Art photos are manipulations

Vaughn said:

Tech now and in the future will eliminate any differences...if there is a need. Film is a unique recording device, but its results are no long unique. Film seems to a simpler more direct way of producing an image, but it is not. There just has been a century or so of experimenting and refining already done for film users, and that experience is being folded into digital. This is not a singular exception -- but a characteristic of photography today.

We are fortunate that the light-recording properties of most materials we use can be tweaked to have similar responses to light, so that we can control the transfer of information captured with film (negative or transparency) to other medium (silver gelatin paper, platinum prints, etc). The response curve of film can easily be replicated digitally, and is done everyday with the use of digital negatives in alternative (and silver gelatin) printing.

So the only unique characteristic of film that digital cannot share, is that generally a lot of water is involved along the way to making a print.

That said, I have no interest in making digital art, but fortunately live in an area with lots of water. Tools shape one's work as much as the user of the tool does. I choose the tools that best fits my vision and needs to express it...and have fun along the way.

Click to expand...

I have not said anything about film or digital; lets talk about what are the fundamental characteristics of photography. (today: not some interpolated future!)

cowanw said:

I will think on how to word my thoughts, but I think that photography has a capture nature of direct relationship to the reflected light,in general, more than other mediums.It can stop motion as well as synthesize light over long periods of time. Agreed -- does a great job of this. It has a consistency and is generally repeatable in its negative or digital storage iteration.Not unique. It can be simpler and more egalitarian at least more so than mediums like painting or carving. Debatable, but I see no connection with 'egalitarian' to the topic at hand. So those seem to me to be characteristics more or less emphasized in photography and the images that use those characteristics might be better created as photographs rather than another medium.

Click to expand...

Any tool in the hands of a skilled artisan is capable of producing the finest work. I cannot see one form of graphic arts being superior over another in producing images in general. That will depend on what tool(s) the graphic artist needs to complete their work. A painting might be able to express the passage of time (long or short) far better than someone's photograph. A video/film, animated or not, might do an equally fine job of it.

And I accept his definition...it makes sense -- as does other definitions. There can be more than one.

Vaughn said:

Any tool in the hands of a skilled artisan is capable of producing the finest work. I cannot see one form of graphic arts being superior over another in producing images in general. That will depend on what tool(s) the graphic artist needs to complete their work. A painting might be able to express the passage of time (long or short) far better than someone's photograph. A video/film, animated or not, might do an equally fine job of it.

Click to expand...

Alan Klein asked me for my ideas. I feel like you are focusing on breaking down my ideas. Ok lets agree they are crap. Do you have anything positive to offer?

I did. Why did you pose a question if you did not want people to discuss it? Are we suppose to agree with you?

As near as I can tell, you don't think photography has any distinguishing characteristics.
"I am thinking that film's unique characteristics as a medium are no longer all that unique. Different, yes, but thanks to the digital age, unique is getting pretty common and different is everyday."
"Different is everyday" is a remark that diminishes the meaning of difference to an everyday commonality.
It may be that sometime in the future perfect replication of everything will be possible, but predicting everything will be the same is unproductive or at least unuseful as it means that being a photographer has no differences from being any other type of graphic artist. I find it untenable to believe that there are no differences between the various graphic arts that attract an individual one way or another.
I believe there must be differences. And, if so, I am interested to hear from others their sense of what they might be.

Yawn.

I'm limited to expressing beauty mainly with photography as art. I can't draw, sing well, play an instrument much, dance, etc. I think we all need to express ourselves artistically and creatively. Photography gives many of us an opportunity to do that as best we can. However, I respect that cameras were meant to capture the reality of the world to some extent. Maybe I feel that way because I'm 75 and grew up with film and slides that weren't changed from what I photographed. So I tend to fall on the side of less photoshopping. Younger photographers who grew with digital mainly and Photoshop see photography differently. SOmething to edit and change and embellish as far as programs allow. We come from different places. So the world moves on.

Interestingly though, just like film has made somewhat of a comeback, there might be a time some when the new "fad" could be one where we go back to slides or even digital equivalents and photographers will again rely on the camera capturing the beauty and art as it were in reality. Time will tell.

cowanw said:

...
I believe there must be differences. And, if so, I am interested to hear from others their sense of what they might be.

