|
That's so phenomenally stupid I'm not sure I can even respond coherently.
Oh, wait. Yes I can.
To pick but three.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
No Sir! its is an art -_-...pfft!
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Film = CCD = CMOS = future bio-engineered retinal sensor = photon counter.
Now I'm angry. I'm going to have to get a beer.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
We've had this conversation before and in some ways I agree with the premise, if not the article itself. Digital photographs can certainly be beautiful works of art, but because every copy of a digital photo is identical, it makes it quite difficult to compare it to a one-off print, painting or sculpture. It might be more akin to a reproduction of a work as soon as it's created.
Were an artist to take a digital photo, reproduce it on paper and then add something unique to it - I don't know, artistic scratches, tinting or something similar - that would make it 'fine art'. This is why large runs of a lithograph (which is a reproduction, albeit a difficult one to produce), for example, are usually less valuable than small runs. And, of course, each lithograph is unique as a result of the process. Likewise, when you buy a poster print of a famous painting, it has little or no value because there are simply too many of them produced.
I don't think he really addressed this properly (if at all), however.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
How about if I uniquely numbered each one with a magic marker? :o)
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
*yawn*
repeat rinse
*yawn*
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Rob - that might work, I don't know. I've actually been trying to work out what it would take to make a digital print as valuable as a silver print, as it happens, but I've not found anything definitive so far.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think the digital photography could be considered as a fine art very well.
We all should consider that any art form has it's own aesthetic.
What makes an expression a fine art it's the fusion of: "technique, theme, and thesis" (pure aesthetic theory), in other words it's the purpose a defining factor, not the medium (in this case de camera).
A.K.A. That's what exactly deserve a Darwin Award...
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
Levania edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
Surely since Duchamp's "fountain", art is anything an artist chooses to call art?
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Who is this Tony Long anyway, to make such bold statements. I am the first to admit, that digital , compared to film shooting has its drawbacks. Art, however, often is born by accepting and utilizing limitations.
To give an example : Van Gogh, when he was really broke, used to scrape tar from the streets to keep painting!
Digital media can only be compared to film, once they are PRINTED!
On a monitor, its a very different medium, but why shouldn't there be an artist who manages to produce just that: Fine Art?
After all its the Artist, who creates pieces of art, not the medium.
Tony Long=posh editor=old skool=soo yesterday
case dismissed. ;)
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Ah, now here's a subject to warm the cockles of any polemicist's heart.
The question: "What is art?" has of course been reverberating emptily around the known universe ever since some cave man first scratched out a mammoth at No 37, Neolithic Mews.
The only problem with Tony Long's latest iteration of the art world's oldest irrelevancy is that we all know he's wrong, hopelessly, laughably wrong, and there's scarcely any fun in chasing his bait.
Both the column and Thomas's sage reply are worth reading, but most minds, I suspect, are already made up - we all know what art is when we see it.
I quite like Nabokov's formulation: "A work of art has no importance whatsoever to society, it is only important to the individual."
If you think it's art, you're right.
If you don't think it's art, you're right.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
See, I'm not interested in this as a discussion of what's art and what's not, but what has value to a collector as a piece of 'fine art', of which a one-off is always more valuable and an edition or a reproduction.
I don't think anyone is addressing or even acknowledging this (other than Rob), so I think I'll back out of this conversation now.
Would very much like to have that conversation sometime, but I think the confusion will always arise, which is a shame. Nevermind.
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
Yolise edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
|
But Yolise, the owner of a digital image can choose whether or not to make one image or 100, just as Ansel Adams could choose to make 1 print or 100. And it is entirely possible that digital images will be sold in the future as RAW or TIFF files, not just as prints.
You're talking about the commercial value of art, which is not the same as whether it is art in the first place.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Yes, Tampen - I just edited my post to say as much!
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Digital art's "not art"... on whose authority? As soon as you declare ANYTHING that "is art" as being "not art", you will get attacked by legions of educated artists and art historians. It's really not a wise position to take, it's like trying to deny the moon landing or something.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I quite like Nabokov's formulation: "A work of art has no importance whatsoever to society, it is only important to the individual."
If you think it's art, you're right.
If you don't think it's art, you're right.
Well said Tampen.
