Post by: krissel on February 26, 2010, 03:11:18 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/technolo...ogue-email.html
Several years ago we had this discussion in art circles as to whether digital imaging belonged in the same category as prints that were pulled off the press by hand. Never came to an amicable agreement.
Post by: kimmer on February 26, 2010, 03:54:51 AM
QUOTE
Maybe, these days, the question isn't "What is a photograph?"; it's "What is reality?"
This final question is really the key to so many things, especially since we now have all this "reality" TV. Plus, "historical fiction" is a big genre now, and so many folks read it and think it's true. So what is reality?
Post by: jchuzi on February 26, 2010, 05:24:03 AM
Post by: Paddy on February 26, 2010, 10:09:32 AM
Post by: Xairbusdriver on February 26, 2010, 11:22:03 AM
"A photograph is in the eye of the photographer."
With that in mind, one could easily argue that the final display is what the photographer had in mind, all along. The technical details in arriving there are irrelevant. I don't recall this kind of 'discussion' about painting. At least not today. 'Art" seems to be just about anything the 'artist' wants it to be. Is photography not considered 'art?' I've always thought of it that way.
One can define the rules of a contest any way that is desired. It's up to the judges to decide if an entry followed the rules or not. Just as it's up to the contestant to understand what the rules are before entering. Most contest specify that the judges decisions are final. If you can't live with that, don't enter the contest. Or, start your own!
I suspect that some of this 'discussion' comes from those who don't have the skills or the tools (or both) to replicate some of the winners entries. It's fine to disagree, but arguing about it, after the fact, is usually a waste of time and energy. Could affect the future, of course...
Post by: Xairbusdriver on February 26, 2010, 02:29:29 PM
Post by: kbeartx on February 26, 2010, 04:11:46 PM
QUOTE(Xairbusdriver @ Feb 26 2010, 02:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Peaking of "Art"...<BBQ Ribs Inspire Atrist>
"Atrist"...?
Is this something new I have not heard of, or something "in the eye of the beholder"?
- Kbear
Post by: Paddy on February 26, 2010, 04:25:15 PM
Post by: krissel on February 26, 2010, 09:18:56 PM
In my early years of entering art shows I had mostly pencil and pen and ink drawings which often were in competition with prints (etchings, aquatints, etc.) as well as black and white photographs. This always irked me since they are all so different. For some reason the people who set up the categories thought that because they didn't use color they were to be judged against each other.
Over the years the categories became a bit more sophisticated in the larger shows but even more mixed up in smaller shows. I started showing my etchings eventually and looked for shows that specialized in printmaking so the competition was more reasonable. Then the digital question started to complicate things. Were prints from electronic means to be allowed in the same category as hand-pulled etchings? Most of the time they tried to keep them separate but the debate lingers.
Post by: Xairbusdriver on February 26, 2010, 10:05:49 PM
Let's just say you should stand behind it after the fuse is lit! :ouch: OK, ok, back to the 'art' thing...Oh yeah, I nearly forgot, anyone remember the contests GM had back in the middle of the last Century? They would supply a kid with a set of four rubber tires and all you had to do was create a body (with head/stop lights, windshield, windows, intake, bumpers, etc.) that the tires were to be mounted on. The thing didn't have to work in any way, the wheels didn't eve have to roll. The 'car' could be built from clay, wood, steel, brick, whatever. But it would be judged by the GM designers (yeah, right...and I still have my Ovaltine Decoder ring, too)! Fortunately for me, there were very few entries for my State the year I entered...
So I have to admit to have entered some 'artistic' work in a contest... 
When I drew up some plans, cut out pieces of balsa wood, constructed, painted and finally flew a model airplane, was I creating 'performance art?'
Did it make any difference that it crashed? 
My point is, when what is "best" is determined by any one group, the rest of the world may not agree. So, what's the point of the contest, anyway. I'm pretty sure that 99.9% of any contestants work is considered 'art' by the contestant (and probably his mother and dad, no matter what the artists age!).
I guess my feeling is that arguing about which is what and why, in this case, is at best futile and at worst, life-threatening! "Better to go back to the 'studio' and make some more art."
Just be careful not to cut your ear off... 
Post by: krissel on February 27, 2010, 12:15:06 AM
True it is totally subjective and I often noted who the judges were before bothering to enter a show with any idea of getting an award. In some cases I only did so in order to sell my work and get public notice for future sales. It also helped in my resumé for teaching purposes.
