Post a paragraph with your thoughts and respond to two of your class mate's postings, at least 1 paragraph each.
Due on the day of Roll 3's due date.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Is Photography a Fine Art Form?
Photography was once a controversial new technology and when photographers started to claim it was an actual art form, much controversy ensued. Research "pictorial photography", "Paul Strand", "Alfred Stieglitz", and "straight photography". What are your thoughts on Photography as an art form based on your research? Reflect on photography's journey into becoming a legitimate art form.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Photography as a form of art is very intricate and beautiful. When taking a picture you have to take into account how it is going to come out,how the colors are going to blend in with each other just as if you were painting. when a painter paints they think about which colors are going to compliment another and how people are going to critique it. Photography has a lot to do with art, Alfred Stieglitz is an exceptional example because his knowledge of new art is shown in his photographs by which he arranges the shapes and tones. based on the research i did on these few artists i say that there is'nt much of a difference between 'art' and photography. There are noticable differences but the similarities prove to be greater.
ReplyDeletePhotography is indeed a form of fine art. The definition of fine art according to wikipedia is a form of art whose purpose is to please the human eye aesthetically. This is what photography strives to achieve. Photographers try endlessly to produce a photo that is is just plain beautiful and interesting to look at
ReplyDeletePictorialism was a photographic movement during which, photographers attempted to make their photos emulate the styles in painting. Pictorialists utilized many darkroom techniques and different types of photographic paper. Additionally, photographers would creates etches within their photos with needles. The fact that photographers were trying to make their photos look like paintings proves that photographers were trying to change some aspect of their photos to make it more appealing to look at. And because photographers were trying to make their photos more appealing to look at, it shows that photography is a fine art.
"Fine art or the fine arts describes an art form developed primarily for aesthetics and/or concept rather than practical application."
ReplyDeleteThen, from this, it would seem that the broad term of photography is able to fall neither here nor there. The term must be broken down into smaller pieces to categorize.
"pictorial photography," when typed up in Google Images, returns a wide assortment of pictures that are either monochrome or sepia-toned. At their inception, they paralleled the impressionist style of the time. Alfred Stieglitz was a very renowned pictorial photographer.
However, the new and modernizing America needed a new representation for art, and that made it necessary for pictorialism to be waved bye-bye to. It soon stopped being considered as a major form of art.
This practice was renounced by a group of people that went on by themselves to start another category, "straight photography," which focuses on unmanipulated pictures.
http://lapuravidagallery.com/blog/2010/03/oped-appreciating-straight-photography/
"...an argument or plea for the importance and appreciation of ‘straight’ photography in the fine art world."
"...but for the most part it seems that if you’re out doing this work, there’s very little chance it’ll be widely seen in the fine art photography world."
As environment and society modernizes, so does their necessary representation for a "fine art."
Photography is a form of art, like Dennis said. It is made to please the eyes and, stand in awe. All art accomplishes that, including photography. Back then, photos were compared to paintings, so the photographers tried to take the photo like a painting. Every artists goal is to make the project beautiful and worth looking at. That is the main goalposts of photography. When a photographer is going to take a photo, they have to think about many things to make their photo the best. The6 have to look at the colors, like painting. They have to look at the angle, like painting. They have to make the picture perfect, like all other artists. There really is no reason to not call a photographer not an artist. They have the same minds as the others and they have the same goals as artists. Relatively. .
ReplyDeleteAccording to http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_pictorial_photography, pictorial photography was a movement that took place in the 20th century in which "pictorialists used soft focus, filters, Vaseline on the lens, various darkroom manipulations and processes to get a "painterly" look". this was once a must thing to do but as technology kept going it soon had to be gone. Paul Strand was born in 1890 New York City, and died on 1976. He traveled around to different places on Earth and took photographs of the landscapes, culture and the people that lived there. Alfred Stieglitz was born in 1864 and died in 1946. He is a good representative of the pictorialists. This movement has not dissapeared because many photographers are still working today to try to "get a look that is sometimes anything but "photographic" in the sense of, say, Ansel Adams and the f/64 school, which emphasized very "straight" photography with crisp focus and infinite detail". According to google Straight photography is "photography that attempts to depict a scene as realistically and objectively as permitted by the medium, renouncing the use of manipulation". It became the thing to do after pictorial. In my opinion photography is an art form in the way that the photographer has to compose the subject, find the angle in which is going to look the best which is the same thing that artists do.
ReplyDeleteI feel that photography should without a doubt be considered a fine art form. Art can be defined as "the products of human creativity" (1), and it is without question that creativity is present in photography. What makes this so commonly argued is that it is the act of creating something by capturing what has already been created. However, the fact that the subjects of the photo are not created by photography does not eliminate the aspect of creativity. It's necessary to take into account the creativity needed in order to know what creates an interesting picture and how to adjust settings to maximize appeal. It is in a similar sense that music that includes samples from other music can still be considered original. I feel that understanding how to most effectively portray what has already been created is a prime example of creativity, and thus a prominent form of fine art.
ReplyDeleteXiang, however, also presents a viable point. As there are a number of ways to define fine art, categorizing it often is dependent on personal definition. By the definition I included, photography is fairly clearly a form of fine art. This is not entirely the case with Xiang's definition, which states that fine art is not used for "practical application." This suggests that photography used for documentation or other non-entertainment purposes is not fine art, contradictory to my claim that any photography can be considered fine art regardless of its purpose.
In contrast to Xiang, Dennis states that all forms of photography should be considered fine art. His reasoning is similar to mine, photography is done by discovering the most visually pleasing way to display something and thus should be considered a fine art. This is supported by straight photography, which is a form of photography "that attempts to depict a scene as realistically and objectively as permitted by the medium" (2), yet in an appealing way. I do, however, agree with Xiang's logic, which leads me to believe that the debate is really a matter of disagreeing about the definition of fine art. With this, photography is by my preferred definition a form of fine art.
References:
1: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:art&sa=X&ei=uKjRTJeJApKgsQOZt8njCw&ved=0CBcQkAE
2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_photography
Photography is most definitely a fine art form. With the patience and creativity involved in capturing an interesting picture, takes time and thought. When someone goes to a museum to look at artwork, there are going to be paintings on the wall, and according to painters, painting is an art form. How does that differ from a photographer? A photographer is an artist that takes a subject matter, and uses technology to change the viewing possibilities of the image, which creates an interesting effect, just like when there is texture in a painting. Although some critics "considered photography a purely mechanical process, produced by chemicals rather than human sensibility" the camera isn't the one who picks which image to take.
ReplyDeleteReference: http://science.jrank.org/pages/5175/Photography-Photography-an-art-form.html
Pictorial photography is just another form of fine art, as it takes the aspects and techniques used with painting and incorporates it with a camera, creating an interesting effect on the image. Alfred Stieglitz mentioned in an interview once, "His work is rooted in the best tradition of photography. His vision is potential. His work is pure. It is direct. It does not rely upon tricks of process. In whatever he does there is applied intelligence. In the history of photography there are but few photographers who, from the point of view of expression, have really done much work of any importance. And by importance we mean work that has some relatively lasting quality, that element which gives all art its real significance... The work is brutally direct. Devoid of any flim-flams; devoid of trickery and any 'ism', devoid of any attempt to mystify an ignorant public...." which sums up the creativity that a respected artist had for another especially during that time period. Straight photography is the attempt at accurately depicting a scene, which is very similar to some painters.
Based upon what Viana said, I totally agree with her, because amongst the research I did to compare paintings as a fine art and photography, the similarities are far more greater in significance then the little, and very seldom differences.
Furthermore, as Danny clearly pointed out, art is defined by the products in human creativity, and in order to take a picture, the photographer must have some creativity in order for their pictures to represent their thought process. Music is also another art form that seems slightly taken for granted because it seems when people think of fine art they think of paintings. Bringing the music aspect into his argument definitely adds to the effect of different forms of fine art.
And without photography, all those moments artists try to capture with paintings never clearly represent the actuality in the situation, which is what makes photography unique, and most definitely a fine art form.
And I mean, this class is under the category fine art right? Must mean something.
Photography is not an art form and an art form at the same time. I agree with Dennis that it "is a form of art whose purpose is to please the human eye aesthetically." But, it really just depends on the photographer. If he took a photo with the intention of making it look artsy, then it's considered as an artwork.
ReplyDeleteBut if someone just took a snapshot of a random thing, then it's not an art. For example, imagine a formal family picture. If you look at it, it's not really that fancy looking. The point of that picture is for remembrance.
In the end, It just lies in the hands of the photographer if he wants to make artworks.
:D
Photography can be both fine art, and not fine art. As Dennis said, "The definition of fine art according to Wikipedia is a form of art whose purpose is to please the human eye aesthetically." That is very true of many photographers, who aim to make a visually beautiful photograph. To make a good artistic photograph, you must be aware of space, colors, and content, just as if you were painting or sculpting.
ReplyDeleteOn the flip slip, think about documentary photography. Although some documentary photographers aim to please the eye, most just want to record the facts how they are, like in war or police photography. When police are taking a photo of a crime scene, they don't aim for beauty, they aim for a good representation of the area.
