Can photography be art?

jabergpanorama_fish_eye
Offline535 posts
2 years ago 2 years ago
@LeeJay has written:

I like this photo. It's nearly an out of camera jpeg. Is it art because I find it aesthetically pleasing or not art because it's not distorted in some way?

Congratulations — another piece of art. If it were mine I’d crop it just enough to eliminate the shadow(?) noise at the top of the frame. (I might even crop more — but that’s down to taste.)

Nicely done.
LeeJaypanorama_fish_eye
Offline273 posts
2 years ago 2 years ago
@jaberg has written:

@LeeJay has written:

I like this photo. It's nearly an out of camera jpeg. Is it art because I find it aesthetically pleasing or not art because it's not distorted in some way?

Congratulations — another piece of art. If it were mine I’d crop it just enough to eliminate the shadow(?) noise at the top of the frame. (I might even crop more — but that’s down to taste.)

Nicely done.

It's a reflection of the shoreline.
LeeJaypanorama_fish_eye
Offline273 posts
2 years ago 2 years ago
@jaberg has written:

@LeeJay has written:

I like this photo. It's nearly an out of camera jpeg. Is it art because I find it aesthetically pleasing or not art because it's not distorted in some way?

Congratulations — another piece of art. If it were mine I’d crop it just enough to eliminate the shadow(?) noise at the top of the frame. (I might even crop more — but that’s down to taste.)

Nicely done.

What makes it a piece of art? Because you like it?
jabergpanorama_fish_eye
Offline535 posts
2 years ago 2 years ago
Symmetry. Story. Expression. Mood.

And yes, I’m a sucker for a good floatplane shot.
Mackiesback and minniev like this.
favorite2
LeeJaypanorama_fish_eye
Offline273 posts
2 years ago 2 years ago
@jaberg has written:

Symmetry. Story. Expression. Mood.

And yes, I’m a sucker for a good floatplane shot.

It's fun to try to time a shot to capture a rudder drag on landing. Gotta be quick!

jaberg and lehill like this.
favorite2
fredkpanorama_fish_eye
Offline173 posts
2 years ago 2 years ago
@BillFerris has written:

@fredk has written:

@david5833 has written:

@fredk has written:

...
Art is what you think it is, nothing more, nothing less.

Would the same rule apply if the subject was "what is a toilet"?

Language is not a free for all.

Um, no. A toilet is a very specific object. Art (without context) is not and object, but a concept. A not so clearly defined concept at that.

Language can definitely be a free for all.

Edit: Search fountain Duchamp. Art is definitely a free for all.

Interestingly urinals and toilets have been exhibited in museums as objects of found art in major shows.

But Duchamp's urinal was not a toilet it was a fountain. ;-)

Context, concept.

Because a toilet or urinal can be found in a gallery and called art, does that make every toilet art? If so, can one expand that to say that every object is art?

Art is (can be?) a concept that can include context. While one cannot exclude anything specifically from being art, including photographs, one also cannot automatically include everything either.
jaberg likes this.
favorite1
fredkpanorama_fish_eye
Offline173 posts
2 years ago 2 years ago
I think that Duchamp's Fountain is an encapsulation of this conversation.

www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/duchamp-fountain-t07573#:~:text=Interviewed%20in%201964%2C%20Duchamp%20said,that%20art%20is%20a%20mirage. has written:

The society’s board of directors, who were bound by the Society’s constitution to accept all members’ submissions, took exception to Fountain, believing that a piece of sanitary ware – and one associated with bodily waste – could not be considered a work of art and furthermore was indecent (presumably, although this was not said, if displayed to women).
Was it art because Duchamp chose it as art? Was it not art because the board of the exhibition, which Duchamp was a member of, voted it was not? Is it art because it is now considered one of Duchamp's greatest pieces of art?

We are making all the same arguments about photographs now.

stephen likes this.
favorite1
sybersitizenpanorama_fish_eye
Offline167 posts
2 years ago 2 years ago
Just a reminder that LeeJay has been offering his position on this for years. I thought it might be helpful to refer back to where he ("Lee Jay" at the time) and I left it three years ago:

www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4502943?page=5#forum-post-64131926

That exchange suggested that the problem with art as a topic - and also photography's position as a subset of it - is not just about language and definitions. The problem is also about attempting to resolve the answers through logic, which is how he wanted to do it. But as it turns out, logic is not always applicable to human thought, and logic won't necessarily work for this particular purpose.
jaberg likes this.
favorite1
doadypanorama_fish_eye
Offline143 posts
2 years ago 2 years ago
@LeeJay has written:

@doady has written:

Black and white, wide angle lenses, telephoto lenses, barrel distortion and fisheye, starburst, blur from shallow DOF, movement, or corner softness, flash, polarizing filter, infrared filter, noise, macro magnification. These are all distortions of reality for the photographer to decide upon even before they even pick up the camera. And of course there are many more decisions during post-processing and printing stages. To say that photographers merely "capture something already there" and reduce the entire medium to the press of a shutter button just shows ignorance of photography. The ongoing debate here is not about the definition of art, it's about the definition of photography.

