Photography vs. Paintings
DMoonpieS
Doesn't it seem that the art community sometimes has a difficult time
recognizing photography as a "real" art form? Is it only the mechanical
reproduction of images that bothers people?
I think a painter who strives to paint every detail as realistically as
possible is in some ways comparable to a photographer who merely documents
a scene on film. Neither picture is likely to contain much emotional
content or creativity. Both are apt to be lovely recreations of a scene,
since technical merit is all that's required in each case. Any thoughts?
-D.
fredc...@aol.com
In article <19970124234...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
dmoo...@aol.com (DMoonpieS) writes:
I have a friend who is a photo realist painter who tells me that a painter
can re-create a scene in his/her own way, with his/her own vision. A
photographer, on the other hand, he says, only reproduces, mechanically
what is in front of him/her.
We argue a lot, my friend and I.
TMamatas
IMO, it's mostly a matter of tradition. Painitng as an art form has
been around for at least 50,000 years, while photography has been around
for a mere century and a half. In this way, painters can sometimes be
considered more "respectable" because their art has existed longer. It's a
case of Beethoven vs. Elvis. Rock N' Roll was considered garbage by
traditionalists, and now we revere Elvis and the Beatles as near gods in
the pantheon of music. Photography, in its own way has come a long way
since the early days of Nadar and O'Sullivan, gaining a level of
respectability with the passing of time. The big reason, I think, for
photography's remaining irrespectability lies in the fact that there are
many photographers that confuse the medium (like tabloid photographers).
Photography has so many levels that it becomes easy to confuse them.
Photography can be art, or scientific data, or historical proof, whereas
painting can only be an art (no one looks at Picasso's work and thins it
reflects any sort of physical reality).
CFGR
>I have a friend who is a photo realist painter who tells me that a painter
>can re-create a scene in his/her own way, with his/her own vision. A
>photographer, on the other hand, he says, only reproduces, mechanically
>what is in front of him/her.
>We argue a lot, my friend and I.
Both of you re-create a new reality using 'tools'. The painter his
brushes, colors, canvas.... the photographer his camera, chemicals
and paper...
The question remains: WHY do both of you feel the need (the urge?)
to hold on a fraction of the passing time-based reality and
re-creating a time stopped one?
Comments welcome... :)
Enjoy life!
Chris
Artistic Black&White Model Photography
Lichtaart - BELGIUM (Europe)
URL: http://www.club.innet.be/~cfgr
fredc...@aol.com
>>I have a friend who is a photo realist painter who tells me that a
painter
>>can re-create a scene in his/her own way, with his/her own vision. A
>>photographer, on the other hand, he says, only reproduces, mechanically
>>what is in front of him/her.
>>We argue a lot, my friend and I.
>What kind of reality are you both creating?
>Both of you re-create a new reality using 'tools'. The painter his
>brushes, colors, canvas.... the photographer his camera, chemicals
>and paper...
>
>The question remains: WHY do both of you feel the need (the urge?)
>to hold on a fraction of the passing time-based reality and
>re-creating a time stopped one?
>
>Comments welcome... :)
>
>Enjoy life!
>
>Chris
I hadn't thought of using the word *reality*. You have used it three
times Chris and I,m not sure what you mean by it.
Fred
Griffith
dmoo...@aol.com (DMoonpieS) writes:
> Doesn't it seem that the art community sometimes has a difficult time
> recognizing photography as a "real" art form? Is it only the mechanical
> reproduction of images that bothers people?
I think this is the major thing that bothers people. Any slob can buy a
point and shoot and take a picture far more realistic and accurate than
any but the most skillfull painter could paint. People, therefore, see
photography as "too easy."
> I think a painter who strives to paint every detail as realistically as
> possible is in some ways comparable to a photographer who merely documents
> a scene on film. Neither picture is likely to contain much emotional
> content or creativity. Both are apt to be lovely recreations of a scene,
> since technical merit is all that's required in each case. Any thoughts?
