Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: But is it photography?  (Read 51419 times)

petermfiore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2705
    • Peter Fiore Fine Art
Re: But is it photography?
« Reply #20 on: July 09, 2012, 08:28:56 am »

It is an image. If it moves you, it is Art. How it was made or what you call it should not matter.

Peter


www.peterfiore.com

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: But is it photography?
« Reply #21 on: July 09, 2012, 08:47:25 am »

It is an image. If it moves you, it is Art. How it was made or what you call it should not matter.

Peter


www.peterfiore.com
+10.

Eric
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: But is it photography?
« Reply #22 on: July 09, 2012, 11:05:32 am »

It is an image. If it moves you, it is Art. How it was made or what you call it should not matter.

It seems to matter to some.
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: But is it photography?
« Reply #23 on: July 09, 2012, 02:30:35 pm »

Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

brandtb

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 972
    • http://www.brandtbolding.com
Re: But is it photography?
« Reply #24 on: July 12, 2012, 06:21:20 pm »

Quote
If it moves you, it is Art.

So if one individual were to look at a landscape painting...say for example the renowned J.M.W.Turner's Norham Castle Sunrise...and say "I can't stand this bloody rot...does absolutely nothing for me" - then is it ...not art? I would suggest that art is not somehow made valid by a viewer (any viewer) having a "moving experience" , but by the intent of the maker (note the maker of art - may or may not be moved by something he or she makes - but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's not art). (whether it is saleable or called art in the marketplace is of course an entirely different matter)
« Last Edit: July 12, 2012, 06:24:03 pm by brandtb »
Logged
Brandt Bolding
www.brandtbolding.com

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: But is it photography?
« Reply #25 on: July 13, 2012, 06:36:51 am »

Jean Loup Sieff wrote: there is no art, only artists.

Rob C

petermfiore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2705
    • Peter Fiore Fine Art
Re: But is it photography?
« Reply #26 on: July 14, 2012, 09:11:36 am »

"I can't stand this bloody rot...does absolutely nothing for me" - then is it ...not art?


Bloody rot = being moved!!!

Good or not!


www.peterfiore.com

GEOFFREYJAMES

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 80
Re: But is it photography?
« Reply #27 on: July 14, 2012, 01:46:05 pm »

Duchamp said that photography would make people despise painting and then something would come along to make people despise photography.  I am tempted to say that something is....Photoshop.   But in fact photography has many rooms and there is one for each of us.  I would tend to delay any opinion on Gutschow until I have seen the work in person. 
Logged

brandtb

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 972
    • http://www.brandtbolding.com
Re: But is it photography?
« Reply #28 on: July 14, 2012, 06:44:34 pm »

Quote
Bloody rot = being moved!!!

You're missing my point there...you may have gotten hung up on my "bloody rot" bit...so let's keep it simple. If e.g. someone looks at the Turner painting and is "not moved" (whatever moved/not moved is exactly - who knows - it seems that's about as wide open as a South Dakota plain)  - then the axiom holds that...the viewer of the art was not moved so it is not in fact art (even though the painter J.M.W. Turner was a renowned painter and artist, or as he is often referred to as a "painters painter").
Logged
Brandt Bolding
www.brandtbolding.com

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: But is it photography?
« Reply #29 on: July 14, 2012, 07:36:42 pm »

... If e.g. someone looks at the Turner painting and is "not moved"... then the axiom holds that... it is not in fact art...

Correct... for that viewer, that is.

So, 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.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 11:13:57 am by Slobodan Blagojevic »
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: But is it photography?
« Reply #30 on: July 14, 2012, 08:11:47 pm »

Back to your previous, good avatar, Slobodan!
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: But is it photography?
« Reply #31 on: July 14, 2012, 09:32:55 pm »

Back to your previous, good avatar, Slobodan!

And I thought some (on this forum) would prefer me in that shape and form  ;) ;D

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: But is it photography?
« Reply #32 on: July 14, 2012, 09:48:40 pm »

AAAhhhhhhh!!!!!!
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

petermfiore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2705
    • Peter Fiore Fine Art
Re: But is it photography?
« Reply #33 on: July 14, 2012, 11:31:53 pm »

If an artist makes works and they never see the light of day, they are still art.





www.peterfiore.com

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: But is it photography?
« Reply #34 on: July 14, 2012, 11:40:48 pm »

AAAhhhhhhh!!!!!!
So now we know Slobodan is a camera-wielding zombie and Russ is a little kid.
(And I'm just a manhole cover and some tar squiggles...)
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 09:01:02 am by Eric Myrvaagnes »
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: But is it photography?
« Reply #35 on: July 15, 2012, 03:39:32 am »

So now we know Slobodan is a camer-wielding zombie and Russ is a little kid.
(And I'm just a manhole cover and some tar squiggles...)




But at least you exist...

Rob C

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: But is it photography?
« Reply #36 on: July 15, 2012, 09:02:04 am »



But at least you exist...

Rob C
As DesCartes' grandson might have said, "I think I think; therefore I think I am."
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: But is it photography?
« Reply #37 on: July 15, 2012, 03:15:29 pm »

As DesCartes' grandson might have said, "I think I think; therefore I think I am."



I like a person with a firm gasp on reality.

Rob C
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up