Is photographing art, art?

jeffreyg · Apr 11, 2019

I have been enjoying this discussion and decided to consult a dictionary for the word "art". Of the many meanings the one that seemed to fit these threads "the conscious production or arrangement of sounds, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty; specifically, the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium." Actually I sculpt and do photography. I'm happy to say that some people find some of my "art" beautiful so I guess those pieces are considered art to them.

One of my sculptures. (it started out as a rock)

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

http://www.sculptureandphotography.com/

StepheKoontz · Apr 11, 2019

blockend said:
. Where photography excels as an art form is not in self-conscious pictorialism, which is often more accomplished in other media - but in its representational authenticity...

We are going to disagree there. I am working more and more as a pictorialist, moving away from the whole "f64" mentality of photography. I feel so may folks are trying to find the sharpest lenses (and the ability to get everything is sharp focus) at the expense of the rendering and the feel that can be expressed with a different approach.

blockend · Apr 11, 2019

jawarden said:
A painter can paint a gesture in a few seconds and have a masterpiece. It's not artificial, it's art, and different from photography, which can also produce masterpiece gestures in a few seconds.

We may be talking at cross purposes. I'm not proposing that photography or painting are "better art" than one another, I'm offering an opinion on their relative merits. Obviously a painter can capture the essence of something in a few strokes, in the same way that a short poem about an event will say more about its human consequences than a lengthy legal document of the same occurrence. However a painting that attempts to exhaustively represent an incident, whether domestic or military or whatever, will not be received as truth in the same way as a photograph. It evokes a different kind of emotion.

StepheKoontz said:
We are going to disagree there.

Possibly, but...

StepheKoontz said:
I am working more and more as a pictorialist, moving away from the whole "f64" mentality of photography.

I'm not crazy about pictorialism or the f64 "more is more" approach.

StepheKoontz said:
I feel so may folks are trying to find the sharpest lenses (and the ability to get everything is sharp focus) at the expense of the rendering and the feel that can be expressed with a different approach.

I agree that lens sharpness beyond that which is appropriate for the subject and viewing size is a dead end. Something doesn't become art because it's five feet wide and shows every pore. On the other hand few subjects except perhaps portraiture are improved because a lens renders softly or the background has perfect circles of confusion. Victorian pictorialism was an attempt to emulate painting, because it was thought something that happened in an instant and described so clearly couldn't possibly be artful. I disagree..
https://odaaniepce.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/meyerowitz2.jpg

TheFlyingCamera · Apr 11, 2019

Alan Edward Klein said:
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.

But nobody hanging a reproduction of the Mona Lisa is under the impression that they are hanging an original work of art - it's signaling an association between themselves and the symbolic values the Mona Lisa represents, much the same way that hanging an Ansel Adams calendar in your kitchen does. The painting (or the Adams photo) has become so iconic and so universal that it's no longer an individual work of art but rather an idea.

TheFlyingCamera · Apr 11, 2019

jeffreyg said:
I have been enjoying this discussion and decided to consult a dictionary for the word "art". Of the many meanings the one that seemed to fit these threads "the conscious production or arrangement of sounds, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty; specifically, the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium." Actually I sculpt and do photography. I'm happy to say that some people find some of my "art" beautiful so I guess those pieces are considered art to them.
View attachment 221182

One of my sculptures. (it started out as a rock)

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

http://www.sculptureandphotography.com/

I don't know that beauty has to be a part of something to make it art. Including beauty in the definition is a particular philosophy with regards to art, and very much a 19th century construction. I would change the word beauty to aesthetic response: something can be extremely ugly (in the sense of unpleasant, graphic, violent, or depressing) and still very much be a piece of art. Really, art is something that is intentionally more than the sum of its parts, through human intervention.

