Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => But is it Art? => Topic started by: pad on November 23, 2006, 02:56:20 am

Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: pad on November 23, 2006, 02:56:20 am
In simplistic terms, both Alain Briot and Pete Myers describe in their essays how the camera and lens only play a part (but an important one) in the final image. Once transferred into digital format, they spend time modifying what has been imported into what they saw in their minds eye, to be the final print, using assorted techniques.

So consider .. what if the captured sunset and cloud formation does not evoke the intended response .. why not cut-n-paste that sunset from another image that does?

Micheal has already discussed in one of his essays the considerations for - moving that soda bottle out of frame, leave it in place and crop the image, digitally clone it out or just leave it there ...

Does this then become the foundation for definitions to categorise an image?
left in - journalistic reporting
cloned out - fine art?

Are these categories important when looking at an image?
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: alainbriot on November 23, 2006, 01:02:00 pm
Quote
Does this then become the foundation for definitions to categorise an image?
left in - journalistic reporting
cloned out - fine art?
Are these categories important when looking at an image?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86676\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Pad,

In the context of my work, cloning-out is only one aspect of optimizing my fine art photographs.  There are many others, all aimed at re-creating what I felt when I photographed the original scene.  I list many of them in my 2 latest essays "The Eye and the Camera" and "Of Cameras and Art."

In the context of journalistic-photographs used in a media-reporting context, misleading the audience is the main concern.  In this respect cloning out is the big "no-no."  However, other enhancements, such as changing colors for example, can be just as misleading.  

My recommendation, and my personal approach, is to be 100% straighforward regarding what you do in your work and which approach you use.  I detail my approach in great details in my essays and answer questions about this subject in the most direct manner possible, all this to avoid anyone being mislead.  To me, this is the best approach possible in regards to this matter.

Alain
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on November 23, 2006, 02:24:42 pm
If you're claiming to be a journalist, then cloning, compositing and other manipulations that cause the image to depart from the subject are verboten. If your intent is art, do whatever you want, just don't lie about your techniques to your viewers/costomers/patrons.
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: alainbriot on November 23, 2006, 04:43:53 pm
Quote
If you're claiming to be a journalist, then cloning, compositing and other manipulations that cause the image to depart from the subject are verboten. If your intent is art, do whatever you want, just don't lie about your techniques to your viewers/costomers/patrons.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86751\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well said.
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: pad on November 24, 2006, 02:57:21 am
I appreciate the replies.

I am not a journalist ... I stitch images to make long panoramas and in doing so I remove objects like lamposts .. just as a artist would only paint the scene the way that they want it to be seen.

I think we're in agreement here.
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: John Dee on November 25, 2006, 05:38:12 am
Quote
If you're claiming to be a journalist, then cloning, compositing and other manipulations that cause the image to depart from the subject are verboten. ...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86751\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is a fairly modern ideal for photo journalism. During the American civil war, photographers did everything from dragging dead bodies around to pose them to adding clouds in order to increased the gloom and threatening appearance of a photograph.  Some of these men are considered historically important in the development of photo-journalism.  

Nothing done in Photoshop is really new to photography or to photojournalism.  If you consider journalism as communication by the reporter, then a retouched photograph added to a news story is no more than very same sort of communication as Pete Meyers discusses.  A photograph accompanying a story about destruction may carry the intent of the writer better if it clearly depicts what the journalist is discussing. We may argue that there is a loss of objectivity, but people never are objective.  The best one can achieve is a kind of pseudo-objectivity that can be easily more misleading than a photo altered to carry mood better.

That said, my preference is the same as yours .

John
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: erick b on December 05, 2006, 03:25:48 pm
le vide
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: Rob C on December 06, 2006, 10:59:20 am
Hi folks

If it's art, then fly as you desire; if it's reportage then fly in a straight line.

Rob C
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: pixgirl on January 17, 2007, 01:09:03 am
gotta agree with John D, to think photo journalism hasn't been manipulated is a little naive. All photography film or digital is manipulated first  in scene selection then in camera through lens, film, apeture and speed choices and again in the wet or dry dark room.  The camera always lies to some degree......
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: Kirk Gittings on January 17, 2007, 02:32:25 am
What distinguishes photography as a fine art from other mediums is its unique relationship to actual events. Stray too far from that relationship (a very subjective standard for sure) and I loose interest in it as photography, though it may have some value to me as art.

Take Dan Burkeholders new work from New Orleans. For my tastes this has strayed too far, even though I find some of his techniques intriguing. These has lost that sense of time and place, i.e. actual event that gives photography its power. These are as close to the actual event as a comic strip is.

Dan Burkholder (http://www.danburkholder.com/neworleans/)
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: Ray on January 17, 2007, 04:41:40 am
Quote
This is a fairly modern ideal for photo journalism. During the American civil war, photographers did everything from dragging dead bodies around to pose them to adding clouds in order to increased the gloom and threatening appearance of a photograph.  Some of these men are considered historically important in the development of photo-journalism. 

Nothing done in Photoshop is really new to photography or to photojournalism.  If you consider journalism as communication by the reporter, then a retouched photograph added to a news story is no more than very same sort of communication as Pete Meyers discusses.  A photograph accompanying a story about destruction may carry the intent of the writer better if it clearly depicts what the journalist is discussing. We may argue that there is a loss of objectivity, but people never are objective.  The best one can achieve is a kind of pseudo-objectivity that can be easily more misleading than a photo altered to carry mood better.

That said, my preference is the same as yours .

John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86952\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

John,
This is an important point you make. Writing about events, in general, is a very subjective process. Two different people observing the same event, each trying as hard as they can, to be as objective as they can, will sometimes (perhaps often) come up with vastly different interpretations of what actually happened.

(Anyone who's been involved in a divorce case will understand this   ).

The fundamental problem here is the notion that the camera cannot lie; therefore an unmanipulated image tells the truth. To some degree this is so. Unattended video surveillance cameras probably fall into this category.

It is true that the camera cannot lie. Only people can lie (and probably chimpanzees and a few other creatures   ).

It's the use of the image that's significant here. An unmanipulated image that's used in a manipulative manner can be far more untruthful than a manipulated image used in an unmanipulated manner.

Journalists very often seek out images, any image relevant to a particular personality in the news, whether recent or old, whether in context or out of context, simply because they need an image to support the story.

If a journalist wishes to paint the Australian, David Hicks, who's been held in Guantanamo Bay without trial for several years, in a damaging 'light', all he has to do is drag up some photo of David holding a rifle and looking menacing. The photo might have been taken years ago, long before 9/11 and long before the American invasion of Afghanistan. The American public sees the image and imagines the gun is pointing at them. Poor David doesn't stand a chance. The damage is done. An unmanipulated image has been used in a devastatingly manipulative manner.
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: BernardLanguillier on January 17, 2007, 05:48:15 am
Quote
In the context of journalistic-photographs used in a media-reporting context, misleading the audience is the main concern.  In this respect cloning out is the big "no-no."  However, other enhancements, such as changing colors for example, can be just as misleading. 

Alain
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86740\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Alain,

Funny, I was reading other posts here, and just had the same thought that color manipulation (on purpose or not) could affect very much the impression conveyed by an image, and therefore be seen as a form of manipulation.

This is actually a huge problem and does IMHO question the validity of the use of B&W in photo-journalism for instance.  To me, it seems clear that B&W images depart from reality in a romantic way that prevents the viewer from feeling the attrocity of many of those images, war images for instance. By the way, the quest for beauty in photo-journalism is apparently one of the reasons why HCB left Magnum, and things haven't gotten better.

Then again, when using color, what is the right color balance? Should Daylight be used as in the film days, should a grey card be used as in studio? Either way, there is very often a departure from reality. Is it as bad as cloning? I personnally thing so.

Regards,
Bernard
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: alainbriot on January 17, 2007, 01:48:01 pm
Quote
Alain,

Funny, I was reading other posts here, and just had the same thought that color manipulation (on purpose or not) could affect very much the impression conveyed by an image, and therefore be seen as a form of manipulation.

This is actually a huge problem and does IMHO question the validity of the use of B&W in photo-journalism for instance.  To me, it seems clear that B&W images depart from reality in a romantic way that prevents the viewer from feeling the attrocity of many of those images, war images for instance. By the way, the quest for beauty in photo-journalism is apparently one of the reasons why HCB left Magnum, and things haven't gotten better.

Then again, when using color, what is the right color balance? Should Daylight be used as in the film days, should a grey card be used as in studio? Either way, there is very often a departure from reality. Is it as bad as cloning? I personnally thing so.

