More Than a Bit Disturbing..

[Bernice Loui]

Reading a recent discussion of a group of painters and those art academics who continue to look down on photography is NOT art...

Could this be due to their lack of understanding that art expression can come in numerous ways, or could this be simply due to the belief their art form (painting) is superior in some way to expressive images made by "mechanical means" or the art world economic pie is is only large enough for painters who are the "real artist", or could this simply be a battle of art egos..

Regardless, art is a very important aspect of humanity and has the ability to enrich the human condition in very special ways. This should not be reduced to a question of what is art expression and what is not as art comes in many, many forms and ways.

The expression of the human condition and sharing of one's sensitivity to the human condition is what really matters regardless the art form used.

What is sad, the lack of art appreciation among too many members of society and the value they put on what is art.



Bernice

[jp]

It's not as disturbing as really bad domestic violence or children dying in Africa with aids, or channel surfing basic network TV any given evening.

I think your concern is a matter of tradition of doing things by hand. Its equally disturbing to me that people still consider digital photography to not be photography. I don't want to veer off into a religious discussion, but tradition and truth are very often two disparate things.

[Kodachrome25]

Its equally disturbing to me that people still consider digital photography to not be photography.

Guilty as charged...

I consider digital to be photography less and less every day I use it...and I have been using it professionally full time for nearly 20 years.

[E. von Hoegh]

Reading a recent discussion of a group of painters and those art academics who continue to look down on photography is NOT art...

Could this be due to their lack of understanding that art expression can come in numerous ways, or could this be simply due to the belief their art form (painting) is superior in some way to expressive images made by "mechanical means" or the art world economic pie is is only large enough for painters who are the "real artist", or could this simply be a battle of art egos..

Regardless, art is a very important aspect of humanity and has the ability to enrich the human condition in very special ways. This should not be reduced to a question of what is art expression and what is not as art comes in many, many forms and ways.

The expression of the human condition and sharing of one's sensitivity to the human condition is what really matters regardless the art form used.

What is sad, the lack of art appreciation among too many members of society and the value they put on what is art.



Bernice

Simple narcissism.

[DrTang]

...a group of painters and those art academics who continue to look down on photography is NOT art...


and how does that affect your photographing?

I'm pretty sure whether photography is or is not 'art' isn't going to stop any of us from burning film


let 'em talk... they are probably still pissed photographers took 'Portraits' away from them years ago

[Kodachrome25]

Pretty broad brush strokes there, pun intended. My mother has been a professional oil painter for decades and loves the "art" of photography, does not share these same views of photography not being called art nor do most real people who opt to live real life instead of pontificating on the internet.

Frankly, I think painters are lucky in that they went through the transition period long before garbage digital and the super-garbage internet came along.


and how does that affect your photographing?

I'm pretty sure whether photography is or is not 'art' isn't going to stop any of us from burning film


let 'em talk... they are probably still pissed photographers took 'Portraits' away from them years ago

[jnantz]

i think this has been going on since 1839 ...

[Drew Wiley]

Pretty silly. Lithographs, serigraphs, and all kinds of other mechanically-produced things have long been considered mainstream. Look what people will pay for some
of these machine-made polka-dot murals or worse. But really, who cares? There will still be lots of mediocre paintings being done, along with mediocre photographs.
I dislike most inkjet photography simply because that's the way most junky images are reproduced nowadays; but in principle it's no different from when most junky
images were printed in darkrooms or traditional labs. I'll take those little-league academics seriously once they can make an image halfway as good as I can.
Just pesky mosquitos who don't even belong in the room. Like much of the so-called art world, they too operate on a bluff. Once they have to show their hand,
they generally fold.

[Leigh]

Hi Bernice,

This is all marketing hype.

In order to separate customers from their money, you must create the appearance of value.
One of the fundamental techniques is to assert an element of uniqueness to the product.

- Leigh

[Milton Tierney]

I have been shooting film for about 45yrs now. I still shoot film, but all in 4x5. I do shoot digital when I cannot use a LF. Try shooting a flying bumble bee with LF. It’s difficult with digital. Why do I not use 35mm, because it’s cheaper with digital. The thing I really like about digital is when it’s time to dodge, burn and spotting….especially spotting.

The thing that get me about these art painter purest is they will paint from photos. To me that smells a little of hypocrisy.

Is not music art, is not ballet, how about poetry, a sculptor or pottery or glass blowing?

[E. von Hoegh]

I have been shooting film for about 45yrs now. I still shoot film, but all in 4x5. I do shoot digital when I cannot use a LF. Try shooting a flying bumble bee with LF. It’s difficult with digital. Why do I not use 35mm, because it’s cheaper with digital. The thing I really like about digital is when it’s time to dodge, burn and spotting….especially spotting.

