This is still fundamentally the same old discussion I have been hearing my whole career. Is photography art? If it is then there are no constraints. If it isn't if it is just a means of recording reality, then throw aesthetics aside and just hire a chimp to point the camera.
This is still fundamentally the same old discussion I have been hearing my whole career. Is photography art? If it is then there are no constraints. If it isn't if it is just a means of recording reality, then throw aesthetics aside and just hire a chimp to point the camera.
Adams manipulated his images (with filters and other devices) but within certain ethical guidelines. As far as I know, he never snipped a moon out of one photo and composited it into another.
We have a local art show that has two main categories: Art is the first (with oil, watercolor, etc. as sub categories), and photography is the second! Makes me laugh every year when I get the brochure. Apparently whoever runs that show isn’t shy about their opinion, yet is smart enough to realize you can rake in more entry fees if you include photographs.
I entered another juried art show last year. As a winner, I attended the “meet the artist” night where the judges explained their picks and the artists answered questions. The show had the usual mix of oil, watercolor, sculpture, photography, etc. Sure enough, when the group got to photography, someone made the cheating statement. In this case it was an oil painter. Her point was specifically about digital photography simply being too easy.
The funny thing was the photo I submitted had very few adjustments from the raw image. White balance, highlight/shadow adjustments, minor clean up and that was it. Now I was not going to argue with an oil painter about the difficulty of our crafts. However, I did make a few points:Dave
- I don’t think the art of photography is any easier. I made the comparison to an oil painter with a magic “undo” brush. It is not any easier to create the art, but the magic brush makes it much easier to experiment and to practice.
- What photographers do have now is control. Control over brightness and color, both global and local. And, control over the entire process from capture to print. But that control is what painters have had for a long time!
- As fine art photographers we still have limitations. If she and I were standing next to each other working a scene with flowers in a slight breeze, I’m going away with nothing while she paints away. I could of course change my artistic intent and photograph blurry wisps of color, but that requires me to, well, change my artistic intent! Photography is still a time-sensitive, or event-related craft much more so than other forms of art. Michael's previous home page image is a perfect example. The beautiful angle of the shadow that just misses the coke sign will change very quickly. And that is precisely what I love about photography.
I have to take issue with you here!
Photographing a landscape is BY FAR easier than painting one. That you may have to go home and tinker with it in Photoshop does not make your art "just as complex" as a guy who has to start painting it, and getting all of the detail and proportions right by hand!
There is absolutely no comparison in how much the level of difficulty is against the painter ...
You are conflating effort and craft with art. I don't believe that there is a priori any correlation. It wouldn't take much to find many paintings that were apparently easily executed, that are brilliant and moving, and ones which took hundreds of hours of effort but which are crap.
A friend of mine is one of the only people in the world who makes carbon pigment photographic prints. Each print can take as much as a week and some 40-60 hours to complete. They are exquisite as objet d'art, but are only as good artistically as the image from which they are made (which happen in his case to be very good as well).
Art and craft are not the same thing. They are partners. The worth of a work of art lies in its intrinsic ability to move the viuewer, not in how many coffee breaks needed to be taken during its creation.
Michael
In other words, it is anything but a cakewalk to take a blank piece of paper, and with nothing but inks/paints/pastels to create all of the dimensional accuracy, color accuracy, facial expressions, etc. BY HAND.
I think that perception comes from the fact that very few have ever painted, while everyone uses a camera. After all "All you have to do is press the button, the camera does all the work". Right? Before some of you become unglued my tongue is in my cheek.
I did a reverse image search for the Jimmy Hendrix image and came up with this (http://www.mandremcorp.com/music-photography/mike-ruiz/jimi-hendrix-by-mike-ruiz/).
The average Joe is also exposed enough to Photoshop via various things like television (which make PS seem even simpler to use to manipulate images) to question and distrust almost all images they see. This is one of the fundamental problems and I'm sure we've all seen it. The lack of knowledge of digital photographic processes and photoshop itself is even more challenging because the average Joe has no clue you have to do something to the raw data captured by any camera.. they assume the picture from their phone or point and shoot is how it's supposed to be, clueless of the manipulation that occurred before they could chimp their shot ...