Regards,
Bernard
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=96140\")

Photographs are not reality.  They are the closest visual representation, with video, we have of reality.  Video isn't reality either, and has its own set of problems, different from photography but just as significant.  

Reality is, well, reality: ever changing, different for all of us (even if in minute ways) and constantly moving forward.  Any attempt to freeze reality in a single image has consequences regarding its meaning.  In short, its meaning is now reduced to that one image.  Further manipulation or changes to the image pushes this reduction further.  

This can be a blessing or a curse, as I explain in several of my essays (see Cameras and Art, The eye and the Camera and Just say yes, all available on this site at this link: [a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/briots_view.shtml] Briot's View Page[/url])

For me it is a blessing because it allows me to create my own reality, which is what I want to do.  If I had chosen to be a news photographer, my feelings about this may be different.  But again, who said that news photographers are not interested in creating their own visual reality as well?

Isn't there a conflict between having a recognizable personal style and creating photographs that are "real" and un-manipulated?
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: Fred Ragland on January 17, 2007, 03:58:14 pm
Quote
Photographs are not reality.  They are the closest visual representation...For me it is a blessing because it allows me to create my own reality, which is what I want to do.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=96197\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hmmm.  No, photographs aren't reality...usually, not even the closest visual representation.  Realism is defined as the "picturing in art and literature of people and things as they really appear to be, without idealism."  

I'm idealistic.  Its a great joy to create what I would like to have seen from the image captured by the camera.  The final image is not what I saw, but my idealized version of what I saw (after cropping from within the human view, using camera adjustments such as focus, iso, shutter speed and aperature to determine what will be emphasized and the levels of lightness and darkness in highlights and shadows...and then using software to adjust color, saturation, sharpness, etc).  As photographers, we don't create reality, we create idealized images.  

The artist in me is thankful for this.
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on January 17, 2007, 04:41:10 pm
If photography were reality, I would have quit years ago. Boring!
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: BernardLanguillier on January 17, 2007, 06:04:04 pm
Quote
For me it is a blessing because it allows me to create my own reality, which is what I want to do.  If I had chosen to be a news photographer, my feelings about this may be different.  But again, who said that news photographers are not interested in creating their own visual reality as well?

Isn't there a conflict between having a recognizable personal style and creating photographs that are "real" and un-manipulated?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=96197\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Fine art is of course a totally different matter, since departing from reality by creating one's own style is pretty much the very goal.

If news photography is trying to provide an as objective as possible representation of reality - which I believe we all believe - then it strikes me that the desire to apply a personnal style on top of scenes comes in the way of this search of objectivity.

Would we find normal to see the news on TV in B&W and slow motion because it corresponds to the style of the cameraman? We would immediately detect the falacy, but we somehow seem to find normal that B&W is used in news photography although it does clearly affect our perception of the content of the images as well.

I am not hoping to change the World of news photography, but this topic has been discussed little recently although the problem remains IMHO. Being aware of it is probably the best we can do.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: alainbriot on January 17, 2007, 06:32:13 pm
Quote
I am not hoping to change the World of news photography, but this topic has been discussed little recently although the problem remains IMHO. Being aware of it is probably the best we can do.
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=96265\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There's a lot more to be concerned about in news reporting besides images being in black and white and having a personal style.  I don't want to get into it here, but this was one of the areas of emphasis for my PhD so I have extensive knowledge on the subject. I call it Visual Rhetoric and that is usually how it is referred to as.  The same set of knowledge can be used in any venue where images are used to convey a message, which leaves very few venues out, if any.
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: ckimmerle on January 18, 2007, 03:53:21 pm
Quote
If news photography is trying to provide an as objective as possible representation of reality - which I believe we all believe - then it strikes me that the desire to apply a personnal style on top of scenes comes in the way of this search of objectivity.

Photojournalism is not, nor is it meant to be, an objective pursuit. It's nothing more than an interpretation of reality, or more precisely, an interpretation of a small portion of reality. As an interpretation it is subject to human frailties such as personal biases, creative aspirations, and technical expertise. That is why any given number of photographers at a particular event or scene will produce that same number of different images. That's alright, though, as journalism can never actually be objective as the reader/viewer brings along a suitcase full of their own biases and interpretations to every story/photo they see. That's not saying that photojournalists do not have to be honest, accurate and fair in their work (they must!) but, since those terms are subjective, it only stands to reason that their work is subjective.

As for what propels a photograph from the ranks of "picture" to heights of "fine art image", I think it boils down to a combination of talent, effort and intent. The photographer must make the effort to capture or create a unique image and to interpret (post process) the resulting file or film. As well, there must be the sincere intent of creating (as well as displaying?) a unique and compelling visual piece as well as the talent to so. Anything less is little more than a snapshot.
Chuck
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: Chris_T on January 20, 2007, 09:14:00 am
Quote
If news photography is trying to provide an as objective as possible representation of reality - which I believe we all believe - then it strikes me that the desire to apply a personnal style on top of scenes comes in the way of this search of objectivity.

Not "all" of us believe that. Regardless of genres or intents, *every* photograph is subjective as soon as it is taken, and hence the "reality" it captures can be considered manipulated.
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: Chris_T on January 20, 2007, 09:23:40 am
Quote
As for what propels a photograph from the ranks of "picture" to heights of "fine art image", I think it boils down to a combination of talent, effort and intent.

From the creators' perspective, perhaps those are the criterias for their own work (and why so many claim their work are "fine art"). Ultimately, art is in the eyes of the beholders. The only certainty is that there will be varied opinions, and some may change over time.
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: Kirk Gittings on January 20, 2007, 03:27:23 pm
Quote
As for what propels a photograph from the ranks of "picture" to heights of "fine art image", I think it boils down to a combination of talent, effort and intent.

I wish the issue was that stright forward. The market place also plays a role, elevating very straight forward documentary photography to "fine art" manytimes. Take Atget for instance, whose work is very documentary, yet because of the attention of John Szarkowski at the Museum of Modern Art in the mid 1980's, Atget became the darling of the fine art photography world.

On a lesser stage, my commercial architectural photography was never intended as art photography, yet in recent years museums have been showing my fine art and commercial work side by side with no distinction. A bit of a surprise to me, to say the least, and certainly not my "intent" with this commercial work.
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: ckimmerle on March 28, 2007, 11:22:08 am
Quote
A bit of a surprise to me, to say the least, and certainly not my "intent" with this commercial work.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=96756\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I know I'm two months late in my response, but I forgot about this thread  

By "intent", I did not mean the purposeful action of creating a fine art image, but rather the intent to say something meaningful with a photograph. That could certainly apply to commercial images, as is your experience.

Chuck
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: Armstrong on April 01, 2007, 11:24:54 pm
This is a nice post. Very informative. It's nice to hear your thoughts about this interesting topic.

___________________________
Motorola Manuals (http://www.manualshark.org/b/motorola-25/) -- Get free Motorola manuals
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: Kirk Gittings on April 01, 2007, 11:40:23 pm
Quote
By "intent", I did not mean the purposeful action of creating a fine art image, but rather the intent to say something meaningful with a photograph.

Nicely stated.......
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: Rob C on April 06, 2007, 01:10:57 pm
Two things, really:

a. can somebody cancel Armstrong;
b. do you really go out with the camera telling yourself you are going to create  
    'something meaningful'?

At best, it might be limiting your chances, and at worst it sounds a damn pretentious approach to photography to me.

Relax, take the thing as it happens and see what surprises mamma nature can throw your way; much in life comes to you when you least expect it and that's the basis for an old Indian proverb (Asian) which says: the secret of success is to be ready when your opportunity comes. Simple, but very true.

Ciao - Rob C
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on April 06, 2007, 01:55:55 pm
Quote
Two things, really:

a. can somebody cancel Armstrong;
b. do you really go out with the camera telling yourself you are going to create 
    'something meaningful'?

At best, it might be limiting your chances, and at worst it sounds a damn pretentious approach to photography to me.

Relax, take the thing as it happens and see what surprises mamma nature can throw your way; much in life comes to you when you least expect it and that's the basis for an old Indian proverb (Asian) which says: the secret of success is to be ready when your opportunity comes. Simple, but very true.

Ciao - Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111009\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Rob,

With respect to point a. -- Go to "My Controls" and under "Options" choose "Manage Ignored Users", unless you really want Motorola (etc.) Manuals.

With respect to point b. -- Years ago, when I was much younger, I did indeed go out often with the camera telling myself I was going to create 'something meaningful'. And, of course, it never worked (but it sure helped build up my anxiety levels). So you are absolutely right. I wish it hadn't taken me so many decades to learn to lighten up and see what's really there.
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: ckimmerle on April 11, 2007, 11:07:54 am
Quote
b. do you really go out with the camera telling yourself you are going to create 
    'something meaningful'?


Your misstating of my post aside, why would that be a bad thing? Do you really go out with a camera looking for nothing more than pretty pictures? I suspect not, but if so, how does your work differ from tourist's snapshot at the rim of the Grand Canyon or in front of the Eiffel Tower?

Intent IS an important factor, otherwise you relegate every great photographer to the rank of the lucky amateur, who just happened to be at the right place at the right time.

Chuck
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: Rob C on April 11, 2007, 01:14:39 pm
Quote
Your misstating of my post aside, why would that be a bad thing? Do you really go out with a camera looking for nothing more than pretty pictures? I suspect not, but if so, how does your work differ from tourist's snapshot at the rim of the Grand Canyon or in front of the Eiffel Tower?

Intent IS an important factor, otherwise you relegate every great photographer to the rank of the lucky amateur, who just happened to be at the right place at the right time.

Chuck
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111878\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Chuck

Intent is indeed an important factor, but the point I hoped I was making is simply that it isn't a matter of going out with a mission statement; it's a matter of going out with the knowledge that you ARE a photographer and whatever you decide to 'click' has already long passed the pretty picture stage; that your own temperament, experience and above all, eye, has matured to the extent that your final selection is from a choice of good pictures. That's the basic difference between pro and am: the am does it well on and off whilst the pro has to do it well every time.

There are many published accounts of great photographers - whatever that might be - who have had the luck to be at the right place at the right time. From war guys through landscape and certainly into fashion, chance plays an astoundingly significant role; the pro has the advantage of automatic technique but he still needs that break from above to do something spectacular.

I know this from long personal experience, but as I don't think of myself as 'great' I would refer you to Horvatland.com and suggest you read the interviews with a most impressive list of 'greats' and you'll discover that most of them go to work in a state of hoping for the best and working to get Lady Luck to smile during a moment of that shoot. Others, mostly of the classic European 'French' school (though hardly French themselves) admit to just standing around in the street waiting for something to happen. A luxury by today's costs, but then that was a different age and different photographic requirement were in place.

So, yes, I still think it pretentious, at least as you put it.

Ciao - Rob C
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: ckimmerle on April 11, 2007, 03:31:59 pm
Quote
.....and you'll discover that most of them go to work in a state of hoping for the best and working to get Lady Luck to smile during a moment of that shoot....

I agree, and they're doing so with the intent of creating something meaningful (whether it happens to work out, or not). I do not see why you consider that pretentious.

I dunno. Perhaps we're just arguing semantics.\

Regards,
Chuck
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: popnfresh on April 15, 2007, 06:41:52 pm
The question of what is art is as old as art itself and the debate will go on as long as there is art. Part of the debate I think comes from a confusion regarding the relationship of creativity and art.

In advertising, for example, you find many instances of creativity. But it is not art, in my opinion. An artist uses the medium to create a work primarily in service of beauty in a historical context with other works of art or as a commentary on the human condition, or both. Advertising uses the creative process to serve commerce. Anything else is a secondary consideration. Advertising may be beautiful, highly creative and very clever, but it isn't art. But paradoxically, a work of advertising may over time become art as its original purpose becomes obsolete and it takes on a new life as a historical object that comments on the milieu it sprang from. Context is everything.

In photography, it becomes an exercise of turning the reportage of a recording medium into art. It's a grey area. What makes it art and not simply a snapshot is a combination of technique and a compositional eye that determines whether or not the final result inspires us beyond the merely literal. A great work of photographic art derives its strength from a skillful combination of the literal, the graphic and occasionally the metaphorical. Art may be slippery to define, but it is always greater than the sum of its parts, and there is no art without an audience to appreciate that fact.
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: larsrc on April 18, 2007, 10:15:12 am
Quote
Two things, really:

a. can somebody cancel Armstrong;
b. do you really go out with the camera telling yourself you are going to create 
    'something meaningful'?

At best, it might be limiting your chances, and at worst it sounds a damn pretentious approach to photography to me.

Relax, take the thing as it happens and see what surprises mamma nature can throw your way; much in life comes to you when you least expect it and that's the basis for an old Indian proverb (Asian) which says: the secret of success is to be ready when your opportunity comes. Simple, but very true.

Ciao - Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111009\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Whether you have 'something meaningful' in mind or not is your own choice.  I see nothing wrong with going photographing looking specifically for compositions that support a particular viewpoint or story, that convey a certain idea or meaning that you have.  In that case, your success hinges both on finding and executing such compositions and on whether the viewpoint is "strong" enough to succeed (as art or by influencing opinion or whatever).  If the viewpoint is strong, it can give the pictures that extra punch that makes them successfull, but if it is weak it may do no more than make otherwise good pictures look pretentious.

If you go photographing with no conscious viewpoint, your pictures will have to stand on their own to a larger degree, for better or for worse.  I would venture that even if you haven't stated it consciously, you probably do have something you want to say, be it only (and very validly) "this place is beautiful".  Your viewpoint, conscious or not, is what determines how you compose your photos, whether you frame a flower or a discarded bottle.  You can choose to state your viewpoint explicitly, which means your photos will be seen with the viewpoint in mind and judged accordingly, or you can let the viewers derive what they want from your pictures.

I guess there's a certain risk associated with making the viewpoint explicit: It could be one that you just find you can't make photos to support, or it can be a viewpoint that nobody cares about.  (I'm assuming there's some kind of coimmercial intent for the photography, such as selling fine art prints.)  

Photojournalism is a genre where you always have a viewpoint, namely that of illustrating a news story.  For arts, it's up to the artist - Yann Arthus-Bertrand for instance has an explicit environmental message and has success with it, I'm pretty sure he goes out looking for 'something meaningful' rather than just taking it as it happens.

That's a long ramble just to say: Both approaches are valid.

-Lars
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: alainbriot on April 19, 2007, 09:20:46 pm
Quote
... I would refer you to Horvatland.com and suggest you read the interviews with a most impressive list of 'greats' ...

Rob,

That's a great site. Thank you for the link.
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on April 19, 2007, 11:50:23 pm
Quote
Rob,

That's a great site. Thank you for the link.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113342\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ditto!!
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: jgeorgie33 on July 26, 2007, 01:34:07 pm
Art is art if the creator deems it so.
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: Rob C on July 26, 2007, 03:36:58 pm
Missed this part of the forum for quite a long time; to those who appreciated Frank Horvat´s site I say you´re welcome - its always good to feel you´ve given somebody, somewhere, some innocent pleasure.

Ciao - Rob C
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: Moynihan on January 17, 2008, 10:21:32 pm
Thanks for the interesting link to look at.
The thread reminded me of something I heard a journalism professor say one time.
He said, do not strive for objectivity, which is impossible. Strive for accuracy.
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: drew on February 04, 2008, 10:30:22 am
Quote
The question of what is art is as old as art itself and the debate will go on as long as there is art. Part of the debate I think comes from a confusion regarding the relationship of creativity and art.

In advertising, for example, you find many instances of creativity. But it is not art, in my opinion. An artist uses the medium to create a work primarily in service of beauty in a historical context with other works of art or as a commentary on the human condition, or both. Advertising uses the creative process to serve commerce. Anything else is a secondary consideration. Advertising may be beautiful, highly creative and very clever, but it isn't art. But paradoxically, a work of advertising may over time become art as its original purpose becomes obsolete and it takes on a new life as a historical object that comments on the milieu it sprang from. Context is everything.

In photography, it becomes an exercise of turning the reportage of a recording medium into art. It's a grey area. What makes it art and not simply a snapshot is a combination of technique and a compositional eye that determines whether or not the final result inspires us beyond the merely literal. A great work of photographic art derives its strength from a skillful combination of the literal, the graphic and occasionally the metaphorical. Art may be slippery to define, but it is always greater than the sum of its parts, and there is no art without an audience to appreciate that fact.

Great thread and I think the above is beautifully put. Looks like others have already gone over the same ground that I have here http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=22882 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=22882)
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: drew on February 04, 2008, 10:31:46 am
Did anyone buy any of Armstrong's Motorola manuals?
Title: Is it a Photo or fine art image
Post by: drew on February 04, 2008, 10:32:57 am
Whoops, I see they were free. Anybody get any free ones?