Is there such a thing as art photography?

[jerry12953]

There is also a lot of small scale low cost books and zines now being produced by photographers and photographic galleries/publisher of photographs. Maybe not so much "fine art" but more documentary and conceptual photography, but still a way for photographers to earn some money outside the normal commercial routes.

Probably very unlikely to earn the photographer any money, Graham. More likely to be produced at the photographers expense, and they would be lucky to break even........Perhaps akin to vanity publishing, but I do fully understand the photographers' motivations.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Probably very unlikely to earn the photographer any money,

When I took pictures for money, payment was generally by cheque. In those days, there were just three things I craved: my name on the "Payee" line, a decent number on the "amount" line and a valid signature at the bottom.

Fame was a bad thing; the bailiffs might know where to find me! I suppose I could just have asked for cash...

 

[myotis]

Probably very unlikely to earn the photographer any money, Graham.

I don't know enough about this to offer much of discussion, but as an example of what I mean I listened to a zoom talk by Christina Webber, where the Director of Streetlevel Photoworks offered to stock her Zine, which is now here:

Category - Street Level Photoworks

Street Level provides inspiring encounters in art photography locally and internationally; a creative setting to exhibit, produce, participate, and buy photography.

www.streetlevelphotoworks.org

I'm not imagining they are going to make much money, but it does seem to be an avenue of potential income. I've followed up on a couple of Zoom (or similar) talks to buy a Zine direct from the photographers web site, only to find they are sold out. But they may well have only had 10 copies to begin with !

Athough not Zines, buying the Craig Easton work (prints on A2 photographic paper simply folded over to make a book) and the Julie Cumming work which is a properly bound book, were both triggered by listening to them talk on a Zoom type presentation.

It's opened up a new way of thinking for me, and I'm fairly keen, to try and buy more zines of photographers work. Unfortunately, I do tend to like work that relies on high quality reproduction, which tends not to be a province of low cost zines, or indeed the photographers whose work I am most likely to be interested in.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Not entirely. If somebody's going to label something, they should be able to argue their case. If they can't back it up, then yes, it's subjective, but the label isn't then worth much.

Much of the time, labels are superfluous - the nature of the work is what counts, and should be self-justifying.

labeling is subjective anyway. What ever their argument other people may not agree with them.
It can be quite properly be argued that all photographs are at some level, art.

However Fine Art is a marketing concept not an artistic one.
if you do not agree please define when a piece of work crosses over from an art work, to fine art.?
Is all the work by a respected artist fine art?
or are his lesser works works of art? or just doodles.?
Can fine art include studio work part done by an assistant?

Fine art would appear to be a value judgement, based on worth.

 

[TheBigYin]

So despite so many of you disputing my assertions about art, this post actually tends to prove my point.

It certainly speaks loudly towards the OP's own Agenda, and I feel will likely help opinions polarise somewhat

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Yes, but perhaps only in terms of livelihood rather than cultural content.

Largely true, I think, even though the term 'fine art' lacks precise definition.

Very few artist have gone though life with out trying to sell and live off their work.
You can not benefit from "Cultural content" nor live on it.
The early great masters Were thought of, and thought of them selves as artisans. ( where the word artist comes from.)
They were trained as and trained others at apprentices and became journeymen and eventually masters in their own right. In the same ways as shoemakers and silversmiths.

It was only when "gentlemen" dabbled in painting and sculpture and attended teaching academies. that the distinction between "artist" and artisan" was established.. it became a function of enlightenment and education. rater than a master craft controlled by Guilds.
The new distinction between Art and Fine Art is now driven by academia and marketing.

Photography has been fighting for recognition as an Artistic discipline since it was invented. However its value, like all other works, is very largely established by scarcity and demand, not some scale of artistic merit. Photographs largely fall at the lowest end, value wise, of all art forms, when they enter the open market.

Like much art pottery, their initial sale price plummets when they re-enter the market place.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I'm not imagining they are going to make much money, but it does seem to be an avenue of potential income. I've followed up on a couple of Zoom (or similar) talks to buy a Zine direct from the photographers web site, only to find they are sold out. But they may well have only had 10 copies to begin with !

