Are these art, or something?

As a new member. I don't yet know to where put,or where to show, my pictures. So, I guess it's better start here.


#1: "No tomorrow":




#2: "From my home"




#3: "A chair and a dog"




#4: "Time stops"



Thanks for looking!
C&C more than welcome!

Hello Ossi

Firstly welcome to OPF....

You asked "Are these Art or Something" ...... I'm always reluctant to get involved in the debate around what is art in photography, it's very subjective isn't it, what one person loves another will hate, it's a debate that I don't think there is a definitive answer to. All I can say is that I have visited your website, which contains some wonderful work, and I enjoyed my visit very much.

Regarding the four images you have posted here, the punchy colours work so well in all of them, I particularly enjoy No's 1 & 3, very striking images, can you give us information about the camera, lens, how these were processed....

Thanks for sharing these with us.

First; thank you for your comments!

can you give us information about the camera, lens, how these were processed....

Click to expand...

Yes I can:
#1: Camera Sony A100, lens Sigma EX 10-20
This is HDR image with pretty heavy tonemapping after HDR process. Exposures for HDR was -2 , +-0 and +2EV. HDR software was Photomatix and tonemapping was done by CS3 with DCE/re dynamic plugin

#2:Camera Sony A700, lens Super Takumar 1.8/50, ISO800
Tonemapped by CS3 after that turned saturation down….

#3:Camera Sony A700, lens Sigma EX 20-40, ISO 200
Once again tonemapped by CS3 plugin re dynamic and perspective correction (horizontal and vertical), added a little bit noise….

#4:Sony A700 with Sigma 3.5/18, ISO200 with polfilter…..no extra tricks with postprocessing only a bit sharpening…..

Hi, Ossi,

Ossi Raimi said:

As a new member. I don't yet know to where put,or where to show, my pictures. So, I guess it's better start here.

Click to expand...

Of course all photography is art.

More importantly, these are splendid and enjoyable photographs. Thanks for bringing them to us. And welcome aboard.

I am fascinated by the power of the "fabric" texture in no. 2. It is almost supernatural.

This is a great group. To answer 'is it art?' requires you to look within yourself for the answer. I really enjoyed them, especially the fourth. The more photography I look at the more I realize that vivid colors really draw me in. Maybe I need to add more of that in my own life.

In my opinion they are extremely beautifull!, love how a good tone mapping gives this sensation of hyperreality, so natural that it seems your eyes are still in platos cave.

If these images were created with the purpose of expressing yourself, or expressing your response to the subject you photographed, then they are art.

Only you knows the answer. All I can say is that without knowing any more than what I see and read here, your images do seem to have been done for this purpose. Therefore, they are art

Alain Briot said:

If these images were created with the purpose of expressing yourself, or expressing your response to the subject you photographed, then they are art.

Only you knows the answer. All I can say is that without knowing any more than what I see and read here, your images do seem to have been done for this purpose. Therefore, they are art

Click to expand...

Hi Alain,

I might want to qualify your excellent start as there may be more to this

It might be that there needs to be some sense off satisfaction and acceptance by the artist that the work is art for him/herself. That would be to satisfy the artist's intent. If the work fails for its creator, then it's not perhaps art for that reason and personal realm of interest.

Let me go one step further. If I were to find that work which the photographer rejected (or not) and I am drawn into it and beyond and this evokes a sense of passion then it is art for me, irrespective of its function for the artist. It now becomes like a piece of "found" material like the Urinal of Duchamp. However, a work made by a photographer and rejected wouldn't I hope be signed as Duchamp did and claimed to be "our work of Art".

In that sense, Ossi, even if you disown the photographs, I'd declare that #2 and # 3 are definately works of art because they move me.

Asher

"It might be that there needs to be some sense off satisfaction and acceptance by the artist that the work is art for him/herself. That would be to satisfy the artist's intent. If the work fails for its creator, then it's not perhaps art for that reason and personal realm of interest."


Van Gogh considered many of his now famous pieces to be failures...

Alain Briot said:

"It might be that there needs to be some sense off satisfaction and acceptance by the artist that the work is art for him/herself. That would be to satisfy the artist's intent. If the work fails for its creator, then it's not perhaps art for that reason and personal realm of interest."


Van Gogh considered many of his now famous pieces to be failures...

Click to expand...

Precisely my point for my next paragraph in that same pst!! We can still embrace it~even when it doesn't meet with the artist's own concept of his art as he'd hoped. That's our power.

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Precisely my point for my next paragraph in that same pst!! We can still embrace it~even when it doesn't meet with the artist's own concept of his art as he'd hoped. That's our power.

Asher

Click to expand...

So therefore because it is art doesn't mean that it is "good", either for the artist or for the audience. In other words art is a qualification of intent and not necessarily a qualification of quality.

Thanks for comments!

Alain Briot said:

So therefore because it is art doesn't mean that it is "good", either for the artist or for the audience. In other words art is a qualification of intent and not necessarily a qualification of quality.

Click to expand...

I think to a degree intent and quality are linked. Intent is based on the person creating the work, whereas the quality for determining the long term value of a work is decided by the broader public.

If the creator has an intent to create for aesthetic reasons then the work can be classed as art.

If others regard the item as being of good quality then it will be collectible longer and be more widely regarded as art (and may be regarded as art even if the creator doesn't like it).

Regards,

Peter

Peter Stacey said:

I think to a degree intent and quality are linked. Intent is based on the person creating the work, whereas the quality for determining the long term value of a work is decided by the broader public.

Click to expand...

Hi Peter,

We have no disagreement on intent. I do have questions on the terms "quality" and "long term Value" as well as even, "decided". These are not, as you will see, trivial objections.

• Long term value means what? If the work increases in market value because it's the only large scale work in water color by the artist during his time in Venice, then that's one thing. If it's because this work opens up a new way of presenting things then the value might be seen in academic discussions but not necessarily in auction prices.
  
  
• Quality: Does that mean extent of originality or the mastery of technique or perhaps is it based on the materials used and it's archival potential.
  
  
• Decided: Long term value, commercial or academic or other value may evolve very slowly and there is no real time of decision as forgotten works now may be revisited as people recognize their importance in an art period's development or influence on some other artist who subsequently became recognized.

In summary, I don't think intent and "quality of art" are linked. Intent is an unfulfilled idea residing in someone's mind. Great ideas are ten a penny! I'd postulate that it's likely that most great ideas are not executed. So intent is no obvious marker for quality of work.

Peter Stacey said:

If the creator has an intent to create for aesthetic reasons then the work can be classed as art.

Click to expand...

Peter,

That work is only "art" when is works as art for some human being. If the work is intended to be art but no one, not even the artist is moved by it, then how can it be art?

I'd argue that it the artist's intent and his/her feeling that that is accomplished, makes the work "art" for them. After all, it does what's expected in the world of the artist. We'd want no more nor less for that artist's private sphere. However, even in the absence of artistic intent, the discovery of art in one's own work is also sufficient to make that work "art" for ultimately it so functions in that person's world.

Asher

Dogs playing poker. Enough said.

Wow, I'm amazed ...this kind dicussion started by my humble pictures. Thank you!!!

Rachel Foster said:

Dogs playing poker. Enough said.

Click to expand...

Hee x 5 (must include enough words to make a post)

Art? these are art in the sense that they are well composed, the subjects are worthy of celebration, and the photographer has a kind of vision that enhances certain values in the shot.

When I first began to view digital photography I felt that the capabilities of Photoshop were intrusive; I am now more open to these capabilities as being new elements on the palette.

I prefer 1 and 4.

Best, and welcome.

Doug Anderson