Craft + MARKETING = "art"
Photography: Art or Craft?
-
- Thread starter Jorge
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy 120/220 backing paper
- Started by MCB18
-
Found Konica AR 24mm or 28mm lens
- Started by blee1996
-
Sold SOLD!
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Sinar Pan-Tilt Head
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2002
- Messages
- 235
Is it dead horse time around here? Hasn't this just about gotten discussed and beaten to death over the last 75 years?
Any art form requires craftsmanship. The problem people have with photography is that if you give a chimpanzee a camera, it will make a photograph - not necessarily "art" (whatever that may be) - but, it can come up with a rudimentery image. Of course, this is predicated on the chimp being given some help with the final production of the photographic print. However, even this is not much different than the artistic elephant who loves to paint pictures.
The implications of this being, anyone with a camera is capable of making an artistic image with little or no practice, only luck. Other art forms appear to require training, practice, and a dedication to work at them to develop the ability to translate what is in the mind of the creator through skilled eye / hand coordination into a final product. In that context, true art is akin to playing a musical instrument. Musicians study and work diligently to make music instead of noise. This obvious practice, work, and dedication is appreciated by those who cannot make music.
Not so with photography. It is the equipment that makes the photograph - or so many people think. If you can compentently operate the equipment - (and who has to do that now with auto - eveything?) - then you can take a photograph. With some "luck" it may be considered "art."
The real problem with photography is that it is so easy to make a rudimentary image. People, therefore, often classify it as a lesser form of expression because it is easy, and requires little or no practice for generating an image.
Those who insist on making an expressive image, or depicting a personal point of view know just how hard you have to work to achieve that level of expression.
I am reminded of a statement by Franz Liebkin in the movie the "Producers," who said, "Did you know Hitler was a wonderful painter? A whole flat, two coats, one day."
Yep, there's painting and then there's painting. I guess the context one has to consider is the crux of the bisquit.
Any art form requires craftsmanship. The problem people have with photography is that if you give a chimpanzee a camera, it will make a photograph - not necessarily "art" (whatever that may be) - but, it can come up with a rudimentery image. Of course, this is predicated on the chimp being given some help with the final production of the photographic print. However, even this is not much different than the artistic elephant who loves to paint pictures.
The implications of this being, anyone with a camera is capable of making an artistic image with little or no practice, only luck. Other art forms appear to require training, practice, and a dedication to work at them to develop the ability to translate what is in the mind of the creator through skilled eye / hand coordination into a final product. In that context, true art is akin to playing a musical instrument. Musicians study and work diligently to make music instead of noise. This obvious practice, work, and dedication is appreciated by those who cannot make music.
Not so with photography. It is the equipment that makes the photograph - or so many people think. If you can compentently operate the equipment - (and who has to do that now with auto - eveything?) - then you can take a photograph. With some "luck" it may be considered "art."
The real problem with photography is that it is so easy to make a rudimentary image. People, therefore, often classify it as a lesser form of expression because it is easy, and requires little or no practice for generating an image.
Those who insist on making an expressive image, or depicting a personal point of view know just how hard you have to work to achieve that level of expression.
I am reminded of a statement by Franz Liebkin in the movie the "Producers," who said, "Did you know Hitler was a wonderful painter? A whole flat, two coats, one day."
Yep, there's painting and then there's painting. I guess the context one has to consider is the crux of the bisquit.
How about:
Craft: A paint-by-number work where all the paint was applied within the lines. Controlled, "perfect" and un-original.
Art: The polar opposite.
Craft: A paint-by-number work where all the paint was applied within the lines. Controlled, "perfect" and un-original.
Art: The polar opposite.
Mozart, Betthoven, Michaelangelo, did not sit down and create just for the love of it. They had to work to pay the bills and live. Almost all of their work was completed as paid commisions. In that regard, while they may be considered 3 of the greatest artists the Western world has ever known, they almost would have considered themselves master craftsman with a product that was in great demand. The work is only considered great art when the public or the purchaser says it is so.
The same holds true today. I have long felt that Ansel Adams was a great craftsman who created work that was eventually accepted as art. Quite a bit of his best work was done when working on commission from the National Parks Service.I don't know if he ever considered himself a great artist, but I think he thought of himself as a master craftsman.
So my opinion, photography is a craft. Your craft can be technically perfect but have no soul, so it stays a craft. you can create images that the craftsman may say are technically inferior, but if peers and collectors say it is art, you become an artist.
The same holds true today. I have long felt that Ansel Adams was a great craftsman who created work that was eventually accepted as art. Quite a bit of his best work was done when working on commission from the National Parks Service.I don't know if he ever considered himself a great artist, but I think he thought of himself as a master craftsman.
