 RG Rottschalk |
Photography vs. Art PHOTOGRAPHY VS. ART > I am very new to digital photography having purchased my first digital in May 2003 and my most recent in November 2003. I don't consider myself to be a good photographer or art critic or really anything more than a person learning to use the tools of a modern fascinating hobby. I also have a liberal opinion of the word "art" which is derived from a quote I heard many years ago from an unknown source who said, "Art is anything that you can get away with". (Warhol perhaps?) I don't always agree with that but I'm close to that level of interpretation in my own way. This general philosophy is the basis of my commentary. > > It seems to me that there is a fine line between "photo composition" and "photo manipulation" There are so many images out there today that have been significantly altered by fancy, expensive software, several shots pasted together to get one awesome looking "photo". Here lies my issue. I realize that even with film / chemical based "analog" photography that there are techniques to make simple photos look far different or composed in the lab vs, through the lense. Over the years and with no specific research performed on my part, many of the film-based manipulative results are fairly obvious. My concern is that with digital, there are so many easy ways to alter what the camera saw. To go beyond small adjustments to an image through software manipulation seems to be more like an art of "assemblage" than an art of shooting a clear, colorful (when applicable) pictures, properly exposed in whatever bracketing situation the photographer chooses. In fact, bracketing and cropping seems the most legitimate use of the camera as a tool of manipulating an image versus the use of software to accomplish the same. > > To sum it all up, I'm leaning toward the belief that a lot of "good photography" these days is the result of the software used to "compose" an image. There is so much emphasis on the use of "Photoshop" for one editing task or another. I too would be lost and incapable of participating in the hobby if not for personal computers, software, and printers. My personal goal is to learn the hardware tool (the camera) to it's intended digital capability versus any software program that can correct my mistakes and miscalculations. While I can heartily accept these manipulated images as good art, it is difficult for me to accept them as necessarily good photography. I also don't thnk these differing media should be judged from the same pile. > > Maybe that delineation is best kept in the mind of the beholder. I reluctantly accept the fact that what you see in the end is not always what the camera saw at the beginning. >
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
I hear what you're saying. You can say photography is an art, and then you could say photography can be an art. Painting is an art, and you wouldn't get too many arguments against that. But would you consider painting by the numbers art? You are painting, and you do have to make it look clean and not sloppy. But does that take you away from art? Some things done with the computer aren't any different than back in the day when dodging and burning in was done with blocking light or making a circle with your hands when doing black and white prints. It's easier and faster with a computer, but doing it back then never was considered as taking away from being an art. You can ask if art is the end product of creating something, as in if I use a computer to make an image that did not occur in real life like putting dolphins from sea world in a picture of the ocean. While it may be an appealing image, is it art? Or is coming up with the idea to make a stimulating image an art form? What about those images that are a simple photo, but somebody uses a preformed program image that any child could do if they "go under file, choose this design, then click okay" and then they have a fancy looking, colorful image of somebody's face surrounded by graphics? Is it art? Is it a plain photograph just dressed up with graphics? Is it both? What if it were graphics that the photographer had to take a long time to "draw" with the computer instead of just clicking the right keys? Does that make it more of an art? It's going to be a long argumented subject. You could say if it didn't happen in front of you, it ain't art. But the use of collages has always been used to make an artistic statement. Long before digital. So you could say digital manipulation just makes it easier, faster, and that anybody can do it. But one point you made that I say gets ignored is that digital has allowed, and made people not pay attention to whether or not they are looking at good photography. But you really can't stress over that. Because there's this thing about everybody with regards to art. If we're looking at something and we like it, we say "That's art". If we don't like it, we say "That's not art".
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
x |
This question has been pondered since the times of Kant and before. In a thousand years from now, people will be wondering what the big deal was about regarding computers and digital imagery. I used to think that graphic art wasn't really art. In other words, I wrongly applied it to people who make signs and stuff like that. Then, comes along the internet. All of a sudden you have "graphic artisits" doing amazing stuff. I also realized that those other people were artists, I just had a certain image in my mind about it that was completely wrong. Art is really what ever you make it. If I take a photograph of something, then tell the lab to dial out the green, dodge it here and there, then burn in some of the background, is that art, or not? I don't know. But, what I am doing is creating my image the way I think it needs to be represented. The art of photography is not only in the ability to correctly expose your film, but also in the development of the film and in the creation of a print. All 3 processes require technical skill and artistic vision. Musicians constantly manipulate a song while it is in the writing stages until they get it to sound the way they want it. So, is that not art? Why don't they just play it one time, record it and it's finished. Because, it would not sound right. They make tweaks here and there. They may add a keyboard sound later. Musicians are known to take years, sometimes, writing a composisition. You also hear the stories of them taking 5 minutes, but I think that's more rare. Do you think Sting just jumps up on stage and plays songs that he's only just once sort of worked out? I think the thing is the final product. I think anything can be art. Manipulation of an image in Photoshop does not mean that a photographer is slighting their art. In fact, I would argue the opposite. Digital technology has provided far more oppotunities for photographers to fine tune their art. Instead of relying on some dude in the lab to understand your vision, you can bypass the dude, and do it yourself, exactly the way you envision it. I think that it goes way beyond art. You can be as bizarre or as pure as you want. It's your choice. And that's the beauty. I don't think that the technology will make average folk artists, if that's what you are sort of getting at. Will it make their prints look better? Maybe. But, what's wrong with that? I tend to do alot of snapshots with my digital because it's free. The other night I shot a bunch of shots without paying any attention really to the settings, only to realize later that I shot on manual (I was wondering why the flash wasn't working) at night. We'll as it turned out, I was shooting in RAW mode, so I was able to turn up the light, if you will. Was it art? Probably not. But, I was able to make a bad image okay. Artists will always find a way to stretch. I don't think you have to worry much about it. Jerry
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
But he's got a point about the good art not being good photography. Using the music analogy, with all the things mixing boards and recording different tracks that you can do in a studio, many songs made are pieced together recordings. You have somebody in a studio and they don't flow from low notes to high notes very well. So you have them do half a piece here, then they just do the upper notes instead of doing the whole section. Mix it and dupe it and you put it all together and it sounds like they went through the whole song. And you can say that's not good singing, that's studio techniques. And you can say the same for some digital photography. It's not something I worry about, but it is a valid point.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
RG Rottschalk |
This is a challenging topic and I'm glad to see that there have been a few replies and additional opinions added. Thank you both for that......
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Dan Kachmer |
My opinion is, the thing that makes photography artistic, isn't what you do to a photo, it's having the vision to take the photo. I don't mean to sound cliche, but I think we are always surrounded by art in the world, and we all have seen something that no-one else has. Capturing that on film, or digital media for others to see, however it is done, can be art to me. My wife tells me all the time that she would have never thought certain photos of mine would have even been worth taking. I see this all the time in other photographers work. Everybody sees things differently. That's what so cool about photography, and that's why it never loses its appeal to me. Just for fun Im submitting a photo I had some fun with. Its a combo of 3 photos. One from seattle, one from Mexico, and one from DC. Art? Maybe not, but fun? Yes. You be the judge.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
|||||||||||
