Art in Photography.....Discussion

[Tareq]

Hey all,

I would like to ask about: What is art in photography?
How can you define Photography Fine Art?
When you can say about a photo that it is art?
What is the standard or qualification for the photo to be an art?
Who can tell about any photo that it is an art?

We know that not all artists are photographers, but are all photographers are artists?

[LQQKER]

Well . . . my own opinion is probably questionable, however, photographic art is when you take something that has little to offer as far as photographic value and turned into art where some free spirt makes it their own. It can be any subject, but something that has merit in the eye of the artist / photographer that has the ability to see the hidden potential. I've been doing and observing for sometime now and I've seen simple photographs turned into spectacular results at times. Often, more than not it may have been by accident but maybe not, but it's "always the bottom line results". That said, I'm not sure that there is a simple answer, just end results. If you've been a lurker on this site, I'm sure you've seen exquisite examples of mundane photographs turned into a work of art, simply by how one might see it through their eyes. One of the best ways to determine this is by posting a reasonable photograph (good resolution and composition and let some of the members play with it). Myself, I've seen wonders that I've never considered from some of the members. Your last question, all photographers are not artist, only artist are (which could also be photographers). For example, being a musician/songwriter, I've found players that are incredible, but have no concept on how to create something from scratch. You either can or can't, but you'll never know if you don't try. Only then can you come up with these answers.

[Tareq]

Originally Posted by LQQKER

Well . . . my own opinion is probably questionable, however, photographic art is when you take something that has little to offer as far as photographic value and turned into art where some free spirt makes it their own. It can be any subject, but something that has merit in the eye of the artist / photographer that has the ability to see the hidden potential. I've been doing and observing for sometime now and I've seen simple photographs turned into spectacular results at times. Often, more than not it may have been by accident but maybe not, but it's "always the bottom line results". That said, I'm not sure that there is a simple answer, just end results. If you've been a lurker on this site, I'm sure you've seen exquisite examples of mundane photographs turned into a work of art, simply by how one might see it through their eyes. One of the best ways to determine this is by posting a reasonable photograph (good resolution and composition and let some of the members play with it). Myself, I've seen wonders that I've never considered from some of the members. Your last question, all photographers are not artist, only artist are (which could also be photographers). For example, being a musician/songwriter, I've found players that are incredible, but have no concept on how to create something from scratch. You either can or can't, but you'll never know if you don't try. Only then can you come up with these answers.

Thank you very much for your answer.
Just to add something to your points, for example i could see a work that i don't like it in photography but others or many consider it as an art and same if i like a work very much and do some people and we consider it as an art but to some others it isn't an art, so how and who can decide which is an art and which isn't an art?

I am waiting more contributions from others, so don't be shy and go ahead.

[David Stevenson]

A photograph from a modern day camera is the equuivalent of a work by an old master. They did not have cameras in those days. Mona Lisa would have much preferred a photograph of herself. In short, if you think that a photograph is great and one of the most beautiful things you have seen (such as a portrait of yourself) and would be happy to hang it on your wall, then it is ART.

[Swampy]

Along the same line as Dave. I had a college art professor who proffered these words of wisdom. "If it's something that is the last thing you see at night and the first thing you see in the morning and you can live with it for the rest of your life, it is, for you, good art."

[Tareq]

Originally Posted by David Stevenson

A photograph from a modern day camera is the equuivalent of a work by an old master. They did not have cameras in those days. Mona Lisa would have much preferred a photograph of herself. In short, if you think that a photograph is great and one of the most beautiful things you have seen (such as a portrait of yourself) and would be happy to hang it on your wall, then it is ART.

Originally Posted by Swampy

Along the same line as Dave. I had a college art professor who proffered these words of wisdom. "If it's something that is the last thing you see at night and the first thing you see in the morning and you can live with it for the rest of your life, it is, for you, good art."

So it is more a philosophy view of points, hmmmmmm.
When you can tell about any of your work it is an art? could be an art for you, but to others it might not, so where we should go in this topic?

[Swampy]

Sure it's are for you. Artists paint for themselves. Hacks paint for the masses. LOL

[LQQKER]

Yeah, I gotta agree with the swamp lady (one of my favorite people), you could create something that you may feel is spectacular . . . and that's great. Giving you a big "however" though, if something is done in a compelling fashion and you do it for marketing purposes, the masses alone are the judges & jury and if they agree, it's surely considered special. That's what separates the hobbiest from someone noteworthy and deserving praise. That said, I'm sure there are very many talented individuals that will go through their lives and never be recognized for the talent they possess. A luck factor is also in the equation of ever be discovered for your skills. There's a lot of people that have taken residence on this blue ball we live on.

So . . . I guess the old saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" has some merit.

[Tareq]

Originally Posted by Swampy

Sure it's are for you. Artists paint for themselves. Hacks paint for the masses. LOL

Originally Posted by LQQKER

Yeah, I gotta agree with the swamp lady (one of my favorite people), you could create something that you may feel is spectacular . . . and that's great. Giving you a big "however" though, if something is done in a compelling fashion and you do it for marketing purposes, the masses alone are the judges & jury and if they agree, it's surely considered special. That's what separates the hobbiest from someone noteworthy and deserving praise. That said, I'm sure there are very many talented individuals that will go through their lives and never be recognized for the talent they possess. A luck factor is also in the equation of ever be discovered for your skills. There's a lot of people that have taken residence on this blue ball we live on.

So . . . I guess the old saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" has some merit.

OK, thank you very much!

[lolli]

In my opinion if something is art is if it stirs me in some way and makes me think. I think as a photographer Richard Ramsey is amazing and I love every thing he does. I consider him a great artist and would love to learn what is in his head.... Pat

[Swampy]

Thank you LQQKER! :-) Haven't seen you around lately, but it's always nice to see your smiling avatar!

[Kraellin]

I would like to ask about: What is art in photography?
How can you define Photography Fine Art?
When you can say about a photo that it is art?
What is the standard or qualification for the photo to be an art?
Who can tell about any photo that it is an art?

it will inevitably occur in any forum devoted to art, the arts, photography, painting, etc., that someone will ask, and rightfully so, what is art? and oddly, you'll find that no one, even artists, will have a ready definition. this is quite odd. a carpenter can tell you what carpentry is. a plumber can tell you all about and define plumbing. so, it's just a bit odd that artists havent really defined art for themselves and others. i mean, what is art?

well, i finally found someone that can and has, defined it. L. Ron Hubbard defines it quite precisely in his book called, yup... "Art" (i think you can get this at amazon.com). artists, upon reading this, will find themselves going, "of course!" and art critics will find themselves going "oh crap! i'm ruined!". it explains why you'll hear someone say of a thief, 'that guy's a real artist', and why we call a a con artist an artist. it encompasses what art is, what it's for, why we like it and why it isnt limited to any one field of endeavor. it also gives some very good basics in music, painting and other fields. it even covers things like stage presence and stage manners. and it goes into such things as color harmony and color depth. it also covers such things as rhythm in music and prose. and one of the most amazing to me was, the eight(!) types of depth. EIGHT! and, he even goes into how to view art and how some artists get around the pitfalls of working on a single piece over a long period of time. i find this last one VERY useful when doing restorations.

this is good stuff and has become one of my bibles. i HIGHLY recommend it!