We are all Artists now
The Reids
award of the Turner prize to a photographer?
--
Mike Reid
"there will be no siestas in Madrid tonight" Kevin Keagan
Spanish landscapes & cityscapes at"http://www.fell-walker.co.uk/spainpic.htm"
ho
From: "The Reids" <gilla...@mcmail.com>
Newsgroups: uk.rec.photo.misc
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 6:12 PM
Subject: We are all Artists now
> Isee the age old art, craft or science argument is now settled by the
> award of the Turner prize to a photographer?
Yes but does that mean we've got no talent either !
Ian Grant
the States, but here in the UK acceptance was really the Royal Academy
Exhibition of 1989 - The Art of Photography.
Unfortunately many outside the art world seem to be ignorant, but again only
here in the UK, its a different story on the continent. I think the UK
camera clubs now have a lot to answer for.
Ian
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
"The Reids" <gilla...@mcmail.com> wrote in message
news:lbjn2tsv2bkpph0l2...@4ax.com...
> Isee the age old art, craft or science argument is now settled by the
> award of the Turner prize to a photographer?
Steve Sharples
>Unfortunately many outside the art world seem to be ignorant, but again only
>here in the UK, its a different story on the continent.
> I think the UK
>camera clubs now have a lot to answer for.
>
>
They always have......... a lot of them are not worth a brass farthing
many do a disservice to the art of photography, not teaching or
explaining but just bringing and showing images that are in competition
with one another, who wins......no one certainly not photography
>-
>-----------------------------------------------------
--
Steve Sharples
Woody
<gilla...@mcmail.com> wrote:
> Isee the age old art, craft or science argument is now settled by the
> award of the Turner prize to a photographer?
If that Turner prize winner is the definition of photography as "Art"
I'm happy to be a craftsman.
The Reids
>many do a disservice to the art of photography, not teaching or
>explaining but just bringing and showing images that are in competition
>with one another, who wins......no one certainly not photography
Yes, i've only ever been to one, I didnt really get the competition
thing, but I suppose its inevitable in a club.
Brian Sharland
stuff but there were images which were exceptional. He described his own
work as "supposedly meaningless" and his art images certainly are! But his
reportage stuff, also at the Tate, is really first class. Go see him then
knock him!!
Brian Sharland - www.uklandscape.net
"The Reids" <gilla...@mcmail.com> wrote in message
news:lbjn2tsv2bkpph0l2...@4ax.com...
> Isee the age old art, craft or science argument is now settled by the
> award of the Turner prize to a photographer?
Andy Hughes
artists.
Regards,
Andy
Chris Hodges
in different proportions for different people?
Chris
Tony Polson
> Forgive me if I'm being basic, but why can't photography be an art, a craft and a science,
> in different proportions for different people?
I think you're 'basically' correct. <g>
It is all three things, in varying degrees, but every single photo we
take has some of each in it.
--
Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK
jeff.g
"Andy Hughes" <andy....@etcgroup.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pDaX5.17076$Bh.118539@NewsReader...
Then ipso facto not all photography is art.
Art seems to have several meanings. Some photography compares favourably
with a pile of bricks in the Tate but not a lot stands up against Donatello,
Leonardo or Michelangelo.
Jeff.
Andy Hughes
To be honest, I only see a very small number of photographs that I would
classify as 'Art' and most of those are Black & White. I appreciate that
there is a large chunk of subjectivity in that statement but it would appear
that good monochrome photographers spend more time considering composition,
subject matter, tonal range, print quality etc. etc.
Note I used the word 'most' in my first statement - so I do see some colour
work that I would classify as 'Art'!
Regards.
Andy
The Reids
>Art seems to have several meanings. Some photography compares favourably
>with a pile of bricks in the Tate but not a lot stands up against Donatello,
>Leonardo or Michelangelo.
It would be interesting to be able to go back and give Leonardo a
camera and see how it influenced him.
--
Mike Reid
Results of pointing a camera at (mostly) mountains:-
"http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/pict052.htm"
The Reids
>Agreed.
>
>To be honest, I only see a very small number of photographs that I would
>classify as 'Art' and most of those are Black & White. I appreciate that
>there is a large chunk of subjectivity in that statement
very large chunk I would have thought
>but it would appear that good monochrome photographers spend more time considering composition,
>subject matter, tonal range, print quality etc. etc.
