Eric S. wrote:
Don, Is the work of WeeGee or Roxanne Lowit "art" or "craft"?

Hmmm. Funny enough, I took a class in college called Philosophy of Art. For our final exam, I seriously considered turning in my exam paper with nothing but a stick figure on it.

Oddly enough, that may have been acceptable depending on the professor.

Niesha Studio wrote:

You forgot the ketchup-

You're right.. Ketchup is MUCH more embarassing..!  *hehe*

Brittni Lynn wrote:
You know comparing to Van Gogh, Michelangelo etc. Do you think it is?

I don't think there is anything in photography on a par with the work of Van Gogh, or Michaelangelo, or Matisse or many other painters. Maybe Eugene Atget is somewhat close. Photography of some painters like Man Ray or Aleksandr Rodchenko was as good as their paintings and other work. But they were painters.

Photography is the poor cousin of the arts. We suck.

Brittni Lynn wrote:
Ok so I was having a conversation with two photographers yesturday and we got into a discusion on whether photography is really art. You know comparing to Van Gogh, Michelangelo etc. Do you think it is?

Yes...and no.

Gregory Garecki wrote:

I don't think there is anything in photography on a par with the work of Van Gogh, or Michaelangelo, or Matisse or many other painters. Maybe Eugene Atget is somewhat close. Photography of some painters like Man Ray or Aleksandr Rodchenko was as good as their paintings and other work. But they were painters.

Photography is the poor cousin of the arts. We suck.

Sculptors have skill creating items in bronze, clay, marble, etc. Painters have skill with brushes and canvas. Photographic printmaking requires skill either with manipulating exposure and chemistry or their equivalent in digital programs to produce the desired image. Bad work in all types of artistic media dominate the field.  We don't suck, we have a different set of skills

Habenero Photography wrote:
Sculptors have skill creating items in bronze, clay, marble, etc. Painters have skill with brushes and canvas. Photographic printmaking requires skill either with manipulating exposure and chemistry or their equivalent in digital programs to produce the desired image. Bad work in all types of artistic media dominate the field.  We don't suck, we have a different set of skills

Amen.  It saddens me how much bad photography is out there and how few people realize that it's truly bad (typically p+s shots).  And we definitely have a different set of skills.  My mentor, Rob Gassie, is one I would consider an artist for how he uses his skills to manipulate the image.  http://webpac.crrl.org/exhibits/atrium/2000/feb/feb.htm http://www.artspoint.org/atrium/large_p … lumn_id=37
(unfortunately, my favorites by him are not online.  These are the ones I could find)

Niesha Studio wrote:
"The function of art is to provide what life does not." - Tom Robbins

Photography crosses from a skill into an art when it transcends depiction and becomes creation, i.e if it contains a visual lyricism that could only exist as the result of synthesis between the subject and the manner in which the image is captured.

If a photo's main draw is that someone was there with a camera when something interesting happened, then it isn't art, though it may still be a great photo.  To me, this includes most 'look at how hot this woman is" photographs.

technique + interesting subject = good photo
technique + interesting subject + eye + idea = ART!

Eric S. wrote:
Don, Is the work of WeeGee or Roxanne Lowit "art" or "craft"?

I can't say.  It's not my job nor is it my specialty to judge art.  That's what critics and art buyers do.

I'm not keen on either, but I'm also not really keen on Cartier-Bresson.  The best photographer alive (in my opinion of course), Sabastao Salgado, has social purpose in his work.  Those that are of the "life and times of the artist" school would certainly call him an artist.  Others, of the "useless beauty" school may not agree.

In any case, "artist" isn't a title.  It's like "plumber."  Call yourself one and bingo - you are one.  Neither the artist nor the plumber are necessarily good, but that's where the market comes in and decides for them.

And the critics and buyers decide what art is good art, not the professors or looky-loos.

-Don

WG Rowland wrote:

foot + mouth = embarrassment.

You called?

Olaf S wrote:
Like with many other mediums...

Sometimes it's art
Sometimes it's craft
Sometimes it's schlock
Sometimes it's so bad it's worse than schlock

I think produced all of the first three at one time or another, but I'm careful not to show anyone what I consider to be the schlock.

One problem is, it's easy to pass schlock and "worse than schlock" off as art, or even craft.

Another problem is that one man's schlock is another man's art.

I think that most everyone on this site could agree that SOME photography is art, even "fine art"

amen

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
I'm not keen on either, but I'm also not really keen on Cartier-Bresson.  The best photographer alive (in my opinion of course), Sabastao Salgado, has social purpose in his work.  Those that are of the "life and times of the artist" school would certainly call him an artist.  Others, of the "useless beauty" school may not agree.



-Don

ah Salgado... the objectification, romanticization, and commodification of squalor! 

I cast my vote for Eggleston, simplistic genius or dispassionate observer?...