John Koehrer · Apr 11, 2019

jnantz said:
Interesting situation !
If the work (sculpture ) was not registered at the copyright office the sculptor might not have had a legal leg to stand on
if the work was in public view, even being transported it was in public view, and a photographer is free to photograph things in public view
whether it is a person place or thing, unless there are legal laws that state otherwise ( like federal installations post 9-11 )
and if the work was interpreted ( which all photography tends to be ) the image created was transformative so it might not be copyright infringement.
It makes me wonder if andy warhol could have been sued successfully for painting his cambell soup can.
=

Again, Vaughn I agree, the power lies within the person practicing the art making enterprise.

Remember the Marlboro man billboard that was blatantly a copy of an advertising photo?
The photographer didn't sue because he had already been paid for it. I'm surprised the advertising agency or client didn't bother.
I think the term I'm looking for is "derivative art"

StepheKoontz · Apr 11, 2019

blockend said:
On the other hand few subjects except perhaps portraiture are improved because a lens renders softly or the background has perfect circles of confusion. Victorian pictorialism was an attempt to emulate painting, because it was thought something that happened in an instant and described so clearly couldn't possibly be artful. I disagree..

I may end up there, but for now I'm finding renewed creative juices flowing using fast B&W film with 1950's and older optics. I have a feeling I'm landing somewhere between the two schools, leaning more towards the pictorial side of things.

Arklatexian · Apr 12, 2019

Theo Sulphate said:
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.

Looking at Andreas Feininger's pictures, I always felt like he was doing more than just copying someone else's art. Especially when he was photographing "Nature's Art".......Regards!

Arklatexian · Apr 12, 2019

TheFlyingCamera said:
I don't know that beauty has to be a part of something to make it art. Including beauty in the definition is a particular philosophy with regards to art, and very much a 19th century construction. I would change the word beauty to aesthetic response: something can be extremely ugly (in the sense of unpleasant, graphic, violent, or depressing) and still very much be a piece of art. Really, art is something that is intentionally more than the sum of its parts, through human intervention.

In the past (1950s/60s) some photographers only recognized "ugly" pictures as "art", saying that there is no "beauty" in art, it is all in the mind. I think Ansel Adams proved this to be a mistaken concept with his pictures which clearly show "beauty". While "art" does not consist of only beautiful pictures, neither does it only consist of ugly pictures just like life/nature is not all one or the other. Not all of us only see "ugly" everywhere we look just as not all see "beauty everywhere we look.........Regards!

jeffreyg · Apr 12, 2019

I was quoting a dictionary meaning. The word "art" is used quite often ie the art of cooking, the art of war and so on. And "beauty" has been said to be in the eye of the beholder. As justice Potter Stewart once said " I know it when I see it" (involving a famous case with regard to pornography).

Ces1um · Apr 12, 2019

jeffreyg said:
One of my sculptures. (it started out as a rock
/

What did it end up as? Just kidding. Looks pretty awesome. How do you polish it so smoothly? I always wondered how stone gets polished without forming undulations in it.

jeffreyg · Apr 12, 2019

Thanks for your compliment. Wet sanding through many grades ending with 600 grit, next flour of pumice then dental acrylic polish on a rag wheel.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

http://sculptureandphotography

Lanline · Apr 14, 2019

jnantz said:
Interesting situation !
If the work (sculpture ) was not registered at the copyright office the sculptor might not have had a legal leg to stand on
if the work was in public view, even being transported it was in public view, and a photographer is free to photograph things in public view
whether it is a person place or thing, unless there are legal laws that state otherwise ( like federal installations post 9-11 )
and if the work was interpreted ( which all photography tends to be ) the image created was transformative so it might not be copyright infringement.
It makes me wonder if andy warhol could have been sued successfully for painting his cambell soup can.
=

Again, Vaughn I agree, the power lies within the person practicing the art making enterprise.