Post by: sandbox on February 27, 2010, 01:33:31 AM
QUOTE
"It depends on the purpose of the photo."
A photo for home and viewers fully aware of the alterations to a photo would be (no harm no foul) With evidentiary photos or ID photos more scrutiny should be applied. I occasionally take photos for the media and know photo journalists who do it professionally, tweaking photos in some cases is a definite no-no. Using Photoshop on any photo use in evidence can establish doubt. A friend who publishes a newspaper is criticized either way, photos as well as storylines are challenged constantly. The ethical line is often blurred with quality and taste, so it’s important to have as much information about a photo as you can.
Art has value which opens the door to profitable misrepresentation, so an educated eye is paramount. Eye candy for entertainment value is most likely the only place freedom to be creative could be comfortably applied.
Post by: Xairbusdriver on February 27, 2010, 07:54:00 AM
But that's exactly the question raised in the original post. Apparently some confuse 'art' with technology. I think there is a more distinct division than some see. While I don't disparage any one from entering a contest for financial/career help, my point is that 'art' has it's own value to whom ever gets enjoyment from it. And even that definition can be taken to the extreme. And, remember, what some may call "eye candy" today could very well be praised as 'art' some time in the future. It happens all the time. And I certainly hope that no "creativity" is discouraged because some see it only as entertainment! To me, "creativity" is the kernel of all art. Without "creativity" our life would be pretty boring. Perhaps that's why some are bored. Of course, I agree with sandbox that anything having to do with proving or demonstrating something must also be 'proven' to be authentic. But it seems that may become an 'infinite loop' as technology advances...
I couldn't help but become interested in this story reported today on "<On the Media>."
I have to admit that I feel this is pushing my boundaries as to calling it "art!" But it does present an amazing array of ideas into the piece; electronics, materials handling, legal issues, ownership definitions, the dependance on future use, dependance on current businesses, etc. Not to mention the question of power supply!!! 
Post by: sandbox on February 27, 2010, 11:38:49 AM
Defining photography as an art form exclusively should have to demonstrate that the same photo (material, instrument) was manipulated by many in a different way to present a measurable uniqueness…or that something was uniquely created and not just captured. A hunter is not an artist per say.
What is photo art?
Is art, what is captured on a photo? Would that not be less art and more skill or luck?
The art would be defined in the presentation. The raw photo could be defined as a wonderful capture, whereas a complimentary frame could alter the perspective of the viewer and give insight into the creative genius of the artist.
If a photo is art, in and of itself then, a person’s selection of a canvas, tapestry or instrument should define one as an artist before the picture is painted or the music played.
If one has one hundred photos to choose from is it an art to select the right one? Or is it a skill? For me art is created not selected, and taking a photo is selecting to capture something first, and then the artist can take it from there giving them something to apply a art form too.
Post by: Xairbusdriver on February 27, 2010, 04:50:41 PM
An artistic picture is so much more than a "capture." I suppose the "realists" were not 'artists' either since they started painting things almost exactly how they looked...because they didn't have a camera, yet? 
Post by: krissel on February 28, 2010, 12:30:09 AM
Art may be one of the most explained of human endeavors but the least understood.
And that is the crucial element, the human involvement. One may recognize a pleasing pattern or expression of color, form or composition in a natural occurrence via a photograph or other media, but unless it is 'altered' in some way by human hand it isn't really 'Art'. (my definition )
One of my favorite quotes is by a professor from college. After a similar discussion one day he said, "If Art and Life are the same, then one of them is unnecessary."
Post by: sandbox on February 28, 2010, 12:51:58 AM
QUOTE(Xairbusdriver @ Feb 27 2010, 05:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So, you don't consider Ansel Adams an 'artist.' An artistic picture is so much more than a "capture." I suppose the "realists" were not 'artists' either since they started painting things almost exactly how they looked...because they didn't have a camera, yet?
An artistic picture is so much more than a "capture." I suppose the "realists" were not 'artists' either since they started painting things almost exactly how they looked...because they didn't have a camera, yet? I've spent many-a-day and night climbing on the landscapes that are on display at Ansel Adams museum at Yosemite.
Sometimes he was creating something unseen, on the cutting edge, and if someone today creates something new, a technique, hardware or software, applying a personal touch, then it may cross into an art form, something to be determined by their peers.
I know what I like and when I see a exceptional photo I can say the person who took it was a good photographer, but i wouldn't say they were a good artist. To some, this is a distinction without out a difference, but I just don't place them in the category, though a photographer can be an artist and vice versa.
Post by: sandbox on February 28, 2010, 12:57:19 AM
QUOTE(krissel @ Feb 28 2010, 01:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I almost put this in Community but decided to offer it here so that it would be more likely to be seen by our member photographers.
Art may be one of the most explained of human endeavors but the least understood.
And that is the crucial element, the human involvement. One may recognize a pleasing pattern or expression of color, form or composition in a natural occurrence via a photograph or other media, but unless it is 'altered' in some way by human hand it isn't really 'Art'. (my definition )
One of my favorite quotes is by a professor from college. After a similar discussion one day he said, "If Art and Life are the same, then one of them is unnecessary."
Art may be one of the most explained of human endeavors but the least understood.
And that is the crucial element, the human involvement. One may recognize a pleasing pattern or expression of color, form or composition in a natural occurrence via a photograph or other media, but unless it is 'altered' in some way by human hand it isn't really 'Art'. (my definition )
One of my favorite quotes is by a professor from college. After a similar discussion one day he said, "If Art and Life are the same, then one of them is unnecessary."
QUOTE
"If Art and Life are the same, then one of them is unnecessary." smile.gif
A articulate definition iMight add!!!
Post by: Xairbusdriver on February 28, 2010, 06:39:38 AM
If anything, this thread proves, once again, that "art" is in the eye of the beholder. I have no problem with that, just as I have no problem with each of us having a different opinion about what constitutes "art." fini.
Post by: sunset on February 28, 2010, 11:52:25 PM
QUOTE(krissel @ Feb 26 2010, 09:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
That's the problem we had with trying to put certain types of art work into categories for judging purposes at shows. There was always someone who didn't like their work entered into a particular media group. We usually ended up submitting the questionable works into "mixed media" which covered all kinds of anomalies. Ultimately it was up to the artist to agree to the placement or withdraw their work.
In my early years of entering art shows I had mostly pencil and pen and ink drawings which often were in competition with prints (etchings, aquatints, etc.) as well as black and white photographs. This always irked me since they are all so different. For some reason the people who set up the categories thought that because they didn't use color they were to be judged against each other.
Over the years the categories became a bit more sophisticated in the larger shows but even more mixed up in smaller shows. I started showing my etchings eventually and looked for shows that specialized in printmaking so the competition was more reasonable. Then the digital question started to complicate things. Were prints from electronic means to be allowed in the same category as hand-pulled etchings? Most of the time they tried to keep them separate but the debate lingers.
In my early years of entering art shows I had mostly pencil and pen and ink drawings which often were in competition with prints (etchings, aquatints, etc.) as well as black and white photographs. This always irked me since they are all so different. For some reason the people who set up the categories thought that because they didn't use color they were to be judged against each other.
Over the years the categories became a bit more sophisticated in the larger shows but even more mixed up in smaller shows. I started showing my etchings eventually and looked for shows that specialized in printmaking so the competition was more reasonable. Then the digital question started to complicate things. Were prints from electronic means to be allowed in the same category as hand-pulled etchings? Most of the time they tried to keep them separate but the debate lingers.
Kris, et al-- a lot of what's being discussed here is the reason that, until very recently, fine art fairs/shows have required artists to submit slides of their work instead of photographs because the latter can be manipulated. Because most people have gone to digital photography, they no longer have the equipment to produce slides. The slide film is very hard to find and, if one is able to buy it, there are very few, if any, places that process it. It's understandable that people don't want to depend on the U.S. mail to have that done.
Because of this, it's difficult for those who are judging entries to make a determination on acceptability of one's work--and, as has been pointed out, what category the work should be entered in...?
What's my point???
just food for thought, I guess... 
Laurel
Post by: Mayo on March 01, 2010, 12:46:21 PM
Photography has never been about creating a strict interpretation of reality. A photograph may be interpreted by some as being closer to “reality” than a painting, but it is still an interpretive creation. The fact that a photograph is created (not “taken,” a term that has never made any sense to me...) by a human being implies that a particular point of view influenced the photograph from the start: the angle of view, exposure settings, lens filtration, etc..
