Photography or graphic art

[Arnor]

Hi all,

Hope this is the appropriate place to post this.

In the April issue of Professional Photographer magazine (www.ppmag.com), page 70-81 they have a section called "Shine - showcasing the Diamond photographers of the year" with work from various photographers. You can download/view the article (free, subscription not required) as a 12 page PDF from http://www.ppmag.com/current_issue/p...0407_Shine.pdf

I have to admit that I was a bit confused looking at the photos in this section. Most of these photos look much more like graphic art or digital art to me than photos. Example, the photo on page 74 "I finished it with Marshall oils, pastels and pencils to give it a monochromatic look". I guess I'm just extraordinarily old fashion or something<g>, but to me that's a painting, not a photograph. Don't take me wrong, I love the results and I love messing with graphics (wish I was better at it!), but to me it's just not a photograph. To me the "other" effects are far stronger than the original photograph and at that point it's no longer a photograph, it's graphic art or digital art.

Am I just very old fashion? (I have a feeling I'm setting myself up for some very direct and blunt answers to that question<bg>) How do professional photographers feel about the subject of graphic/digital art vs. photographs or mixing graphic/photos? Where is the line between a photograph and graphic/digital artwork?

Best regards,

[johnastovall]

If it's beautiful, does it matter? One of my favorite magazines is 'CameraArts' and very little in it looks like 'photography.'

Why draw lines when the don't exist in the world.

What's important is does it meet basics of good art.

Yes, you are old fashion.

[Arnor]

Hi John,

Originally Posted by johnastovall

If it's beautiful, does it matter?

Why draw lines when the don't exist in the world.

What's important is does it meet basics of good art.

Does that mean that art can only be beautiful? Or that beautiful things are automatically art?

If I print a photo of woman A on a 8x10 and my step daughter paints over it with an image of woman B is it still a photo of woman A or has it become a painting of woman B?

I agree we don't need the lines, but I'm curious as to what people think and how they feel about this subject. Do people draw lines between photos, paintings and graphic art? Obviously from what I'm discovering they are very blurred.

Just curious:)

Best regards,

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by Arnor

Hi John,



Does that mean that art can only be beautiful? Or that beautiful things are automatically art?

If I print a photo of woman A on a 8x10 and my step daughter paints over it with an image of woman B is it still a photo of woman A or has it become a painting of woman B?

I agree we don't need the lines, but I'm curious as to what people think and how they feel about this subject. Do people draw lines between photos, paintings and graphic art? Obviously from what I'm discovering they are very blurred.

Just curious:)

Best regards,

Beautiful is a vision of the world which presents one with the a new way of looking. I do Roadkill shots which are Beautiful.

The world is blurred since we are making it out of just ones and zero. But it was blurred with those first marks on the walls of Lascaux. Are they painting or line drawings?

As for painting on an image, look at the fusion of early photography and painting on the image.

Lines are not just meant to be blurred but erased.

[picasso]

We could go on for days discussing what art is. In fact I have before and it wore me out. Art is subjective to the viewer.

As far as your origional question, I have seen the pictures you speak of and they all started as photographs. Whether you think they are still photographs, art, or something else all together in my opinion is still based on your perspective and subjective to the viewer. If you think about Ansel Adams. His photographs don't look like quite the origional but, many many people call them art and photographs. There was lots of manipulation done so that he could get them just the way he saw them.



Paul

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by picasso

We could go on for days discussing what art is. In fact I have before and it wore me out. Art is subjective to the viewer.

As far as your origional question, I have seen the pictures you speak of and they all started as photographs. Whether you think they are still photographs, art, or something else all together in my opinion is still based on your perspective and subjective to the viewer. If you think about Ansel Adams. His photographs don't look like quite the origional but, many many people call them art and photographs. There was lots of manipulation done so that he could get them just the way he saw them.



Paul

Just to add to the confusion, what about David Hockeny's scuplture which was made to be photographed?

As for what is art? To re-phase (to it's detiment) Kalus Oldenburg, "Art is what sits on its ass in museums."

As for manipulation long before digital was Jerry Uelsmann.

[kenw]

Photography is to "Art" as are watercolor, welded metal, or Farrah's nekkid skin.

