Into The Abstract: Well maybe off the deep end a bit. But seriously, when does a photograph stop being a photograph and become graphic art? From the moment I shot this it was my...

DaveC1 Loc: South East US

Well maybe off the deep end a bit. But seriously, when does a photograph stop being a photograph and become graphic art? From the moment I shot this it was my intention to turn it into something quite altered from its original appearance.

And, you all know the routine: For best viewing always download.

(Download)

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

It works for me.
I'm not going to ask what is art?

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

I don't care for the look. For me it's mostly because of the color and shapes of the brown subject, kind of icky

I do like the colors and patterns of the shingles behind, with maybe less of the vine just creeping in from edges. But that is a different story from what was presented.

Regarding your question, does it make any difference in a forum like For Your Consideration? I greatly appreciate that this section is a place where folks can experiment to their heart's delight! Definitions are kinda boring, and limiting and not at all the point.

We post our highly stylized and/or experimental projects to see if they have interest for others (curiosity) and to get feedback to possibly expand or better define our original vision. And folks cooperate by giving us their honest, considered opinions. Well, except the time magnetoman said I should just try harder 🤟❤️

DaveC1 Loc: South East US

Linda From Maine wrote:

I don't care for the look. For me it's mostly beca... (show quote)

Linda, definitions, and the discussion of definitions, particularly two related definitions, usually are instructive and far from boring.

In Googling "photograph" I don't find any definition that is not circular with the term camera. A better working definition to my mind would be: A realistic graphical representation of a particular space at a particular time. My question that I thought was up for discussion was when does this transition to pure art.

And I'm sorry that you don't care for brown. The intention was icky; once again loosely based on the series "Stranger Things."

DaveC1 Loc: South East US

RichardTaylor wrote:

It works for me.
I'm not going to ask what is art?

Thank you Richard.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

DaveC1 wrote:

... My question that I thought was up for discussion was when does this transition to pure art...

Sorry for sounding dismissive, Dave. Previous discussions on "what is art" have gone nowhere (just my opinion) because of the impossibility of reaching a consensus. We have such a huge variety of interests and styles here, I've come to feel that what is important is the impact of the work, not whether it can or should be categorized. All the best.

DaveC1 Loc: South East US

Linda From Maine wrote:

Sorry for sounding dismissive, Dave. Previous discussions on "what is art" have gone nowhere (just my opinion) because of the impossibility of reaching a consensus. We have such a huge variety of interests and styles here, I've come to feel that what is important is the impact of the work, not whether it can or should be categorized. All the best.

I appreciate that there is no consensus to the question of what is art, as any student of art history can attest. The question I thought I was asking is; when does an image cease to be documentary of a specific time and space and become purely decorative; to phrase it differently. I'm going to wager a guess it is when the specific time and space is no longer recognizable but I'd like some input.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

DaveC1 wrote:

...when the specific time and space is no longer recognizable...

A succinct and easily understood definition, I think.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

DaveC1 wrote:

I appreciate that there is no consensus to the question of what is art, as any student of art history can attest. The question I thought I was asking is; when does an image cease to be documentary of a specific time and space and become purely decorative; to phrase it differently. I'm going to wager a guess it is when the specific time and space is no longer recognizable but I'd like some input.

Using a camera and post precessing to create an image is certainly photography. With varying degrees of change, an image that began in a camera can be called photography or art, depending on its creator and receiving users.
Usually. for juried exhibitions, a distinction is made between photography and digitally manipulated photos, the former limiting post processing to the darkroom-available tools of dodging, burning, contrast, toning.
In galleries, the dealer and artist decide on advertising, calling the works what they want. Labels are important.
Your piece, I could see, or jury, in a "Photography" show or category. I could also see or jury it in an Art show, where the label would describe it.

DaveC1 Loc: South East US

artBob wrote:

Using a camera and post precessing to create an im... (show quote)

Thank you Bob. I suspected you would have some input on this question.

kenievans Loc: Dallas

Dave its no secret I enjoy the artistic part of photography. I like were you are going with this especially the repetitive red pattern. The brown does throw me off though but if it works for you then that's great.

My personal opinion, a photograph becomes art the moment the photographer assigns meaning in their mind to the shot.

Stephan G

DaveC1 wrote:

I appreciate that there is no consensus to the question of what is art, as any student of art history can attest. The question I thought I was asking is; when does an image cease to be documentary of a specific time and space and become purely decorative; to phrase it differently. I'm going to wager a guess it is when the specific time and space is no longer recognizable but I'd like some input.

I would argue that Art is never purely decorative. For if it becomes purely decorative, it loses any and all semblance of Art. One of the crucial aspects of Art, I think, is its ability to grab one's attention at a very subliminal level. Making one to ask, "What about it is attracting me so?"

"Art is Timeless."

srt101fan

Stephan G wrote:

I would argue that Art is never purely decorative. For if it becomes purely decorative, it loses any and all semblance of Art. One of the crucial aspects of Art, I think, is its ability to grab one's attention at a very subliminal level. Making one to ask, "What about it is attracting me so?"

"Art is Timeless."

DaveC1 Loc: South East US

kenievans wrote:

Dave its no secret I enjoy the artistic part of photography. I like were you are going with this especially the repetitive red pattern. The brown does throw me off though but if it works for you then that's great.

My personal opinion, a photograph becomes art the moment the photographer assigns meaning in their mind to the shot.

Thank you Keni. I'm trying to decide whether at some point to post the original image which was the starting point for this. I suspect some may find that of interest.

I'm afraid we are heading down the slippery slope that Linda warned about here; headed into the never land of what is art, which was not my intention.

We all know that most any photograph has a certain artistic aspect to it as well as the documentary aspect. My question is when does the documentary aspect resend into the background to the point of not being readily apparent leaving the artistic aspect as the visible feature(s).

DaveC1 Loc: South East US

Stephan G wrote:

I would argue that Art is never purely decorative. For if it becomes purely decorative, it loses any and all semblance of Art. One of the crucial aspects of Art, I think, is its ability to grab one's attention at a very subliminal level. Making one to ask, "What about it is attracting me so?"

"Art is Timeless."

Poor choice of words on my part Stephan and srt101fan. Please see my response to Keni above. Once again I'm trying to stay out of the black hole of "what is art."