Click to expand...

Of course everyone will have a different take on it. Why are you so against my take of it? The answer will be subjective. Alan states that photography can be used to express beauty and I agree. That is one of the many goals of art. That expression is not limited by the medium (or tools), nor enhanced by the medium. Instead the medium (or tools) are used by the artist to create beauty.

"Photography" on its own produces nothing.

cowanw said:

As near as I can tell, you don't think photography has any distinguishing characteristics.
"I am thinking that film's unique characteristics as a medium are no longer all that unique. Different, yes, but thanks to the digital age, unique is getting pretty common and different is everyday."
"Different is everyday" is a remark that diminishes the meaning of difference to an everyday commonality.
It may be that sometime in the future perfect replication of everything will be possible, but predicting everything will be the same is unproductive or at least unuseful as it means that being a photographer has no differences from being any other type of graphic artist. I find it untenable to believe that there are no differences between the various graphic arts that attract an individual one way or another.
I believe there must be differences. And, if so, I am interested to hear from others their sense of what they might be.

Click to expand...

I think what attracts one person to a given medium over another is that the tools of the medium and the qualities of the output of those tools most closely match their vision of what they want to produce and how they want to say it. And because multiple media exist, there is no reason beyond personal aesthetic choice to be bound to the constraints of a given medium and its traditional outputs if what you want to say isn't best said with the tools and outputs of that medium. Picasso wasn't limited to paint on canvas - he did ceramics, and sculpture. Miro did paint on canvas, paint on paper, and large scale tapestries. Irving Penn did both silver gelatin and platinum prints (although, IMHO, he tried pretty damn hard to make his platinums look like matt-finish silver prints, so why?). But regardless of the why of Irving Penn's platinum prints, that's a perfect example - he took one medium, and for whatever his reasons for it, pushed its limits in a non-traditional direction. And he was a better artist for it. That's what art does best- it never settles for just sticking to the traditional, because, but says "Hey, let me see what I can do with this!".

I can see that I am not expressing myself very well. I am not talking about film or about traditional usages of various media, but about the common underlying characteristics of photography in all its forms that is different. I get it that there are different choices to make if you want to accomplish different things. A personal choice implies the evaluation of characteristics after which one makes a choice.
Sorry that Faberryman is bored; but that sort of remark is only disparaging.
I will offer this and then withdraw.
https://johnlusisphoto.wordpress.com/2013/10/07/the-characteristics-of-photographs/

cowanw said:

Sorry that Faberryman is bored; but that sort of remark is only disparaging.

Click to expand...

It's like going to book club and trying to have a discussion when it is obvious that nobody has read the book.

There's other things about photography beside art. It memorializes time especially if you were in a special place. It memorializes affection. You can look at a picture of someone you love, and fall in love all over again. It's a craft like furniture building. The effort and results provides a boost to the ego and a sense that you have purpose in life. There's an awe feeling, especially of shots that capture the work of God.

Most people I think, look to these reasons for photography, not that they're creating art of some kind. In any case, it's not up to the photographer to consider their photos art. The shooter could just be feeding his ego. Describing it as art belongs to the viewer.

Vaughn said:

...photography can be used to express beauty and I agree. That is one of the many goals of art...

Click to expand...

I agree, and often that is what I try and capture, but of course it can also convey fear, ugliness, uneasiness, and a lot of ideas and emotions.

I think a simple point to consider is that there is an interplay between the displayed medium and the viewer (the person the emotion/idea/etc.) is conveyed to. When a viewer experiences a painting, even a photo-realistic one, they know it is a painting, and are aware that the elements, arrangement, etc.could be as much from the painters imagination as to some actual scene. When a viewer experiences a photograph, it is presumed (maybe less so today) that the scene is an actual one, and the emotions/ideas/etc. have a firmer grip in reality, and thus can actually have more impact than a fanciful painting. Because this is a scene from real life.

