Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => But is it Art? => Topic started by: Mcthecat on August 15, 2012, 05:57:49 PM

Title: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Mcthecat on August 15, 2012, 05:57:49 PM
The gold standard of photography in my opinion is national geographic. They do a vast array of photographs from photojournalism through landscape, travel, wildlife etc etc.

http://adventure.nationalgeographic.com/photography/?source=NavPhoHome

As you can see, theres one major issue, a lack of computer generated images. Im not talking a bit of dodging and burning, or a contrast/levels thing, im talking a total lack of a shot, mixed with multiple other shots, massive manipulation and hey presto a creation. Something beautiful but in my opinion, its graphic art, not photography. What im seeing is people who take poor shots, cant use their camera well, but are excellent at computer art, creating stunning images with brilliant minds and creativity. But its graphic art. Its not photography. Im not against it, i love it, but should someone who doesnt know much about a camera, cant take a "photograph" be awarded top photographer of the year because they are poor with a camera but excellent in a computer.

The point im making is this. Can anyone else see a divergance from amateur photography where manipulation is massive and pro photography where manipulation is much less i.e Nat Geo. Why is this so? I have a theory. Pros take time, effort and knowledge for that top shot (a lot of pros on here). Many, not all, amateurs would like to be, cant/arn't so kid themselves they are great through manipulation. They avoid wildlife, they avoid sport because you cant manipulate. But can strut their stuff in the amateur ranks, kidding themselves they are good when in fact strip them of a computer and you get very poor/average stuff.

Im just curious as to what you guys think. I do photographs, im not the best, im not the worst, but wonder what you think, why the differance amateur to pro?
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: bill t. on August 15, 2012, 10:54:41 PM
The pros just fudge their images so well you don't notice.  There's your difference.  Amateur work is simply more obvious.   :)

Compare what you see in recent NG's with those more than about 20 years old.

The old definitions of what this or that is supposed to be are no longer adequate.  I have an application form before me that says photographic entries must be limited to "true photographic images printed on photosensitive material without adjustments, enhancements, or manipulation or any kind."  Freakin' dinosaurs!
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: stamper on August 16, 2012, 03:47:13 AM
This issue has been debated so many times - without an outcome - that I wonder why you started another thread on it? It will probably rumble on for a while and it might become rancorous but a final outcome will not be reached?
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: hjulenissen on August 16, 2012, 04:17:41 AM
I fail to see the need for labels. Whatever appeals to me.... appeals to me. Knowing that the artist spent 3 years in the jungle or 2 hours in front of photoshop may be fascinating in itself, but I don't think that it can make the end-result any better or worse.

I expect for any particular "photographic contest" to be able to clearly define what they see as photography (and what is not). And I expect any contestant to follow those rules. Be it analog film, iPhone cam, whatever. Again, no problem.

-h
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Rob C on August 16, 2012, 04:53:54 AM
Mcthecat -

I don't understand what you're trying to ask or prove.

Pro photography is what it is: pictures for money. Whether such images require or do not require a lot of retouching is up to the individual shot and its user. I hardly see it (retouching) a distinction or marker for professional work.

Neither can I make out whether you are pleading for the use of CGI in magazines or not; whether you have used NatGeog as an example or whether you want all replies to apply only to that publication and its use of imagery.

I haven't picked up a copy of that magazine in years; seeing the occassional television offering under their logo leads me to believe that they are simply trying to create 'content' and have exhausted anything new. Haven't we all?

Rob C

Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: kencameron on August 16, 2012, 05:12:54 AM
Knowing that the artist spent 3 years in the jungle or 2 hours in front of photoshop may be fascinating in itself, but I don't think that it can make the end-result any better or worse.

+1, with one minor qualification. The end result is what matters, but knowing how the end result was achieved is part of the end result, and not knowing is really only a short term option. It's not a matter of better or worse - just different. Imagine a photographic image of a lion fighting a tiger. Wildlife photography competitions might require it to have recorded an actual event. Knowing it was photoshopped would reasonably disqualify it from such competitions, but it could still be a stirring image, like this engraving (http://www.lionlamb.us/lion/litifi.jpg). Photography, of course, carries with it, as a blessing and a curse, the deceptive expectation that it is a record of an actual event.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: hjulenissen on August 16, 2012, 06:17:17 AM
Photography, of course, carries with it, as a blessing and a curse, the deceptive expectation that it is a record of an actual event.
Only if the photographer falsely claims that it is an accurate recording of some event would it be bad. If anyone are naiive enough to believe that any "photographic" material is an objective, unbiased recording of an actual event, I think that is primarily their problem.

If a journalist describe the financial crisis falsely, but claim that it is the truth, he is doing wrong. If an author blends elements of autobiography and fiction without claiming anything about his writing, I think it is perfectly ok.

-h
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: kencameron on August 16, 2012, 07:13:14 AM
Only if the photographer falsely claims that it is an accurate recording of some event would it be bad. If anyone are naiive enough to believe that any "photographic" material is an objective, unbiased recording of an actual event, I think that is primarily their problem.
I would respectfully disagree. I think the expectation of recording is there, and has an impact on the aesthetic response to any photograph that is not obviously altered (and, in a difference sense, also the response to photographs that have been obviously altered), regardless both of the photographer's claims and the spectator's naivety or expertise. It is not about believing anything in any serious way, or about anything being bad or good, or about anybody having a problem. When I look at a photograph my starting point is to think of it as a window on reality. I may not stay for more than a microsecond or two at that starting point, because I have some knowledge both of the history of photography and of what can be done in Photoshop. But I start at a different place with a photograph to where I would start with a painting. Now of course, that might just be my naivety. But I don't think it is. Photographs are initially made by pointing machines at the world which record the impact of light on films or sensors. Of course, we all know that all kinds of things can be done to the film or the data file produced by the sensor. But our starting point is that something real has been recorded.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Rob C on August 16, 2012, 10:38:41 AM
Ah Ken! I never knew/suspected that you, too, believed in my theory of a Golden Age just passed!

Rob C
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Isaac on August 16, 2012, 12:42:40 PM
I think the expectation of recording is there...

I think it's this notion of expectation that (as stamper says) has been debated so many times without an outcome - and I think it misses the point which your later comments approach.

Regardless of our expectation, our immediate response is to make a reality from whatever is before our eyes.

The reason you "start at a different place with a photograph to where I would start with a painting" is that photographic images are trompe-l'il.

Knowledge of how the image was made effects our post hoc rationalizations but not our immediate response.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: bill t. on August 16, 2012, 12:48:38 PM
The "window" issue is the basic problem with Photographic Truth.  Photographers can present unaltered images, but lie by their choice of framing and timing.

Windows are selective about what they show, and when they choose to show it.  We see a subset of things in the overall environment.  Perhaps things just outside the revealed window could change our attitude about the image if they had been included in the shot.  Or perhaps knowledge of events just prior to the captured instant would affect out perceived meaning.

Of course the problem is not just with cameras.  Direct human perception is just as selective, just ask any trial lawyer or psychologist.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Rob C on August 16, 2012, 01:14:26 PM
The "window" issue is the basic problem with Photographic Truth.  Photographers can present unaltered images, but lie by their choice of framing and timing.

Windows are selective about what they show, and when they choose to show it.  We see a subset of things in the overall environment.  Perhaps things just outside the revealed window could change our attitude about the image if they had been included in the shot.  Or perhaps knowledge of events just prior to the captured instant would affect out perceived meaning.

Of course the problem is not just with cameras.  Direct human perception is just as selective, just ask any trial lawyer or psychologist.


Or painter. You imagine they don't select their truth? Hell, thousands of them work from photographs right from the start!

It's all one now.

Rob C
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: bill t. on August 16, 2012, 03:13:49 PM
Or painter. You imagine they don't select their truth? Hell, thousands of them work from photographs right from the start!

Painting from photos went from being untouchable up to maybe the early 60's to being almost the standard now.  A lot of painting books even suggest that artists should become familiar with Photoshop to "customize" their source photos before use, and to view "what if" modifications to their paintings in progress.

I know one artist who deliberately paints red/green chromatic aberrations marks around bright edges and foliage, to very good effect.  One man's anathema is another man's beauty.

Blown-out "digital skies" are often seen in recent landscape painting, which is something you almost never saw a few decades ago.  And the kinds of tonal progressions in many paintings have drifted towards more of a photographic character than before.

All this must have to do with the democratization of photography.  It's newly possible to create and print high quality photo images, a thing not easily available in the past unless you liked squinting at 35mm Kodachromes.

The photo<>painting synergy has actually gone far enough that there is emerging a backlash school that is trying to get past it.  Some plein-aire artists now insist on painting in the wild.  But I don't think smartphones should feel threatened by this tiny trend.

Must mention that I've learned a lot from painters, it works both ways.  It's very worthwhile looking at paintings and art of all kinds, especially if you can see the originals.  In spite of some convergence landscape painting still has a tradition of somewhat milder, more subtle tonality than we normally use in photography.  It's a look I personally like over the "print it dark" tendency which leads so many rooky photographers to sacrifice too much to achieve a look that defeats their image.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: kencameron on August 16, 2012, 06:11:23 PM
Regardless of our expectation, our immediate response is to make a reality from whatever is before our eyes.

The reason you "start at a different place with a photograph to where I would start with a painting" is that photographic images are trompe-l'il.

Knowledge of how the image was made effects our post hoc rationalizations but not our immediate response.

I would say that there is no such thing as an "immediate response" that is unmediated by a complex structure of knowledge and expectation and that the reason I start with a different place with a photograph is that I know it is a photograph. That is why I feel a slight uneasiness with photorealistic painting, where I am not sure whether or not it is a photograph and hence can't have an uncomplicated "immediate response". There is a fine Chuck Close in my local gallery (the NGA) that always makes me uneasy in this way.

I am not sure what you mean by "trompe-l'oeil" here. I understand the term to mean painting on a flat surface in a way which creates an illusion of three dimensional reality and/or distance and thus deceives you into thinking it is not a painting. In that sense a few photographs might be trompe-l'oeil, but by no means all of them. A small black and white photographic image that I am holding in my hand wouldn't be trompe-l'oeil in my understanding of the term. You must be using it in some other way that I am not grasping.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: kencameron on August 16, 2012, 08:33:02 PM
Ah Ken! I never knew/suspected that you, too, believed in my theory of a Golden Age just passed!
Rob C
I have to admit that your theory is growing on me, Rob, and I suspect that in ten years time, if I haven't fallen off my perch, I will be completely convinced of it.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Isaac on August 16, 2012, 08:59:45 PM
I would say that there is no such thing as an "immediate response" that is unmediated by a complex structure of knowledge and expectation and that the reason I start with a different place with a photograph is that I know it is a photograph.

Perhaps you have had the experience of seeing a 3 dimensional cube when you know that there is no cube before your eyes, only a few lines on a 2 dimensional surface.

That making of a reality is what I mean by an "immediate response".
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Mcthecat on August 17, 2012, 07:21:36 PM
Unfortunatly, i must disagree with you all.

Using your logic, someone has an idea, walks 5 minutes to a street, does this multiple times, takes absolutley rubbish pics, takes a few minutes to compile, then spends many hours in a computer, creates a piece of art and thats ok.

Then someone plans for over a year, travels 12,000 miles, sits in a hide for days, captures a beautiful image after making multiple in camera and lens adjustments,knows the workings of a camera lens etc  is praised in top of the line pro gold standard magazines.

So using your argument the person who spends time on a computer but cant take a picture may be a better photographer than the person who has takes that in camera shot.



Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: kencameron on August 17, 2012, 09:09:35 PM
So using your argument the person who spends time on a computer but cant take a picture may be a better photographer than the person who has takes that in camera shot.

That is certainly not an argument that I have anywhere put or that I would support and I don't find it in anyone else's post either. In your thought experiment, you have it set up from the start so that the first guy produces rubbish, the second a prize-winning photograph. What more is there to say and what could that possibly prove? Of course, the second guy's process doesn't guarantee a good image any more than the first guy's guarantees a bad one. It is possible to travel 12,000 kilometers and then produce in camera rubbish, and it is also possible to produce interesting work out of mediocre input by working on a computer. "Possible", I said, not "what usually happens". Professional wildlife photographers have to do good work if they want to eat, and a lot of rubbish comes out of computers. But traditional photography is only one way of making interesting images and what matters in the end is the image.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Mcthecat on August 18, 2012, 06:31:10 PM
I spend several years planning a shot, learning my craft, learning my gear wandering the world and taking a top image.

I spend a afternoon, with no knowledge of my gear, no knowledge of composition, taking very poor shots then spending days in a computer to produce an image.

I enter both in a competition and the computer image wins. Therefore the computer me is the better photographer. So i give up travelling the world spend little time taking pics and spend lots of time on a computer.

I am a top photographer because i know how to use a Mac Book and Photoshop.

 "How do you use this 1DX?"

"Er dont know"

"How do you adjust your focus point?"

"Er don't know"

"Tell me how do you work out composition?"

"Er dont know"

"So how come your a top photographer despite not knowing a thing about photography?"

"Im good on a computer"

Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 18, 2012, 08:36:55 PM
Jesus, Cat, where do you find those scenarios?!
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: stamper on August 19, 2012, 04:12:06 AM
Or delusions?!
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Rob C on August 19, 2012, 04:27:23 AM
Jesus, Cat, where do you find those scenarios?!


Some years ago they sealed off the entrance to the Port here and did some excavating/dredging to make the berths deeper in order to accommodate boats with deeper draughts. As they were working, I think I saw a similar set of propositions floating away on the leakage... often wondered where they fetched up; now I know.

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: petermfiore on August 19, 2012, 09:27:04 AM
Ah Ken! I never knew/suspected that you, too, believed in my theory of a Golden Age just passed!

Rob C

The Golden Age is always passed when we are passed our Golden Age.

Peter
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Rob C on August 19, 2012, 11:24:10 AM
The Golden Age is always passed when we are passed our Golden Age.

Peter


Glib, but not necessarily accurate.

I can remember awareness of the understanding of what had already passed even when I was just about a third of the way into my career. It's not all about personal success at all; it has relevace in what went before, what's going down at the moment and, also, what seems to be likely out there in the future.

It doesn't take much thinking to see where prices/rates head at any given moment; you can easily discover the going rates for much the same sort of job, and even the frequency with which such jobs are available - for anyone. There are lots of markers in any business segment to help one discover whether it's on the up or on its uppers instead.

And yes, I do believe that different industries have their moment in life and then, having peaked, fade away to shadows of what they were. Just like people.

Rob C
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: hjulenissen on August 21, 2012, 04:21:40 AM
Unfortunatly, i must disagree with you all.

Using your logic, someone has an idea, walks 5 minutes to a street, does this multiple times, takes absolutley rubbish pics, takes a few minutes to compile, then spends many hours in a computer, creates a piece of art and thats ok.

Then someone plans for over a year, travels 12,000 miles, sits in a hide for days, captures a beautiful image after making multiple in camera and lens adjustments,knows the workings of a camera lens etc  is praised in top of the line pro gold standard magazines.

So using your argument the person who spends time on a computer but cant take a picture may be a better photographer than the person who has takes that in camera shot.
Or, if I may flip your scenario:
Given the choice of an interesting image that speaks to me in its own right (that happens to be created by a boring 25-year old mostly in front of photoshop), and a flat, non-interesting image (but with a highly interesting background involving 25 pounds of gear, 3 years of scouting, and a photographer that was eventually seriously wounded by a rhino), the latter is the best art?

Given the interesting, but not quite-there images of a 50 year old male photographer who has read and practiced the art of photography for decades, and an 18 year old girl who "stumbles" upon the most intriguing, disturbing, evocative scene of our lifetime and for some reason picks up her iPhone and take an image at the exact right time and place, only to never again take an interesting image. Should we dismiss the latter image because it is not "classy" enough?

Is a piece of music based on "sampling" other music, by a person who cannot himself use a musical instrument, of inherently less artistic value than a piece of music created by a person who can use a musical instrument? Is music programmed on a computer inherently lower value than music played on a violin? Even before you get to listen and make a judgement? When Mozart wrote down notes on a piece of paper, was that necessarily better art than some current composer who did something similar in front of a computer sequencer?

I think it boils down to "is the artistic value of art only a matter of inherent properties in the art itself, or does the context in which the art was created add/detract to its artistic value"? The same discussion is present in e.g. literature, and I am sure that anyone who has attended art classes (I have not) will have had some discussions on the topic?

If "photography" is seen as some martial art where the best of the best meet to compare their gear and their ability to use it in painful ways so as to produce images that few others are able and willing to produce, then yes, the method to make those images is relevant. If that is the case, I shall stop photographing and stop viewing photographies immidiately. But if photography is seen as the art of producing realism-inspired (e.g. printed) art with the goal of provoking thought and emotions through any means practically/legally/morally possible, I am back in again.

Perhaps this means that Joe Average will think highly of whatever post-processing trick is hot at the moment (HDR, instamatic, or whatever). Chances are, he will no matter what the artsy people tells him. So the high-culture and the low-culture separates in terms of post-processing preferences, just like they do in most all other aspects of art (and life). Is this because the proclaimed experts have a better education and have spent more time with the subject? Or because Universities and semi-closed "expert" venues are merely reproducing established convetions? Or because the cultural elite has a need to distinguish itself from the masses?

-h
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Mcthecat on August 23, 2012, 06:04:30 PM
You seem to be missing the point. Im not debating over whether the end product is better than the original image, whether someone takes a picture on a cell phone or a DSLR and creates a most beautifull image anyone will be proud of. My point is this and ill state it again but a bit simpler.

It is now it possible that someone who has not the faintest idea about photography can now win conpetitions, not by the use of a camera but by the use of a computer. Is that possible?

Secondly, as you know the answer to the previous point is yes, does that make that person a great photographer or a great photographic/graphic artist?

Im not kicking the photographic artists, i love Photoshop, its great, i use it, i just dont kid myself or strut around in a deluded world claiming to be a great photographer when the image was created in a computer not in my camera.The pics i adjust are art, the ones i dont are photographs.

Mick
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 23, 2012, 07:47:39 PM
... My point is this and ill state it again but a bit simpler...

Mick, I often commented on your posted photographs with compliments, one of which often was "competent." In other words, you definitely know your way around, both with camera and in post-processing.

And yet, 25 replies later, I am still struggling to figure out what is your point. Many others seem to wonder the same.

- your scenarios are rather convoluted and implausible. Do you have a specific incident in mind or a hypothetical one? If specific, please give us details and links so that we determine the context. If hypothetical, it is highly implausible. You seem to suggest that someone "takes absolutley rubbish pics... then spends many hours in a computer..." and then wins a photographic competition. Unless the competition was about some specific type of fine art (or "fine art"), I can hardly fathom how "absolute rubbish" turns into great photography even if one spends a lifetime on a computer.

- your typos and quick writing do not help either: "It is now it possible..." Is it a question or a statement? If question, why then repeat it in the very next sentence? If question repeated for emphasis, why do you then state in the subsequent paragraph: "...as you know the answer to the previous point is yes..."? Thus I really struggle to figure out whether you are:

- asking rhetorically
- asking for real
- or simply stating

I, for one, would greatly appreciate if you would post links to the case described in your scenarios.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: hjulenissen on August 24, 2012, 01:56:04 AM
It is now it possible that someone who has not the faintest idea about photography can now win conpetitions, not by the use of a camera but by the use of a computer. Is that possible?

Secondly, as you know the answer to the previous point is yes, does that make that person a great photographer or a great photographic/graphic artist?
I dont know the answer to your first question.

For your second point, I dont really care much about labels. You might call me a great photographer, a great photoshopper, or just great. All three will do ;-)

-h
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: PDobson on October 03, 2012, 05:06:39 PM
I'm reminded of the quote, "There's nothing worse than a sharp image of a blurry concept."

It seems that the antagonist in this scenario has the opposite problem. He's taking fuzzy photos of an award-winning concept. His solution is then to fulfill that concept through digital means.

If the only question is artistic merit, you need to determine the root of photographic artistry. Is it technical mastery? Adam's quote indicates the he believes it is more than technique. Is photographic art created in the photographer's mind or on the film plane?

I like to separate the concepts of art and craft. Good craftsmanship may be technically impressive, bit it doesn't create an emotional response. I see this all the time in the knifemaking world; there are many smiths creating technically amazing blades that are boring to look at and handle. It's rare and special to see someone create a knife that is unique and beautiful and exciting in a way that goes beyond it's technical merits.

I've never experienced a photographic competition. I don't know if it's a judge of technical  competency, artistic merit, or a combination of the two. I'd personally hope for the latter.

Phillip
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: RSL on October 03, 2012, 05:34:15 PM
It depends on the judge(s), Phillip. Which is why I refuse (almost) to put anything in a juried show. The one exception was last year when there was a show being judged by Steve McCurry, whose work I know and whose judgment I trust.

I've judged a couple shows myself, and I remember that when I got to the end of a segment with which I was having trouble and picked one of two prints that were awfully close, my wife said: "Why did you pick that one?" I had to answer: "Because I like it." My wife had a gallery for ten years, and knew better than to ask that question, but in the end, that's what it always comes down to.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: whiteheat on October 11, 2012, 07:21:24 AM
Hi All

I have a wider question on this subject.  What is art or what makes art, art?  How can one define art so that one can easily recognise art as art as opposed to ..... well, something that 'looks' like art but isn't?

My rationale for asking this question, besides really wanting to know in any event, is that I would like to proactively create photographic art.  In order to do that, I have to have some way of working out what art is before I can attempt to create something myself.  So, how do I understand what it is that makes something generally recognised as art.

Many thanks for any contributions on the matter.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: RSL on October 11, 2012, 07:34:15 AM
OH NO!!! ;D
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Rob C on October 11, 2012, 09:17:00 AM
OH NO!!! ;D


Screeeeech!

Rob C
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: stamper on October 11, 2012, 09:18:01 AM
Hi All

I have a wider question on this subject.  What is art or what makes art, art?  How can one define art so that one can easily recognise art as art as opposed to ..... well, something that 'looks' like art but isn't?

My rationale for asking this question, besides really wanting to know in any event, is that I would like to proactively create photographic art.  In order to do that, I have to have some way of working out what art is before I can attempt to create something myself.  So, how do I understand what it is that makes something generally recognised as art.

Many thanks for any contributions on the matter.

I hope you have a long life in front of you in which to contemplate the possibilities? ;)
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Isaac on October 11, 2012, 02:03:00 PM
What is art or what makes art, art?  ... what art is before I can attempt to create something myself.

People quarrel about What is Art?  so much, that even the more quarrelsome individuals are weary of that debate :-)

A widely respected art historian answered your question like this -- "There really is no such thing as Art. There are only artists. (http://books.google.com/books?id=1-OfPwAACAAJ)" -- which shifts the focus to what artists are doing:


Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: AFairley on October 11, 2012, 02:21:39 PM
Hi All

I have a wider question on this subject.  What is art or what makes art, art?  How can one define art so that one can easily recognise art as art as opposed to ..... well, something that 'looks' like art but isn't?

My rationale for asking this question, besides really wanting to know in any event, is that I would like to proactively create photographic art.  In order to do that, I have to have some way of working out what art is before I can attempt to create something myself.  So, how do I understand what it is that makes something generally recognised as art.

Many thanks for any contributions on the matter.

If you have to "work out" out what "art" is before you can create it, whatever you create accordingly will not be art, no matter what you do.  Not meaning to be rude, but IMO, art is something that springs from within, not something that conforms to some external standard.  Lacking that inspiration from the soul, it cannot be art by definition.  Do what you are compelled to do, and let the chips fall where they may.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: WalterEG on October 11, 2012, 03:42:17 PM
Do what you are compelled to do, and let the chips fall where they may.

Bravo!!
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: RSL on October 11, 2012, 04:25:15 PM
  • "To make art is to pursue an idea in a visual way..."

Easy there, Isaac. Not all art is visual, and that respected art historian should have known that.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Isaac on October 11, 2012, 04:28:52 PM
Not all art is visual, and that respected art historian should have known that.

Oh careless reader, that respected art historian did not say all art is visual ;-)

(I'll reformat to prevent others making the same mistake.)


Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: RSL on October 11, 2012, 04:31:10 PM
Maybe not, but she surely said it in your excerpt.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Isaac on October 11, 2012, 04:36:49 PM
Maybe not, but she surely said it in your excerpt.
Margaret Davidson is not an art historian, and  did not say "There really is no such thing as Art. There are only artists." in my excerpt.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Isaac on October 11, 2012, 04:38:16 PM
Not meaning to be rude, but IMO, art is something that springs from within, not something that conforms to some external standard.  Lacking that inspiration from the soul, it cannot be art by definition.

I suspect your argument may be self-defeating -- you've both set-up an external standard "art by definition" "something that springs from within" and claimed that art is "not something that conforms to some external standard" :-)
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: RSL on October 11, 2012, 04:47:44 PM
Oh good heavens. Evidently this thread really is going to try again to define art. Have at it folks.

Bye.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Isaac on October 11, 2012, 05:45:51 PM
Running away from the question or nit-picking about non-visual arts, just don't seem like helpful responses to an innocent question.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: RSL on October 11, 2012, 06:13:45 PM
There's nothing innocent about that question.

Go back to 2009 or 2010 and check the endless threads on this subject. You're spinning your wheels my friend. Give it up.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: whiteheat on October 11, 2012, 06:25:34 PM
Oh dear!  What have I done?  From the responses gleaned so far, I seemd to have committed some enormous transgression on the scale rivalling some heinous crime or other.

Very sorry for creating such a storm.  I hadn't realised the enormitty of the furore and controversy I would stir up.  Sorry, I was just ignorant about 'art' and what constitutes 'art'.

Ok, I get the impression that art by its very nature can't be defined, at least in any meaningful and empirical way, as to do so would then preclude anything so produced from being classified as art.  Ok, I get it now.  Just one thing now occurs to me as a result.  How do you recognise something as art when you see it and how can any value then be attributed to any piece of art?  How in some instances, can a general concensus be formed on certain art creations that are recognised as "great" art, whilst the majority of art is never acknowledged as such?  How can creation A be widely recognised and be valued financially in stratospheric dollar amounts whilst creation B is valued financially in junk dollar amounts?  Both creations may be individually unique and yet one is highly prized and the other not.  I assume any value or worth of art is subjective, yet there must be something about certain pieces that can be defined so as to create a recognised concensus amongst the cognoscenti.

If by asking or posing this I'm going to cause another storm, then please do not feel the need to reply and just ignore my post, thanks to everyone who has replied so far and to those who have the interest to educate me by replying to my current post.  (Now where would we be without a little controversy every now and then?).
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: WalterEG on October 11, 2012, 06:48:51 PM
How can creation A be widely recognised and be valued financially in stratospheric dollar amounts whilst creation B is valued financially in junk dollar amounts?  Both creations may be individually unique and yet one is highly prized and the other not.

Whiteheat,

As soon as dollar value comes into the equation I begin to sense the salesmanship of gallery owners rising to the fore.  Particularly in the photography end of art it is easy to see there are some clubs in the mix also.

Cheers,

Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Isaac on October 11, 2012, 07:33:01 PM
Sorry, I was just ignorant about 'art' and what constitutes 'art'.

There's no reason for you to apologize -- you asked a perfectly sensible question, and it isn't your fault that there isn't a nice neat answer ;-)

Said widely respected art historian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Gombrich) -- "There is no harm in calling all these activities art as long as we keep in mind that such a word may mean very different things in different times and places, and as long as we realize that Art with a capital A has no existence. ... Actually I do not think that there are any wrong reasons for liking a statue or painting. ... There are wrong reasons for disliking a work of art."


valued financially in stratospheric dollar amounts

You might find this article interesting -- ART VALUES OR MONEY VALUES? (http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/kuspit/kuspit3-6-07.asp)
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 11, 2012, 07:42:35 PM
... How in some instances, can a general concensus be formed on certain art creations that are recognised as "great" art, whilst the majority of art is never acknowledged as such?...

Ok, I'll bite. I'll rehash something I wrote in an earlier thread, on the subject loosely defined as "are you turned on (moved) by Turner":

"...if someone thinks it is and someone thinks it isn't (art), on an individual and obviously subjective level, how do we come up with an objective definition (which seems to be what are you driving at)?

Well... we can not. It remains deeply subjective. What humanity "objectively" considers art is a historic and group consensus of those who subjectively think it is. In other words, if there are enough people, across social groups and time, that consider Turner an artist, then he is."
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 11, 2012, 07:51:05 PM
Oh dear!  What have I done?  From the responses gleaned so far, I seemd to have committed some enormous transgression on the scale rivalling some heinous crime or other...

It is not that.

It is just that humanity is pondering the same issue for millennia, and individuals are spending their lifetime studying it and trying to answer it. I bet that you can easily fill the biggest library on Earth just with books and articles on the subject. Thus, trying to get a quick answer in an internet forum is futile at best, and mildly annoying at worst, hence the reaction.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: kencameron on October 11, 2012, 08:08:07 PM
Go back to 2009 or 2010 and check the endless threads on this subject. You're spinning your wheels my friend. Give it up.
Russ and Slobodan, LuLa gets new members all the time who may not have had this conversation, and having it is a different and more useful activity than reading an old thread. Leave them to it. There are plenty of other threads that would benefit from your wise attention. And who knows, the new guys might just find the answer ;).
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: whiteheat on October 11, 2012, 08:10:40 PM
Thank you Mr Isaac.  Very interesting reading.  Things are a little less confused.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: whiteheat on October 11, 2012, 08:15:34 PM
Ok, I'll bite. I'll rehash something I wrote in an earlier thread, on the subject loosely defined as "are you turned on (moved) by Turner":

"...if someone thinks it is and someone thinks it isn't (art), on an individual and obviously subjective level, how do we come up with an objective definition (which seems to be what are you driving at)?

Well... we can not. It remains deeply subjective. What humanity "objectively" considers art is a historic and group consensus of those who subjectively think it is. In other words, if there are enough people, across social groups and time, that consider Turner an artist, then he is."

Excellent.  So if a lot of people all publicly agree that something is "great" art, then it becomes de facto great art.  Oh how simple.  OK, that clears that up.  Thanks for that Slobodan, much appreciated.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 11, 2012, 09:04:43 PM
Russ and Slobodan...

I was just trying to explain the reaction, not to drive him away. As you can see, I actually contributed an answer. But I guess any occasion is a good one for a little sarcasm ("your wise attention"). Not that I shouldn't be the last person to complain, right?  ;)
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: kencameron on October 11, 2012, 09:56:52 PM
... a little sarcasm ("your wise attention")...
Was I being sarcastic there? Doesn't seem quite right. I get a lot from your posts. Ironic, maybe.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 11, 2012, 11:21:41 PM
... LuLa gets new members all the time who may not have had this conversation, and having it is a different and more useful activity than reading an old thread...

These are very good points, Ken. Thanks for reminding us.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Rob C on October 12, 2012, 04:25:50 AM
These are very good points, Ken. Thanks for reminding us.




LuLa permits the study of an enormous backlog of posts on all these topics; I think it prudent to read them before digging up mummies yet again. It's just another case of FAQs.

Rob C
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: stamper on October 12, 2012, 05:12:14 AM
I think life is TOO short to go back looking for subjects that has been done to death. Sometimes after Michael has posted something there can be three threads running simultaneously with very similar headings that obviously the posters haven't bothered to look at before posting. I think it all boils down to the intent of the poster that an old issue is regurgitated?
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: whiteheat on October 12, 2012, 06:24:27 AM
I think life is TOO short to go back looking for subjects that has been done to death. Sometimes after Michael has posted something there can be three threads running simultaneously with very similar headings that obviously the posters haven't bothered to look at before posting. I think it all boils down to the intent of the poster that an old issue is regurgitated?
Yes and no.  Life is TOO short to go back looking for subjects previously discussed, possibly to death.  However, on most sites and this one is no exception, have you ever tried to find even a close, let alone exact match, to the subject a poster wants/needs to know about?  I suggest it is nigh on impossible and so your first assertion is spot on, life is too short for searching for previous posts on required subjects.  The only way to remediate this is to have a well ordered, indexed, linked hierarchical structure that is coupled to an advanced search engine, however, this requires a lot design thought, implementation and continual maintenance to be viable, which is beyond most hobbyist sites.

The result is that it is much, much easier to ask on the forum and remember, most new people to a site will have no idea what's already been discussed and how far back that may have been.  Still, a fresh pair of eyes and mind may contribute some new angle or point of view that may have not been discussed previously.  You just never know.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: kencameron on October 12, 2012, 07:29:26 AM
LuLa permits the study of an enormous backlog of posts on all these topics; I think it prudent to read them before digging up mummies yet again. It's just another case of FAQs.
Rob C
I would argue that "what is art" is something we all need to spend some, but not too much, time thinking about, that we are all at different points on that continuum, and that looking up a FAQ is not a substitute for thought or, in this case, much more than a modestly useful starting point. FAQs usefully provide information but not answers to any of the real questions on this or any other subject. On "what is art" a FAQ might provide you with an overview of the usual answers, but to then you need to pay attention to your own experience as a viewer (listener, etc) and/or creator. People do this all the time on this forum and I think that their willingness to do it is a sign of its health and their frequent clumsiness in doing it is an indication of the difficulty of the subject. I think that describing this activity as "digging up mummies" does it less than justice.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Rob C on October 12, 2012, 01:19:23 PM
I would argue that "what is art" is something we all need to spend some, but not too much, time thinking about, that we are all at different points on that continuum, and that looking up a FAQ is not a substitute for thought or, in this case, much more than a modestly useful starting point. FAQs usefully provide information but not answers to any of the real questions on this or any other subject. On "what is art" a FAQ might provide you with an overview of the usual answers, but to then you need to pay attention to your own experience as a viewer (listener, etc) and/or creator. People do this all the time on this forum and I think that their willingness to do it is a sign of its health and their frequent clumsiness in doing it is an indication of the difficulty of the subject. I think that describing this activity as "digging up mummies" does it less than justice.


Careful. that could get you into deep poo-poo! For some, mummies are the national treasure; for others of us, it's the kilt or the bagpipe. Not much to choose from, come to think about it. I'll take the natural, soft pillow instead of the plastic foam.

Rob C
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: kencameron on October 12, 2012, 08:01:29 PM
Careful. that could get you into deep poo-poo! For some, mummies are the national treasure; for others of us, it's the kilt or the bagpipe. Not much to choose from, come to think about it. I'll take the natural, soft pillow instead of the plastic foam.
;D
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: jhoc on October 22, 2012, 08:29:06 AM
I spend several years planning a shot, learning my craft, learning my gear wandering the world and taking a top image.

I spend a afternoon, with no knowledge of my gear, no knowledge of composition, taking very poor shots then spending days in a computer to produce an image.

I enter both in a competition and the computer image wins. Therefore the computer me is the better photographer. So i give up travelling the world spend little time taking pics and spend lots of time on a computer.

I am a top photographer because i know how to use a Mac Book and Photoshop.

 "How do you use this 1DX?"

"Er dont know"

"How do you adjust your focus point?"

"Er don't know"

"Tell me how do you work out composition?"

"Er dont know"

"So how come your a top photographer despite not knowing a thing about photography?"

"Im good on a computer"



This of course is a dramatic example and in this case I suppose I could agree with you, but this is almost never the actual case.  For many people these days photography sits somewhere between skill with composition and a camera in-hand, and skill sitting at a desk getting the most out of their post processing.  I usually go into a landscape shot planning the post processing before I click the shutter, and I think (at least in landscape photography) that the computer is almost as large a part as the camera in some regards.  Wether you think this is a good or bad thing is subjective but I think it is true either way.  Also implying that people who use photoshop as a large part of their creative work do not know their camera is - again - an extreme generalization, most people who are technically savvy enough to use complex image processing software, know their cameras workings inside and out. 

Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: whiteheat on October 22, 2012, 05:48:58 PM
I spend several years planning a shot, learning my craft, learning my gear wandering the world and taking a top image.

I spend a afternoon, with no knowledge of my gear, no knowledge of composition, taking very poor shots then spending days in a computer to produce an image.

I enter both in a competition and the computer image wins. Therefore the computer me is the better photographer. So i give up travelling the world spend little time taking pics and spend lots of time on a computer.

I am a top photographer because i know how to use a Mac Book and Photoshop.

 "How do you use this 1DX?"

"Er dont know"

"How do you adjust your focus point?"

"Er don't know"

"Tell me how do you work out composition?"

"Er dont know"

"So how come your a top photographer despite not knowing a thing about photography?"

"Im good on a computer"


Nice example to illustrate your point and a reasonable point it is too.  However, it is so extreme as to be nonsensical.  It would seem absurd that anyone with a high end camera, and if you mean a Canon 1DX when you stated "1DX", would not know/understand about their own camera, focus points, composition, etc.  Someone who has deliberately shelled out a truck load of cash for a top line camera, tends to know what he/she is doing and will quickly come to grips with what it can do and how it does it.  It is also a given that he/she will know/understand certain principles of and have a reasonable experience of photography.  No one goes from being a non photographer one day to a Canikon 1DX/D4 owner the next (well, hardly anybody).

That said, what I think you're getting at is that certain people, who are better classed as "Artists" rather than straight photographers.  These people tend take images as a working base from which to employ computer software on as an artistic tool.  They are using the computer/software to create their vision of art.  The method by which the initial image was captured/made is perhaps of secondary or lesser importance, much like a lump of clay that a potter starts out with before crafting a finished piece.

I think the important difference here is that people who use computers and software primarily for creating strong visual concepts and effects, are more artists in the truer sense of the word where instead of using brushes and paints, the camera and the computer have taken over to be used as mere tools.  They create images that are other worldly or ethereal and usually bare little resemblance to representing any recognisable reality as conceived by people in general.

On the other hand, pure photographers see their 'art' as capturing a moment of reality as it was at the time of image capture.  To this ethos, it is an anathema to start corrupting that image with computer software jiggery pokery.  The skills involved in are pure photographic ones, that is, the technical side - Aperture, Shutter Speed, ISO, etc and the photographic artistic side of "photographic seeing", lighting and composition, etc.  The only post processing conscionable would be to correct small defects such as exposure level, reduce noise, etc, as opposed to out and out data manipulation to transform the image in to something very different from what was originally intended at time of image capture.

That's just my 2 cents worth.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Mcthecat on October 23, 2012, 05:22:49 PM
A very well thought out and well reasoned reply. I have no problem what so ever with graphic art which is what certain people do now. Revel in the fact you do amazing photographic art, the talent and creative energy you have. Your an artist, a painter using the computer as your palette.  I prefer to capture  my image in my camera rather than my computer.And i prefer National Geographics gold standard no photoshop approach. But thats me.

But i stand by my point that in, amateur photographic competitions, people are winning who know jack shit about the workings of a camera and lens, spend no time on composition or telling of a story but creative in computer generated images and can beat me in a competition by putting in no time in camera, no time in effort and learning but days working in a computer.

 Mc the cat

I
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: whiteheat on October 23, 2012, 05:38:31 PM
A very well thought out and well reasoned reply. I have no problem what so ever with graphic art which is what certain people do now. Revel in the fact you do amazing photographic art, the talent and creative energy you have. Your an artist, a painter using the computer as your palette.  I prefer to capture  my image in my camera rather than my computer.And i prefer National Geographics gold standard no photoshop approach. But thats me.

But i stand by my point that in, amateur photographic competitions, people are winning who know jack shit about the workings of a camera and lens, spend no time on composition or telling of a story but creative in computer generated images and can beat me in a competition by putting in no time in camera, no time in effort and learning but days working in a computer.

 Mc the cat

I
OK, fair point.  However, as for your second point, that's not the fault of any of the entrants.  You need to adjust your perspective to take in to account what the premise and judgement criteria are for the competition as just the term "photographic competition" isn't telling very much.  For example, if the competiton standards were quite strict and very high and specified that any submitted image must have come straight out of the camera and both the original RAW and jpeg file submitted (for comparative analysis), then you'd be safe in your conviction that it was a true photographic competiton.

However, I suspect most competitions are not so tightly set up in this fashion and the term "photograhic competition" becomes a lot looser in its definition.  It should really be termed a "graphic art competition" encompassing all digital art, however so manufactured.  That would give you a clearer understanding of the type of competition it is and therefore whether you should be entering it in the first place as you, as a pure photographer, would be at a distinct disadvantage amongst the "artists" who may or may not be even using a camera to generate their "art".

Just my 2 cents worth.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 23, 2012, 08:18:19 PM
... But i stand by my point that in, amateur photographic competitions, people are winning who know jack shit about the workings of a camera and lens, spend no time on composition or telling of a story but creative in computer generated images and can beat me in a competition by putting in no time in camera, no time in effort and learning but days working in a computer...

You do realize that in a competition, jurors are looking at a final product, a photograph, and have no way of knowing if the author knows anything about cameras, lenses, composition, story, etc.?

And frankly, who cares?

it absolutely does not matter at all if he does or doesn't. What does matter is the final result, the photo. If it has poor composition, it won't win (or so one hopes). If the author "knows" nothing about composition (read: hasn't read dozen books about it, attended a bunch of seminars or workshop, etc.), it does not mean his composition won't be just fine. Or, in reverse, if one "knows" a lot about composition, it absolutely does not guarantee that his photos will have remarkable composition. By-the-book one perhaps, yes... but it might be utterly boring just as well.

I have no problem with anyone grabbing a camera for the first time in their life and making a remarkable photo with it. It just means they have talent for it and a good eye. With today's technology, they really, really do not need to know much about the mechanics of it. I couldn't care less how much one "knows" about cameras, but what they can do with it. But I understand that it must heart if someone with talent, but no knowledge, beats someone with more knowledge, but less talent. Kind of Mozart vs. Salieri.

Because photography is not about what's behind the camera, but what's in front of it.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: kencameron on October 24, 2012, 12:19:54 AM
...no time in effort and learning but days working in a computer...
Well - maybe not so much effort learning the camera and more learning the software. Please tell me about post processing software with no learning curve. But in the real world (rather than the thought experiment) I suspect anyone interested in the one will also be interested in the other. Serious work on post-processing will surely draw attention to the importance of good input.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: petermfiore on November 11, 2012, 09:31:35 AM
You do realize that in a competition, jurors are looking at a final product, a photograph, and have no way of knowing if the author knows anything about cameras, lenses, composition, story, etc.?

And frankly, who cares?

it absolutely does not matter at all if he does or doesn't. What does matter is the final result, the photo. If it has poor composition, it won't win (or so one hopes). If the author "knows" nothing about composition (read: hasn't read dozen books about it, attended a bunch of seminars or workshop, etc.), it does not mean his composition won't be just fine. Or, in reverse, if one "knows" a lot about composition, it absolutely does not guarantee that his photos will have remarkable composition. By-the-book one perhaps, yes... but it might be utterly boring just as well.

I have no problem with anyone grabbing a camera for the first time in their life and making a remarkable photo with it. It just means they have talent for it and a good eye. With today's technology, they really, really do not need to know much about the mechanics of it. I couldn't care less how much one "knows" about cameras, but what they can do with it. But I understand that it must heart if someone with talent, but no knowledge, beats someone with more knowledge, but less talent. Kind of Mozart vs. Salieri.

Because photography is not about what's behind the camera, but what's in front of it.


THE TRUTH!!

Peter
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: SunnyUK on November 13, 2012, 10:03:00 AM
If my 3 yeard old daughter draws a picture of a man with a triangular face, it's a child's drawing and there's a good chance some "kind" person will tell her that people have round faces rather than triangular ones.

If Pablo Picasso draws a picture of a man with a triangular face, it's great art making a very deep and important statement about the disillusion of the working classes in a highly polarized society. Or some similar gobledegook.

If Jack from down the estate covers a wall in spray paint, it's grafitti and against the law.

If Banksy does the same, it will be chipped off the wall and put on display in art galleries before the paint has even dried.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 13, 2012, 10:46:27 AM
That's what education is for, to know the difference.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Isaac on November 13, 2012, 12:00:14 PM
If Pablo Picasso draws a picture of a man with a triangular face, it's great art making a very deep and important statement about the disillusion of the working classes in a highly polarized society.

Not even close (http://books.google.com/books?id=wQxQAAAAMAAJ) -- but here you are, one hundred years later, still talking about Picasso's art.


If Jack from down the estate... If Banksy does the same...

Outside (http://www.banksy.co.uk/outdoors/index.html)
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: SunnyUK on November 13, 2012, 12:40:10 PM
Not even close (http://books.google.com/books?id=wQxQAAAAMAAJ) -- but here you are, one hundred years later, still talking about Picasso's art.

Absolutely. I'll also happily talk about pieces that are 200 years old or 300 years old. They don't cease to be art just because they get old.

Somehow I think I failed to communicate my point of view in a way lending itself to being understood by you.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Isaac on November 13, 2012, 12:51:09 PM
I failed to communicate ...

You implied that the only difference you see between a child's drawing and Picasso's art, and between Jack from down the estate's graffiti and Banksy's spray paint - is that the latter are known as artists.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: SunnyUK on November 13, 2012, 01:04:29 PM
It's known as exaggerating in order to make a point. The point being that dealers and critics sometime praise (and charge/pay a fortune) things as important art ONLY because of who made it.

Other examples could be Malevic's Red Square (which I believe came after his ground-breaking painting Black Square) or Kira O'Reilly hugging a dead pig. Not to mention some of Damien Hirst's controversial "pieces".

Does that make it more clear?
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 13, 2012, 01:10:05 PM
... The point being that dealers and critics sometime praise (and charge/pay a fortune) things as important art ONLY because of who made it...

Isn't that the very essence of it?
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Isaac on November 14, 2012, 04:12:41 PM
It's known as exaggerating in order to make a point.

The way that you "failed to communicate" was by the simple expedient of not saying what you mean.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: SunnyUK on November 14, 2012, 04:41:35 PM
The way that you "failed to communicate" was by the simple expedient of not saying what you mean.

I guess instead of trying to be polite and claim I failed to communicate correctly, I should simply have said outright what I meant:

You are being deliberately obtuse and not listening to what I say. That's of course your prerogative, but I don't particularly care for debating that way. Goodbye.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: jeremypayne on November 14, 2012, 04:55:01 PM
... obtuse and not listening to what I say. ...

On the contrary ... I think Isaac paid very close attention to what you said.

Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: kencameron on November 14, 2012, 05:16:47 PM
...Isaac paid very close attention to what you said...
He usually does. Sometimes too close for comfort.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: SunnyUK on November 15, 2012, 08:31:49 AM
Being a glutton for punishment, here's another example. Mark Rothko. Recently sold for 75 cool millions. And yet "art" is all about the end result without care for who created it and how?! Really? 

(http://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/mark-rothko_s-1954-no-1-royal-red-and-blue-1.jpg)
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: SunnyUK on November 15, 2012, 11:22:33 AM
I have re-read my posts here, and apologise for coming through sounding argumentative. That was not my intention, and I hope I didn't cause offense.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: jeremypayne on November 15, 2012, 12:32:37 PM
And yet "art" is all about the end result without care for who created it and how?! Really? 

You seem to be confusing yourself by responding out of context.

Slobodan was talking about a juried photography competition, and you have extended that to the entirety of something you are calling "ART".
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: SunnyUK on November 15, 2012, 12:53:29 PM
You're right, Jeremy. Since

1) a page and a half of this discussion thread is about "art" (and the difficulties in defining what that means)

2) the latest post right before mine quoted an explanation abut how knowledge, background, etc, doesn't mean anything but that the final image is the only thing that counts

I responded "out of context" by giving examples of where it is NOT the case in the "art world" that the knoweldge, background, etc doesn't mean anything.

(there is irony in there somewhere... around word number one and two)

I understand that a lot of the arguments in this part of the forum is somewhat akin to people arguing for the fun of arguing rather than to explore subjects. And given that this apparently is a discussion that several members have had many times before and are tired of listening to (according to some of the posts in the thread), maybe that's not surprising. But as Ken said a month ago, "LuLa gets new members all the time who may not have had this conversation, and having it is a different and more useful activity than reading an old thread".

Maybe I am confusing things here. If so, it's probably because I'm trying to combine a couple of different threads of input into something that makes sense. Or at least exploring whether it is possible to do so.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Ray on November 15, 2012, 01:29:34 PM
I'm late to the thread, but I tend to sympathise with SunnyUK's confusion here. Why do we place such a high monetary premium on so-called works of art that not even a child would bother to produce?

$75 million for  Mark Rothko to demonstrate a few shades of red and a blue rectangle, is totally farcical.

I would predict that any society that engages in such ridiculous pricing and monetary values will get itself into a serious financial crisis. Ooops! Hasn't that already happened.  ;)
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: stamper on November 16, 2012, 04:20:24 AM
Quote

I'm late to the thread, but I tend to sympathise with SunnyUK's confusion here. Why do we place such a high monetary premium on so-called works of art that not even a child would bother to produce?

Unquote

The pursuit of wealth. Just as the sale of a rare bottle of wine, a house or a vintage car etc etc can be seen as profitable then a painting that someone has the hots for, that cost little to produce, can be sold for millions. :)
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: petermfiore on November 16, 2012, 08:21:10 PM
With education and understanding the Art will resonate.


Peter
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: SunnyUK on November 18, 2012, 01:34:34 PM
With education and understanding the Art will resonate.

So I guess as someone who don't "get" for instance Mark Rothko I must be an un-educated simpleton?  Hmmmmm
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 18, 2012, 02:01:44 PM
So I guess as someone who don't "get" for instance Mark Rothko I must be an un-educated simpleton?  Hmmmmm

If the shoe fits... ;)

Just kidding. But in all seriousness, "getting" and "liking" are two different things. You may get it, but still not like it, and that is ok. You may like it, even if you do not get it (see the movie "The Object of Beauty" for instance). Getting it implies education, liking it doesn't.

Not liking it and not getting it, and then proclaiming it worthless because of that, is a sign of cultural primitivism, in my humble opinion.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: petermfiore on November 18, 2012, 05:26:24 PM
If the shoe fits... ;)

Just kidding. But in all seriousness, "getting" and "liking" are two different things. You may get it, but still not like it, and that is ok. You may like it, even if you do not get it (see the movie "The Object of Beauty" for instance). Getting it implies education, liking it doesn't.

Not liking it and not getting it, and then proclaiming it worthless because of that, is a sign of cultural primitivism, in my humble opinion.
+1
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: SunnyUK on November 19, 2012, 08:18:35 AM
If the shoe fits... ;)

Just kidding. But in all seriousness, "getting" and "liking" are two different things. You may get it, but still not like it, and that is ok. You may like it, even if you do not get it (see the movie "The Object of Beauty" for instance). Getting it implies education, liking it doesn't.

Not liking it and not getting it, and then proclaiming it worthless because of that, is a sign of cultural primitivism, in my humble opinion.

Ouch! That told me, I guess  ::)
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 19, 2012, 08:30:51 AM
I should have mentioned that I usually use "you" in a rhetorical sense, not necessarily anyone in particular.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Jim Pascoe on November 29, 2012, 06:40:58 AM
Because photography is not about what's behind the camera, but what's in front of it.

Do you think it would be fair to say that photography is what's in front of the camera, and art is what's behind it?  Sometimes the two are the same, and sometimes they are very different.

Jim
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 29, 2012, 01:26:04 PM
Do you think it would be fair to say that photography is what's in front of the camera, and art is what's behind it?  Sometimes the two are the same, and sometimes they are very different.

Jim, that is a very interesting observation. I think I like it and agree with it. Especially if you consider the dichotomy between representing/documenting reality and interpreting it. I often claim that there is a profound difference between artists using photography as a medium, and photographers striving to create art.

Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: WalterEG on November 29, 2012, 02:22:06 PM
I often claim that there is a profound difference between artists using photography as a medium, and photographers striving to create art.

The truest statement on Lu-La.

And never the twain shall meet?

Cheers,

W
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 29, 2012, 02:30:53 PM
... And never the twain shall meet?

Another interesting observation/question. I would posit that perhaps Andreas Gursky would fit?
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Jim Pascoe on November 29, 2012, 11:56:03 PM
Fortunately for me I have never tried to be an artist.  Photography is both my employment and my passion and I quite possibly have produced the odd picture that could be considered art.  But to me it is about capturing my reality and in not having to worry about concepts like "is it art", frees me up to just be a photographer.

Jim
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Didymus on December 03, 2012, 01:43:56 PM
there is a profound difference between artists using photography as a medium, and photographers striving to create art.
I love this statement. Thank you.
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: kencameron on December 03, 2012, 10:56:44 PM
I often claim that there is a profound difference between artists using photography as a medium, and photographers striving to create art.

I am wondering exactly what you think that profound difference is - prompted by the fact that so many people strongly agree with your statement, which makes me feel bad about my incomprehension.

I assume you mean something around representation and interpretation, with artists being broadly in the camp of interpretation and photographers in that of representation. But then, I manage to confuse myself.  I am not sure whether you think that "photographer" and "artist" are mutually exclusive categories. I assume that when you talk about artists using photography as a medium you don't mean in preparation for drawings or paintings (very common, one of art's little secrets) - or do you? And I am not sure whether what you mean by "photographers striving to create art" is any different from what you would mean if you had written "photographers striving to take really good photographs".

I guess my reservations centre around my view of the relationship between representation and interpretation. I would argue that you pretty much never find one without the other, because choosing what to represent is an act of interpretation and in order to interpret, you need to interpret something which usually means representing it to your viewer. So I would say there is a continuum, rather than a "profound difference". Of course, sometimes one or the other is dominant. Maybe you are saying that if you have a camera in your hand, you should call yourself a photographer if representation is the dominant partner and an artist if you lean to the side of interpretation. From which it would seem to follow that you might be an artist in the morning and a photographer in the afternoon.

Lots of other possibilities. Clarification would be much appreciated  ;)
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 04, 2012, 12:53:44 AM
... Clarification would be much appreciated  ;)

You see, Ken... like any good joke, if it needs to be explained, it loses its punch ;)
Title: Re: When is it graphic art?
Post by: kencameron on December 04, 2012, 02:56:43 AM
You see, Ken... like any good joke, if it needs to be explained, it looses its punch ;)

Nice one. I will resolve, yet again, to keep my proliferating mind to myself. And no doubt fail to keep that resolution before long.