I think it was copyrighted and she had the photo listed for sale.

removed account4 · Apr 14, 2019

John Koehrer said:
Remember the Marlboro man billboard that was blatantly a copy of an advertising photo?
The photographer didn't sue because he had already been paid for it. I'm surprised the advertising agency or client didn't bother.
I think the term I'm looking for is "derivative art"

i think you mean richard prince's marlboro men / cowboys
i think he also did something similar with selfies on instagram, he printed out the photographs
and sold them in a gallery. im not much into rephotograph- appropriation but i guess that is how some make
their name and millions. kind of weird cause i guess alot of things people make with a camera is appropriation somehow
and some get ticked off, others meh ... i think that 's why some stores in the mall and grocery stores and the like don't like
people photographing inside their shops, they used to say "trade secrets" but its more like they want to control how their image is used /
and " not appropriated "

Lanline said:
I think it was copyrighted and she had the photo listed for sale.

its too bad ... she could have split the sale with him

TheFlyingCamera · Apr 15, 2019

Arklatexian said:
In the past (1950s/60s) some photographers only recognized "ugly" pictures as "art", saying that there is no "beauty" in art, it is all in the mind. I think Ansel Adams proved this to be a mistaken concept with his pictures which clearly show "beauty". While "art" does not consist of only beautiful pictures, neither does it only consist of ugly pictures just like life/nature is not all one or the other. Not all of us only see "ugly" everywhere we look just as not all see "beauty everywhere we look.........Regards!

I wasn't trying to suggest that art is NOT beauty, rather that we should not define art as being only a dependency of beauty. Art is a manufactured (in the sense of something created by man, not something made in a factory) object that expresses an idea or emotion - therefore something greater than the sum of its parts.

Sirius Glass · Apr 15, 2019

Lanline said:
I think it was copyrighted and she had the photo listed for sale.

The copyright does not matter, it was in a public place and photographed in the public. There is no expectation of privacy on the street. The artist should have covered the work with a wooden box.

Theo Sulphate · Apr 15, 2019

jim10219 said:
There's a long history of painters copying other painters works. In some cases, the copy becomes as famous or even more famous and valuable than the original. ...

I wasn't aware of that.

It's good that such things don't happen in the world of music...

Lanline · Apr 17, 2019

Sirius Glass said:
The copyright does not matter, it was in a public place and photographed in the public. There is no expectation of privacy on the street. The artist should have covered the work with a wooden box.

The image was removed from the competition when the gallery was served notice by the lawyer - at the same time the photographer was also served notice. Copyrights do matter when you are selling work that contains copyrighted work.

trendland · Apr 17, 2019

StepheKoontz said:
We are going to disagree there. I am working more and more as a pictorialist, moving away from the whole "f64" mentality of photography. I feel so may folks are trying to find the sharpest lenses (and the ability to get everything is sharp focus) at the expense of the rendering and the feel that can be expressed with a different approach.

That is an approach with I feel fine!
Listen : Amatheuric photographers felt over all that decades : The New camera can make better pictures! The manufacturers sugested : Right - the New model is bringing profit - so pls. order it!
THEREFORE THE DISSCUSSION between amatheuric photographers is allways about to make it better - thousants of published books are trying to teach basics!
AND this amatheuric discussions are allways about technics!

You should not mix this! If you are able to find your personal way to good photography there is allmost a discussion about better technics twice!

But a discussion to make better photography had to find an end there! And that is a must!
Would you advice Theo Sulfite for example how he can come to better photography for example
(in bw) - he is knowing how it has to work! Some technics he perhaps will also from background of his experience learn in addition! NO ONE IS A PERFECT EXPERT!

Hart to explain therefore an example : Many years ago I meet an assistence director - and yes she was also photographing! She loved to frame different :

Ouups what's this?

....and she was asking how I find it????

Well her photography was amatheuric and it didn't become better from unusual framing!
(I didn't tell her....but I asked to show me other shots because I wasn't sure about -
perhaps she was a real artist??? - NO SHE WASN'T but her photography was strange and
she felt as artist!)

