What is your definition of photography ?

[BrianShaw]

Middle or Muddle?

Yes

 

[wiltw]

My point exactly. Why draw the line? Define graphic arts anyway one wants -- two or three or four terms. A subjective decision. The graphic art within the general field of graphic arts is not (IMO) the polar opposite of photography, instead can be a blend of photographic elements along with other elements of the graphic arts - a collage or a montage.

Or any other way one wants to define it -- as long as both parties trying to communicate can do so.

You apparently missed my point in attempting to answer the question you raised..

As an enthusiast, I would want to go to a 'photograph display', but I have no inclination to go to a 'graphic arts' display at a museum. That is a strong reason to distinguish one from another...to catch the interest of appropriate audiences.​

Oil painting and charcoal drawing are both very differen parts of the 'graphic arts', too. There is an understanding of what is expected if I go to see a 'display of charcoals' at the musuem...I do not expect an Ansel Adams display or Helmut Newton.

Another replay mentioned 'transportation' when someone wants to rent a specific type of transportation. Same issue...to meet the needs of the right segment of the broader audience. Similarly you turn off 'music' enthusiasts when some want to hear 'jazz' but you present 'opera sonatas'

 

[eddie]

Why is a rigid definition necessary?

 

[markjwyatt]

Why is a rigid definition necessary?

I do not recall anyone asking for a "rigid" definition. Can you define "rigid definition" as opposed to "definition"? Maybe a rigid definition is a specification, which for "photography" may be a 1000 page document.

 

[Vaughn]

Transportation: Ships, airplanes, cars, motorcycles, bicycles, etc. They are all transportation. Why categorize them?

I guess because I like to be a bit more precise. If I go to Avis and ask to rent some transportation, and they give me a bicycle, do I have any right to complain?

Ahhh, but we are not talking about ships, trains and bikes (types of photography), but instead their classification as transportation (photography) -- as opposed to a chair, which is not a method of transportation -- unless one makes a 'collage' and puts it on a train, bus, etc.

We are asking, then, in the case above, does the chair become a method of transportation when put on a train and sat upon?

Who bloody cares!

 

[eddie]

The thread has tried to differentiate between digital, traditional, manipulated, non-manipulated, etc. as being differences worthy of disparate terms. I think that's fairly rigid.

 

[Wayne]

Photography, noun. 1) various sports utilizing image-making skills, mainly of Japanese and French origins, that originated as forms of self-defense or attack on other image-making skills and sports

 

[eddie]

Photography, noun. 1) various sports utilizing image-making skills, mainly of Japanese and French origins, that originated as forms of self-defense or attack on other image-making skills and sports

So, it's not fine art. It's a martial art. And hybrid would be a mixed martial art?

 

[markjwyatt]

Ahhh, but we are not talking about ships, trains and bikes (types of photography), but instead their classification as transportation (photography) -- as opposed to a chair, which is not a method of transportation -- unless one makes a 'collage' and puts it on a train, bus, etc.

I don't want to get too philosophically deep here, but I am talking categories and sub-categories. You are right that a car is more of an opbject than photography is. Photography is more of a practice, but both are categories.

We are asking, then, in the case above, does the chair become a method of transportation when put on a train and sat upon?

Add some balloons to a lounge chair, and wala! Transportation (star around 2:11)

 

[removed account4]

The thread has tried to differentiate between digital, traditional, manipulated, non-manipulated, etc. as being differences worthy of disparate terms. I think that's fairly rigid.

Since I started the his thread ( as a barometer of what people here do hi k photography is ) I’ve realized that maybe the reason since 1839 photography has struggles so hard to be true legitimate art form is because maybe there are too many ideas what photography is. 7 pages in this thread and probably15-20 different definitions... seems photography can’t get out of its own way. the ideas that plagues photography in the 1850 are still plaguing it, just because it’s what people with cameras do.

pigeon holing of typology and process and isn’t doing anyone any favors, it just becomes weakest link

 

[wiltw]

We are asking, then, in the case above, does the chair become a method of transportation when put on a train and sat upon?

Who bloody cares!

If I want to get to Europe, I would not hop a train across US or Canada. And if I needed to get from East Coast to West Coast US, I would care if I needed to be there 6 hours later, I would take an airplane.
It does matter.

 

[removed account4]

I don’t think too many ideas about what photography is has anything to do with its historical struggles. I can tell you what has quite a lot to do with that, but it’s best left for offline discussion.

