Every man is an artist.
Joseph Beuys
Joseph Beuys
Is Photography Art?
- Thread starter weltweit
- Start date
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
'Is it art' is one of the most redundant questions as far as I'm concerned.
You can always tell that it is art because the eyes follow you around the room.
That is why Duchamp's Urinal was not art but Man Ray's Eye on a Metronome was Art.
That is why Duchamp's Urinal was not art but Man Ray's Eye on a Metronome was Art.
Refused as fuck
"ethnic pakistani tosser"
lol
Vintage Paw is artistic in her beauty and beautiful in her artistry.
Vintage Paw is artistic in her beauty and beautiful in her artistry.
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
Save yourself the time and energy of waiting for answers by simply switching the first two words of the question around.
So people think. It can't
You can't just go out with a camera and take a Cartier-Bresson copy.
Photography is nothing more than a medium. Like any other medium, it can be used to make art. Simple really. Very simple.
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
Refused's pictures speak to me on a level no others possibly could. He exhibits a mastery of looking deep into the soul of whatever he points his camera at and manages to freeze perfection in one solitary frame. Bravo.
Ah, the spirit of Susan Sontag lives on in Vintage Paw.
Mrs Paw put away your polaroid and sharpen your quill. There is a book in you if you just look for it.
But never answer the question about Art and Photography; the book sales will dry up. Keep them guessing.
Refused as fuck
"ethnic pakistani tosser"
I feel this way about your eyes.
But do they follow you around the room?
However it is essentially one frame that you are working worth isn't it? Then again working in the darkroom, digital darkroom, or with HDR, blurs these boundaries and poses even more questions.
Didn't mean it in that sense.
Meant it in the way that you can do lots of prints whereas an original painting is a one off.
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
Yes, but don't tell him because he'll find that webcam I set up in his room.
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
However it is essentially one frame that you are working worth isn't it? Then again working in the darkroom, digital darkroom, or with HDR, blurs these boundaries and poses even more questions.
Didn't mean it in that sense.
Meant it in the way that you can do lots of prints whereas an original painting is a one off.
Have you read Benjamin?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
But if it was the room with VP's webcam, would the resulting images be art?
Refused as fuck
"ethnic pakistani tosser"
We have one, get out.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Is this art?
I'll look into that.
In fact i've been wondering if a book on art history might help me with my own photographs. Think by reading the reviews on this you may have inadvertently cracked it for me.
And VP, after googling looks like 'the work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction' is what I'm after.
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Member Since: 1985 Post Count: 3
Stop being an idiot. How many frames is the mona lisa? How many fames is the angel of the north? How many fames is a Jackson Pollock painting? It's nothing to do with how much time is taken or what pre or post production is undertaken. That would just be ludicrous. It would be like trying to put a mathematical measurement on when art begins.
Why does extra post work blur boundaries? When the sculptor creates his first maquette, then moulds his actual model before casting are lines being 'blurred'?
weltweit
Well-Known Member
This "reproduction" is a false dawn, lots of painters release their work as prints and there can be hundreds of prints. The prints usually cost a lot less than an original.
Photographers also sometimes do this, releasing numbered prints so the owner knows there will be a limited supply around.
Photographers also sometimes do this, releasing numbered prints so the owner knows there will be a limited supply around.
oh yeah... I see... artist - ist=art
whereas photography - ist =photographer
therefore you can't make art out of photography.
Thread dead then.
Well done.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
...
Thread dead then.
Well done.
No, remember doing set theory at school, there could be two sets expressed as circles, one of artists and another of photographers.
The two sets could overlap in the middle and there could be artistic photographers in the overlap.
When an artist picks up a camera,
- do they become a photographer?
- or do they remain an artist
- or do they become a combination of the two ....
no you are saying art is a circle. 
[[[[[squares & oblongs etc etc]]]]]
[[[[[squares & oblongs etc etc]]]]]
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
Quick litmus test: does someone, somewhere, consider something to be art? If the answer is 'yes' then it is art. End of discussion. There is no holy trinity in the sky who decides such things, no rule book, no delimeters between 'is art/isn't art'. It's actually really very, very simple but something that is made complicated time and time again because many people can't cope with the idea that not everyone will like the same stuff or find it 'worthy'.
Right, Refused, you, me, a camera and some baby oil. Thread over.
Right, Refused, you, me, a camera and some baby oil. Thread over.
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
And who decided these criteria? You need to think about the interests at stake by those imposing such descriptions as well.
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Member Since: 1985 Post Count: 3
Go back and read my posts that you have obviously so far ignored and stop being so god damn foolish.
*heavyweight slap*
Similar threads