Your eyeballs are fisheye lenses with angles of view of over 180 degrees and horrible "corner softness" outside an angle of about a degree.

The above would imply that HCB's images aren't art because they are taken with a 50 and pretty much straight printed (B&W though). Do I have to use some sort of "distortions of reality" for photography to be art?

I like this photo. It's nearly an out of camera jpeg. Is it art because I find it aesthetically pleasing or not art because it's not distorted in some way?

You're the one who defined photography as not art because of accuracy. Photography is not art because it all it does is simply capture the scene, nothing more. Those are not my definitions, they are yours. And yes, that photo taken with a telephoto lens is automatically art, by your definition. And no, fisheye projection is not an accurate depiction of a scene either. You are just going around in circles at this point.

"I'm not saying art doesn't involve technology, just not technology that captures something already there and puts it to media."

"Photography that seeks to accurately represent the scene, regardless of the aesthetic intent or quality, is not art, it's craft."

"But they're painted by a person, not captured by a device."
LeeJaypanorama_fish_eye
Offline273 posts
2 years ago 2 years ago
@doady has written:

@LeeJay has written:

@doady has written:

Black and white, wide angle lenses, telephoto lenses, barrel distortion and fisheye, starburst, blur from shallow DOF, movement, or corner softness, flash, polarizing filter, infrared filter, noise, macro magnification. These are all distortions of reality for the photographer to decide upon even before they even pick up the camera. And of course there are many more decisions during post-processing and printing stages. To say that photographers merely "capture something already there" and reduce the entire medium to the press of a shutter button just shows ignorance of photography. The ongoing debate here is not about the definition of art, it's about the definition of photography.

Your eyeballs are fisheye lenses with angles of view of over 180 degrees and horrible "corner softness" outside an angle of about a degree.

The above would imply that HCB's images aren't art because they are taken with a 50 and pretty much straight printed (B&W though). Do I have to use some sort of "distortions of reality" for photography to be art?

I like this photo. It's nearly an out of camera jpeg. Is it art because I find it aesthetically pleasing or not art because it's not distorted in some way?

You're the one who defined photography as not art because of accuracy.

I defined it as not art because it doesn't create something it uses technology to capture something already there.

Quoted message:

Photography is not art because it all it does is simply capture the scene, nothing more. Those are not my definitions, they are yours. And yes, that photo taken with a telephoto lens is automatically art, by your definition.

No, it captures the scene. I didn't build the lake, the plane or the sky.

Quoted message:

And no, fisheye projection is not an accurate depiction of a scene either.

Well, your eyes are fisheye lenses. Just stating a fact.

Quoted message:

You are just going around in circles at this point.

"I'm not saying art doesn't involve technology, just not technology that captures something already there and puts it to media."

"Photography that seeks to accurately represent the scene, regardless of the aesthetic intent or quality, is not art, it's craft."

"But they're painted by a person, not captured by a device."

Those are all consistent.
jabergpanorama_fish_eye
Offline535 posts
2 years ago 2 years ago
@LeeJay has written:

I defined it as not art because it doesn't create something

I disagree. You used the camera to capture and create a beautiful moment. Some minor alterations might improve the image, at least in traditional terms, but as is it stands as a well-crafted creation…with enough intent to meet my internal definition of art.
LeeJaypanorama_fish_eye
Offline273 posts
2 years ago 2 years ago
@jaberg has written:

@LeeJay has written:

I defined it as not art because it doesn't create something

I disagree. You used the camera to capture and create a beautiful moment.

Okay, how is that different from using an audio recorder to record a concert, assuming it comes out well and you like the music? In that case, I'd call the song writer and maybe the performer the artists.

Quoted message:

Some minor alterations might improve the image, at least in traditional terms, but as it is it stands as a well-crafted creation…with enough intent to meet my internal definition of art.

I took pictures as the plane flew past me. This one just happened to have a nice smooth reflection of the sky in it.
doadypanorama_fish_eye
Offline143 posts
2 years ago 2 years ago
@LeeJay has written:

@doady has written:

@LeeJay has written:

@doady has written:

Black and white, wide angle lenses, telephoto lenses, barrel distortion and fisheye, starburst, blur from shallow DOF, movement, or corner softness, flash, polarizing filter, infrared filter, noise, macro magnification. These are all distortions of reality for the photographer to decide upon even before they even pick up the camera. And of course there are many more decisions during post-processing and printing stages. To say that photographers merely "capture something already there" and reduce the entire medium to the press of a shutter button just shows ignorance of photography. The ongoing debate here is not about the definition of art, it's about the definition of photography.