And you are right about a digital photographer being able to limit productions of a print in the same way that a film photographer can.
The fact that digital images can be reprinted endlessly (such as a poster) does not in some way diminish their status as creative art.
In terms of Yolise comments on collecting. All photographs via film negative or digital can be reproduced endlessly. If someone want to make their photography collectible then they will probably need to limit production, sign and number their work. This creates uniqueness and scarcity which is what in part drives price.
Most fine art photographers limit production in order to create a sort of value contract with those who have purchsed their work. But this action is hardly dependent on the film vs. digital debate.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
well, this has been a sticky topic for years now. and while i was first a "film purist", i've now come to see that film vs. digital is a less effective way to look at it than film and digital.
they are two very different things and both are very capable of being used as fine art.
hell, photography in general has struggled since its beginnings to be accepted as an art form on the same table as painting/sculpture/etc.
i do feel that there can be more "value" placed on a print that has been hand printed/burned/dodged/toned on archival materails. . .or a historic process. . .or a limited edition/one of a kind images. but still, there is play room in how all that works.
i do know that when i work with a piece of film and a blank piece of paper in the darkroom i form a bond with it more like that of painting/sculpture/etc. because of the hands on relationship i form.
somehow that translates into more "worth" or validity in the art world.
with my digital work it's more about that moment of capture. which, i've found, is also a very personal artistic moment of expression.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Tony Long eats bugs.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Thomas, I think this is a different conversation. I'm sorry I didn't read the original article properly and didn't realise it was a discussion of "what is art", which is not what I was talking about. I think that bringing this other issue into it just muddies the waters.
Perhaps we could start a new thread about this as re.becca has interesting points that I was hoping would come up.
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
Yolise edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
I haven't read Mr. Long's article yet, but I will. Before that, I just want to make one particular comment with respect to digital vs. film photography. There are some people who look at it as the process, that photographing with film makes you an artist because you have to worry about lighting, composition without checking an LCD, a dependence on the developer/processing, that you can never duplicate-the-same-shot-exactly school of thought. They then argue that digital removes all that and you are left with the empty digital press of a button and the computer does all the thinking for you.
Totally bunk!
You still have to think about lighting, composition, Raw processing, etc. The medium should be irrelevant in defining your vocation as an artist. Digital is just the latest tool in the genre of artists whose specific field is photography. aqua-ali has it right: this whole debate is pretty boring.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
first off, and forgive me, but if you find a topic on here boring. . .move on. no one is forcing you to form and share an opinion of "yawn". there are plenty of threads on flickr that bore me to tears. i don't go throught them all posting "this is stupid". i move on to the thousands of other options i have for entertainment. anyway. . .
with that being said, i do think that you have to maintain a respect for the intricacies and skill involved in film photography. so much depends on the photographers skill and not just their abiltiy to "see the shot". every step from choosing the film to what chemical developers you use in every stage effect the outcome. and there's no second chance with it. printing your own work involves plenty that you can't translate into working on photoshop. working with film is (for the lack of a better word) harder. period. it requires a different dedication/mindset for the most part. which is why, for me, its easiest to look at the two as differnet entities.
and simply put, the instant nature of digital has "made eveyone a photographer" in that there is immediate self critique and the immedaite option to take another and get the shot. though i'm the first to admit that getting my hands on a digital camera re-awakend me to my photography.
i'm not saying digital photography isnt intricate and involved on other levels. it is. and there are MASTERS in the medium that are every bit as valid as artists.
ok. guess i'll stop. i know some people are sleeping by now. . .
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Fortunately for me none of this is relevant to what I do. I just take photographs. I don't do "art".
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Art to be "Art" doesn't have to be a one of a kind. So that premise goes completely out the window.
Edited in...
Also, something that is mass produced can also have great value, as down the road one never knows how many of the produced item will still be in existance or the condition of such mass produced items.
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
Violentz edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
|
Yolise... you're Damn right...
"When art is expose to the "mass reproduction" became from momumental to ornamental..."
-Gianni Vattimo
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Violentz: www.flickr.com/groups/central/discuss/72157594240844179/7...
