[jim truscott]

just put a few pics in the gallery as art. i'm really a frustrated artist who is too lazy to paint so camera has to do. the light in the uk puts me off taking up the brush here i think. Was wondering how many frustrated artists are around the place or is it just me? The other thing is i dont know if anyone ever visits the galleries much unsure if i should keep whacking stuff up there?.. cheers

[Don Schaeffer]

just put a few pics in the gallery as art. i'm really a frustrated artist who is too lazy to paint so camera has to do. the light in the uk puts me off taking up the brush here i think. Was wondering how many frustrated artists are around the place or is it just me? The other thing is i dont know if anyone ever visits the galleries much unsure if i should keep whacking stuff up there?.. cheers

I am definitely a kindred spirit. But I have all but given up on physical distribution. I think it's a closed world.

[DanDickens2]

Hi Jim,

Yes, photography is an art form - yet much of the art world might disagree on that topic. Here is the way I see it, the cave man would have loved to have had the tools of the 19th Century artist. He would have been even more pleased to have a camera. His art was most likely more spiritual than decorative - while perhaps educational to his fellow cave kin - his topics seemed to center around hunting for survival. So we may only guess at his motives - most likely we are correct in these assumptions.

The decortive arts have for many years been a struggle - yet I have seen Ansel Adams prints sell for tens of thousands - even before his death. The commercial value of any art is driven by the public - and while we have a greater level of educated public than ever before - with more insitutions requiring art appreciation courses - this era in education has only seen about a 5% increase in commercial value of the decortive arts - however, the commercial arts in the marketing, advertising, and public relations realm has jumped since the 60's to the highest levels ever in the history of human creative impulses.

Thus the realm I live in - I work in the industrial training world - and even this realm of commercial art - I have witnessed a tremendous drive for slicker and more creative training projects. In fact, I was amazed to fall into this base - I never knew it existed until I stumbled into this market. I knew there were assembly photos, parts photos, illustrations in the realm - but now the demand for good use of color, creative layout with back grounds that grab attention are in high demand - thou our work is often classified - none of it can be a portfolio for the same reason.

Getting work in any Gallery is a challenge. Often the Gallery owners are very picky as to the creative value of what they will allow. When I was young - I think most thought I was bringing someone elses work - they could not believe that a 4th grader painted with such realism. It was not until I was in college that many witnesses saw me doing the work. Even my cousin did not think I did the work - he thought my parents were doing the work and letting me take the credit - until one day I did a drawing for him at school of his prized cow.

So art has forever, been an easy thing for me - yet at the same time a frustrating phase of life at the same time - I simply find reward in the self satisfaction - and while I did many one-man-shows with several galleries out of college - I finally turned to a more busy life style in the commercial realm.

I also took long breaks from the art world and turned economics into a hobby. From that hobby - I have discovered or invented a new economic system, I call it Vested Economics - it would join the ranks of Joseph in Egypt saving grain so to speak. It would also lace the good elements of Capitalism as well as Communism. Karl Marx did write some wonderful elements while some of his work - I would not agree with.

Vested Economics simply puts all tax revenue to work first into a national savings and trust account - growing this savings account to a volume that government would no long need to collect taxes - they could simply run off the interest being earned from past revenue. The tax payers would continue to own 50% of their taxes in this account - as collateral - for loans or to earn a dividend. Best of all the tax payer could leave their 50% ownership of this account in their will upon death.
Thus the publics common wealth would grow in doubling amounts generation after generation. Thus with this economic form - motivation to pay better salaries, and motivation to pull people off welfare - would or could be possible.

This system would take only 3% the first year and 5% the next - slowing transfereing the system to a Vested system rather than 100% all at once would shock the economy.

My point is this - is photography an art - yes - only in my world - IF IT INVENTS.

Inventing can be taught, invention is the key to any realm of art - simply look at Da Vinci.

Inventing has three basic spheres. (1) Modification to current invention (2) Morphing two or more current inventions into a new invention, and finally (3) INOVATION - this where Da Vinci excelled. Totally new inventions yet never imagined.

Now here is the fun, yet tricky, yet frustration you must face - the world will debate this topic of photography as a art to death. You must begin to tune this public debate out of your life and your work - If it is art for you then enjoy it - regardless of public points of view. Produce your work to your satifaction - and if you inovate and create and invent - you will be even more plased with the end results - and enjoy whatever audiance is amazed at your ART. God's speed - the original artist.

[Tom G]

just put a few pics in the gallery as art. i'm really a frustrated artist who is too lazy to paint so camera has to do. the light in the uk puts me off taking up the brush here i think. Was wondering how many frustrated artists are around the place or is it just me? The other thing is i dont know if anyone ever visits the galleries much unsure if i should keep whacking stuff up there?.. cheers

Yes, Jim, I'm lazy too. Makes me wonder if I'm really an "artist" although I've painted a great deal in the past (I'm 76)

But to your question, my definition is : Photography can be "Artistic", but is not Art. While Art and Photography both use "Tools" to work with, Photography uses a more developed and technically refined tool (the camera). In my opinion, the more developed the tool the less its results is art.

But then again... I vacillate.

BecauseI love Ansel Adams, Cartier-Bresson, and all the rest.

Bet I get some replies to this one.

Tom G

[DanDickens2]

Skill and Talent - two different things.

Tools can make a skill easier to execute.
Real talent from what those skills produce becomes debated over ART.

The public often confuses skill with talent.
I recall a student in high school who played the piano with great and admirable skill.
Yet everyone said of this student what a talented person he was.

Yet he never wrote music - he simply played sheet music from other talented people.

While I suppose that skill development perhaps uses some level of talent to which learning the language of music - however, to play sheet music is but the skill, perhaps a skill learned by using a talent - but the end exercise is but a skill.

Cameras are the new paint brush - we are painting with light, composing with form, all of this is the skill sets - and the camera is a tool that has dramatically reduced the skills needed from the hand - eye coordination of managing the paint brush.

So far I think I have avoid opinion here and stuck to the facts in this court of art.

Out of this testimony the debate of ART is much like the understanding of the Bible.
Those who take the Bible literal - find more meaning than those who interpert the Bible - they form thousands of religions - all claiming to be the only religion that God will accept - RIGHT.

We as a society form words and assigned meanings so the communication in discussions and debate have a base to form thoughts - when the agreed meanings of words are found with differing definitions - then the communcation and understanding begin to break down. Finding an agreed definition of the word ART is in itself a tough word to nail down - the word ART means different things to different people. Even the dictionary is of little help - with about 9 meanings on average from dictionary to dictionary. With 9 means and a world of public that enjoy interperting over literal - finding any agreement that is universal becomes a hounding issue.

So to pose photography as an ART - it can be - vast amounts of it are not.

People are amazed at the skill and craft of a painting - yet the basic foundation is this - I found a scene - I captured it to show to other people or to enjoy it myself.

A Camera is forever, capturing the world around it when someone pushes the shutter. This sometimes reders stuff of a visual form that gets other peoples attention - or becomes an image that the photographer admired for themselves.

Photography as ART? - well, what is ART? - are they going to add another difinition in the dictionary just as they have in the past century were four new meanings were added. Sooner or later someone is going to question even the keepers of the keys to all these definitions. Perhaps a new word should have been invented for each of the 9 meanings within the definition. Examples: Art, Arteffort, Artconscious, so on and so forth - so that at least when speaking of such endeavor - the public would know by which meaning one is referencing.

I think I know what you are talking about when you ask if Photography is an ART?
But can I really be sure? After all we none really know what "IS" is? - Right?

So good luck in determining what ART is - hurry before the dictionary changes its mind again.

One day there may well be a song - "Where as all the Artist gone, long time passing, - - gone to Cameras everyone - when will they ever learn..."