>
> -D.
The creativity comes in selecting the scene, for both painters and photographers.
In many ways I think that photography is the more difficult of the two, since the
ease of reproducing a scene puts a lot more pressure on a photographer to compose
artisically.
Adam
Adam
Frederic Goudal
cf...@innet.be (CFGR) writes:
>
> >I have a friend who is a photo realist painter who tells me that a painter
> >can re-create a scene in his/her own way, with his/her own vision. A
> >photographer, on the other hand, he says, only reproduces, mechanically
> >what is in front of him/her.
> >We argue a lot, my friend and I.
> What kind of reality are you both creating?
> Both of you re-create a new reality using 'tools'. The painter his
> brushes, colors, canvas.... the photographer his camera, chemicals
> and paper...
>
> The question remains: WHY do both of you feel the need (the urge?)
> to hold on a fraction of the passing time-based reality and
> re-creating a time stopped one?
>
> Comments welcome... :)
I'm completely out of the "time stopped" trend. I don't understand why
any discussion on photo (as was on painting hundred years ago) at some
point speak about "time stopped/freezed".
I can't care less about that point. I do photograph because I produce
pictures. My pictures have no more relationship with reality that the
rose has with the rotten things in the ground that fed her (the rose).
Nobody sings the rose as beeing the most exquisite form of rotten
things. Same for photograph. The myth that a picture "is" what it
represent should be dead since along time... "this is not a pipe" has
been said 50 years ago.
f.g.
--
Look at the things around you, the immediate world around you. If you are
alive, it will mean something to you, and if you care enough about
photography, and if you know how to use it, you will want to photograph that
meaningness. If you let other people's vision get between the world and your
own, you will achieve that extremely common and worthless thing, a pictorial
photograph.
Paul Strand "The Art Motive in Photography" the British Journal of Photography
1923, p 613
Frederic Goudal - gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr - http://www.insat.com/~filh -
Unknown
fredc...@aol.com writes: > In article <19970124234...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> dmoo...@aol.com (DMoonpieS) writes:
>
> >Doesn't it seem that the art community sometimes has a difficult time
> >recognizing photography as a "real" art form? Is it only the mechanical
> >reproduction of images that bothers people?
> >
> >possible is in some ways comparable to a photographer who merely
> documents
> >a scene on film. Neither picture is likely to contain much emotional
> >content or creativity. Both are apt to be lovely recreations of a scene,
> >since technical merit is all that's required in each case. Any thoughts?
> >
> >-D.
> >
> >
>
> can re-create a scene in his/her own way, with his/her own vision. A
> photographer, on the other hand, he says, only reproduces, mechanically
> what is in front of him/her.
> We argue a lot, my friend and I.
You should loan your freind a camera.
Adam
Michael Edelman
DMoonpieS wrote:
>
> Doesn't it seem that the art community sometimes has a difficult time
> recognizing photography as a "real" art form? Is it only the mechanical
> reproduction of images that bothers people?
>
> I think a painter who strives to paint every detail as realistically as
> possible is in some ways comparable to a photographer who merely documents
> a scene on film. Neither picture is likely to contain much emotional
> content or creativity. Both are apt to be lovely recreations of a scene,
> since technical merit is all that's required in each case. Any thoughts?
Prior to the invention of photography, that's what painters stived to
accomplish- an accurate, "photographic" record of a person, place, or
object. Would you say La Giaconda, or Rembrandt's portraits are any less
art for being representations of reality, done with great skill?
When we look at a photo by an Ansel Adams, or Brett Weston or any other
photographer that we think of as one of the "Southwest school" we're
often looking at an attempt to capture for a later viewer a specific
scene that evoked a certain emotional response in the original
viewer/photographer. Does that make it less art?
Technical merit alone is never enough. If I buy an F5, which they tell
me makes perfect exposures every time, and place it on a tripod, and
point it somewhere in the wilderness and push the shutter release, I
will get, I am promised, a Perfect Picture. Is it art? Not to me. Or at
least, probably not. But if I aim the camera with some purpose, then
perhaps I will get art.