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'm gonna go paint a picture of my digital camera now.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Looks like a bit of attention-seeking to me. Same old same old -- write an article with a contentious topic and watch your name get blogged wildly for a week or so. Good luck to him.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
In follow up to Yolise, who said
"See, I'm not interested in this as a discussion of what's art and what's not, but what has value to a collector as a piece of 'fine art', of which a one-off is always more valuable and an edition or a reproduction."
I will reply that as a fine artist trained in traditional fine art forms, I too agree and feel that one-off art is always more valuable but it tends to vary on the significance between different media. For example, an edition of an etching is important when each print impression wears out the printing plate. Thus, a "low number" of the edition yields better quality original art than 20 or more prints later. That's one reason that the huge number of editions and re-editioning of Picasso and Salvador Dali became a significant factor in the pricing of their print art.
Then along came the 1970's in America, when fine artists when to commerical print production to reproduce paintings, prints, and photography. Suddenly, a "fine art edition" could include up to 25,000 copies of a work. If the artist signed each copy with an edition number, oddly, the values of re-sale and for insurance purposes still held, just as if these reproductions had been original one-offs! Yikes! For the most commercial of these artists like P.Buckley Moss and Terry Redlin, there was a push to make their art be "fine art", in the short term succeeding. But when they hit multiple thousands of edition numbered prints, then to increase value these artists did "remarque" edition prints to increase "value". All they did was draw a larger signature and sometimes a doodle with it, and suddenly - voila - more value!!!!!
Urk!
All in all, I totally agree that if the buyer/owner/artist says it is ART to them, then it is. But don't expect anyone else to feel that way. Thus, I find a new art media like digital photography and the various presentations of it to be worth as much as the buyer will pay for it and only that. As I've been a custom picture framer and artist for over (gasp) 30 years now, I have never changed my belief in the value of the artist hold to their work, and the value of the beholder/buyer as the only importance such work has in determining "value", "art or not art status", or monetary value.
BTW, for anyone so foolish as to think the price of the art itself is significant, just go to have it framed or re-framed. Typical costs run from twice the "price" of the art to many times the price of the art. Did I tell you of the time I framed a dish towel that cost 25 cents for a grand fee of $400? It looked awesome, but of course pleasing the customer was the only priority.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
note: joke
Everyone knows that a digipic is like an expensive piece of armor in World of Warcraft.
It takes just as much effort to get, but in the end it's just pixels.
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
BartF edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
I think the real issue is that Tony Long is trolling, and plenty of people have taken the bait. Bet visits to Wired.com are way up due to the controversial nature of his "article"...
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
lady_elsinore edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
luddite. i can't wait until a supercomputer, attached to a robot, using a film camera, is able to take better photos than the so called artists out there.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
um who cares what some guy says
really
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I kinda agree with Yolise and cobalt here actually. To me, art is more about the process than the result, and in fine art that process is evident, through the work of the artist's hand.
In a digital reproduction, and even in the printing of film to an extent, little or none of the process gets through.
It's like the difference between an original and a reproduction. One is art, one is ornamentation. How we attach that kind of original significance to a digital print is beyond me. Or maybe not.
Here's an idea: print a certain number of prints, then destroy the original, in this case the memory data. Instant uniqueness!
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I actually have seen photographers do exactly that--print 500 copies (or whatever) then destroy the original digital file.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
This assumes that there's someone "out there" who determines what is art. I have news for "them": "I" determine what is art.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Though, down the road......technology will get to the point where a scan of an original print will be as good, if not impossibly better than the original. Who knows. New technology might make jpg, tiff, raw files obsolete making prints from them more rare as people discard all their old format images when they upgrade to the new format.
Time will determine what has value and what does not. Twenty years from now a stupid 50 cent comic book printed in the 70s might be worth 5 million dollars, and a fine piece of art created by a very successful contemporary artist of today might be worth nothing.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
who cares? all we have to believe is that it IS art. it's just like that idiot jim rome who doesn't consider football (soccer) to be a sport. what an ass... but he's got a right to his opinions.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Well this is just what happens when journalists write their stuff on a computer and not with ink on paper. I remember the time when writing was still hands-on. It required some honest sweat. It required time.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Ubiquity_zh......some people still use old fashioned typewriters to type out their books and such.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The digital camera, and software, have made the making of an image much more accessible to many more people, more affordable. Today anyone can be their own auteur on Youtube, anyone can have their own gallery on Flickr. Technology, by levelling a playing field, and opening new possibilities for process, vision and expression has thus resulted in a lot more communnication of visual images.
