tdekany Loc: Oregon

Only snapshot shooters do that. Do you know any?

Artists do a lot more than aiming a camera at something and press the shutter.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

You say it is ignorant because you have no understanding of different views and resort to childish retorts. My contention is that some picture you take using an electronically controlled machine then enhanced with a variety of electronic controlled software programs to enhance that picture to a point that you now declare; look see what I have done. I am an artist, therefore, my end product, the picture is now art.
You have used a machine and software products. You are not an artist nor is the end result art. You are like everyone with a camera, a photographer. Be happy with that. You have allowed ego gratification to get in the way of reality.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

With a few exceptions such as forensics and journalistic or documentary style captures, photography (as opposed to casual snapshooting) is, and always should be, an art. To most people that should be obvious.

What skews the perspective of so many people is an elitist mentality which leads some to think that photography is all about gaining technical mastery over the complexities involved in getting sharp, well exposed captures. For a professional making a living at it, such mastery is a necessary component - but it's still only part of the story. For the rest of us, it's a potential distraction away from what really matters.

Personally, I wouldn't spend a LOT of money on expensive cameras, lenses etc unless (or until) I had the artistic skills (in other words a good eye for it) to justify such expenditure. To my mind, being able to produce technically impressive but aesthetically uninspiring shots is not impressive and not the direction to be heading in.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

The key words in your opening statement are; "always should be, an art." It is there that the discussion arises. You have made an assumption. When you do that, dear boy you inherit the first three letters of the word. It is a pity you are so easily distracted from as you say "what really matters" I would hope that what ever that is for you is much more important than a camera taking a picture.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

"Dear boy"? Have you any idea how patronising that sounds? Or are you comfortable with the idea of being patronising?

I'm totally happy with what I would describe as my accurate description of a well-recognised phenomenon. The photography v casual snapshooting debate is characterised in exactly the way I described. If it's confusing you, try reading it without the brackets round "as opposed to casual snapshooting". We have snapshooters and we have those who have more of an artistic eye for what makes an image engaging, pleasing etc. That is the extent of my "assumption" regarding photography in this context, and I stand by it.

I was also referring to the very real phenomenon that there is a school of thought that prioritises technical perfection, and it doesn't just apply to a few individuals. I suspect that such thinking is too commonplace and most of us are influenced (even if only partly and subconsciously) by such thinking - and it needs to be put in its place. I can honestly say that I'm largely immune to that kind of thinking. When I returned to photography recently it was to digital photography and for quite a long time I was happy with the shots that my premium compacts gave me. The fact that they weren't always pin sharp or occasionally had blown highlights didn't strike me as being an unacceptable failing. To me the important things were content and composition.

mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma

Cynical.

TheDman Loc: USA

You have used a brush and colored pigments. You are not an artist nor is the end result art.

See? You have yet to say anything where I cannot swap photo tools for painting tools. Therefore, you've yet to make a valid point.

TheDman Loc: USA

Moving a brush around a canvas is knowledge, not art.

We can do this all day!

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

Again a very narrow view and description of photography. None of what ypu have mentioned is necessary to produce a photograph.

The message, concept and context are the art. It doesn’t matter how much you process an image. Processing an image will not automically make it art. Art is anout intention.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

If that is your belief have at it. My intention is to create a work of art this afternoon. Guess what???? It will not be. There are a $*it load of people who take pictures none of which are art.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

Quite right. I'm done.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

I presume that it is my website you are talking about here. If so, could you expand on your comment that it is product related? I’m really curious to hear more about this

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

R.G., you create clear summation of the situation. If you alter it, you are making. If you make well, for the sake of truth and beauty, it is art.

There are different types of art, just as there are different types of music. As with music, all technique and no expression is not artistic. Nor is expression botched by poor technique.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Thank you Bob. I suspect the problem is that those who have an elitist attitude towards the technicalities also have a narrow, elitist interpretation of what art is. Anything that lifts a shot above the level of snapshot could be described as art. And it's possible to produce art just by carefully choosing the content and the composition. As far as I know, Henri Cartier Bresson didn't do much if anything in the way of manipulation. His art was in capturing the moment using a combination of timing and composition.

I'm sure you could list more examples than I could. And amongst them would be examples where it took very little to elevate a photo to the level of art. So there's no need for anybody with limited abilities to feel excluded from the type of photography that is something more than snapshots.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

First. Different view? Is it not you, who is trying to say that photography is not an art? You are 100% entitled to your opinion, but make no mistake about it, it is just an opinion, it isn’t a fact.

Second of all, based on your threads you had started so far, you are using a photography forum to spread your political views. So that right there tells us a lot about you.

Third, while I haven’t clicked on any of your threads in the attic or chit chat, based on your thread titles, you sir? I think that you just like to argue.

And your absurd point of view, that photography is NOT art just proves that. Let me make a suggestion to you. If you want to see a big ego, just look in the mirror please.

You have zero creditability. As I said earlier, you have the right to believe what ever you want to, but that doesn’t make it true. In fact, based on your one photo, that you posted, which I am going to assume you thought was a good enough photo, is a snapshot. Which proves our point, that you have no idea what you are talking about. I mean, what credentials or expertise do you have? Who are you to say that photography is not art? Maybe what you are trying to really say is that you don’t understand art and you could never be an artist? Is that it?

Before I forget, let me ask your opinion? If you can’t play tennis, is it still a sport?