Photography has always relied on a variety of technical processes and manipulations to make the imagery possible. The choices that a photographer makes is analogous to an artist deciding whether to use oil, watercolor or another technique to produce an artwork on canvas, paper or some other medium. A photo made without the benefit of film choice, filtration and knowledgeable manipulation during development and printing/reproduction fits my definition of “artless.” The tools and terminology may have changed in the digital age, but similar decisions and manipulations are still being made. We may have more options available and it might be easier to produce photographs that have been substantially manipulated, but the essence of photography remains pretty much the same as it as always been.
I have to laugh when some people hold up Ansel Adams’ works as being the essence of “pure photography,” with little or no manipulation of the final image. In fact Adams’ work was highly “manipulated” right from the start, up to and including the final print.
Adams developed the well-known “Zone System” in order to effectively deal with the inherent limitations of film, developing and printing. He would carefully expose a single sheet of film and then individually develop the negative to enhance the tonal range of the negative. He would then manipulate the final print by giving more or less exposure to printing paper and “dodging” and “burning” during the print making process.
Adams was able to produce such beautiful prints in part because he typically shot using large-format cameras using film as large as 8x10 inches. Film that large can capture detail and a tonal range that is simply impossible to attain when using 35mm film and the relatively small sensors found in current DSLRs.
Most if not all of Adams’ most famous images would look terrible without the active involvement of the photographer in each stage of the process; a so-called “straight print” from a typical Adams negative would not look very good at all. And most people do not realize that Adams’ prints of his well known images often changed during his long career depending on Adams’ mood and his changing interpretation of his original visualization of the final print.
Most of us are familiar with Adam’s most famous image “Moonrise, Hernandez, NM, 1941.” The image we usually see on postcards and posters has very high contrast with bright-white headstones in a cemetery backed by an almost pitch-black sky. It is a very dramatic photograph. But there are other prints of the same image that Adams made that are not nearly as dramatic. The sky is gray, not black; you could say that it is a more “realistic” representation of what Adams saw the day he made the original exposure and, at least in the beginning of his work with the image, it is presumably how Adams originally visualized the final print. But over time Adams’ interpretation changed to become the iconic print we know and love. (Or perhaps Adams’ discovered that print buyers preferred the more dramatic version and so he abandoned the delicate tonality of the earlier prints.)
At any rate, all versions of “Moonrise” tend to command high prices at art auctions. In December 2009 one of the early subtle prints sold for $306,000. Another version of “Moonrise” sold at the same auction for $48,000. Keep in mind that sale prices for “Moonrise” prints are dependent on the condition and size of the print; Adam’s made some very large prints of “Moonrise” and those tend to command the highest prices. I didn’t bother to find out the specifics of the two prints auctioned in 2009.
I’d like to mention that while Adams’ reputation was built upon his consummate darkroom skills and he is mainly known for large-format black and white prints, for many years he was a paid consultant of the Polaroid Corporation and he loved to make images using a SX-70 camera. I think that Adams would be diving into digital imaging with great enthusiasm if he was alive today.
So here we are in 2010... And we are still manipulating photographic images, but now we have software tools to aid us. Whereas in the not-so-distant past a photographer might employ a split neutral-density filter in order to compress the dynamic range of a scene that otherwise exceeds the capability of film to record, he/she can elect to make multiple exposures and use software to combine them to create an image with a tonal range beyond the capability of a digital camera sensor. Using a filter is still an option and they can be useful, but the software solution is generally going to offer a greater tonal range because the filters are limited in that regard. And expensive too: my set of top of-the-line ND grad filters cost around $400 when I purchased them years ago...
I think that the issue of image manipulation is germane to the topic at hand only when we are talking about photojournalism, which purports to be a literal representation of reality. While the photographer’s point of view will necessarily influence the accuracy and meaning of an image, it is assumed that nothing has been added or subtracted from the image so it is as close to representing “reality” as humanly possible.
The Associated Press requires that submitted images be JPEGs that were created “in camera” presumably because they are less likely to have been altered in Photoshop or another image editing program. Working with JPEGs also speeds-up image editing and uploading to AP. (The time-constraints associated with getting work to image brokers like AP can be daunting indeed. I worked for AP for years prior to the advent of the Digital Age and I would not like to deal with the hyper-speed deadlines faced by current AP photographers…) I personally don’t see the logic since RAW image files have significant advantages over JPEGs and I prefer to shoot all my images in RAW. And JPEGs can also be manipulated albeit with somewhat limited options compared to RAW. It is easy to create JPEGs from RAW files (or shoot both simultaneously…) but it is impossible to recreate a RAW file from a JPEG. I think that the AP requirement is more for PR value than “photographic reality” value.
But PJ images and others supposedly presenting “reality” have been faked since photography was invented. Famed Civil War photographer Matthew Brady repositioned battlefield corpses to improve the composition of his images. Edward S. Curtis, who created many iconic images of Native Americans, was known to dress-up and pose his subjects in order to enhance the image of the “noble savages” he helped mythologize for the dominant white culture that had tried to exterminate them in the first place. And 20th century photographer Robert Capa is suspected of having staged his famous image of a Spanish partisan at the instant of his death : http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...1912110,00.html.
So it goes… When it comes to photography we have to depend to some degree on the integrity of the craftsperson/artist, just like we do with any artistic medium. In the case of photographic contests/exhibitions I think that photographers should indicate when the image has been so substantially altered that the viewer may make an incorrect assumption about the veracity of the image. Image manipulation that misleads the viewer intentionally or unintentionally is what we should be concerned about. Editing that otherwise alters the image or removes distracting elements that are not intrinsic to the subject matter should be left up to the discretion of the photographer.
Finally, whether a photograph is “art” is obviously up to the individual viewer. Some images are art and others are crap, with the vast majority somewhere between the two extremes. I have looked at paintings and art installations in major galleries and museums; much of the work seemed to be “art” to me, but occasionally I come across something that amazes me that a curator deemed it worthy of exhibition.
A pile of garbage strewn on the floor of the Centre Pompidou in Paris in 2004 comes to mind… I was impressed by the audacity of the “artist” (I use the term very loosely) while one of my companions was so enraged that he wanted to find and punch-out the curator. Instead of doing that he and I retired to a nearby outdoor cafe while our wives finished touring the museum. I have no idea what the intention of the “garbage artist” was, but I thank him/her for getting me out of that building and into the Paris sunshine with a drink in my hand.
Post by: jchuzi on March 01, 2010, 01:28:30 PM
As a musician, I fully appreciate the analogy. A piece of music only comes to life when it is performed and, as Nathan Milstein (one of the greatest violinists of the twentieth century) said, music is a performer's art. So is photography.
Note: I'm not talking about photojournalism; that's in a different category.
Post by: Mayo on March 01, 2010, 03:27:35 PM
To carry the analogy a bit further: Adam's photographic style is classical, while photojournalism is more akin to jazz. And war photojournalism is rock n' roll...
Post by: Xairbusdriver on March 01, 2010, 04:49:45 PM
Post by: dboh on March 01, 2010, 06:29:59 PM
QUOTE(Mayo @ Mar 1 2010, 01:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
In my mind this really much ado about nothing...
This all reminds me of a few decades ago when photorealistic paintings were first exhibited. A lot of people were absolutely horrified that anyone would even consider them to be art! Yet, civilization survived.
Post by: kcourt on March 01, 2010, 10:55:59 PM
To me, that is artistic talent.
She is also very good at drawing from the imagination. When I moved into my condo a few years ago - she asked what kind of picture I wanted. I told her that I would have a southwestern theme, so she drew an indian woman, with her lover in the distance - very beautiful.
On the other hand, I have seen beautiful photos that are really art - sometimes it is hard to tell if it is a drawing or a photo.
And I guess the original question has not really been answered - just interesting conversation!
Kathy
Post by: Xairbusdriver on March 02, 2010, 04:04:25 PM
QUOTE
civilization survived.
Do you have solid proof of that?!
Post by: Mayo on March 03, 2010, 12:57:10 PM
The photographer violated the contest rules by altering the image content.
Post by: krissel on March 04, 2010, 01:45:11 AM
Following a link I came across some interesting stuff:
http://www.petapixel.com/2010/01/28/stop-m...rints-for-sale/
http://www.petapixel.com/2010/03/02/dogs-f...mes-per-second/
http://www.petapixel.com/2010/02/22/water-...mes-per-second/
Funny:
http://www.petapixel.com/2010/03/03/hilari...es-photo-error/
Post by: sandbox on March 04, 2010, 07:21:53 AM