To write a book, the easiest way is to grab a pencil and a piece of paper, and to start writing. Thats how Shakespeare did it. It does not mean that everyone with a pencil and paper at their command is a Shakespeare.
Today all you need to make an image is your cameraphone.
Ubiquity creates clutter. But surely using new tools to express a coherent vision does not undermine that vision or make it less artistic.
This ubiquity might make an accidental artist out of one, or just by its ease and simplicity, nurture a vision, and develop a unique voice.
I think digital technology sows the seeds of a million possible artists, voices, discoveries, expressions and communications. And that which touches a chord, in the human seer, will tend to be recognized as a voice worth listening to, or a way of seeing thats worth deeper exploration.
Technology democratizes Art, and its creation. The theory of the Long Tail, and a million niche voices, with their own fan followings is here to stay.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
The digital camera, and software, have made the making of an image much more accessible to many more people, more affordable. Today anyone can be their own auteur on Youtube, anyone can have their own gallery on Flickr. Technology, by levelling a playing field, and opening new possibilities for process, vision and expression has thus resulted in a lot more communication of visual images. Technology has broken the barriers of entry to expensive fields of endeavor in the realm of communication, some of which we classify as Art.
To write a book, the easiest way is to grab a pencil and a piece of paper, and to start writing. Thats how Shakespeare did it. It does not mean that everyone with a pencil and paper at their command is a Shakespeare.
Today all you need to make an image is your cameraphone.
Ubiquity creates clutter. But surely using new tools to express a coherent vision does not undermine that vision or make it less artistic.
This ubiquity might make an accidental artist out of one, or just by its ease and simplicity, nurture a vision, and develop a unique voice.
I think digital technology sows the seeds of a million possible artists, voices, discoveries, expressions and communications. And that which touches a chord, in the human seer, will tend to be recognized as a voice worth listening to, or a way of seeing thats worth deeper exploration.
Technology democratizes Art, and its creation. The theory of the Long Tail, and a million niche voices, with their own fan followings is here to stay.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
How about assigning a GUID to each print? This has the advantages:
a) Uniquely numbers each print.
b) GUIDs are generated on the principle of "uniqueness in space + uniqueness in time", which has a pleasingly artistic sound.
c) GUIDs look cool.
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
-RobW- edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
|
I think it's more about what the buying public would find interesting and valuable. GUIDs are not terribly romantic. The doodle idea is a nicer one.
I guess the issue for me is what makes an image interesting and unique. Recently I had a photo printed and framed as a gift to a friend. I actually felt a bit bad that it was only a scanned negative, rather than a traditional enlargement. I think I would have felt like it would be a better gift if I had gone to the trouble of enlarging and printing it myself.
Obviously, that's just me and so that colours my opinions on the matter. For me, my digital photos aren't as interesting or as 'valuable' to me as my film photos are because I know that I haven't put the same amount of work and thought into them.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I've just edited my post to justify my GUID decision (in a kind of tongue in cheek way, although as a programmer I do think GUIDs have a certain elegance).
But I like your doodle idea a lot too. As a tangential aside I always doodle in birthday cards because it says "I'm actually thinking about your birthday card rather than just writing 'Dear X Happy Birthday Love Y' without engaging my brain".
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
-RobW- edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
as it was in the past:
photography is no art
only painters produce art...
what a nonsense!
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
We all know Tony Long's--whoever he is--wrong,
So why still spit your opinions in tones so strong?
We can all just leave him with his pathetic opinion,
And move on, make art with whatever, byte or solution.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
 -- from elfis gallery - (?)
QED
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Interesting relevant article found in the "I Shoot Film" group. www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/technology/circuits/08schiesel...
More relevant to a "Film vs Digital" discussion, but I couldn't find a very recent one.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
As you can see from the start of Thomas' blog entry, as late as the 70s it was debatable wether photography was art.