Art is not technique, or even craftsmanship. Art is the realization of a
vision, even if it only requires picking the borders of the frame. In
every scene you cast you eyes on, there's a thing of beauty, or sadness,
or great emotion hidden somewhere- if you can find it. That's the role
of the artist.
--mike
Unknown
I tend to think that the important question is whether or not something is
GOOD art, not whether or not it IS art. You can argue about what art is all
day, but I like Ambrose Bierce's definition from The Devils Dictionary:
"This word has no definition."
Adam
AARD1VARK
the argument has been raging since the first pinhole camera. IMHO, REAL
ARTISTS are not threatened by photography (or computers). The same
agrument rages about digital/computer enhanced images.
Does a paint brush create the art or does the artist who wields the brush?
The same is true of photography and digital imagery.
The camera/computer are merely tools... garbage in... garbage out!!
It takes an artist to create art... regardless of medium.
CFGR
>>Chris
>I hadn't thought of using the word *reality*. You have used it three
>times Chris and I,m not sure what you mean by it.
My interpretation of this reality is very personal: I not only
see what I see but also wat I want to see...and HOW I see it.
That is my perception of reality. When I use my camera
to capture a picture (a snapshot, a tiny fraction of reality...)
it is MY decision to push the button at a given time and
with a certain content of the viewfinder.
The rest is pure technics...
(this mains not that individuals can not be 'creative' in the
dark room too...)
CFGR
I personally think 'Art' is made by the buyer....and it sometimes
needs very creative selling...
CFGR
>> The question remains: WHY do both of you feel the need (the urge?)
>> to hold on a fraction of the passing time-based reality and
>> re-creating a time stopped one?
>> Comments welcome... :)
>I'm completely out of the "time stopped" trend. I don't understand why
>any discussion on photo (as was on painting hundred years ago) at some
>point speak about "time stopped/freezed".
...?
>I can't care less about that point. I do photograph because I produce
>pictures.
Remains my question: WHY do you take pictures?????
Just to please the film manufacturers? Or the cameramakers?
Or to employ the developing industry?
NO! Everybody takes pictures for some reason, be it money,
for later enjoyment, for documentary purposes...whatever.
But WHAT make you decide to take a given shot? At a given time?
At a given place? Just because it is there????
...or to become an world famous artist? To win an oscar?
Think about it.
>My pictures have no more relationship with reality that the
>rose has with the rotten things in the ground that fed her (the rose).
>Nobody sings the rose as beeing the most exquisite form of rotten
>things. Same for photograph. The myth that a picture "is" what it
>represent should be dead since along time... "this is not a pipe" has
>been said 50 years ago.
Yep. And one said "Let there be light" (some 1.000.000.000 years
ago???) :)
Without him we would never be able to take pictures... <G>
>Look at the things around you, the immediate world around you. If you are
>alive, it will mean something to you, and if you care enough about
>photography, and if you know how to use it, you will want to photograph that
>meaningness. If you let other people's vision get between the world and your
>own, you will achieve that extremely common and worthless thing, a pictorial
>photograph.
>Paul Strand "The Art Motive in Photography"
I wonder why HE took pictures...?
David Jacobson
In article <ixb7mkx...@shellx.best.com>,
Martin Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
>The best example of painting being better for "scientific data" than
>photographs is in bird watching. There are photography based birding
>guides, such as the one from the national geographic society. They
>fail somewhat in that they show you *one* example of the bird, in a
>particular light, under a particular set of conditions. OTOH, painting
>based bird guides, such as the Peterson Field Guide, are more popular
>because they abstract the general features of the bird, making them
>better guides to comparing birds. Roger Tory Peterson is an excellent
>painter, and some of his guide paintings are very nice, in the
>tradition of John James Audabon (sp?)