The thing that get me about these art painter purest is they will paint from photos. To me that smells a little of hypocrisy.

Is not music art, is not ballet, how about poetry, a sculptor or pottery or glass blowing?

Not only that, they'll project a photo on the canvas and trace it. I like to amuse myself by figuring out what focal length lens was used to make the original photo.

I can't see anything wrong with using a photo of a scene as a reference while painting it, it's not that far from looking at the scene in reality and a good way to get important details correct. It's when the painting is little more than a painted repro of a photo that I get amused.

[Brian C. Miller]

I have been shooting film for about 45yrs now. I still shoot film, but all in 4x5. I do shoot digital when I cannot use a LF. Try shooting a flying bumble bee with LF.

There was an accessory for Linhof that provided a wire frame for easy macro shots. You prefocused on the frame, and then aligned the subject within the frame. No problems. The advertisement showing a housewife with a Linhoff Technika was a bit funny, but what the hey. (I always think of my mom or one of my aunts trying it. That side of the family wasn't technically inclined.)


Is not music art, is not ballet, how about poetry, a sculptor or pottery or glass blowing?

Music: yes.
Ballet: yes.
Poetry: when spoken, yes.
Pottery: no.
Glass blowing: yes, blown glass: no.

I use an older definition of "art." Art is an action which must be performed. If it isn't an action, then it isn't art. Therefore, the art of photography is not the print, it is the making of the print, i.e., all of the actions prior to the product. There is the art of blowing glass, but blown glass is not art because it is an object, not an action. A painter practices the art of painting, but a painting is not art. There is the art of polemics, and the art of war.

[Drew Wiley]

I happen to hate both opera and ballet. I hate both Warhol and Avedon. I hate even disco and hiphop. I hate I Phones. I don't even like groomed trails - give me
rocks and brush to climb over with an 8x10. So I guess you can say I have all the qualifications of a genuine barbarian. Yet even I have yet to meet a curator or
serious art dealer who looked down on good photography of any genre. So I have no idea what this kind of discussion stems from. Did some art juror from the
days of the Paris Academy and Napoleon III just happen to get trapped in an iceberg somewhere off the Falkland Islands and suddenly thaw out and start mumbling incoherently?

[Kirk Gittings]

Where are you getting all of this? This is contrary to my experience, so I am very curious specifically who is not taking photography seriously as art? It isn't the two largest galleries: Gagosian and Yossi Milo. It isn't Sotheby's. It isn't the Guggenheim or the MOMA. So who? And why does their opinion matter?

I totally agree. The OP is so contrary to my experience that I wonder who these people really are? Anonymous internet posers?

[John Kasaian]

i happen to hate both opera and ballet. I hate both warhol and avedon. I hate even disco and hiphop. I hate i phones. I don't even like groomed trails - give me
rocks and brush to climb over with an 8x10. So i guess you can say i have all the qualifications of a genuine barbarian. Yet even i have yet to meet a curator or
serious art dealer who looked down on good photography of any genre. So i have no idea what this kind of discussion stems from. Did some art juror from the
days of the paris academy and napoleon iii just happen to get trapped in an iceberg somewhere off the falkland islands and suddenly thaw out and start mumbling incoherently?
roflmao!

[Kodachrome25]

I happen to hate both opera and ballet. I hate both Warhol and Avedon. I hate even disco and hiphop. I hate I Phones. I don't even like groomed trails - give me
rocks and brush to climb over with an 8x10. So I guess you can say I have all the qualifications of a genuine barbarian. Yet even I have yet to meet a curator or
serious art dealer who looked down on good photography of any genre. So I have no idea what this kind of discussion stems from. Did some art juror from the
days of the Paris Academy and Napoleon III just happen to get trapped in an iceberg somewhere off the Falkland Islands and suddenly thaw out and start mumbling incoherently?

This place would not be the same without you Drew, thanks for making the obvious *highly* entertaining!

[jp]

Thanks Drew..

Here's something saying painting IS influenced by photography:

http://www.artsmia.org/education/teacher-resources/fivefacts_d.cfm?p=5&v=198

[Jerry Bodine]

I happen to hate both opera and ballet. I hate both Warhol and Avedon. I hate even disco and hiphop. I hate I Phones. I don't even like groomed trails - give me
rocks and brush to climb over with an 8x10. So I guess you can say I have all the qualifications of a genuine barbarian. Yet even I have yet to meet a curator or
serious art dealer who looked down on good photography of any genre. So I have no idea what this kind of discussion stems from. Did some art juror from the
days of the Paris Academy and Napoleon III just happen to get trapped in an iceberg somewhere off the Falkland Islands and suddenly thaw out and start mumbling incoherently?

