Is photographing art, art?

[StepheKoontz]

This is something I have been guilty of myself, seeing an interesting piece of sculpture and photographing it, telling myself I was doing something unique with it. Looking back, there was nothing really unique about it, it was just using someone else's art. What made it -something- was the original piece of art.

Most of the time I now focus on trying to make everyday, mundane things look interesting. Or photographing people. I'm just curious of what other people think about including art object in photographs.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Architecture is a favorite subject of mine - I was greatly influenced by the photos of New York City made by Andreas Feininger. I have always loved Art Deco buildings, so I suppose photographing them is really just trying to capture the original art. Still, one can choose to emphasize certain angles or aspects and I think that has some merit in and of itself.

 

[Bill Burk]

Your best bet is to take photographs of someone you know's art. Then you have a personal connection.

Some memorable pieces, Dust Breeding by Man Ray. Steichen's photographs of Rodin's Balzac

 

[Billy Axeman]

I seldom photograph art objects because mostly it boils down to documentary. It is actually a bad habit asking yourself if what you are making is art or not. It puts a brake on creativity; one needs an open mind to anticipate on footage as it comes along.

Photographing mundane objects is a good strategy. It has the most possibilities for creative use and the results strongly depend on your mindset. So, as an extreme example, you can interpret the world as a collection of found objects (a well known concept in the art world) that can be selected and framed.

Mundane objects also lend themselves for making series. I have done series on containers, transformer stations, unused overgrown gates and garbage piles, which is usually not associated with art, but it can give direction to your photography, and it is fun to do and to explore the possibilities.

Photographing mundane objects also ensures you are taking yourself not too serious, which improves the chance of getting unexpected and creative photos, and perhaps they can be categorized as art in hindsight (this happened to many famous photographers).

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It's art because art is in the eye of the viewer, not the maker. When someone hangs a photo likeness of the Mona Lisa painting, it's art to them.

On the other hand, when my club has photo contests, pictures of art are usually not allowed because it's copying someone else's art. There would have to be something really unique about the photo to be allowed to compete.

 

[jvo]

unless i can bring something different, (using lighting, angle graphics, insight, perspective, juxtaposition, etc.), i don't photograph it. sometimes i think i can do that and fail, sometimes it works.

if i want a "memory" shot i usually buy a tourist photo pix/postcard that appeals to me - it usually better rendered as a memory shot.

p.s. your post reminded me a a time i did make such a picture - the accademia in florence - michelangelo's david and slaves, just the tops/back of viewers heads, dark at bottom; light from side windows, huge david in the background. still have fond memories of it 30 years later. i think i'll have to reprint! thanks

 

[warden]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

You can make great art by photographing bad art for instance. Or you can make a lousy photo of a masterpiece on a bad day. It all depends on the photographer, rather than the artist that made the sculpture or building in front of him/her. The art you're photographing is just the stimulus.

 

[removed account4]

This is something I have been guilty of myself, seeing an interesting piece of sculpture and photographing it, telling myself I was doing something unique with it. Looking back, there was nothing really unique about it, it was just using someone else's art. What made it -something- was the original piece of art.

Most of the time I now focus on trying to make everyday, mundane things look interesting. Or photographing people. I'm just curious of what other people think about including art object in photographs.

hi StepheneKoontz
Every day objects are art ! So you are doing it without realizing it. I wouldn't worry about what kind of art it is or if the objects are expressly called "sculpture" or "art" just keep seeing, and have fun at the same time

 

[trendland]

This is something I have been guilty of myself, seeing an interesting piece of sculpture and photographing it, telling myself I was doing something unique with it. Looking back, there was nothing really unique about it, it was just using someone else's art. What made it -something- was the original piece of art.

Most of the time I now focus on trying to make everyday, mundane things look interesting. Or photographing people. I'm just curious of what other people think about including art object in photographs.