I remember discussions the early 80s where it was widely believed that you could not produce art that was generated on a computer. (which admittedly would have taken some optimistic imagination at that point in time)
Long enters the debate rather late, and at this stage it's not really worth debating anymore since there are so many digital artists around whose creativity can't be disputed.
I'm a little concerned that a senior staff member at Wired holds such antiquated views.
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
_barb_ edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
Isnt' the contemporary consensus that 'art' is whatever the artist declares? Ergo, if I spit on the ground and declare that art, it is art.
Tony Long seems to have entirely missed the seventies.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
So, what the h--l does HE know?
Go out and take pics, and have fun!
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
RS2802, beautifully said.
I think Tony's just having a throwback moment. I can relate. There are some contemporary pieces in other mediums (especially painting) that I find utterly appalling. It's why people make fun of art in general. Within photography itself, there are these internal debates about what is and what isn't. Within digital itself, there is a notion that one must have a dslr to be taken seriously. It's quite amusing if you think about it in a certain way.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I am intrigued by what is seen as art and what is not. Jackson Pollock used to ride around on a tricycle tipping paint onto a canvas on the floor. My government has paid millions of dollars for some of Pollock's work. Recently at a Flickr meetup I photographed some paint that was spilled from a bicycle onto a boardwalk - and I am sure the authorities would pay to have that cleaned up.
Re the scarcity model: I am not interested in that. I would not want my art images to be one-off, because few people would ever see them. I would not want them to be so valuable that they would be locked away in a bank vault for somebody's superannuation. If I put all that effort into an image, I want it seen, I want it to say things to people. And surely selling 1,000 copies at $100 is better than selling one precious work for $10,000?
How many people here actually use digital tools for fine art? With software such as Photoshop, we now have what someone termed "the photography of the imagination". The photograph is now a beginning, not an end point. We can paint with light (whether starting with a photograph or not).
Beginners often do approach it as if there are an array of "art buttons" to press, but artists who use digital tools do so much more than that. The process of producing digital fine art may be conceptually simple or very detailed. And gallery owners and curators I have spoken with don't have the least idea what goes into it. They get sucked in by really basic stuff, and cannot comprehend the difference between the trivial and the inspired when it comes to digital art. (Curators need training in this field.)
Does scratching a print really make it art? Particularly if the image was well concepted and executed and printed archivally before it was scratched?
Adding to what RS2802 has said, digital photography and image manipulation software are spreading visual creativity in an unprecedented way. Some don't like it, but art is not likely to remain the province of elites. It is now feasible to integrate the practice of art with everyday life, and evidence of that can be found all over Flickr. Not every shot, not every member, but look and you will find art.
The music industry is finding, much to the dismay of the execs at the big end of town, that computers and the internet are changing their business models whether they like it or not. The same is happening to photography and art.
I like it.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"How many people here actually use digital tools for fine art? With software such as Photoshop, we now have what someone termed "the photography of the imagination". The photograph is now a beginning, not an end point. We can paint with light (whether starting with a photograph or not)."
The photography of the imagination used to be called a "painting" or a "collage"
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
My humble opinion for yolise and cobalt123:
It seems that there is some confusion here between price and value: a unique print/painting etc. has a higher price because there is only one of them. It does seem to me that the intrinsic value of the work is not affected by the number of copies.
If I were an artist and wanted to communicate something through my work, I'd prefer to be able to communicate it to as many people as possible. If I were an art businessman I'd consider wether selling a very expensive unique piece would make me more money than selling many chepaer copies. Of course I am neither, so I may well be wrong.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
 |
Carl.J [deleted] says:
About 20 years or so ago, fine artists condemned acrylic paints as non-art when dashed on a canvas. Then when I see the winning entries for the Turner art prize, I almost want to distance myself and photography from "art".
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I don't think it's so much of a confusion as a different issue. I think that traditionally (in the age of reproductions, at least), the decision about whether to not to limit ones work depending on how popular the artist became. A new artist with no following might find it difficult to find enough buyers for every one of his 10,000 print run if no one placed any value on his unique works in the first place. Van Gogh's Sunflower reproductions sell millions because the original painting became well-known in the art world first.
These days, the distinction may be a bit more blurred. So an artist like Jack Vettriano who is often slated by the art establishment sells reproductions to the general public in their millions.
I think it's an individual thing though. One artist may be creating art for money, another just for the sake of art, another, perhaps, simply wants to be famous and it's then up to them to decide how to achieve their aims.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
The New York Times today (Friday 25th August) has a fascinating read on the digital "improvements" to old film photographs taken by the great Walker Evans.
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
Tampen edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
As a Forum Moderator, I learned not to bite at Troll-Bait, but as a multimedia designer (my career), this part really offended me... heck, pissed me off. It's like taking a **** on my career...
« It's like "painting" a picture using your computer. It's kind of fun to do and what you have when you're done may be superficially terrific, but unless you've actually applied brush to canvas you're no artist. You are merely a technician with a good eye. »
This isn't art?: www.bertmonroy.com/fineart/text/fineart_damen.htm
Art is the product and expression of human creativity. Digital or not, it doesn't matter.
EDIT: I just read Thomas' blog entry... I think this is the best definition of "art" in the context of what tools you use (which is what sparks most debate about so-and-so isn't art...)
« ...art is not about the tools used to create art, art is a visual representation of what one can create in one's mind. It is an aesthetic representation of something borne out of a sprit that resides deep in all of us to express ourselves to the world each in our own way. Each with our own tools of choice. »
Bravo!
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
Cron-Z edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
You are merely a technician with a good eye.
I don't know, that doesn't seem so bad to me. I mean, it sounds like an excellent description of Vermeer and Rembrandt, which is some pretty good company to be in.
I think the author just doesn't full appreciate the implications of "technology" and "technician," really.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
« ...art is not about the tools used to create art, art is a visual representation of what one can create in one's mind. It is an aesthetic representation of something borne out of a sprit that resides deep in all of us to express ourselves to the world each in our own way. Each with our own tools of choice. »
An art can be about the tools too. Any tools, even digital.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
There is a famous artist in Toronto who had a show at a famous gallery. 2 TV sets playing the same video of a record player stuck at the end of the record (that was it). There was another with an exhibit of a large ball of twine. I drove by the Art Gallery of Ontario once and they had a 2 story high directors chair out front. I thought.... must take some ego to fill that chair. Later that day I heard a poor kid playing violin for quarters on the street and almost cried it was so good. I had a chance to buy a painting once for 1k.... it went up to 3k in 2 months..but no one liked it or said a word about it. I bought an old hand made cedar strip canoe later and hung it in the hall coming into my studio... everybody loved it and talked about it...plus I could still go for a paddle in it...
Art is in the eye of the beer holder.
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
Robert Rountree edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
Well; at least he accomplished what he was going for – if he had said the opposite very few people would pay attention. The most successful publicist and talk radio personalities usually are the ones that have the innate ability to anger thousands.
It’s like announcing to the readers of The State (South Carolina Newspaper) that NASCAR is not a sport and wrestling is fake.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Actually I think digital photography is more like the work of a painter than film. Film allows you to capture a single moment as well as your camera allows using the settings you input and the output is a one shot gamble that is dependant on the darkroom or lab.
Digital allows you to capture the moment and then paint the scene to your hearts content. It allows you to be like a roomful of students painting a beautiful nude in a studio. You can apply your thought of the moment and save it without having to destroy the original work. It allows you created variations on a theme like a classical composer.
Why do so many artists photograph a subject and then paint the scene? Film photograghy stops the moment but the painter adds their own perspective and emotion. Digital photographers and artist do the same. Flaws in their work only adds to its relevance as art.
Just my humble opinion.
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
Monday Morning Photography edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
|
It’s like announcing to the readers of The State (South Carolina Newspaper) that NASCAR is not a sport and wrestling is fake.
And that they BBQ better in California?
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
For any young dudes and dudettes who think that film photography is all about capturing the moment, you can be sure that many classic pictures were hugely ‘loved’ in the darkroom. Many of Photoshop’s tools are based on what people already were doing in the the darkroom.
Polaroids. Now there’s a medium for purists. (If I could make one decent cat photo the way William Wegman shoots dogs I’d think I was all that and more.)
1. Tony Long is a wanker troll.
2. Making good pictures in the age of digital photography is not that big a deal. It is art, but most art these days is appreciated within a context.