Photography is most surely an art because it is all about an artist trying to fulfill his/her vision. In art, there is a common message or theme that is often portrayed. Much like any other art form, photography is used to portray a message. Wikipedia says that art is anything affects the senses, emotions, and/or intellect, and Photography does this. Photography is obviously an art. I'll post more later
ReplyDeleteAs Dennis stated, a fine art is "a form of art whose purpose is to please the human eye aesthetically". Photography, the majority of the time, is used to please the eyes. However in some cases, photography is deliberately used to disgust the eye, such as a picture of a starving child. So one could say, much like Kaitlyn, that photography is both a fine art and not a fine art.
ReplyDeletelianpalima stated that it "lies in the hands of the photographer if he wants to make artworks." I completely agree. Digital cameras make it possible to take random pictures taking no time to think about art. Some pictures may be taken simply to document an experience. Overall, some photography is an art form, while others are not.
ReplyDeleteEven though Photography allows us to capture amazing images, it cannot be considered a fine art from for three main points.Also, photography allows anyone to become an "artist" which defames other artists who put in the time for their "masterpieces" Point number one is the obvious use of technology to gain images, which in a way can be considered as cheating since all you really do is press a button at something you believe looks "cool" or "pretty". In essence, being able to alter and perfect your photo is another way of cheating. Secondly, snapping a quick photo is not the same as taking the time to draw something out and use different shades of colored pencils/ oil pastels to perfect the picture instead of tweaking it quickly on PhotoShop. Thirdly, Photography cannot be seen as an art form because it does not take as much practice to perfect it. In addition, cameras tell you the lighting conditions, aperture, shutter, and focuses the shot for you, leaving all you have to do is find a subject and press a button.
ReplyDeleteIn my professional opinion, I believe that photography is not really a fine art because the new technology allows anyone to be "artists". Even after researching,I saw nothing more special than a few pictures. I know that every one else in this class will disagree with me but that's what's up.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Michael, I disagree because he uses wikipedia as a source which is pretty lame. Michael says that it is a fine art but it just seems that he is trying to be a kiss up.
I agree with Niki because he uses good points. Smart people tend to think the same thing so thats why Niki and I agree.
In response to Cori's post, I believe that your statement that photographers take the same time in their photos as people who actually draw them is BS. Photographers clearly do not put in as much time as normal artists because they can easily press a button and alter the photo in PhotoShop.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Carson's statement that photography is not a fine art because new technology allows anyone to be an artist. Because anyone these days can become a photographer, popular photographers have lost some of their popularity. And I also laugh at Carson juvenile claims that people who use Wikpedia as a source is lame. :P
I agree with what Dennis said, about that is a "form of art whose purpose is to please the human eye aesthetically". Because its what its doing, people are enjoing what they see, the photographs that they are abserving. When a person says that it likes it, thats when the photographer has acchieved its goal.
ReplyDeleteThe way that M writes that "Photography is most definitely a fine art form. With the patience and creativity involved in capturing an interesting picture, takes time and thought." Because its true, photographers take as long time to take the perfect photo as an artist takes to paint, and or draw. We have to take into consideration that deveping the photos take a big role too, which means more time.
photography is not a true art,photos we take are basically a show of technological,you can't create art by just pushing a button. people work on arts for days and months.that's real art.
ReplyDeletelike dulce said in her response, it take time, which is true art don't happen in seconds.also carson is right about the art through technological.
-bimas,its me
Photography can or can not be a art form; it really just depends on the type. In my opinion, art is all about showing the world beauty in an image or painting, and relaying a greater message. Like Cori stated, some photographers take the time to adjust the angle and lighting of the picture, and lots of emotions are expressed in the photograph. I agree with Dennis's statement that art's purpose is to be appealing to the eye.
ReplyDeleteBut like Michael mentioned, now with digital cameras, amateur photographers can take pictures and could be considered "art." Randomly taking photos, without a second's hesitation when pressing the button would not be art. Documentary photography is to inform; and, in my opinion, would not fit Wikipedia's definition of art: "Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging symbolic elements in a way that influences and affects the senses, emotions, and/or intellect."
-wendy
Since the definition of Pictoral Photography from http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_pictorial_photography said that this is used by photographers to get their photos to look as if they were painted. It is an extremely interesting technique used by many photographers and, specifically, Alfred Stieglitz. If you take a look at his gallery at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Stieglitz#Gallery you will see that his pictures are mostly in the sepia tones, and are slightly blurred to create that painting effect. Paul Strand, an American photographer and film maker, used the straight photography approach - the simple act of taking pictures. Seriously. Taking pictures without any fancy technology or anything.
