Exposures and Art Loc: Murrells Inlet SC

True, but I was not here for Matthew Brady & the Civil War, or Daguerre, etc. Of course my point is let's all enjoy photography. Everything is sooo subjective- I just completed four years as Pres of an art guild combining painted artists, sculpters, photographers etc from 34-241 members growth during that time and they all have diferent opinions on abstract, historical, every possible opinion! So I say, do what pleases YOU and hope it gives viewing pleasure to others ( or not ).

cecilia delacroix Loc: near Seattle

By the way, (to digress from this thread just somewhat) - some current buzz in art has to do with 3-D VIRTUAL SCULPTURES (including kinetic sculptures) created within online virtual worlds like Second Life, that a visitor (as an avatar) can walk around and view from all sides. Many see those (and rightfully so, I think) as "real art".

lesdmd Loc: Middleton Wi via N.Y.C. & Cleveland

This is like saying that the art of painting is limited to mastering the use of a brush. And if art were limited to only realistic representations of objects, and recording history, it would have ceased evolving hundred of years ago. You may not like it, you may not understand it, but don't dismiss it.

billwassmann Loc: Emerson, NJ

lesdmd and deanc2006:
I teach a 6 week class called The Art of Photography at a local community school. The school director gave it the name to separate it from an even shorter course on getting the most from a digital. I emphasize the basics of camera handling, composition,lighting and displaying. Although people don't realize it, one of the chief reasons they take pictures is for history - their own. Whether it's kids, pets, or vacations, they are trying to preserve those moments. I agree that's not the only reason for photography but it is a powerful one.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

I would agree that is the general use; however some people evolve beyond that stage and want to do more than record for posterity.

billwassmann Loc: Emerson, NJ

Brucej67,
How do you define their evolution? What are they doing that is so unique or wonderful?

jimni2001 Loc: Sierra Vista, Arizona, USA

If I look at it and think it is beautiful or it moves me in some way, good or bad it is art to me. If I find it ugly or offensive then it is crap. That is a personal observation, as is anyone's definition of art. I am not into Dali or Picasso, so I do not appreciate what they have done but some find them mesmerizing. If a feather were placed in the middle of a circle of people and everyone there were asked to describe it no two people would describe it the same way because each person would see it from a different angle. The same is true for art. Art is a philosophical state or emotional state of being and as such is not constrained to the personal taste of any individual or group of individuals. You all ready knew that though and only started this thread to stir the pot, didn't you? ;>)

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

People like myself, yes I can take photographs, weddings, industrial photographs and events and make money at it, I have over the years, however I could never paint, sculpture, or even appreciate art as you do. Photography gives me some free expression and I can combine reality with imagination to create a visual work that I could not do without photography.

RMM Loc: Suburban New York

My sister the artist beats me up when I ridicule some artists and their work. She tells me I need to educate myself so that I can understand what the artist is trying to say. And I have had some education, and do try to take it further, but that still won't keep me from laughing or retching at some of what is passed off as art. I don't feel the necessity of acquiring the equivlaent of another college education to - maybe - appreciate what somebody is trying to express in ways I find risible or distasteful. I think the artist should be trying to reach me, not trying to make me reach into some deep recess of his or her tortured artistic soul. I find Picasso interesting, but he doesn't grab me deep down. Dali, on the other hand, is amazing. I don't know if he was smoking something, but if not, he had a truly fascinating imagination!

I took art classes when I was a kid. My sister had the talent. I could barely scrape by. But I must have picked up something. I'm no great photographer, but I have a measure of talent, and I can augment that with Photoshop, so I can have fun with photography and, perhaps, contribute to the enjoyment of others, particularly my family. I'm way past the point where I could even think about being a professional photographer. Could I have been one? Never gave it any thought, but I probably could have been if I had chosen that direction and put the same effort I did into the career I did end up pursuing.

So, yes, art does exist in the eye of the beholder. The beholder does have an obligation to put some effort into the beholding if he or she truly wants to get anything out of the experience.

And, redundantly, the photographer should make a real effort to compose and expose as well as possible in the camera. But what comes out of the camera needn't be the last word on the subject unless the image is intended for the courts or insurance claims.

CAM1017 Loc: Chiloquin, Oregon

Well said! :D

RMM Loc: Suburban New York

Thank you! Thank you! :)