Maybe it is because an average Joe understands, at some level, the work that goes into painting, while they just see photography as "just push the button...."
...and the level of talent it takes to paint at a very high level is light years harder to "get to" than it is to get to a point of producing exceptional photographs.
Basically, world class artistic ability cannot be "taught." The ability to paint exceptionally well is a gift that a person is either born with or they are not. For example, one of my friends graduated from UCLA with an "art degree" ... and in point of fact he has several top-end clients (ranging from Time Warner, Sony, DCon, AOL, Ford, Mattel, and many other Fortune 500 companies who buy his work) ... and I have another artist friend ... who dropped out of school and who has no degree ... and yet it is the second dropout artist friend who is truly world class. Here are some examples of his work:
Hum...Jimmie Hendrix is dead...I wonder where your artist friend got the reference material to "paint him" and just how different the "painting" looked from the reference photo. I've seen the reference photos that great painters make (well, in the 20th century say like Norman Rockwell) in order to "paint" their subjects. Putting ink/paints/pastels to paper is no harder nor valuable a talent that knowing when and how to click the shutter.
If you disagree, then you are ignorant of the facts of what it takes to create great art, regardless of the medium. You are guilty of classing various mediums as having greater or lessor inherent value–uh, no, I don't think so bud-it don't work like that. The value of a piece of work has little to do with the difficulty in producing it and is based more on what a pice of art lookes like and how many people are attracted to it. That's what determines value...
No, I can't draw well...so I'm not a painter (which is what I wanted to be when I was a kid), but I can shoot pretty well. Does that really make me less of a talent than your painter friends? Really? Ya might want to rethink what you've said cause what you've said is really pretty stupid...course, that's just my opinion so take it for what it's worth.
I did a reverse image search for the Jimmy Hendrix image and came up with this (http://www.mandremcorp.com/music-photography/mike-ruiz/jimi-hendrix-by-mike-ruiz/).
Cheers,
The average Joe is also exposed enough to Photoshop via various things like television (which make PS seem even simpler to use to manipulate images) to question and distrust almost all images they see. This is one of the fundamental problems and I'm sure we've all seen it. The lack of knowledge of digital photographic processes and photoshop itself is even more challenging because the average Joe has no clue you have to do something to the raw data captured by any camera.. they assume the picture from their phone or point and shoot is how it's supposed to be, clueless of the manipulation that occurred before they could chimp their shot ...
then you get photographers who make claims they don't manipulate their work - they get it all in camera - yet looking at the images you know some pretty serious work was done to the files. Even those shooting "film" who claim to be purists have to scan and then work with their files. And my favorite one out of all these .. a pretty high end landscape guy shooting film who passes off a double exposure of a moon which is pretty easy to spot based on the direction of light of the subject vs the moon, but imply they didn't cheat because it was done with film.
.... and the debate will never end ...
I wouldn't call this stuff art - more like hack illustration worked up from reference photos. Your friend should do some life drawing.
IMHO the spider photos you post are artistically much more interesting than this stuff.
Don't agree with this either.
I was looking at another LuLa forum members' site the other day: The subject matter of the images was very similar to stuff I often photograph. The difference was that my photos are crap and this guys' work is terrific. And it's not technical quality that lets mine down ( tho' this can be an issue at times ).
Regards
Graeme
Jack, I agree that artistic ability cannot be taught, but it can be developed if there is a seed present in the form of artistic talent.
That is true for all forms of art and cannot be compared as "harder or easier". It's an absolute that is not measurable.
And about your friends. You didn't give any examples on the first so it's hard to comment on its artistic value, but the fact it's being sold doesn't prove anything. Kitsch wouldn't be made if it wouldn't sell either.
And the second, I have a hard time seeing that as art, only as a craft tracing photo's but that's it.
I don't see any justification for calling me "stupid" Jeff ... especially when you don't seem to be aware of the fact that you just admitted you were a wanna-be painter ... who didn't have the skill to make the grade ... so you became a photographer instead.