If your object has 2 dimentions it is always a reproduction! Thats not art! I remember a Film academy there upcomming students have filmed drawings wich they have made???
You are drawing something and That you are filming - to have a film for academy? Sorry friends - then you are at the wrong academy ( ....the process of drawing was not filmed - but this could have been a documentary work! No the finished drawings were filmed!
With photography it is absolutely no way!
To film (with movings, zooms, cropings into a painting (often seen in documentarys) is a borderline! There is a subjective filmed from a subjective (the subjective of a painter)!
With photography - no Chance - that isn't art - that is nothing (a reproduction)!

What about 3 dimentional art? Thats not easy - but possible! A sculpture is in normal case a realy exeption (also not possible)!
But architecture for example is a complete other issue!
Bauhaus - if you are photograph Bauhaus architecture in a special form -- for example to under
line the bauhausestetics - it could be a good documentation of Bauhaus architecture, it could be a form to documentary Bauhaus within an own context (often the key for art (context) - but it could also be a interpretation of Bauhaus via photography :

And that last is (often) indeed art for its own!
But sculptures....? So there you will find no answer - it depends!

with regards

 

[jim10219]

Of course it's art! No one is allowed to tell you what is and isn't art. Duchamp proved that when he entered a urinal into an art exhibit. It pissed off a lot of people at the time, but now he's celebrated as one of the all time greats for having the vision to do so. Museums are full of "found art", which is where someone finds something ordinary, recognizes it's artistic value, and illuminates it to others through submission.

What the lay person doesn't understand is art isn't about creating things. That's craft, not art. Art is about communicating things.

It's rare that anything photographed was actually created by the photographer. It's much more common that the photographer used something that was already created to convey the artist's message to the world. So photographing a sculpture is as much art as photographing a person, a building, a street scene, or a landscape. The art part of it has nothing to do with how the photograph was made and everything to do with what the photograph means.

Will you get pushback from people if you submit photos of sculptures as art? Yes, you probably will. But if you defend it by explaining your vision and your message is strong, your work will be accepted by the art community. And it helps greatly if your message is different from the message of the original artist's. Repeating the sculptor's artistic statement for the piece won't get you very far. But if you can find a way to flip it on its head, your photograph can become a more powerful example of art than the sculpture itself.

Keep in mind art and craft are two very different worlds that lay people often confuse. Neither is superior to the other, but they have very different goals.

 

[Ian Grant]

It will depend on the approach, I had art student friends and often they wanted more than just a record shot of their items, one was a potter, So yes and no, still life images can be art, it depends on how much creativity you add..

Ian

 

[trendland]

hi StepheneKoontz
Every day objects are art ! So you are doing it without realizing it. I wouldn't worry about what kind of art it is or if the objects are expressly called "sculpture" or "art" just keep seeing, and have fun at the same time

jnantz - to press the botom to stop the scyline train at the station "shopping mall" ! That is then also art! That is THE BIG missunderstanding of the post-moderne : everything can be art - so everything is art - so everybody is an artist! A man in Afrika is eating his soup - that's art of course! And that are allways the same people who stating it!
I realy don't like that behavior!

But OK it is an opinion! Every individual has the right to belive in what he is sure about!
I am not able to agree with that "Each human is an artist philosophy- what about animals???

with regards

PS : This case seams to be cleared via Joseph Beus in the 80s it was cleared with the help of
cleaning Ladys : Is this art for can it be wasted = If the normal recipient isn't able to decide between art and trash - then it is more trash then art! Issue solved from Trendlands side!!

 

[trendland]

it depends on how much creativity you add..

Ian

Thank you much for this sentence Ian !

Here is the next key to find a definition of art (If it would be possible to define art)
So there might be much creativity to perform art - but often it is from poor creativity!

with regards

Ask an artist about his art! Some allways stating they are creating with lots of creativity!
Yes - they are stating - that statement (to create with much creativity) is for itself also art?
Yes of course a statement can be art - sorry that all is most NONSENSE......

