Is photographing art, art?

[Vaughn]

Trendland -- I must disagree with your premise that photgraphy is a represental art form -- it is no less or no more represental than painting or sculpture.

 

[trendland]

Trendland -- I must disagree your premis that photgraphy is a represental art form -- or at least no less or no more represental than painting or sculpture.

No worries about that Vaughn : because I disagree with you too (perhaps just in parts - but I would guess in total)!
Of course to create real art from making a sculpture need much more craft in general!
I am absolute not able (just in basics) to follow such workflow of sculpture makers!
I guess they have the need of such kind of phantasy (inner eye) normal people perhaps can get also but is it enough to form a sculpture such precise?
How easy is it for beginners to use a camera and press the button! The same is stated in regard of paintings! Therefore there has to be a real border between : Picasso was born with much more talents in comparison of Henry Cartier Bresson!
Henry did it extreme fine (as we all are knowing) but how easy was it for him to find the right moment to press his botton in comparison to Picasso!
But my statement in general is a critic against the todays art market more than in direction of todays modern artists! Modern artists are not so much responsible for highest pricing!
It is the market wich isn't define art but defines (possible) profits via speculation with art!
And that mechanism catapulted photography within the 90s into highest regions! Todays market for art photography is paradox! And the circumstances of that mechanism let more and more
photographers think about photography as a kind of art - yes I have that feeling!
Beginning with "fine art photography"!
So fellows I don't have the intentions to blame fine art photography in any form!
Most of you are extreme fine experts - but what about commercial photography?
You should not think about family portaits (commercial made) of course!
But listen - I also don't intend to blame family portrait photography (commercial or not commercial made) - that all is a very fine photography to each photographer who has done!
But before discussing normal photography that should become a "kind of art" - what about
to make architecture photography for a client (commercial made) there is no discussion about
art - but it isn't real easy to fulfill such task complete perfect - so that the client can feel absolute satifaction! Looking at a shot of his new bureau building!
That's No "fine art photography"! So to feel as an artist is a danger to most of us photograpers!
But comming back to Gursky - I am sure he didn't feel as an artist of photography from his beginning - but once a day his wife came up with HER idea and told him :
"Come on Andreas - i've seen enough form your photography to understand it is extreme nice - but from this day on let's make REAL business - and be sure I AM ABLE TO HELP YOU A LOT"!!!

with regards....

PS : Folks come on and make art - but before that train your skills AND make sure you have married the right wife......

 

[Vaughn]

Of course to create real art from making a sculpture need much more craft in general!

Another point of disagreement. Your definition of sculpture is too limiting for one, and second, your downgrading of the skill set required to make art through photography does not make sense to me.

I am not too keen on borders (or walls) at the moment.

 

[Luckless]

All art forms have a wide open range on their related skills, from trivially basic to highly complex and advanced knowledge of the craft in question.

Photography is no different.

Not all sculptors are able to make their own version of David with the same detail and style. And frankly it would be a boring art world if that is all that sculpture was.

Last summer I ran into a few people who were absolutely gushing over statues from a BC artist at a market - The statues were made from stacks of local stones, which as far as I could tell were held together by what looked like hot glue... No actual carving involved on anything as far as I could see, but they still made for impressive pieces of art.

As far as photography of art as art itself, I think that comes down to intent and presentation. The line between documentary and art can become fuzzy in the photography world.

 

[removed account4]

Another point of disagreement. Your definition of sculpture is too limiting for one, and second, your downgrading of the skill set required to make art through photography does not make sense to me.

I am not too keen on borders (or walls) at the moment.

+1 !

 

[awty]

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

Agree somewhat, is so over used these days that it lacks any relevance.
What is interesting is photography with linear perseption. Creating depth is very difficult, lot depends on subtle lighting changes. Always worth experimenting with.

 

[MattKing]

Not all sculptors are able to make their own version of David with the same detail and style. And frankly it would be a boring art world if that is all that sculpture was.

And we would need a lot of extra space!

 

[blockend]

Trendland -- I must disagree with your premise that photgraphy is a represental art form -- it is no less or no more represental than painting or sculpture.

It's fair to say that representation is photography's unique strength. That's why photography has been the medium of choice for news, reportage, documentary and the retention of personal memories. Photography exploits the ability to freeze time within the frame. Its other capabilities tend to be imitative of other media.

 

[Vaughn]

It's fair to say that representation is photography's unique strength...

Not as an art form...there, its strength is the same as other art forms -- their power as a means of expression.

 

[Lanline]

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.

