Art or...

[shesells]

Mike, first let me say that this new photo of mother and child is just beautiful. More striking than any of the other images we are discussing, even though those are nice too. This one just blows me away!

The first part of your reply is very interesting and I guess there is more than one way to skin a cat. You have the experience, so you would know more I'm sure. All I know is what I see and I can tell when the photog has brought out a special feeling to a model. Either way is good I'm sure. Im not familiar with Jock Sturges, but I'll research him. (especially since he's a jock :P )
Now to answer this part:

I'm still having problems with your view of art. I'll use your "garden" image for my point (I do like this image, so please don't take this wrong). You may not see images like that on a regular basis. OTH, companies make plug-ins that simplify the process to make an image like that (whether you used one or not). Enough of it is done that it validates the company marketing this product. It's only not mainstream that it hasn't made it into too many mainstream publications (tv/movies/or mags and books).

I don't take offence at all, but I think you are guessing at this because you haven't done this type of work. Someone who has knows that no filter or action could do all that a graphic artist does. It's very complicated and using advance ps techniques. A lot of hand work and decision making along the way. A plug in also can't make composites of many pieces fit together, this is all done in a painstaking way. Also the fact that the original photos are mine and the art work is mine, makes it strictly my piece. It's the old purist argument. They only like pure photography, like you mentioned Ansel Adams. But problem is, he burned and dodged images in the darkroom. He set up lighting and played with exposure settings to get his results. Post processing is no different than darkroom manipulation. It's just hard to get that point across. When a photog uses artificial light...that instantly puts him in the same category of one who does post processing of an image...think about it! All artists put their spin on things, thats what the masters did and thats what photogs do. There is graphic art and there is photograpic art and a mixture of the two or more. Basically multimedia art. BTW I just gave a brief description of what I did to that piece in answer to one of the critiques. Check it out.. but it is by no means complete. I actually worked about 10 hours on it. but loved doing it lol.

Anti-art and shock photography usually loses my interest after the initial impact. Whereas, I can wonder around an (original done by) Ansel A for quite some time. This is why I didn't like someones comment on Penny's pics about boosting saturation, constrast, etc. It does simplify for the web. IMO, after the initial impact there's not much look at.
To bring this further by analogy, is one type of music better than another? As someone whose played instruments most my life, I don't think there is. I hear very talanted people and some not as much so. Whether it be pop, heavy metal, jazz, etc. But I like to listen to how melodies interact, how the flow of the song goes. While most people I know prefer great lyrics. They'll view a great lyrisist as very artistic. Much more so than a great musician. Whereas, I listen for how the vocals interact with the rest of the melodies.

To me, these two paragraphs contradict each other. In the first you are saying that you like the untouched photography of ansel adams (though it really isnt untouched) and don't like manipulated art. In the second paragraph you are saying that you appreciate all kinds of music, including lyrics and instruments etc. The whole point is there is a whole range of what people like or don't . As for manipulated photos. Let's take my ' midnight ' as an example. I made artificial light in the scene. How is that different than setting up artificial light on a model? It's exactly the same, enhancing something that is already beautiful through artificial means. It's individualized and personal. There is no one way to do things. Nor does only one thing make it art. Like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is art.

Well, I am slowly moving towards your direction in understanding how many define fine art photography from other forms. Maybe I should keep viewing myself as a craftsman and not an artist?
Here is a shot that's completely a grab, even though it's in a studio environment. Would this be more arty? Even though it's relatively easy lighting scheme, it still uses principles that many have a hard time with.
Mike
PS: I did a paid job yesterday for an aspiring actor. Today I have a model coming over to just let me play. Maybe I'll try something new ;)

I think that piece is fantastic, natural and you caught a piece of love on film. I'm glad you're getting paid for your work, you deserve it. If I had to say in one sentence my whole point woud be this: Art cannot just be a documentation of a subject. Because, why should the artist take credit for something that was already there and made by somone else (or God). But, let the artist see that subject in a whole other way (much like kids see things we dont see) and if he is able to show us his special vision, then that makes it art. Was that one sentence? heh
Now get over to my thread and appreciate my pic! lol It may not be good art, but it is art. lol
Kit