Is there such a thing as art photography?

Pavel M said:
If you say so. I generally do not like jokes at other's expense. I came here to this forum to discuss issues. For comedy, I go elsewhere. I will decide whether or not I need to lighten up
Click to expand...
You'll fit in well here. It's a real struggle to raise a laugh on TalkPhotography. :(
 
Ed Sutton said:
You'll fit in well here. It's a real struggle to raise a laugh on TalkPhotography. :(
Click to expand...
Thank you, I hope I will. You can start by joking exclusively at your own expense. Trust me. You will get your laugh.
 
Pavel M said:
If you say so. I generally do not like jokes at other's expense. I came here to this forum to discuss issues. For comedy, I go elsewhere. I will decide whether or not I need to lighten up
Click to expand...

I’ve read most of your posts and found them thoughtful and interesting but a bit of light relief does no harm. I would say you’re a bit too quick to take offence but no doubt you’ll tell me that you’ll be the judge of that ;(. I didn’t take offence at your “sour grapes” remark (which was offensive) because I realised you’d missed the point. But heigh ho .. .
 
sphexx said:
I’ve read most of your posts and found them thoughtful and interesting but a bit of light relief does no harm. I would say you’re a bit too quick to take offence but no doubt you’ll tell me that you’ll be the judge of that ;(. I didn’t take offence at your “sour grapes” remark (which was offensive) because I realised you’d missed the point. But heigh ho .. .
Click to expand...
Let’s move on. Our interests overlap and I hope we can find a mutually comfortable way of conversing with each other
 
Pavel M said:
Let’s move on. Our interests overlap and I hope we can find a mutually comfortable way of conversing with each other
Click to expand...
Fine by me.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Real artists don't think about stuff like that, they are driven to make work regardless of who thinks it is art or not and regardless of it having an audience/market. There's no tick list to follow to get to the destination of making art. All there is is the work. The more you make the more you understand where you're going. Stop thinking about art and start making work
Click to expand...

I keep coming back to this. Although @Pavel M took it as a criticism of him, I think Dave was making a more general point. In my limited personal experience of people who were primarily artists that is an accurate description. They are mostly interested in how to do stuff not why. Maybe it’s less true among, for example ‘conceptual artists’ for whom craft is relatively unimportant.
 
sphexx said:
I keep coming back to this. Although @Pavel M took it as a criticism of him, I think Dave was making a more general point. In my limited personal experience of people who were primarily artists that is an accurate description. They are mostly interested in how to do stuff not why. Maybe it’s less true among, for example ‘conceptual artists’ for whom craft is relatively unimportant.
Click to expand...
It was, indeed, a general point about 'creatives' from my experience among such people and from reading about how they approach their work. Although artist do think about the 'why', they know that creativity (what many mistake for inspiration) mostly comes about through the doing.

It's been said that all children are creative in their play but have this knocked out of them in the education system. Maybe artists dont grow up? After all, making art is really just a slightly more sophisticated form of play.

For example when artists get 'blocked' they don't get unblocked by sitting around thinking, they work their way through it. Usually by making a lot of stuff which is discarded. Many would-be artists can't grasp this idea of making failed work as valuable but see it as a step backwards. Failures are part of the process of creative progression.

I'm reading The Unquiet Landscape at the moment and last night came upon this quote from L.S. Lowry: "I don't understand it, I don't see the point of it. Painting to me is a habit, like everything else. I just go on until the picture balances."
 
Ed Sutton said:
Many would-be artists can't grasp this idea of making failed work as valuable but see it as a step backwards.
Click to expand...
This is true of many types of "boundary pushing".

It is often necessary to have failed several times in order to succeed eventually. The key is to know you've failed; to uderstand the failure; then to apply what you've learned to your next attempt. Done properly, this drives projects forward.
 
Pavel M said:
Well, this post is provocative, so you are well on the way to be a fine art photographer, I guess :eek:. The article is in my experience a nonsense and it comes across as sour grapes. Perhaps a touch of sour grapes on your part since you reposted it
Click to expand...

Pavel, You haven't been here long but if you had you'd know that (almost) any discussion about photography "as art" tends to end in tears. This one has lasted longer than most of them do, and it has been an interesting read, so maybe you could turn down the language a bit? We all have opinions on whether photography is art or not, but in my opinion there is more than a grain of truth in the blog post that Richard linked to.
 
All this thread has done is provide more proof to me that "arty types" are so up themselves and their "art" that other people's opinions are not to be considered as having any merit.

