Art has no boundaries

It seems that art has no boundaries (at least within the stretch of imagination), yet photography is limited to access and light. While some believe photography is a subset of art, is it possible that art and photography are on opposite ends of the same continuum? Stark reality on the right and interpretive expression on the left. The pin hole camera, a point on the far right and the artist brush or Photoshop "cut and paste" at the left most extreme. The image moves from the camera in a "raw" state to be "developed" in the "darkroom". The photographer (assuming that she/he is doing their own developing) may, or may not, perform the role of "artist" in the process. The demarcation line is vague, yet indirect attempts (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/photo-contest/manipulation) have been made to provide focus between "darkroom" real and "darkroom" art.

Rod Witten said:

It seems that art has no boundaries (at least within the stretch of imagination), yet photography is limited to access and light. While some believe photography is a subset of art, is it possible that art and photography are on opposite ends of the same continuum? Stark reality on the right and interpretive expression on the left. The pin hole camera, a point on the far right and the artist brush or Photoshop "cut and paste" at the left most extreme. The image moves from the camera in a "raw" state to be "developed" in the "darkroom". The photographer (assuming that she/he is doing their own developing) may, or may not, perform the role of "artist" in the process. The demarcation line is vague, yet indirect attempts (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/photo-contest/manipulation) have been made to provide focus between "darkroom" real and "darkroom" art.

Click to expand...

Hi Rod,

One could describe both art and photography in this way as a continuum from accurate representation to images dominated more by expression where the facts of the objects depicted serve the creative imagination and not reality.

So it all depends on where in art and photograph one choose to sample the works.

Asher

Asher,

Can we say then, that once a photograph has been manipulated beyond a certain point ( for the sake of discussion we'll use the National Geo guideline) it is something other than a photograph? Possibly, art on photographic paper.

Pushing the envelop even further, can we accept that certain "real" (Natl Geo defined) photographs that have been referred to as "art" in the past may be beyond the concept of art and should be recognized as such.

Rod Witten said:

Asher,

Can we say then, that once a photograph has been manipulated beyond a certain point ( for the sake of discussion we'll use the National Geo guideline) it is something other than a photograph? Possibly, art on photographic paper.

Pushing the envelop even further, can we accept that certain "real" (Natl Geo defined) photographs that have been referred to as "art" in the past may be beyond the concept of art and should be recognized as such.

Click to expand...

My answer is yes to both. See my new series. I think it fits within this context:

http://beautiful-landscape.com/Portfolio-Blurs.html

Hi, Rod,

Rod Witten said:

Asher,

Can we say then, that once a photograph has been manipulated beyond a certain point ( for the sake of discussion we'll use the National Geo guideline) it is something other than a photograph? Possibly, art on photographic paper.

Click to expand...

I think that it is always art.

And it is certainly always photography.

I don't think we help our understanding of this whole field by striving to find "boundaries" in a multi-dimensional continuum. I think these are only of interest to, for example, officials trying to decide whether a piece is admissible to some competition or another.

Rod, Doug and Alain,

Unless one's doing scientific or forensic photography, the art serves the preferences of the photographer and not just the subject, therefore it already includes artistic value. Everything the photographer does, even altering the contrast on edges or a face is artistic. Certainly the choice of final paper for printing and even the framing and next to what other pictures and in what room the photograph is shown.

There are so many purposes for photography one should ask whether it serves that purpose.

If you want to sell it a art, then there's a specific audience you have and they must be considered and appealed to, hopefully without doing more than excellently carrying out your creative intent.

It'd a mistake to even consider the press photograph for National Geographic as factive, because its not merely that. The NG wants to push a certain agenda of beauty and drama so that already has decreased one's choices and might also be considered manipulation. What's included and excluded defines photography as much as pushing pixels!

Asher

Doug_Kerr said:

Hi, Rod,



I think that it is always art.

And it is certainly always photography.

I don't think we help our understanding of this whole field by striving to find "boundaries" in a multi-dimensional continuum. I think these are only of interest to, for example, officials trying to decide whether a piece is admissible to some competition or another.

Click to expand...

Howdy Doug,

I believe that Asher will agree with you. However, I'm trying to make the case that certain photographs can be better than "art" in the sense that they capture "real" scenes and the true emotions/drama/action that may be associated with subjects in those scenes. Most accepted "art", if we can exclude photojournalism for the moment, is incapable of ethically matching these characteristics. They require that we use our imagination and overlook the facts. I would even extend the interpretation of manipulated to include any art (photos included) with posed subjects.

Examples

Alain Briot said:

My answer is yes to both. See my new series. I think it fits within this context:

http://beautiful-landscape.com/Portfolio-Blurs.html

Click to expand...

Alan,

Thanks for the examples. The series look great and should be successful !

Factive, fictive and portraits of a person's character!

Rod Witten said:

Howdy Doug,

I believe that Asher will agree with you. However, I'm trying to make the case that certain photographs can be better than "art" in the sense that they capture "real" scenes and the true emotions/drama/action that may be associated with subjects in those scenes. Most accepted "art", if we can exclude photojournalism for the moment, is incapable of ethically matching these characteristics. They require that we use our imagination and overlook the facts. I would even extend the interpretation of manipulated to include any art (photos included) with posed subjects.

Click to expand...

Rod,

I think the distinctions between media are only noticeable to you because of the ease in which you might be able to form 100 likenesses of an individual with little skill of the mechanics of the tools you use. The number of folk who can match that with a pencil or paint brushes is many logs less. However, both should be considered a methods of expressing what the brain motivates. All photography, unless forensic or scientific or pure documentation, is manipulative because of the of preferences we bring to the picture.

The photograph is not, per se, more factive in doing fine portraits. (S)he has simply much more product to show! Just look for an accomplished painter for your comparison.

Asher

hi Rod,

Thank you

I posted close ups of the images to the medium format area of the forum where I have a post on this series.


ALain

Agreement

Asher Kelman said:

Rod,

I think the distinctions between media are only noticeable to you because of the ease in which you might be able to form 100 likenesses of an individual with little skill of the mechanics of the tools you use. The number of folk who can match that with a pencil or paint brushes is many logs less. However, both should be considered a methods of expressing what the brain motivates. All photography, unless forensic or scientific or pure documentation, is manipulative because of the of preferences we bring to the picture.

The photograph is not, per se, more factive in doing fine portraits. (S)he has simply much more product to show! Just look for an accomplished painter for your comparison.

Asher

Click to expand...

Asher,

I believe that we are on the same page, although I would add photojournalism to your "forensic or scientific or pure documentation" group. The rest is "art", unintended or not. The range of the former stretches from pure documentation to the candid jpeg travel snapshot developed at the local drugstore. You may raise the "Composition" argument, but I would suggest that it's a minor factor since the photo "subject" is overwhelmingly the reason for the capture. The photographer is making a photograph of fact, not art. That said, it is my belief that certain images captured in the "fact" group can be appreciated more than a simulated capture of the same subject matter from the "art" group. The reverse is also true, yet to the discriminating viewer they are two distinctly different experiences.

Rod