• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Picture within a photograph: But who's art is it?

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Mostly photographers have formed ideas when the shutter is released. It's a planned composition. There's even an aphorism of framing close and then cropping closer in the darkroom. The photographer is responsible for everything included and excluded. That and the way the image is developed and delivered defines the photograph. It's that and nothing else.

If we look at this and realize a further crop, quite small, makes the picture more impressive. We'd say it's the same image, just part of the normal completing of the photograph.

Now comes another person who ignores all but a small part, not the subject of the picture. Now if this is cropped, with permission, whose the "Artist" now?

Picture_3_hand_book_crop_ADK.jpg


"Cropped" with permission :)
ex © Photo by Frank Doorhoff here


I ask this since, if you believe the claims of the Dadaists, like Duchamp, (who signed a urinal and was then the artist of the signed piece), the artist of "Cropped" is the one with that vision and intent to repurpose what he found. The original creative artist in of Dada's school of artistic rebellion, gets not even a mention!

So who's art is it now?

I'd like to know what the purists who require pre-planning of the subject to share views on "Finding new compositions" within their work. So what does it mean about the photographic process. Is it made in a whim after the fact? For such a sample of a larger work, is it a work on its own or merely an illustration of the value of the larger picture.

What counts the intent and vision or the work?

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Ken,

In Prince's case, was his repurposing with permission? Does that make any difference? Also how large was the gap between the original and his derivatives? Here, with "Cropped", almost nothing of the original's "Glamor" remains. One is nearer to a copy, the other is likely a new vision.

We sample beauty of people passing in the street. I do feel guilt but do it, just the same!

If Prince needs no justification, then perhaps I'm free and clear, LOL!

Asher :)

Prince in an interview in the New York Art Magazine, here says he's a collector as much as an artist and new artists have copied his work and sell it as their own and of course, without permission.
 

Ken Tanaka

pro member
"Permeeshun? We don' need no steenkin' permeeshun!"

That's the eye of the storm, at least from photographers' perspective.

Sam Abell, the fellow that photographed the Marlboro Man ads that Prince "re-purposed" is gracious and philosophical about the matter. But I've gotta believe he goes home and kicks his dog through the hedge when he realizes that Prince has probably made more from that one little series than he's made in his entire career to-date.

By the way, Abell's use of the term "the life of a photograph" (twice during the video) alludes to his (then planned) book. Everyone's a hustlin'.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
"Permeeshun? We don' need no steenkin' permeeshun!"

That's the eye of the storm, at least from photographers' perspective.

Sam Abell, the fellow that photographed the Marlboro Man ads that Prince "re-purposed" is gracious and philosophical about the matter. But I've gotta believe he goes home and kicks his dog through the hedge when he realizes that Prince has probably made more from that one little series than he's made in his entire career to-date.

By the way, Abell's use of the term "the life of a photograph" (twice during the video) alludes to his (then planned) book. Everyone's a hustlin'.

Abell is indeed philosophical and has such understated disrespect and didain for Prince's lack of conscience and finishes with, "The art world has something to answer for"! That's an understatement! Whereas Prince could be considered somewhat sociopathic and have little evidence of qualms, the Guggenheim is an institution of great public standing.

How is it then that Abel's work has no special value beyond the iconic pre-signature urinal. How is it that the art community has no interest in Abel's original photographs? Is there a response, an argument behind not valuing him?

Asher
 

Ken Tanaka

pro member
Abell is indeed philosophical and has such understated disrespect and didain for Prince's lack of conscience and finishes with, "The art world has something to answer for"! That's an understatement! Whereas Prince could be considered somewhat sociopathic and have little evidence of qualms, the Guggenheim is an institution of great public standing.

How is it then that Abel's work has no special value beyond the iconic pre-signature urinal. How is it that the art community has no interest in Abel's original photographs? Is there a response, an argument behind not valuing him?

Asher

I think that Richard Prince had his qualms surgically removed many years ago. (A "qualmectomy"?)

There was a bit of a storm over this topic one year ago when Prince's exhibit first appeared. (Of course, no photography was permitted in the exhibit itself. ;) ) But I suspect that it was stirred-up initially by Prince's own people / gallerists to pump the show and the work.

Many, perhaps most, of the best known art photographers are/were also commercial ad snappers (to feed themselves). In turn, many of their shown works are actually derivatives or out-takes from commercial jobs. (Jill Greenburgs triple-key portraits come immediately to mind.) Sam Abell has been a very successful commercial and, more famously, a National Geographic editorial shooter for a very long time. While he may not have earned the quick riches of qualm-less Prince he has certainly long-since earned a permanent notch in the photo world. His images have probably also enjoyed an order of magnitude more views.

So shed not a tear to Sam. He's doing just fine.

