Art verses Photography

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
yep that counts .. (the closest thing to a smily face that is upside down and spinning on his head )
 

alanrockwood

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
2,185
Format
Multi Format

Same here. My attempts at being artsy tend to not be great. On the other hand, unless an artsy photo is truly exceptional it won't have staying power, i.e. in a hundred years nobody will care. On the other hand, captured memories and histories might be treasured by the family for more than a century. I am in the process of scanning some of the photos and negatives made by my wife's grandfather. Some of them are almost a century old.
 

Craig75

Member
Joined
May 9, 2016
Messages
1,234
Location
Uk
Format
35mm

I think the arty failures are perhaps the best memories. People can look through and think where was Alan's head at when he made this.
 

John Koehrer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,277
Location
Aurora, Il
Format
Multi Format
Often the best art and photography is the result of great self-promotion, ego and contacts not ability.
 

CMoore

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 23, 2015
Messages
6,220
Location
USA CA
Format
35mm
Your question Always Begs the eternal question.....What is (the definition of) Art.?
Anything done well is AN art...but does that make IT Art.?
The traditional arts are Very Low Tech....painting, sculpting, acting, drawing, dancing, etc etc.
Ever notice that people call themselves a.....Graphic Artist.? Why is that...because of all the Tools/Technology involved.?
There is A LOT of technology/Chemistry/Equipment involved with photography. Ever seen an Ansel Adams negative that was printed without much manipulation in the darkroom.?
Many of those prints would hardly be noticed as the "Original".
Is EVERYBODY that owns a camera a Photographer.?......of course not.
And not Every Photographer is an "Artist".
I really do not have any artistic ability. My photography, at this point (if it even qualifies as "Photography") is Very blue-collar. I like Buildings, Trains, Train Yards, Concert Stages and back-stage, Construction projects and sites, Etc etc etc.
Calling somebody an "Artist" is always a subjective thing.
I lived in San Francisco for almost 20 years. The museums and aquariums and zoo were fee until.....circa 1970. After that they were free on One Wednesday a month. Thank God for that, because 90% of the stuff (IMHO) at The Museum Of Modern "Art"....is garbage and i would hate to have to pay more than A Dollar to see it.
Not sure what all that mess i wrote up there ^^^^^^^^^ means exactly, but......
.......I care more about being a decent Photographer than i do about being any kind of an "Artist".
There. I Said It
 

Arklatexian

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2014
Messages
1,777
Location
Shreveport,
Format
Multi Format
If, as you say, you make good (hopefully interesting) photos of things/places/people, you may, already, be making "art" but neither you nor anyone else will realize it until possibly after you are gone. If you are lucky, even before. The Louisiana photographer, Fonville Wynan, (deceased) once said: " I took pictures (of Louisiana scenes, people, places) as a teenager because I thought it was fun and of things, people and places that interested me and now people tell me it is art". I have some of his books and, to me, many of his photographs ARE "art". I also don't believe that A. Adams, and Weston did their early photography because they believed they were shooting "art". All of that came later. So take heart,. Take photographs of subjects that appeal to you on the deepest level and most probably the question of whether it is art will take care of itself............Regards!
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…