I could add the Roger Tory Peterson was also a very accomplished
photographer. In an interview sometime back in one of the photography
magazines I recall him saying something like he had lost interest in
bird photography, as he already had full frame photos of so many
species. (All from my recollection. I hope I didn't mis-remember.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.) He could have used photographs if he
wanted to. He died a few months ago.
-- David Jacobson
Brian Reynolds
In article <19970125221...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
TMamatas <tmam...@aol.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>Photography can be art, or scientific data, or historical proof, whereas
>painting can only be an art (no one looks at Picasso's work and thins it
>reflects any sort of physical reality).
Whereas I agree that photography can produce create art, I think that
your analogy doesn't work.
In many cases paintings are used as historical proof (e.g., by people
researching clothing and everyday items through portraits painted
during the time period in question) and scientific data (e.g.,
research into chemical composition of paint pigments, and
environmental effects). Although there are abstract forms of
painting, there have also been realistic forms, which although they
may not approach photo realism do attempt to portray the subject
realistically (as the artist saw it).
--
Brian Reynolds | "Humans explore the Universe with five
reyn...@panix.com | senses and call the adventure science."
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ | - Edwin P. Hubble
margaret brezden
Hi Fred
I think of myself as a photographic artist. I hand-colour B & W prints and by d
so doing I have the ability to create a visual image, not from what
I see but what is in my mind.
The difference between an "artist" and photographer is that an artist starts off with
a blank canvas and slowly creates an image ,whereas a photographer begins with a full
canvas and uses his/her creativity by moving around the subject and selecting a
and eliminating certain elements from the scene to create the image originally
visualized. After this the photographer develops the negative and creates a print
that can be toned, or coloured with oils or dyes.
There are numerous other photographic techniques wherebv the photographer can
manipulate the print- texture screens - montage with another negative - sabatier effect-
photograms- and combination printing (using elements from two differrent negatives.
I understand how you feel: although photography is being accepted more in
juried art exihibts I still feel like odd man out when attending these events.
margaret brezden
margaret brezden
Hi Chris
BRAVO!!!!!!
fredc...@aol.com
In article <5cp9f4$99g$1...@carrera.intergate.bc.ca>, margaret brezden
<brez...@intergate.bc.ca> writes:
I like the definition you use saying that a photographer starts off with a
full canvas etc. It is a good idea and a nice way of looking at the world.
I wonder though if the immage exists in the conciousness of the painter
and the photographer, both, before ever geting onto paper or canvas. I do
a lot of work with young people and have from time to time put them in the
same place at the same time and given them a camera each. We always get
as many diferent interpritations of the place we are in as there are
people making pictures. I am not sure that it is manipulation of what
Chris called reality which makes art but I tend to think that the ability
to communicate an indiviualised reality in a way which speaks to others is
ONE of the indicators which enable us to describe someone who makes
something as an artist who works in this or that medium rather than a
painter or photographer or craftsman/woman.(although there is nothing
wrong with being described as any one of them ... far from it)
Fred
AARD1VARK
ok, maybe this will help define difference between <photographer> and
<artist>...
at Disney World and other tourista places, kodak places signs that direct
non-artistic types to <take pic from here> becuz they can not envision
what they want to shoot.
Whether a camera or brush, in the hands of an artist they are simply tools
used to create an image....
Hence, most who proudly call themselves <photographer> ARE in reality
<artist>
Chuck Goodwin
AARD1VARK wrote:
< the argument has been raging since the first pinhole camera. IMHO,
REAL
ARTISTS are not threatened by photography (or computers). The same
agrument rages about digital/computer enhanced images.
Does a paint brush create the art or does the artist who wields the
brush?
The same is true of photography and digital imagery.
The camera/computer are merely tools... garbage in... garbage out!!
It takes an artist to create art... regardless of medium.>
EXACTLY. The premise of the question is nonsense. One, cameras and
oils are
different media, nothing else. The only question is whether the medium
satisfies the artists desire to create and/or the connessieurs
(spelling?)
desire to appreciate.
Two, since when has photography been the poor stepchild of painting?
Certainly not in the last 50 years. Every major museum in the US will
gladly host a photo show.
Three, IMHO, the only thing that makes this thread worthwhile is the
good thoughts of most of the contributors -- otherwise, this thread is
reminiscent of the interminable threads debating the divinity of Ansel
Adams.
chuck g.
CFGR
>Hi Chris
>BRAVO!!!!!!
Thanks. :)
...reaction chain seems to stop?
TMamatas
While I agree that digital imaging is as valid a form of art as any
other, the one thing that disturbs me is the nature of it. The digital
image (when not printed) is composed of bits resting in someone's hard
drive. Since it is not physical, it is easier for someone to steal it,
copy, and reproduce it any number of times without the artist's knowledge
or consent. Another threat is that someday the image may be lost because
of computer failure (if not backed-up). These are just some concerns I
have; anyone with an opinion?
Beakman
TMamatas (tmam...@aol.com) wrote:
: While I agree that digital imaging is as valid a form of art as any
So long as those bits reside in *your* computer, I don't think that theft
is anymore of an issue than someone going into your house and stealing
your negative.
As for the threat of loss all I can say is, if you don't back up your
files then you'll get what you deserve. Even though I work from original
negatives, I still use Photoshop. Therefore, I back up my files to CD (I
have a CD recorder). I make two copies of each CD; I keep one at home
and the other in the safe deposit box with the original negatives.
David
--
______________________________________________________________________________
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
David Fokos Platinum/Palladium Photography
bea...@netcom.com
______________________________________________________________________________
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
David Jacobson
In article <19970203192...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
TMamatas <tmam...@aol.com> wrote:
> While I agree that digital imaging is as valid a form of art as any
>other, the one thing that disturbs me is the nature of it. The digital
>image (when not printed) is composed of bits resting in someone's hard
>drive. Since it is not physical, it is easier for someone to steal it,
>copy, and reproduce it any number of times without the artist's knowledge
>or consent. Another threat is that someday the image may be lost because
>of computer failure (if not backed-up). These are just some concerns I
>have; anyone with an opinion?
There are several issues here. First, the issue of whether
something that is in digital form can truly be art. I can't argue
articulately about it, but I see no problem.
Second there is the issue of easy reproduction. Well, whether this is
a problem (from the point of view of whether it is art) depends on
whether you think value lies in the creation of the art on in the
effort to make an instance. I'm sure that this debate raged when
printing was invented and when photography was invented. Each
technology made the making of reproductions easier. There are still
some people who look down on photography because the skill does not
get manifest in the construction of each little detail of the image.
But I think the issue is only relevant to people who wish to make
money from art. Society as a whole is struggling with the issue of
what is the value of something that can be reproduced at virtual zero
cost. So in short I think that art in a trivially reproducable medium
is still art, but I have no idea how to solve the question of what the
value of an instance is.
One solution is to distribute only a limited number of copies and then
invoke copyright law to prohibit further reporductions. In essence
what the purchaser buys is a license to view the art. Since it in a
medium that is trivially reproducable, maintaining the value depends
on enforcement of copyright law. There are lots of people working on
this. I'm appending a seminar notice that just came in this morning's
e-mail.
The final issue is permanence: You can lose the art by a disk crash.
Yes, this is true, but you can lose traditional art in flood or fire
or to thieves. Digital art can be backed up. This is a plus, not a
minus. The true minus is that digital art depends on technology.
Technology becomes obsolete in 30 or 40 years at most. What would you
do if your artist grandfather died, and in his studio you found
200 reels of 7-track 556 bpi 1/2 inch wide mag tape?
-- David Jacobson
======================================
Digital Watermarking: Techniques, Applications and Limitations
Minerva M. Yeung
IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
Abstract:
--------
The rapid growth of digital imagery coupled with the ease of duplication and
distribution of digital data have called for effective digital copyright
protection mechanisms. Digital watermarks have been proposed in recent
literature to address the needs. In this talk, we shall discuss the different
classes of digital watermarking techniques and their application domains. In
addition, we shall address the use of "fragile" invisible watermarks for image
verification, and, "robust" invisible watermarks for resolving rightful
ownership. It may have appeared from some of the ensuing work that the most
important property of watermarking schemes for resolving copyright ownership
is the robustness of the watermark in surviving malicious attempts of removal.
However, in recent work we have demonstrated that the ability to embed robust
watermarks in digital images does not necessarily imply the ability to
establish
ownership. We show how confusion can be created by developing counterfeit
watermarking schemes that allow multiple claims of rightful ownerships.
We have also formulated desired properties and proposed non-invertible
watermarking techniques for resolving rightful ownership.
The results presented further imply that we have to carefully re-think
our approaches to digital watermarking, and re-evaluate the promises,
applications and limitations of such digital means of copyright protection.
Speaker Biography
-----------------
Minerva M. Yeung is currently a Research Staff Member with IBM Thomas J.
Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, New York. She received a Ph.D
and M.A. from the Department of Electrical Engineering, Princeton University
in 1996 and 1994 respectively, and a B.S. in Electrical Engineering
(with Highest Distinction) from Purdue University, W. Lafayette, Indiana in
1992. She was an Intel Foundation Graduate Fellow (1995-96), a Sony
Graduate Fellow (1994-95), and a C.W. Chu Foundation Scholar (1988-92).
She worked at IBM Research (summer 1995), and at Imaging Department,
Siemens Corporate Research, Princeton, NJ (summer 1993). Her research
interests are in the areas of image/video processing, video browsing and
retrieval, multimedia data security, digital communications and issues
related to digital libraries.
David N. Heller
I think that photography, like, painting, drawing, music, etc
is an art form, an artistic medium. But just becuase one
dabbles in the medium does not mean that one produces art.
A child who makes a clay ashtray in school art class is not
an artist. The ashtray is not art.
A man paints a house, but his work is not art.
A news photographer uses an artistic medium to inform, but does
not produce art. Not until he composes a scene or subject
"artistically" on the negative or transparency, or until he
takes a negative or transparency and prints it "artistically", or until he
takes a print and hand-colors it or uses it as part of a mixed medium
work, for example, does he produce art.
Paul Butzi
>I think that photography, like, painting, drawing, music, etc
>is an art form, an artistic medium. But just becuase one
>dabbles in the medium does not mean that one produces art.
Sure. And just because one has studied for years and worked
in the medium for years, doesn't mean that one produces art.
>
>A child who makes a clay ashtray in school art class is not
>an artist. The ashtray is not art.
Oh, really? According to whom? According to you? Or according
to the child? Why should we accept your definition rather than
that of the child, or even, perhaps, the the loving grandparent
who gets the ashtray as a birthday present?
I don't see any reason why a child is incapable of producing art.
In fact, I'm damn certain that *my* children do. If yours
don't, maybe it's because you managed to convince them that they
can't. What a shame!
>
>A man paints a house, but his work is not art.
Really? Why? Because you can't hang a house in a gallery?
Do you honestly believe that painting a house can't be a creative
act? You clearly haven't met the guys who painted my house!
>
>A news photographer uses an artistic medium to inform, but does
>not produce art.
Do you believe that informing and art are mutually exclusive? Why?
There's a Mary Ellen Mark photograph that's clearly etched into
my memory - a photograph of two homeless teenagers, one of whom
is putting a Colt handgun into the inner pocket of his jacket after
showing it to Ms. Mark. It's a beautiful photograph, well composed.
Its intent, artistic intent aside, was to inform people about the
lives of homeless teenagers. Why, pray tell, is that photograph
not art? Are you really claiming that all of that FSA stuff isn't
art, because it was documentary in nature? Some of it seems pretty
damn artistic to me.
> Not until he composes a scene or subject
>"artistically" on the negative or transparency, or until he
>takes a negative or transparency and prints it "artistically", or until he
>takes a print and hand-colors it or uses it as part of a mixed medium
>work, for example, does he produce art.
Oh, I see. Art is something that's made 'artistically'. Now *that's*
a useful definition.
-Paul
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Notice: anyone sending me, via email, unsolicited advertisements,
offers, electronic magazines, or other electronic chaff will be
charged $500 US per incident. Sending me such email constitutes
legal acceptance of these terms.
margaret brezden
Hi Paul
you couldn't have read my mind more perfectly!!! I
sometimes think we try too hard to define what art
really is.
It is my opinion that art is born in the eyes of the beholder
and it doesn't really matter what any of us think art should
be it's what the image or object relates to the the person
viewing it and how it makes them feel.
Margaret
margaret brezden
Michael Edelman
David N. Heller wrote:
>
> I think that photography, like, painting, drawing, music, etc
> is an art form, an artistic medium. But just becuase one
> dabbles in the medium does not mean that one produces art.
>
> an artist. The ashtray is not art.
--mike
Chuck Goodwin
David N. Heller wrote:
> A news photographer uses an artistic medium to inform, but does
"artistically" on the negative or transparency, or until he
takes a negative or transparency and prints it "artistically", or until
he
takes a print and hand-colors it or uses it as part of a mixed medium
work, for example, does he produce art. <
Balderdash! Explain Robert Capa.
Tom Farrington
Or better yet... Gene Smith, Robert Frank, Cartier-Bresson, et al.
Best,
Tom
RStefan133
<<Path:
lobby01.news.aol.com!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc01.blue.<<aol.com!news-pee
r.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.
sprintlink.net!news-<<peer.sprintlink.net!news-pull.sprintlink.net!news.spr
intlink.net!news-dc-10.sprintlink.net!news-hub.interserv.net!ne<<ws.sprynet
.com!news
From: Chuck Goodwin <cz...@sprynet.com>
<<Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.art
Subject: Re: Photography vs. Paintings
<<Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 03:47:04 -0800
Organization: Sprynet News Service
<<Lines: 10
Message-ID: <33005C...@sprynet.com>
References: <5cp9f4$99g$1...@carrera.intergate.bc.ca>
<19970130230...@ladder01.news.aol.com> <32FBA3...@erols.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.175.96.27
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I)
David N. Heller wrote:
> A news photographer uses an artistic medium to inform, but does
>not produce art. Not until he composes a scene or subject
"artistically" on the negative or transparency, or until he
>takes a negative or transparency and prints it "artistically", or until
>he
takes a print and hand-colors it or uses it as part of a >mixed medium
work, for example, does he produce art. <
>>Balderdash! Explain Robert Capa.
I wanted to add my two cents worth by saying that Capa was a
photojournalist who documented history, namely wars, so his photos
couldn't be art. After taking a second look at them though, I have to
admit I was wrong in my thinking. He managed to capture some incredibly
beautiful and also, gut-wrenching images. I guess that's what art's all
about, isn't it?
-D.
Steve Hoffmann
This is for all of you that think you can define art. It's from
Webster's New World dictionary pub. 1962.
art 1. human ability to make things 2. skill. 3. any specific
skill or its application. 4. creative work generally, or its
principles: making or doing things that have form and beauty ....etc.
fine arts [so called because org.considered purely aesthetic as
distinguished from the "useful" arts], the graphic arts, generally
including drawing, painting sculpture, ceramics, and, occasionally,
architecture: literature, music, dramatic art, and dancing are
sometimes included. abbrev.FA, or F.A.
I would say that anyone can correctly refer to their photography as
art by definition. Calling photography fine art might be a
stretch....
Later,,,Steve
On Mon, 10 Feb 1997 16:04:02 -0500, Michael Edelman
<m...@pass.wayne.edu> wrote:
Steve Hoffmann
My new (updated 12/24/96) photography web page
http://www.trix.com/stevehof
Photos of zoo animals, close-ups of insects, and landscapes
AARD1VARK
David N. Heller wrote:
>>
>> A child who makes a clay ashtray in school art class is not
>> an artist. The ashtray is not art.
>
>If Rodin made the ashtray would it be art?
>
I prefer Pablo Picasso's definition of an <artist>... he said, <Every
child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once he/she
grows up>
In fact, this quote is on my studio/gallery wall
Coxtim
Photography is better.
;-)
tim
(no, please, don't e-mail me; i'm joking).
Coxtim
Coxtim
TMamatas
My working definition of art is: art is produced when the creative
mind expresses its wishes in a physical context. Fine art: the product of
extremely directed creativity, where every element of the work is exactly
as the artist wishes it to be. Fine art, then, is the produced by those
who have mastered the medium so well that their work is a direct
reflection on themselves. Fine art is not neccessarily good; a person can
know everything there is about film and paper characteristics, but nothing
about himself. Is it then art, or merely a technically sound photograph?
_________________________________________________________________________
"There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an advantage and security to all, but especially to democracies as against despots. What is it? Distrust."
-Demosthenes, Second Phillipic, sct. 24
"Out of timber so crooked as that from which man is made nothing entirely staight can be carved"
-Immanuel Kant
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief
All kill their inspiration and sing about the grief"
-U2, "The Fly"
_________________________________________________________________________
Mark
From the beginning of Photographys history the question of Photography vs
Painting has been argued. Its odd that this question keeps coming up. All
the artistic mediums have their individual merits. Photography is
Photography, Painting is Painting, & now Digital Art is Digital Art. Why
can't people accept each ones unique characteristics and accept them
individually without comparing them! None of them are better they are
all just different from each other, each with their own unique
possiablitys for expression.
Mark
Jean-David Beyer
People like to argue. It is easier than going out there and making
photographs,
spending hours in the darkroom printing them, and exposing your soul, or
at least your self-esteem, by showing the resulting prints or
transparancies.
Getting criticised can really hurt even if, intellectually, you know the
critic
does not know what (s)he is talking about.
I have done it myself. It can be interesting and informative, though it
often
is not.
--
Jean-David Beyer
Shrewsbury, New Jersey
Bill M. Carson
Hi: Well spoken Jean-David; you've summed up a difficult and ever active
subject. "Fine art" can, I believe apply to photographs but I must add,
VERRRRY SELDOM!
Bill
Jean-David Beyer <jdb...@exit109.com> wrote in article
<330F23...@exit109.com>...
Michael S. Pollak
David N. Heller wrote:
>
> I think that photography, like, painting, drawing, music, etc
> is an art form, an artistic medium. But just becuase one
> dabbles in the medium does not mean that one produces art.
>
> an artist. The ashtray is not art.
>
>
> not produce art. Not until he composes a scene or subject
> "artistically" on the negative or transparency, or until he
> takes a negative or transparency and prints it "artistically", or until he
> takes a print and hand-colors it or uses it as part of a mixed medium
> work, for example, does he produce art.
Who gets to decide what "artistically" is??
I used to work in a hotel in the midwest that hosted "Art Shows" in its
main ball room 2 or 3 times a year. It was filled with hundreds of Bob
Ross wanabie oil paintings of happy little boats on happy little oceans
and the spirt of happy little captains watching over the boats.
Man What a bunch of crap! I thought I would puke I laughed so hard! But
lots of people would go in and view these and really be touched, Some
old ladies would come out teary eyed and pay good money for these. I
could not belive it.
So who am I to judge what is art. I dont defend it but there are a lot
of folks with a velvet Elvis over there fire place. To them its art, so
it just goes to prove people really shouldn't marry there sisters. And
now I'm depressed at the state of the world and will go jump off a
bridge!
Michael Pollak ///> pol...@gate.net