The art photo world is an enclave to itself. Galleries pump work to jack prices. Gallery owners generally won't show work unless the clicker has a strong school pedigree. Museums won't generally collect work unless it's been jacked by a name gallery (ex: Fraenkel) . It's a game that art school kids slobber to play but that few experienced snappers want to play until they no longer need income.
 

Bill Miller

New member
Ken, I agree with you. and Asher the photo you show above still belongs to the copyright holder. As long as you have paid the licensing fees. go for it. However its not Art just an illustration for a article or book.

Every photo taken is not Art!!! When you get back from SF take a trip to San Diego visit MoPA... then we will discuss ART in photography
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Ken, I agree with you. and Asher the photo you show above still belongs to the copyright holder. As long as you have paid the licensing fees. go for it. However its not Art just an illustration for a article or book.

Every photo taken is not Art!!! When you get back from SF take a trip to San Diego visit MoPA... then we will discuss ART in photography

Hi Bill,

"Every photo taken is not Art!!!". Well, now you tell me!!

You may not like it. Then it's not art for you, simple as that!

We have a phenomenon of photographing entire photographs and selling that as original under protection of the U.S. law! In that case, the new photographer is considered the "artist"! Here, we have a different situation, the idea behind the new image is novel. The image is cropped and thus repurposed, (here, "with permission").

If it indeed "Cropped" can be regarded as art, we can still ask, who is the artist of this new, albeit minor work? I posed this question for another reason too. It's about creativity and openness to experience. The idea of discovering a wonderful picture within a planned picture, something not considered before, is looked down on by a number of photographers. Full respect is only given for considering and deciding, in advance, what the composition must and will be and then pressing the shutter button! From then on it's just a matter of processing. Yes, for particular purposes, it's efficient to plan and execute what a job demands.

For the photograph, I see this differently. I often argue for shooting wider anyway, for then one can take account of the better eyesight of the camera and reconsider the scene de nouveau. Today's electronic darkroom obviates the need for masks, crayons, pencil, inter-negatives and such. We can do in ten minutes on a computer, what would take many hours or even weeks in the wet darkroom. So now, we have more freedom to explore new ideas that come to us, after the fact. So yes we can find a picture within the picture!

A corollary to this is the wider view will allow creative options that do not occur without a nights sleep and further pondering. That's what art can involve.

That's the other point I am making.

Thanks Frank for kindly allowing me to use your photograph for this!

Asher
 
"Every photo taken is not Art!!!". Well, now you tell me!!

You may not like it. Then it's not art for you, simple as that!

Agreed.

We have a phenomenon of photographing entire photographs and selling that as original under protection of the U.S. law!

In the U.S. law, maybe (although I hesitate, I'd have to reread the latest version of the USA Copyright Act).
In my jurisdiction, the Netherlands, and presumably with most if not all Berne Convention signees, it wouldn't fly without concequences!

The (local) copyright act clearly states (translated) that; The Copyright belongs to the maker of the work (or the one(s) to whom the right has been transferred, or the ones who inherited that right after the maker passes away). The two key words are Maker and Work.

Maker refers to the intellectual property rights (auctor intellectualis, instead of e.g. the printer), the Work is the intangible object that's protected by the right (not e.g. the print, but the image).
So, even if a Rembrandt was painted by his students, the maker in the sense of the Copyright law is still Rembrandt van Rijn.

This also means that a derivative work, even if it is illegal (e.g. a copy, or in a different shape or form), can bear it's own copyright if it is original. It does not however diminish the rights of the original copyright holder. A typical example is a collected works. The collection is then protected by the new copyright, but it doesn't change the rights of the original author(s).

Bart
 

Bill Miller

New member
Agreed.



In the U.S. law, maybe (although I hesitate, I'd have to reread the latest version of the USA Copyright Act).
In my jurisdiction, the Netherlands, and presumably with most if not all Berne Convention signees, it wouldn't fly without concequences!

The (local) copyright act clearly states (translated) that; The Copyright belongs to the maker of the work (or the one(s) to whom the right has been transferred, or the ones who inherited that right after the maker passes away). The two key words are Maker and Work.

Maker refers to the intellectual property rights (auctor intellectualis, instead of e.g. the printer), the Work is the intangible object that's protected by the right (not e.g. the print, but the image).
So, even if a Rembrandt was painted by his students, the maker in the sense of the Copyright law is still Rembrandt van Rijn.

This also means that a derivative work, even if it is illegal (e.g. a copy, or in a different shape or form), can bear it's own copyright if it is original. It does not however diminish the rights of the original copyright holder. A typical example is a collected works. The collection is then protected by the new copyright, but it doesn't change the rights of the original author(s).

Bart

Well said Bart! As the example given by Asher is a derivative work.
 
Well said Bart! As the example given by Asher is a derivative work.

However, that does not mean that all derivative works qualify as being an original work. And the right to make a copy also remains with the original author, so fees may be required.

