Will the Real Landscape Photography Please Stand Up ?

[jjj]

I sympathize with your predicament. As the dictionary definition states, it is "demanding deep study or thought" Are you capable of that?

I am and if you were too, you would have understood the point I was making with being able to differentiate the two types of photographer. 
So how do you determine which is which? You gave us two examples of photographers, one you think is an artist and the other a mere photographer. But you've not been able to explain why these photographers are which kind of practitioner.

[Isaac]

The words are often used to distinguish between …

Thank you, for your explanation.

[Isaac]

Indeed. If I am allowed to cite myself: "There is a profound difference between artists using photography as a medium, and photographers striving to create art." Gursky is the former.

The difference can be basic: for example, Hans Eijkelboom’s photographs don't ask to be admired as photographs.

[RSL]

Indeed. If I am allowed to cite myself: "There is a profound difference between artists using photography as a medium, and photographers striving to create art." Gursky is the former.

I let this one slide by. I think you're confusing painting with art, Slobodan. The terms aren't synonymous. There are some photographers producing very bad art. There are at least as many painters producing very bad art.

[elliot_n]

The difference can be basic: for example, Hans Eijkelboom’s photographs don't ask to be admired as photographs.

That's a good example. Conceptual photography. The art is in the idea, the execution is a formality.

[Diego Pigozzo]

The difference can be basic: for example, Hans Eijkelboom’s photographs don't ask to be admired as photographs.

I am not sure this is a good example because beauty and aesthetic may be very different things, therefore this photos may very well be admired as "photograph" even without being "aesthetically pleasing".

On the other hand, if aesthetic is what tells a photographer from an artist, what is all the fuzz about " the real landscape "?

[Isaac]

…may very well be admired as "photograph" even without being "aesthetically pleasing".

In general, some photographs may be admired as "photograph" even without being "aesthetically pleasing".

In particular, why would those photographs be admired as "photograph" ? -- "The camera does the work. All I have to do is carry it. I never look through the camera."

[Diego Pigozzo]

In general, some photographs may be admired as "photograph" even without being "aesthetically pleasing".

In particular, why would those photographs be admired as "photograph" ? -- "The camera does the work. All I have to do is carry it. I never look through the camera."

As I said, I admire those photo for the idea behind them (and at the same time I don't like them because of their aesthetic).
The fact that they are taken "without looking" doesn't bother me much.

[Isaac]

As I said, I admire those photo for the idea behind them…

You admire the idea "as [you] read it", but do not seem to admire the photos as photos.

[Diego Pigozzo]

You admire the idea "as [you] read it", but do not seem to admire the photos as photos.

I surely don't admire them as images, but a photo is not just an image: it's an image that conveys a message.
Well, at least that's true for the photo I admire.

[Isaac]

Well, at least that's true for what you mean by photo - others might consider that to be unnecessary baggage.

[AreBee]

Diego,

...a photo is not just an image: it's an image that conveys a message.

Do all viewers of an image receive the same message?

[elliot_n]

I surely don't admire them as images, but a photo is not just an image: it's an image that conveys a message.
Well, at least that's true for the photo I admire.

None of the individual photos convey a message (or at least not an interesting message). It is the series of photos - the photos arranged in a grid - that conveys the message (that we are types, not individuals). Thus this a good example of an artist 'using photography as a medium' as opposed to a 'photographer striving to create art'. Maybe.

[Diego Pigozzo]

Well, at least that's true for what you mean by photo - others might consider that to be unnecessary baggage.

Of course: I'm not pretending to be the golden standard of photography and surely others have very different ideas of what a photo is.

But my point is quite different: if the difference between a photographer and an artist is the aesthetic qualities of the shots, why all the fuzz about the "real landscape photography"?
All those " amazing locations, wonderful light, colorful sunsets, starry skies, waterfalls, ocean waves, tropical beaches, brilliant colors" photos sure don't lack aesthetic, and yet they are not "real landscape photography".
Why?
The author writes "The third and final problem is that all those beautiful images didn’t speak to my soul", which I read as "they don't convey to me any message".

And another point can be made: if others have different ideas of what a photo is, does make sense to talk about "real landscape photography"?

[Diego Pigozzo]

Diego,

Do all viewers of an image receive the same message?

I think the "most correct" answer is no, because what someone perceive and/or understand depends not only on the message but also on the personal background of the receiver.

[Diego Pigozzo]

None of the individual photos convey a message (or at least not an interesting message). It is the series of photos - the photos arranged in a grid - that conveys the message (that we are types, not individuals). Thus this a good example of an artist 'using photography as a medium' as opposed to a 'photographer striving to create art'. Maybe.

Or maybe not  .

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... if the difference between a photographer and an artist is the aesthetic qualities of the shots...

I'd say aesthetic is certainly not the difference. I'd even say the opposite: the more "aesthetic" it is, the more photographic it is, and less artistic. I know, I know, another controversial generalization, but I hope you get the idea.

[Diego Pigozzo]

I'd say aesthetic is certainly not the difference. I'd even say the opposite: the more "aesthetic" it is, the more photographic it is, and less artistic. I know, I know, another controversial generalization, but I hope you get the idea.

I get the idea but still I'm not sure I agree with what you say.
For example, I think that Salgado's photos are equally aesthetical and artistic.

[elliot_n]

Many in the art world are suspicious of Salgado's aestheticism.

[Diego Pigozzo]

Many in the art world are suspicious of Salgado's aestheticism.

I'm sure they do: how can they say to be "in the art world" if they like the same thing a bus driver likes?
IHMO there is an unjustified dislike for aesthetics, expecially in photography, because of the wrong assumption that if something can be done by many then it must be "of low value".
The "expecially in photography" comes from the fact that today technology allows many to do what very few could do a century ago, so having hundreds of thousands of aesthetically beautiful landscapes leads to "aesthetically beautiful landscapes are not real landscape".