As I said in another thread intellectual twaddle.
 
munch said:
All this thread has done is provide more proof to me that "arty types" are so up themselves and their "art" that other people's opinions are not to be considered as having any merit.

As I said in another thread intellectual twaddle.
Click to expand...
Thank-you for raising the tone. Opinions and facts are however not cross-transferable.
 
munch said:
All this thread has done is provide more proof to me that "arty types" are so up themselves and their "art" that other people's opinions are not to be considered as having any merit.

As I said in another thread intellectual twaddle.
Click to expand...


See my post above.........

There really should be a "dislike" button.........
 
Last edited:
sphexx said:
I keep coming back to this. Although @Pavel M took it as a criticism of him, I think Dave was making a more general point. In my limited personal experience of people who were primarily artists that is an accurate description. They are mostly interested in how to do stuff not why. Maybe it’s less true among, for example ‘conceptual artists’ for whom craft is relatively unimportant.
Click to expand...
Dave, my objection to Richard related to something else and not at all to "just doing" post that you are referring to. Indeed, many artists were clearly not just doers. The oldest example was Michaelangelo, who was both an artist and a scientist, thinking very analytically. But if you look at what I see as the golden era of art (late 19th century to mid 20th century), the artists congregated, debated art and worked together on very profoundly analytical manifestos. Clearly, when Picasso and Braque worked together to develop analytical cubism, they were not just doing, they were what some people here would call over intellectualizing and certainly not "just doing". Indeed, many people that say that they are just doing are doing a lot more thinking than they let on. It comes up in conversations. And in my experience from clubs and online places, many of those that are just doing are in fact stagnating, treading water and continually repeating themselves. Look at Picasso and his "periods". Each time he changed to a new period, there was a dramatic shift in his work and that did not happen without a thought. If you look at many distinguished artists and their body of work, it clearly evolves over time and that I would say does not happen organically, even if the artists themselves may not always be aware of thoughts that went into the changes. When it comes to an issue of artists being interested in how and not why, there are endless list of examples of artwork and art that contradicts that. Is Picasso's Guernica about how? How about Goya's “The Executions” or the body of work of Jean-Michel Basquiat?

All that said, I personally believe that one great aspect of art or even craft is that if you work for your own joy and not to meet some external demands and expectations, you can pretty much do what you like and do it the way you like it. Who knows what way is superior? My personal preference is a little bit of both. I do believe that craft matters and that certain amount of playfulness experimentation and doodling is essential for exploration, but having a desire to address why and give the exploration some direction and some internal parameters for success failure is very useful. Most of all, your internal appreciation of when you are moving forward and when you are just endlessly repeating yourself and others is extremely important.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
This is true of many types of "boundary pushing".

It is often necessary to have failed several times in order to succeed eventually. The key is to know you've failed; to uderstand the failure; then to apply what you've learned to your next attempt. Done properly, this drives projects forward.
Click to expand...
I can not agree more. I see vast majority of my work as what I call a "noble failure". I do not despair over that at all. I see it as an essential part of growth and learning process. Most of my failures end up on a pixel dump and are never seen again. Some make it, at least temporarily, on Flickr. Some I leave there as I see them as some demarkation of the road I traveled. I can not imagine growth without many failures.
 
Pavel M said:
And in my experience from clubs and online places, many of those that are just doing are in fact stagnating, treading water and continually repeating themselves.
Click to expand...
You've misunderstood the 'just making work' thing by taking it to mean that's all you there is to it. The way you approach the making is important. Those you refer to must not have any of the self doubt that is alluded to in the Lowry quote or their work would change.
 
jerry12953 said:
Pavel, You haven't been here long but if you had you'd know that (almost) any discussion about photography "as art" tends to end in tears. This one has lasted longer than most of them do, and it has been an interesting read, so maybe you could turn down the language a bit? We all have opinions on whether photography is art or not, but in my opinion there is more than a grain of truth in the blog post that Richard linked to.
Click to expand...
Sorry, my temperature went up a bit temporarily, but we are all good now, I think. I came here to debate and to listen in what I hope is in equal measure, but I like the conversation to be strictly about photography.
 
Ed Sutton said:
You've misunderstood the 'just making work' thing by taking it to mean that's all you there is to it. The way you approach the making is important. Those you refer to must not have any of the self doubt that is alluded to in the Lowry quote or their work would change.
Click to expand...
Dave, this is interesting. Please explain in more detail/with examples. To me "the way you approach things" sounds a lot like the thinking of direction, evaluation of results, of what and why. For me just doing means what I would call playful doodling - an important part for me. The self-doubt to me is an unrelated matter. I think anybody who wishes to accomplish something must learn to live with repeated bouts of self-doubt, regardless the route you follow.
 
Pavel M said:
... I like the conversation to be strictly about photography.
Click to expand...

Don't limit yourself. I've learned stuff applicable to photography from reading about dance and sport - two things I have no interest in doing.

Pavel M said:
Dave, this is interesting. Please explain in more detail/with examples. To me "the way you approach things" sounds a lot like the thinking of direction, evaluation of results, of what and why. For me just doing means what I would call playful doodling - an important part for me. The self-doubt to me is an unrelated matter. I think anybody who wishes to accomplish something must learn to live with repeated bouts of self-doubt, regardless the route you follow.
Click to expand...
Playful doodling is kind of what I'm on about. (y) Twyla Tharp in The Creative Habit (recommened reading) outlines a strategy for breaking a block by setting out a random number of coins on a surface and making arrangements with them. "Eventually, I land on an arrangement that feels like a musical chord resolving. I look at the coins and they cry out, "This is us." There in a nutshell is the essence of creativity: There are a number of possibilities, but only one solution looks inevitable."

If all you do is carry on doing what you are already doing you'll make what you are already making. Some people are quite content to do that once they have arrived at a certain point in their development. There are people on here who, essentially, keep on taking the same photograph. They think that because the light is subtly different or the clouds have moved they are making new pictures, but they're not.

So the first thing required is a sense that you need to produce something different.

You could sit down and think out what that might be. I find that leads to boring results which aren't worth pursuing. It might not for other people though.Or you could try random stuff and see where it leads. If the latter then you need to develop strategies. Maybe Oblique Strategies. (Refresh the page for a new strategy. ;) )

One photographic strategy I use when I feel like I'm in a rut is to limit myself to one randomly chosen lens. Another is to take photos without looking through the viewfinder. The crucial thing is to be alert for when something has occurred which can be developed with some thought. Sometimes that will happen when not actively searching for a new direction. To me this is what inspiration is - spotting something useful.

If you want an example of how I approach things this thread might be worth a look. https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/autoflora-evolution-of-a-project.579409/
 
Last edited:
munch said:
All this thread has done is provide more proof to me that "arty types" are so up themselves and their "art" that other people's opinions are not to be considered as having any merit.

As I said in another thread intellectual twaddle.
Click to expand...
There's a dollop of truth in what you say.

I came at photography originally from a commercial and press background, so I've a strictly goal oriented approach to the subject. So far as I'm concerned, I photograph things and events primarily as records, if others think they're pretty pictures, that's fine but it wasn't my primary purpose.

That said, there are many people who see a camera as a tool specifically to create pretty pictures and who's to say they're wrong? It's unfortunate that some people in that camp think that they've discovered "The True Way" and the rest of us slobs need to be shown the error we propound. Their problem is that they've never heard or have forgotten the advice that "it's easier to catch flies with honey than with vinegar".
 
The few people I know making a success of photo art are following the creative process that Ed describes, and they do it because they have something inside driving them to do that. One thing they agree on is that deliberately setting out to make their next project a commercial success has been the surest way to make sure it's not. It's a small sample of people so probably not representative, however, it rings true for me based on my experience too.
 
I can see both sides of the argument. As someone who has exhibited their work a number of times I have sympathy for those who support the idea that photography is or can be "art". On the other hand I've also seen photography on gallery walls that I consider to be absolute bull****. This tends to be the conceptual type of "work" where the finished product is secondary to the concept behind it. I suppose we all have to rub along together doing what we do, and give others the space to do what they do.
 
I seemed to have irked a few people off with my previous comment. I am not going to apologise for that as it was my intention to perhaps take the debate in another direction. We are all entitled to our own opinions. As much as some feel there is "art" in photography and maybe there is, but the question is who gets to decide what that is? Is it only those with a perceived intellectual ability or should we all on our own merits decide what we consider "art"

I like something because I like it, I haven't been to art school, etc to have somebody tell me why I should rate somebody above somebody else, why pieces form into a certain style.

I just don't get why we have to Pidgeon hole things.
 
TimHughes said:
@The few people I know making a success of photo art are following the creative process that Ed describes, and they do it because they have something inside driving them to do that. One thing they agree on is that deliberately setting out to make their next project a commercial success has been the surest way to make sure it's not. It's a small sample of people so probably not representative, however, it rings true for me based on my experience too.
Click to expand...
Tim, I can not agree more. However, I am not aware of anybody here advocating this approach. I am the closest to some sort of planning, but that has absolutely nothing to do with planning for commercial success. My ultimate goal is to learn about art as much as I can in the time I have left (I am 72) after lifetime of being a scientist. My images are in themselves not the goal but the byproduct of my learning. We all enjoy a bit of tapping on the back and so I am thrilled if my images are shown in galleries and if some are sold, but thankfully I don't have to depend on that income. So I chart away and I doodle, I visit galleries and I study the online sources and I learn. So if you are referring to me, it doesn't fit and I have not seen anybody else expressing opinions that fit your description.
 
munch said:
Is it only those with a perceived intellectual ability or should we all on our own merits decide what we consider "art"
Click to expand...
Perhaps we should all decided what we think is 'cricket' (especially those of us who don't like the game) and ignore what the MCC and ICC say?
 
I wonder if part of the difficulty here is that people have been given a strawman fallacy by things like the tabloid press. There is a relentless carping from mainly right-wing media about progressive art (in the same way that they attack most things seen as progressive) and so it becomes a divisive issue and you have to be on one side or the other. However in reality it is just some people creating things that may have some meaning to others and other people buying those things, either buying them directly or buying entry to a gallery to see the things.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Perhaps we should all decided what we think is 'cricket' (especially those of us who don't like the game) and ignore what the MCC and ICC say?
Click to expand...

That would be fair comment if cricket were an exclusive game few had heard about, let alone played. But most males and some females in the UK will have played it at school, also at weekends as kids and perhaps as adults. Many also follow cricket and have a detailed knowledge even if they no longer play. So many would be able to clearly identify the game, assert many of the significant rules and requirements and generally have an excellent understanding.

So why is art so different?
 
Ed Sutton said:
Perhaps we should all decided what we think is 'cricket' (especially those of us who don't like the game) and ignore what the MCC and ICC say?
Click to expand...
It does beg the question why people don't get their knickers in such a twist about music or movies or poetry?. Its akin to me deciding that all movies created outside of the Hollywood Studio system were not movies, or all music not produced by Simon Cowell was not music (some might think quite the opposite :) )

Musical theatre on the other hand ...
 
jerry12953 said:
There really should be a "dislike" button.........
Click to expand...
There was but it was removed as a certian faction would follow others around various forums just to "Dislike" their posts....

Having lived in NE. SD. for a few months, I often found that the Americans didn't appreciate the British sense of humour, and it was often met with "stupid bloody Brit"
But of course I took no offence and tried to enlighten them :)
 
sirch said:
It does beg the question why people don't get their knickers in such a twist about music or movies or poetry?. Its akin to me deciding that all movies created outside of the Hollywood Studio system were not movies, or all music not produced by Simon Cowell was not music (some might think quite the opposite :) )

Musical theatre on the other hand ...
Click to expand...

An excellent example. The issue is the exclusivity factor.

It would be unusual to tell someone writing poetry that they weren't really poets because all they could manage was craft. Who would tell someone knocking out 3 chords on a guitar that they weren't making music? I HAVE seen it suggested that super technical musicians aren't very musical - DragonForce have been named - but that's not a serious criticism.

You wouldn't tell the kids with a bat, ball and stumps that they weren't playing cricket because they had not been approved as able by the MCC.

And yet I've seen here people told that the pictures they produced, which they considered art, were nothing more than craft, with the implication their work was not of value. That's why there's so much heat and upset.

:)
 
Last edited:
munch said:
but the question is who gets to decide what that is? Is it only those with a perceived intellectual ability or should we all on our own merits decide what we consider "art"
Click to expand...

We are all free to like what we like. And what is, or isn't, art is defined by the intent of the artist.

As to whether it is "good art", I would be more confident learning about this from listening to a range of different opinions from those who have spent a lifetime in the serious study of art, artists and art history than the views of those who haven't.

But just because something is considered "good art" by some experts, even if its the majority, that doesn't mean you have to like it. If you read books or watch documentaries with titles like "the worlds greatest painters" the authors behind them (often art historians or art curators) don't necessarily like the work of all the painters they include.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
And yet I've seen here people told that the pictures they produced, which they considered art, were nothing more than craft.
Click to expand...
I've not seen that, do you have any examples? As I said up thread it's quite simple, print it, sign it and get a gallery to hang it and it IS art. Failing those attributes its somewhere between dropping a guitar on the floor and playing 3 chords on it, i.e. it might be art or it might be an accident.

ancient_mariner said:
were nothing more than craft, with the implication their work was not of value
Click to expand...
Why is craft any less valuable than anything else, again its honestly not something I have ever come across. In fact quite the opposite, I'm sure craft items earn their makers far more than that the average artist can make from their work.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top