What is a photograph?

[krissel]

Thought provoking question that might interest our many member photographers.

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.  

[kimmer]

Interesting. Reminds me of the discussion regarding movies and the Oscars: should an animated CGI film compete with a good old fashioned film with actors, real scenery, etc.

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?

[jchuzi]

Reality is that which, when you close your eyes, doesn't go away.

[Paddy]

I subscribe to Popular Photography, and I was a bit taken aback when the two photos mentioned in the NYT article won. I didn't think they should have - once you start combining different photographs to create an image, it should be in a different class. There are some photo contests now where absolutely NO manipulation in Photoshop is allowed and this is why. It's hard to draw a line - though I have no difficulty accepting cropping, and minor tonal/exposure adjustments, which are the same sorts of things you'd be able to do if printing by hand.

[Xairbusdriver]

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
"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...

[Xairbusdriver]

Peaking of "Art"...<BBQ Ribs Inspire Atrist>

[kbeartx]

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

[Paddy]

I'm not arguing that it's not art - just that it shouldn't be competing in the same category as work that isn't so manipulated. Sort of like dividing things up between B&W and color, or painting and pencil sketches or dog racing and horse racing.

[krissel]

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.

[Xairbusdriver]

The whole concept of a contest to pick the "best" of any kind of "art" is slightly strange, in my opinion. Sure, it's fun to be recognized for your skills and maybe even win a prize. And it would even help sell some of your work, maybe. But, who does an 'artist' make her art for, anyway? I can draw my way out of a paper bag nor consistently make eye catching photographs! But I really enjoyed, even as a very young lad, creating and photographing scenes that I built with models. Of course, I also enjoyed blowing them up with left over firecrackers! :evil: Do you have any idea how far the empty bottom of a metal ball-point pen will travel with a standard issue firecracker?! 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...

[krissel]

Let's just say it is a combination of ego stroking, affirmation and income production. "Winning" an award brings you monetary or material rewards that can be very satisfying.

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.  

[sandbox]

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.  

[Xairbusdriver]

This thread is wandering very close to the line between our somewhat arbitrary "Tech/Community" division. 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!!!

[sandbox]

“What is a photograph” is a pretty broad question, the NYTimes addresses the question as it pertains to a photo contest, while most photographs never enter contests.

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.

[Xairbusdriver]

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?