Post by: ZakemArt on February 08, 2019, 01:04:06 pm
It always goes almost exactly the same way. Someone will ask if my canvas prints are paintings or photography. I respond that its photography. They then reply " well...that would be really good if it was a painting >:( >:( >:(." I have variations of the same conversation almost everyday and usually multiple times a day that I am selling my work. I am thick skinned and realize that I am usually dealing with intoxicated tourists, but it still sometimes gets me down after a long day. Has anyone else experienced anything similar?
I have never understood the argument about whether photography is art or why a painting of an image is "more" artistic? I have painters ask me all the time if they can licence my images to paint. Why would someone consider an exact painting of an image to be more "artistic?" I believe that the image is the most important aspect in this equation!
Please let me know your thoughts.
Alan Zakem
ZakemArt.com
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on February 08, 2019, 01:59:24 pm
That might cut down slightly on the stupid questions. Just avoid making any explicit claim.
You have my sympathy.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 08, 2019, 02:52:14 pm
A lot of people, surprisingly, are still not aware that photographs can be printed on canvas, so some of the questions you get reflect that.
I actually try to embrace the confusion by framing a photo on canvas in a more classic frame, so that it looks even more like a painting.
Post by: ZakemArt on February 08, 2019, 03:52:04 pm
I also sometimes get asked, "is that art or is that photography?"
I guess it just goes back to the question of whether most people consider photography to be art. I am a painter as well and have sold prints of my paintings. I still feel that if you had limited ed. prints of painting vs limited ed. photography prints, that people would consider the painting prints to be more "artistic." I have never understood that concept though because I feel the image is the most important aspect.
Post by: Ivophoto on February 08, 2019, 03:57:22 pm
I get the whole concept of one of a kind and limited editions, but I have never heard painters tell me that they get any similar comments with their prints. They get a lot of people saying that they will only buy their originals, but not about it not being art.I think you might miss the aspect of the craftsmanship to make a photo vs a painting.
I also sometimes get asked, "is that art or is that photography?"
I guess it just goes back to the question of whether most people consider photography to be art. I am a painter as well and have sold prints of my paintings. I still feel that if you had limited ed. prints of painting vs limited ed. photography prints, that people would consider the painting prints to be more "artistic." I have never understood that concept though because I feel the image is the most important aspect.
Post by: faberryman on February 08, 2019, 04:24:17 pm
Post by: Rob C on February 08, 2019, 04:46:38 pm
My stance has nothing to do with marketing: if folks want to buy them, then make them.
I think it sucks. A good photograph stands on its own merits and has no need to hide under another banner. I feel that way about all textured papers, too, and always did; to me, they are to disguise shortfalls in quality, hide unwanted grain and so forth.
Rob
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 08, 2019, 04:51:06 pm
... I also sometimes get asked, "is that art or is that photography?"...
We just have to suck it up and understand that we are not very often dealing with a sophisticated crowd.
Post by: petermfiore on February 08, 2019, 04:59:08 pm
Peter
Post by: petermfiore on February 08, 2019, 05:03:37 pm
I actually try to embrace the confusion by framing a photo on canvas in a more classic frame, so that it looks even more like a painting.
Solbodan do you really think that approach helps the issue...Because photos don't look like paintings.
Peter
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 08, 2019, 05:13:00 pm
Slobodan do [you] really think that approach helps the issue...Because photos don't look like paintings.
Not all photos, of course, but some do, as in my attached example.
Post by: rabanito on February 08, 2019, 05:39:08 pm
Art:
"The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power"
Do your pictures comply with that?
Why care what others say?
You are the judge
Post by: ZakemArt on February 08, 2019, 08:05:28 pm
Post by: Ivophoto on February 08, 2019, 09:22:18 pm
I wonder always what should the fuss be about this subject.
Art:
"The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power"
Do your pictures comply with that?
Why care what others say?
You are the judge
Rabanito,
There is the etymologic definition of the word. Even in academic circles this creates confusion.
The term “art” is related to the Latin word “ars” meaning, art, skill, or craft.
There is more skill or craft in a painting than in a photo, no?
There are academy’s refusing to lector photography for this reason.
Post by: rabanito on February 09, 2019, 04:17:37 am
Rabanito,
There is the etymologic definition of the word. Even in academic circles this creates confusion.
The term “art” is related to the Latin word “ars” meaning, art, skill, or craft.
There is more skill or craft in a painting than in a photo, no?
There are academy’s refusing to lector photography for this reason.
Hahahaha
Mine was the Oxford's definition. I had to look it up ;)
The liberal arts are
Grammar, Rhetoric, Dialectic, Astronomy, Arithmetic, Geometry and Music
Painting and Photography are not included.
I for one find "art" to be a meaningless word. Art is what the "experts" and the "critics" call "art"
We ignoramuses just follow :) :)
I would have done like the janitor who threw away the famous Man Ray's Lamp Shade on the eve of the exhibition
Not out of meanness, don't take me wrong, but different people have different perceptions of what is valuable and what isn't. For the janitor it was just a piece of paper.
Man Ray himself believed that “the idea was always more important than the actual work.”
As for
"There is more skill or craft in a painting than in a photo, no?"
we could say that Landscape or Studio Portrait are some kind of art compared with "street"
Ansel Adams would be an artist and HCB not
Just joking of course, Ivo. Making conversation
Post by: Rob C on February 09, 2019, 04:34:04 am
Rabanito,
There is the etymologic definition of the word. Even in academic circles this creates confusion.
The term “art” is related to the Latin word “ars” meaning, art, skill, or craft.
There is more skill or craft in a painting than in a photo, no?
There are academy’s refusing to lector photography for this reason.
Well put; it is a matter of skill and craft and also vision and dexterity with brush, pencil etc.
Non-photographic pictures depend on the creativity and ability of the artist to make something visible, coherent and understandable all by the magic of his own hand. Photography demands just a fraction of that ability, and outwith the wet darkrom even less. I had pride in my darkroom work; I do not have much in my electronic work which is just a matter of sitting down on my ass and trying this, that and the other until something pleases me enough to stop and call it a finished image. It is a risk-free exercise and costs just the electricity, with little personal price to pay, one way or the other. Even less worthy are those images derived from using a pre-prepared system bought off the shelf or included in the hardware package... pre-packaged "art" product for the incapable.
No wonder photography is often seen as a lesser pursuit!
Blessed the person with the ability to work well in both mediums.
Rob
Post by: Rob C on February 09, 2019, 04:43:09 am
Hahahaha
Mine was the Oxford's definition. I had to look it up ;)
The liberal arts are
Grammar, Rhetoric, Dialectic, Astronomy, Arithmetic, Geometry and Music
Painting and Photography are not included.
I for one find "art" to be a meaningless word. Art is what the "experts" and the "critics" call "art"
We ignoramuses just follow :) :)
I would have done like the janitor who threw away the famous Man Ray's Lamp Shade on the eve of the exhibition
Not out of meanness, don't take me wrong, but different people have different perceptions of what is valuable and what isn't. For the janitor it was just a piece of paper.
Man Ray himself believed that “the idea was always more important than the actual work.”
As for
"There is more skill or craft in a painting than in a photo, no?"
we could say that Landscape or Studio Portrait are some kind of art compared with "street"
Ansel Adams would be an artist and HCB not
Just joking of course, Ivo. Making conversation
That's interesting.
Landscape strikes me as the art of patience, and studio portraiture as the art of the set piece set-up, repeated ad nauseam.
Both St Ansel and St Karsh seem to me to be the greatest sinners.
Trouble is, HC-B was an artist in other mediums, too...
;-)
Post by: Ivophoto on February 09, 2019, 05:24:07 am
Hahahaha
Mine was the Oxford's definition. I had to look it up ;)
The liberal arts are
Grammar, Rhetoric, Dialectic, Astronomy, Arithmetic, Geometry and Music
Painting and Photography are not included.
I for one find "art" to be a meaningless word. Art is what the "experts" and the "critics" call "art"
We ignoramuses just follow :) :)
I would have done like the janitor who threw away the famous Man Ray's Lamp Shade on the eve of the exhibition
Not out of meanness, don't take me wrong, but different people have different perceptions of what is valuable and what isn't. For the janitor it was just a piece of paper.
Man Ray himself believed that “the idea was always more important than the actual work.”
As for
"There is more skill or craft in a painting than in a photo, no?"
we could say that Landscape or Studio Portrait are some kind of art compared with "street"
Ansel Adams would be an artist and HCB not
Just joking of course, Ivo. Making conversation
I will join the conversation by sharing my thoughts:
Todays photographic art can be found in the same corner as other art where the craft is supposed to be less important than the purely consumption of the visual. Photography is a means not a goal.
Some try to lift ‘the print’ to art status. In analogue era this could be the case. wet plate, Color gum print, palladium print, lithography, etc involves skills and craft.
A digital print is something to master as well, but of other skill than pe a glass plate nicely sealed with lavender Arabic gum. Or a beautiful color gum print.
....
In photography making the latent image is a technical thing, creating the end product is what requires the skill. No physical print, no art or whatsoever.
Post by: petermfiore on February 09, 2019, 05:46:16 am
I will join the conversation by sharing my thoughts:
Todays photographic art can be found in the same corner as other art where the craft is supposed to be less important than the purely consumption of the visual. Photography is a means not a goal.
Some try to lift ‘the print’ to art status. In analogue era this could be the case. wet plate, Color gum print, palladium print, lithography, etc involves skills and craft.