 

[Sirius Glass]

When I photograph paintings, I do not take a photograph that can print the painting. Instead I photograph several paintings obliquely so that I capture the setting.

When I photograph sculpture I want a record so that I can remember a particular view, not as an artistic photograph.

 

[trendland]

It's art because art is in the eye of the viewer, not the maker. When someone hangs a photo likeness of the Mona Lisa painting, it's art to them.

On the other hand, when my club has photo contests, pictures of art are usually not allowed because it's copying someone else's art. There would have to be something really unique about the photo to be allowed to compete.

Alan Mona Lisa is OF COURSE art!
The next issue to OP's question (from my point very important) : - types (examples) of modern art are from blasphemious character against the old masters! Jantz mentioned one example!

with regards

 

[trendland]

Instead I photograph several paintings obliquely so that I capture the setting.

Thats a documentary from my point - an art documentary!
But a documentary per definition isn't art for itself (with examples of course)

with regards

 

[JohnLikesPhotos]

It's an interesting question. The work of Richard Prince comes to mind. He's an appropriation artist (along with other mediums) and he gets sued for copyright infringement sometimes. It isn't a simple yes/no answer, it depends on the intention of the artist. Jameson wrote a bunch on postmodernism that deals with pastiche, or a deadpan restating.
quick links for anyone interested
Info on Prince:
https://abovethelaw.com/2018/10/richard-prince-thief-appropriation-artist-or-performance-artist/
Info on Jameson and pastiche:
https://www.cla.purdue.edu/english/theory/postmodernism/modules/jamesonpastiche.html

 

[Billy Axeman]

Of course it's art! No one is allowed to tell you what is and isn't art. Duchamp proved that when he entered a urinal into an art exhibit. It pissed off a lot of people at the time, but now he's celebrated as one of the all time greats for having the vision to do so. Museums are full of "found art", which is where someone finds something ordinary, recognizes it's artistic value, and illuminates it to others through submission. ....

I always was intrigued by the possibility that found objects could be transformed into art (I am a lazy person), and obviously photography is also leaning in that direction.

Someone who has written about that from an historical point of view is Margaret Iversen (University of Essex).

Here is also an interesting story about Marcel Duchamp's urinal fountain; it seems it was actually created by Baroness Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/mar/29/marcel-duchamp-fountain-women-art-history

 

[guangong]

As someone who sculpts in marble, I often take photos of sculptures, especially figurative. There is nothing wrong with documenting something of interest. Besides, photographing a piece from different angles can be very revealing when viewed at leisure. Perhaps not art, but making a picture that is both informative and pleasing can surely be recognized as a skilled craft.
Along these lines, the WSJ has a very interesting article on the entrance to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Maybe worth a visit just to shoot the exterior.

 

[removed account4]

That is THE BIG missunderstanding of the post-moderne : everything can be art

I was not talking about post modernity, i was talking specifically about objects. Man made objects, lets say a tea set, or cup and saucer or espresso machine, it is all fabricated. They are all copies of an original concept/design and a shadow on Plato's Cave wall. Sure you want to say someone eating soup is art? Why not, remove him from his context and he is a live performance. Many years ago I was part of the Ignobel Awards Ceremony and during one of the presentations Marlyn Vos Savant ate soup at a table on the stage the entire presentation. It was a performance piece. I am not certain but I think you misunderstood my post.

BTW most photography that is considered "art photography" or "fine art photography" is an object or scene or person or situation removed from its context and placed in a new context, and it doesnt' matter if it is a photograph of an espreso machine, tea set, thimble, hemmed pant leg, or "the toes of the Discus Thrower" I think the OP should photograph whatever she wants whether someone else thinks its art or not.

