out that I would need to join their local art group. Then they asked what sort of work I did. When I said photography, they lost interest immediately and said that photography is not art. Go figure

heh, well, I'd be more inclined to agree with them, had they said that they weren't interested in displaying photos, because it didn't fit their notion of art.

There are galleries here that do a lot of different stuff, including photography. Original photography is much more expensive than the million copy variety, but both are pieces of art, according to these folks anyway.

I approach my photography the same way I do my other fine arts, and it includes all the elements I utilise with my painting or airbrushing. Anyone who claims photography is not art hasnt bothered to look past their own happy snap photo albums and needs a wake up call.


A news editor at the paper here calls the photographers, "painters of light"

Art = other people like it and will buy it.

High art = people will buy it for ridiculous amounts of money.

"Art" is not universally defined. It is open to interpretation and will divide opinion. People can have snobby, or open interpretation of what art is. To some people, monkeys throwing paint in canvas is art. Old masters served the same purpose as modern photographers, to take "snapshots" of their patrons and capture those family moments.