Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
Art? Or not....
Page <<first <prev 8 of 19 next> last>>
Sep 23, 2013 12:19:44   #
Terrymac Loc: LONDON U.K.
 
What this member is saying is not rocket science. Some of you have missed his point entirely for the sake of having a dig at him. IMO.

winterrose wrote:
You and some others have completely missed the point of this thread.

I have in no way criticized the quality of photographs posted here nor the degree of knowledge or expertise of the people who made them.

Do read me comments again and comprehend their meaning according to what is written instead of what you think is written.

My amusement stems from both those who apply some gimmicky filter to an otherwise ordinary photo and claim it to be art and from the fact that others accept it as such.

The basis of this discussion is therefore, given that such images require no particular skill or imagination, then do they qualify or are they worthy of being referred to as art?

I say again that I am not poo-pooing people's photographs.

Yes, I do provide criticism when asked but I always try to make it constructive.

Lastly, I do not and have not claimed that my photographs are in any way art but I do believe that the term both here and in general is applied far too loosely.

Rob.
You and some others have completely missed the poi... (show quote)

Reply
Sep 23, 2013 12:20:32   #
scootersurfs Loc: Buckeye, Az
 
winterrose wrote:
I think it's rather amusing to see people here and in other forums posting images which they consider as being "art". They start with a rather ordinary photograph of a rather ordinary subject then they try all sorts of preset "effects" prepared by other people until they come up with something pretty then because they "created" the resulting image, they call it "art". To my mind "art" is something which is manifested firstly in someone's mind and the "artist" must then have the personal ability to create that manifestation into a viewable form.
I think it's rather amusing to see people here and... (show quote)


:thumbup: :thumbup:

Reply
Sep 23, 2013 12:24:50   #
bobwood Loc: Fort Dodge, Iowa
 
Art is whatever you say it is, and art is whatever I say it is.

Reply
 
 
Sep 23, 2013 12:31:13   #
scootersurfs Loc: Buckeye, Az
 
winterrose wrote:
The use of preset effects in digital is not equivalent to the use of dodging and other special techniques used in developing and printing film.

I do dodging and burning all the time and there are specific tools to do just that in Photoshop.

What I am referring to are those silly "Oil Painting" and "Wavy" effects that people think are purdy so the call it art.


:thumbup: :thumbup:

Reply
Sep 23, 2013 12:48:08   #
freddayan Loc: Pasadena, California
 
Art is in the eye of the beholder, as is Beauty...which explains a lot of the cr*p that passes for Art among the Pretentati.

Reply
Sep 23, 2013 12:57:08   #
GSQRD1 Loc: SAN ANTONIO, TX
 
winterrose wrote:
I think it's rather amusing to see people here and in other forums posting images which they consider as being "art". They start with a rather ordinary photograph of a rather ordinary subject then they try all sorts of preset "effects" prepared by other people until they come up with something pretty then because they "created" the resulting image, they call it "art". To my mind "art" is something which is manifested firstly in someone's mind and the "artist" must then have the personal ability to create that manifestation into a viewable form.
I think it's rather amusing to see people here and... (show quote)

Art is:
1. That which is in the mind of the artist or would be artist.
2. That which in the eye of the beholder is considered art.
3. Not necessarily what you believe it to be.
:!:

Reply
Sep 23, 2013 13:07:52   #
cacompton
 
jonsommer wrote:
You've defined what 'art' isn't (to you), which can endlessly and pedantically be debated here and elsewhere, without resolution, and ultimately, does it matter? Let's hear your definition of what 'art' is.


Defining art is like climbing a slippery slope. I spent two years in graduate school for photography and none of us ever tried to define it.

Reply
 
 
Sep 23, 2013 13:09:10   #
Musket Loc: ArtBallin'
 
What is art? Baby dont hurt me, dont hurt me, no more.

Dont try to identify what is art and what isnt art and project it on to others. Its just gonna cause a disagreement like those RAW vs JPG arguments.

Your taste is your own. You may have similar tastes as others do, but yours is and will be uniquely your own. Its ok to share ones OPINION on what is art, but thats all it will ever be, an opinion.

Its not hard to tell snapshots from actual good art.

