Photography Is Not Art, Chapter XXXVII

Art relates to Artefact (something created-produced by the human being).
We could say that the camera is the artefact and the picture is a consequence of the use of the artefact. A picture of a landscape is the reproduction of a fragment of something that exists and has not been created by the human being.
That reality exists even when we leave that space. Our action, apart form the development of the film is a "click".
If I tell some friends to cover themselves with spreadable chocolate and then I take a picture of them, then my intervention is in the creation of the image, I do not use the canvas and the colours but the camera to create the image, therefore I could be called an artist. It is impossible to generalize, cases have to be discussed one by one
but it can be said that photography is the reproduction of an image that already exists and that can be a human creation or an image of nature. If I touch the negative and
modify its surface to convey a particular effect then the artefact is the negative and
the print is its reproduction. The artist in this case is like a print maker (litographies, engreavings.....); he does act on the negative as an etcher does on a metal plate.
Those are the artefacts, we could say, while the print is always a reproduction.

Ciao,

Fabio


--
fabio

------------------------------------------------------------------------
View this thread: http://www.photographytalk.net/viewtopic-82228.html

Send from http://www.photographytalk.net

"fabio" wrote

Art relates to Artefact (something created-produced by the human being).
We could say that the camera is the artefact and the picture is a consequence

I get it. The camera is art but the photograph isn't.

Art is what art is, what the art is made from and how it is made
are not relevant - not in the slightest manner.

If a urinal can be generally accepted as art then I don't see what
the objection can be to a photograph. (1)

Why the hysteria?

That a particular object is or is not art is up to each individual observer
to judge for themselves. To declare a category of objects to be 'not art'
has only inflammatory meaning.

Heck with talking on the cell phone drunk, I need something to keep me
off the 'net before morning coffee.

Sorry Fabio, no offense meant.

(1) http://www.beatmuseum.org/duchamp/fountain.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11007115/

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm

"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote

If a urinal can be generally accepted as art then I don't see what
the objection can be to a photograph. (1)

If you are referring to Marcel. Duchamp's urinal, then let us get it right -
he was NOT claiming it was a work of art. In fact he meant it as quite the
opposite: he submitted the piece as a protest of the nonjurried show, in
essence saying "If you are not going to judge or jury the work, then you are
saying anything can be art, but anything cannot be art. Take this urinal. If
anything can be art then nothing can be art."

Two wrote:
"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote


If a urinal can be generally accepted as art then I don't see what
the objection can be to a photograph. (1)


If you are referring to Marcel. Duchamp's urinal, then let us get it right -
he was NOT claiming it was a work of art. In fact he meant it as quite the
opposite: he submitted the piece as a protest of the nonjurried show, in
essence saying "If you are not going to judge or jury the work, then you are
saying anything can be art, but anything cannot be art. Take this urinal. If
anything can be art then nothing can be art."



.. . . . and in so doing, later art historians recognized that work be
Duchamp as art.

I think artists and art historians are the valid and proper individuals
to decide what is, or is not, a work of art. Seems that too many
non-artists want to place their own ideas, perceptions, or restrictions
upon this. Artists largely accept the viewpoints put forward by other
artists or art historians, yet largely reject statements by any
non-artists. As an artist how has displayed works in many mediums, not
just photography, I flatly reject, and often ignore, comments made
against works of art, when such comments do not originate from artists
or art historians.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Gordon Moat wrote:


I think artists and art historians are the valid and proper individuals
to decide what is, or is not, a work of art.

Artists? No. Art historians, sometimes.

Seems that too many
non-artists want to place their own ideas, perceptions, or restrictions
upon this.

No, aestheticians and critics are trained to do this. Artists are not.
Car mechanics are not by training race-car drivers.

Artists largely accept the viewpoints put forward by other
artists or art historians, yet largely reject statements by any
non-artists.

Statements about what?

As an artist how has displayed works in many mediums, not
just photography, I flatly reject, and often ignore, comments made
against works of art, when such comments do not originate from artists
or art historians.

Huh?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

"fabio" wrote in message
...

Our action, apart form the development of the film is a "click".

That, too, is art. My latest landscape series may look very much like dimly
lit plaid flannel, but I assure you they are scenic landscapes. I developed
a technique whereby I leave the digicam in my shirt pocket, reach inside
with one finger, and "Click!" I have another unique if unrecognizable as
such landscape. Ansel Adams watch out.

Mike Young spake thus:

"fabio" wrote in message
...

Our action, apart form the development of the film is a "click".

That, too, is art. My latest landscape series may look very much like
dimly lit plaid flannel, but I assure you they are scenic landscapes. I
developed a technique whereby I leave the digicam in my shirt pocket,
reach inside with one finger, and "Click!" I have another unique if
unrecognizable as such landscape. Ansel Adams watch out.

Hey, you think *that's* art? Check this out:

http://www.oberlin.edu/stupub/ocrevi.../article1.html

Gives a whole new meaning to "body of photography".


--
To the arrogant putzes at NBC:

Do we call the country Italia? Is its capital Roma?
Were previous Olympics held in Moskva, Muenchen or Athine?
Do we call it the "Shroud of Torino"?

No!

So learn to speak English already and call it Turin.

- from someone's blog

Hello,

Just my two loonies worth (I'm Canadian)

I would venture that there is a flaw in the premise of the argument,
namely that "photography is the reproduction of an image that already
exists......"

Since when does a photography have to be a reproduction. If you are
talking about a police mug shot, then yes, it's not exactly art but to
generalize and claim that photography is a reproduction and thus not art
is a claim that does not stand up to the scrutiny of logic. The premise
is not valid. Check some photos, many have absolutely no relationship to
the actual existing thing. In my case, they are merely a play of light
and dark. Also, Logic 101 states that you cannot generalize a
universal truth from a particular case.

It's so hard sometimes to stop being a logic teacher.

Regards,
Bogdan

fabio wrote:

We could say that the camera is the artefact and the picture is a
consequence of the use of the artefact. A picture of a landscape is the
reproduction of a fragment of something that exists and has not been
created by the human being.
it can be said that photography is the reproduction of an image that
already exists and that can be a human creation or an image of nature.
If I touch the negative and
modify its surface to convey a particular effect then the artefact is the negative and
the print is its reproduction. The artist in this case is like a print maker (litographies, engreavings.....); he does act on the negative as an etcher does on a metal plate.
Those are the artefacts, we could say, while the print is always a reproduction.

Ciao,

Fabio



--
__________________________________________________ ________________
Bogdan Karasek
Montr‚al, Qu‚bec e-mail:
Canada

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
"What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence"
Ludwig Wittgenstein
__________________________________________________ ______________

Bogdan Karasek spake thus:

The premise is not valid. Check some photos, many have absolutely no
relationship to the actual existing thing.

Examples, pleeze?


--
To the arrogant putzes at NBC:

Do we call the country Italia? Is its capital Roma?
Were previous Olympics held in Moskva, Muenchen or Athine?
Do we call it the "Shroud of Torino"?

No!

So learn to speak English already and call it Turin.

- from someone's blog

David Nebenzahl wrote:
Bogdan Karasek spake thus:
[photographs are literal representations]
The premise is not valid. Check some photos, many have absolutely no
relationship to the actual existing thing.

Examples, pleeze?

I went to Yosemite and I was shocked - there's all this
brown and green stuff everywhere! The clouds were white,
okay, but the sky was BLUE! That tricky old Ansel Adams
lied to me!