Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Why I don't want photography classed as art ..

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

monstersnowman
20 May 2013 - 6:05 AM

http://digitalphotographytricksandtips.com/index.php/show/post/61998

Having photography classed as a craft seems to keep it rather respectable and based in skill and ability .. The moment it is enveloped by the 'art' world it becomes susceptible to the most ridiculous of extremes and becomes less about the skill and ability of the image maker or quality of the image than the marketability and how much more boundary pushing, shocking, surprising and ground breaking each image can be in order to maximise its art world value for its investors and gullible facile viewers. It's the tip of a new found art world iceberg that I don't want any part of.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
20 May 2013 - 6:05 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

brian1208
brian1208 e2 Member 1110266 forum postsbrian1208 vcard United Kingdom12 Constructive Critique Points
20 May 2013 - 6:37 AM

Couldn't agree more


(unless of course someone wants to pay me 100k for one of my pics, then my opiniom may change Grin )

StrayCat
StrayCat e2 Member 1014800 forum postsStrayCat vcard Canada2 Constructive Critique Points
20 May 2013 - 7:15 AM

I agree. However, it is governed by the eye of the beholder.

ErictheViking
ErictheViking e2 Member 1124 forum postsErictheViking vcard Scotland102 Constructive Critique Points
20 May 2013 - 9:12 AM

I agree that photography is a craft, to create an image which depicts what you want people to see takes great skill and creation to achieve. However photography can also be artistic. On this site some works posted have had great artistic qualities in the way they depict there subject using various mediums which singularly bear no resemblance to the end depiction or there are the images which are purely abstract and are created for there visual pleasure, much in the same way some art is created.

The ultimate decision rests with the viewer and in their feelings. Yes it will go to extremes which can test viewers likes and appreciation and this happens in photography and art so I have to say that I agree but also disagree.

Photography is a craft with skill and expertise, but what is created is art.

Erik

keith selmes
20 May 2013 - 9:20 AM


Quote: Having photography classed as a craft seems to keep it rather respectable and based in skill and ability .

No, that's too restrictive and doesn't reflect reality.
Best thing is not to fuss about definitions, of photography or art, and just do it.

paulcookphotography


Quote: Having photography classed as a craft seems to keep it rather respectable and based in skill and ability .


Because of course, art is never respectable and doesnt require skill or ability...

Where do folk get these ideas from? Should we all just become blinkered wedding photographers then?

Last Modified By paulcookphotography at 20 May 2013 - 9:29 AM
CDSINUK
CDSINUK  2223 forum posts England
20 May 2013 - 10:36 AM

An Art form as not all photo's are Art, just as not all painting are....however based solely on ones perception both can be , keep to your morals, but i ask one question...Why do you have a website ???? i would assume it is so you can share your perception of the world around you? Sounds like ART to me Smile no offence Smile

PhilT2
PhilT2 e2 Member 498 forum postsPhilT2 vcard England10 Constructive Critique Points
20 May 2013 - 10:39 AM

Photography is an art form whether you like it or not............all of the accepted rules for composition and balance in a landscape existed long before cameras were invented...........all of the great portrait artists understood light and skin tones long before cameras existed. And so on and so on....
I have seen great photographs created by people who never use anything but auto settings. I have also seen some very mediocre pictures from the most expensive of photographic gear.
What sets a great photographer apart from the rest is the ability to see an image before pressing the shutter button. This visuality is often called "having a photographer's eye" . Actually all this means is that the person who creates something special has an in built sense of what "art" is all about and all the camera does is record this visualisation.
Called it perfectionism......call it flair......call it divine intervention.........................But please don't call it a craft (that is an insult to the truly inspired photographers)

So what if this pushes the boundaries ...........is this not what we all try to do. Are we not all inspired by top photographers who do just that.

