oldguysrule wrote:
art is nekkid and black and white

sometimes fashion is too but usually thats when the color film was unavailable because the digital explosion has shuttered the color film manufacturers. but sometimes its cause an escort showed and held up the b&w reflector instead of the color one. other than that its all macro photography.

no?

Ok, thank you, though I have a very hard time separating those too... Would the b/w picture of an old guy be considered an art?

oldguysrule wrote:
depends on the oldguy i guess?
hehe

well.... geee.... I don't get it still.  It is so hard to be a blond with long legs... (damn legs aren't really in the context here... argh)... So, like do you have a book to reference to, so that when I look at the picture - I could follow some rules to identify the art? some old guy rules perhaps?

Miz Beth wrote:
art can be colorful, and i agree with your definition. of art. i think you have it all down pat.

thanks, good to know I am not the only one to have this opinion.

Lost Coast Photo wrote:
A few years ago John Lane made a compelling case that art once was part of life, part of the community, largely distinct from the individual ego.  Only in the past several hundred years has art been institutionalized, and only in the past few decades has an academic art elite arisen to dictate the boundaries of what is considered to be art... an elite largely wrapped up in the individual and the ego.

Thus it's ironic that here we seem to have created another layer, where some people create art to show it to viewers on conventional gallery walls, others call what they do art because it's a good excuse to get a girl out of her clothes, and yet others call what they do art to, presumably, bury the guilt associated with materialism and money.  Some people calling their fashion photography art flirt with this last category.

Certainly, some fashion is art.  Avedon at his best might be one example, Sieff another.  In both cases, there is a cultural element, more than just the clothes, and of course there is the formal beauty.  Some contemporary well-known fashion photographers complete their commercial assignment, then after the client is happy, famous photographer and famous model hang around and shoot some more for fun, on their own time.  This is where some of the images later published in books come from.

But I think those are exceptions.  Most fashion is materialism, it's about the money or the illusion of money.  Similarly, a lot of other things called art are actually thinly veiled attempts to justify something else.  But it's very difficult to draw a line and say everything on this side is art.  Each viewer knows it when they see it; unfortunately, each viewer sees something different.  All I can say that something created from passion, created for it's own sake, at least has a chance of being art if it is done reasonably well.  If it's done without thought, without passion, it's more likely to be what we see all around us every day... a lifeless thing, a commodity, or worse.

you covered it!
not much to add here.

Madcitychel wrote:
Who are the judges? to decide?

Easy question to answer, actually.

In this country and in the West since at least the Middle Ages, those who buy art are the judges of what art is.  (I'll also have to nod to art critics, who have generally spent years of study in order to both give context to a piece (or body) of art, and to judge the craft quality and cultural value of art.  Art critics seldom give any note at all to anything that hasn't ever sold.)

An artist makes and shows art, for whatever his own reasons are.  And the artist may value his own work highly.  But a buyer gives dollar value (the only kind that has credibility in Western culture) to art. 

Kinda sucks, but it's true anyway.

-Don

P.S.  Your original definition which emphasizes "craft" is very important.  Art needs craft to exist.  An artist is first a skilled craftsman (with some definition problems - Duchamp's urinal wouldn't have been art if Duchamp hadn't already been recognized as an artist competent in his craft.)

Eric Zoolander wrote:
"Fashion" is a model wearing a dress on a white background.

"Art" is the same model wearing the same dress, falling off a building, while a giant hamster tosses her a life preserver, and half-a-dozen midgets juggle flaming chickens in the background.

Got it?

good lord.... and yet

Lost Coast Photo wrote:
A few years ago John Lane made a compelling case that art once was part of life, part of the community, largely distinct from the individual ego.  Only in the past several hundred years has art been institutionalized, and only in the past few decades has an academic art elite arisen to dictate the boundaries of what is considered to be art... an elite largely wrapped up in the individual and the ego.

Thus it's ironic that here we seem to have created another layer, where some people create art to show it to viewers on conventional gallery walls, others call what they do art because it's a good excuse to get a girl out of her clothes, and yet others call what they do art to, presumably, bury the guilt associated with materialism and money.  Some people calling their fashion photography art flirt with this last category.