 

[jeffreyg]

A photograph of an unfinished Michelangelo sculpture I made a number of years ago. It was in a hallway in the Galleria dell'Accademia In Florence. I didn't photograph the David. I have printed it silver-gelatin and platinum/palladium from an enlarged negative -- the original was 2 1/4. Up for discussion.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

http://www.sculptureandphotography.com/

 

[trendland]

A photograph of an unfinished Michelangelo sculpture I made a number of years ago. It was in a hallway in the Galleria dell'Accademia In Florence. I didn't photograph the David. I have printed it silver-gelatin and platinum/palladium from an enlarged negative -- the original was 2 1/4. Up for discussion.

View attachment 220961

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

http://www.sculptureandphotography.com/

Nice shot - good lighting - in parts a substance from interpreting character !
Good job - but No Art.

with regards

 

[Vaughn]

Thank you, John. I am enjoying my tea.

The difference between most everyday functional objects and most sculputal pieces, is that when photographing the art piece, one is re-interpreting the artist's study of three dimensional space onto a plane. Tough job. Of course one can blow off that responcibility and see the sculpture just as another object to photograph.

Added: I wrote the above before seeing Jeffery's image. Damn fine representation. It does speak of the space and volume of the original and for me, takes it easily to the level of art.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I have thought about this and struggled with it quite a bit. Because I consider this kind of photography to be more documentary and personal rather than "art" I don't worry about that part too much. But I do have concerns about how ethical it is. That is, if there is anything about my photograph of someone else's art that causes the viewer to respond, it must be recognized that the original artist should get the vast majority of the credit for that response.

I do always write a caption for any artwork I photograph, giving the artist credit by name, if known. The caption goes into the metadata, and will be displayed as text with any images I post online. I do not approach photographing art with the attitude, "Look at this great photograph I took," but rather, "Look at this great piece of art I saw, by this artist named..."

The worst case, of course, is photographing another photographer's work. Take <this one> for example (not safe for work). I have photographed a photograph taken by Amanda Brunner and displayed at the Duluth Art Institute's gallery in the Union Depot, Duluth, Minnesota in September 2013. Bruner's photograph is of a woman who has commisioned a tatoo artist to decorate her body. Who is the artist and what is the art?

The "model" is far more than just a passive object to be posed and lit by Brunner, she is also the canvas and an active participant in the creation of the tatoos. And the tatoo artist deserves some credit as well. (The name of both the model and the tatoo artist are unknown to me). Now, I take NO credit for my photo, and I readily acknowledge that just taking the photo puts me on thin ethical ice. But it was such a delightful photograph, I felt compelled to share it. Right or wrong? I don't know.

 

[awty]

If your object has 2 dimentions it is always a reproduction! Thats not art! I remember a Film academy there upcomming students have filmed drawings wich they have made???
You are drawing something and That you are filming - to have a film for academy? Sorry friends - then you are at the wrong academy ( ....the process of drawing was not filmed - but this could have been a documentary work! No the finished drawings were filmed!
With photography it is absolutely no way!
To film (with movings, zooms, cropings into a painting (often seen in documentarys) is a borderline! There is a subjective filmed from a subjective (the subjective of a painter)!
With photography - no Chance - that isn't art - that is nothing (a reproduction)!

What about 3 dimentional art? Thats not easy - but possible! A sculpture is in normal case a realy exeption (also not possible)!
But architecture for example is a complete other issue!
Bauhaus - if you are photograph Bauhaus architecture in a special form -- for example to under
line the bauhausestetics - it could be a good documentation of Bauhaus architecture, it could be a form to documentary Bauhaus within an own context (often the key for art (context) - but it could also be a interpretation of Bauhaus via photography :

And that last is (often) indeed art for its own!
But sculptures....? So there you will find no answer - it depends!

with regards

Being rather new to the photography world I was surprised by how so many photographers consider their, what I thought were just photographs, to be art. Especially how most seem to prefer to talk about the technique and tools over the content, but I have no education in art or arts, so what would I know, the dictionary definition seems to be wide and inclusive.
Happy just to do my naive picture making unburden with labels. Sometimes I take photographs of others art, mostly because Im too cheap to buy the post card in the gift shop.