If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Digital is not art!
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
This is so funny.
The web site in question displays a fair landscape photograph & asks the question "Can you do this with digital photography?" Ummm, the photograph being referenced is a digital photograph! Sure, it might have started life with film & paper, but it was digitized when it was scanned. Perhaps we should also say that color photography is not art, either. Only B&W photography can be art. My view: art is not the materials, it is the expression. If the medium is sufficient to carry the expression, then who cares? looknsee http://www.looknseephoto.com (My web site lately has been mixing digital & "chemical" photography. I still prefer the "chemical", but I use the digital camera to check lighting & in those situations where my film camera is just too big & bulky.) On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:08:23 +0200, "DarkRoom ForEver" wrote: I'm not the only one thinking this: http://henrystop.multiservers.com/ bye DarkRoom ForEver |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
This is so funny.
The web site in question displays a fair landscape photograph & asks the question "Can you do this with digital photography?" Ummm, the photograph being referenced is a digital photograph! Sure, it might have started life with film & paper, but it was digitized when it was scanned. Perhaps we should also say that color photography is not art, either. Only B&W photography can be art. My view: art is not the materials, it is the expression. If the medium is sufficient to carry the expression, then who cares? looknsee http://www.looknseephoto.com (My web site lately has been mixing digital & "chemical" photography. I still prefer the "chemical", but I use the digital camera to check lighting & in those situations where my film camera is just too big & bulky.) On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:08:23 +0200, "DarkRoom ForEver" wrote: I'm not the only one thinking this: http://henrystop.multiservers.com/ bye DarkRoom ForEver |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:08:23 +0200, "DarkRoom ForEver"
wrote: I'm not the only one thinking this: http://henrystop.multiservers.com/ According to painters, photography is not art. Still, art is not determined by the medium, but by the artist. Owning a camera does not make the photographer an artist just as owning a paint brush doe not make me an artist. The vast majority of photographers are not artists. Art is not determined by the subject, but by the treatment of the subject by the artist. Art to an extent is also determined by the viewer. That is not to say what they consider good or bad, tasteful or distasteful and whether they like it or not, does or does not make it art I can paint, I know the rules of composition, but my results at painting definitely would not be considered art. :-)) I've studied art and photography in college, but the majority of my photos are indeed not art, nor do I consider them so. OTOH some were considered good enough to be in juried shows. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com - bye DarkRoom ForEver |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:08:23 +0200, "DarkRoom ForEver"
wrote: I'm not the only one thinking this: http://henrystop.multiservers.com/ According to painters, photography is not art. Still, art is not determined by the medium, but by the artist. Owning a camera does not make the photographer an artist just as owning a paint brush doe not make me an artist. The vast majority of photographers are not artists. Art is not determined by the subject, but by the treatment of the subject by the artist. Art to an extent is also determined by the viewer. That is not to say what they consider good or bad, tasteful or distasteful and whether they like it or not, does or does not make it art I can paint, I know the rules of composition, but my results at painting definitely would not be considered art. :-)) I've studied art and photography in college, but the majority of my photos are indeed not art, nor do I consider them so. OTOH some were considered good enough to be in juried shows. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com - bye DarkRoom ForEver |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Roger" wrote
Still, art is not determined by the medium, but by the artist. Er, the viewer, wouldn't you say? Owning a camera does not make the photographer an artist just as owning a paint brush doe not make me an artist. The vast majority of photographers are not artists. The vast majority of working painters are not artists, they are 'commercial artists'. The vast majority of working photographers are not artists, again, 'commercial photographers'. Not to say that they are not artists when they are not being 'commercial'. Home photos are art in the same way a 5-year olds scribbles are art. For home photos as art see http://www.moderna.org/lookatme/pages/index/01-30.html and a whole host of other sites. J. Joyce defined the end stage of art as 'causing aesthetic arrest in the viewer'. He called it pornography if the image created a desire to posses the object shown. -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 01:21:45 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan"
wrote: "Roger" wrote Still, art is not determined by the medium, but by the artist. Er, the viewer, wouldn't you say? Owning a camera does not make the photographer an artist just as owning a paint brush doe not make me an artist. The vast majority of photographers are not artists. The vast majority of working painters are not artists, they are 'commercial artists'. The vast majority of working photographers are not artists, again, 'commercial photographers'. Not to say that they are not artists when they are not being 'commercial'. Home photos are art in the same way a 5-year olds scribbles are art. For home photos as art see http://www.moderna.org/lookatme/pages/index/01-30.html and a whole host of other sites. J. Joyce defined the end stage of art as 'causing aesthetic arrest in the viewer'. He called it pornography if the image created a desire to posses the object shown. You mean I gotta burn all my aviation photo collection before I get arrested? They certainly create a desire in me to posses most of the subjects. OTOH I've seen a number of photos that had been labeled porno that did not give me even the slightest desire to posses the subject. Maybe run the other way though. That reminds me of one night when leaving a bar... er never mind. Roger |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Art is not determined by the subject, but by the treatment of the
subject by the artist. Art to an extent is also determined by the viewer. That is not to say what they consider good or bad, tasteful or distasteful and whether they like it or not, does or does not make it art Art is in the intent of the Artist. Art is communication. The artist asks "How do I express this?" and the view asks "What does it say to me" or "What was the artist trying to say?" But, all too often its the dumb performing tricks for the deaf. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Top photographers condemn digital age | DM | In The Darkroom | 111 | October 10th 04 04:08 AM |
Sad news for film-based photography | Ronald Shu | 35mm Photo Equipment | 200 | October 6th 04 12:07 AM |
Digital Imaging vs. (Digital and Film) Photography | Bob Monaghan | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 9 | June 19th 04 05:48 PM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |