Can photo manipulation be considered as art ?

[cgarnerhome]

It’s kind of interesting that no one seemed to question whether Uselmann’s work was photography but when it’s done digitally then people are less comfortable with it.

[KenTanaka]

@ Roberta33:  Yes, I would certainly categorize the works you referenced as art.  In particular, most of the images would be considered “photo surrealism” in the art world.

Here’s a tip:  Don’t approach such work as photography.  Stand away from camera gear and computer processing when experiencing such work; it’s irrelevant.  The art process starts as an idea, which each of these surely did.  So ignore how they were produced and evaluate the ideas they seem to be trying to communicate.  Art is not decoration.  Art = Communication.

- Ken Tanaka -

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Here’s a tip:  Don’t approach such work as photography.  Stand away from camera gear and computer processing when experiencing such work; it’s irrelevant.  The art process starts as an idea, which each of these surely did.  So ignore how they were produced and evaluate the ideas they seem to be trying to communicate.  Art is not decoration.  Art = Communication.

- Ken Tanaka -

+1.
Well put, Ken.

[Rayyan]

Of course. If enough ' knowledgable ' people can convince the plebes it is art; so it seems to be.
Heck; even a dead shark in a tank is ' art '.

[RSL]

@ Roberta33:  Yes, I would certainly categorize the works you referenced as art.  In particular, most of the images would be considered “photo surrealism” in the art world.

Here’s a tip:  Don’t approach such work as photography.  Stand away from camera gear and computer processing when experiencing such work; it’s irrelevant.  The art process starts as an idea, which each of these surely did.  So ignore how they were produced and evaluate the ideas they seem to be trying to communicate.  Art is not decoration.  Art = Communication.

- Ken Tanaka -

+1. And beautiful work on your web, Ken.

[Alan Klein]

It’s kind of interesting that no one seemed to question whether Uselmann’s work was photography but when it’s done digitally then people are less comfortable with it.

Well, Uelsmann's work is so obviously composite, everyone understands what's going on.  It's when the final image appears perfectly normal but in fact was a composite or some other digital manipulation beyond the boundaries of simple exposure adjustments and cropping that we get into these arguments about photography vs. digital art. 

[Peter McLennan]

Art is not decoration.  Art = Communication.

Best quote ever!  Something we should all remember, every time we're out there.

[Alan Klein]

"In the strictest sense, Fine Art is considered a visual object with no functional purpose except to be admired and contemplated as an aesthetic object. Decorative Art, however, is also visual and aesthetically pleasing but serves a useful function such as a piece of furniture, tableware, textiles and so on."  https://www.thebalancecareers.com/fine-art-or-decorative-1295903

I don't see how art can not decorate the walls ie a photo for example even though it's not "decorative art" in the sense it has a function other than pleasing our eyes and heart.  .  In fact most people use art exactly that way. 


What do people mean when they say art communicates?

[Peter McLennan]

This is one of the great problems for people selling art today.  The customers frequently ask "Will it match the drapes?"

[Alan Klein]

This is one of the great problems for people selling art today.  The customers frequently ask "Will it match the drapes?"

Drapes are art too.  Decorative art.  They also have functional value, but appreciating beauty as art is important to us.  The fact other art matches the drapes adds to the beauty.  Art is mainly about aesthetics.  We all should enjoy it in all its varieties.  What should we do?  Hide our photos in the attic? 

[RSL]

What do people mean when they say art communicates?

Look at a really good street shot, like HCB's "The Locks at Bougival" and you'll understand, Alan.

[Alan Klein]

Look at a really good street shot, like HCB's "The Locks at Bougival" and you'll understand, Alan.

Russ, How does it communicate to you?

[RSL]

It communicates to me that here's a family, hard working, a long way from well-to-do, with a baby and a grandmother, and it communicates intense joie de vivre. What could be more decorative than that, Alan?

[Alan Klein]

I'm just trying to get your definition of communications.  How would you describe it generally?  Do people interacting have to be in it?  Or can a landscape that provides the power of awe be considered as communicating as well?  Maybe communications is just in the eye of the beholder, like when people try to define the word "art"?  These things seem so personal.

[Richowens]

They are personal Alan, some people understand the language, some don't.

Rich

[RSL]

THIS is what I mean by communication, Alan.

[Alan Klein]

THIS is what I mean by communication, Alan.

Russ the guy refers to a few paintings and photos that have "touched" him.  But then he goes on to say he can't explain what it was that touched him.  Apparently he can't communicate what makes the image communicate to him.  Maybe you can explain it in your own words.  I'm not trying to be picky.  What does it mean when you say the photo communicates? 

[Alan Klein]

They are personal Alan, some people understand the language, some don't.

Rich

Same questions I just asked Russ.  Saying only you understand the language and can't explain it has no value to anyone else.  Surely you can give something of your understanding. 

To me, communication is on different levels.  There's the street type that may show an interesting interaction between people.  There's the personal portrait of let's say mother and child that communicates love.  There's the landscape shot that communicates our smallness in the universe and awe and an appreciation of things greater than ourselves and how insignificant we are.  There's photojournalism that tells a story of a current event.  Then there's the photo album of let's say a journey you took that now takes the viewer along with you on that trip. 

What is communication to you?  There must be some way you can quantify or qualify it.  I gave you my understanding.  Maybe you and others have a different understanding.

[RSL]

Russ the guy refers to a few paintings and photos that have "touched" him.  But then he goes on to say he can't explain what it was that touched him.  Apparently he can't communicate what makes the image communicate to him.  Maybe you can explain it in your own words.  I'm not trying to be picky.  What does it mean when you say the photo communicates?

Those are my words, Alan. All of  'em. You obviously didn't read the header with my copyright notice. I'm "the guy."

From your reaction I conclude that by "communication" you mean a definition: something spelled out in detail. That's one kind of communication, but the other kind of communication -- the non-verbal kind that grabs you and gives you a shake -- is a lot more important than the definitive kind, and it's art in its greatest glory. It doesn't require "explanation." Real art never requires explanation.

Try this stanza, from Dylan Thomas's "Do not go gentle into that good night":

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

From the standpoint of definitive explication, that stanza is gibberish, as is the rest of the poem, but if you stop trying to "understand" it and simply let it penetrate your spirit, you receive a kind of communication you never can receive from explication. That's Art, with a capital A.

[Alan Klein]

Oops.  Sorry Russ.  I still like to hear explanations.  Maybe from others.  In any case, if prophets can try to explain the nature of God, who is unseeable, untouchable, etc, we should be able to express to some degree what we mean too.  I tried in my post above.  Does it match anything you feel?