I take a lot of pictures in Southern California. Often it is brown, dry and and vegetation is sparse and certainly not lush. For that reason I often prefer B&W (as well as for other reasons). I feel I can abstract some beauty from a scene that most people may not see as beautiful. Example below- it is hot, dry, and dusty, but I see beauty here. A painting could be much more fanciful I am sure and perhaps try and evoke more emotion, but this is a stark reminder that the real southern California can be beautiful. If it were a painting, a viewer could realize he is being manipulated by the painter's imagination (which is not a bad thing). In a photograph, the viewer may feel any emotion felt is more real, and that this scene is available in real life, and it may help the viewer look for real beauty rather than seeking it in fanciful, less real scenes.

The Trail by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

Alan Edward Klein said:

There's other things about photography beside art. It memorializes time especially if you were in a special place. It memorializes affection. You can look at a picture of someone you love, and fall in love all over again. It's a craft like furniture building. The effort and results provides a boost to the ego and a sense that you have purpose in life. There's an awe feeling, especially of shots that capture the work of God.

Most people I think, look to these reasons for photography, not that they're creating art of some kind. In any case, it's not up to the photographer to consider their photos art. The shooter could just be feeding his ego. Describing it as art belongs to the viewer.

Click to expand...

I think you're still buying into a notion that photography and art are mutually exclusive. Art is in the intention of the artist. Now, the question of whether the art is successful or not, THAT is very much up to the viewer.

"Szakowski suggest however that The Decisive Moment has been misunderstood as a dramatic climax but really is a visual one. Because really Photography is not a story but a picture."

From the suggested blog/link above -- I like it.

"So those seem to me to be characteristics more or less emphasized in photography and the images that use those characteristics might be better created as photographs rather than another medium."

Cowanw --as I read your question, you seemed to be asking for a value judgment -- that is, are there characteristics that photography possesses that will allow an artist to better express him/herself than other media. To which my answer is no. It is the artist that chooses the tools to best make his/her work. Each tool has its limitations and exceptional characteristics to be put to work by the artist. Which are the characteristics of photography that you believe are not available to artists of other media?

An interesting question is how photographic images have changed how humans see and experience the world. One example being photographs of the earth from space. Another is how seeing 'photographically' has changed the way artists see and represent the world.

My original question
What is the underlying foundation aesthetic that photography is best at or that best represents photography as distinct from all other forms of graphic art?
Rather than underlying aesthetic I mean characteristics.

cowanw said:

My original question
What is the underlying foundation aesthetic that photography is best at or that best represents photography as distinct from all other forms of graphic art?
Rather than underlying aesthetic I mean characteristics.

Click to expand...

Photography provides the illusion of an extreme degree of verisimilitude by a mechanical, automatic means (as compared to a painting or drawing). That is what makes it different from other art media.

TheFlyingCamera said:

I think you're still buying into a notion that photography and art are mutually exclusive. Art is in the intention of the artist. Now, the question of whether the art is successful or not, THAT is very much up to the viewer.

Click to expand...

I agree with that. Otherwise all you get is a lot of false modesty...great if you are in the Japanese culture.

"What is the underlying foundation aesthetic (characteristics) that photography is best at or that best represents photography as distinct from all other forms of graphic art?" Cowanw
It is not repeatability. The Graphic Arts is filled with printing processes.
It is not stopping time or showing long periods of time. Painting and drawing can also express that...especially since seeing photographically is common now.
It can see a few things we cannot see. I am separating optics from photography here. For example, we do not need photography to see microscopically, and since any artist can use a microscope, they can use images they saw thru the microscope to create art in any medium.
It does a lot of things real easily. Aim, push a button, and prints can be on their way to your house that day.
One needs no technical skill. Or tons of it, depending on one's desires.
A huge number of people have excellent cameras with them 24/7.

Cowanw...What do you believe to be the underlying foundation aesthetic (characteristics) that photography is best at or that best represents photography as distinct from all other forms of graphic art? And why?