In my jurisdiction it's the judge who decides if the new work is original enough, not lawyers that make a mockery of law.

Bart
 

Bill Miller

New member
Hi Bill,

"Every photo taken is not Art!!!". Well, now you tell me!!

You may not like it. Then it's not art for you, simple as that!

Asher


It is not a matter of liking a photo or not, that is to simplistic. For example, I like the yachting photos of Nicholas, however I do not consider them Art, you may.

I am no so arrogant to believe my photos are Art. These are several examples, and I do not consider them art.

http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7265
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7174
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7335


The term "Art" maybe is being used to loosely here. An illustrator for advertising is called a "commercial artist", however is it really Art in the publics perception? Doubtful!

The example given in its present form does not represent "Approaching Fine Art". It is as mention earlier a good illustration for an article, with licensing fees paid to the copyright holder.


Here is a good read on the definition of Art http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art
 

Rachel Foster

New member
Ok, I agree technical expertise is required. Your shot of the harbor seemed to have that. (I'm not being obstreperous; this is an issue I've struggled with. What IS art, anyway?)
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
It is not a matter of liking a photo or not, that is to simplistic. For example, I like the yachting photos of Nicholas, however I do not consider them Art, you may.

I am no so arrogant to believe my photos are Art. These are several examples, and I do not consider them art.

http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7335


The term "Art" maybe is being used to loosely here. An illustrator for advertising is called a "commercial artist", however is it really Art in the publics perception? Doubtful!

The example given in its present form does not represent "Approaching Fine Art". It is as mention earlier a good illustration for an article, with licensing fees paid to the copyright holder.

Hi Bill,

I notice you heartily qualify yourself, "I am no so arrogant to believe my photos are Art. These are several examples, and I do not consider them art." Well I already know that. You are not so arrogant but you are sometimes dismissive. Take your matador picture, for example, that you yourself do not, consider as art.

100_0046_VELVIA_web.jpg


Exposure time: 1/250
Shutter speed: 1/256.00
F-stop: 10.0
ISO speed: 125
Focal length: 200.0000



Here is a good read on the definition of Art http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art[/quote]

I could argue very well that this is indeed art. I won't do it here, just right now, but suffice to say that I feel your own penchant, for sweeping declarative opinions, works against you in such circumstances. You don't want to dwell on artistic potential of a photograph, even your own work. That's your nature. That's the way you react. I and others however will give your picture much more time because it does have more value than just a marketable file that prints well.

I asked there and I ask again where and when was the Matador photo taken and are there sibling pictures we could see that you might add to the original post. We do have a small collection of such bullfight images, and yours is worth to add to that experience, And that latter is or at least can be an aesthetic reaction, not merely political views.

Yes some work here sucks, I admit it! However, some such work has within it the seeds of better work in the future. That's our wish to nurture. Even accomplished photographers can get stimulation from a community. I hope we can justify that faith in this one.

Your view of your own picture, serves well to underline your grumpy stance towards work that has promise and can be moved, with some effort, towards being impressive and recruiting our imagination. That's what I hope we can do together here.

You already have contributed a lot in the areas of your expertise and that's appreciated. :)

Asher

Note, we may split the thread later so we have the topic, "Picture within a Picture and Framing Wide or Close" and other diverse daughter topics in unique threads.
 
Last edited:

Rachel Foster

New member
Ok, honesty time: I hate the matador picture. I feel as if I'm there and death is immanent (the matador or the bull, one of them). I hate the feeling of dread and death that the image evokes in me.

It evokes emotion, strong emotion. Isn't that "art?"
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Rachel,

With those feelings, then you should read Bill's original thread on that and his feelings and purpose and my response. For sure the pictures are not simply what he says they are; strongly colored images that will print well and make money if licensed! These, to my mind carry such a social values overtone that it can be seen as a archetypical example of the different way we view things. Read in the original thread and comment there, not here, LOL

Asher
 
The artist is the person who made the "thing" look the way it looks. That usually is the same person whose handiwork generated the art object.

In the few decades I have been entangled in the photographic art scene, Australian version, I have seen trends that don't seem to apply to other media, painting for example.

In photography the camera-worker (camera-player?) is nearly never the person responsible for either making the displayed photograph or deciding what it will look like. Most "photographic artists" drop their exposed film off at the lab like everybody else and order prints. The "artist" differs from the snapshooter in ordering very big prints, sometimes of exotic and expensive materials, according to how much public money they have in their arts grant.

Many photographic artists claim stuff like "The photographs are mine because the lab makes them under my supervision" but I have never seen a valid example of this. I can't recall seeing a "photographic artist" being useful in a lab work-space and I don't know of a lab manager who is keen to have non-techs wandering around the machinery. The "photographic artist" stays on the customer side of the sales counter and pays up like everybody else.

