Paul Diamond Loc: Atlanta, GA, USA

I've always been an artist who worked in photography and imaging with a little sculpture on the side. I'm not constrained by the medium. I want to create something that inspires an emotion, sensation, reminder of an experience. Or to share a vision that the person's eyes and soul can explore and investigate. -

I've studied sculpture, paintings, jewelry, crafts and photography in every museum where I can gain entry. For each piece I view, I ask myself who is this person and what are they trying to show me? What emotions are they trying to share or inspire? - I believe almost all artists learn and grow by studying the artwork and images of others.

Being an artist is how you see yourself, what you are trying to accomplish, create or achieve, what vision or emotion you want to share, etc. And, you must be critical of your 'work in progress.' Any artist has a volume of 'learning experiences' in transit to the generation of an image that you wanted it to be. And, any artist continues to have a volume of 'not quites' in transit to a few images that fulfil what you are seeking.

And, that's a bit of my definition of an artist as it applies to photography.

User ID

Consider the word “artistic”.

In vulgar use “artistic” is a moderately positive or complimentary adjective.

If you look at the word linguistically, by its construction, root word artist” plus suffix “-ic”, it’s not a form of high praise. It says something shares attributes, or has some connection with, something else. The suffix “-ic” more or less says “resembling”.

“Artistic” just means “resembling art”. Therefor I don’t see any real misuse of “artistic” to describe things resembling real art but which clearly are not art.

Apply a few “rules of good composition” to a scene and “artistic” will be an apt description of the result, even though that result is not art.

Paul Diamond Loc: Atlanta, GA, USA

I am dating myself. I graduated RIT in 1970. My thesis was 'experimental color'. I worked in film, graphics film, making my own photo sensitive emulsions, 3 dimensionality including mirrors, multi-media (using art tools from different media on my original photographic images) and much more. I worked on a single image for 2-6 weeks, on average. I think I was on the 'fringe' of creative imaging at RIT in 1970. But, I got an A from my Professor/counsellor for my thesis. (He later became the top executive of the photo division of Hallmark Cards in the midwest.)

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

Love your style 💛💛💛💛💛 That alcove with the 🧡 and 💛 leaves really looks like massive 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

REJ Loc: Ontario Canada

How True. REJ.

User ID

That parenthetical closing remark is the both the saddest and funniest thing I’ve seen this month !

steve'home-28

Sort of like the artful dodger. Love it! But I really sympathize and understand that initial question. After all, I've been painting for about forty years now and still ask myself the question, what is art? The best I can come up with is a quest for truth and beauty. It used to be whatever is the product of inspiration is art, but then I thought about it and that really fell short. The beautiful mystery of life!

Paul Diamond Loc: Atlanta, GA, USA

Truth often is. But this man was a consummate photography teacher and fully sensitive to the limits and capabilities of the full spectrum of graphic arts tools.

Some of the RIT profs were devoid of any practical experience or management experience - sort of the 'starving artist' style of never earning a living from what you love to do. (To me, that is both the funniest and saddest 'truth' about photography educators and 'artists.')

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

Obviously this is my opinion, since I’m writing this, not a pronouncement and it is a serious response to the question. An artistic photograph is one where the photographer has some type of vision involved in the taking and making of the overall image. This vision may involve the elements of composition, color, mood and emotion, as well as how to process the image to the desired degree and in the desired way; artistic images are made, not just taken. This approach is in keeping with that of Ansel Adams and one I try to follow, sometimes with success and sometimes not. An artistic image involves more than walking up to a subject and snapping off a shot while standing directly in front of it without considering light and light direction, placement, shadows, depth of field, and color placement, to name only a few considerations.

There is nothing wrong with a snapshot, they remind us of where we’ve been in life in more than one way and they are important to us in that regard, but a snapshot of a subject is not, in most cases, an artistic rendition of that subject. Not all images are art and an image can be artistic without necessarily being art. Art is subjective in many ways, but an artistic shot does usually have art-related components, i.e., compositional elements, thought to color, placement, etc. The simplest subject can be shot with some thought of art in the making of the image and this normally does improve the overall image, although it might not reach the status of art. Getting into a discussion on bad art versus good art can be a rabbit hole and is not relevant to this subject. There are many genres of photography and artistic photography is only one of them.

I’m in a photo class and learning more about lighting subjects and one of the shots below is a part of a class assignment. If someone asks you to take a shot of a glass, and this applies to any image, you have many options open to you. One option, as noted below, is to set the glass down in a poorly lit room and hand holding the camera take a quick shot…it’s a shot of a glass sure enough. The other shot of the glass is a result of carefully placing the glass in the enclosure, fiddling with the light, trying to determine what might add interest, and then carefully processing to meet my vision of the image. Both are a shot of a glass, but one does show the glass more artfully. It may not be art, but it is an artistic shot and is the result of artistic elements and careful processing. I think this approach can be applied to all images, from family photos to wildlife and objects in nature and that all images can at least be improved with a more artistic intent. I have many images that I've shot where the original image looks like it has no merit but I took it with vision and I knew what I could do with the shot, something much more artistic. An artistic shot does not always mean that someone used some software program to make it oddly weird, although software programs can be very helpful to make artistic shots. There is a wide range of "art" in photography, just as there is a wide range of art in other art endeavors.

A shot of a glass, a snapshot.

(Download)

A shot of a glass, taken with more care.

(Download)

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Applying the word to "any kind of distortion" is, IMO, simply a lack of interest in learning. The opinions the commentator already holds are enough for them.

burkphoto's "it evokes emotions" and "The photographer sets out deliberately to compose and to capture and to craft an image that draws the viewer in and rivets attention, if only for a moment," and R.G.'s "This is my idea of beauty and I want to share it with you" speak to me. As does Dr Gump's "Any photograph that you don't get tired of seeing over and over." Burkphoto also mentioned the word "soul." I used that word in the title of a main discussion topic many years ago, "The Soul of a Photo."

(edit) While I typed this, via the lens posted her very thoughtful comments. It's inspiring to see so much of value in this thread; thank you for the original effort, Pete!

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

If a preponderance of viewers AGREE on the intent/interpretation of the image - then it is NOT Art .........

If a preponderance of viewers DISAGREE on the intent/interpretation of the image - then it IS Art

It is important to note that an artistic image and an Art image are not necessarily the same !
.

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

I agree. The second is a dazzler 🏆🏆🏆

Paul Diamond Loc: Atlanta, GA, USA

There is a simple and greater 'truth' for all of us when the subject is photography. I do take pictures that are environmental - not an environmental statement but where was I, what did I see, what did I feel, etc. simple basic picture. And there are personal record shots like canoeing down a river - place/time/experience but not an attempt at great photography. We all shoot many types and kinds of photos. And we should. It helps us learn, capture memories and grow.

I see even simple photos with the eye of what my camera can and will see - lighting, composition, cropping, etc. When I shoot, I know what I want to capture of that experience. With my art, it is focused on my intended output of image/style/composition/subject, etc. to create an image that evokes feelings/emotions, encourages exploration or investigation, shares a viewpoint or vision.

Make no apologies for any of the types or styles of photos you make. They have meaning to you, even if no one else. But, I would encourage you to occasionally strive for making something that makes you stretch and grow. Something that shares some of you or what you feel or want the viewer to feel.

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

Spectacular thistle shot 🔥🏆🔥🏆🔥

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

I can't stand it. It has no point, User. Just because a person can do this, does it mean that they should? Too many people taking pictures of nothing and think they're making competition for Ansel Adams. No way! Just my opinion.