I had a friend photograph a sculpture on a trailer going down the freeway. She entered that image in a show and was accepted. The sculptor saw the photo and sued her for COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT and she had to withdraw the image from the show.

 

[warden]

I had a friend photograph a sculpture on a trailer going down the freeway. She entered that image in a show and was accepted. The sculptor saw the photo and sued her for COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT and she had to withdraw the image from the show.

Without seeing the photograph it's hard to say much with authority, but your story sounds more like a tale of litigious society gone mad than art theft.

 

[Vaughn]

Did he sue, or threaten to sue?

 

[blockend]

Not as an art form...there, its strength is the same as other art forms -- their power as a means of expression.

I suppose it depends what you mean by photography. A photogram or pinhole photograph relies exclusively upon the action of light on sensitive material for its appeal. However the instantaneous nature of the camera shutter has provided an exclusively photographic artform that has no equivalent in other media.

 

[markjwyatt]

I had a friend photograph a sculpture on a trailer going down the freeway. She entered that image in a show and was accepted. The sculptor saw the photo and sued her for COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT and she had to withdraw the image from the show.

That is insane. Your friend should sue the sculptor for intimidation. If it were not to be exposed, it should have been covered while being transported.

 

[removed account4]

I had a friend photograph a sculpture on a trailer going down the freeway. She entered that image in a show and was accepted. The sculptor saw the photo and sued her for COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT and she had to withdraw the image from the show.

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.
=

Not as an art form...there, its strength is the same as other art forms -- their power as a means of expression.

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

 

[Vaughn]

I suppose it depends what you mean by photography. A photogram or pinhole photograph relies exclusively upon the action of light on sensitive material for its appeal. However the instantaneous nature of the camera shutter has provided an exclusively photographic artform that has no equivalent in other media.

It more depends on what one means by art. True, the camera has provided a new unique way to see the world and to create art, but each art form has offered that. It is not the camera that makes art -- that must be done by us.

 

[Vaughn]

That is insane. Your friend should sue the sculptor for intimidation. If it were not to be exposed, it should have been covered while being transported.

My guess it was the organization putting on the show that got nervous...

 

[DonJ]

It makes me wonder if andy warhol could have been sued successfully for painting his cambell soup can.

Hard to say, but Campbell's was apparently so happy about the free advertising that they sent him a few cases of soup.

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/07/i-hear-you-like-tomato-soup.html

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

You nailed that correctly on all counts.

 

[removed account4]

You nailed that correctly on all counts.

If the sculpture was being used in an ad campaign it would have been a different story because she didn't get a release ...
you know like coffee mugs made with the "grumpy cat" ...

Hard to say, but Campbell's was apparently so happy about the free advertising that they sent him a few cases of soup.

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/07/i-hear-you-like-tomato-soup.html

good to know !

 

[StepheKoontz]

I suppose it depends what you mean by photography. A photogram or pinhole photograph relies exclusively upon the action of light on sensitive material for its appeal. However the instantaneous nature of the camera shutter has provided an exclusively photographic artform that has no equivalent in other media.

Not sure I agree with that. Many paintings are a "snap shot in time".

 

[markjwyatt]

Not sure I agree with that. Many paintings are a "snap shot in time".

Especially if they are painted from a reference photograph...

 

[blockend]

Not sure I agree with that. Many paintings are a "snap shot in time".

But artificially so. A painting takes hours or sometime months to depict an event that happened in a moment, and then only by skilled contrivance. Photography is the opposite, it developed to capture a fragment of a second. In the digital age that moment can be shared across the globe in an instant. So while it's true to say the mechanics of light drawing are not defined by their brevity (early photographs took a long time to expose), the medium evolved to be as instantaneous as possible for the technology available. 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, the ability to convince viewers of its truth.

 

[macfred]

“The painter constructs, the photographer discloses.”
S.Sontag

 

[warden]

But artificially so. A painting takes hours or sometime months to depict an event that happened in a moment, and then only by skilled contrivance. Photography is the opposite, it developed to capture a fragment of a second. In the digital age that moment can be shared across the globe in an instant. So while it's true to say the mechanics of light drawing are not defined by their brevity (early photographs took a long time to expose), the medium evolved to be as instantaneous as possible for the technology available. 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, the ability to convince viewers of its truth.

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.

It's true that photography excels at showing what's in front of the camera quickly and "accurately", but how photography excels as an art form is entirely up to the individual artist, and depends on the goals of the piece.

How photography and cameras excel as scientific instruments, i.e. not art, is a different matter. As scientific instruments, well photography totally kicks ass compared to painting. ;-)