This whole damn thread is a red herring.
There is art (the content and semantics) and there is craft (paper and photons and chemicals and bits). You represent your art using a craft. You can automate a craft or change which particular strain of craft you use, but that has got nothing to do with the art that you perform using your chosen craft.
99.99% of APUG is craft; art ain't got nothing to do with what goes on in here.
Would you say, then, that a medium, not necessarily a craft, was necessary as a vehicle for art...and that that medium could take the form of a craft, skill, or both?
The idea that photograph is "Art" is very recent one, certainly during the last fifty years mainly as a marketing ploy by photographers agents and galleries to help sell their work.
A bit more that 50 years though. It started in 1905 with the Little Galleries of the Photo-Sucession, later 291 art gallery, ran by Stieglitz.
Whether photography is art may not ultimately be settled to universal satisfaction in APUG but it has been decided in a court of law; and a very long time ago too.I guess benjiboy was referring to the mainstream museum institutions acceptance of photography as Art, more or less on equal footing with the traditional Fine Arts.
To approach the question from the other side: if today's Van Gogh used a computer to create his paintings in a fraction of time he needed with paint and a brush... would that still be art? Apparently, Van Gogh was a fast painter and didn't spend "more than a few days" on some of his well known works. But see here, how quickly it can be done today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eXSaJS0Gts
Another example: if todays Michelangelo took a 3d scan of David (yes, such scanners exist) and have it 3D printer, would that still be art? OK, 3D printers are still a bit rough for a masterpiece like David, but how about a CNC stone cutter? Yes, such stuff exists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3Ff0qwYMyY
How many people would call the robotic sculpture art? And how many would call the digital paint art? (personally, I'd expect none for the sculpture, but some for the painting; would be an interesting research actually).
My hypothesis is, that people inherently value something as Art, when it's hand made by another person.
After reading this thread, It reminds me that I preferred to be called a Craftsman, or a technician, than photographer or especially artist.
Just so I don't have to argue with others, or most importantly myself.
Whether photography is art may not ultimately be settled to universal satisfaction in APUG but it has been decided in a court of law; and a very long time ago too.
1861 in France saw photographers Mayer and Pierson bring a copyright action against the photographic duo of Betbeder and Schwabbe. The ruckus was over pirated pictures of Lord Palmerston. Mayer and Pierson claimed copyright protection under the French copyright laws of 1793 and 1810. The catch was that those laws protected only works of art so the court's decision hinged on whether photography was art.
Mayer and Pierson lost! Photography apparently was not art according to the court's judgement of 9 January 1862.
Mayer and Pierson appealed the decision on 10 April 1862. Their lawyer, a Monsieur M.Marie, gave an eloquent defence of the art of photography using many of the ideas now raised in this very thread. The court reversed its previous decision and declared on 4 July 1862 that photography was art.
The battle was not over. Later in 1862 a group of famous painters including Ingres petitioned against the decision. The arguments they used bear a striking resemblance to the anti-art-photography sentiments also found here and there in this thread.
Finally on 28 November 1862 the French court threw out the painters' petition and photography has enjoyed secure status as art ever since; at least in France it has.
Another curious corner of history reveals that the Paris Salon of 1859 admitted photographs to be displayed along with paintings and sculpture. The catch was that the photography display was accessed through a different doorway. Even more curious than the admission of photography was the exclusion of the Impressionists as obviously not qualifying as creditable artists!
Any French litigation about digital being Art?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?