They are TOOLS used to create art. Sometimes, photographers have to do very little to create their art (some might say the same for Farrah...), and sometimes they do a lot.

It's all art.

[Arnor]

Hi Paul,

Originally Posted by picasso

If you think about Ansel Adams. His photographs don't look like quite the origional but, many many people call them art and photographs. There was lots of manipulation done so that he could get them just the way he saw them.

Agreed. I just find this interesting and thought perhaps others would too:) For me it's not really a question of if something is art or not (I'm not even going there<g>) but more of what defines a photograph as opposed to graphic art or paintings - or if, indeed, there should be any definitions established. I agree with you on Adams. Many people say that if you do anything to a photograph after you take it, it is an artistic sacrilege and that you have ruined the original. I disagree and I think Adams would disagree with it also as he was a master of manipulating the captured image to show what _he_ wanted it to show, which nobody else might have seen. I simply had the feeling, based on my limited experience with photographers that they would consider these photos that I originally refered to, as being over processed, over the top, etc. To me a photograph is something taken with a camera and looks like it was taken by a camera;) So to me, these photos fall short of that. Do I care? Not really, just curious and interested in knowing how photographers see this:)

Thanks for your comments:)

Best regards,

[Arnor]

Hi John,

Originally Posted by johnastovall

As for what is art? To re-phase (to it's detiment) Kalus Oldenburg, "Art is what sits on its ass in museums."

As for manipulation long before digital was Jerry Uelsmann.

As always, thanks for your input:) Although I stink at graphics (to put it mildly<g>) your view has opened up a new world to me and widened my horizon considerably when it comes to the artistic aspects of photography. It means I can do things that I've seen people frown at (not necessarily photographers) and that I felt were just perfectly ok. Thanks a lot for the link - I've been enjoying looking at those photos!:)

Best regards,

[kenw]

Hey, you're not alone. I've taken tons of heat over the years for some of the things I've done to my photos: "They aren't photographs if you edit them."

fine, don't call 'em photos. ok by me....

http://www.railroadforums.com/photos...708/ppuser/136
http://www.railroadforums.com/photos...167/ppuser/136
http://www.railroadforums.com/photos...371/ppuser/136

There are photographic technicians... then there are artists that use a camera.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by Arnor

Hi Paul,



Agreed. I just find this interesting and thought perhaps others would too:) For me it's not really a question of if something is art or not (I'm not even going there<g>) but more of what defines a photograph as opposed to graphic art or paintings - or if, indeed, there should be any definitions established. I agree with you on Adams. Many people say that if you do anything to a photograph after you take it, it is an artistic sacrilege and that you have ruined the original. I disagree and I think Adams would disagree with it also as he was a master of manipulating the captured image to show what _he_ wanted it to show, which nobody else might have seen. I simply had the feeling, based on my limited experience with photographers that they would consider these photos that I originally refered to, as being over processed, over the top, etc. To me a photograph is something taken with a camera and looks like it was taken by a camera;) So to me, these photos fall short of that. Do I care? Not really, just curious and interested in knowing how photographers see this:)

Thanks for your comments:)

Best regards,

If you like a photograph to look like it was taken with a camera, you are in the Gary Winogrand camp.

"I don't have anything to say in any picture. My only interest in photography is to see what something looks like as a photograph. I have no preconceptions."

"Photography is not about the thing photographed. It is about how that thing looks photographed."

"Photography is about finding out what can happen in the frame. When you put four edges around some facts, you change those facts. "

[Arnor]

Hi John,

Originally Posted by johnastovall

If you like a photograph to look like it was taken with a camera, you are in the Gary Winogrand camp.

Thanks for the name - that turned up some very interesting stuff:) Not sure I belong to any camp yet except my own;)

Best regards,

[picasso]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

Just to add to the confusion, what about David Hockeny's scuplture which was made to be photographed?

As for what is art? To re-phase (to it's detiment) Kalus Oldenburg, "Art is what sits on its ass in museums."

As for manipulation long before digital was Jerry Uelsmann.

Thanks for the link John. I really enjoyed looking at Uelsmann's work. Its really amazing considering he does not use PS or anything like it.

Paul