Art verses Photography

[BADGER.BRAD]

O.k I seem to take some good photos of things/places/people I like (generally) and really enjoy doing it and looking at the results but as soon as I try and get artie with my photos they end up trash. Do you think much like other art you have to have an artistic bent even before you start to make good artistic photos. For me capturing a memory is the most important bit but I do like looking at artistic photos much like I like looking at paintings . Do you consider yourself an artist or a capturer of memories/history.

 

[MattKing]

This probably belongs in the (Ethics and) Philosophy sub-forum .
Inspiration and creativity comes in many forms. Sometimes I come upon some of that in myself, and in my case photography happens to be my favourite medium for trying to express it.
If you like how something appears to you or think you can make something appear interesting, it never hurts to try to use photographic tools to try to do something with it.
It is really important to both be willing to experiment and unafraid of potential failure.

 

[eddie]

I aspire to art, but usually come up short. The quest is rewarding, though.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Don't be afraid to experiment. Don't be afraid of using a few extra frames on a subject. Get in close and try for angles that appeal to you. Ask yourself what it is about the subject you're trying to capture - is the essence in the shape, the light, whatever, and compose based in that.

Usually, only a small percentage of shots will look close to what you wanted. That is moving towards success.

 

[Billy Axeman]

This is a subtle process how a photo ends up as snap, documentary or as art. Photos classified as art are usually made by a trained person, by education, or a person with talent and experience. So, you can't pull a switch to produce art (it leads to nothing), it is a state of mind and long term commitment.

If you are looking at paintings and other art a lot then you are training your eye and in the end you are able to produce art yourself as an autodidact, but I think it is less efficient than being educated.

 

[dasBlute]

I take the best photos I can, i.e. as finely crafted as I am able, of things that interest me on a deep level.
Whether or not they are art is for someone else to decide.

 

[Cholentpot]

I take the best photos I can, i.e. as finely crafted as I am able, of things that interest me on a deep level.
Whether or not they are art is for someone else to decide.

Agree, all training does in my opinion is limit the capacity of a creative person. I shoot my own influences and what I see as interesting. It's art to me and I could care less what a trained eye thinks.

 

[btaylor]

I guess that all depends on your definition of "efficient." Are you counting all the MFAs that are not practicing artists? Have you worked the minimum $120k cost of that graduate art education vs. self study and practice? I don't mean to be a dick, but I think your conclusion is short sighted and frankly elitist (I suffer from this sometimes as well, with maybe a dash of bitterness).
To the OP, Billy's first paragraph was right on-- one doesn't just turn the "art" thing on, it has to come from somewhere within you. Study study study the work of the greats. Try imitating the ones you like, then find your own voice. I took an interesting free online course at Coursera on photography taught by MoMA, it would be a wonderful survey course to get your feet wet. Great reading list. And free.

 

[btaylor]

Yipes, if training limits the capacity of the creative person I think the "creative" is in trouble. Technique is necessary to work the medium. You have the option to throw it away once you have it, but it is usually necessary to have some facility and this is often acquired through training. It's up the you to feel limited by it or not.

 

[Vaughn]

Well, getting artie is not the same as making art. And even when making art, a lot ends up in the trash. Tons of hard work is involved if one wants to make photographs that are more than just occasionally satisfactory...and from both sides -- working to see and working to hone the craft. Then when one gets to a point where one is making more than satisfactory photographs -- a new level opens up and one's past work is again only occasionally satisfactory, and there is work to do!

I think there are two types of working photographic artists. The highly gifted/talented individual with fresh new ideas and ways of expressing things...like rockets firing up into the art world. Then there are those who practice their craft and improve their eye over decades. Galleries and the romantic types love the first. Goodwill get the frames after the latter dies. I am somewhere in between.

 

[Cholentpot]

Well, getting artie is not the same as making art. And even when making art, a lot ends up in the trash. Tons of hard work is involved if one wants to make photographs that are more than just occasionally satisfactory...and from both sides -- working to see and working to hone the craft. Then when one gets to a point where one is making more than satisfactory photographs -- a new level opens up and one's past work is again only occasionally satisfactory, and there is work to do!

I think there are two types of working photographic artists. The highly gifted/talented individual with fresh new ideas and ways of expressing things...like rockets firing up into the art world. Then there are those who practice their craft and improve their eye over decades. Galleries and the romantic types love the first. Goodwill get the frames after the latter dies. I am somewhere in between.

Most of us live somewhere in the middle.

 

[removed account4]

hi badger.brad

the trick is to enjoy taking whatever it is that you take, get used to using your cameras and films and papers
so they are second nature so you can concentrate looking through the lens and making more of what you like.
whether it is arty or straightforward shouldn't matter as long as you are enjoying making it. if something falls short
note what didn't work out, and do whatever that was a little differently the next time.

have fun !
john

 

[MartinCrabtree]

It seems if I think about it too much the outcome is sub par. So many times I look hard through the viewfinder and take a few shots with perhaps some change from one to the next. Is it art? Sure. Good art? Tough call.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

O.k I seem to take some good photos of things/places/people I like (generally) and really enjoy doing it and looking at the results but as soon as I try and get artie with my photos they end up trash. Do you think much like other art you have to have an artistic bent even before you start to make good artistic photos. For me capturing a memory is the most important bit but I do like looking at artistic photos much like I like looking at paintings . Do you consider yourself an artist or a capturer of memories/history.