I can see an amateur has more scope for creative modification in a
black and white print, but suely colour is just another "dimension"
Surely a "good" photographer always considers compositition & subject
matter. I agree though some colour photos rely just on colour
"impact", but then a b&w nude might rely on a model with nice **** !
>Note I used the word 'most' in my first statement - so I do see some colour
>work that I would classify as 'Art'!
Michaelangelo was quite happy using colour :-)
Roland
>
> Following up to Andy Hughes :
>
> >Agreed.
> >
> >To be honest, I only see a very small number of photographs that I would
> >classify as 'Art' and most of those are Black & White. I appreciate that
> >there is a large chunk of subjectivity in that statement
>
> very large chunk I would have thought
>
> >but it would appear that good monochrome photographers spend more time considering composition,
> >subject matter, tonal range, print quality etc. etc.
>
> I can see an amateur has more scope for creative modification in a
> black and white print, but suely colour is just another "dimension"
> Surely a "good" photographer always considers compositition & subject
> matter. I agree though some colour photos rely just on colour
> "impact", but then a b&w nude might rely on a model with nice **** !
>
> >Note I used the word 'most' in my first statement - so I do see some colour
> >work that I would classify as 'Art'!
>
> Michaelangelo was quite happy using colour :-)
I went round the exhibition of the Master's degree students at
Wimbledon College of Fine Art last year and there were some lovely
photos on display of London skips. This must be art because Wimbledon
College has a very tall reputation for art. I might go out and
photograph the supermarket trolleys of Walthamstow and set up an
exhibition somewhere.
Roland
jeff.g
Well, we'll never know, but my guess would be that he would have seen it as
a very useful tool for preparation and for collecting images of other
artists to study, but I can't see that he would have felt that photography
to be an equal creative medium with painting or sculpture. I don't see that
the skills required to be a good photographer are comparable with the skills
required to be a good painter or sculptor. Also there's a large element of
good fortune in photography which does not exist in the major arts. For
example, our best images are almost certainly better than the best
photographers worst images, and that cannot be said of an average painter
compared with a Master. Finally the amount of time and labour required to
produce a quality painting or sculpture (in most cases) allows a large skill
input which is simply not possible with a photograph because so much less
labour is involved in it. Admittedly Picasso could do a great drawing in
seconds but he was pretty exceptional.
Jeff.
Roland
I think you'll find that Leonardo da Vinci used a lens for some of his
paintings. He set up the models and had a lens in a screen and painted
out the outlines of the painting upside down the other side of the
screen. That's pretty close to a camera. And if you have ever tried
drawing things upside down then you will know that it is no impediment.
He would have gotten into trouble if the Church knew. He painted one of
the Popes without the use of a lens but put a lens in the Pope's pocket
as a sort of joke. He is credited, also, with conceiving of the first
contact lens so he was knowledable about such things.
Roland
jeff.g
"Roland" <roland.rash...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:3A2F98...@virgin.net...
Thanks Roland.
I did have a feeling when I wrote my last post that he did use a lens for
something or other. Did he use a camera obscura at all?
Anyway, yes, using a lens as a tool would have appealed to him, but of
course that does not make his work photographic in the sense that ours is.
He was not trying merely to capture an image, but also to express "emotional
truth" in his work in a controlled fashion, whilst aiding his ability to get
a very accurate likeness. Renaissance artists and society were very keen on
innovation - take Brunellesci's Dome for example - but it was never an end
in itself, and I expect that they would have been horrified by the emptiness
of much modern art, like the photos of rubbish skips around London you
mentioned earlier.
Jeff.
Jeff.
Roland
> mentioned earlier.
WHATTT?????
You PHILISTINE !!!!!!!! :o((
Roland
jeff.g
"Pat Chaney" <p...@pchaney.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rmk23tk48li060ot1...@4ax.com...
> Roland <roland.rash...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> >I think you'll find that Leonardo da Vinci used a lens for some of his
> >paintings.
>
> some of his early shots of Jean Shrimpton.
>
>
> Pat
> --
> Photos at http://www.pchaney.demon.co.uk/
Oooh, that must have tickled.
Jeff.