This discussion comes from the thread on B&W.
Here we are discussing the required evidence of skill and craft in the production of a photograph.
How much skill and craft is needed in a work of art? It seems that snap shots are too trivial. So what can be called Art? Asher
Hi Asher,
trying to find your way, after a bulldozer has demolished all the signposts, so you go back to walking the same path as before, rebuild the same route, replace the signposts, end up in the same place again.
I have no personal knowledge of the folk here, other than one or two, I do not know if Ben is an expert in anything, I'm not saying he is or isn't, just that I don't know. However, for what its worth, his second para looks very much like something that I had previously sent you concerniong some other images, but then, maybe he is lapsing into common sense, instead of 'expertness'.
Exactly the same photo could have been taken by many photographers, and given a mandolin, some lights, and a half decent camera, many folk with a modicom of training could do the same. I believe that Charles mentioned it was one of his first shots with this setup, so that means to me he has taken better and worse shots, and the 'art' in this image is thus a choice being exercised between different images of the same subject. It would be art, in my book, if there was more creative skill involved, and a certain amount of 'uniqueness'/creativity. In most of what I see here, there is little creative skill. It is a bit like saying the pope was the artist, not Michaelangelo, or selecting the one work of near Shakespeare, more or less from the million typewriters/years/monkeys. It is possibly 'art' in your definition, but in mine it is not, since art is the result of applying skill and creativity.
Is 'photography'=='art' crops up all the time. The subject is too woolly. If you post a picture, then I am quite happy to say if it has, in my opinion any artistic merit, and also why. And I guarantee that none of that judgement will be based on who produced the image, which I'm afraid appears to be on how much of this is judged. So, perhaps, my concept of artistic merit, 'prettyness', is what you mean as art.
btw., I'm not too fussy about the cigars, but I'll pm you my address, just in case ;-)
Best wishes,
Ray
ps, by the time i've tried to get it into words, had a cup of coffee or three, etc., often a few others reply before me, so if this is out of sequence.....
Here we are discussing the required evidence of skill and craft in the production of a photograph.
How much skill and craft is needed in a work of art? It seems that snap shots are too trivial. So what can be called Art? Asher
Hi Asher,
trying to find your way, after a bulldozer has demolished all the signposts, so you go back to walking the same path as before, rebuild the same route, replace the signposts, end up in the same place again.
I have no personal knowledge of the folk here, other than one or two, I do not know if Ben is an expert in anything, I'm not saying he is or isn't, just that I don't know. However, for what its worth, his second para looks very much like something that I had previously sent you concerniong some other images, but then, maybe he is lapsing into common sense, instead of 'expertness'.
I need to do this, as much as you need to look at the other end, jump up and down in the sand, as in the canon advert a few months ago. It is indeed, difficult to discuss anything, if you are looking down the opposite end of the tunnel. For every rule that folk will dream up concerning art, then there is a contradiction, there are really no boundaries. But, my argument is that the amount of art required in producing a pleasing photograph (such as in Charles' mandolin) is not the same as in prodicing the same image in water colours or oils or whatever, and it is just a photo of a mandolin, I do not see it as a work of art, in its own standing. Now, if it were by one of your guys in a gallery, or any established artist, folk would write about it, copy it, talk it up to be a work of art.All the arguments you made until this disclosure are of little value if fundamentally you require labor and sweat to elevate photography to art. Since, at this time, you "do not include it as art" I would ask you to visit galleries and get some books on some of the classical photgraphers who's work is admired as art.
Exactly the same photo could have been taken by many photographers, and given a mandolin, some lights, and a half decent camera, many folk with a modicom of training could do the same. I believe that Charles mentioned it was one of his first shots with this setup, so that means to me he has taken better and worse shots, and the 'art' in this image is thus a choice being exercised between different images of the same subject. It would be art, in my book, if there was more creative skill involved, and a certain amount of 'uniqueness'/creativity. In most of what I see here, there is little creative skill. It is a bit like saying the pope was the artist, not Michaelangelo, or selecting the one work of near Shakespeare, more or less from the million typewriters/years/monkeys. It is possibly 'art' in your definition, but in mine it is not, since art is the result of applying skill and creativity.
I can't see that happening, for many reasons.Then at least we'll have a common set of reference "standards" against which one might at least attempt to measure the artistic value of photography today.
Is 'photography'=='art' crops up all the time. The subject is too woolly. If you post a picture, then I am quite happy to say if it has, in my opinion any artistic merit, and also why. And I guarantee that none of that judgement will be based on who produced the image, which I'm afraid appears to be on how much of this is judged. So, perhaps, my concept of artistic merit, 'prettyness', is what you mean as art.
btw., I'm not too fussy about the cigars, but I'll pm you my address, just in case ;-)
Best wishes,
Ray
ps, by the time i've tried to get it into words, had a cup of coffee or three, etc., often a few others reply before me, so if this is out of sequence.....
Last edited by a moderator: