what defines art photography?
Jennifer Mueller
my work samples were judged to be more photojournalism than art photography.
The council suggested that my work was good enough and I needed to choose
samples that were more art.
My question is . . . What defines art photography? How is it different from
nature photography? I simply interested in responses on this.
If I am interested in people but not glamour shots how do I pick the photos
so they are art not journalism? Please give links to examples.
Here are the samples I submitted with the grant . . . . (sorry about the
scans in some cases)
"Bush v. Gore" December 2000 (Clearly the 1st one tipped the scales and will
not be turned in when I re-apply)
http://home.earthlink.net/~jenmmueller/photos/bushvgore.jpg
"Untitled from Joshua Tree" March 2001
http://home.earthlink.net/~jenmmueller/photos/jtpark.jpg
"Chess" March 2001
http://home.earthlink.net/~jenmmueller/photos/chess.jpg
"Rock Creek" Ma 2001
http://home.earthlink.net/~jenmmueller/photos/rockcreek2.jpg
Mike
considered more photojournalistic than art. For example, if you have people
in the photograph, they should be posed by the photographer and not be
engaged in an activity that would have occurred without you being there. The
most artistic photographs of people are often pure form and end up being
nudes of headless or unrecognizable people.
It would also help if you demonstrated some departure from "absolute
reality" over the final image. This might include using filters to make the
sky appear darker (white sky's are not very pleasing in most photographs)
and using some burning or dodging techniques to create the image they way
you want it to look, not just the way it happened to be when you made the
exposure and then made a "straight" print.
"Jennifer Mueller" <jenmm...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:B771DC28.3563%jenmm...@earthlink.net...
Nicholas O. Lindan
>
> .... What defines art? ....
From James Joyce's "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" and this writer's
sorry paraphrase:
o JJ: The artist conceives the work
NL: The artist has a spontaneous internal transcendent experience
o JJ: The artist frames the work
NL: The artist delineates/externalizes/makes physical his internal
experience
o JJ: The work causes a state of aesthetic arrest in the viewer
NL; The resultant object causes a like state of transcendence in the viewer
The last point is the key -- Joyce claimed that if the work elicited desire
for the portrayed object then it was not art but pornography.
And if the work elicited intellectual interest or amusement it was not art but
illustration.
These three stages of art mirror the trilogy of many religions:
God conceives; God creates; We experience transcendent awe and fall
in worship.
* * * * *
From this perspective two of the pictures you submitted are illustrative or
journalistic. The others are, pretty, yes, but they don't take me out of
myself.
When you get a feeling of awe about something - then is the time to make
art of it. If it awes you it will awe someone else.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio noli...@ix.netcom.com
Consulting Engineer: Electronics, Informatics, Photonics.
Nicholas O. Lindan
> If I am interested in people but not glamour shots how do I pick the photos
> so they are art not journalism? Please give links to examples.
Examples are the best here: Walker Evans, Jaques Henri Latrigue, Henri
Cartier-Bresson. These artists are also journalists and documenters. It
is possible to both, and I think that is what you are striving for.
Walker Evans' work is viewable through the library of congress web site.
A good discussion of his work is at:
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~UG97/fsa/welcome.html
Just search the web and follow the links.
When the pupil is ready the teacher appears.
JustaPawn
But to try, I'd say most importantly is having a unique point of view. Meaning
you're taking pictures no one else has taken yet, or you're processing them in
a manner that has a personal style.
I didn't find your pieces especially photojournalistic: if that's what you're
after I'd suggest looking at Eugene Richards and Mary Ellen Mark, maybe Natacha
Merrit, whom I've been interested in lately. Document the everyday life all
around you.
For the landscapes I saw to work as fine art, I think technical excellence is
required. Look at Weston, Michael Kenna.
The world of art, acceptance and grants is a strange one.
Hopefully, this one experience won't discourage you. Keep shooting what you
believe in, find your own unique way of saying what you're feeling and select
only the most powerful images from all you do to show. Eventually you'll have a
body of work that will be hard for someone to resist.
Terry Dawson
--
My Digital Photography Pages
http://digital.photography.home.att.net/
"Jennifer Mueller" <jenmm...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:B771DC28.3563%jenmm...@earthlink.net...
Grant Dixon
This is a very simple question with a very complex answer. Read Roland
Barthes, Camera Lucida - Reflections on Photography. It only 117 pages but
is difficult and well worth the study.
Grant
http://members.home.net/grant.dixon/index.htm
*********************************************************
Creativity is so delicate a flower that praise tends to make it bloom, while
discouragement often nips it in the bud. Any of us will put out more and
better ideas if our efforts are appreciated.
Alexander F. Osborn (1888 - 1966)
*********************************************************
"Jennifer Mueller" <jenmm...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:B771DC28.3563%jenmm...@earthlink.net...
J.T. Wenting
from
> nature photography? I simply interested in responses on this.
>
are obviously journalism (overviewshot of a traincrash e.g.), many are not
(portrait of a survivor of said traincrash sitting on the railway looking
dazed).
> "Bush v. Gore" December 2000 (Clearly the 1st one tipped the scales and
will
> not be turned in when I re-apply)
> http://home.earthlink.net/~jenmmueller/photos/bushvgore.jpg
>
horizon not level, and that is clearly not on purpose.
> "Untitled from Joshua Tree" March 2001
> http://home.earthlink.net/~jenmmueller/photos/jtpark.jpg
>
Very nice. Might not be considered art on its own, but as part of a series
it would certainly do.
Eugene Goodale
and when you do have success it will be all the more satisfying.
Gene
In article <B771DC28.3563%jenmm...@earthlink.net>, Jennifer Mueller
Mike
with at least one the rules below:
1. The subject is nude, and preferably the face is not shown.
2. You use a 4x5 (or larger) view camera and show the black frame edge in
the final print to prove you have suffered in the field and suffered in the
darkroom and are therefore worthy as an artist. Obviously, the larger the
view camera the better. If you produce 11x14 contact prints exclusively,
you images will be considered to be art even if they are photographs of
suburban tract houses, gas stations, or a presidential press conference.
2. The image is so out of focus, blurred, or horrendously printed that there
must be higher some transcendental meaning to the photograph that makes it
artistic (slightly out of focus, slightly blurred. or slightly badly printed
will not work).
4. The subjects are poor, diseased, or indigent, and therefore your images
are raised to the higher purpose of exposing the hypocrisy of Western
civilization which is controlled by oppressive white males. You images are
now part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Photographs of people which do not meet the above criteria will be
classified as photojournalism (or even worse). There are exceptions to the
above, but if you follow these rules you have a much better chance of
getting a grant. If you cannot follow the above rules when producing images
of people, stick to landscapes or still life's.
"J.T. Wenting" <jwen...@hornet.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:994881727.19488....@news.demon.nl...
JustaPawn
T
Frank Calidonna
Mike said it very well. Unfortunately the "art" world has one of the highest BS
factors of just about any endeavor. To make matters worse many people on grant
panels haven't the faintest clue as to what constitues a decent photograph to
say nothing of art. You have a good eye for people. Study other photographers
whose work is both photojournalistic and artistic such as Mary Ellen Mark,
Robert Frank, Eugene Smith, Dorthea Lange, and many more. I am sure others will
pop in here with some other names. Stick with your vision- refine your technique
- keep applying for grants, but you need to develop the most important thing an
artist or aspiring artist can have -a very thick hide. Accept criticism only
from another photographer whose work you really admire and even then only as it
helps develop your unique viewpoint. I doubt if you will find such a person on a
grant committee. The very word committee says it all. Or follow Mike's hilarious
suggestions. Sadly they might land you a grant. Good luck.
Frank Rome, NY
For God so loved the world that he did not send a committee.
Tony Spadaro
This is how art works. The creator can call himself/herself an artist
and the work art - but unless someone agrees with the creator - it ain't
art.
Some people are local "artists", recognised at homw and ignored by the
larger world. Some people are "artists" to the larger world and only "kooks"
back home.
A lot of the people who become "artists" are best at the art of self
promotion.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Or thrill to sights you've never seen before all that often
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro's Home page
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html
"Jennifer Mueller" <jenmm...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:B771DC28.3563%jenmm...@earthlink.net...
Francis A. Miniter
Francis A. Miniter
Mike
truth to it.
"JustaPawn" <just...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010711195515...@ng-fm1.aol.com...
> I hope you're joking.
>
Mike
> the picture of the chess players. On the surface, they
> aren't connected to each other, but at the same time they
> seem connected in ways they don't want to acknowledge.
> It's that duality that works in that image.
You must live in one of those states where medical marijuana is legal.
Nicholas O. Lindan
> Money - and the source of the money.
Terry Dawson wrote:
> The critics. ;-)
Oh, such cynics.
It is bigger than that.... Van Gogh's work was art before it became geld and
the critics fawned.
He would have done a lot better without the brother of his who 'sheltered'
him: buying all his paintings and keeping them locked up in his flat.
