Photography is art. And same with every art, it requires an artist. So photography is not just the pictures, but also the person who takes the pictures. How the picture is taken. Why the picture is taken. What the picture is about. What the photographer wants you to see. What was the photographer thinking when he took that shot? Photography is so much more than just photo-shooting technics and skills... It's about becoming an artist. Not just a photographer. I'm stoned and I just wanted to say that.
I've been waking up at almost exact time every morning. 5:55 AM. I wake up and wait five minutes before the alarm clock goes off, and I immediately turn it off. Then I take a shower, get dressed, and drive to work. And I noticed that everytime I passed a certain part of the road, where there's a bridge, the morning sun will rise just above the horizon and make a very nice scene. I've been meaning to take a picture of that scene, but I've always put it aside, telling myself that the sun will rise again tomorrow. This morning, I finally got to stop my car, get down, and run up the bridge, and whip out my camera and take a few shots for less than two minutes... Then run back to my car and drive off, as if nothing has happened. Frenzy... everything was happening so fast, all at the same time. The sun shifted it's position from 'just above the horizon' to 'clearly above the horizon' and stepped up its intensity. I had anticipated 'high level of brightness', so my first shot was taken at the fastest shutter speed which was 1/4000, lowest ISO at 100, and highest F at 11 on my 50 mm. It turned out a bit darker than I wanted it, so I reduced the F value, from 11 to 8, but it was still too dark. So I lowered it even further to 5.6, and it was still too dark, so I lowered it to 4. Then I slowed down the shutter to 1/2000, and it was just about right, but by this time, the sun had come up too high and... now it was too bright... And I forgot what I wanted to capture in the first place.
While I agree that photography is art I just don't like it. I'm not an artist so I don't really get the meaning behind it (such as paintings,sculptures, photos,etc). I just see what is there and nothing more. Kind of sad to be honest but what can you do? lol. I wish I could draw though.
I agree that photography is Art, but I hate the masses of "hipsters" who take a picture of a leaf on the ground in sepia and think they're artistic. But I can really appreciate good photography.
I think taking good picture is just one part of photography. The other part is what you do with the picture. What are you going to do with the picture? Are you going to print it? Or are you just going to forget about it. Are you going to show it to other people? Or are you going to keep it to yourself? -- And how are you going to name it? Does it have to have a name? Oh yes, the title is very important, although it is not required. But if it has a name, it's that much more touch into your work. Personally I like naming pictures. It's one of the fun of photography.
Agreed with most of what you said. Photography is an art and a science. Mastery of photography means mastery of optics, light, form, color, composition, and countless other things. It allows you to express things across a different kind of medium. It's complicated in its own kind of way. I specifically love how you can freeze a moment in time. I also like what you're saying about how much control the photographer has over his photos. I feel like there's a great deal of freedom in photography and a lot of potential things you could do with it that are unique to the medium. Some of my favorite pieces of artwork have been photos. Ever since I bought my camera I've been realizing how photography kicks so much ass Just not sports photography in low light, it can be so frustrating and high pressure at times.
What are the important facts you need to know about a picture? For example, ISO. Shutter speed. F value. What else? The name of the place. The name of the person. The name of the picture. What else? Time and date. Speed... at which speed was the object traveling? Or was the camera traveling? Temperature. What was the temperature? Humidity. Was it humid? Or was it dry? Temperature and humidity might seem like irrelevant to photography but they are very important. Depending on the temperature, you get different result. For example in the morning, when the air is cooler, you get one result. And in the mid day, when it's very hot, you get another result. And same goes with humidity. When it's really humid, like in a foggy situation, or just after the rain, you get one result, and when it's really dry like in a desert, then your picture has another feel to it. Also the physical condition of the person taking the photography. If the photographer is fit and healthy, he/she might be able to get to a better place to get a better view, than say... a not so fit and not so healthy person... Sometimes you might have to climb a tree to get the perfect shot, you never know.
Daido Moriyama would argue with you here GGrass. He claims that photography is not art. All it is, is someone (anyone) using a box created by someone else, film created by someone else, and optics created by someone else to copy an image (no doubt everything in the scene was created by someone else). So what does a photographer actually create? It's definitely not something from nothing like other arts... While I see his points, I do disagree. We may copy an image, but not simply to do it. Most don't just take snapshots because we have nothing better to do. We want to scape the scene into something. We want to manipulate the surroundings to provide a mood, an experience, or provoke an emotion. If that can be accomplished, the photographer has created something just as valuable as a painting. Photography is a fairly complex medium that took decades to become taken seriously as an art form. We can definitely thank some of the early photographers in the 20th century for helping out the cause (Alfred Steiglitz, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Ansel Adams, etc...). We can also thank photographers from the late 60s and early 70s who proved that color photography could be as serious and art worthy as black and white (which dominated the museums, galleries, and art form during the time), thus changing the art form forever. Like all art forms, photography has movements, rules, and expectations. What most would see as a bad photograph, other see as something that defied the old norm, and ushered in a new style. I think the problem I see is that either photography is beginning to lose it's credibility as art due to digital cameras being so available and everyone owning one, or the world is actually becoming more and more disconnected with art in general. Possibly both.
im a photographer, and while it is an artistic endevour, i dont really consider it "ART" most of the time. to me photography is in the zone between science and art, if that makes sense. that art isnt in the photograph, its in the proccess of creating it. so, to me, PHOTOGRAPHING is an art form, but the finished product is not really ART.
