I wonder whether I'm alone in having the impression that sometimes we end up more concentrated on what is possible in Photoshop a.o. than in the artistical expression. Software runs away with our inspiration ! I'm not able to do much of what is shown in this forum so maybe I should keep quite, but I will have a try anyway.
I attach two photos which are almost straith out of camera. The first image is a metal store ! and the second a reflection in the window of a fashion shop in Rome. Both cases, in my view, are artistic expressions - in all modesty - of some of what others express by photoshop's artistic tools. What is your impression ? Is there something I have not grasped ??

Anders

Artistic expression, by it's very nature will vary from person to person, photo to photo, subject to subject. One person may consider something straight from the camera an example of his/her artistic expression, while another may take a brush in hand and create an artistic expression in oil, watercolour, pastel or even Crayolas ;) , and some will use software to enhance, create and manipulate photos to express themselves. In the end it's all tools really isn't it? A camera, a brush and canvas, a monitor screen. What we wind up with are just images, reflections of light, but in a sense they are also reflections of our personalities, and the more we experiment, whether with lens or plugin, we gradually refine and define our own unique artistic expressions. In regards to your statement, Software runs away with our inspiration ! , well I personally find the opposite to be more true. Our inspiration runs away with our software, a prime example would be the Ballet mini challenge that was popular here a couple of weeks ago. Even though it may have appeared to some to be mere manipulations, they were indeed expressions of our artistic sides, not just examples of skills or attempts with software, but even deeper reflections of our psyches... One single image, that was in itself a marvelous photo, was taken by numerous individuals who took it, and though it might appear they merely clicked a few buttons in some program to produce an altered image, looked into their souls, minds crystal monitors, ;) and created something from within, that looked like what they wanted to present.

Not sure where I'm going with this or is this even pertains to the question you asked, but I felt the need to artistically express myself through words. :0)

In regards to your photos, I wholehearted agree that they are very expressive, but you have to know that each differnet set of eyes that gaze upon them may see something totally different. For instance inre the first photo, metal store, I see a closet door, a set of eyes lurking in the darkness behind the slats, the mind just begins to envision and the hands will create what the mind sees, sooner or later, :nod: Your second image is very interesting, lots going on there

Most of this post has just been my opinion, and no disrespect in any way to anyone personally, in any way has been intended. If anyone finds it to be agitating in any way, please use the software, hardware of your choice to release your expression :lol:

Software runs away with our inspiration !

Anders

I agree that art is subjective. What I like, someone else may detest and vice versa. But to someone like me who can't paint/draw from scratch or carry a tune in a bucket, the medium (in this case software) ADDS to the creativity and appreciation AND inspiration rather than running away with them.

And for the record, I'm also very grateful I didn't have to come up with all of those algorithms to make the program work. Then we'd really be in trouble. :)

Janet

I agree fully with both of you. My message was not that the examples we share on this forum are not expressions of individuals, but is it art ? All that is very subjective but it seems to me that the artistic community, what ever that is, has created some kind of "reading" of photos that makes it possible for us to share our appreciation of such work and to continuesly improve not only in technical terms but also in artistic terms. When it comes to photo-based-computer-art in my view we seem to be without such critical tools and the result is, again in my modest view, that we concentrate our attention on what is technically possible using certain software tools.
This does not mean that we don't need to master such tools like a pianist masters his instument, but to make music, say art, of such mastery is another thing.
I wonder whether our moderators don't have something to say on this.
By sending the two photos above I only wished to give the simple wellknown message that more or less abstract themes and expressions can be found arround us, if we open our eyes, using more traditional photo approaches to which we do have critical comments to share.
All this is not to critize anything in this forum which is one of the only places you find a serious discussion on the subject.

Anders

anders,

you'll find that if you sit down and try to come up with a definition of 'art' or good art, you'll find yourself in a quagmire of confusions, misunderstandings, very poor explanations, and even conflicting expressions of just what art is. but there is a definition. it can be explained.

when i go through this forum and observe the various images posted here, i know when i've seen art and when i've not. if you were to do the same and compiled a host of images and studied them and collarted them into 'art' and 'not art', you might also get an idea of just what art is. it's a funny thing, but most folks know it when they see it, or hear it, or however they happen to percieve it. it's a quality that stands out.

now, i've heard that old arguement that photographers worry about sometimes....is photography art? you'll hear some folks claim it's not, but that's pretty blind and pretty negatively sweeping and i think we can disclaim the disclaimers on that one. art is art. the medium for achieving it is never the question. it doesnt matter if it's a great book, or a sculpture or a piece of music or metal work. art is art. so whether it's 'straight out of the camera' or 'done with photoshop' is the wrong question. art is art.

craig

..but is it art?
Ah, So that was the original question? well -- I was trying to avoid going in that direction, so for the purposes at hand here, suffice it to say that since the forum name is "Photo-Based Art" I'll go along with calling it art and follow rule #4 foremost, have FUN! :wavey:

All that is very subjective but it seems to me that the artistic community, what ever that is, has created some kind of "reading" of photos that makes it possible for us to share our appreciation of such work and to continuesly improve not only in technical terms but also in artistic terms.

