You're right. The Getty has a wonderful selection of photos - some huge and some tiny. Here's a snapshot I took of two snapshots in their gallery that the museum considers art. They were taken in 1929 by Walker Evans; quick snaps of the Brooklyn Bridge. Are they snaps; or art?Come visit the Getty Center in Los Angeles. There is an entire level of one of the pavilions dedicated to photography and they regularly mount stunning shows. The research institute gallery also has frequent photography shows.
Andrew, Could it be that many photos start off with another purpose beside straight aesthetics? For example, the advertising pictures of Avedon. Also, photos are a relatively young art form compared to drawings and paintings. People haven't experienced them as an art form or didn't realize it was just that.When I was at Uni studying Art, I thought all the students in the photography program were there because they could not draw or paint. That view changed about a year after I graduated. The general public probably still thinks this way. It's common. Everyone has a cell phone. Painters are rare.
For fun, at the start of every photography class I teach, I ask my students to name one famous photographer. Crickets...
Next, I ask for s famous artist. The usual suspects are listed with ease.
By the end of my course, they can name a few photographers, have a better appreciation for photography as an artistic expression, and realise the power of the photographic image.
Why were your students who could draw and paint attracted to photography?When I was at Uni studying Art, I thought all the students in the photography program were there because they could not draw or paint. That view changed about a year after I graduated. The general public probably still thinks this way. It's common. Everyone has a cell phone. Painters are rare.
For fun, at the start of every photography class I teach, I ask my students to name one famous photographer. Crickets...
Next, I ask for s famous artist. The usual suspects are listed with ease.
By the end of my course, they can name a few photographers, have a better appreciation for photography as an artistic expression, and realise the power of the photographic image.
Hi Alan,You're right. The Getty has a wonderful selection of photos - some huge and some tiny. Here's a snapshot I took of two snapshots in their gallery that the museum considers art. They were taken in 1929 by Walker Evans; quick snaps of the Brooklyn Bridge. Are they snaps; or art?
View attachment 281933
The “fine art” photography (photographer) (photographs) thing irks me. While I obviously don’t have an exhaustive knowledge of every well-known name, I can’t think of any highly accomplished photographers who call themselves that.
IDK. I know someone who I believe calls herself a fine art photographer, I believe she got a mccarthur fellowship, she is in magnum maybe agency vu and I think might do weddings ... its not all or none.. and I know a fine art film maker who also did weddings...but you do avoid the inevitable question of do you do weddings
Doesn't it seem that all 80 year old pictures showing old cars, stuffy clothing, and other old things just seem so artistic? I'm sure it will be the same 80 years from now. What really is freaky is when they colorize century old videos of street action like in the lower east side of NYC.Hi Alan,
Something to consider ... Walter Evans and others in the first 1/4 of the 20th century were using the camera to document the world around them, some to promote social change ( like Jacob Riis and Louis Hines ). He's one of the people whose shoulders we are all standing on ( and most people don't even know his name or his work ). Even if they are snapshots, they are pretty good and I'd call them "art"... but I'm a sucker for between the wars documentary work. AND it just goes to show you can use a cheap Kodak vest pocket camera, like a lomo or holga of its time, to make photographs that are celebrated by curators.
John
Doesn't it seem that all 80 year old pictures showing old cars, stuffy clothing, and other old things just seem so artistic? I'm sure it will be the same 80 years from now.
Why not weddings?The people I know who call themselves fine art photographers are not famous. Some of them are very accomplished photographers, in the sense that they are highly trained or skilled; others less so. Certainly calling yourself a fine art photographer doesn't make your photography any better, but you do avoid the inevitable question of do you do weddings.
I know what you mean .. that said Walker Even's work was considered the cream of the crop when he made those photographs back in the day. he was well known enough that he worked for Roy Stryker at the FSA ...Doesn't it seem that all 80 year old pictures showing old cars, stuffy clothing, and other old things just seem so artistic? I'm sure it will be the same 80 years from now. What really is freaky is when the colorize century old videos of street action like in the lower east side of NYC.
Restored Footage Reveals New York City in 1911 | NowThis - Bing video
Why not weddings?
I was trained as an electronic technician repairing computers and designing digital based building automation systems. When ever I visited family, they were always asking me to fix their TV's which I knew nothing about.
Good one, Alan! Now be asked to repair the TV in the next 10 minutes because the family has just one chance to see a family member on Let's Make a Deal! and they are all counting on you for this important event and watching every move you make...and to make it real, no dinner and no bed for you if you blow it. That's photographing a wedding to me!Why not weddings?
I was trained as an electronic technician repairing computers and designing digital based building automation systems. When ever I visited family, they were always asking me to fix their TV's which I knew nothing about.
The "Art is in the eye of the beholder" argument is problematic .... Art does need to be beheld, but the beholding is not sufficient of itself. ...
No...it just means there is good art and bad art. Art that connects with the viewer and art that does not. "Losing its meaning" is an impossibility...it has to find it first."Art is what I say it is" then everything is art to somebody. If we hold to a PC dictum and respect everyone's art and call it such then everything is art and the term loses meaning.
Academia cannot dictate what an individual feels and thinks.
...a cheap Kodak vest pocket camera, like a lomo or holga of its time...
hahaNow them's fight'n words.
I'm gonna steal that.Photography is seeing - the camera is there to prove you saw.
Why were your students who could draw and paint attracted to photography?
Andrew, Could it be that many photos start off with another purpose beside straight aesthetics? For example, the advertising pictures of Avedon. Also, photos are a relatively young art form compared to drawings and paintings. People haven't experienced them as an art form or didn't realize it was just that.
How does the viewer know the intention of the photographer? Would a current viewer know it was originally taken 80 years ago as a snapshot to record an event? I don't think so. So as long as the piece does something emotionally to the viewer, it's art. We photographers are allowed to get lucky you know.
"Intention" has nothing to do with it. Most things intended as art are failures.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?