Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

The difference is exactly the same, and distinguishing who is which is not at all different.

The "chisel, or a 20 ft canvas, or a set of drums" are all the exact same "mechanical equipment" as are the others you say are different. It's just different tools, not a different mind. But the creativity, which is what makes the product art, is in the mind not the tool.

Regardless, the product of craft is art, by definition. An artist always makes better art as they become better at the specific craft. That is what "practice, practice, practice" is all about, craft not art.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

That is it, exactly. We could say, perhaps, that art is craft used to express something that deeply moves you, so much so that you feel compelled to pursue it, and the more universal the theme or problem you are "bothered" by, the more likely it is to deeply move others, as well.

Mike

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Perhaps craft, or technique, is the vehicle, while what we call art is the message. An artist practices, practices, practices, so that technique - the craft - does not impede the communication of the message.

Mike

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

VERY well said!

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Sorry Floyd, I don't agree. I don't have time to elaborate further at the moment but I will come back to this.

But I want to throw something else out there as well.

Maybe people are doing photography a great disservice trying to jam it into an art category holus bolus.
It seems as if people are trying to give it - and by extension, their own efforts - some sort of justification and standing by doing this.
Photography does not have to be art to be relevant, or to be justified.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

But the fact is that photography is art by definition.

What you are actually saying is true, photography doesn't need to be understood or recognized as art to be art, or relevant.

Shutter Bugger

Some photos, are without any doubt, art. And without any doubt, some are not.

The difficulty is drawing the line when there is doubt.
And as doubt is not objective, we will disagree where that
line will be drawn.

Imho the image below by Eddie Steichen is art. Disagree if you feel the need.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

It isn't actually "not objective".

The definition of art only depends on if there is any, even the slightest, human creativity involved. It is extremely difficult to find a photograph that has zero effect from human creativity. If nothing else, a human built and configured the camera... an any image that camera produces is, by definition, art.

The camera is just like a brush... it is a tool, used by a human.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Well, I don't care where you get it from, if that is your definition, it is not one that I am going to go by.
It is just plain and simply incorrect.

Pissing swear words into the snow involves human thought and creativity .... is that art?

What if someone decided it was creative to use a totally automatic digital camera, put on a blindfold, and walk around all day clicking randomly? The photos won't be art.

I think a lot of the reasons that people are trying to give for photography being art, are pretentious and too all encompassing.
How about you be a little more realistic, and a little less elitist?

Not all paintings are art.
And not all photos are art.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

The problem is that the definition is absolutely is correct, and that is a fact. You can find it in most dictionaries. That is what the word means in the English language. You are substituting it for "good art" and/or "art that I like", and providing discussion that is totally bogus.

Your definition is yours, it is an opinion, and has no value at all. And using it means you cannot communicate with other people in any rational way. Because you end up seriously saying absurd things, such as this:

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

This connot end well. Why not simply agree to disagree.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

I don't actually care what i find in dictionaries Floyd.
The fact is that most of the population would consider your definition wrong in its all encompassing omnipotent elitism.
And dictionaries are not set in stone, they are fluid documents.
Words don't mean what the dictionary says they mean.
Words mean what the people say they mean.
The dictionary just tries to keep up by recording meaning and usage after the fact.

Don't keep repeating that I am confusing art with good art and art that I like. I have no confusion whatsoever on those grounds. There is much art that I think is bad art, and art that i do not like, but it still think it is art. So it is not a personal taste thing.

Floyd, your definition is yours, it is an opinion, and has no value at all. And using it means you cannot communicate with other people in any rational way. A fact evidenced across several websites, and message boards, and chat forums where you have said some seriously absurd things and been called on them time and time again.

I have no problem saying that not all photos are art, no problem whatsoever.
It is not a revolutionary statement.
There are many many many people in the art world and all around the world who agree with me.
Trying to deny that by hanging onto a strict all encompassing dictionary definition is delusional.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

If you do not wish to communicate with people, why do you post articles to this forum?

Shutter Bugger

You can call the photo below "art" to your hearts content bud...
You can download it if you like to get a good
view of "art". Knock yourself out. Haha

But I'm calling it a photo I "created" of a terminal block so I know where the wires go after I have removed them. lol

(Download)

jgordon Loc: Boulder CO

Are we really going to get our hackles up over the technical definition of art?

The exercise of trying to determine which photographs are properly placed into the "art" bucket rather than into the "craft" bucket or the "product" bucket is not a very interesting or productive exercise -- at least for me. More interesting is trying to understand why people care about this question at all.

One possible reason is that photography has always had something of a complicated relationship with the art world.

In the early days of photography, the process was considered 'light painting' and was thought to capture reality without the editorial intervention of the artist that occurred in painting. It was only later that folks realized that photographers make all kinds of decisions that affect the impact of photographs on viewers. So, at the beginning photography was not really considered art but rather (in one sense) science.

It was only in the relatively recent past that photographs were deemed appropriate for display in museums. Well respected photographer Hal Gould recently died in Denver. He was known for his stunning images but also for having opened one of the first photography galleries in the city. He reported that he was motivated to open the gallery in part by the fact that at the time museums were not displaying photographs.

Also confusing is that some photographic images are not made with any artistic intent but rather to document and record. Photos made by scientists to document experiments or those made by police photographers to document crime scenes are examples.

Maybe photography has always had something of an inferiority complex with regard to "serious art." If that is true, I think it is time for us all to get over it. Just about everyone now agrees that photography is, or at least can be, art. We don't have to argue about that any more.

The issue that interests me with regard to a photograph is whether or not it moves me. Does it touch me on an emotional level? If it does, I get interested in the issues of craft. What did the photographer do to make this image work? I have no problem with other people spending time arguing over which definition of "art" they like best. For me, however, discussing why a particular image works or doesn't work is far more interesting.