The Art of Words! Hear, hear!

[Scott Davis]

I totally agree. The OP is so contrary to my experience that I wonder who these people really are? Anonymous internet posers?

There are still small galleries with small jurors who are treating photography as the red-headed stepchild of the art world. They're fading out and dying off, but they're still out there. I know that my high school back in the 1980s didn't have a photography program because the head of the art department didn't see photography as an equal to painting and sculpture. Granted that was over 25 years ago. The OP of this thread should bear in mind that the person who started the thread that inspired this thread was railing against jurors for a gallery in a small town whose primary industry is tourism. Gagosian, Throckmorton or Bonni Benrubi it is not.

[paulr]

There are still small galleries with small jurors who are treating photography as the red-headed stepchild of the art world. They're fading out and dying off, but they're still out there.

Actually, I suspect they'll be around in one form or another forever. They'll just be marginalized, as they are today. So no one has to worry about them. If you want to look at photographs, or if you want to avoid an annoying conversation, go somewhere else. Anywhere.

The big secret, and it's only a secret because so few people will admit it, is that the arts are tribal. People gather in little (or big) communities, based on shared esthetic values. Which is perfectly fine. The trouble is, each group tends to think its values are the only true ones. They construct elaborate narratives around history, dictionary definitions, ideas about "natural law," or whatever, to convince themselves that their version of art is the right and everyone else's is wrong. And then they accuse other groups of tribal behavior. It's unfortunate, but an easy trap to fall into. Because you're only talking to members of your tribe about it.

Provincial painters who deny the value of photography are just a tribe acting like a tribe. They're just like jazz guys who deny the value of rock (or vice versa), or certain groups of LF photographers who deny the value of Andreas Gursky.

[Sal Santamaura]

...the arts are tribal. People gather in little (or big) communities, based on shared esthetic values. Which is perfectly fine. The trouble is, each group tends to think its values are the only true ones. They construct elaborate narratives around history, dictionary definitions, ideas about "natural law," or whatever, to convince themselves that their version of art is the right and everyone else's is wrong. And then they accuse other groups of tribal behavior. It's unfortunate, but an easy trap to fall into. Because you're only talking to members of your tribe about it...Limiting this observation to the arts is insufficient. It applies to every aspect of human activity/thought/interest. It's why society is so divided and will likely remain so.

[Leszek Vogt]

Wow, Drew, you surprised me how much hate is in your life....or is that just the tip of the iceberg ?

Art tends to be subjective....and some peeps back hair will stand up and declare NIMBY....whether it's proclaimed in clumsy way or diplomatically. It kind of reminds me or religion. I may not indulge in certain arts, but still respect it.

Les

[Kodachrome25]

Wow, Drew, you surprised me how much hate is in your life....or is that just the tip of the iceberg ?

Art tends to be subjective....and some peeps back hair will stand up and declare NIMBY....whether it's proclaimed in clumsy way or diplomatically. It kind of reminds me or religion. I may not indulge in certain arts, but still respect it.

LOL,

"I may not indulge in using cocaine, but still respect it."....

[Drew Wiley]

I even hate the word "art". It's become meaningless. When something has the ability to mean anything, it means nothing. Everyone with a can of spray paint thinks they're an artist. They call it "street art". That's a step backwards in recognition. At least they used to have a specific dedicated to what they did: vandalism. Everyone with green hair, a nose ring, or a medical pot prescription thinks they're an artist. The term photography is headed the same way. Yeah, Les... it's all so
damn subjective that we have to go into contortions defending our First Amendment right to be broad-minded and polite about how we articulate the meaningless.
I never said Opera and Ballet weren't art; I merely said I don't like them. If such activities are defined by a positive meaningless term or a negative meaningless
term all implies the same thing.

[ROL]

Drew opines,
Les whines,
Oh,
How sublime.

[uphereinmytree]

art, expression, imagery, it is subjective although a masterful photograph can be distinguished from instagram or a bad painting by most any thoughtful person.

[jp]

I even hate the word "art". It's become meaningless. When something has the ability to mean anything, it means nothing. Everyone with a can of spray paint thinks they're an artist. They call it "street art". That's a step backwards in recognition. At least they used to have a specific dedicated to what they did: vandalism. Everyone with green hair, a nose ring, or a medical pot prescription thinks they're an artist. The term photography is headed the same way. Yeah, Les... it's all so
damn subjective that we have to go into contortions defending our First Amendment right to be broad-minded and polite about how we articulate the meaningless.
I never said Opera and Ballet weren't art; I merely said I don't like them. If such activities are defined by a positive meaningless term or a negative meaningless
term all implies the same thing.
So "Fine Art" is polishing a turd, basically?

[Scott Davis]

So "Fine Art" is polishing a turd, basically?

They had an episode of Mythbusters about that... and they figured out that yes, in fact, you can polish a turd. Which still leaves it as a polished turd, unless you're Japanese, and you make balls of elephant dung, at which point they have a Japanese term for the things. Kind of like Bokeh.

[David R Munson]

Funny, I was revisiting the idea of the dorodango (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorodango) again today.

William Gibson has written about it. (http://www.gwern.net/docs/2002-gibson) I have not yet made my first dorodango, largely because I fear it might actually bloom into a hobby. I already have too many of those.

[Leszek Vogt]

LOL,

"I may not indulge in using cocaine, but still respect it."....

You understood what I said, so I don't get why you need to be contrary....unless you have a position of word police ?

Les

[Bernice Loui]

Yes, "What say you all to photo bigots." was the discussion that resulted in this thread. I had believed that this debate over photography is art has been put to rest a long time ago. To hear there are still "art folks" who reject the reality that photography is art upset me more than just a bit. This was a shock and real surprise to me.

It is indeed primal/instinctive for human beings to be tribal and it does apply to stuff far beyond art, where the challenge lies is if humanity can grow out of it's self destructive primal/instinctive impulses and see humanity share far more than what may be different.

Dividing the art world in to their individual tribes or most any group in the same way is destructive to the whole. It happens here quite often, yet the times when LFF comes together great thing can and does happen..



Peace & Luv..

Bernice

[Kodachrome25]

You understood what I said, so I don't get why you need to be contrary....unless you have a position of word police ?

I just fine the whole "I may not like it, but I still respect it" thing come up more and more in these topics in which people can get defensive about things and it just makes no sense. For example, I don't really like HDR, photoshopped works and other digital output and I don't respect it either.

So when Drew fired off a few blunt statements it got labled as hate and then you chimed in with this respect thing. To heck with that I say, no one has to respect what they don't like.

I just thought I would laugh out loud at it and make fun at how silly I think it sounds. I'm really not cut out for this Internet bull, if you could not already tell...

[Drew Wiley]

So ... is everyone who dislikes Strawberry ice cream a bigot?

[Scott Davis]

Only if they break up with you for eating it.

[Kirk Gittings]

no one has to respect what they don't like.

No but there's nothing wrong with thinking that either. These are two distinct POV. For example I don't like fashion photography but I respect the technique and effort that goes into it. On the other hand I neither like nor respect over the top HDR.

[paulr]

Limiting this observation to the arts is insufficient. It applies to every aspect of human activity/thought/interest.

Yes, I agree 100%. I just didn't want my response to grow into a full-blown rant about civilization.

[Tori Nelson]

"Peace & Luv.."

I cannot respect the incorrect spelling of the word "love", especially when it is grouped with the word "peace". I am throughly enjoying this discussion though.

[Drew Wiley]

I have a great deal of respect for what certain advertising photographers can do technically and in the marketing sense. But I despise most of the imagery involved.
This applies to my remarks about people like Avedon or Warhol. They were very bright, and in their term might have given a temporary degree of refreshment to the
status quo, but set an unfortunate precedent which has de facto become the ossified Academy of our times. Even the long-canonized photographic gurus of days
of yore, like AA and EW, made their living as commercial photographers. But they knew the difference between personal work and mercenary; and this difference is
reflected in the value of the respective categories of work today - i.e., the extant commercial work has very limited value. Some people like Avedon had enough
gall or elbow room to blur the line sucessfully. But now that muddy zone has become epidemic, esp with the instant-imagery made possible by digital technique.
I give them credit - the 60's had its run, but now might as well be put to rest. The corpse is beginning to stink.

[Hopwood04]

So ... is everyone who dislikes Strawberry ice cream a bigot?

Hope not, because it tastes great! :o

[gleaf]

Art is the using of the gifts you have in the way they are meant to be expressed. And that expression blesses people. The camera and the brush are not the art, it is the mind and the heart that sees the potential and performs the execution according to the vision of it.

[AuditorOne]

Well...I think they're right.



There is no possible way that you could consider my photography to be art...



Of course I could be wrong. :)

[rdenney]

They're just like jazz guys who deny the value of rock (or vice versa), or certain groups of LF photographers who deny the value of Andreas Gursky.

Or Dixieland guys denying the value of fusion. Or trad-jazz guys denying the value of modern forms of Dixieland. Tribes eventually devolve to just two. (It always takes a second member to make the tribe work...tribally.) We respect individuality in expression, but expressing that respect can become worship, and worship of humans has consequences.

That does not deny the notion of a canon, though the canon may take centuries to fully form, and can still be subject to revision if previously forgotten art (if it still exists) is discovered anew and found to have something to say to the people discovering it.

The difference between painting and photography, as Sontag pointed out decades ago, is that photography's non-artistic applications are often given as much artistic consideration as its intentionally artistic applications, whereas most of the purely utilitarian applications of painting have gone by the wayside. (Even so, courtroom sketches and--some--architectural renderings, to name two examples of hand-created visual imagery still in use, may still be considered art.)

I agree that as soon as people start defining art, it's an easy prediction that their motives are to exclude something they don't like from their definition. I've mentioned a number of times that C.S. Lewis, when writing about criticism, defined art as any expression that is received as art. I find that definition very close to what Sontag wrote. The alternative is anything that is intended as art, but that excludes utilitarian applications that are subsequently accepted as art. Personally, I think the more the artist worries about the definition, the more their work will be look contrived to fit that definition.

My art teacher from my teenage years, who has been a (commercially and critically) successful and well-respected artist in Houston for many decades, has taken up photography in his retirement. Guess what? His (straight) photographs look very much like his paintings, mostly because he is choosing the same general subjects and representing them in the same general ways.

Supposing an artist suffers from Essential Tremor? (They used to call it Benign Essential Tremor, except that they meant "benign" only to the extent that it didn't cause death, I guess.) I suffer from that myself, to the extent that I cannot write, let alone draw, if I am in any way stressed, and cannot make a steady tone on my tuba without medication that circumvents the tremor reaction to adrenalin. What are aging artists to do? If they switch to photography, where the tripod can provide the steadiness, does that mean their eye is no longer connected to their brain?

Rick "who runs for the hills when people start defining others into oblivion" Denney

[Drew Bedo]

I am a member of The Visual Arts Alliance (VAA) here in Houston. They are a multi-media art club that sponsor two juried shows each year. One is an open-call exhibition and the other is for members. Both events are competitive . . .I feel like I have won a prize whenever one of my prints is selected for display. Membership is oopen to anyone from anywhere.

While the majority of flat art is from painters, each show includes photography and sculpture. The attitude seems to be very open to non-pigment media.

For more info go to: www.visualartsalliance.org

[Leszek Vogt]

[QUOTE=rdenney;1040834]Or Dixieland guys denying the value of fusion. Or trad-jazz guys denying the value of modern forms of Dixieland. Tribes eventually devolve to just two. (It always takes a second member to make the tribe work...tribally.) We respect individuality in expression, but expressing that respect can become worship, and worship of humans has consequences.

I may be of the fusion tribe, but I also indulge in Bobby McFerrin, Andreas Vollenveighter, etc. Hmm, I also embrace Dixieland...and to lesser extent listen to older trad jazz. That also does not mean that I flush the classical, slow rock, etc. Some visuals are vibrant or subtle enough...or beneficial to the psyche to talk to me (as the saying goes) and some, such as HDR seem to remain on the first rung. I'll still look, thinking that perhaps this time the technique brings something that will resonate. OK, call me delusional ;).

Les

[Alan Gales]

Back in my art school days we had a fellow student in our Drawing 2 class who for extra money drew caricatures of people at Six Flags. He had these blocks of chalk which he worked with. They had deep worn spots from him rubbing his fingers on them. Upon seeing these blocks of chalk our instructor became very excited, grabbed the blocks of chalk, placed them on the table for all to see and exclaimed that this is what art is!

Now you all know what art is. :D

[Scott Davis]

I think your art teacher had been sniffing the Varsol a bit too long. Now, arrange, light, and photograph those deeply worn chalk blocks the right way and THAT could be art.

[Alan Gales]

I think your art teacher had been sniffing the Varsol a bit too long. Now, arrange, light, and photograph those deeply worn chalk blocks the right way and THAT could be art.

Yeah, we all kind of looked at each other like he was crazy.

I did know what he meant. Art is all around us if we just look for it.

[Alan Curtis]

Last week I spent a lot of time in the William Clift show in Santa Fe, I overheard many comments about the exhibition. The best was a woman who walked in quickly looked around and said "oh these are photographs, not real art". Then after she looked at a number of photographs she proclaimed " this is very good I like it". Most like myself viewed the show as art at the highest level.

[Brian Ellis]

While academics, photographers, museums, galleries, etc. generally view photography as an art form, I think that if asked many of them, and almost all members of the general public, would say it's a lesser form of art than painting for example. Two reasons come to mind - one, it's easier to make a good (not great) photograph than to make a good painting. My photographs come a lot closer to something Edward Weston or Walker Evans or you name him or her might have done than my painting would resemble in any way something Renoir, for example, might have done.

Two, they would claim that more "creativity" is involved with painting. Many painters start with an idea and a blank canvas, some photographers also start with an idea and seek out a way to represent the idea in a photograph. But that's probably not typical, more photographers tend to gather their "idea" from things they see in front of them as they wander around. Obviously this isn't true of all forms of painting (landscape painters for example) or all forms of photography (a model in a studio for example) but I think it's true as a very general proposition.

But I really don't care much what anyone else thinks about photography as "art" or its status relative to other art forms. I certainly can't imagine getting very worked up about it if someone thinks photography isn't art. J.D. Salinger had a real thing about the idea that photography was an art form and he derided photography at every opportunity. Do I care? No. Should I care? I can't imagine why.

[Jac@stafford.net]

While academics, photographers, museums, galleries, etc. generally view photography as an art form,

Not at the university where I last worked. The art department has divorced itself from photography for fifty years. They are now trying to ostracize design. It has something to do with their sense of the muse.

[BradS]

(responding to the OP)

Really...who cares what others think? Let others think and believe what they want - especially those who are unwilling or otherwise incapable of forming their own opinion on a matter. There's plenty of room for many opinions - especially on the question of what is and what isn't Art. The fact that somebody rejects photography as art is, by itself, not really interesting. What MIGHT be interesting is finding out why?

[Kirk Gittings]

Frankly this issue in terms of the professional art world types was settled decades ago and anyone who still hangs on to these reservations about photography as an art form is either posing for the sake of argument, elitest about their own art preferences or an idiot. None of which deserve any time or effort. The woman Alan Curtis mentioned above however would get my full attention.

[sanking]

Frankly this issue in terms of the professional art world types was settled decades ago and anyone who still hangs on to these reservations about photography as an art form is either posing for the sake of argument, elitest about their own art preferences or an idiot. None of which deserve any time or effort. The woman Alan Curtis mentioned above however would get my full attention.


Kirk

Surely there are other options!! Perhaps people who hold on to these reservations about photography are simply ignorant? And ignorance is a state that can change with education, if the person is prepared to make the effort and open his/her mind to other perspectives and points of view.

Idiots are not able to change. Some appear to have been born that way, others have lived in ignorance so long they are no longer able to change. An ignorant person deserves our attention because there is hope for change, idiots just need to be ignored.

Sandy

[Alan Curtis]

Frankly this issue in terms of the professional art world types was settled decades ago and anyone who still hangs on to these reservations about photography as an art form is either posing for the sake of argument, elitest about their own art preferences or an idiot. None of which deserve any time or effort. The woman Alan Curtis mentioned above however would get my full attention.
She had my attention. I don't know if her opinion about photography not being art changed but, she may have decided that Clifts photographs were art. She looked a several of the photos for a very long time and never said another word that I heard.

[gth]

Google...


"art
/ärt/
Noun
The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture,...: "the art of the Renaissance"
Works produced by such skill and imagination.
Synonyms
craft - skill - artifice - science - workmanship - knack"

And let this issue die and get back to photography.

[Andrew O'Neill]

let 'em talk... they are probably still pissed photographers took 'Portraits' away from them years ago

No, it's got nothing to do with that. It is because they do not understand photography nor do they care to. I draw and my formal training is drawing and printmaking (lithography, intaglio, serigraphy, and many more) and there was a time when I thought all photographers were not "real" artists. This was from ignorance. So, after a few years of getting my BFA (1988), I decided to give photography a try. I've been hooked ever since (yes, I still draw and printmake). There is no doubt that photography can be art.

[SergeiR]

There is no doubt that photography can be art.

+1 from person with similar background (apart from printmaking).

Sometime you look at photographs and thinking "why.. why on earth you shot that cr*p, why did you waste huge sheet of film or made effort to make that huge wet plate".. and then you looking at other photographs and your heart just sings and you feel it in your guts - this is art.

[rdenney]

+1 from person with similar background (apart from printmaking).

Sometime you look at photographs and thinking "why.. why on earth you shot that cr*p, why did you waste huge sheet of film or made effort to make that huge wet plate".. and then you looking at other photographs and your heart just sings and you feel it in your guts - this is art.

And then the next guy comes along, and his heart sings at the one you rejected, while is response to the one you loved was "meh."

That is art, too.

Rick "still not sure how to understand photography as art" Denney

[Kirk Gittings]

Rick "still not sure how to understand photography as art" Denney

Hard to describe but I know it when I see it........

[Scott Davis]

Hard to describe but I know it when I see it........