Certainly, some fashion is art.  Avedon at his best might be one example, Sieff another.  In both cases, there is a cultural element, more than just the clothes, and of course there is the formal beauty.  Some contemporary well-known fashion photographers complete their commercial assignment, then after the client is happy, famous photographer and famous model hang around and shoot some more for fun, on their own time.  This is where some of the images later published in books come from.

But I think those are exceptions.  Most fashion is materialism, it's about the money or the illusion of money.  Similarly, a lot of other things called art are actually thinly veiled attempts to justify something else.  But it's very difficult to draw a line and say everything on this side is art.  Each viewer knows it when they see it; unfortunately, each viewer sees something different.  All I can say that something created from passion, created for it's own sake, at least has a chance of being art if it is done reasonably well.  If it's done without thought, without passion, it's more likely to be what we see all around us every day... a lifeless thing, a commodity, or worse.

While I agree with you on most of your points, the "art elite" has been around for quite a while longer than the past few decades.  In the 19th century, the Salon held in France held exhibitions of "approved" art, the neoclassical/romatic paintings and sculpture that came into vogue in the 18th century.  In fact, our now beloved Impressionists were initially just Paris Salon rejects .  Before that, all art was dictated by masters' workshops, where apprentices learned how to paint by copying their master's work and learning the "correct" way to compose an artwork.  The art elite has been around for centuries, it just wasn't until photography came and shook things up so completely that the elite had to cling so desperately to their definition of "art" that exclusion has become so hip.

johnkphotography wrote:
...To try and seperate Fashion Photography from Art is bullshit.  Often, the best photographers are hired for their specific vision and are given a big budget and total artistic freedom to shoot for commercial campaigns.  How one would not consider that artistic is beyond me.

Yes, it does appear to be beyond you.  Fashion photography is a subset of commercial photography.  Instead of looking at those mostly commercial craftsmen you mentioned, you should be looking at Cartier-Bresson and Weston and Newton and artists who had damned little use for commercial photography.  (Yes, Weston did portraits to support himself and Newton took fashion assignments, though he often complained about having to do that.) 

I used to think fashion was the pinnacle of photography as well, and I still admire it done well.  And the guys you mention do it very well indeed.  But it remains commercial photography, more akin to Auto Trader shooting than to art.

(OK a caveat:  Newton shot fashion because of his art.  Avedon shot fashion then became an artist.  There is some grey area, but that same grey area exists between product shooting and art as well.)

-Don

P.S.  If you're interested in fashion photography, the only place that is exclusively focused on it, on the web, is The Fashion Only Forum at http://www.duroi.com/fashionforum/.  They take it seriously and don't put up with anything that compromises their focus.

johnkphotography wrote:
Often, the best photographers are hired for their specific vision and are given a big budget and total artistic freedom to shoot for commercial campaigns...

Well, I'm certainly not a top photographer and I've never shot a commercial campaign.  However, I have talked with a photographer who does shoot major campaigns (stuff you've seen and heard of) and shoots in the major fashion magazines on a regular basis.  We discussed this very subject of artistic freedom once. 

According to him, this is seldom the case and the parameters under which you shoot are far more restricted than what most people think.  Total artistic freedom on a commercial campaign?  A rare beast indeed.  Any company with the money to spend on a major ad campaign will likely flesh out the ideas on their own.  The photographer may or may not have input on that, as the company surely employs more than it's share of creative types who are there for the sole purpose of coming up with ideas.  The photographer is hired to take the ideas and give them life. 

Artistic freedom?  Not so much.  But they don't care because of the size of the paycheck they get...




:::sorry for digressing from the topic a bit:::

oldguysrule wrote:
good lord.... and yet

No kidding, I don't think I could ever do an art shot

  wrote:
...To try and seperate Fashion Photography from Art is bullshit.  Often, the best photographers are hired for their specific vision and are given a big budget and total artistic freedom to shoot for commercial campaigns.  How one would not consider that artistic is beyond me.