Reply
Sep 23, 2013 13:18:47   #
cacompton
 
winterrose wrote:
To speak or write in an angry or violent manner; to utter or express with violence or extravagance; violent or extravagant speech or writing; a speech or piece of writing that incites anger or violence. Apologies if you see it that way.

Vague? OK I'll try again. To me a photograph is made some time before one raises the camera to one's eye. Art, equally, is created long before the creation is commenced. Some of what I have seen posted about, applying presets to a rather ordinary pic is as much art as if Michelangelo were to create the Mona Lisa in the manner that a child plays with Mister Potato Head.
To speak or write in an angry or violent manner; t... (show quote)


Winterrose, you weren't ranting, just expressing something you feel strongly about.
And I have thought about this preset issue before. People want to call their photos personal expressions and then use someone else's adjustments. The people that do that are wholly in their pictures. My 2 cents.
A minor point, Michelangelo did not create the Mona Lisa. It was da Vinci but I'm sure you knew that.

Reply
Sep 23, 2013 14:06:46   #
coolhoosier Loc: Dover, NH, USA
 
cheineck wrote:
Presets do not turn a snapshot into art... I think that was the original "rant". It's correct.


If you'd like to rephrase this as "Presets do not *automatically* turn a snapshot into are..." then I'll agree.

This, of course, ignores the parallel discussion of "What is art?"

Reply
Sep 23, 2013 14:13:17   #
Meives Loc: FORT LAUDERDALE
 
[quote=winterrose]Do the elephants and monkeys that make "art" visualize them before they produce them?

Reply
 
 
Sep 23, 2013 14:14:03   #
coolhoosier Loc: Dover, NH, USA
 
artBob wrote:
The real question is, "Is it good art?" Also unable to be fully answered. However, if someone who has no real criteria thinks that a pic of a pooch, with a "painting" filter used in post-processing, is good art,THAT is easily determined to be uninformed, no?


No.

Since we have no agreed to definitions of "art" and "good", it's impossible to make a blanket statement like that.

BTW, if we ever do have such agreed to definitions, I'm taking up house painting or lawn mowing, or whatever. Photography will become awfully repetitive and, hence, dull.

Reply
Sep 23, 2013 14:35:20   #
bunuweld Loc: Arizona
 
What this thread has has demonstrated very clearly is that no one is entitled to claim his/her own conception of Art as the only valid one. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy from Stanford University has a very long article about the various definitions here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/

It concludes with this quote:

“It is not at all clear that these words – ‘What is art?’ – express anything like a single question, to which competing answers are given, or whether philosophers proposing answers are even engaged in the same debate…. The sheer variety of proposed definitions should give us pause. One cannot help wondering whether there is any sense in which they are attempts to … clarify the same cultural practices, or address the same issue.” (Walton, 1977, 2007)

I am not saying that I agree with the whole article, but I agree with..."The sheer variety of proposed definitions should give us pause"

Reply
Sep 23, 2013 15:03:01   #
wings42 Loc: San Diego, CA
 
Sometimes I have no intent other than to capture a scene, an image, or especially a bird or insect. Those pictures have little art to them. Instead I concentrate on my budding technical skill and knowledge to render a pleasing and accurate portrayal of what was there. Any art in those pictures is totally to the credit of whoever or whatever made that wonderful bird, insect, or scene.

Other times, I purposely strive for beauty, drawing the viewer into the photo, or promoting some emotion or feeling in the viewer. Those photos I'd call art. Maybe bad art but art is the intent.

Somebody wrote that all the camera stuff and a lot of post processing is technical. Composition is where art enters into it.

Reply
Sep 23, 2013 15:12:07   #
MagicFad Loc: Clermont, FL
 
winterrose wrote:
I think it's rather amusing to see people here and in other forums posting images which they consider as being "art". They start with a rather ordinary photograph of a rather ordinary subject then they try all sorts of preset "effects" prepared by other people until they come up with something pretty then because they "created" the resulting image, they call it "art". To my mind "art" is something which is manifested firstly in someone's mind and the "artist" must then have the personal ability to create that manifestation into a viewable form.
I think it's rather amusing to see people here and... (show quote)


Everyone has their own opinion, I don't agree with yours.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 8 of 19 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.