There is no way to become an artist without knowing how to come sharp!

But you are right - I agree with you!

with regards

PS : After so many years I personaly (example) have no neet to prove myself if I find exact
exposure,framing,a.s.o. = like amatheuric photographers!
So it isn't much from interist if a picture is overexposed for example! If overexposed looks better
to me - it is OK!

That is the point - if you are able to bring perfect shots you are allowed to make it different!

John Koehrer · Apr 17, 2019

^^^^If it's OK with her it's OK too.. Other photographers have used unusual framing successfully too.

Vaughn · Apr 17, 2019

On a slightly different tack, I do not photograph rock art often, have have printed little.I like coming across it 'in the wild', but do not actively seek it or photograph it. A personal choice based on a respect for native culture and values.

removed account4 · Apr 17, 2019

Lanline said:
The image was removed from the competition when the gallery was served notice by the lawyer - at the same time the photographer was also served notice. Copyrights do matter when you are selling work that contains copyrighted work.

Completely agree ! It's like quoting someone in an article and not giving them credit.
Unfortunately it is all too easy in a day and age where folks grab and go ...
It would have been nice if she contacted the sculptor and it ended up being a collaboration.
... Like Man Ray's Dust Breeding ( Duchamp's Large Glass ).

trendland · Apr 18, 2019

jnantz said:
Completely agree ! It's like quoting someone in an article and not giving them credit.
Unfortunately it is all too easy in a day and age where folks grab and go ...
It would have been nice if she contacted the sculptor and it ended up being a collaboration.
... Like Man Ray's Dust Breeding ( Duchamp's Large Glass ).

......quoting someone in his thesis to optain his doctoral degree without giving credit is a specialty of some Top politician in Germany btw....

with regards

PS : But like your example with the gallery - it often has serious consequences !
The first one failed so damn lost his doctorate of course some days later he lost his job =
Defense Minister!

trendland · Apr 18, 2019

John Koehrer said:
^^^^If it's OK with her it's OK too.. Other photographers have used unusual framing successfully too.

Also my impression - it is absolute OK !

with regards

PS : If unusual framing from background of having no idea of good framing (what also exist)
is a way to have success ? Let it be "The unanswered question" in concern of art!

removed account4 · Apr 18, 2019

trendland said:
......quoting someone in his thesis to optain his doctoral degree without giving credit is a specialty of some Top politician in Germany btw....

with regards

PS : But like your example with the gallery - it often has serious consequences !

A lot of people quote without citing their material. But there is a difference between making a photograph of something and putting it in a gallery, and selling it as commercial images. The act of photographing something removes it from its original context which makes it a derivative work which may be able to slide under US copyright laws. If something is used in a commercial enterprise ( image to advertise something &c ) that is different. Interestingly enough, if a photograph of the sculpture in question was uploaded to F-Book to show friends and family and perspective buyers &c, F-Book would be able to use the image anyway they wanted, they can use any words or photographs anyone uploads for commercial / advertising and testimonial targeted advertising or anything. ( "your friend Jane loves xyz product" in your side bar ) because it is in the user agreement you click "OK" to when you get an account.
It wouldn't surprise me if the same thing happens with conversations made on what'sap /communications site, and imagery uploaded to insta gramps ... in the end the person who made the photograph of the sculpture probably would have had every right to do it, and would have won a court case if the sculptor brought the case to a judge. As SG said it was in public, and it wasn't being used to advertise anything.

Is photographing art, art?

jeffreyg

StepheKoontz

blockend

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

John Koehrer

StepheKoontz

Arklatexian

Arklatexian

jeffreyg

Ces1um

jeffreyg

Lanline

removed account4

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

Sirius Glass

Theo Sulphate

Lanline

trendland

John Koehrer

Vaughn

removed account4

trendland

trendland

removed account4

Is photographing art, art?

Membership Council

Membership Council

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency