So, what is Art anyway? What's the place of Photography there?

Definition of Art

When we travelled
to an arty town
we found most artists
own their galleries.

What about this?
Art defined
as things on display
in an art gallery

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Schaeffer

Definition of Art

What about this?
Art defined
as things on display
in an art gallery

---

Gee, I don't know about that, Don. I've seen some pretty strange stuff in art galleries -- like a pyramid of canned food titled 'Safeway', or a pile of garbage titled 'Garbage'.
Basically, that's saying anything is art, as long as you put it in an art gallery. Also, what you see in commercial galleries is way different from what you see in so called 'fine art' galleries. When I see some of the paintings our National Art Gallery wastes tens of thousands of dollars on, I have to shake my head and wonder what they're thinking. They could have gotten an elephant at the zoo to do the same thing and paid for it with peanuts. And more people probably would come to see it too, just because it was painted by an elephant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kajuah

Art is crap that rich people buy.

:lol:
my two cents

---

Yeah! thats right! Hahahaha

Whiteboard video is very flexible and modifiable because it is entirely shoot. Whiteboard video can be or real white board cam shoot or digital. Digital whiteboard is created using vector based software such as Flash, After Effects and Illustrator, meaning it is extremely scalable which allows us to be more creative with transitions as we are not limited by pixel count.

I see this topic has been going on for a while- thought I'd throw in a couple thoughts

Photography as Art--
All great photography is photography as art. In many cases the element which imbues the photograph with that essence we recognize as something extraordinary - something better than the average- is that it presents the subject in an artistic way. The composition is pleasing, the lines are classic and interesting, the content speaks to something beyond the particular - something universal. The same elements for which we admire a painting or a sculpture are those which we see in the photograph.
Some would argue that a landscape or portrait photographer is not an artist, but a technician. However, they would not attempt to argue that landscape and portrait painters are not artists. And photography of these subjects, when done well, is great for the same reasons and in the same ways that the paintings of these subjects are recognized as great. The question then is proposed, -- at what point does photography move from representational to something more? A straightforward photo of a pretty landscape, flower, or building can be admired for the photographers ability to manipulate the camera, but not for his artistic talents. On the other hand there are some photos of these subjects that seem to cross a threshold and we do recognize artistic talent in the photographer. I think it is the question which haunts many photographers-- how to find the missing element that will move their photography from the mundane to the sublime.


Fine Art Photography--
Most of the time this refers to artistic creations which have used photographic elements in their creation, much as a sculptor might use blocks of marble or a modern artist might use hubcaps and old boards to make a composite work. In many cases the photography in itself is remote from the finished work and seemingly almost incidental.


Some photographers feel that all photography is simply artless technical manipulation by monkey button pushers -- except for photography which strives to be representative of emotional states. The style which they usually mean by this is typically black and white, blurry, and so subjective as to be emotionally inaccessible to most who view the photos. This seems like self-serving elitism to me.

Photography as gestalt--
I am assuming here that photography is photos taken intentionally and with at lease the minimum of thought process by the taker. Not night deposit webcams.
A possible explanation of what photography is might be that: It is the view of the world as seen by the photographer at that instant. Photography is to its core a medium that has sharing as it's intent. Even if the photos are only to be shared with oneself later, when the photos are taken they are to be viewed at a later time by ourselves or by others. If this were not true then you would indeed be doing nothing but playing with a machine (the camera).

A photograph is then a view of the world as the photographer saw it at that moment with the intent of saying "this is what I saw, this is what the world looks like to me". A snapshot taker is representing the world they see as truly as the artist-- it is just not a very interesting or universal view. Beauty and artistically pleasing views of the world are everywhere around us all the time-- in pushing to make photography into art, one strives to see the world in that way. When photography becomes something more, it is because the photographer has succeeded in seeing the world in that way that represents universal truths or has a unique perspective others had missed, and capturing it so that others can see it as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hnratcp123

Photography is a form of art and one should understand this before giving false comments.

---

It's not really that simple. The discussion here is really about defining what constitutes "Art." True, photography is an art form or medium. But at is it really "Art" in the highest sense of the word. And if so, what makes it art?

I personally think that art can be whatever you want it to be. For instance an artist who's name I forget sent a urinal that was turned sideways into an art show. Art is something through your own eyes, something that is created or edited.

In the world of art, it is not about where the exact place so that you can gather some best photography. And in my stand about this, art also is making gaining some skill that relate in the world of imagination.

I just love that as soon as photography became available painting had such interesting and experimental movements because it was challenged by the invention of photography. Now, photography is changing as well with new techniques (well recently popular) of lightpainting HDR and others. It's amazing to see an art form evolve and photography definitely is.

photography doesn't need to say something. Its just an awesome. anyone here interested in car photography?

Hi, In my own understanding, photography is an expression of what we have taken from an object we shoot in a form of art. Typically, when we thought about arts we mean our creativity towards something that we appreciate:)

Well, the topic is really deep.
What is art?) It depends on a person. Someone thinks that everything that is beautiful is art. someone thinks that its not important for the art to be beautiful and art should be with a message.
Photo as art..I think that photo is art, because the person who makes it should have special skills to show something whether its beautiful or not, with a message or without it.

Well for me, more than an art, photography is an extension of my emotion. I take pictures whenever I am sad or happy, and the output really says a lot with my current feelings.

Well, this is one of the most intriguing questions I have ever had.

For me, photography is an exquisite form of art. It is because it involves capturing a moment, in it's entirety and absolute perfection. A moment which is gone forever and cannot be recreated again.

Photography enables us to retain these moments as fresh memories. :')

For me, that's art.

There is definitely art in photography. That is my take.

I think that when we create an image looking so attractive and beautiful by doing some technique of Photoshop software then we call it Photography art

according to me, art is appropriate if you see it will be a very has value

According to me, Digital Art is a thought or a vision. Photography is the intrinsic part of that vision and Photoshop today completes the vision. Truth be told- no Art which includes photography moves in public without Photoshop touch up. Photoshop and Photography are 2 linked layers. If you want to bring out art - you will have to move both together.

In a broad perspective there is Art in Photography and Art in Photoshopping.

So, if art needs Photoshopping why don't photos from people like Ansel Adams need Photoshop?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gary C

So, if art needs Photoshopping why don't photos from people like Ansel Adams need Photoshop?

---

Ansel Adams used photoshop, only at the time it was called a "Wet Darkroom".

Ansel's art was a dodging or burning paddle still well within the art of a brush only used on photographic prints. That's a far cry from clicking auto color and contrast correction on Photoshop or some other correction. Ansel could see the emotion of a scene and how it would appear on a B&W print instinctively. Until we have that we don't have art. So is that an instinct or an accident or an ability to compose for us and how does it apply to color.

Hi, For me, art is being creative in anything you do. Likewise, you can create art in photography by adding some virtual art practices. This will help a photographer to engage in his craft successfully. I believe that this could be one example in which art is in photography itself.

Photography is an art related because you put effort and creates something beautiful out of a photo taken.

thank you for all the tips. Useful!