Asylum Steve Suggested That I Post This Here...

I posted this in critique and Steve saw something in the image worth discussing in the "art" forum. I won't quote him for now - he may prefer to make his own comment. I'll also hold off my own comment for a little while.
<br>
So, is it art?
<br>
<img src="http://forums.photographyreview.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8012&stc=1">
<br>
Oh, by the way, I just linked the html to the image posted in critique. It's not following the rules per se, but doesn't take up any more server space either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lava Lamp

So, is it art?

---

I don't think so. The emotions evoked are for the subject, not the photo as a whole. I'd classify it as more Documentary. Maybe what Photojournalism would look like in butterfly society, ha ha. But not art.

Colors are good, technique is good. But the contents of the photo do not come together and create through synergy something bigger than themselves. It doesn't have meaning.

I fully agree. This picture has very good illustrative qualities, but there is no story that it can tell, or at least no story that I can see

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kellybean

I don't think so. The emotions evoked are for the subject, not the photo as a whole. I'd classify it as more Documentary. Maybe what Photojournalism would look like in butterfly society, ha ha. But not art.

Colors are good, technique is good. But the contents of the photo do not come together and create through synergy something bigger than themselves. It doesn't have meaning.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irakly Shanidze

I fully agree. This picture has very good illustrative qualities, but there is no story that it can tell, or at least no story that I can see

---

Story equals art? You talk so much nonsense lately. Take for example abstract art. Thousands of museums are filled with it. I guess you just call it illustrations... :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lava Lamp

I posted this in critique and Steve saw something in the image worth discussing in the "art" forum. I won't quote him for now - he may prefer to make his own comment. I'll also hold off my own comment for a little while.
<br>
So, is it art?
<br>
<img src="http://forums.photographyreview.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8012&stc=1">
<br>
Oh, by the way, I just linked the html to the image posted in critique. It's not following the rules per se, but doesn't take up any more server space either.

---

Most of the photos I take are documentary. I shoot a lot of wildlife. My primary goal is to "capture" wildlife in my area as clearly as I can.

This particular photo didn't really meet my own standards in that it isn't as sharp and clear as I would like. I was struck, however, by the missing wing and when I posted it in critique, two critics mentioned that they felt "sad" in looking at it. Even before that, I thought there was a clear allegory represented - that beauty is fleeting. Perhaps it reminds us that the pretty ones die, too. I found it easy to imagine a "story."

Steve's point I mentioned is on the critique board. To paraphrase him, artistic tension is created by the missing wing, since we expect it to be there.

i thought you knew that the whole concept of abstract art is to convey an idea in an abstract form. ideal equals story. it looks like you'd benefit from some learning. woould you like to take my online class on creativity in photography?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysian

Story equals art? You talk so much nonsense lately. Take for example abstract art. Thousands of museums are filled with it. I guess you just call it illustrations... :o

---

Boy this is a tough room! To me, this is a no-brainer. The flaws in this shot are exactly what give it meaning and make is so artistic...

First of all, nature in itself and by itself most definitely qualifies as art, regardless of what "story" a photo portrays (or doesn't, as the case may be).

It may not be everyone's cup of tea (in fact, it really isn't mine), but natural beauty is indeed one of the great themes of artistic photography and as such will always stand on its own.

That aside, my facination with LL's pic is the notion of "damaged"or "imperfect" beauty, the missing wing piece not only creating a marvelous tension in an otherwise harmonious composition, but also providing meaning and concept to the pic, thus elevating it way beyond simple documentation.

As a viewer, looking at the damaged butterfly made me do some thinking. How was the wing damaged? What could have possibly happened that did this, but did not kill the insect?

What I see when I look at this shot is a potential theme for an exhibition or whole series of images...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asylum Steve

Boy this is a tough room! To me, this is a no-brainer. The flaws in this shot are exactly what give it meaning and make is so artistic...

First of all, nature in itself and by itself most definitely qualifies as art, regardless of what "story" a photo portrays (or doesn't, as the case may be).

It may not be everyone's cup of tea (in fact, it really isn't mine), but natural beauty is indeed one of the great themes of artistic photography and as such will always stand on its own.

That aside, my facination with LL's pic is the notion of "damaged"or "imperfect" beauty, the missing wing piece not only creating a marvelous tension in an otherwise harmonious composition, but also providing meaning and concept to the pic, thus elevating it way beyond simple documentation.

As a viewer, looking at the damaged butterfly made me do some thinking. How was the wing damaged? What could have possibly happened that did this, but did not kill the insect?

What I see when I look at this shot is a potential theme for an exhibition or whole series of images...

---

" art is what we see"

I can already see that we all need to get out of the habit of simply posting an image and asking, "is it art?".

That's not the purpose of this forum...

I think we've already established that ANY image can be considered art under the right circumstances.

What we need to foucs on are things like, "how successsful does this work as an artistic image and why?", "what feelings does this shot evoke in you as a viewer?", "how can I take this photo to the next level?".

Also, the posters should give some back story on posted or linked pics, letting us know what the motivation or inspiration was, whether something was pre-visualized or perhaps a happy accident...

THAT is the best way to stimulate meaningful discussion, not simply asking for a thumb's up or down...

Asylum Steve

I fully agree with you except the part that requires explanation of the story behind the photograph. During the "creative" process, starting from generating an idea and finishing with a press of a sutter release, I change my mind so many times that the result might be completely different from the original idea, especially some of the "accidental" shots. So, there's no point of explaining it, plus it takes the "magic" away. But I really enjoy hearing how other people interpret my pictures (although I don't always agree).