I tend to disagree that the "critical tools" are lacking. The Photo Art Challenges (http://www.retouchpro.com/challenges/index.php/cat/509) here on this site come to mind rather quickly. Although some are open style, most require being done in specific styles and share details on how we did it. Seems to me that fulfills your statement of"..makes it possible for us to share our appreciation of such work and to continuesly improve not only in technical terms but also in artistic terms", the mini challenges provide another. And even though RetouchPRO is a great example, there are many other forums devoted to photo art, non photo art etc.

When it comes to photo-based-computer-art in my view we seem to be without such critical tools and the result is, again in my modest view, that we concentrate our attention on what is technically possible using certain software tools.

I would think that given the medium we work with, our attention to software tools is not only a requirement, but a necessity! And learning and mastering some software could be considered an artform in itself!

avoiding any "but is it art" type questions.....
I wonder whether I'm alone in having the impression that sometimes we end up more concentrated on what is possible in Photoshop a.o. than in the artistical expression.
Two answers:

1) If we are talking about images posted here at RetouchPRO, then I would way that, Yes, the tools used are often more important than the result. I often refer to RetouchPRO as a sort of Photoshop (or Paint Shop Pro or GIMP .....) College. Here there is no Client, no pay, no prize (well except for the contests). The most important part here is sharing, teaching and learning from the fellow members.

2) On the other hand, a working professional has to worry only about the final image. Spend too much time playing around with cute new tools and you won't last long.
Software runs away with our inspiration !Inspiration comes easier when seeing / using / imagining new things. Every time a new program / filter appears there's a flurry of inspired works around here.

Rô

Art is art. Beauty is in the eye... yada yada.

I long remember a college humanities professor define "good art". He said if you placed it in your bedroom so that it was the first thing you saw in the morning and the last thing you saw at night and after a lifetime still thought it was beautiful, then, FOR YOU, it is good art.

While I can appreciate the works of Dali as being the epitemy of surealism, I don't think I could live with his works day to day.

Photography is an art. Ansel Adams with just simple black and white... I rest my case. :classic:

I did not intend to suggest any definition of what ART is, or is not.
I did not either intend to question whether photography is an art or not - surely it is !

No, what I wanted was to ask whether we could not share some advice on how to improve or artistical expression using the possibilities of photography and whatever software we have available. It is my impression that we can improve our critical reading of our shared work so that we can improve our artistical as well as our technical capabilities

If you go into the long tradition of art critics that also treat photography much can be learned that helps us "seeing" a photo and analysing a photo in order to understand why a specific photo seen from each our own subjective perspectives is good, beautiful, expressive, photoart etc, and other photos not yet and can be improved.

I started this threat because I find that there is a fairly big difference between how "photo based art" work is discussed here, where it seem to e a more technical discussion, and the way "photos" are discussed in the forum on "Critiques" where there is a more artistical approach. In my view, and again I might be wrong, I believe photo-based-art-works would benefit from a more artistical and less technical critical approach.
I add for your appreciation three "photo-based-art" examples which I personally would not consider as anywhere near works of art - but that is of course only my own subjective appreciation of my own work - and I can assure you that I would love to be contradicted.
Anders

...I started this threat because I find that there is a fairly big difference between how "photo based art" work is discussed here, where it seem to e a more technical discussion, and the way "photos" are discussed in the forum on "Critiques" where there is a more artistical approach. In my view, and again I might be wrong, I believe photo-based-art-works would benefit from a more artistical and less technical critical approach....Anders


If I'm understanding your meaning -- you're suggesting that people respond more to the technical aspects of HOW to recreate the art work they did here in this forum rather than the Critique forum where people respond to how the image looks and how it makes them respond.

One reason for that difference between forums is that people started wanting to know HOW to recreate a certain look that a member posted, and that became an expected part of the postings. The Critique forum was set up for one person to submit their work and have all the others comment on that work -- usually without posting any of their own work in comparison. Also, posters in THIS forum often are posting their own work AND commenting on another's work in the same post -- they describe HOW they did their work, and WHY they like another's work. Learning to discuss someone's artistic image takes time and practice, and there are many members who do not have an art background which would help them with the "language of art". Adding more of an artistic critical approach would be a benefit, and would not have to eliminate the technical approach that many would still want to share.

Anders, perhaps you can help us improve in our artistic critiques -- we're always ready to learn new skills. :)

I hope there are others in this forum that would share their experiences and competence in the field. We could all benefit. I will of course try to participate based on my own fairly limited knowledge - I'm no professional in the field with a long experience in art critics alhough I read a lot on art and photographie - but especially I take photos when ever I have the opportunity.
I think we have to be fairly modest in our ambitions I'm sure, but any contribution would surely be beneficial in view of improving our own critical eye to our work and to the work of others.
Anders