[alessya]

The question if photography is art has been answered almost a century ago. I recommend the essay "Seeing photographically" by Edward Weston on the matter - simple, but eloquent. It can be found in "The photography reader" by Liz Wells.

[Tom G]

Skill, Talent, Expertise, Adeptness, Dexterity, Ability, Aptitude, etc., etc., etc.?

Innate or Learned?

It's all Semantics, isn't it?

[jim truscott]

just put a few pics in the gallery as art. i'm really a frustrated artist who is too lazy to paint so camera has to do. the light in the uk puts me off taking up the brush here i think. Was wondering how many frustrated artists are around the place or is it just me? The other thing is i dont know if anyone ever visits the galleries much unsure if i should keep whacking stuff up there?.. cheers

Yes, Jim, I'm lazy too. Makes me wonder if I'm really an "artist" although I've painted a great deal in the past (I'm 76)

But to your question, my definition is : Photography can be "Artistic", but is not Art. While Art and Photography both use "Tools" to work with, Photography uses a more developed and technically refined tool (the camera). In my opinion, the more developed the tool the less its results is art.

But then again... I vacillate.

BecauseI love Ansel Adams, Cartier-Bresson, and all the rest.

Bet I get some replies to this one.

Tom G

Thanks for the reply Tom, There's a variety of views on this topic and it's always been important to me. Art in photography is of great interest to me.

I've posted a pic i took in South America of a guy waiting for a bus on a wet day against a huge mural (typical on walls there) i'm never sure of pics subject.
Is it the mural? or very small bottom half of a figure.
I think maybe the latter?

I think it's art, but then i.m biased as i love this kind of stuff.
Curious of your unbiased objective opinion!
In the gallery .. keyword of 'art' ..cheers jim t

[helmsmer]

Think about this: Was Michelangelo an artist or a stonemason?

Art does not come from the tools, be they brushes, cameras, or soup cans. We perceive art through the soul of the artist.

[Stikin2pentax]

Hi Jim,

Yes, photography is an art form - yet much of the art world might disagree on that topic. Here is the way I see it, the cave man would have loved to have had the tools of the 19th Century artist. He would have been even more pleased to have a camera. His art was most likely more spiritual than decorative - while perhaps educational to his fellow cave kin - his topics seemed to center around hunting for survival. So we may only guess at his motives - most likely we are correct in these assumptions.

And if your good man 'Ugg' also had a high powered rifle...hunting would have been an absolute breeze, and he could have photographed each kill for posterity into the bargain!
The problem with existing cave paintings is that we really don't know exactly what motivated their efforts. When you throw their knowledge of the hallucinogenic properties of certain plants and herbs into the mix, then it gets even more complicated! For sure hunting was the nucleus of life for both the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic peoples, and as such they would have adorned the walls of caves and important rock outcrops with paintings both recording and celebrating this vitally important activity...but I somehow doubt it was for 'educational' purposes.
So we have Ugg recording a kill, Ugg indulging in a spot of 'ritual' painting...and Ugg quite possibly spaced out on various hallucinogenic 'erbs and consequently daubing things with sundry 'vision-quest' inspired paintings...

...So most likely we're not remotely correct in such assumptions at this point in our understanding.

[DanDickens2]

"remotely correct" - we depend upon the sciences to tell us their best guess. By educational I was not referring to the class room setting. More or less teaching themselves for the hunt was on - the children most likely watched and learned. I can not say that their paintings were purely for decorative purposes as well early stages of glyphic language - I thought I was clear in that we can not be certain of their motivations. These early hunters and gathers were inventing on the fly as they needed - as was required to survive. They were artist in their own right for their own purpose whatever that purpose was, the evidence is clear that some need to do so was established. Tools and skills with tools do not always construct art to our standards today - there is commercial art and then decorative art and for some of us a mix in between. Even our dictionary has various meanings for the word art. I stand by the principle that as we exercise the skills with tools - if we invent with this action - then we have truly exercised an art that fulfills most if not all the various definitions of the word art. I am sure that at some future date more meanings to the word art will eventually make their way into the dictionary - this based upon past experiences with the word Bible. What I like to think of art is like a visual exploration or discovering a new world of vision - just as science is mostly about new discoveries - If I can show something never before seen in the way that I present it - that has to be an art - regardless of it be done with paint brushes or cameras.

[Tom G]

just put a few pics in the gallery as art. i'm really a frustrated artist who is too lazy to paint so camera has to do. the light in the uk puts me off taking up the brush here i think. Was wondering how many frustrated artists are around the place or is it just me? The other thing is i dont know if anyone ever visits the galleries much unsure if i should keep whacking stuff up there?.. cheers

Yes, Jim, I'm lazy too. Makes me wonder if I'm really an "artist" although I've painted a great deal in the past (I'm 76)

But to your question, my definition is : Photography can be "Artistic", but is not Art. While Art and Photography both use "Tools" to work with, Photography uses a more developed and technically refined tool (the camera). In my opinion, the more developed the tool the less its results is art.

But then again... I vacillate.

BecauseI love Ansel Adams, Cartier-Bresson, and all the rest.

Bet I get some replies to this one.

Tom G

Thanks for the reply Tom, There's a variety of views on this topic and it's always been important to me. Art in photography is of great interest to me.

I've posted a pic i took in South America of a guy waiting for a bus on a wet day against a huge mural (typical on walls there) i'm never sure of pics subject.
Is it the mural? or very small bottom half of a figure.
I think maybe the latter?

I think it's art, but then i.m biased as i love this kind of stuff.
Curious of your unbiased objective opinion!
In the gallery .. keyword of 'art' ..cheers jim t

I looked at your picture of the bus waiter,
juxtaposed in front of the mural in the rain, and commented positively on it at that site. In a word "Excellent". If you "love this kind of stuff", then shoot it. Lots of opportunities in the U.K. Often cloudy days are better for photography than extremely bright ones.

[Stikin2pentax]

"remotely correct" - we depend upon the sciences to tell us their best guess. By educational I was not referring to the class room setting. More or less teaching themselves for the hunt was on - the children most likely watched and learned. I can not say that their paintings were purely for decorative purposes as well early stages of glyphic language - I thought I was clear in that we can not be certain of their motivations. These early hunters and gathers were inventing on the fly as they needed - as was required to survive. They were artist in their own right for their own purpose whatever that purpose was, the evidence is clear that some need to do so was established. Tools and skills with tools do not always construct art to our standards today - there is commercial art and then decorative art and for some of us a mix in between. Even our dictionary has various meanings for the word art. I stand by the principle that as we exercise the skills with tools - if we invent with this action - then we have truly exercised an art that fulfills most if not all the various definitions of the word art. I am sure that at some future date more meanings to the word art will eventually make their way into the dictionary - this based upon past experiences with the word Bible. What I like to think of art is like a visual exploration or discovering a new world of vision - just as science is mostly about new discoveries - If I can show something never before seen in the way that I present it - that has to be an art - regardless of it be done with paint brushes or cameras.

I rather figured that you were referring to life lessons Dan.D...especially since they've yet to find evidence of a Palaeolithic school!
The line I picked up on in your epistle was So we may only guess at his motives - most likely we are correct in these assumptions.. Assumptions are not unlike the word 'ritual' when used to interpret certain aspects of prehistory/archaeology and is a more academic way of saying 'we really haven't a clue so we'll guess'.
That's why science deals in fact rather than offering us a 'best guess'

Respect.

[DanDickens2]

Science searches for facts - and it deals in hypothesis attempting to collect facts for further investigation. Science can conduct 665 experiments all with the same result to establish a theory conclusive to the facts. However, that 666th experiment can produce a different result unexpected of the facts, hypothesis, and theory - and back to the winds of change blowing the drawings off the drawing board. The point to which is made Science and Art have a common concept - both are attempts to bring new proverbs to the table of the human race - to give us something new to us all. The tools and their level of technical delivery are welcomed to the work bench - in that skill can be reduced so that the Art and Science can progress. Sadly too much of what gets called art is bound in the post card mentality of what art really is - not what is supposed to be - but as stated before - what is art to some is not art to others. While artists stuggle to agree - Science is gathered into a more common bond of what is tangible. One thing is certain a Commun of Science (NASA for example) or of Art not only bridges the tools which make the skill easier to execute the art or science - the Commun also collects those tools with less burden to the economic engine for such advances. Thus the bond of economic Communs can bridge the Social Structure to a common cause within the survival of all those taking risks and investing to the Common Wealth. Thus those at the top cry of Redistribution of the Wealth - with no regard to the Redistribution of the Freedom - for which is the ultimate sacrifice to which wealth at the top is accumulated for the few. Capitalism is an economic ART, it has been on this earth from the time Eve sold Adam on the wrong apple. Such economic art has shaped and modified and evolved beyond the simple barter to the currency forms of economic art - bonding NEW concepts of economic engines. So it be Science, Economics, ART - all forge ahead with bold new ideas - it is the new ideas that excite and flourish - the tools are supposed to improve the easiness of the skills. Even discount the skills altogether - allow the invention to flow from the mind onto the paper with the greatest level of ease possible - therefore new ideas can be greatly multipled in less time. The Photographic tools are simply the entire paint box of today. Camera, Computer, Printer allow the art to move and be born with greater ease. However, it is not good art unless it invents new visions for our own enjoyment. Most of it is not art at all - using photography as a recording device is the most used function to this technological marvel. As rare as a De Vinci or Rembrant - there are those photographers that are creating ART - giving me something that I have never seen in the way they compose, light, and form the image.

[Stikin2pentax]

Science searches for facts - and it deals in hypothesis attempting to collect facts for further investigation. Science can conduct 665 experiments all with the same result to establish a theory conclusive to the facts. However, that 666th experiment can produce a different result unexpected of the facts, hypothesis, and theory - and back to the winds of change blowing the drawings off the drawing board...And etc

Wow there D.D...you're clearly a man who loves the look of his own words...but then I love to read your words

Even more respect.

[Tom G]

Science searches for facts - and it deals in hypothesis attempting to collect facts for further investigation. Science can conduct 665 experiments all with the same result to establish a theory conclusive to the facts. However, that 666th experiment can produce a different result unexpected of the facts, hypothesis, and theory - and back to the winds of change blowing the drawings off the drawing board. The point to which is made Science and Art have a common concept - both are attempts to bring new proverbs to the table of the human race - to give us something new to us all. The tools and their level of technical delivery are welcomed to the work bench - in that skill can be reduced so that the Art and Science can progress. Sadly too much of what gets called art is bound in the post card mentality of what art really is - not what is supposed to be - but as stated before - what is art to some is not art to others. While artists stuggle to agree - Science is gathered into a more common bond of what is tangible. One thing is certain a Commun of Science (NASA for example) or of Art not only bridges the tools which make the skill easier to execute the art or science - the Commun also collects those tools with less burden to the economic engine for such advances. Thus the bond of economic Communs can bridge the Social Structure to a common cause within the survival of all those taking risks and investing to the Common Wealth. Thus those at the top cry of Redistribution of the Wealth - with no regard to the Redistribution of the Freedom - for which is the ultimate sacrifice to which wealth at the top is accumulated for the few. Capitalism is an economic ART, it has been on this earth from the time Eve sold Adam on the wrong apple. Such economic art has shaped and modified and evolved beyond the simple barter to the currency forms of economic art - bonding NEW concepts of economic engines. So it be Science, Economics, ART - all forge ahead with bold new ideas - it is the new ideas that excite and flourish - the tools are supposed to improve the easiness of the skills. Even discount the skills altogether - allow the invention to flow from the mind onto the paper with the greatest level of ease possible - therefore new ideas can be greatly multipled in less time. The Photographic tools are simply the entire paint box of today. Camera, Computer, Printer allow the art to move and be born with greater ease. However, it is not good art unless it invents new visions for our own enjoyment. Most of it is not art at all - using photography as a recording device is the most used function to this technological marvel. As rare as a De Vinci or Rembrant - there are those photographers that are creating ART - giving me something that I have never seen in the way they compose, light, and form the image.

I suggest you now move on to Truth and Beauty; you've given Art a real run for the money. While you're at it, try using the occasional paragraph which will allow your thoughts to be presented more cogently & convincingly.

[Don Schaeffer]

As Einstein said, "Art is intellect at play." Why do we bother with this debate? It's like science vs religion.

[Stikin2pentax]

Science searches for facts - and it deals in hypothesis attempting to collect facts for further investigation. Science can conduct 665 experiments all with the same result to establish a theory conclusive to the facts. However, that 666th experiment can produce a different result unexpected of the facts, hypothesis, and theory - and back to the winds of change blowing the drawings off the drawing board. The point to which is made Science and Art have a common concept - both are attempts to bring new proverbs to the table of the human race - to give us something new to us all. The tools and their level of technical delivery are welcomed to the work bench - in that skill can be reduced so that the Art and Science can progress. Sadly too much of what gets called art is bound in the post card mentality of what art really is - not what is supposed to be - but as stated before - what is art to some is not art to others. While artists stuggle to agree - Science is gathered into a more common bond of what is tangible. One thing is certain a Commun of Science (NASA for example) or of Art not only bridges the tools which make the skill easier to execute the art or science - the Commun also collects those tools with less burden to the economic engine for such advances. Thus the bond of economic Communs can bridge the Social Structure to a common cause within the survival of all those taking risks and investing to the Common Wealth. Thus those at the top cry of Redistribution of the Wealth - with no regard to the Redistribution of the Freedom - for which is the ultimate sacrifice to which wealth at the top is accumulated for the few. Capitalism is an economic ART, it has been on this earth from the time Eve sold Adam on the wrong apple. Such economic art has shaped and modified and evolved beyond the simple barter to the currency forms of economic art - bonding NEW concepts of economic engines. So it be Science, Economics, ART - all forge ahead with bold new ideas - it is the new ideas that excite and flourish - the tools are supposed to improve the easiness of the skills. Even discount the skills altogether - allow the invention to flow from the mind onto the paper with the greatest level of ease possible - therefore new ideas can be greatly multipled in less time. The Photographic tools are simply the entire paint box of today. Camera, Computer, Printer allow the art to move and be born with greater ease. However, it is not good art unless it invents new visions for our own enjoyment. Most of it is not art at all - using photography as a recording device is the most used function to this technological marvel. As rare as a De Vinci or Rembrant - there are those photographers that are creating ART - giving me something that I have never seen in the way they compose, light, and form the image.

I suggest you now move on to Truth and Beauty; you've given Art a real run for the money. While you're at it, try using the occasional paragraph which will allow your thoughts to be presented more cogently & convincingly.

Easy there tiger, there's no need to take the safety tip off of your foil...especially as your ego is clearly now hindering your thrust.

[DanDickens2]

Thank you very much - to invoke the word "love" is even a greater compliment.
Now, if only I could spell?

[Stikin2pentax]

As Einstein said, "Art is intellect at play." Why do we bother with this debate? It's like science vs religion.

I agree in principal chap, but it's nice to step fleetingly out of the photographic mainstream and take a bite out of something slightly different, and to be honest m'man D.D composes a gloriously dedicated epistle....even if he does get a tad tetchy when modestly challenged by a common builder.

But as you suggest, enough of such diversions.

[DanDickens2]

Well stated...

[Stikin2pentax]

Well stated...

Are we still friends D.D

[vlad]

Thanks for the tip, Alessya. I found it here. http://productionofimages.files.wordpres...weston.pdf