1. markjwyatt refers to the concept that photography is an act of taking rather than of synthesis. As a result "When a viewer experiences a photograph, it is presumed (maybe less so today) that the scene is an actual one, and the emotions/ideas/etc. have a firmer grip in reality, and thus can actually have more impact than a fanciful painting. Because this is a scene from real life."
This relates to the commonly held view of the specificity of chemical photography; that the light that has passed through the lens has marked the light sensitive medium in a one and only way. While the route to a digital print requires a human built algorithm, it is only a slight stretch to include this as being quite direct in the relationship of light reflected by the subject and the result of the light sensitive medium. Just today though I was reading of "Night Mode" and "Portrait" computational bokeh and other in camera computation changes that draw digital photography away from the one to one concept.
2. Alan Edward Klein remarks in the memorial nature of photography, which I think speaks to two things. firstly that a photograph, once taken, is instantly of the past and considered to be a accurate token of that past. As such it can be a believable standin for a valued but temporary experience of event perhaps involving an important person.
3. Vaughn suggests the ease of use is important. and asks
"Cowanw...What do you believe to be the underlying foundation aesthetic (characteristics) that photography is best at or that best represents photography as distinct from all other forms of graphic art? And why?"
Post 238 answers the first part of this.

I think that photography has a capture nature of direct relationship to the reflected light,in general, more than other mediums.

This is the main point featured in markjwyatt's and Alan Edward Klein's posts. It has been generally believed that the directness of the light reflecting off the subject acts on the light sensitive medium in only one way. This ignores the fact that a scene is composed that the scene can be changed that filters may be used or the reflected light may be altered in any way before it passes through the lens. Even after the lens, for the pendant that points out a fly in the bellows can have an effect. but the light hits the medium and causes changes that are predetermined to have an effect. Yes it can be manipulated chemically or digitally but in its most straight forward form it is consistent and predictable

I think It can stop motion as well as synthesize light over long periods of time.

Vaughn says "It is not stopping time or showing long periods of time. Painting and drawing can also express that...especially since seeing photographically is common now." I would suggest that the effect of a time exposure on the image is direct and consistent as opposed to "expressed"

It has a consistency and is generally repeatable in its negative or digital storage iteration.

Vaughn points out The Graphic Arts is filled with printing processes." Well that's true but the printing processes that do not involve photographing or scanning something and digitally printing are still magnitudes harder and more unavailable than the millions screens displaying photographs, the millions of inject printers printing photographs, and the thousand of darkrooms printing photographs. Ease of reproduce-ability is the point here, for me.

It can be simpler and more egalitarian at least more so than mediums like painting or carving.

Vaughn seems to agree with ease of function, at least in part.
But yes Faberryman's wit carries the day. Mostly nobody has read the book, eh!

I think our biggest difference in approaching this subject is you seem to be talking only about the physical attributes of photography which are unique. From how you first posed the question, I thought you were asking if there are any unique characteristics of photography that allows the artist to better express something than using some other form of art (specifically in the Graphic Arts). Two very different questions.

Vaughn said:

I think our biggest difference in approaching this subject is you seem to be talking only about the physical attributes of photography which are unique. From how you first posed the question, I thought you were asking if there are any unique characteristics of photography that allows the artist to better express something than using some other form of art (specifically in the Graphic Arts). Two very different questions.

Click to expand...

Soon there will be filters that will rearrange the composition on digital photographs before the shutter is tripped.

Taking a really great photo is really not less time consuming or easier in any way than doing a good painting of the same subject.
The physical processes are just different.

Putting paint on canvas is the least of your worries when painting.

Most of this thread is just art history and philosophy 101.
Go read some books people, and come back with some knowledge and vocabulary that others have taken centuries to build.
You are already using the results indirectly, but in a weak, pop culture, hearsay way.

I am reminded of a cartoon by Gary Larson -- "Tethercat"...two dogs playing tetherball using a cat instead. Mr. Larson wrote that it got some of highest numbers of complaints of any he had published, which he thought was strange considering the violence of Tom & Jerry and Roadrunner cartoons have always been acceptable. He thought that it was because of the absence of time. Whereas once Tom or Jerry got blown up, squashed flat, burnt to a crisp, or whatever, they recovered and the chase began anew. With "Terthercat", the cat is and forever at the mercy of the dogs. There is no end, no resolution...and it bugged the hell out of people.

Probably one of the most disturbing American image(s) so far this century are those of people falling/jumping from the inferno of the Twin Towers. They will be forever falling. While Gary's cartoon plays with the concept, photography has given it a depth that would be hard to express deeper in other media.