So my opinion, photography is a craft. Your craft can be technically perfect but have no soul, so it stays a craft. you can create images that the craftsman may say are technically inferior, but if peers and collectors say it is art, you become an artist.
Jim68134 said:
I don't think that monetary gain necessarily determines whether or not a work is art or craft. Art *can* be produced for money, or sustenance or ..., witness numerous artists funded by "grants". There is something else ... Art requires the involvement of the "spirit" of the one creating it. It must exhibit something of life.
A craftsman can make a table, for himself, with *no* idea of making money, faithfully following a blueprint, without becoming emotionally involved. The table may be beautiful, but if it is not an expression of its maker, it is a "craft piece" ... not necessarily a "bad" thing ... just not really art.
So, when we photograph ... WHY do we do it? I would not mind making money from it ... but that is not even close to my primary motivation, neither is status or being seen as a "Great Photographer" (In all honesty, that was my goal when I first started ... but I learned that "greatness" is a numbing illusion).
I know that this sounds simplistic ... but the best answer I can give is that "I do it because I feel better doing it than I do when I don't do it."
Why do I feel like that? .... I'm not sure... I'll keep at it until I figure it out.
That is true about the table, but I have seen Shaker pieces at the Art Institute of Chicago and other museums were they are considered to be art. I don't think the creator intended that characterization, but yet that is how it is perceived today.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2002
- Messages
- 60
I think photography is craft; art is IMO a specific purpose to which a craft or other skill is used. Like writing isn't art, but that it's a skill that can be used to produce art (e.g. poetry).
Photography is a craft which can sometimes be used to produce art. It's the same as woodwork. You can use the same basic tools to frame a wall or build a Shaker chair. The difference is in the craftsperson.
A product predominately of the Hands - is Craft.
A product predominately of the Soul - is Art.
A product predominately of the Soul - is Art.
A few events are coming together - must be fate.
While waiting for the thirty (30) minutes for the Agfapan 400 to "cook" in the JOBO processor, I have many chances to re-read my old Camera and Darkroom issues. I'm rediscovering the roots of some of my internalized pre-conscious mindsets.
My attitude (generally) towards "critiques":
From the July, 1993 issue - "Perspectives - Is Photography Art - The Old Question, Revisited", by Mike Johnston:
"I like photographs. I mentioned earlier some examples of the "found" pictures I value. But I tend to like photographers more; not only because I am sympathetic to their struggles, and sympathetic to their problems, but - and this is crucial - because I am convinced by their work when they succeed. So as a viewer, I am willing to spend time and care and effort to unlock the secret of what's inside them, the mystery of what they're struggling to "put into" their pictures. What interests me is not so much the fact that some small subset of all random photographs happen, by chance, to be good ones; I am more interested in what all of one person's photographs can tell me about that person's thoughts and values, and how completely that can be communicated in pictures.
One thing this interest requires and assumes, though, is integrity on the part of the photographer. If the photographer won't be honest, or if he or she imitates a generic style, or allows other people to tell them what to photograph, or merely pursues superficial technical effects, then it gets harder to tell what they're really about."
"... In general, one must admit, most photographers fail at being artists. This is true even when they're trained and when they're trying to be.
The ones who succeed the best, I think, are the ones who don't try to rig the game, who do their own thing who don't try to second-guess the arbiters of style and taste, who don't judge themselves only by the acceptance of others, who are willing to experiment, to loosen up, to stay honest with themselves, and above all, to listen and respond to what their gut tells them about their work.
The ones I am describing are, as far as I'm concerned, the only real photographers. Not the ones that Dorothea Lange called "the Success Boys", who make photography pay, but rather those who somehow manage to shove the craft of photography kicking and screaming into the realm of consistent personal expression. They're the ones who really make this medium vital for the rest of us, and it's those people whose work we try to bring you in the pages of Camera & Darkroom. They're the ones who make photography worthwhile, Here's to 'em!
And if that's what you you're trying to be, why then, here's to you too. Good luck, and don't ever quit!"
Its attitudes and underlying philosophies like this that made C&D so great - that it lives on - so strongly - in the memories of those influenced by it.
"If the photographer won't be honest -- If he or she imitates a generic style, or allows other people to tell them what to photograph" ... Isn't all that the raison d'etre of the overwhelming majority of critics?
-So tell me again ... other than fostering a sense of security - "I won't get yelled at or encounter disapproval", what is the value of criticism?
While waiting for the thirty (30) minutes for the Agfapan 400 to "cook" in the JOBO processor, I have many chances to re-read my old Camera and Darkroom issues. I'm rediscovering the roots of some of my internalized pre-conscious mindsets.