I agree with your disagreement; if, by that logic, photography is just capturing images, then painting must be the same; its using tools like a paintbrush, and canvas and chances are now, paint made by someone else. Yet, I doubt many would agree that painting isn't art. When I did photography, I made a pinhole camera, which was really fulfilling, learnt to develop my own films and black and white photos, but it was an expensive hobby even with student discount. I always try to follow the philosophy that if there is any trace of a photo being shopped, it is pointless doing it. However, in recent years for a number of reasons, I have not taken as many photos. I ought to redo it, always did enjoy it....
I have a very mixed feeling about this thread. I can't even tell what it is. There's something very... risky about it. Dangerous thread.
^ I liked all of it except the one with the guy eating an apple. I thought it was a bit phony. And I'm not sure about the red fox thingy too. But the other pictures, some were brilliant... Like the raining street shot... with a small motorbike. And the beach. Yeah... that picture is just crazy! Did people really look like the characters from 60's movies in the 60's? Wow... amazing picture. I also liked the temple picture with the candles. The photographer is lucky to have been standing there at the right time. Sometimes if you're at the right place at the right time, you can get some amazing and truely original shots...
Yeah pretty much any photojournalist will tell that its not about what camera you have, but where you put yourself. I just wanted to show how many different styles there are in photography. I remember someone said on these forums "I think there are too many pictures in the world, we've already photographed everything, we should just recycle pictures".... NO ... so wrong, lol
Obviously I'm in the agreement that photography is art, however, when/how do we constitute what is actually art? Are all photographs art? Are all drawings, paintings, rubbings, etc... for that matter art? Is it ever appropriate to say something isn't art depending on how it was done or the reasoning as to why it was done? Some people might argue a sketch isn't really anything art worthy due to it not being a refined or even finished art piece, but when people saw sketches from Da Vinci, no one really questioned whether it was art or not, even though they he was drawing scientific diagrams rather than attempting real pieces like the Mona Lisa. Is a snap shot of a friend art? Is there some form of process that needs to happen before something can be dubbed art? Does photography really have to be well executed and aesthetically pleasing? Do paintings have to have some underlining psychology? What constitutes art and what factors are involved in disregarding others? I'm in no way trying to be difficult, I just want to open up a discussion about art, what art is, and how we define or reject it. It's always been something I've thought about, especially photography. Andreas Gursky's "The Rhein II" recently sold at auction for $4.3 million (I'll include a photo below). I've read why this photo sold for the price it did, how it's minimalist, breaks the rules of thirds by placing the horizon dead center, makes a spin on landscape photography, uses a digital means (although taken on film) to make it look "hyper realistic" and a whole slew of other things, but when all is said and done, isn't it just a picture of a river? I have plenty of those. Are mine also worth $4.3 million? Another photograph that sold recently for a generous chunk of change was William Eggleston's "Untitled (Memphis)." The photo (which I'll again include below) sold recently for right around $600,000. It was one of 36 photos of his sold that generated $5.9 million. I too, read about why this shot was so expensive. It was taken in 1970 when people were shooting black and white fine art, not really color, and Eggleston defied the times and ushered in the idea that black and white isn't the only serious medium. However, he's famous for shooting with a "snapshot style." So does this make all snapshots art and all photos are just as valuable? I'm in no way trying to berate these photographs, by the way. I love "The Rhein II." I'm not a big fan of "Untitled (Memphis)," but I respect that it (and the photographer) helped color photography be taken more seriously as fine art. To reiterate, I'm just trying to figure out what defines and values art.
Basically, the way that I understand art is that there really is no rules. Now-a-days, with modern art, half of the art-form, it would seem, is just dedicated to altering the status-quo and redirecting the movement. Today's art is produced in a much different climate than previous eras and I think that while this promotes forward thinking it can also discourage older styles from staying in the public eye. I'd try to talk about it more, but art is such a broad topic, and most of your questions have multiple answers.
That is a very good question. What is art? I don't know what is art, but I know what is NOT art. If it's got a noticable signature on it, then it's not art. Yes. I'm saying a lot of big name art works that has the author's signature clearly on the artwork, are NOT art. Unless the signature was hidden in the image. And if it's got a price tag on it, then it is not art. Again, yes, I'm saying a lot of artworks that are bought and sold, are not art. If it appears on a magazine it is not art. If it appears in a commercial, it is not art. If it appears on TV, it is not art. If it appears on newspaper, it is not art. If it's seen, it's not art. Because art is hidden. You can't see it. Art doesn't show itself. You can't see it even if you looked for it. Because sadly you're not an artist... Only artists can see art. The rest of us just see a show. A display. You can like a show, or you can dislike a show. You can like what you see, or you can dislike what you see. Up to you.