Ah, but if they had loved him when he lived:
TURBULENT INDIGO
You wanna make Van Goghs,
Raise 'em up like sheep.
Make 'em out of Eskimos
And women if you please.
Make 'em nice and normal;
Make 'em nice and near;
You see him with his shotgun there?
Bloodied in the wheat?
Oh what do you know about
Living in Turbulent Indigo?
Brash fields, crude crows
In a scary sky...
In a golden frame,
Roped off,
Tourists guided by...
Tourists talking about the madhouse,
Tourists talking about the ear.
The madman hangs in fancy homes
They wouldn't let him near!
He'd piss in their fireplace!
He'd drag them through Turbulent Indigo.
"I'm a burning hearth," he said.
"People see the smoke,
But no one comes to warm themselves
Sloughing off a coat.
And all my little landscapes,
All my yellow afternoons,
Stack up around this vacancy
Like dirty cups and spoons.
No mercy sweet Jesus!
No mercy from Turbulent Indigo."
(c) Joni Mitchell
---
Grant Dixon
Diane is right on this one. Of course she may or may not live in a state
where medical marijuana is legal.
--
Grant
http://members.home.net/grant.dixon/index.htm
*********************************************************
Creativity is so delicate a flower that praise tends to make it bloom, while
discouragement often nips it in the bud. Any of us will put out more and
better ideas if our efforts are appreciated.
Alexander F. Osborn (1888 - 1966)
*********************************************************
"Mike" <mfel...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:Wdl37.55$9q3.1...@news.uswest.net...
Mike
First, they are not chess player, at least not playing in a match against
each other. You can tell that by the way the are situated at the chess
board. The only connection that they have to each other is that neither
wants to be photographed. Their reactions to being photographed are
different and perhaps amusing (to at least one of them), but I am not sure I
would consider it particularly artistic
However, since the photograph is out of focus, poorly exposed, and horribly
developed and/or printed, a grant is a definite possibility.
"Grant Dixon" <grant...@home.com> wrote in message > Mike
>
> Diane is right on this one. Of course she may or may not live in a state
> where medical marijuana is legal.
> --
> Grant
> http://members.home.net/grant.dixon/index.htm
>
>
Jennifer Mueller
newsgroups. It's such a terribly supportive environment.
Mike
I don't think you should take any of this personally. I explained what my
personal reaction was to the photograph. Others have their own reactions
and opinions which are just as valid as mine. And even though my comments
may have been more brutal than simply saying "the photograph was too
photojournalistic", at least you have something more substantial to go on
than just a polite brush off.
My most serious criticism was not of the photograph, but of the prior
comments to whit:
"On the surface, they aren't connected to each other, but at the same time
they seem connected in ways they don't want to acknowledge. It's that
duality that works in that image."
This seems to me to be a rather sophomoric statement that can be made (and
has often been made) about every single photograph with 2 or more people
that have different expressions on their face.
In terms of constructive criticism of the photograph, here goes. I certainly
don't expect every photograph to be perfectly exposed and printed,
especially when the subject matter deals with people and their thoughts,
emotions, and relationships to others and the surroundings. Any certainly,
high contrast and not-so-sharp focus can be useful artistic tools. However,
if the contrast is so high, and the shadow detail so non-existent, that I
cannot see their eyes at all, it is more difficult for me to relate to the
people in the photograph on an emotional or intellectual level. And to me ,
my honest gut reaction is that the two people look uncomfortable be
photographed, period. That's my honest opinion, and I am sure others have
their own.
"Jennifer Mueller" <jenmm...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:B7738B61.3A4D%jenmm...@earthlink.net...
JustaPawn
newsgroups. >>
I thought there was some good advice, along with the usual messages of fools.
Follow your heart and not what other people say. The answers are in doing the
work, not in posting or reading here.
annqlee
Art is very ambiguous and not well defined. No definition will fit all
categories.
But anyways...
To my untrained mind, art is an expression of intimacy. If you can portray
the degree
of intimacy you have with subjects then you are in the process or producing
art.
I think all of the "approved-stamped-honored" photographers exhibit a great
deal of intimacy with
their particular subjects. Art is a process, it is a relationship with the
subject. It is not a photograph, strictly speaking.
The photograph is a tiny "record" of the relationship. To build that
relationship, you eat, you breath, you crap that
subject. It dominates your mind.
Funded art is another story. I have no ideas about that.
If you built an intimate relationship and are able to master a craft to
record that relationship, then you are creating art.
Don't let anyone discourage you and don't ever let anyone break up your
relationships.