What about quality control? Surely the artist will complain if the photographs are not right. Nope! The heaviest complaint I ever heard went like this:

Customer, "Is this the best you could do?".
Lab tech, "Sure, look at these negs. The faces are way under and the backgrounds are all blown. Pal, you got everything these negs could deliver!".
Customer, "Thanks".

Basically camera clickers don't know, can't predict, what the final photographs will look like. They just hope like hell and put reverential trust in the last lab that turned out something that they liked.

It is an anomaly in photography that the credited artist tends to be the first camera clicker no matter how far they are removed from the final result. This mis-attribution is a mind-virus nurtured by the plausible but shallow notion that cameras make photographs. Everyone who is a "camera only" specialist thinks this is true. Everyone who has ever made a photograph start to finish knows that it is false.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
The artist is the person who made the "thing" look the way it looks. That usually is the same person whose handiwork generated the art object.
Rodin would come in to his atelier and cut off an ear from a clay figure and berate the student. That model in the end has his signature. That occurred with many apprentice master relationships. It's the master artist who better have the vision as well as the direction of craftsmanship, if he's going to sign the work. In the scientific community, this is not always the case and the lab chief puts his name on everything that comes out of the rooms under his control.

One nice thing about the major classic B&W photographers we know so well, is that they often processed and printed their pictures themselves! Today, with digital processing, there has been a resurgence of the photographer being able to do that. This is, in a way a return of artistic purity. The photographer, with a little diligence, can control their final delivered product.

In the few decades I have been entangled in the photographic art scene, Australian version, I have seen trends that don't seem to apply to other media, painting for example.

In photography the camera-worker (camera-player?) is nearly never the person responsible for either making the displayed photograph or deciding what it will look like. Most "photographic artists" drop their exposed film off at the lab like everybody else and order prints. The "artist" differs from the snapshooter in ordering very big prints, sometimes of exotic and expensive materials, according to how much public money they have in their arts grant. .....................

What about quality control? Surely the artist will complain if the photographs are not right. Nope! The heaviest complaint I ever heard went like this:

Customer, "Is this the best you could do?".
Lab tech, "Sure, look at these negs. The faces are way under and the backgrounds are all blown. Pal, you got everything these negs could deliver!".
Customer, "Thanks".

Basically camera clickers don't know, can't predict, what the final photographs will look like. They just hope like hell and put reverential trust in the last lab that turned out something that they liked.

It is an anomaly in photography that the credited artist tends to be the first camera clicker no matter how far they are removed from the final result. This mis-attribution is a mind-virus nurtured by the plausible but shallow notion that cameras make photographs. Everyone who is a "camera only" specialist thinks this is true. Everyone who has ever made a photograph start to finish knows that it is false.

I must point you to the simple point made by Fahim" of the stoic facilitating role of the Sherpas as our heroes keep conquering Mount Everest! This is a must see photograph and comment.

Asher

*By the way, read all Fahims work on Nepal. Its rather well done!
 

Joseph Vega

New member
The artist is everyone/anyone who alters anything even just a little and presents it for deeper consideration. The urinal was just a urinal. The signing didn't make the urinal art. The presenting of the urinal as art made it art, and as such became his creation; became his.

Very interesting.
 

RoyVarley

New member
Interesting topic. Not quite the same as "picture within picture" but, for this image:

2869582796_a0784736e3_o.jpg


Who is the artist?

The choreographer? The dancers? Me? All of us?

Since dance and dancers are about movement and this is a still image, it could be argued that this image does not represent the dance. It's an instant in time. But it couldn't exist without the dance...
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Interesting topic. Not quite the same as "picture within picture" but, for this image:

2869582796_a0784736e3_o.jpg


Who is the artist?

The choreographer? The dancers? Me? All of us?

Since dance and dancers are about movement and this is a still image, it could be argued that this image does not represent the dance. It's an instant in time. But it couldn't exist without the dance...
Hi Roy,

This certainly is the same kind of human enterprise where one person might claim or get credit from the creativity of many others. There's something of "Uniqueness" and being first to show something we haven't seen before. So the person who brings us such acrobatics from horseman in Afghanistan will be celebrated. The skilled riders will be just there and not necessarily recognized for their mastery in either fame nor royalties.

Here, as with the dancers, they willingly allow the photographer to record the peak action of their creative work. It records for all to see that they really did this great thing. It's proof also for later years and to reminisce. There's a sort of bargain made! So I have no problem with the photographer taking credit. The photographer does not have any pretense of being the dancer, nor is the picture presented in a way that someone else might mistake the distinction. However, when someone photographs a photograph and presents that as his/her art, the authorship of the work becomes clouded and the "morality"* is in question.

Asher

* If we are willing to use morality to be a measure of behavior in which a persons actions supports the general good of society and/or does not unfairly take others peoples rights away.
 
Top