Is photographing art, art?

[Vaughn]

I can't really take credit for the landscape I am pointing my camera at, either. But I always give the landscape its due credit, such as:

Branches, 2013
Trinidad State Beach, CA
4x10 Carbon Print

 

[NB23]

I’m glad that you realized that.

 

[Vaughn]

Would you let someone do this with your photofraphs?

 

[trendland]

Never mind about - No aducation! Me too........(Film academy fiired me to explain:
My film was shot 16mm Kodak 72... at night - pretty exposure everything OK - timeslip with two
speeds filmed on one same roll syncronity (image devision trough the middle from gaffa tape onto the half of the lens and rewinding the complete roll because of 2.exposure from less (time) speed!)
It looks OK - wasn't much intended but I've been told "experimental Film would come good"!

Well and the scene I filmed was in the middle of an intersection - so on the different roadways
Cars were driving in slow motion and to the same time in timelapse!
The border onto the lens was much perfect (not to be seen) but that was a bit luck!
The end was a fast pan of 2 times 360degree in timelapse 6 frames/sec.

But it came not good to the academy.... The let the guys with selfdrawn pictures study and I got my first job 6 weeks later (without academy).....so don't care about so much awty
For " Trendland" you are allways wellcome without "aducation" because "To have the right Idea to the right moment isn't to learn!

with regards

PS : My right idea to the right moment was the pan at the end - without that pan they would have let me study I was told later - ! My luck was this 2x360 degree pan!!!!!

 

[macfred]

^ You probably heard already in the gossip factory that Sean decided to tax excessive use of emoticons by non-subscribers ??

 

[jim10219]

Oddly enough, I think it would be much harder for the sculptor to take a photo of their own sculpture and call that photo art. They would have to change the concept of the original sculpture through the photograph, otherwise it would most likely have to be considered a document of their art and not a work of art in and of itself. However, it would be a lot easier for a second party to photograph that sculpture and call it art, assuming they took the image of the sculpture and made it their own.

Art isn't hard to do. It's just really hard to do well.

 

[MattKing]

Depends on what the rules are .
If one is trying to restrict their Art to things they create which are entirely new and original to them, then on.
But if their Art is more akin to a performance than that, why not?
If photographing Art cannot be Art, than I expect that photographing people can't be Art - and on that I am keen to disagree.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Depends on what the rules are .
If one is trying to restrict their Art to things they create which are entirely new and original to them, then on.
But if their Art is more akin to a performance than that, why not?
If photographing Art cannot be Art, than I expect that photographing people can't be Art - and on that I am keen to disagree.

I do not think the laws of transitivity apply to art.

 

[Vaughn]

I do not think the laws of transitivity apply to art.

As if you could get artists to agree on a, b or c.

 

[StepheKoontz]

I feel something turns to art when it translates a feeling. I feel like: if I am photographing something that someone else created to elicit a feeling from the viewer, and I'm just duplicating the response someone would get from viewing it in person, then it's simply reproduction work. To me it feel cheap, like all I am doing is reporting to someone not standing there what the original artist intended the viewer to feel. That has a place, but I sure wouldn't call it art.

In contrast, the attached is my attempt to convey to a viewer the creepy feeling I got when walking through these swampy, mossy woods on an overcast afternoon. Some people might not see/feel anything, or something different than "a creepy feeling" I was trying to convey? But I know what was in front of my camera isn't the result of someone else's work to do the same.

 

[Vaughn]

"Creepy" is not what I thought at all, but then I prefer forests over streets. I assure you the forest in my image in post #26 is far creepier than the forest in your image. Which I say with a chuckle because exposures in there are 30 minutes or so in the middle of the day and I occasionally lie down and nap during the exposures, so it only appears scary. But that's one thing nice about photographing alone -- no one keeps you from your little cat naps. If the seas are up, the sound of waves breaking on rocks can be heard through the trees. Quite nice.

But a photograph is a photograph, not matter what you are photographing. One is dealing with light falling on a light-sensitive media, and it is the photographer who decides if it art or not...and the viewer(s) can decide if it is bad art not worth the waste of materials, or if it is great art and they want to see/experience more of it -- or something in between or they can toss another label at it.

I need to dive back into the dark and develop another 11x14 sheet of FP4+. The last one is crap...hate to end the night with that one! I set up in the creek for a 6 minute exposure. Between the slightest of breezes and perhaps a little settling of the camera during the exposure, I got a neg that is hard to look at!

 

[removed account4]

Would you let someone do this with your photofraphs?

I would, I think being in that exhibit ( if that is what it is? not sure ) it would be pretty amazing. isn't that what Ted Burns does?

I feel like: if I am photographing something that someone else created to elicit a feeling from the viewer, and I'm just duplicating the response someone would get from viewing it in person, then it's simply reproduction work.

What if your photographing the work ( sculpture &c ) shows it in a way that its creator hadn't see before? It's like a fresh pair of eyes looking for something that was lost, or someone with no knowledge of a subject coming up with some sort of reinterpretation that was never thought of or intended. If I remember correctly the scientist who discovered the reason for the Space Shuttle's O-Ring disaster repeatedly dunked his O'rings in ice water while the other scientists around him were saying " what are you doing, you aren't supposed to be doing that, this is serious stuff" ... and he came to the realization the rings failed when they got cold. ... or the often times great photographs that someone who has no photography experience / baggage ( rules, "can't do this or that" ) vs someone who has been working at their skill/craft for IDK 2, 5, 10, 20 of 40 years and might be working out of habit, instead of the Winograd? mode of "I wonder what this might look like on film" .
I can understand thinking it is a cop-out, sheer reproduction, but sometimes it ends up being something else..

YMMV

Vaughn tea is great, isn't it

John

 

[dpurdy]

You can make an art of anything, including photographing other people's art. Not something I like to do but if you like doing it, just give the original artist credit. Actually there is some famous series done in large format of displays in museums.
I consider anything done by someone with aesthetics in mind, even prettiness of a flower garden, to be art. If I photograph in someone's garden I give them credit. If I photograph your Grandma's cookies I will give her credit for her art.

 

[trendland]

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.

awty : I forgot to state in my post #29 : In the US a film academy is an absolute must! Guess in Australia it is not easy without having! But in parts of the rest of the world it is NO GUARANTEE
to become a pros..........perhaps in the US it is also NO GUARANTEE at all - but generally
it could help!

with regards

 

[removed account4]

awty : I forgot to state in my post #29 : In the US a film academy is an absolute must! Guess in Australia it is not easy without having! But in parts of the rest of the world it is NO GUARANTEE
to become a pros..........perhaps in the US it is also NO GUARANTEE at all - but generally
it could help!

with regards

there is a difference between being a pro and being an artist
sometimes they overlap where the artistic photographer makes his or her art
and advertising agencies or public relation houses, or ? buy it for commerical purposes
but its original intent was not for commerical purposes but for art and the 2 things are different.
art is not ephemeral commerical art often times is ephemeral, do you remember the "old navy" ads 10 years ago?
but one probably remembers the keith herring art from 20 years ago, even the ones that were sold commercially
or put on a postage stamp.

< ... >Especially how most seem to prefer to talk about the technique and tools over the content <... >

awty, I think it is much easier to talk about gear and technique than intangible things like atmophere, beauty and other esoterics. Makes no matter with me that everyone is an artist
the more artists the better as far as I am concerned, even if they don't have a background in eugenics, or an artist's statement or know the difference between complimentary colors or magenta. If the people in charge were occupied by making art instead of misery we'd be in a better place spiritually, metaphysically and globally.

YMMV

 

[trendland]

^ You probably heard already in the gossip factory that Sean decided to tax excessive use of emoticons by non-subscribers ??

Thanks macfred for remind me about the issue! Yes and it is correct - I'd to pay a monthly sum
(Not for subscibing) for excessive use of.......!
But Sean offered his special tax in form of a so called emoticon flat rate in 2015 to me - a failure?

with regards

PS : Call him if you also have interest (it'll cost you more than to subscribe monthly) but if you descide to subscrbe later ALL emoticons you have posted between will count!

 

[trendland]

I feel something turns to art when it translates a feeling. I feel like: if I am photographing something that someone else created to elicit a feeling from the viewer, and I'm just duplicating the response someone would get from viewing it in person, then it's simply reproduction work. To me it feel cheap, like all I am doing is reporting to someone not standing there what the original artist intended the viewer to feel. That has a place, but I sure wouldn't call it art.

In contrast, the attached is my attempt to convey to a viewer the creepy feeling I got when walking through these swampy, mossy woods on an overcast afternoon. Some people might not see/feel anything, or something different than "a creepy feeling" I was trying to convey? But I know what was in front of my camera isn't the result of someone else's work to do the same.

View attachment 220978

That Stephe - would guide us to ask : Can landscape be art? Perhaps you will think about the paintings of "Turner" .....to you in the US he may be that what to some in Europe is represented
by Casper David Friedrich :

Is it art to shot a picture like this :

Rhein II. A.Gursky

Of course it have to be art because the market will pay!

(You probably know it is the worlds most expensive photograph [till today]..)..if you have the time
to wait a bit there will come one wich cost a bit more - the photographer will also be A.Gursky!

What is art - is to shot art = art .....? There is a consense between some but it is only a consense
of some - the mass would give that answer to Andreas G. : " My landscape is better than yours "!

with regards

 

[Brendan Quirk]

I very occasionally do photos of other art work, but take care that no one thinks I am taking credit for another persons work. See this photo in the standard media gallery for an example;

(pasted address below)

Curve XXII by Ellsworth Kelly

https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/curve-xxii-by-ellsworth-kelly.59709/

 

[Greg Heath]

I happened to be in Milwaukee, where it was ok to photograph the exhibits. it's for my own personal use...as a remembrance of where I was. It's taking a photograph to remember a piece of artwork I experienced. Obviously, I would never sell something like that. One of my favorites was artwork in Milwaukee I saw many years ago. https://www.flickr.com/photos/kb2qqm/8204734120/in/album-72157625933511100/

I think its Ok... but I dont make it a practice. Really, everything in the World is created by someone else. For me my motivation is not to defraud, but to enjoy it and remember a great day walking around Milwaukee. Seeing this artwork in person was great. The portrait was 10 feet tall.

Greg

 

[markjwyatt]

I suspect it depends on why you do with it. If you reproduce a painting I would say probably not. If you do something unique, maybe. How about this?


2D DOF by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

 

[awty]

awty : I forgot to state in my post #29 : In the US a film academy is an absolute must! Guess in Australia it is not easy without having! But in parts of the rest of the world it is NO GUARANTEE
to become a pros..........perhaps in the US it is also NO GUARANTEE at all - but generally
it could help!

with regards

Yes you would have a hard time being hired in Australia without some form of Higher education accreditation, regardless of your ability. If you gained a credible reputation overseas, it may be enough in the film industry, I dont know.

 

[awty]

awty, I think it is much easier to talk about gear and technique than intangible things like atmophere, beauty and other esoterics. Makes no matter with me that everyone is an artist
the more artists the better as far as I am concerned, even if they don't have a background in eugenics, or an artist's statement or know the difference between complimentary colors or magenta. If the people in charge were occupied by making art instead of misery we'd be in a better place spiritually, metaphysically and globally.

YMMV

I dont know, the couple of bona fide artists I know are total narcissistic nut cases (mean that in a nice way), guess art is self indulgence in a way. Hate to live in a world full of artist, nothing would get done.
So when someone shows me to what looks like to me a plain photograph and starts talking about their "art" in way of process, not content, it puzzles me why they think its art, especially when I ask an artist about their art and they go off on some tangential gibberish only they can understand like some astrophysicist. Im not one for labels, it is what it is.The world of photography is bizarre.

 

[jim10219]

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. For example, Van Gogh's "The Sower" is more famous than Millet's, whom he copied. Gauguin's "Spirit of the Dead Watching" is a copy of Manet's "Olympia", which is itself a copy of Titian's "Venus of Urbino". Duchamp took a poster of the "Mona Lisa" and Drew a mustache on her and write the letter's L.H.O.O.Q. (a pun in French) at the bottom. I myself have sold several paintings in galleries that were copies of famous works, but with minor tweaks.

The trick is to make it your own. Then you're not copying their work, but reinterpretting their work.

 

[mshchem]

Depends on what the rules are .
If one is trying to restrict their Art to things they create which are entirely new and original to them, then on.
But if their Art is more akin to a performance than that, why not?
If photographing Art cannot be Art, than I expect that photographing people can't be Art - and on that I am keen to disagree.

Unless you are photographing Art, eh, you know Art, the guy, everyone likes to take Art's picture, we'll because he's Art! You know .

 

[trendland]

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. For example, Van Gogh's "The Sower" is more famous than Millet's, whom he copied. Gauguin's "Spirit of the Dead Watching" is a copy of Manet's "Olympia", which is itself a copy of Titian's "Venus of Urbino". Duchamp took a poster of the "Mona Lisa" and Drew a mustache on her and write the letter's L.H.O.O.Q. (a pun in French) at the bottom. I myself have sold several paintings in galleries that were copies of famous works, but with minor tweaks.

The trick is to make it your own. Then you're not copying their work, but reinterpretting their work.

Jim I agree with that you just stated 100%. Well said - therefore on has to differentiate in general
between a 2 dimentional and a 3 dimentional object (wich is photographed)!
AS I mentioned before : The first case would Allways in a reproduction, for 3 dimentional art it depends-but that is a very hard job from my point : To make art by photograph a sculpture!
You also mentioned the issue : to copy art! There the difference is of course by the media!
A painter isn't able to copy a painting 100% correct (the normal case) - if he would fulfill that
task to 99,785% we may not speak about a copy : That is in most cases (not authorized) what we call a forgery!
What you mentioned (I agree with) is of course to lean on an approach of an artist (painting or photographing) that is absolute allowed - it is a bit more - you should do it!!!!
If you feel fine with a sculpture of a famous artist - why not to try to make an own sculpture in concern of the craft of Michelangelo.....if you are able to do it......?
But to photograph a sculpture is much more easy of course! In gerneral I don't like so much
"easy jobs"!
Coming to lean on photographs of famus photograpers - why not - just do it! You may learn a lot from this - and you of course you ALLWAYS have your own subjective view (what is a guarantee for that you will do something with own craft)!
An interpretation!

with regards

PS : Rhein III - the high hyped art market these days on now astronomical price lewel crawes for it!

PPS : Remember - RheinII is sold for : 4,3 mill. USD = 4.300.000,- !

I see there is no fine river in the near of you? What about Cindy Sherman?

Untidled #96
Cindy Sherman


PPS : There have to be a fine river in your near!!!

DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ART..........