There’s lots of art everywhere. Self-identifying as an artist in the 21st century is not the same as doing so 150 years ago or even 50 years ago.
Tony Long needs to understand that the context that created the great art of the last few hundred years has passed. If one is searching for great art – I’ll settle for art I like – it is absolutely inane to begin by limiting the search by medium.
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
Kevin Steele edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
Who cares what Tony Long says. In Life of David's opinion, Tony Long is not a true artistic writer. :)
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Does it really matter whether digital photography is art or not?
This same argument has always pursued photography and (some) photographers have always had a chip on their shoulder about it.
Many photographers (including myself) get seduced by the picturesque; photography’s unique ability to create beautiful images of the mundane. But, a five year old can create pretty pictures! Try randomly shooting with your camera without using the viewfinder: you will get an interesting picture… eventually.
Anyone can create digital pictures of pretty things with nice composition. It may be art but its not great photography; great photography needs depth and context.
I propose that the reason people react so defensively to the suggestion that photography is not art is because they do not fully understand the possibilities offered by the photograph and do not try to learn and understand it as a medium.
Photography, art or not, certainly exists and is worth understanding, as it is something that affects us constantly (probably more than any other medium) in our everyday lives.
Surly its time to climb down from the pedestal, leave the Cul-de-Sac of the picturesque and forget any self reflective labelling like "I’m an artist" - Who cares? What we are all interested in is the photograph. Art or not.
Although if you really want to be seen as an artist - do something really meaningful that’s different from all the millions of images here on the internet - create something truly new that questions the prescribed methods of photography that follow so lamely in the wake of painting.
Otherwise be happy to be a photographer and keep producing the eye candy so prolific here on flickr - like I do.
Just remember photography, art or not, is PHOTOGRAPHY!
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
A relevant snippet from a New York times story, published yesterday, reviewing a show of digitally produced prints of classic Walker Evans photographs.
In other words, the image produced by the camera, whether it’s a negative or a digital file, is only the matrix for the work of art. It is not the work itself, although if the photographer is a journalist, any hanky-panky in the printing process comes at the potential cost of the picture’s integrity. Digital technology has not introduced manipulation into this universe; it has only multiplied the opportunities for mischief.
I dawdle over this familiar ground because the digitally produced prints of classic Walker Evans photographs, now at the UBS Art Gallery, are so seductive and luxurious — velvety, full of rich detail, poster-size in a few cases and generally cinematic — that they raise some basic issues about the nature of photography.
The story and quote were originally cited on the PhotoDigital mailing list.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
A Cynic Writes:
Why do we 'need' photography to be 'art' anyway ? It just is what it is. Some find it banal, some find it irresistable and ( fortunately ) want to spend money on acquiring it. The only difference that digitisation has made for Joe Soap is that, in the past, he would have had drawers of enprints that few others outside the immediate family circle would ever see. 'Being a (professional ) photographer' was not therefore an ambition cherished by many. These days we put our pictures up on a website and email them to a captive audience - our real and cyber-friends and anyone else we can think of. When enough people have responded with the hoped for 'very nice, you should do this for a living' we then begin to think that we're special, you know.....artists.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
As I always say: natural is a moot point, unnatural is just somebody's opinion...
If something - whatever it may be - is done with style, panache, love and care then it's ART!! OK? (preaching to the converted here, no doubt)
P.S. Wired magazine is weird.
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Art is art, but not all art objects are equal. The scarcity values of painting might not be relevant to image-makers, but many consumers get excited by them. The non-concrete nature of the digital image challenges the existing modes of valuing things, but this is more to do with economics in the digital age in general than photography. As such, this is more of a concern for art-parasites (galleries, libraries, middle-men) than it is for the practitioners themselves.
Tony Long is still a wanker, whose entirely specious argument wouldn't be worth refuting on a wet Wednesday afternoon on the Isle of Wight.
Originally posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
Drift Words edited this topic 70 months ago.
|
|
|
Quote:
"The Debate over the place and rank we should confer to photography among the plastic arts has never concerned me, because this problem of hierarchy has always seemed to me purely academic in essence."
Henri Cartier-Bresson 1985 (The Mind's Eye)
Posted 70 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
FlickrCentral /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to FlickrCentral discussion threads