Totally
Too many chefs not enough rocks to boil

 

[BrianShaw]

Well, folks... I’m all tuckered out. Thinking this hard about these lofty topics is fatiguing. I think I’ll make a martini. Should i use gin or vodka? And how many olives? Shaken or stirred?

 

[BrianShaw]

Well, folks... I’m all tuckered out. Thinking this hard about these lofty topics is fatiguing. I think I’ll make a martini. Should i use gin or vodka? And how many olives? Shaken or stirred?

Anyone care to join me? The bar is well stocked and the front door is unlocked!

 

[markjwyatt]

Since I started the his thread ( as a barometer of what people here do hi k photography is ) I’ve realized that maybe the reason since 1839 photography has struggles so hard to be true legitimate art form is because maybe there are too many ideas what photography is. 7 pages in this thread and probably15-20 different definitions... seems photography can’t get out of its own way. the ideas that plagues photography in the 1850 are still plaguing it, just because it’s what people with cameras do.

pigeon holing of typology and process and isn’t doing anyone any favors, it just becomes weakest link

I am sure when they went from charcoal on cave walls to painting they had the same arguments. Those who used pigments on cave walls felt superior.

 

[wiltw]

Anyone care to join me? The bar is well stocked and the front door is unlocked!

Expect a knock on the door in about 6 hours, I do not want to fly yet. Send address to my cell phone via text.

 

[removed account4]

Neither does yours

Lol exactly!

 

[Vaughn]

Since I started the his thread ( as a barometer of what people here do hi k photography is ) I’ve realized that maybe the reason since 1839 photography has struggles so hard to be true legitimate art form is because maybe there are too many ideas what photography is...

And how long has painting, music and so on been around to have their questions answered? 1839 -- less than 200 years ago...phtttt...a mayfly's life

 

[Wayne]

Since I started the his thread ( as a barometer of what people here do hi k photography is ) I’ve realized that maybe the reason since 1839 photography has struggles so hard to be true legitimate art form is because maybe there are too many ideas what photography is.

do you think this definition helps?

to me it is just about light sensitive media, or no media at all.
it is about a shadow on a wall, or impression something leaves on a painted or unpainted surface after the sun bleaches everything around it, its about using a device, any sort it doesn't matter to me with a lens or without, with photo emulsion that is fixed or stained in a camera or out of a camera, with a sensor or without, and its about using light sensitive materials that react with uv light that might create some sort of image or design ...

According to this, a sunburn or a faded curtain is photography.

 

[tballphoto]

Since I started the his thread ( as a barometer of what people here do hi k photography is ) I’ve realized that maybe the reason since 1839 photography has struggles so hard to be true legitimate art form is because maybe there are too many ideas what photography is. 7 pages in this thread and probably15-20 different definitions... seems photography can’t get out of its own way. the ideas that plagues photography in the 1850 are still plaguing it, just because it’s what people with cameras do.

pigeon holing of typology and process and isn’t doing anyone any favors, it just becomes weakest link

Photography isnt the problem. Its the people in it. It doesnt matter in the method the way that the image is taken, digital camera or film or wet plate for the persnickety ones here.

The actual point at debate is when does it STOP being photography/image taking and computer generated images created by computer software.

 

[mohmad khatab]

It is stopping a moment in time and recording it, and it is impossible to repeat it,

 

[removed account4]

do you think this definition helps?

to me it is just about light sensitive media, or no media at all.
it is about a shadow on a wall, or impression something leaves on a painted or unpainted surface after the sun bleaches everything around it, its about using a device, any sort it doesn't matter to me with a lens or without, with photo emulsion that is fixed or stained in a camera or out of a camera, with a sensor or without, and its about using light sensitive materials that react with uv light that might create some sort of image or design ...

According to this, a sunburn or a faded curtain is photography.

I know my definition doesn’t help either
and I completely agree, a faded curtain and sunburn with pizazz is a photographic.
you should have seen the photograph made by the the Hunter Thompson poster on my roomate's wall. not only was it made with UV light but it was toned with nicotine.

Photography isnt the problem. Its the people in it. It doesnt matter in the method the way that the image is taken, digital camera or film or wet plate for the persnickety ones here.

The actual point at debate is when does it STOP being photography/image taking and computer generated images created by computer software.

what's the difference between the computer generated image from the latent image on the plate and the chemical generated image from the latent image on the plate?
that seems top be a question too, no?

 

[guangong]

guangong. nothing is obvious that is why I asked for definitions... and I was hoping for a normal definition
not a what's its not definition...
with your and mr glass' definition I have questions which I have asked before and got no answer

is a photogram a photograph ?
what about a tinted ambrotype or tintype that is in a locket from 1870?
or a hand tinted daguerreotype or one of jerry ulesmann's images?
what about the color images of Russia in the early 1900s, or autochromes?
or a one of Andrew O'Neil's gum prints or Vaugh's carbon prints?
or a black and white image from tri x or tmx100 processed in xtol taken on a Hasselblad with a 150 Zeiss lens?

because the act of photography/converting all of these things to picture-form manipulates and changes them to something else.
and by your definitions none of these things are photographs .....
but according to philosophers, galleries, museums, teachers and historians of

what about this is obvious...

Don't put words into my mouth. The slight alterations to photograp

guangong. nothing is obvious that is why I asked for definitions... and I was hoping for a normal definition
not a what's its not definition...
with your and mr glass' definition I have questions which I have asked before and got no answer

is a photogram a photograph ?
what about a tinted ambrotype or tintype that is in a locket from 1870?
or a hand tinted daguerreotype or one of jerry ulesmann's images?
what about the color images of Russia in the early 1900s, or autochromes?
or a one of Andrew O'Neil's gum prints or Vaugh's carbon prints?
or a black and white image from tri x or tmx100 processed in xtol taken on a Hasselblad with a 150 Zeiss lens?

because the act of photography/converting all of these things to picture-form manipulates and changes them to something else.
and by your definitions none of these things are photographs .....
but according to philosophers, galleries, museums, teachers and historians of photography, and the people who make these images all of them have been considered photographs.

what about this is obvious...

Don't put words into my mouth. All of the variations you mentioned are nothing but minor variations and tweeks of photography. The unique character of photography is that manipulation of the scene for making a picture is nil compared to other forms of representation. For example, Goya's etchings on the horors of war were easier to compose, than photos shot by a combat photographer. Canaletto was able to move whole buildings when composing his landscapes.. The reason that I distinguish digital capture is because it is not limited by he constraints of photography as far as manipulating images in picture. This does not mean that DC is better or worse, it's just different.
What makes photography both difficult and interesting are the constraints placed on capturing an image. To make a really great photograph is extremely difficult. We enjoy many photographs simply because of the confidence that they are more or less a depiction of reality.
To get bent out of shape with sophistry is a waste of words and time. Like pornography, you know what a photograph is when you see it.

 

[removed account4]

Don't put words into my mouth. All of the variations you mentioned are nothing but minor variations and tweeks of photography. The unique character of photography is that manipulation of the scene for making a picture is nil compared to other forms of representation. For example, Goya's etchings on the horors of war were easier to compose, than photos shot by a combat photographer. Canaletto was able to move whole buildings when composing his landscapes.. The reason that I distinguish digital capture is because it is not limited by he constraints of photography as far as manipulating images in picture. This does not mean that DC is better or worse, it's just different.
What makes photography both difficult and interesting are the constraints placed on capturing an image. To make a really great photograph is extremely difficult. We enjoy many photographs simply because of the confidence that they are more or less a depiction of reality.
To get bent out of shape with sophistry is a waste of words and time. Like pornography, you know what a photograph is when you see it.

I didn't put words in your mouth
you requoted ...

Photography is about taking a photograph of something as it is. If one changes it to something else, that is NOT photography.

I did my best to understand what you and ... were suggesting since it makes absolutely no sense.
you say with ... its about the taking of the photograph and not changing it into something else. every one of those things I suggested are more than tweaks,
there is no such thing as a photograph that has not changed reality as we see it . that's what photography is.
any sort of camera/device/light sensitive medium it turns one thing into something else. photography is, a transformational activity that creates an abstractions of reality.
its like someone saying their photography isn't manipulated when it is inherent in the medium
the world in 2d and colors vivid muted or grainy .. static or blurs. or selective DOF or f32
or an X-ray / photogram either
the constrains of photography are only put upon. the person who is working the image.
if you look at ulesmann or man ray's work you can hopefully see what I mean.

but can you suggest a photograph that doesn't transform or abstract reality into something else?

 

[tballphoto]

the dif

I know my definition doesn’t help either
and I completely agree, a faded curtain and sunburn with pizazz is a photographic.
you should have seen the photograph made by the the Hunter Thompson poster on my roomate's wall. not only was it made with UV light but it was toned with nicotine.


what's the difference between the computer generated image from the latent image on the plate and the chemical generated image from the latent image on the plate?
that seems top be a question too, no?

ference between an image on a wet plate or film or sensor, and an "image" made by photoshop is that the photoshoped image NEVER happened.

How many times do you see sharks flying in the sky?