I wish you the best of luck,
Ann
"Jennifer Mueller" <jenmm...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:B771DC28.3563%jenmm...@earthlink.net...
Mike
"Diane Wilson" <di...@firelily.com> wrote in message >
> As far as photographs of 2 or more people with different expressions,
> that's not even close. For an immediate counter-example, her photo
> of the protest.
Actually, I think that photograph of the protestors is the best of the
bunch. It has some technical issues that should try to be addressed with a
better print, but it's definitely a keeper. The juxtaposition of the
subjects does not really seem to be Gore vs. Bush, but rather the police vs.
the protestors. They way the two police on the steps in the background
reinforce the two officers in the foreground, makes for a very interesting
composition (although I would try to straighten out the building). These
folks probably had so many photographers taking shots all day long that they
had become oblivious to the camera, and it shows, maikng for a very good
composition.
Bruce MacNeil
unquestionably art.
Robert Frank, "The Americans."
"Nicholas O. Lindan" <noli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3B4C7380...@ix.netcom.com...
J.T. Wenting
"JustaPawn" <just...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010711195515...@ng-fm1.aol.com...
R. Michael Walker
www.rmichaelwalker.com . There is a fine line between Photojournalism and
art. Many photographers cross back and forth over the line. I'd say the
utilitarian aspects of an image would help define it as "non-art". And
glamour certainly fits that category as well (you mentioned it as art
originally which I would strongly object to personally). Also Art is like
Porn...hard to put into EXACT termas that ALWAYS apply. So why bother.
People have personal issues that determine howthey see either...the
important thing (unless you are trying for notierity) is how YOU see them.
Personally i think the Bush/Gore image is the best of the bunch...but is
VERY commercially composed.
Mike
R. Michael Walker
control over the final image would be considered more photojournalistic than
art. " Ansel Adams had little control over the landscape he photographed
short of blocking, perspective and darkroom control...wait a minute...that
IS a lot of control isn't it!
"For example, if you have people in the photograph, they should be posed by
the photographer and not be engaged in an activity that would have occurred
without you being there. The most artistic photographs of people are often
pure form and end up being nudes of headless or unrecognizable people."
OK...in art school that is a great exercise. Also in a portrait studio.
Are portrait photographers artists? Maybe. But give me Emmit Gowin or Wynn
Bullock. But I also love Mary Ellen Mark (one of the Photojournalist artist)
and W. Eugene Smith (A photojournalist whose work sells for a lot of money
in the Fine Art galleries). And Brasaii, Henri Bresson, Diane Arbus.
> It would also help if you demonstrated some departure from "absolute
> reality" over the final image. This might include using filters to make
the
> sky appear darker (white sky's are not very pleasing in most photographs)
> and using some burning or dodging techniques to create the image they way
> you want it to look, not just the way it happened to be when you made the
> exposure and then made a "straight" print.
This is one school of thought. Some just try to "see" things differently
from the beginning, technique not withstanding. I personally love both
Digital imagery and Straight B&W and see neither as more "artistic" than the
other. And BTW, as soon as you choose a lense, compose and image and snap
the shutter you've altered reality.
Just my opinions
Mike
R. Michael Walker
former recipients and renowned artists in the field (at least the National
Endowment was run that way back in the late 70's when I got one, then served
as an advisor to the next panel, then was refused another because I shot
NUDES!)
Mike
RBrac53660
just cut and paste
Glenn Arden
> I recently applied for and was denied an art grant for photography because
> my work samples were judged to be more photojournalism than art photography.
> The council suggested that my work was good enough and I needed to choose
> samples that were more art.
>
> My question is . . . What defines art photography? How is it different from
> nature photography? I simply interested in responses on this.
>
> If I am interested in people but not glamour shots how do I pick the photos
> so they are art not journalism? Please give links to examples.
>
> Here are the samples I submitted with the grant . . . . (sorry about the
> scans in some cases)
>
> "Bush v. Gore" December 2000 (Clearly the 1st one tipped the scales and will
> not be turned in when I re-apply)
> http://home.earthlink.net/~jenmmueller/photos/bushvgore.jpg
>
> "Untitled from Joshua Tree" March 2001
> http://home.earthlink.net/~jenmmueller/photos/jtpark.jpg
>
> "Chess" March 2001
> http://home.earthlink.net/~jenmmueller/photos/chess.jpg
>
> "Rock Creek" Ma 2001
> http://home.earthlink.net/~jenmmueller/photos/rockcreek2.jpg
Your photographs are pictures of events or objects, they do not show your
creativity. They are documentaries. Not creative works of art. Go look at
some photos by the masters and compare your work to theirs.