My attitude (generally) towards "critiques":
From the July, 1993 issue - "Perspectives - Is Photography Art - The Old Question, Revisited", by Mike Johnston:
"I like photographs. I mentioned earlier some examples of the "found" pictures I value. But I tend to like photographers more; not only because I am sympathetic to their struggles, and sympathetic to their problems, but - and this is crucial - because I am convinced by their work when they succeed. So as a viewer, I am willing to spend time and care and effort to unlock the secret of what's inside them, the mystery of what they're struggling to "put into" their pictures. What interests me is not so much the fact that some small subset of all random photographs happen, by chance, to be good ones; I am more interested in what all of one person's photographs can tell me about that person's thoughts and values, and how completely that can be communicated in pictures.
One thing this interest requires and assumes, though, is integrity on the part of the photographer. If the photographer won't be honest, or if he or she imitates a generic style, or allows other people to tell them what to photograph, or merely pursues superficial technical effects, then it gets harder to tell what they're really about."
"... In general, one must admit, most photographers fail at being artists. This is true even when they're trained and when they're trying to be.
The ones who succeed the best, I think, are the ones who don't try to rig the game, who do their own thing who don't try to second-guess the arbiters of style and taste, who don't judge themselves only by the acceptance of others, who are willing to experiment, to loosen up, to stay honest with themselves, and above all, to listen and respond to what their gut tells them about their work.
The ones I am describing are, as far as I'm concerned, the only real photographers. Not the ones that Dorothea Lange called "the Success Boys", who make photography pay, but rather those who somehow manage to shove the craft of photography kicking and screaming into the realm of consistent personal expression. They're the ones who really make this medium vital for the rest of us, and it's those people whose work we try to bring you in the pages of Camera & Darkroom. They're the ones who make photography worthwhile, Here's to 'em!
And if that's what you you're trying to be, why then, here's to you too. Good luck, and don't ever quit!"
Its attitudes and underlying philosophies like this that made C&D so great - that it lives on - so strongly - in the memories of those influenced by it.
"If the photographer won't be honest -- If he or she imitates a generic style, or allows other people to tell them what to photograph" ... Isn't all that the raison d'etre of the overwhelming majority of critics?
-So tell me again ... other than fostering a sense of security - "I won't get yelled at or encounter disapproval", what is the value of criticism?
Craft and art are not things to be separated: doing so is a recent vanity.
Before you could even begin such a discussion you'd have to define the word "art", good luck with that. They word art is like the words god or love, they all have different meanings to different people. And does it really matter what you call it? Just do it!
Obviously it can be both, and the two categories can overlap. Mostly depends if the photographer is a craftsman or an artist. Most are craftsmen because artists are few and far between. But many artists are good craftsmen as well.
Question: Is photography an art or a craft?
Answer: Yes
Next question please
Answer: Yes
Next question please
If you can use it, then you're involved in making crafts. If you make stuff that has no use at all other than to look pretty (or ugly, it don't matter), then you made some art. One of the main qualities of art is that it must be useless. First and foremost, that's the only rule.
When I started making pottery I got away from this, and started making usable stuff out of ignorance. Plates, cups, bowls, all the usual suspects. One day it hit me what I was doing, so I broke all that, and now make cups that won't hold fluids, bowls that won't hold food, and plates that are hung on the wall and are useless as plates. Yes!
The main thing to remember, and I've been doing this a long time, is that art is a very old con game. We're always selling sizzle and not steak, it's about the image, not meaning, because the work means only what we say or think it means, it has no meaning of it's own. So don't take it so seriously, that's my motto. It's just stuff.
When I started making pottery I got away from this, and started making usable stuff out of ignorance. Plates, cups, bowls, all the usual suspects. One day it hit me what I was doing, so I broke all that, and now make cups that won't hold fluids, bowls that won't hold food, and plates that are hung on the wall and are useless as plates. Yes!
The main thing to remember, and I've been doing this a long time, is that art is a very old con game. We're always selling sizzle and not steak, it's about the image, not meaning, because the work means only what we say or think it means, it has no meaning of it's own. So don't take it so seriously, that's my motto. It's just stuff.
Last edited:
And when the monkey becomes famous, the assistant that set up the tripod will claim the rights to the monkeys work, just because he's human. It's tough being a monkey artist.
Deleted member 88956
Or craft + call yourself fine art photographee
Do you pre-wash.
Yes but not for Tri-X in replenished XTOL on the Jobo processor.
Tri-X is not good non-prewashed in replenished XTOL on Jobo because I once tried it and didn't like it.
I miss Jorge.
Insufficient choices for this poll. You need to have two other choices, Both and Neither (describe in post what you think it is). I would have selected Both.
I notice the current votes vastly favor art over craft. We tend to think a lot of ourselves. 
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |