Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
What part of photography is art- amI missing something
Page 1 of 8 next> last>>
Oct 19, 2014 23:24:35   #
photomarvin77 Loc: Queens NY
 
I'm almost 80 now and have been involved in photography since I was 15 years old, getting paid for my efforts most of the time. I go back as far as doing weddings with a Speed Graphic, cut film holders and #5 flashbulbs. I made commercial 8X10 contact prints in a printing frame by dodging and burning in areas with the use of cut up tissue paper below the printing frame. After I retired I entered my "fun work" in various juried art show and actually sold my artistic work. Today I went to a large art show that is run by a much respected artists group. I was shocked and truly surprised by the lack of quality of the things that I saw .Everything was over-corrected and photo-- shopped. Nothing was in focus. Color was not corrected, it was distorted. Images of buildings were bent and twisted. I need to ask why! Is this movement to abstract images a genuine part of photography. Is it art? Does it belong in a show with real photos?

Reply
Oct 19, 2014 23:36:22   #
Phreedom Loc: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
 
photomarvin77 wrote:
I'm almost 80 now and have been involved in photography since I was 15 years old, getting paid for my efforts most of the time. I go back as far as doing weddings with a Speed Graphic, cut film holders and #5 flashbulbs. I made commercial 8X10 contact prints in a printing frame by dodging and burning in areas with the use of cut up tissue paper below the printing frame. After I retired I entered my "fun work" in various juried art show and actually sold my artistic work. Today I went to a large art show that is run by a much respected artists group. I was shocked and truly surprised by the lack of quality of the things that I saw .Everything was over-corrected and photo-- shopped. Nothing was in focus. Color was not corrected, it was distorted. Images of buildings were bent and twisted. I need to ask why! Is this movement to abstract images a genuine part of photography. Is it art? Does it belong in a show with real photos?
I'm almost 80 now and have been involved in photog... (show quote)


Many felt/feel the same way about the works of Dali, Picasso, Cezanne, etc.

The validity of any artistic rendering is intensely personal.

Reply
Oct 19, 2014 23:36:30   #
sandheinrichc Loc: Illinois
 
photomarvin77 wrote:
I'm almost 80 now and have been involved in photography since I was 15 years old, getting paid for my efforts most of the time. I go back as far as doing weddings with a Speed Graphic, cut film holders and #5 flashbulbs. I made commercial 8X10 contact prints in a printing frame by dodging and burning in areas with the use of cut up tissue paper below the printing frame. After I retired I entered my "fun work" in various juried art show and actually sold my artistic work. Today I went to a large art show that is run by a much respected artists group. I was shocked and truly surprised by the lack of quality of the things that I saw .Everything was over-corrected and photo-- shopped. Nothing was in focus. Color was not corrected, it was distorted. Images of buildings were bent and twisted. I need to ask why! Is this movement to abstract images a genuine part of photography. Is it art? Does it belong in a show with real photos?
I'm almost 80 now and have been involved in photog... (show quote)
I am a youngn but I agree with you on this, 10 years ago I was still shooting film and learning how to make it right in camera. Is all the photoshopping neccesary and how does it make it artistic. I myself think that artistry comes in when you can take a beautiful photo without all the gemicks. When I work in post I mostly do color correstions and cropping and sometimes if I am just playing I will do a little HDR, or use some filters.

Reply
 
 
Oct 19, 2014 23:37:25   #
DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX
 
Art and beauty are in the eyes of the beholders. My wife loves Picasso and I don't. I don't like abstract art of any kind. That doesn't mean that type of art isn't good. There is room for everything. I just don't spend my time looking at art I don't like. Many people like HDR and many don't. As an individual you know what you like.
photomarvin77 wrote:
I'm almost 80 now and have been involved in photography since I was 15 years old, getting paid for my efforts most of the time. I go back as far as doing weddings with a Speed Graphic, cut film holders and #5 flashbulbs. I made commercial 8X10 contact prints in a printing frame by dodging and burning in areas with the use of cut up tissue paper below the printing frame. After I retired I entered my "fun work" in various juried art show and actually sold my artistic work. Today I went to a large art show that is run by a much respected artists group. I was shocked and truly surprised by the lack of quality of the things that I saw .Everything was over-corrected and photo-- shopped. Nothing was in focus. Color was not corrected, it was distorted. Images of buildings were bent and twisted. I need to ask why! Is this movement to abstract images a genuine part of photography. Is it art? Does it belong in a show with real photos?
I'm almost 80 now and have been involved in photog... (show quote)

Reply
Oct 19, 2014 23:38:13   #
DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX
 
Phreedom wrote:
Many felt/feel the same way about the works of Dali, Picasso, Cezanne, etc.

The validity of any artistic rendering is intensely personal.


:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Reply
Oct 19, 2014 23:38:19   #
GW Loc: Idaho
 
photomarvin77 wrote:
I'm almost 80 now and have been involved in photography since I was 15 years old, getting paid for my efforts most of the time. I go back as far as doing weddings with a Speed Graphic, cut film holders and #5 flashbulbs. I made commercial 8X10 contact prints in a printing frame by dodging and burning in areas with the use of cut up tissue paper below the printing frame. After I retired I entered my "fun work" in various juried art show and actually sold my artistic work. Today I went to a large art show that is run by a much respected artists group. I was shocked and truly surprised by the lack of quality of the things that I saw .Everything was over-corrected and photo-- shopped. Nothing was in focus. Color was not corrected, it was distorted. Images of buildings were bent and twisted. I need to ask why! Is this movement to abstract images a genuine part of photography. Is it art? Does it belong in a show with real photos?
I'm almost 80 now and have been involved in photog... (show quote)


I think it's become the age of "what I like"...

Reply
Oct 19, 2014 23:57:41   #
Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN
 
GW wrote:
I think it's become the age of "what I like"...


It always has been though.

I have seen, and heard, much of Cockney impudence before now; but never expected to hear a coxcomb ask two hundred guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public’s face. John Ruskin on one of James Abbott McNeill Whistler's paintings. Whistler sued Ruskin in 1878 for defamation.

The notion of what one likes being considered art and things that one dislikes is not art was part of the driving force of Greenbergian formalism based on writings of Clement Greenberg including Avant Garde and Kitsch written in 1939. http://xroads.virginia.edu/~DRBR2/greenburg.pdf

Abstract photography was key at the Bauhaus school. Much of the work from the Bauhaus would later be displayed in a show called Entartete Kunst or degenerate art. It was a show put on by the Nazi regime to mock and discredit contemporary artists that did not conform to the governments view of art. http://www.neuegalerie.org/content/degenerate-art-attack-modern-art-nazi-germany-1937

Throughout the history of art. What one likes has shaped the art world. Art is a continually expansive field.

Reply
 
 
Oct 20, 2014 00:02:01   #
Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN
 
photomarvin77 wrote:
I'm almost 80 now and have been involved in photography since I was 15 years old, getting paid for my efforts most of the time. I go back as far as doing weddings with a Speed Graphic, cut film holders and #5 flashbulbs. I made commercial 8X10 contact prints in a printing frame by dodging and burning in areas with the use of cut up tissue paper below the printing frame. After I retired I entered my "fun work" in various juried art show and actually sold my artistic work. Today I went to a large art show that is run by a much respected artists group. I was shocked and truly surprised by the lack of quality of the things that I saw .Everything was over-corrected and photo-- shopped. Nothing was in focus. Color was not corrected, it was distorted. Images of buildings were bent and twisted. I need to ask why! Is this movement to abstract images a genuine part of photography. Is it art? Does it belong in a show with real photos?
I'm almost 80 now and have been involved in photog... (show quote)


Of course it is art. Photography freed painting from the need to portray reality and in the most realistic fashion. Photography is not burdened by reality nor has is been for a long time. Oscar Rejlander made up scenes in the late 19th century by combining negatives. Jerry Uelsmann created surrealist landscapes in the darkroom long before photoshop. Is the art they are creating good maybe, maybe not but it is none the less art.

Reply
Oct 20, 2014 00:34:40   #
MW
 
This is another rendition of the PP debate. There was a recent post in UHH that had a link that showed a straight print from the "Moonlight Over Hernandez, NM" and then the final print. If that doesn't settle the debate as well as nostalgia for the good ole purist days then nothing will.

Reply
Oct 20, 2014 01:01:24   #
amehta Loc: Boston
 
photomarvin77 wrote:
I'm almost 80 now and have been involved in photography since I was 15 years old, getting paid for my efforts most of the time. I go back as far as doing weddings with a Speed Graphic, cut film holders and #5 flashbulbs. I made commercial 8X10 contact prints in a printing frame by dodging and burning in areas with the use of cut up tissue paper below the printing frame. After I retired I entered my "fun work" in various juried art show and actually sold my artistic work. Today I went to a large art show that is run by a much respected artists group. I was shocked and truly surprised by the lack of quality of the things that I saw .Everything was over-corrected and photo-- shopped. Nothing was in focus. Color was not corrected, it was distorted. Images of buildings were bent and twisted. I need to ask why! Is this movement to abstract images a genuine part of photography. Is it art? Does it belong in a show with real photos?
I'm almost 80 now and have been involved in photog... (show quote)

You may not consider it "photography", but it does qualify as "digital art" today. The lines between the two are very, very blurry, though it is actually in focus with excellent bokeh. ;-)

Reply
Oct 20, 2014 01:45:25   #
mechengvic Loc: SoCalo
 
Digital photography is made with both a camera and a computer. Film photography is made with a camera and a darkroom. The computer is like a whole new set of brushes that open up a new set of possibilities. I think the art reflects that.

Reply
 
 
Oct 20, 2014 02:36:27   #
GW Loc: Idaho
 
Darkroom317 wrote:
It always has been though.

I have seen, and heard, much of Cockney impudence before now; but never expected to hear a coxcomb ask two hundred guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public’s face. John Ruskin on one of James Abbott McNeill Whistler's paintings. Whistler sued Ruskin in 1878 for defamation.

The notion of what one likes being considered art and things that one dislikes is not art was part of the driving force of Greenbergian formalism based on writings of Clement Greenberg including Avant Garde and Kitsch written in 1939. http://xroads.virginia.edu/~DRBR2/greenburg.pdf

Abstract photography was key at the Bauhaus school. Much of the work from the Bauhaus would later be displayed in a show called Entartete Kunst or degenerate art. It was a show put on by the Nazi regime to mock and discredit contemporary artists that did not conform to the governments view of art. http://www.neuegalerie.org/content/degenerate-art-attack-modern-art-nazi-germany-1937

Throughout the history of art. What one likes has shaped the art world. Art is a continually expansive field.
It always has been though. br br I have seen, an... (show quote)


I was meaning to say ," it's what I like and to h--- with everyone else"...

Reply
Oct 20, 2014 02:46:54   #
elf
 
I want you guys to like my pp. You don't always but I do. My wife doesn't want me to adjust anything on her jpgs even though the camera does.
Ed

Reply
Oct 20, 2014 05:51:53   #
mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois
 
DavidPine wrote:
Art and beauty are in the eyes of the beholders. My wife loves Picasso and I don't. I don't like abstract art of any kind. That doesn't mean that type of art isn't good. There is room for everything. I just don't spend my time looking at art I don't like. Many people like HDR and many don't. As an individual you know what you like.


I could not agree more.

The value of art is to create an image that is pleasing. Pleasing to whom? To its creator, and to anyone who enjoys it. Photoshop is a tool like any other, and can be used for improving and creating images that please the eye, and as well create - or add/detract from - images that are disasters!

Because an image is unpleasant to my eye does not mean others cannot enjoy it. The world is a very big place, and there is room for a wide variety of tastes!

Reply
Oct 20, 2014 06:08:27   #
camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.
 
Because we are all different "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" fits just right. What could be art for you perhaps is a total disaster for me. Indeed we could be presented with a photograph that you really like and I hate.
Modern photographic techniques include the use of software to enhance and modify photographs. Many people, I will call they purists, will not use those softwares to enhance their pictures because they do not want to depart from reality. In my case I use software to enhance many of my pictures but I am careful enough to keep the manipulation within my standards for what I consider realistic and natural.
I agree with you, a lot of crab out there but when I see color shifting which I do not consider as a normal variation to the photograph automatically that becomes a show stopper for me.
I agree that personal taste has a lot to do with it.

Reply
Page 1 of 8 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.