Do you not realize that you pretty much proved my point? (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
However ... it is still an easier bargain than painting from nothing. For starters, you are working with a photograph, so all of the lines, features, colors, etc. have basically been "handed to you" by the camera. So all you're really doing in Photoshop is doctoring and working with what's already there in perfect proportion ... whereas the artist has to FIRST create this perfection from nothing by hand. Then the artist is required to mix his own colors, blend/adjust, etc. ... and every color he uses is a physical thing.
Yes, my friend uses photos quite often to work off of, if the live subject isn't available. But it still doesn't change the fact it requires more skill to recreate the exactness of a photograph by drawing than it does just to take "another photo" of the photo.
Jack
Something can be beautifully artistic, without being that hard to achieve. So good point. However, when something is beautifully artistic and is hard to achieve, the value is going to be greater.
No, actually, I got into photography not because I was a "wanna be" painter but because my skills and talents lay elsewhere (and this was when I was 18 and I'm now 57)...
and I was fortunate to have an award winning commercial career shooting instead of painting.
As for the "stupid" comment, ok, let me amend that to "ignorant"...ignorant of the facts and what makes a stellar image regardless of the medium used.
Ironic that one of your examples of world class painting was a direct ripoff of a photo...and so it goes.
Really, you might want to reevaluate your world view...it's a bit skewed towards classic arts and away from photo as a fine art.
And exactly why do you shoot photos? Is it your medium of choice or is that the best you can do? For many, it's the medium of choice...
You keep bringing up this point, and it reinforces that you don't seem to understand the difference between art and craft to my mind. For instance, near as I can tell since the advent of the photograph the issues of perspective and color reproduction in painting have been greatly minimized. With the advent of the photograph most serious painting has moved away from accuracy of reproduction. You keep emphasizing aspects of the craft of painting that don't seem very relevant to the art form anymore.
Since you brought up sales price as a metric, this is the most expensive painting ever sold:
XXX
And the second:
XXX
And the third:
XXX
I'm not seeing how a camera would be of any help here. I'm not seeing how what you keep claiming are the "skills" of painting as an art are at all on display here. No doubt there is flawless craft on display here behind the art but the larger point is that it only serves the artist. Being an expert craftsman in no way guarantees success as an artist - regardless of the medium.
I completely agree that the craft of painting is far more time consuming both to master and execute than photography in general (there are of course exceptions on both sides). For that matter, sculpture even more so than painting. What of it? There is a sea of painters with excellent craft and technique who produce paintings of no value or relevance to anyone beyond a by wrote demonstration of craft. The craft of painting being challenging hasn't done anything to prevent the endless production of technicaly excellent banal paintings that litter dime stores. Adam's hated "sharp image of a fuzzy concept" is produced by painters as easily as by photographers.
From the other side of the fence, despite the relative triviality of properly exposing and printing a photo the number of photographers truly skilled in the art of photography who can command the public's attention with images of their own creation rather than just executing the craft for clients is very small.
There are gobs of wedding photographers executing the craft of photography with little or no artistic intent. Similarly, China has factories full of technically skilled painters producing oil on canvas family portraits from photographs uploaded from America.
I just don't see what you are driving at. Painting is hard to learn. So what? In my experience the harder the craft the more likely the artist is to be distracted by executing the craft and in the process neglect the art. I can't see how "painting is hard to learn" is relevant to the current discussion nor the relative merits of the art forms or artists.
Ken
What has that to do with art Jack?
Your friend better watches out he doesn't get sued by the author of that photograph.
People have been sued for much less obvious cases, or does he have an agreement with the photographer?
Value is set by artistic merit and desire for the artists work, not by any means of skills or difficulty in executing the craft.
Jack
Three points:
1. A thought experiment: When you're looking at a work of art ( or craft ) forget about the process that went into making it or the person who made it - just try and let the finished piece work on your emotions and intellect.
2. Instead of getting too awestruck by the technical skills of a professional painter ( or artist of any kind ) remember that:
it's their job and they do it all the time.
My partner & I work in stained glass ( serious stuff - fully painted new commissions & restoration work ). Most of the processes aren't too difficult but the glass painting is tricky to get into and requires a fair bit of perseverence to reach a basic level of competence, but:
the more you do it the easier it gets.