Yes, Justice Potter :)

[invisibleflash]

Photography has always been the step child of the art world. Within photo circles, street photography is the step child of its field. I don't care if freezing time is considered an art or not. I just keep blasting away. Nowadays, photography has become so cheap and widespread with the digital age, it is very hard for the up and comers to get their work in museums.

One thing we should always remember. If there is no art involved with freezing time, then one photo is as good as the next. Whenever their is refinement, technique, creativity and judgment is involved. There is art.

All we have to do to see art is to look at a studio photog trying to be a street photog and to look at a street photog trying to be studio photog. While one may be great in their own field, they may stink in another field.

[invisibleflash]

+1 from person with similar background (apart from printmaking).

Sometime you look at photographs and thinking "why.. why on earth you shot that cr*p, why did you waste huge sheet of film or made effort to make that huge wet plate".. and then you looking at other photographs and your heart just sings and you feel it in your guts - this is art.

Worse yet, museums hang it up and pay millions for it!

[emmett]

Here's a post from my blog from a few years ago which is very apropos here.


http://marksteigelman.wordpress.com/2011/02/01/spirits-of-milltown/

[Greg Blank]

After more than a year of handling art and working for one of Baltimore's biggest if not the biggest gallery here, I conclude that art is a rather esoteric word. I see and handle everything from Matisse to Warhol + scores of contemporary work, it seems most "Art" is bought as an investment or more probably merely decoration. What someone dislikes is rather unimportant to someone that does like it and will pay for it. The bigger question is how do you fit in and create something meaningful in the community where many people ungifted artistically compete under the banner of photographer. The way I see it the problem is not the art community and thier acceptance, its the photo community and unrealistic expectations that the photoindustry has placed on it, including that industries own worth relative to art creation.

[invisibleflash]

After more than a year of handling art and working for one of Baltimore's biggest if not the biggest gallery here, I conclude that art is a rather esoteric word. I see and handle everything from Matisse to Warhol + scores of contemporary work, it seems most "Art" is bought as an investment or more probably merely decoration. What someone dislikes is rather unimportant to someone that does like it and will pay for it. The bigger question is how do you fit in and create something meaningful in the community where many people ungifted artistically compete under the banner of photographer. The way I see it the problem is not the art community and thier acceptance, its the photo community and unrealistic expectations that the photoindustry has placed on it, including that industries own worth relative to art creation.

I offered a high powered photo collector in NY a handful of my photos for free. She told me she didn't want them because she never heard of me. That told me she loves money more than photography.

I collect photos I find on the web for my guest photog portfolio. I print them up and put them in a post bound 11 x 14 binder. I write the photogs name on the back. But some of the images I find have no name connected with them. I don't care who shot them, I like the image.

[Jim collum]

always looking for good work! You don't have a name or website in your profile or posts. Any chance you could add them (or just a a response in this thread).

Haven't seen much of an issue in this area (Central Coast, San Francisco Bay). Closest I've seen were a couple of Galleries in Carmel.. but they really didn't have an issue with photography... just any art that wasn't in their gallery and in someone else's :)



I offered a high powered photo collector in NY a handful of my photos for free. She told me she didn't want them because she never heard of me. That told me she loves money more than photography.

I collect photos I find on the web for my guest photog portfolio. I print them up and put them in a post bound 11 x 14 binder. I write the photogs name on the back. But some of the images I find have no name connected with them. I don't care who shot them, I like the image.

[Drew Wiley]

I haven't paid much attention to Carmel for awhile. It used to be famous for high quality photography and infamous for tacky and even fraudulent paintings. I sold
quite a few prints there at one time, but every single one of them went to the locals, including the resident photographic community itself, which included some very
recognizable names. Never sold a single print to a tourist. Only a fraction of art buyer will pay attention to pricey photography, and then you have to divvy that up
into all the respective types of genre & medium, then what the motive is for buying it in the first place, blah, blah.... I really don't give a damn if it's called art or not.
Well, I actually prefer it wasn't.... one less BS marketing term to deal with...

[C. D. Keth]

The thing that get me about these art painter purest is they will paint from photos. To me that smells a little of hypocrisy.

...and that is a very old practice. Atget's day work was creating reference material for artists, because he certainly wasn't one. ;)

[Jim collum]

The two main ones, Photography West and the Weston Gallery are still there, and still some of the best work around. Photography West happens to be one of the only remaining 'big gun' Galleries that take only analog work. They even require that their platinum prints come directly from analog negatives, rather than digital negs (which is going to be harder and harder to live by.. since a lot of the big name platinum printers have been moving to digital negatives)



I haven't paid much attention to Carmel for awhile. It used to be famous for high quality photography and infamous for tacky and even fraudulent paintings. I sold
quite a few prints there at one time, but every single one of them went to the locals, including the resident photographic community itself, which included some very
recognizable names. Never sold a single print to a tourist. Only a fraction of art buyer will pay attention to pricey photography, and then you have to divvy that up
into all the respective types of genre & medium, then what the motive is for buying it in the first place, blah, blah.... I really don't give a damn if it's called art or not.
Well, I actually prefer it wasn't.... one less BS marketing term to deal with...

[jp]

I stopped in to Weston Gallery last year when traveling through the area, and I was disappointed at the small size and extremely limited amount of display. Yes, It was surrounded by much larger galleries of tacky paintings. I guess I'm spoiled by the galleries in my own town where rent and space are less premium.

[Drew Wiley]

Hmmm ... interesting, Jim. I never heard of anyone making a fuss about digit negs before, but I guess that is one way to separate "vintage" platinum printers from
the modern variety. I've been down in the neighborhood quite a bit, because my sister lives down there, but haven't toured gallery row in many years. ... more interested in bypassing the Carmel intersection and getting here or there to shoot. In the ole days I'd hit up Pt Lobos or Julia Pfeiffer on the quiet winter days....
nowadays when I want those kinds of rock formations, I head north to Salt Pt.

[Drew Wiley]

jp498 - the Weston Gallery was the big one! Gallery West is really a narrow closet by comparison. The gallery rule in Carmel was traditionally, "if someone can't carry
it away under their arm and place it in a car trunk, don't sell it". That was the saying I remember, although the Weston Gallery did ship 30x40 C-prints of Cole
Weston's work for corporate decor (at a low margin of profit - in distinction from his Ciba of Dye prints). But even 30 years ago, one of those "closets" would sell
for a million bucks, and leases were unbelievable. The only way to survive is to have a stockpile of vintage EW, BW, AA etc vintage prints, bought low long ago and
now selling very high. I had a little bigger venue, but couldn't carry the overhead on my own. Like many other analogous situations, it was basically a tax writeoff
for some absentee gazoolianaire. The manager had a museum background, so tried selling quality paintings too, but only my photography was selling steady.
Eventually the lease ran out and the rich dude didn't want to outright purchase the space. ... guess we all have stories like that.

[sanking]

Hmmm ... interesting, Jim. I never heard of anyone making a fuss about digit negs before, but I guess that is one way to separate "vintage" platinum printers from
the modern variety.

Well, some of the ideologues who reject any type of digital intervention have been making a fuss about this for a long time. Kind of absurd in my opinion because most alternative printers have always been involved in making enlarged negatives. And most of the high end pt/pd printers switched from analog methods of making enlarged negatives to digital negatives very early in the game.

But seriously, how could one recognize the difference. It is possible to make digital negatives that print in pt/pd with a linear curve similar to inkjet prints. On the other hand it is just as easy to adjust the curve so that digital negatives print in pt/pd with the typical long toe and compressed shoulders we see with long scale palladium, and by adjustment with any other pt/pd mixture.

Sandy

[tgtaylor]

But seriously, how could one recognize the difference. It is possible to make digital negatives that print in pt/pd with a linear curve similar to inkjet prints. On the other hand it is just as easy to adjust the curve so that digital negatives print in pt/pd with the typical long toe and compressed shoulders we see with long scale palladium, and by adjustment with any other pt/pd mixture.

Hmmm...I seem to remember you stating on this forum not too long ago that you found prints made with traditional negatives were superior than those made with digital negatives. What made you change your mind?

Thomas

[sanking]

Hmmm...I seem to remember you stating on this forum not too long ago that you found prints made with traditional negatives were superior than those made with digital negatives. What made you change your mind?

Thomas

Thomas,

I printed with alternative processes (gum, carbon transfer, kallitype, salted paper and vandyke) for more than two decades with analog negatives, using both LF and ULF negatives made in the camera, and with enlarged negatives made from smaller formats with analog methods. Since about 2002 I have printed primarily with digital negatives, mostly from scans of film negatives. Depending on how large you print, and the process, and the amount of tonal control one desires, one method may be superior to the other for a specific end.

Fairly certain that I never made a blanket statement that traditional negatives were superior for every purpose to those made with digital negatives. That is certainly not my opinion now, nor has it ever been my opinion, though I certainly appreciate the characteristics of contact printing with in-camera LF and ULF negatives. However, if you were able to find and cite everything I have written on the subject over the past decade you would find that I have been a big advocate of digitally enlarged negatives for alternative printing processes, with the caveat that making a really high quality digital negative is not an easy matter..

Sandy

[Brian Ellis]

Yes, Justice Potter :)

You knew him well enough to call him by his first name? Most people called him Justice Stewart. : - )