A digital print is something to master as well, but of other skill than pe a glass plate nicely sealed with lavender Arabic gum. Or a beautiful color gum print.
....
In photography making the latent image is a technical thing, creating the end product is what requires the skill. No physical print, no art or whatsoever.
Art is much more then craft alone. A painting without an idea and meaning is just empty. It may be an example of well crafted art work, but an artist is interested making a work of art. A very different kind of beast. Then same goes for photography, or else it wont be art. An artist will use a brush, hammer and chisel or a camera and make art.
Peter
Post by: Ivophoto on February 09, 2019, 07:12:05 am
Art is much more then craft alone. A painting without an idea and meaning is just empty. It may be an example of well crafted art work, but an artist is interested making a work of art. A very different kind of beast. Then same goes for photography, or else it wont be art. An artist will use a brush, hammer and chisel or a camera and make art.
Peter
It goes together.
If a camera is used to register the result of the idea, I agree. Joel Peter Witkin ,Lachapelle, etc. The photo itself is not the art, it’s the set up, the scene. The idea.
Or colorists like Leiter, Gruyaert, Eggleston, etc, I agree. Here the subjectivism of the frame is the result.
If paint skills are only used to replicate a plate with an apple or two, not much art if the technique is not beyond excellent.
But there is more.
Scaling down to purely cerebral art and cutting away all skills doesn’t result in a desirable piece, a piece of art to live with.
Look at Miro’s bird in Barcelona, Picasso’s sculpture in centre Pompidou, Rubens de crucifixion in Antwerp, this is of another kind of art as the nice attempts of a any photographer. It’s comparing a good try with real art.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 09, 2019, 10:07:25 am
... There is more skill or craft in a painting than in a photo, no?...
Ah, the typical fallacy in comparing photography and painting as arts. Mismatching the centuries. About four, five centuries. Comparing Leonardo’s craft with today’s skills required for photography (or last century’s skills). Painting like Leonardo today today would not produce art, but a copycat at best and forgery at worst. Today’s art rarely requires skills. What skill does it take to paint a can of Campbell soup? Or place a toilet bowl into a gallery. Or elephant’s dung?
Post by: Ivophoto on February 09, 2019, 10:23:06 am
Ah, the typical fallacy in comparing photography and painting as arts. Mismatching the centuries. About four, five centuries. Comparing Leonardo’s craft with today’s skills required for photography (or last century’s skills). Painting like Leonardo today today would not produce art, but a copycat at best and forgery at worst. Today’s art rarely requires skills. What skill does it take to paint a can of Campbell soup? Or place a toilet bowl into a gallery. Or elephant’s dung?
A bit skewed I’m afraid. Painting is not an art form of the past. Yes, it is older. There is still plenty of skill required to equal contemporary painters, Hockney’s swimming pools, Picasso’s single line animals or Anselm Kiefers Babylon. To name a few.
Post by: rabanito on February 09, 2019, 10:25:48 am
What skill does it take to paint a can of Campbell soup? Or place a toilet bowl into a gallery. Or elephant’s dung?
+1
The skill of profiting from the Sine Nobilitate ;D
Just a little joke
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 09, 2019, 10:55:57 am
...Picasso’s single line animals...
Are you kidding me? Actually, now that I mentioned kids.. every 6-year old on the planet can doodle like Picasso.
Post by: Ivophoto on February 09, 2019, 10:57:31 am
Are you kidding me? Actually, now that I mentioned kids.. every 6-year old on the planet can doodle like Picasso.
Yeah right.
Post by: rabanito on February 09, 2019, 11:02:10 am
.. every 6-year old on the planet can doodle like Picasso.
Wasn't it in NY that they put a chimpanzee to paint with his fingers and sold them as Kandinskies?
A little long ago...
Beautiful pictures BTW
Post by: Ivophoto on February 09, 2019, 11:46:37 am
Wasn't it in NY that they put a chimpanzee to paint with his fingers and sold them as Kandinskies?
A little long ago...
Beautiful pictures BTW
That say more about NYers than about Kandinsky.
Post by: KLaban on February 09, 2019, 11:57:42 am
Post by: petermfiore on February 09, 2019, 12:40:18 pm
Are you kidding me? Actually, now that I mentioned kids.. every 6-year old on the planet can doodle like Picasso.
Wow...........no more to say on that topic!
Peter
Post by: Ivophoto on February 09, 2019, 01:37:53 pm
Wow...........no more to say on that topic!
Peter
I’m correct completely flabbergasted as well.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 09, 2019, 01:48:12 pm
I’m correct completely flabbergasted as well...
You two seem to overlook the context I said that: single line animals. Even more complex drawings and paintings by Picasso do not require great skills. They do require a concept, vision, idea, etc. Things that make contemporary art art.
Post by: Ivophoto on February 09, 2019, 01:57:29 pm
You two seem to overlook the context I said that: single line animals. Even more complex drawings and paintings by Picasso do not require great skills. They do require a concept, vision, idea, etc. Things that make contemporary art art.
The lines of Picasso are not just lines. No normal toddler will draw a Basset so recognizable with one line like Picasso did.
Look at the squirrel, the fox, the leopard or the kangaroo.
Take a look at his buffalo, how he make a synthesis from the animal and rudiments it in a play of lines and planes....
Post by: 32BT on February 09, 2019, 03:14:37 pm
So, yes, a six year old would be able to draw similarly, except the minor differences are exactly the differences between a life fulfilled and the vast horizon of opportunity of the tabula rasa.
Admittedly, the attached drawing was done by an even younger person than the proposed six year olds, and after subtly pointing out that it couldn't actually be, as was his claim, a portrait of me because I have even less hair than that, he took a long and silent look at both his drawing and my hair (or lack thereof), and proceeded to wisely change the subject. You never know what goes on in the mind of a child but there is a certain intuitive wisdom there representing a desirable state of innocence from which true creativity can be spawned. Perhaps Picasso did finally reach a state of nirvana.
Post by: Rob C on February 09, 2019, 04:44:49 pm
You two seem to overlook the context I said that: single line animals. Even more complex drawings and paintings by Picasso do not require great skills. They do require a concept, vision, idea, etc. Things that make contemporary art art.
Slobodan, quit whilst you think you're ahead!
:-)
Post by: OmerV on February 09, 2019, 05:11:08 pm
Yet, photographers have long belittled the craft/art (photography) they practice in favor of painting or sculpture etc., which is just odd.
I marvel at Paul Klee’s imagination, and that of Helen Levitt. The funny thing is, painting is actually easier to make art with for the simple reason that to most folks, painting is art.
Yeah, I’m with Rob regarding the use of canvas on which to print photographs. Why? And what is so impressive about a photograph that looks like a painting and therefore should be framed as such?
Some(if not all) of Mike Disfarmer’s portraits are, hands down, the equal of the best portrait art, painting or otherwise, ever done.
Post by: Ivophoto on February 09, 2019, 05:31:07 pm
Painting is not the skill most think it is. It is not a coincidence that forgers can fool even top curators. The Mona Lisa is not known for the brush work, but da Vinici’s ideas.
Yet, photographers have long belittled the craft/art (photography) they practice in favor of painting or sculpture etc., which is just odd.
I marvel at Paul Klee’s imagination, and that of Helen Levitt. The funny thing is, painting is actually easier to make art with for the simple reason that to most folks, painting is art.
Yeah, I’m with Rob regarding the use of canvas on which to print photographs. Why? And what is so impressive about a photograph that looks like a painting and therefore should be framed as such?
Some(if not all) of Mike Disfarmer’s portraits are, hands down, the equal of the best portrait art, painting or otherwise, ever done.
I don’t know Omer. There is a difference between the brush of Van Gogh and the swab of Bob Ross, isn’t it?
Post by: rabanito on February 09, 2019, 06:03:24 pm
I don’t know Omer. There is a difference between the brush of Van Gogh and the swab of Bob Ross, isn’t it?But I think that the point is that most painters are not van Goghs or Velazquez but the equivalent of the people taking pictures with their cellulars.
We should not establish painting as art per se taking as example the few painters (in the whole) that are special.
Painting or photography are the media used to convey an artistic idea. As is sculpting, playing an instrument and even cooking.
Post by: Ivophoto on February 09, 2019, 06:10:58 pm
But I think that the point is that most painters are not van Goghs or Velazquez but the equivalent of the people taking pictures with their cellulars.
We should not establish painting as art per se taking as example the few painters (in the whole) that are special.
Painting or photography are the media used to convey an artistic idea. As is sculpting, playing an instrument and even cooking.
I agree as long as we, photographers, don’t find ourselves better than the average painter, just because we use a expensive camera.
Post by: rabanito on February 09, 2019, 06:21:28 pm
I agree as long as we, photographers, don’t find ourselves better than the average painter, just because we use a expensive camera.
No that's not what I mean.
And the camera is only part of the process. You can surely make art with cellphones as well but most people don't use them that way.
Post by: Ivophoto on February 09, 2019, 06:31:01 pm
No that's not what I mean.
And the camera is only part of the process. You can surely make art with cellphones as well but most people don't use them that way.
There is a part skipped in the whole discussion. And that is the piece itself. Is it good enough to surface above mediocrity.
The kind of mediocre painters, ceramicists, sculptures you point to do not create art, craft work at most. It is ‘nice’ nothing wrong with ‘nice’ only, it is just ‘not’
Post by: Peter McLennan on February 09, 2019, 08:28:48 pm
I also sometimes get asked, "is that art or is that photography?"
Heh. I've never been asked that question. I have no idea what I'd say in response.
My canvases are frequently referred to as "paintings" by those unfamiliar with their production technique. I take it as a compliment.
I'm totally pragmatic about canvas prints. They're lightweight, easily transported, easily hung and can be huge - far exceeding the constraints of "traditional" glass and matte presentation.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 09, 2019, 08:44:01 pm
... My canvases are frequently referred to as "paintings" by those unfamiliar with their production technique. I take it as a compliment.
I'm totally pragmatic about canvas prints. They're lightweight, easily transported, easily hung and can be huge - far exceeding the constraints of "traditional" glass and matte presentation.
Hallelujah!
Post by: Chris Kern on February 10, 2019, 04:41:24 pm
The esthetic value is essentially subjective: the beholder’s eye determines how “good” it is.
The commercial value can be independently estimated, at least to some extent, using parameters such as the artist’s sales history, scarcity of the artist’s work (you may well sell better after you’re dead), size of the edition if the image is reproducible, the point-of-sale (established gallery, crafts fair), etc.—but the bottom line is ... well, the bottom line: how much money a buyer is prepared to pay the seller and the seller is prepared to accept. Where commercial value is concerned, it doesn’t matter whether the buyer and seller consider it a work of art or a work of craftsmanship or a vacation souvenir or a pipe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images). The market makes an objective determination. As Gertrude Stein famously said, “the market is the market is the market.”
And I’m not persuaded that the distinction between art and craft is unambiguous even with respect to subjective esthetic value—or that it is particularly meaningful in any event. I often hear artists say the craft is a skill that can be learned and the art is an attribute that is innate, and I suppose there’s some truth in that. But the “vision” of an artist typically evolves, sometimes quite significantly; presumably, if it’s really a genetic trait, it would be essentially static. And if it changes substantially over time, that suggests to me that the artist is learning something through practice. Which sounds suspiciously craftlike.
In any event, I’m persuaded that the esthetic value of an image is fundamentally and unavoidably subjective, and that the medium is entirely irrelevant to its esthetic value. As Gertrude Stein famously said, “a picture is a picture is a picture, and it doesn’t matter what went into making it.”
Case in point:
Back in October, I noticed an unusual array of traffic signals straddling a street in the capital city of Maryland, Annapolis, while walking downtown from the hotel where I was staying, and I decided “to do something with it.” I don’t know whether the picture I produced (the first attachment below) should be considered a work of art or of craft, but it did entail some effort.
First I had to decide what the “something” was that I wanted to make the subject of the photograph—the idea behind the image. Next, I had to select the correct lens and perform the appropriate technical adjustments to the camera to include the elements I wanted (and only those elements). Then I had to wait for an appropriate group of pedestrians to position themselves in my viewfinder where I could capture them and the traffic signals at a time when the people weren’t occluded by traffic; this involved hopping out into the busy street whenever a likely prospect presented itself, while avoiding oncoming drivers and possible citation-wielding cops.
It’s not the greatest picture I’ve ever made (note: this is a subjective judgment), but I was reasonably pleased with it.
Not long ago, I decided to feed a copy of that photograph into a software tool that transforms images based on machine-learning by a “neural network” (second attachment). I made an essentially trivial and somewhat random choice about the type of transformation and color palette for the software to emit, and let ’er rip. The software did its thing without any further intervention on my part, and spit out a computed transformation of my photograph (second attachment).
I’ve shown the pair of images to a number of people (not other photographers), several of whom have spontaneously told me that they really like the second one. I.e., the one made by the machine.
None of them has expressed a preference for the first. The one made by the artist/craftsman.
Actually, I rather like the computed one, myself. Maybe I’ll print it and hang it on the wall.
Post by: rabanito on February 10, 2019, 05:38:12 pm
The second one is not, some kind of roman mosaic, performed by either Hal 9000 or Tertius Orbius around 200 B.C. :) ...
That could be a reason.
Post by: Chris Kern on February 10, 2019, 06:38:37 pm
With due respect, I presume that for the uneducated eye the first picture is just boring, an everyday scene.
Actually, some of the viewers who preferred the second image have rather well-educated eyes by my Plebeian standards.
Not least, my wife, who has a knack for discovering paintings that she buys for rather little money and which subsequently inspire acquisitive envy among gallery owners. Apropos of the OP, a N'Awlins (I think that's the correct pronunciation of New Orleans) example:
More than 25 years ago, she was wandering through Jackson Square when she encountered James Michalopolous (https://www.michalopoulos.com/), then a relative unknown, who was painting, and selling, an early example of one of his iconic street scenes of New Orleans. Money was tight for us then, and the US$350 she paid for the piece represented a substantial investment. But the minute I saw it, I said I wished she had purchased two. Or even three. He was still signing his work "James Mitchell" in those days: he believed a Greek surname would depress sales opportunities for a New Orleans artist. There aren't many "James Mitchells" in circulation. Not that we have any intention of selling ours.
My wife was the first person who looked at the two pictures I posted in this thread—the one I made and the computed one—and she was the first to tell me she preferred the latter.
I trust her judgment (judgement, for those of you in Canada and on the other side of the Atlantic.)
Long story short, I'm thinking perhaps the time has come for me to replace myself with a neural network.
Post by: rabanito on February 11, 2019, 03:40:02 am
Looking at your pictures and reading your description of how you created the first one, I feel in the first one a lot more humanity than in the computer generated one.
Looking at pictures by Michalopoulos and that by Hal 9000 I dare to find more similitudes between them as with yours :)
Do not take me wrong, I know my place. Out of ignorance I would also throw away the million(s)-worth "selfie" by Andy Warhol into the trash basket (I almost wrote Woody Allen, imagine (!) :o )
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on February 11, 2019, 08:22:11 am
1. People are used to seeing paintings as important parts of museums;
2. Painting has been around for a lot more time than photography.
Post by: rabanito on February 11, 2019, 12:10:40 pm
I think it is normal, and as per expectation, that a lot of people perceive painting as being more artistic than photography. And for very simple reasons:
1. People are used to seeing paintings as important parts of museums;
2. Painting has been around for a lot more time than photography.
And that anyone can take a photo.
And also the notion that only a select minority can really paint.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/aug/30/chimpanzee-wins-10000-dollars-abstract-painting
;)
Post by: Ivophoto on February 11, 2019, 01:53:14 pm
And that anyone can take a photo.
And also the notion that only a select minority can really paint.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/aug/30/chimpanzee-wins-10000-dollars-abstract-painting
;)
Which is the blunt truth.
Post by: OmerV on February 11, 2019, 07:36:12 pm
Which is the blunt truth.
So a few chimpanzees can really paint, but any human can take a photo? Well, chimpanzees might not appreciate being pigeonholed as only painters, thank you very much.
Post by: Chris Kern on February 11, 2019, 07:47:40 pm
Well, chimpanzees might not appreciate being pigeonholed as only painters, thank you very much.
Are you kidding? Where do you think the term "chimping" comes from?
The real issue, which everyone here seems for some obscure reason to be trying to avoid, is whether the chimpanzees are Nikon shooters or Canon shooters.
Post by: Alan Klein on February 11, 2019, 11:08:19 pm
Post by: BobShaw on February 11, 2019, 11:12:28 pm
The term “art” is related to the Latin word “ars”That is my takeaway from this discussion. I will use that anytime someone lectures me about art.
If the meaning is "art, skill, or craft" then that makes sense.
Prior to the industrial revolution an Artisan was one with skills who could make things.
If you painted something you were a painter.
If you paint a painting then you probably do need to have some idea what you are going to paint when you start.
I often take photos with no idea how I will use them. That is why I save all of my photos.
I don't think it matters when the idea happens.
Post by: Ivophoto on February 12, 2019, 12:47:29 am
That is my takeaway from this discussion. I will use that anytime someone lectures me about art.
If the meaning is "art, skill, or craft" then that makes sense.
Prior to the industrial revolution an Artisan was one with skills who could make things.
If you painted something you were a painter.
If you paint a painting then you probably do need to have some idea what you are going to paint when you start.
I often take photos with no idea how I will use them. That is why I save all of my photos.
I don't think it matters when the idea happens.
I have no problem with your explanation, it inherently includes the acception of cerebral art. Strangely enough, most photographers finding them self ‘artist’ are the first to vomit against any Art denying the involved craft.
Post by: Ivophoto on February 12, 2019, 12:50:00 am
So a few chimpanzees can really paint, but any human can take a photo? Well, chimpanzees might not appreciate being pigeonholed as only painters, thank you very much.
I think chimpanzees appreciation is easier earned by picking fleas than getting them a bucket of finger paint.
Post by: Ivophoto on February 12, 2019, 02:39:26 am
I think it is normal, and as per expectation, that a lot of people perceive painting as being more artistic than photography. And for very simple reasons:
1. People are used to seeing paintings as important parts of museums;
2. Painting has been around for a lot more time than photography.
I think photographers tend to overlook that the added value of a painters technique is of another magnitude than the added value of a photographers technique. The latter is strongly dictated by preset technology like characteristic of film / sensor / what ever computed and applied algorithm. (The ‘noble’ photographic techniques excluded)
...
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Try how long you can live with a top photograph on the wall, how long it keeps to catch your interest or how long it’s sucks you into the frame.
Try it with a painting, doesn’t need to be a top painting, it can even be a reproduction.
There is nothing so easily outdated as a photo on the wall.
I have Pollock and Hopper reproductions on the wall, after years, I’m still happy to live with it.
Maybe a Gursky would come close to hang on the wall, but would get outdated for sure.
......
Post by: rabanito on February 12, 2019, 04:31:12 am
I think chimpanzees appreciation is easier earned by picking fleas than getting them a bucket of finger paint.
Monkeys lost a copyright dispute against us Humans.
Well the judges were all human and probably biased but anyway... WE WON!!
Andy Warhol and my lowly self can sleep better now. ;D ;D
My selfies with the Mona Lisa and Michelangelo's David are more worth protecting that those taken by Simian Photographers Bongo or Cheetah, even if their artistic value is more or less the same ;)
There!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute
Post by: rabanito on February 12, 2019, 04:36:37 am
I think photographers tend to overlook that the added value of a painters technique is of another magnitude than the added value of a photographers technique. The latter is strongly dictated by preset technology like characteristic of film / sensor / what ever computed and applied algorithm. (The ‘noble’ photographic techniques excluded)
...
Poetry would not qualify then. At least when written with a computer.
For that you need just "Geist" (as in photography) and some instrument to write it down.
Pen or PC / Brush or Photoshop.
Post by: Ivophoto on February 12, 2019, 04:37:20 am
Monkeys lost a copyright dispute against us Humans.
Well the judges were all human and probably biased but anyway... WE WON!!
Andy Warhol and my lowly self can sleep better now. ;D ;D
My selfies with the Mona Lisa and Michelangelo's David are more worth protecting that those taken by Simian Photographers Bongo or Cheetah, even if their artistic value is more or less the same ;)
There!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute
Small connotation: I assume it was a human exploiting the monkey to start a dispute about a topic only humans are silly enough to find important.
Post by: Ivophoto on February 12, 2019, 04:39:13 am
Poetry would not qualify then. At least when written with a computer.
For that you need just "Geist" (as in photography) and some instrument to write it down.
Pen or PC / Brush or Photoshop.
There is a clear difference between poetry and a visual art.
You cannot compare Cricket with Ice Hockey, all tough it is both sport.
Post by: rabanito on February 12, 2019, 04:47:15 am
Small connotation: I assume it was a human exploiting the monkey to start a dispute about a topic only humans are silly enough to find important.
;D ;D ;D
Post by: rabanito on February 12, 2019, 04:51:49 am
There is a clear difference between poetry and a visual art.
You cannot compare Cricket with Ice Hockey, all tough it is both sport.
And between sculpture and painting (substractive/additive)
You are right. I meant "Art" with capitals as compared w/"Craft"
And w/ atouch of humor ;)
Post by: Ivophoto on February 12, 2019, 04:56:13 am
And between sculpture and painting (substractive/additive)
You are right. I meant "Art" with capitals as compared w/"Craft"
And w/ atouch of humor ;)
A certainly understood the latter.
Post by: Rob C on February 12, 2019, 07:40:25 am
What has photography got to do with fine art?
What we do do well is drift; I enjoy that, so thank you, LuLa.
:-)
Post by: rabanito on February 12, 2019, 08:04:12 am
What has zoology to do with fine art?
:-)
He-he.
Zoology helped me in my road to "Fine Art"
Reading such stories some time ago I told myself:
"If a monkey can photograph, so can I!!"
And here I am ;D ;D
Post by: Ivophoto on February 12, 2019, 08:27:16 am
What has photography got to do with fine art?
:-)
Nothing, exactly my point.
Post by: Ivophoto on February 12, 2019, 08:30:34 am
He-he.
Zoology helped me in my road to "Fine Art"
Reading such stories some time ago I told myself:
"If a monkey can photograph, so can I!!"
And here I am ;D ;D
A monkey will always be a crippled photographer because he can not join the enlightenment of Lula.
Post by: Chris Kern on February 12, 2019, 08:52:05 am
Reading such stories some time ago I told myself:
"If a monkey can photograph, so can I!!"
Please, please, please let us not conflate monkeys with chimpanzees. Monkeys just make casual snapshots. In the past, they carried around point-and-shoot cameras, but lately they just use their cellphones. They love to take selfies, often at scenic locations that they never look at directly, just through their tiny electronic devices with their faces in the foreground.
Now before the howls of protest start, I acknowledge that some monkeys aspire to become serious craftsman. At least that's what they claim. But if you watch them closely, you will realize that the majority of the would-be craftsmen are really only gearheads. They gravitate toward Sonys because they enjoy spending hours fiddling with the menus.
It's only among chimpanzees that you hear serious arguments about the distinction between art and craft. And among the primates, they're the least interested in camera equipment; they're more sharply focussed, so to speak, on the end product. They tend to make conservative camera choices: DSLRs, mostly full-frame, and they have a penchant for f/2.8 lenses. They don't seem to worry much about the weight. They're pretty strong and, unlike humans, you rarely hear them complaining about their aching backs.
There is recent evidence, however, that some of the more adventurous chimps are getting serious about mirrorless. Jane Goodall recently observed a pair of them in a secluded forest shooting what appeared to be a DPReview video about a new mirrorless camera. She was able to get close enough to see the device, but unfortunately the chimps had covered the manufacturer's logo with gaff tape so she couldn't identify what it was. Guess we'll have to wait for the review to be posted on YouTube.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 12, 2019, 09:23:29 am
... There is nothing so easily outdated as a photo on the wall...
Absolutely! One of your photographs on my wall would last... a nanosecond, perhaps?
Post by: Ivophoto on February 12, 2019, 09:24:42 am
Absolutely! One of your photographs on my wall would last... a nanosecond, perhaps?
If you could afford it.....
I’m not selling cheap you know.
Post by: Ivophoto on February 12, 2019, 04:16:17 pm
You two seem to overlook the context I said that: single line animals. Even more complex drawings and paintings by Picasso do not require great skills. They do require a concept, vision, idea, etc. Things that make contemporary art art.
https://youtu.be/YTwxiKMWCkg
Post by: Rob C on February 13, 2019, 03:37:31 am
A monkey will always be a crippled photographer because he can not join the enlightenment of Lula.
Take a look at the avatars and reconsider that!
They have already breached the walls of the citadel along with the barbarians.
;-)
Post by: nirpat89 on February 14, 2019, 02:26:05 am
Please, please, please let us not conflate monkeys with chimpanzees. Monkeys just make casual snapshots. In the past, they carried around point-and-shoot cameras, but lately they just use their cellphones. They love to take selfies, often at scenic locations that they never look at directly, just through their tiny electronic devices with their faces in the foreground.
Now before the howls of protest start, I acknowledge that some monkeys aspire to become serious craftsman. At least that's what they claim. But if you watch them closely, you will realize that the majority of the would-be craftsmen are really only gearheads. They gravitate toward Sonys because they enjoy spending hours fiddling with the menus.
It's only among chimpanzees that you hear serious arguments about the distinction between art and craft. And among the primates, they're the least interested in camera equipment; they're more sharply focussed, so to speak, on the end product. They tend to make conservative camera choices: DSLRs, mostly full-frame, and they have a penchant for f/2.8 lenses. They don't seem to worry much about the weight. They're pretty strong and, unlike humans, you rarely hear them complaining about their aching backs.
There is recent evidence, however, that some of the more adventurous chimps are getting serious about mirrorless. Jane Goodall recently observed a pair of them in a secluded forest shooting what appeared to be a DPReview video about a new mirrorless camera. She was able to get close enough to see the device, but unfortunately the chimps had covered the manufacturer's logo with gaff tape so she couldn't identify what it was. Guess we'll have to wait for the review to be posted on YouTube.
:) :) :)
Post by: LesPalenik on February 18, 2019, 01:13:54 am
You two seem to overlook the context I said that: single line animals. Even more complex drawings and paintings by Picasso do not require great skills. They do require a concept, vision, idea, etc. Things that make contemporary art art.
(https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=128976.0;attach=191887;image)
Picasso was lucky to have sold that piece.
Today, any self-respecting curator or a competition judge would reject it because of missing leading line and central composition.
Post by: Patricia Sheley on February 18, 2019, 02:31:29 am
You clearly missed the artist statement en verso: "First wife in long sleeved sweater pointing in the direction from which wife number two arrived."
As by his own statement she is properly positioned off to the left casting her arm with flowing sleeve across the page and into some past and future. Quite modern in concept.
Post by: Ivophoto on February 18, 2019, 03:10:32 am
Picasso was lucky to have sold that piece.
Today, any self-respecting curator or a competition judge would reject it because of missing leading line and central composition.
And here is the difference between craft work competition judgement / ballotage and Art curation.
Post by: LesPalenik on February 18, 2019, 06:16:46 am
"missing leading line and central composition. " quote Les
You clearly missed the artist statement en verso: "First wife in long sleeved sweater pointing in the direction from which wife number two arrived."
As by his own statement she is properly positioned off to the left casting her arm with flowing sleeve across the page and into some past and future. Quite modern in concept.
Speaking of long sleeved sweaters:
The wife said 'I need to go grab my cardigan'...
And husband replied: 'what happened to getting it the first time?'.
You have to say it really fast.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 02, 2019, 05:17:27 pm
...regarding the use of canvas on which to print photographs. Why? And what is so impressive about a photograph that looks like a painting and therefore should be framed as such?...
It goes both ways ;)
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on March 02, 2019, 06:16:24 pm
It goes both ways ;)I wonder about the sign that says "yes, they are paintings."
Was the sign painted, or hand-lettered, or printed on a computer, or a photograph of another sign with the same message?
Obviously, the true Artistic Value depends on the answer to my question! 8)
Post by: Larry451 on March 17, 2019, 12:34:33 pm
just another way to deal with the photo art? world <grin>
regards
Larry.