Is Photography Art?

[kerb]

Stop being an idiot.

Didn't realise I was nor was I trying to be.

My posts were questions and assumptions.

 

[Refused as fuck]

Right, Refused, you, me, a camera and some baby oil. Thread over.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

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 ....

An artist who picks up a camera becomes a photographer, but if he/she is crap at it, it's not likely that the photo will be art. If they're good at it, maybe it will be art.

An artistic weaver might be really crap at taking photos, for instance. Or a pottery thrower.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Right, Refused, you, me, a camera and some baby oil. Thread over.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

http://www.nature.com/ijir/journal/v15/n5/fig_tab/3901023f1.html

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

An artist who picks up a camera becomes a photographer, but if he/she is crap at it, it's not likely that the photo will be art. If they're good at it, maybe it will be art.

An artistic weaver might be really crap at taking photos, for instance. Or a pottery thrower.

Just because you think it's crap or the artist isn't all that good doesn't mean it's not art. That heads into Kerb bollocks territory where it might be possible to measure where art begins and ends depending on ability, tools and processes used.

 

[kerb]

That heads into Kerb bollocks territory where it might be possible to measure where art begins and ends depending on ability, tools and processes used.

Where did I say this please?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Just because you think it's crap or the artist isn't all that good doesn't mean it's not art. That heads into Kerb bollocks territory where it might be possible to measure where art begins and ends depending on ability, tools and processes used.

The point I was getting at, was that the creation of art is not dependent on the pre-labelling of the creator as an 'artist'. 'Art' can come into existence at any time, and may or may not be made by someone who has been labelled 'artist', by him/herself, or by concensus.

 

[weltweit]

The point I was getting at, was that the creation of art is not dependent on the pre-labelling of the creator as an 'artist'. 'Art' can come into existence at any time, and may or may not be made by someone who has been labelled 'artist', by him/herself, or by concensus.

But once they have created something that is called or thought of as art, they can be called an artist.

Just as someone showing you lots of photographs they have taken can probably be called a photographer.

But art is a funny one. because:
- Painters make paintings
- sculpterers make sculpture
- photographers make photos

all can be Art .. art is not a medium.

 

[Refused as fuck]

Your incessant babbling is annyoing. Now shut up and admire Vintage Paw.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

But once they have created something that is called or thought of as art, they can be called an artist. .

That's true, but the question was, if an artist picks up a camera and takes photos, are the resulting photographs, 'art'.

My point is that art is defined by the qualities of the piece making it art, not by the definition of the maker as an 'artist'. In other words, it is possible for an artist to make things that do not fall within the definition of 'art'. More the reverse is true. Once a person creates art, that person becomes an artist.

 

[weltweit]

But once they have created something that is called or thought of as art, they can be called an artist.

Once a person creates art, that person becomes an artist.

I think we are saying the same thing.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I think we are saying the same thing.

Looks like it.

'Great minds' and all that etc etc

 

[Refused as fuck]

Two rambling dickheads spout the same irrelevant nonsense shocker.