I consider myself a learning artist.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I'm divided. I do some exposures and prints with art approach. And I like to take pictures on events and streets.

 

[tedr1]

Your question imposes a choice, either documenting memories and history, or, "art" (whatever that is). I think this may be an unhelpful division of pictures into only two possible categories. Probably it is more helpful to view all options being open, the dividing lines are blurred anyway. I find I make both those sorts of pictures and plenty of other types also.

The ability to review and edit your own work, including finding out the hard way that something didn't work and discarding the print, is part of the learning process. For many people this is a slow gradual process of learning visual language. First comes the learning of the crafts, camera craft and darkroom skills both needed to make the picture. The process of learning visual language, arrangement of the frame, is there a horizon? where? the arrangement of lines, tones, colors and textures, how to chose the camera position, the lens, the light, the arrangement of the subject and background, are for many people harder to learn and it may take a long time to acquire these skills, sometimes years. Many find it helpful to study the work of other photographers, visit galleries, collect prints, buy books, attend classes, make trips for picture projects. It can be the journey of a lifetime. Some become very good at it.

 

[Vaughn]

I consider myself a learning artist.

Good point. Is there any other kind?

 

[jim10219]

I'm an artist and I approach photography the same way I approach painting. As an artist, I don't walk around with a camera trying to document a moment. That's what journalists do. There's nothing wrong with that, but it isn't how you create good art. To create good art, you start with the vision, and then try to make that vision a reality. The difference is intention. Are you trying to create what you dream or capture what you found? Are you trying to share what you see or share what you feel? Are you trying to impress or express? A good artistic photo isn't always beautiful, technically proficient, or even recognizable as a photo, but it should always be compelling. Take Alec Soth for instance. Most photographers hate his work because his are not technically good photos. But some of us love his works because they have a vulnerability and desperation to them you don't often find in most photographers work. His work forces you to think about our relationships with society, how they were formed, and what they mean.

That's not to say I don't take family portraits, landscapes, street scenes, or whatever else that 99.9% of photographers take. The majority of my photos are like that, in fact. My art photos are much more rare because they often take months of planning and waiting, and they don't always come out how I envisioned. Keep in mind that I'm not saying that you can't stumble across something while out on a walkabout with your camera and immediately turn something your happen upon into great art. Inspiration can strike at any moment, and cameras make for very fast brushes. But there's a completely different mindset between the two disciplines, and that shows on the final product.

 

[msage]

A long time ago I stopped worrying about being a "artist" and photographed with my heart, mind and soul (or at least tried!).
Don't worry about selling my prints.
You need to photograph what you like, who cares if it is considered "Art"?

 

[removed account4]

As an artist, I don't walk around with a camera trying to document a moment. That's what journalists do. There's nothing wrong with that, but it isn't how you create good art. To create good art, you start with the vision, and then try to make that vision a reality. The difference is intention. Are you trying to create what you dream or capture what you found? Are you trying to share what you see or share what you feel? Are you trying to impress or express? A good artistic photo isn't always beautiful, technically proficient, or even recognizable as a photo, but it should always be compelling.

hi jim
not to disagree with you but one can wander around with a camera and document a moment and do it artfully, and create "good art"
( wedding photographers do this all the time ) one doesn't need to capture a dream, &c ...
so much of what people claim is "art photography" or "fine art photography " claims to do these things, the photographer claims to
" have vision" they give "vision workshops" they have fans, but to me, they fall flat.
YMMV

 

[nmp]

One person's trash is another's art.

 

[Billy Axeman]

I fully agree with you jim10219.
Thanks for pointing to Alec Soth, very interesting.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It helps to be dead to create great art.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

hi jim
not to disagree with you but one can wander around with a camera and document a moment and do it artfully, and create "good art"
( wedding photographers do this all the time ) one doesn't need to capture a dream, &c ...
so much of what people claim is "art photography" or "fine art photography " claims to do these things, the photographer claims to
" have vision" they give "vision workshops" they have fans, but to me, they fall flat.
YMMV

Yup.

I love it when people start talking about "vision". Cracks me up. Everyone does it nowadays. Freakin' home decorators do it. Even soccer mommies planning the 1st grade school play for little Johnny. Blech. In fact it is practically the #1 way to know if someone is full of sh!t.

You want real vision, chew some Peyote*. Now we are talking real vision, not some fake hokey word you use as a fake faker trying to sound creative.

Not aimed at anyone here, just a pet peeve and my 2¢.



*not recommended

 

[removed account4]

Yup.

I love it when people start talking about "vision". Cracks me up. Everyone does it nowadays. Freakin' home decorators do it. Even soccer mommies planning the 1st grade school play for little Johnny. Blech. In fact it is practically the #1 way to know if someone is full of sh!t.

You want real vision, chew some Peyote*. Now we are talking real vision, not some fake hokey word you use as a fake faker trying to sound creative.

Not aimed at anyone here, just a pet peeve and my 2¢.

its one of my pet peeves too !
i don't know this for sure, but the painters or sculptors that i know or have known
have never talked about "vision" it must be a photographer-thing
i never really understood what it was they were talking about, and the workshop givers
i am really note sure how they can teach photographers how to "see" ( have vision?)
if they can't already do it.

i was talking to a musician last weekend. we were talking about
the same sort of thing, the difference between a musician and a musician he suggested it
was more about being less of a technician. he didn't say anything about vision, but
i am sure there is a similar buzz-word in musical circles...

*not recommended

whew !