I buy zines. I also make them and have self-published books in the past so have an idea of the costs involved. Judging by the prices most zines sell for the profit's must be minimal.

I saw on one of her videos that Julie Cummings had 500 copies of her book printed. My order was number 235. If that's how many she's sold I think she's doing well.

Although I'm a big fan of zines the problem I have with photography zines is their target audience is other photographers. I understand the desire and need to be acknowledged by other photographers, but for me photography deserves to be seen outside the photosphere and affordable zines could be a way to do that. The problem is finding outlets and means of promotion.

 

[TheBigYin]

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/media/users/nod.8506/ 12 pages of images. And here are yours https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/media/users/cobra.1870/

Is that a habit of admins here to read ill intentions into people they do not know? The ones I met until you made an excellent mature and responsible impression on me. They try to keep the flow of ideas going on subject of photography and keep the temperature down. Obviously these are not your strengths.

As has probably been pointed out, many members, myself included, post all kinds of things to our "media" section on here - I'm fully guilty of that btw - and to save you hunting, mine's here - https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/media/users/thebigyin.13515/page-12 - page after page of screenshots, lighting test attempts and image "prototype" work, test images to be used in various forum helpguides, and a whole bunch of scanned images from rolls of film taken by a group of 20 or so members who participated in a "travelling camera" challenge that I ran - now, as few if any of those images were mine, I couldn't slap them on my own website, so I used the "media" facility on here to provide hosting. What I'm saying here is frankly, if you look at MOST peoples media hosting here, it's not going to be their portfolio - it's going to be their "ephemera bucket" and be mostly happy snaps, record shots and pictures of kit that they've flogged in the classifieds.

As to bothering with searching out any other work of mine - i'll save you a job - don't bother, nothing I've ever posted online has any pretence towards or was shot with the intention of being anything other than "a pleasant enough diversion" - I'm not an artist - I often wish that I could see life that way, but I don't - I do try and appreciate the "art" that others put forward as being so, and generally do see some "meaning" in others imagery that's promoted in this fashion.

Going back for a number of years, I've often been the staff member that's been involved in the "Art Discussion" threads - mainly because I wanted to keep the threads from descending into slanging matches and the thread ending up locked and/or members ending up getting time-outs on the naughty step for personal insults - why did I do this? Because I wanted the discussion to be here so I could potentially learn something more that might help me "unlock" some creativity perhaps? Or because I wanted this forum to be more about the Photography Process on a conceptual level and less about the Hardware or Willy-Waving about the latest gear? Or perhaps just that I got sick of people dismissing the concept that photography could be art, purely because for them it was purely a craft thing? Well - it was all of those and more. But you know what - every time when the thread went sour, it was always when the "Artists" Ego kicked in and they started denigrating others and making personal attacks. THIS thread as been surprisingly devoid of the usual torch and pitchfork mentality of the "philistines" so far. However, the ego's starting to show anyway, and I'd caution you that you're not impressing anyone with the "been exhibited, list of galleries, salons, etc etc", quite the opposite - all you're going to do is make people think that you're only here for self promotion or ego massage - not saying you are - but judging from replies as the wind is changing in the thread it's going that way.

In short - engage people by all means, but don't dismiss anyone on the strength of what they post on here - many of the membership are professionals and much of their output is either on their own secure sites or not posted to social media (of which TP is still a form) to maintain some measure of avoidance of copyright fraud and reproduction by various offshore non-prosecutable companies...

 

[Cobra]

That's a brilliant post Mark very well put.

As to bothering with searching out any other work of mine - i'll save you a job -

I have to say, I have always admired the 2 still life's on P12.
Are they art? I wouldn't like to make that call, but they are certainly "fine" images.
edited to add, that's the ones involving the skulls

 

[gerry s]

Hands up anybody on here who has got together with 3 others to rent a gallery to be exhibited?
Let us know if you've won a magazine competition as well.
Asking for a friend.

Wanderlust (not fine art I'm afraid)

 

[myotis]

Although I'm a big fan of zines the problem I have with photography zines is their target audience is other photographers. I understand the desire and need to be acknowledged by other photographers, but for me photography deserves to be seen outside the photosphere and affordable zines could be a way to do that. The problem is finding outlets and means of promotion.

Yes, I can't see it zines or photo books being a sole way of making a living.

I think the thing about Julie Cummings book is that it isn't a photography book, it’s a book on the social history of a highland glen with an audience beyond the normal photo book. I'm guessing that some of the books will be placed in other outlets on a sale or return basis (at the very least the local tourist office) so this number might not indicate the number sold.

My copy of Craig Easton's Fisherwoman is 264/550, and as far as I am aware he only sells direct. but this also has a social/historical context.

I like the idea of Zines, and that they can be a low cost way of supporting each others photography. Making some zines (and buying them) was part of my grand retirement plan, which has been thrown into total disarray by a house move going all wrong, followed by covid, and then some unexpected financial problems.

But, it would be good for zines to become something that sells beyond a small specialist interest group, even though I am still very partial to the "fine print". But there is room for both.

Although most people, for obvious reasons, relate photography to painting, intellectually, I think it has a lot in common with poetry or novels, and with these mediums we would all be so much worse off if the printing press hadn't made them accessible to the masses.

 

[jerry12953]

As I said earlier on in this thread, an exhibition or book (or a zine) is far more likely to be recognised as a "work of art" than a single photograph or a small collection of them. It will (or could) reveal the photographers motivations and their intentions. However I have seen exhibitions by very good photographers which just don't hang together at all; it was difficult to discern any coherent thread running through them.

When I was much younger I was desperate to have an exhibition at my local Arts Centre and the gallery director told me that I needed to have theme before he would consider it.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

The time when an exhibition of photographs on a wall was a good way to get noticed has long gone, replaced by showing the images on the internet. With very few exceptions, an exhibition will reach a few dozen or perhaps a few hundred viewers. For those who learn and apply the techniques of hyperbole and marketing, an image on the internet will reach thousands of viewers.

Which measure will translate to cash in hand is another matter.

 

[sphexx]

That's a brilliant post Mark very well put.


I have to say, I have always admired the 2 still life's on P12.
Are they art? I wouldn't like to make that call, but they are certainly "fine" images.
edited to add, that's the ones involving the skulls

Those are some of the examples I was thinking of when I mentioned “still life” earlier. They are certainly creative. Are they “art”, well if they are not then an awful lot of dead painters will be turning in their graves. Personally I wouldn’t bother to categorise any photos that way.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Those are some of the examples I was thinking of when I mentioned “still life” earlier. They are certainly creative. Are they “art”, well if they are not then an awful lot of dead painters will be turning in their graves. Personally I wouldn’t bother to categorise any photos that way.

Depends on your definition of "art".

For instance if your definition of "art" is something to display big on your wall - why wouldn't your photo be considered art.

Eg - This is probably going to go on the wall in my home office - and big. For me, it evokes a very special morning, years of planning but really it is a snap shot of a moment in time I had hoped to happen. It represents an absolute high point for me.

There really is no creativity here. None, aim the big lens at the mountain, crop out the stuff at the bottom and boom...done. But for me it has more artistic merit than some dark nude picture with a big white mount and black frame, you know the sort.

_DSC3107 - 65x24 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

This might be deemed more creative - this ICM. I had to create it - it's not a documentary shot. However there isn't a month of Sundays this is going up on a wall, into a calender I sell or any prints I sell commercially.

_IMG1155 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

Art is a very broad reaching word and means lots of different things for lots of different things. For me, I consider myself an artist as I feel there is a craft to be able to take pictures as good as mine, and that my work has some sort of aesthetic value. I feel like an an artist, creating a work of beauty when I am out with the camera, which is the tool/medium I use.

I cannot draw or paint to save my life. I wish I could.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Any of us have photographs the we display at home or office.
But what wil happen to them when we are no longer around.
Even if we spent good money on them they are unlikely to escape the bin.
Photographs are rarely considered intrinsicly valuable.
Some may be kept for their frame.

 

[jerry12953]

The time when an exhibition of photographs on a wall was a good way to get noticed has long gone, replaced by showing the images on the internet. With very few exceptions, an exhibition will reach a few dozen or perhaps a few hundred viewers. For those who learn and apply the techniques of hyperbole and marketing, an image on the internet will reach thousands of viewers.

Which measure will translate to cash in hand is another matter.

I can't say I really agree with you there. An exhibition in a gallery will run for 4 - 8 weeks and depending on the venue be seen by hundreds or thousands of people, many of whom will be quite discerning viewers. You might even sell some prints!

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

An exhibition in a gallery will run for 4 - 8 weeks and depending on the venue be seen by hundreds or thousands of people,

If the exhibition is in an area with a large catchment area, where there are a large number of people who go to exhibitions and if a large proportion of the people who go to exhibitions are interested in photographs...

...then, if the exhibition is sufficiently well publicised that the people who will go to exhibitions of photographs and are within the catchment area are aware of the event and the venue is considered attractive by such people, then you may have a number of visitors. How many visitors will only be known after the event.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Oxfordshire has 'artweeks' where local artists and craftspeople can exhibit and sell their work from private houses and studios etc. It makes art very accessible.

 

[myotis]

Depends on your definition of "art".

For me, I consider myself an artist as I feel there is a craft to be able to take pictures as good as mine, and that my work has some sort of aesthetic value. I feel like an an artist, creating a work of beauty when I am out with the camera, which is the tool/medium I use.

Although repeating things already said, neither media nor methods define whether something is or isn't art and only the intent of the artist can decide if their work is art. Others can argue if it is good art or bad art, successful art or unsuccessful art and they can, of course, decide whether its art they like it or art they don't like, but they can't say, with any validity, it isn't art. So, if you say it's art it is and only you can decide what you want to say with your art.

But, I think you do yourself a disservice over the lack of creativity with the first shot. If I was geologist wanting an objective non-creative record of those crags to document and measure changes in the rocks over time, I would not have made the image you made. For one thing half the crag is hidden by cloud !

I think you made several creative decisions with this image (maybe subliminally, as you obviously bring a lot of expertise to the process), firstly the decision to make the photograph in the first place, secondly the choice of viewpoint, framing and composition, thirdly the timing of capturing the clouds and the sunshine at the right moment. fourthly the cropping of the final image, and fifthly choosing the relationship of tone colour and contrast of the the final image. For me many grand landscapes are all too often ruined by too much contrast and over saturation.

These are all creative (artistic)decisions that you needed to make, and you needed the level of craft to make a final image that reflected how "you" wanted the final image to look. Not everyone would have considered these artistic questions, not everyone would have come to the same conclusions, and not everyone will have the skills (creative and technical) to make the image you made.

And while photography may be unique amongst the arts in that luck can play a big part in allowing someone who was out and about at the same time as you, at a similar spot, to take a similar image, this image may not show the same level of artistic intent and control that your shot does. e.g. would they have been studying the relationship between the sunshine and the clouds the same way that you were when deciding the exact moment to trip the shutter. Assuming you were.

I know that in the past when taking pictures like this, the experience is always accompanied by a list of expletives as the same wind that is creating the perfect composition of clouds is also blowing the clouds over the sun.

 

[sphexx]

Depends on your definition of "art".

For instance if your definition of "art" is something to display big on your wall - why wouldn't your photo be considered art.

Eg - This is probably going to go on the wall in my home office - and big. For me, it evokes a very special morning, years of planning but really it is a snap shot of a moment in time I had hoped to happen. It represents an absolute high point for me.

There really is no creativity here. None, aim the big lens at the mountain, crop out the stuff at the bottom and boom...done. But for me it has more artistic merit than some dark nude picture with a big white mount and black frame, you know the sort.

_DSC3107 - 65x24 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

This might be deemed more creative - this ICM. I had to create it - it's not a documentary shot. However there isn't a month of Sundays this is going up on a wall, into a calender I sell or any prints I sell commercially.

_IMG1155 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

Art is a very broad reaching word and means lots of different things for lots of different things. For me, I consider myself an artist as I feel there is a craft to be able to take pictures as good as mine, and that my work has some sort of aesthetic value. I feel like an an artist, creating a work of beauty when I am out with the camera, which is the tool/medium I use.

I cannot draw or paint to save my life. I wish I could.

Oh dear, now we are going to have to define ‘creativity’. It certainly doesn’t just refer to ‘creating’ something. Every time you push the shutter button a photo is created. I just created my lunch from ingredients found in the kitchen but that’s not what it means. I‘m inclined to think it’s a waste of time trying to pin these things down too narrowly because the definitions always fail.

 

[Retune]

Depends on your definition of "art".

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieUEHtzVUgs

 

[myotis]

Here is a video on the definition of art, from one my favourite but now unfortunately, defunct Youtube channels.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2VpNx5ZxSA

 

[sphexx]

Here is a video on the definition of art, from one my favourite but now unfortunately, defunct Youtube channels.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2VpNx5ZxSA

I think she nailed it!

 

[Nod]

I'm curious to know where you found that, there are no flickr links and @Nod hasn't posted anything photographically here in a very very long time.
Or was it just a wild stab in the dark to put him down / discredit his opinion?

I don't think it's THAT long ago that I posted something new! But it may well have been. Not shot much since covid started and my processing 'puter is still waiting for me to get off my arse and get sorted (and that'll have to wait a bit longer until I can walk more than a few yards without agony!)

It seems I may have touched a nerve somewhere but I stand by my comment that one of the shots the op posted appears (to my non-artist trained) eyes to be a distorted shot of a few stacks of garden chairs and the other is a rather unattractive, overcooked shot.

As for my shots in the gallery, you and Mark are right, almost all of them were taken to show particular points rather than to prove any sort of artistic merit (which I'm more than happy to admit, I have no pretensions to claim!)


ETA... And, for what it's worth, I reckon some or Mark's still lives come damn close to art photography, even if he thinks they don't!

 

[myotis]

I think she nailed it!

Yes, so do I.

It's a great pity she stopped doing these videos, and well worthwhile scrolling back through the earlier ones to find titles that interest you.

This was one of the channels that I would watch every new video as it was released.

 

[Cobra]

I don't think it's THAT long ago that I posted something new!

I reckon about 5 years, ( Mankini image excluded) but happy to be proved wrong.

 

[Nod]

CBA to go searching but I'm pretty sure I've posted some shots that I resized in camera (X-30) for direct attachment. Mankini is older than 5 years, I think.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I think she nailed it!

She convinced me that no-one has ever defined "art", with the possible exception of Ambrose Bierce.

 

[woof woof]

Surely the highlighted bits are the only ones that are facts. You know that your opinion on the matter is unqualified.

I’m not likely to spend a million on a work of art, £10k on a bottle of wine or £100k on a car, so offering an uninformed opinion of them would just be a sign of my ignorance.

The ‘emperors new clothes’ is routinely misunderstood in this context. It’s not about being an uninformed voice of reason. That little boy was (in the modern parlance) speaking truth to power. He wasn’t questioning some learned knowledge that he didn’t agree with; he was pointing out a lie.

My point was that I think some people get carried away and perhaps need to hear an independent voice and that's what I meant by the emperors new clothes. Sorry you pedantically missed that but I accept it's a stretch beyond what you'll accept.

Some art (and all of this is just IMO) just isn't worth the money and possibly isn't even worthy of the label art unless in some insanely wide definition that only some in the know circle will define. For example a dead animal in chemicals, a mirror covered in printed punctuation marks with all other text invisible, a lined page from a school text book covered in a persons name written in ink a hundred or however many times it took to fill each line on the page. To me these are better described as talking points and conversation pieces than art. A basis for a discussion rather than pieces of art. A well made circuit board is more worthy of the designation art IMO but that's just my opinion. I'm an amateur photographer now but during much of my life I was an amateur artist first, paper and pencil, paint, ink, charcoal and the like, so I have opinions. What I produced did vary if it was for myself, a portrait for someone or the backdrop for a stage but it was all art as art would be recognised by the masses rather than some stretched definition recognised by fewer people.

As as example of art and collecting an ex of mine collected paintings by a particular artist and paid £40-£60k or more a pop. I can see the appeal in collecting art but those paintings, pastoral scenes with IMO not a lot to catch the eye, focus on or to produce any sort of emotional response, were IMO thoroughly unremarkable, big but unremarkable and IMO could have been produced by any number of even amateur artists. They are however art just IMO unremarkable and vastly overpriced when viewed in isolation and only really make sense if for whatever reason the buyer wants to collect art produced by that artist but I'm pretty sure it's possible to buy "better" paintings for the price, IMO.

Other than that. Yes, I'm happy with the term "art" photography.

 

[TheBigYin]

I have to say, I have always admired the 2 still life's on P12.
Are they art? I wouldn't like to make that call, but they are certainly "fine" images.
edited to add, that's the ones involving the skulls

And, for what it's worth, I reckon some or Mark's still lives come damn close to art photography, even if he thinks they don't!

most kind of both of you to say so - maybe it's just that they were the final couple of shots in a series that started out as a "winter, stuck at home while ill, self improvement effort" to learn a bit more about composition and lighting.... That turned into a 6 months "deep dive" into everything Vanitas and "dutch old masters" related that I could find (along with the purchase of 2 packing crates of over-gothic props - god only knows what the people who end up doing a house clearance when I finally shuffle off this mortal coil are going to think if they open those boxes to be confronted with a bunch of skulls, feathers, old books, crystals etc...) Because of the "run up" of prior shots working towards this, I probably just can't "see the art for the craft and graft". For what it's worth, however, what I learned in making a couple of those images

View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/the_big_yin/5544283225/

View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/the_big_yin/6545577453

did however get me to the point where I "understood the language" of the image, and meant I could come up with things that had more of my own spin on the style like this one...
View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/the_big_yin/17861181558

, and occasionally even something without the more "gothic" props...
View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/the_big_yin/16101559584


(it also opened the door for a number of commissioned pieces that I made, though, as they were basically highly personal to the people who hired me (much as the flemish school painters were hired by the rich merchants who were their clients) I basically don't exhibit them anywhere, other than having a couple of them printed at a scale that befits the details involved, and on the wall in my home... I'd like to think however that I wasn't being quite as snide/p***taking in my portrayal of the personal items in the commissioned stuff as the original painters generally were being...

 

[TheBigYin]

Mankini is older than 5 years, I think.

and yet it's viewers still have the nightmares

 

[Nod]

Almost time for a reshoot?

 

[Cobra]

Almost time for a reshoot?

 

[woof woof]

and yet it's viewers still have the nightmares

If only we could unsee things.

 

[Retune]

A Naked Borat Is Doling Out Masks in Downtown DC - Washingtonian

Two huge ads for "Borat: Subsequent Moviefilm" are up in downtown DC...and they're pretty much what you'd expect from Sacha Baron Cohen. Take a look. I think the posters speak for themselves. If you want to check them out and stock up on masks, they're at 20th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue...

www.washingtonian.com

 

[woof woof]

B@stard!

 

[Retune]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rsa4U8mqkw

 

[woof woof]

Why did I click on this thread?

But at least this does bring some good memories. I nearly married a Kazakh lady. We met at Darlington train station. She was an economist and from what I can gather a very good one as people used to fly her all over the world to prepare reports and she was/is a total babe. I had good times in Kazakhstan which is thankfully and unsurprisingly northing like Borat's Kazakhstan at all.

Some Kazakh women are IMO some of the best looking women in the world.... Kazakh men, not so much IMO

 

[jerry12953]

Why did I click on this thread?

But at least this does bring some good memories. I nearly married a Kazakh lady. We met at Darlington train station. She was an economist and from what I can gather a very good one as people used to fly her all over the world to prepare reports and she was/is a total babe. I had good times in Kazakhstan which is thankfully and unsurprisingly northing like Borat's Kazakhstan at all.

Some Kazakh women are IMO some of the best looking women in the world.... Kazakh men, not so much IMO

Your post is probably the definition of "off-topic", Alan........