3. If you handed your camera gear over to your friend and told him to go and photograph some spiders how quickly would he get to grips with the process? My aforementioned partner is the talented half of our relationship - she trained in fine art before turning to stained glass. Her drawing is excellent and she's a good watercolourist as well as being a top notch glass painter. But... watching her trying to operate a camera is both painful & hilarious...
Regards
Graeme
PS I don't want to come across like I'm dissing your friend: Good luck to anyone who can make a living from visual art ( or music, or sport, or craft ) it's certainly better than getting a proper job.
Regarding the skills I have learned as a photographer, I think pretty much anyone could take lessons, learn to focus, learn to use the right f/stop, ISO, and shutter speeds ... and gain the wisdom only to shoot in early morning light ... and get macro shots comparable to my own ... while I think most people could try for all of their lives and never be able to draw and paint like Kenny.
Yes, actually, you're just saying the same thing all over again, just in different words. The end result remains the same: you originally wanted to be a painter, but you couldn't do it, so you found it was easier to excel as a photographer. I hear you Jeff, the same is true for me too (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/laugh.gif)
Actually, i went from painting & drawing to 3d design and sculpture because I could draw well enough to satisfy myself...from there I got into theater and set and prop design and from there photography...so I didn't get into photography because I couldn't draw.
My sculpture talents served me well as a model maker for my own photography-some assignments taking weeks to produce not merely a shutter release. Which is really the story here...you presume that photography is a matter of being in the right place with the right equipment and clicking a shutter when the light is right.
That's simply not the case for studio still life which must be built in front of a camera and lit. In the old days, I would think of nothing spending 3-4 days of prepro and setup and running several tests to confirm a shot well before it was ever actually shot.
Your presumption that photography is "simple and easy to do" is really your downfall. Again that value of art does not have a direct relationship to the difficulty to produce it....good art can be difficult or easy to produce but simply because it's difficult doesn't add to the real value. Doing photo-realistic paintings is really pretty easy–heck even I can do that (and did) but I didn't particularly care for photo-realisitc which is why I went to 3d design and sculpture...which, by the way ain't all that easy.
So, no, I am not talking about "the amount of time" it takes to make a "crappy" painting, I am talking about the level of talent it takes to make a truly accurate painting AND a work of art, on top of the amount of time that it takes ... all with nothing but your bare hands.
I don't know Pagelli, what is art?
Pagelli, what do I say to a guy who was so naive that you actually believed Kenny "traced" these photos to create those pieces? (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)Well I also naively assumed he sold these pictures, if he doesn't there is little to fear.
Kenny cannot be sued for practicing his art at his home, though perhaps "I" could be sued for displaying them in public :o
Don't know what they would sue me "for" though ::)
Artistic pleasure is one thing; artistic value is another.I think this is opinion and not a fact. You'll find many people disagreeing with you on this.
For example, everyone likes looking at sunsets, but not everyone can paint them. This is why there are 100,000 people who will try to "photograph" a sunset, for every 1 person who brings a blank canvas and some paints to try to re-create what they see by hand.
And this is why a truly great painting will always inspire more "admiration" (and generally a higher price tag) by the knowing public than will a great photo.
Why do I have to define it? you called it art first.
Well I also naively assumed he sold these pictures, if he doesn't there is little to fear.
Let's agree to disagree on wether he traced it or not, it just doesn't meet my "funny looks test" but also I'm not really interested.
I think this is opinion and not a fact. You'll find many people disagreeing with you on this.
Actually, i went from painting & drawing to 3d design and sculpture because I could draw well enough to satisfy myself...from there I got into theater and set and prop design and from there photography...so I didn't get into photography because I couldn't draw.
My sculpture talents served me well as a model maker for my own photography-some assignments taking weeks to produce not merely a shutter release. Which is really the story here...you presume that photography is a matter of being in the right place with the right equipment and clicking a shutter when the light is right.
That's simply not the case for studio still life which must be built in front of a camera and lit. In the old days, I would think of nothing spending 3-4 days of prepro and setup and running several tests to confirm a shot well before it was ever actually shot.
Your presumption that photography is "simple and easy to do" is really your downfall. Again that value of art does not have a direct relationship to the difficulty to produce it....good art can be difficult or easy to produce but simply because it's difficult doesn't add to the real value. Doing photo-realistic paintings is really pretty easy–heck even I can do that (and did) but I didn't particularly care for photo-realisitc which is why I went to 3d design and sculpture...which, by the way ain't all that easy.
I agree with you that many people could master the basic mechanics of photography, but that's only requirements and not sufficient to make great photos, not to speak of art. The selection of the scene, light, composition and post processing really makes the difference and that's not mechanics and most never master it no matter how much they try.
Actually, the photos of my friend's work I don't really consider "art" either (except for the Indian); I was just showing the incredible detail of his work.Make up your mind Jack, first you present it as art, now you say it isn't
Kenny just constantly draws and paints, both professionally and recreationally, and he happened to be working on these the last time I stopped by. Most of his actual professional work is by private contact.Make up your mind Jack, first he only "executes his art" in his private home, now he sells it by private contract and does big commercial murals. Only thing I was saying is that he better gets permission from the photographer who's work he is copying if he uses his product commercially. Nothing more, nothing less.
Let's just agree that you don't know WTF you're taking about, and have you sit down and be quiet on this. And let's just say that a person who needs to "trace" his work doesn't get hired by many of the top sports professionals in the world to do personal portraits in their homes ... nor get hired by the Mayor of Daytona Beach to paint a 12' high, 150' mural all across the main show room of the Daytona Beach International Speedway's museum (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
It is okay to disagree on a topic. It is not okay to make disparaging (and totally inaccurate) remarks about another person when you know absolutely nothing about either the subject or the individual.Sorry for hitting a nerve there, while my statement may be inaccurate it was absolutely not disparaging.
Make up your mind Jack, first you present it as art, now you say it isn't
Make up your mind Jack, first he only "executes his art" in his private home, now he sells it by private contract and does big commercial murals. Only thing I was saying is that he better gets permission from the photographer who's work he is copying if he uses his product commercially. Nothing more, nothing less.
Sorry for hitting a nerve there, while my statement may be inaccurate it was absolutely not disparaging.
Stop trying to bait me into an infinite digression of petty arguments, Pegelli. It is not a matter of me "making up my mind," it is a matter of you making up one false accusation after another in order to perpetuate a contentious atmosphere.
However ... it is still an easier bargain than painting from nothing.I made no mention of this discussion in my post, intentionally. I only discussed the challenge of getting the average Joe to realize post processing of images is something that every image needs to go through (without it as the article pointed out they won't look like the scene at all), and using tools to enhance and improve the image should be considered artistic license, not something to be scorned or looked down on (unless you are representing to the viewer absolute realism such as in photo journalism).
I made no mention of this discussion in my post, intentionally. I only discussed the challenge of getting the average Joe to realize post processing of images is something that every image needs to go through (without it as the article pointed out they won't look like the scene at all), and using tools to enhance and improve the image should be considered artistic license, not something to be scorned or looked down on (unless you are representing to the viewer absolute realism such as in photo journalism).
But trying to compare the difficulty of two art mediums seems a pointless discussion, as the visual results are what counts and not how long it took to create or how long it took to acquire the skills to create. To be considered an artist probably only requires some viewers appreciate your work as an art form. certainly there are different levels of that appreciation, and some may worry about "legitimizing" themselves as artists ... in fact most photographers are frustrated because it seems the "art world" in general doesn't consider photography a legitimate art.
Funny, because if an "artist" takes a lousy picture of some place, then paints the scene (a great many artists paint from photographs, some even tracing outlines via projection), adding anything they want and removing anything they want they may create a beautiful painting and because it's a painting, it's art. If I make the effort to take a beautiful photograph of the same place and then enhance it so it is visually stunning using post-processing tools, I'm a cheat, and I'm not an artist.
Back to my point, as to whether it is harder to paint than it is take a picture, that seems sort of an irrelevant discussion (no disrespect, I do see where you might be coming from).
But to gain the skill to excel at photography at the highest level, which takes considerable practice and mastery of several areas of a craft is no easy task, and indeed I see many try that don't do very well. I also know many people that can "paint", but I wouldn't call them artists. There is an inherent creative spark that is required to elevate ones work to that level ... images that inspire awe and amazement in viewers, be it with a brush or with a camera.
I am not sure if it's a pointless discussion, Wayne, precisely because you just finished saying that the art world in general doesn't consider photography a legitmate art form. Why do you think that is Wayne?
Heck, a good photographer can take, adjust, and post-process hundreds of images a day ... while a painter can barely get through one complicated piece a week, if he's lucky.
But my own original point was, that it's still easier to create "art" with a camera and Photoshop than with a blank canvas, colors, and a brush. And the very fact that a top photographer will come back from his photo shoot with hundreds (or even thousands) of images ... while a painter will still be working on the very first piece of work he started with ... is pretty much proof positive of which form of art is "easier" to create.
The very fact that there has been an inherent lack of respect for a photographer's "finger push" to create his work ... when compared to the time, effort, and skill a painter must employ ... is the point, I would think.
I am quite well aware that photography is an art (at least in some cases), an art that I personally enjoy, love, and have quite a bit of fondness for. But a form of art that, while there are skill levels that need to be mastered, is still easier to master than painting.
And I realize that I have a long way to go to being able to achieve all of the results I want to achieve in my own efforts. And yet, despite these sincere feelings and convictions on behalf of photography, no "great photograph" will ever earn my deepest respect and admiration in the way that a great painting will.
Jack
I think you are flogging a dead horse here. I can see exactly where you are coming from - but can't agree with your way of thinking. As wayne and other have said it's all been debated before and trying to categorise what is and isn't art, and which is more difficult, is pointless.
The painting by your friend of Jimmi Hendrix I would not call art because it is an exact copy of someone else's artwork. True he is a great craftsman in making such a remarkable copy, but it doesn't for me make him an artist (that is not to say he isn't). I also cannot understand your scathing attack on any suggestion that the picture is traced. Why would he not trace the basic outline if he wanted to make such an exact replica? And by tracing, as somebody else has already pointed out, we could be talking about projecting the image onto the canvas. The picture you have shown looks to have zero creative input if you compare it to the original photograph of the musician, because he has painstakingly copied every nuance of the original.
Surely some painters spend weeks on an art piece, but I have seen other artists produce the most amazing pictures in a matter of minutes - anyone from the UK above a certain age will remember Rolf Harris or Tony Hart with a 4" paintbrush and a blank wall.
Similarly I have known photographers painstakingly plan a shoot before executing their vision, and I have seen people with a pint of beer in one hand and a camera phone in the other hand shooting a landscape which they think will look wonderful.
The skill as far as I am concerned is the creative vision in the artists head. The visual arts are just a means of communicating what is in the artists head. I use the term 'artist' in the loosest sense. The medium used to produce that art is immaterial as far as I am concerned, and to hint that people choose to be photographers because they cannot paint is often wrong. There are lots of things I would love to paint, and perhaps one day I will try, but none of them are things I could photograph. They are imaginary. If I want to make an exact likeness of an object or person I cannot see why it would not be better to photograph it.
One last thing Jack. I do find your posts a bit threatening because of your use of BOLD TYPE. I know it's just a perception but it comes across (to me) as either shouting or finger pointing. I'm sure you aren't doing these things, but you write very fluently (better than me) and so I think the bold type and underlining are probably not necessary and will just inflame readers who do not agree with some of your points. I mean even Schewe doesn't need to use bold type when he wants to dis-embowel someone!
Jim
I just wanted to make a little comment here ...
Cheers!
Jack
Wow ... this was a "little comment"?
I'd love to see what happens when you turn off the regulator and really let her rip ... ::)
Just because I take, adjust, and post process hundreds of images a day does not mean that any of these images are going to be inspiring works of art. And, just because a painter finishes one complicated piece a week does not mean that the painting will be an inspiring work of art. If the only criteria is the perceived artistic value, then the speed of production is irrelevant.
The hundreds (or even thousands) of images that a photographer captures at a photo shoot will not all be equal. Out of those hundreds or thousands of images, the artist (photographer) will probably be able to single out one image that is the single favorite. So, at the end of the day, both artists may only have "one" best image. In fact, at the end of the week, both artists may be dissatisfied with what they have produced and reshoot or repaint. This is proof positive that neither of the art forms is "easier" to create.
How many images can you capture and process in the same amount of time that it took Jackson Pollock to create the "No. 5, 1948? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._5,_1948 This painting sold for $140,000,000. Pollock's painting was considered by at least one art critic to be "a joke in bad taste.", and another opinion was that Pollocks work was “mere unorganized explosions of random energy, and therefore meaningless.”. I propose that the level of difficulty in producing a copy of this painting (that the majority of people could not distinguish from the original) is much lower than the level of difficulty in producing a similar quality copy of any of the works of the great portraitists, still photographers, nature photographers and even landscape photographers.....even with the best equipment.
It is my opinion that a well composed, well lit, and properly processed image (landscape, portrait, or still) takes more time to execute, and is much more difficult to create, than it took Pollock to create the most expensive painting ever sold....the painting with the highest determined value in the world.
The photographer's "finger push" is not all that there is to many great works of photographic art. Some photographs took much more time, effort, and skill than some paintings. If only some photography is art, then only some paintings are art. I can not state that one of the art forms (Painting or Photography) is easier to master than the other because I have not mastered either one. In order for you to make such a statement, you must have mastered both. Have you? If not, you are not qualified to make such a statement.
Why in the world are you spending time with posting your beliefs on a PHOTOGRAPHY forum? I suggest that you join a painting/drawing forum and tell the members there how much superior they are compared to photographers. I am sure that your chances of having someone with the same opinion would be higher there. At least you would be able to view "art" that is the most respectable and admirable to you. Why are you settling for less by looking at less respectable and admirable things?
He was quick to point out that these were film photographs done with a large format camera ( Horseman I think he said ) and nothing but the beauty of light, pristine, unaltered photos. When I went to see the church I was shocked to see that from the exact same angle you could see a electrical meter at the back of the church, this apparatus was missing from its photograph.
Stick your tongue in your cheek, speak, your words are garbled - don't be surprised or blame others when you are misunderstood.
Well, deception, and counter-measures to deception, are commonplace among forms of life that don't have brains at all ;-)
He who pays the piper calls the tune - there's always some awkward despot who wants the warts-and-all portrait :-)
In many situations, people seem to experience photographs as "real" in a way not approached by trompe-l'oeil or the photorealism movement. In many contexts, people seem to have a different expectation about the veracity of photographs than about other representations.
Describing a situation as deception is certainly anthropomorphic, but the phrase can communicate so much about what we understand of the situation that it still is an appropriate description. (Arbitrary reference - Mimicry: The Orchid and the Bee (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_02.html).)
If everyone shared the same expectations about a photo and agreed the photo was acceptable, then why would they speak of "cheating" at all?
Also, my closest relative was never an ape: it was a she: my mother.......
Photography isn't a sport so there isn't any resemblance of a connection.
Apparently, you have never chased a two-year old around with a camera trying to get a decent portrait.... ;D
Apparently, you have never chased a two-year old around with a camera trying to get a decent portrait.... ;D
Well said, Bryan. Like dance, photography is a real-time art. Comparisons to sports performers are equally apt. We are athletes - photographic athletes - subject to many of the constraints that face sports athletes. We need training, endurance, agility, lightning reflexes and practice, practice, practice.
We then assume that all photos are real in a way that other art is not.I think we find it difficult to escape immediately responding to a photograph as-if it were a frozen reflection.
Defining cheating is not easy and depends on the photographer's intent and our conventions and expectations."When does a photograph document reality. When is it propaganda? When is it art? Can a single photograph be all three?"
I don't think anyone really expects advertising and glamor photographs to represent reality and we accept a great deal of manipulation in these.In general, I don't think we realise just how distorted those photographs have become. In general, I don't think we get the opportunity to see just how distorted those photographs have become.
2. Take the original photo and clone out the mess--is this a cheat?Mark Schacter's essay (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/am_i_a_photographic_cheat.shtml) was somewhat defensive on this point. We might read PERSON 1's "Isn’t that sort of cheating?" as - isn't that sort of cheating other photographers who actually did the hard work to be there for those fleeting moments when the landscape was luminous.