For me the banner of ART is indeed a forward step to the future of photography and sets apart the talented from the multitude

hobbo
hobbo e2 Member 3796 forum postshobbo vcard England2 Constructive Critique Points
20 May 2013 - 10:43 AM

I can only suggest that the original poster go to the BBC iPlayer to watch the incredible photography of Irwin Bloomenfeld....I have drawn attention to the documentary in another thread....a...MUST WATCH...for all serious/creative photgraphers:

Hobbo

brian1208
brian1208 e2 Member 1110266 forum postsbrian1208 vcard United Kingdom12 Constructive Critique Points
20 May 2013 - 10:55 AM


Quote: becomes less about the skill and ability of the image maker or quality of the image than the marketability and how much more boundary pushing, shocking, surprising and ground breaking each image can be in order to maximise its art world value for its investors and gullible facile viewers

I think this may be the key point being made rather than debating whether photography is "Art" (which of course it can be)

arhb
arhb e2 Member 72272 forum postsarhb vcard United Kingdom68 Constructive Critique Points
20 May 2013 - 11:22 AM


Quote: becomes less about the skill and ability of the image maker or quality of the image than the marketability and how much more boundary pushing, shocking, surprising and ground breaking each image can be in order to maximise its art world value for its investors and gullible facile viewers

I think this may be the key point being made rather than debating whether photography is "Art" (which of course it can be)

I think the topic title could be better Brian, in order to focus on what you've quoted.


Quote: Having photography classed as a craft seems to keep it rather respectable and based in skill and ability

This is also a distraction.

PhilT2
PhilT2 e2 Member 498 forum postsPhilT2 vcard England10 Constructive Critique Points
20 May 2013 - 11:39 AM


Quote: becomes less about the skill and ability of the image maker or quality of the image than the marketability and how much more boundary pushing, shocking, surprising and ground breaking each image can be in order to maximise its art world value for its investors and gullible facile viewers



Quote: I think this may be the key point being made rather than debating whether photography is "Art" (which of course it can be)


What is the difference between a painter, a photographer, a sculptor, designer, etc. They all require skill and ability and they all are looking for a market from "investors and gullible facile viewers" Why not indeed, we all would like to make a good living from what skills we possess.
The art world is muddled by many critics who wax lyrical about everything from the great old masters to the extreme and ridiculous (only in my opinion).
The very best artists are still revered hundreds of years later when some of the so called extreme ground breaking artists have become forgotten within a year.
Whether it is appealing or not to an individual it requires skill and ability to create. I may find something hideous, in my view, when I visit a gallery or exhibition..........but seldom is there no element of skill or ability.
I still maintain that photography should be included as and classed as "art" and not simply a "craft"

brian1208
brian1208 e2 Member 1110266 forum postsbrian1208 vcard United Kingdom12 Constructive Critique Points
20 May 2013 - 12:27 PM


Quote: I still maintain that photography should be included as and classed as "art" and not simply a "craft"

you will notice that I don't disagree with you Smile

although not all photography is art nor are all photographers artists - for example, when I was using photography as a forensic tool for recording and measuring structures in polymers "Art" was the last thing on my mind and it would have negated the purpose of the exercise completely, likewise when recording bee species or other natural history subjects.

As always, there is no one "Right" answer (but always only in my humble opinion of course, I'm sure that others will know better Tongue )

Last Modified By brian1208 at 20 May 2013 - 12:31 PM
PhilT2
PhilT2 e2 Member 498 forum postsPhilT2 vcard England10 Constructive Critique Points
20 May 2013 - 1:11 PM

Hi Brian

Yep I saw that it was not a disagreement but used your comment as a basis for getting back on track.

I agree that some aspects of photography should not be done as artistic interpretation (forensic being a great example) together with satellite, scientific, microscopic, medical, etc etc. Equally, courtroom artists and criminal sketch artists would not really be classed as artistic interpretation.
However I do not believe that these specific areas were being considered by the original poster and I do like a good debate Wink

brian1208
brian1208 e2 Member 1110266 forum postsbrian1208 vcard United Kingdom12 Constructive Critique Points
20 May 2013 - 1:55 PM


Quote: I do like a good debate

Grin Grin Grin Grin

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.