• TechTalkhelp_outline
    221 posts
    2 years ago

    It's different because there's no audio recorder, concert, or music. You've put up an analogy which attempts to recast the active participant in creating something (an image) as the passive observer with little control over what is being created in a different scenario. It's a diversion from the event which actually occurred. Composing, capturing, and creating an image can be assessed and discussed on its own merits without resorting to an analogy with a different scenario and circumstances. The parallels between music and photography can also be brought much closer together.

    There are connections, of course, between music and photography; including a good deal of shared terminology. In music, you have compositions and composers. You also have composition in visual arts like photography, where the composers are known as photographers. Music is composed from a range of individual tones along a scale which form the tonality of the music. Visual artists, like photographers, also use a range of individual tones along a scale to produce tonality in an image. There's more along the same lines and there's always Ansel Adams' frequent remark that the negative is the score and the print the performance of that score... but you probably get the idea. The medium may be different and the tools may vary, but the intention is the same.

    I don't know whether there's anything anyone could say or any analogy which would have an effect on how rigid or flexible your definitions and divisions between art and craft or creativity and capture might be. For myself, the definitions are very broad and dividing lines very fuzzy — for you, perhaps not so much. You feel moved by an artist's expression or you do not. You feel some connection to an artist thru their expression or you do not. You determine how narrow or broad your view or definition of art is for yourself alone in the end — when everything has been said and everyone has finally said it. The most important thing, in my opinion, is to enjoy people and their self-expression as best you're able and don't worry too much about semantics, definitions, and divisions. Let others do the worrying.

  • lehillpanorama_fish_eye
    75 posts
    2 years ago

    Well, these two artists were awarded residencies at my local nature preserve by the good folk at my local art museum (press release, PDF format).

    Our spring resident, Katie Shanks, is currently working at the preserve. We had a great conversation about her current thoughts and the purpose of her work at the preserve. Katie weaves photos (and other materials) together to add an additional dimension to a simple 2-dimensional photograph. The additional dimension can be of time, location, direction, or even material (paper, fiber, or plant leaves or stems). The weaving pattern can change to emphasize one over the other in the flat 2-dimensional plane.

    In this short stop-action Facebook Reel (video) she demonstrates her weaving process with two photographs taken at the preserve:

    Now this makes me think and that's supposed to be a good thing about art. Is Katie post-processing photos? How is Katie's post-processing different than my post-processing? They both create objects in the physical world that represent our respective mental visions.

  • AlanShlens
    2 years ago

    "Art is defined by the observer".

    So, you are all right.

    [Quotation made up by me - about 2 minutes ago]

  • DonaldBpanorama_fish_eye
    2355 posts
    2 years ago

    my accountant every time he fills out a tax return must sit back and go wow what a work of art that form was 😁

  • DanHasLeftForumhelp_outline
    4254 posts
    2 years ago

    sorry, couldn't resist 😊 (just kiddin')

  • SrMipanorama_fish_eye
    457 posts
    2 years ago

    A useful sub-thread would be sharing your opinion on what you think is art (without using examples of your photographs).

    Here is an article from 1997 (Amei Wallach, NYT) that asked art-world participants for answers:

    ART; Is It Art? Is It Good? And Who Says So?

  • stephenpanorama_fish_eye
    2 posts
    2 years ago

    If you frame it, wall it, and say it's art; then it is.

  • Mackiesbackpanorama_fish_eye
    243 posts
    2 years ago

    Not necessarily. Just like photographs that are just documenting things are hard to define as art, sometimes houses gotta get painted too.

  • 1688 posts
    2 years ago

    Recommended Reading: The Interior Landscape by Guy Tal. Especially the chapter "Artistic Merit in Photography."

  • jabergpanorama_fish_eye
    535 posts
    2 years ago

    In addition, I would recommend The Creative Act: A Way of Being by (hip hop producer) Rick Rubin.

  • petrochemistpanorama_fish_eye
    208 posts
    2 years ago

    I'm sure I've seen books/magazines referring to 'fine art' photography dating back to at least 1870. Is there any point debating it 150 years later?

  • LeeJaypanorama_fish_eye
    273 posts
    2 years ago

    It's fortunate that Nicolaus Copernicus didn't accept that line of thinking after thousands of years of writings about how the Earth was the center of the universe.

  • SrMipanorama_fish_eye
    457 posts
    2 years ago

    You, sir, are no Copernicus 😉.

  • ArvoJlens
    2 years ago

    Very interesting.
    You are just telling that you are generally not able to perceive art as art, at least not in sense it is commonly used.

    Can you find/link some examples of paintings what you like? Or photographs?
    Do you consider pre-photography ages paintings (landscapes, portraits etc), where the major goal was to 'record' scene or object truthfully, in finest details - and to convey emotion at the same time, art or not?
    I quickly searched for some examples of such 'photographic looking' art - would you move them into dumpster or can you enjoy painters work?
    www.thecollector.com/8-dutch-landscape-painters-17th-century/

  • petrochemistpanorama_fish_eye
    208 posts
    2 years ago

    That's a very different discussion. Is photography art depends (among other things) on the definition of art. We can say that some people have considered photography to be art at least some of thew time for around 150 years, but others have disagreed for the same time. It's an even more pointless debate than equivalence or the other regular digital regulars.

    The point the universe revolves around does not depend on our definitions. No opinion involved, so it is possible to be wrong.

  • LeeJaypanorama_fish_eye
    273 posts
    2 years ago

    No, it's exactly the same - just because we've done something for a long time doesn't mean there's no point in debating if it's right.

  • Mackiesbackpanorama_fish_eye
    243 posts
    2 years ago

    Do any of you ever get sick of this?

  • ArvoJlens
    2 years ago