I don't think somebody is necessarily trying to separate those two, more like differentiate.  According to my understanding of your post there is no difference between let's say Salvador Dali (painting artist) and 50 cents (recording artist).

  wrote:
(OK a caveat:  Newton shot fashion because of his art.  Avedon shot fashion then became an artist.  There is some grey area, but that same grey area exists between product shooting and art as well.)  -Don

I think, that's a good point an art and $ can't exist without each other as both of them are values.  And people have been exchanging values since they can think, probably ) (don't know the date for sure )

  wrote:
Artistic freedom?  Not so much.  But they don't care because of the size of the paycheck they get...

I think this is very sketchy, from one hand - an artist doesn't "create" when s/he is working on an assignment... because s/he is limited and can't much follow his muse, though again! - there are some great works that were recognized throughout the centuries as an art, but were a product of artist's paid work.

Another question, why is that the greatest art works were inspired by struggle?

lotusphoto wrote:
did someone say

"the difference between art and pornography is the lighting"


because if they didn't i will

I don't know - if I only read what they've said here...

Madcitychel wrote:
As I get more familiar with MM I find it very interesting how some photogrophers claim to be artists.  Though what's the basis for such claims?

That's OK. Lots of people around here claim to be models too.

Decadence Fashion wrote:
Fashion is widely understood since most people don't understand it. Fashion is a direct reflection of our lives. People are the canvas, the clothes being the art.  I see as Erte' did, wearable art.  Most people fail to realize how much thought, time, and effort goes into creating just one dress or complete oufit.  Color, shape, texture, and theme, just like a painting or sculpture.  Depth and perspective.  A garment starts it's gestation two years before it even reaches the rack.  I am an artist, not just because I paint, or or draw, but mostly because I can design clothing.  That is my true art.

Just as you said, art is also about the process more so than the finished product.

Madcitychel wrote:
As I get more familiar with MM I find it very interesting how some photogrophers claim to be artists.  Though what's the basis for such claims?

Click Hamilton wrote:
That's OK. Lots of people around here claim to be models too.

This is worth posting again.  I think that most self proclaimed :::insert misc distinction here::: unsually aren't really what they claim to be, or else it would be evident to everyone else...

  wrote:
Artistic freedom?  Not so much.  But they don't care because of the size of the paycheck they get...

Madcitychel wrote:
I think this is very sketchy, from one hand - an artist doesn't "create" when s/he is working on an assignment... because s/he is limited and can't much follow his muse, though again! - there are some great works that were recognized throughout the centuries as an art, but were a product of artist's paid work.

I think you're taking my quote a bit out of context.  It's related directly to the idea of full artistic freedom on a major commercial campaign.  Certainly a photographer creates on any assignment, but to say that what they create is art (as opposed to eye-catching commercial imagery) is another matter entirely.  Perhaps they do, but on a commercial campaign, creating "art" isn't necessarily the point.

Also, to place the distinction of artist on a financially successful commercial photographer is a bit off base.  Being creative for a living and being an artist for a living are two different things, in my opinion.  I've seen some very creative fashion images.  But that doesn't automatically qualify them as art.

Madcitychel wrote:
Another question, why is that the greatest art works were inspired by struggle?

Are they now? 

You could make a rather compelling argument that the greatest works of art are inspired by love.  Or an equally valid argument for pain or hate.  I don't think struggle had any stronger influence in the "greatest works of art" than anything else.

Madcitychel wrote:
Another question, why is that the greatest art works were inspired by struggle?

Jay Bowman wrote:
Are they now? 

You could make a rather compelling argument that the greatest works of art are inspired by love.  Or an equally valid argument for pain or hate.  I don't think struggle had any stronger influence in the "greatest works of art" than anything else.

The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel was done for money.  I think if one names "the greatest works of art" one would find a trail of tithes going to Rome then going to artists/craftsmen. 

Only in the last two centuries has art been disassociated from money, and even that's specious, as without anyone buying it, no art is worth a tinkle in a chamberpot, except to the artist.

-Don