Your eyeballs are fisheye lenses with angles of view of over 180 degrees and horrible "corner softness" outside an angle of about a degree.

The above would imply that HCB's images aren't art because they are taken with a 50 and pretty much straight printed (B&W though). Do I have to use some sort of "distortions of reality" for photography to be art?

I like this photo. It's nearly an out of camera jpeg. Is it art because I find it aesthetically pleasing or not art because it's not distorted in some way?

You're the one who defined photography as not art because of accuracy.

I defined it as not art because it doesn't create something it uses technology to capture something already there.

And therefore, by your definition, any photo with black and white, blur, distortion, polarization, flash, noise is automatically art.

@LeeJay has written:

Quoted message:

Photography is not art because it all it does is simply capture the scene, nothing more. Those are not my definitions, they are yours. And yes, that photo taken with a telephoto lens is automatically art, by your definition.

No, it captures the scene. I didn't build the lake, the plane or the sky.

You pulled the background closer to the plane and blurred the background.

@LeeJay has written:

Quoted message:

And no, fisheye projection is not an accurate depiction of a scene either.

Well, your eyes are fisheye lenses. Just stating a fact.

I never said that they weren't.

@LeeJay has written:

Quoted message:

You are just going around in circles at this point.

"I'm not saying art doesn't involve technology, just not technology that captures something already there and puts it to media."

"Photography that seeks to accurately represent the scene, regardless of the aesthetic intent or quality, is not art, it's craft."

"But they're painted by a person, not captured by a device."

Those are all consistent.

I never said that they weren't.
LeeJaypanorama_fish_eye
Offline273 posts
2 years ago 2 years ago
@doady has written:

@LeeJay has written:

I defined it as not art because it doesn't create something it uses technology to capture something already there.

And therefore, by your definition, any photo with black and white, blur, distortion, polarization, flash, noise is automatically art.

I never said that. Someone else suggested that and I asked about it.

Quoted message:

@LeeJay has written:

Quoted message:

Photography is not art because it all it does is simply capture the scene, nothing more. Those are not my definitions, they are yours. And yes, that photo taken with a telephoto lens is automatically art, by your definition.

No, it captures the scene. I didn't build the lake, the plane or the sky.

You pulled the background closer to the plane and blurred the background.

Actually, no, I stood in the only place I could (on the shore) and the background isn't blurred by the camera, it's blurred by the water.
doadypanorama_fish_eye
Offline143 posts
2 years ago 2 years ago
@LeeJay has written:

@doady has written:

@LeeJay has written:

I defined it as not art because it doesn't create something it uses technology to capture something already there.

And therefore, by your definition, any photo with black and white, blur, distortion, polarization, flash, noise is automatically art.

I never said that. Someone else suggested that and I asked about it.

You just said: "I defined it as not art because it doesn't create something it uses technology to capture something already there"

Black and white, blur, distortion, polarization, flash, noise are created by the camera and added to the scene through deliberate choices made by the photographer.

@LeeJay has written:

Quoted message:

@LeeJay has written:

Quoted message:

Photography is not art because it all it does is simply capture the scene, nothing more. Those are not my definitions, they are yours. And yes, that photo taken with a telephoto lens is automatically art, by your definition.

No, it captures the scene. I didn't build the lake, the plane or the sky.

You pulled the background closer to the plane and blurred the background.

Actually, no, I stood in the only place I could (on the shore) and the background isn't blurred by the camera, it's blurred by the water.

You used a telephoto lens thereby pulling the background closer to the plane than it is in real life.

Blur was added to the scene by you the photographer because your choice of focal length, f-stop, and shutter speed. Water is not blurred by default.
LeeJaypanorama_fish_eye
Offline273 posts
2 years ago 2 years ago
@doady has written:

@LeeJay has written:

@doady has written:

[quote="@LeeJay"]
I defined it as not art because it doesn't create something it uses technology to capture something already there.

And therefore, by your definition, any photo with black and white, blur, distortion, polarization, flash, noise is automatically art.

I never said that. Someone else suggested that and I asked about it.

You just said: "I defined it as not art because it doesn't create something it uses technology to capture something already there"

Quoted message:

Black and white, blur, distortion, polarization, flash, noise are created by the camera and added to the scene through deliberate choices made by the photographer.

I don't think those alterations make them art. Some others do.

Quoted message:

@LeeJay has written:

Quoted message:

@LeeJay has written:

Quoted message:

Photography is not art because it all it does is simply capture the scene, nothing more. Those are not my definitions, they are yours. And yes, that photo taken with a telephoto lens is automatically art, by your definition.

No, it captures the scene. I didn't build the lake, the plane or the sky.

You pulled the background closer to the plane and blurred the background.

Actually, no, I stood in the only place I could (on the shore) and the background isn't blurred by the camera, it's blurred by the water.

You used a telephoto lens thereby pulling the background closer to the plane than it is in real life.

Blur was added to the scene by you the photographer because your choice of focal length, f-stop, and shutter speed. Water is not blurred by default.

61mm and f/8 on 1.6-crop.
BillFerrishelp_outline
Hidden369 posts
2 years ago 2 years ago
@LeeJay has written:

@BillFerris has written:

@nzmacro has written:

@BillFerris has written:

@fredk has written:

@BillFerris has written:

@LeeJay has written:

@BillFerris has written:

Seems to me this question has been answered for quite some time. Photography has been exhibited in galleries as art since the 1850s.

That something has been done for a long time doesn't make it right.

Whether or not it's right is irrelevant to the fact that photography has been exhibited, reviewed, appraised, sold, and collected as art since the mid-1800s. It's undeniably art.

Unless it's not. No one person gets to make the judgement on what is and is not art for the entirety of humanity ... or even the dude next to you ...

Respectfully, history documents innumerable instances of the fact that photography is art. To use just one example, copies of William Eggleston's "Greenwood, Mississippi" (aka The Red Ceiling) are in the permanent collections and have been exhibited at the Museum of Modern Art (NYC) and the J. Paul Getty Museum (Los Angeles). Prints have been exhibited at the Whitney Museum of American Art (NYC), the Victoria & Albert Museum (UK), and many other museums & galleries around the world. Eggleston's solo exhibition at MoMA in 1976 is widely recognized as the ascendance of color photography to a position alongside black and white as an artistic medium. Sotheby's has recently estimated the value of a print at between $150,000 and $200,000.

By any rational metric - being exhibited as art, reviewed and praised by critics, historians, and large sections of the public as art, appraised, sold, and collected as art - Eggleston's photography is art. The same can be said for many photographers whose works have passed the same threshold over the last 150+ years.

To deny this is no different from denying that any accepted medium (painting, sculpture, dance, music, architecture, etc.) is art. If you'd like to discuss or debate which photographic artists or photographic works of art are the greatest in history, that sounds like a fun thread. If you'd care to discuss or debate Eggleston's standing - or color photography in general - as near the pinnacle, middle of the road, or somewhere else in the Pantheon of contemporary art, that also sounds like a fun discussion.

But to deny that photography is art in the face of the historic fact to the contrary seems rather a waste of time.

Bill, I really think people should be allowed to decide for themselves what constitutes art and what doesn't. Quoting dollars doesn't mean a heck of a lot Bill and neither does some written word that says what art is. Personally art is a feeling, I can't be forced to have that feeling just because a piece of paper or history says so.

I do what is called graphic art and a lot of it, but that doesn't stop me personally thinking it's not art at all and I don't consider myself an artist even if others do. I sell a heck of a lot of it, but to me, it's not art.

Danny.

Danny, looking at the question pragmatically, there's no question but that history documents the fact of photography being art going back more than 150 years. Is there any real doubt that photography won't be treated as art, discussed as art, exhibited, reviewed, bought, sold, and collected as art 25, 50, 100 years from now?

A person is entitled to their own opinion. But if someone wants to argue that photography isn't art, I think it's only fair to point out that society, as a whole, rejected that argument nearly two centuries ago.

Museum and gallery curators, art critics, art collectors, art historians, members of the general public who enjoy & value art - the people whose education, expertise, opinions, and dollars spent effectively determine what history identifies and preserves as art - have made their choice.

No discussion, here or in any other forum, is going to change that. It's tilting at windmills.

Again, that's still a fallacy.

Isn't it obvious that, of the visual arts, one of them is entirely different from all the others? If you have a sack of marbles, all of them various shades of green and one red one, wouldn't that tell you that the red one is in the wrong bag?

I was gonna make a joke about losing your marbles but...:)

LeeJay, while you and others are free to decide whether or not photography can be art, you don't get to make that decision for collective humanity. Human societies around the world have made up their minds about this going back multiple generations. Photography is an art medium and artistic works include photographs. That's simply a fact. Whether you or others choose to accept that reality, is pretty irrelevant to the fact that it is the reality in which we live.
orcakkl, jaberg and JimKasson like this.
favorite3
LeeJaypanorama_fish_eye
Offline273 posts
2 years ago 2 years ago
@BillFerris has written:

I was gonna make a joke about losing your marbles but...:)

LeeJay, while you and others are free to decide whether or not photography can be art, you don't get to make that decision for collective humanity. Human societies around the world have made up their minds about this going back multiple generations. Photography is an art medium and artistic works include photographs. That's simply a fact. Whether you or others choose to accept that reality, is pretty irrelevant to the fact that it is the reality in which we live.

As I've said above, repeatedly, just because it's been done for a long time doesn't make it right.