ReplyDeletePhotography is definitely a form of fine art. As Kaitlyn said, the goal of photography is to please its viewers, which is exactly what it tends to do. These photographers, Alfred Stieglitz and Paul Strand have worked to create new types of photography to do just this. As Cori said, photography strives to achieve the look and style of a painting, which brings us back to pictorial photography.
Yes, photography is a fine art form.
To elaborate on what Viana has said about taking into consideration all elements of a photo before taking, as we know, there are many different factors that can affect the results of a photo. Professional photographers can take up to hundreds of frames to achieve the perfect shot with the right lighting, angle, and contrast, as well as many other things. It is an art form to be able to capture an image that is of quality in all these areas. As photo students we all can appreciate photography as an art form being that we have all come to learn that photography is not simply pressing a button and snapping a picture.
ReplyDeleteAlso we must remember that the subjects of our photos aren’t always thinks that exist naturally and that at times it is necessary for us to set up our own scenes to capture images of this is part of the art as well. The art of photography encompasses many elements that we all must master to become artists.
Photography can be a form of art, but not in all cases. In my opinion, whether or not something is art should not be based on how much time was spent on it, but rather, the quality of the final product. True art can simply be recognizing the beauty in something you wouldn't normally notice, like a leaf or a tree branch. When a photographer sees this, they use their knowledge to capture the image in a way that best accentuates that beauty.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Niki, photography doesn't allow just anyone to be "artists." Someone who doesn't know anything about art cannot become an artist no matter how much technology you give them. A camera may be able to set the aperture and shutter speed for you, but it cannot tell you what angle to shoot at, or choose your subject for you to make the picture effective. An artist has to have a good sense of aesthetics, which just comes with experience. As Wendy said, randomly taking pictures without any thought would not be art. Photographers, like all artists, put thought and effort into the work they create.
-Melissa
In response to Bimas, just because something is a technology does not mean that it is not an art. And people do spend hours on their photography in the darkroom and in Photoshop. You can't argue that this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ianton/
ReplyDeleteor this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ianton/4662240445/in/set-72157622500252444/
or this http://www.flickr.com/photos/ianton/3984619974/in/set-72157606724531068
or even these: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kentmercurio/ aren't art. Since the work of these photographers is really quite indisputable as art and they therefore artists, photography must be a fine art. Dictionary.com defines a fine art as "a visual art considered to have been created primarily for aesthetic purposes and judged for its beauty and meaningfulness." Photography is clearly a visual art which doesn't have many other uses besides than being aesthetic and having meaning, except perhaps documentation, fitting the definition perfectly.
But that doesn't mean that every picture is art; there is a big difference between a photo and photography. Someone taking a snapshot of their family at the beach with a $5,000 camera on auto not caring about composition, etc. is not art, but a picture shot with a point-and-shoot can be as long as the purpose behind it is artful and meaningful. The artist makes photography into an art, not the camera.
Now in response to Niki, what makes you think photography is the only non-exclusive art? A lot of people may try and fail to be artistic in their "photography" but that certainly doesn't make them artists. Anyone can paint, too. Nothing is stopping them from trying and being bad at that. Photography only seems more accessible because people mistake pictures for photography and assume that everyone's trying to be an artist. And I don't know what artist you got the idea from that it takes less time to set up a photoshoot, find natural lighting conditions, edit your files/work in the darkroom, etc. than it does to draw. Also, editing your photos is not cheating. As Edward Steichen said, "Every other artist begins with a blank canvas, a piece of paper the photographer begins with the finished product." Though a photographer may start with the finished product, they still have a right to transform it into their vision. If you can make a picture look better after you take it that doesn't make you less of a photographer. I think it is perfectly reasonable to consider photography a fine art. It is the art of mastering light, just as drawing is mastering shapes.
It seems as if photography is a fine art, however it is one that seems modernized. Sure it has some technical prowess in it, however the shot that one takes is composed by one's artistic thought on it.It is not purely just technological greatness, sure it helps, but its the artistic elements that count. To further emphasize this take a look at some of the fundamentals of photography, composition style, each piece in the photo is laid out in a shot, which provides some meaning to it, some unexplainable beauty or expression it, which can not be created purely through a good camera.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Wendy's response to Michael, yes an amateur can use a digital camera and take great pictures, but that doesn't mean that is art, where is the emotion, the expression, and the beauty behind it? It can seem almost absent at times when looking at them. So yea if you think photography is just amateur shooting, then sure it's not an art, but photos with emotion, and depth, that is truly an art.
I apologize for the lateness of my blog, I had forgotten what my Gmail account was and my password too, I apologize again Mrs. A
Photography is very much an art form, if one is trying to make it. Today so much of photography is armature point and shoot. Few people take the time to set up the lighting, care about composition, and really think about how to make an excellent photograph. If one takes the time to seek out the many parts of an artistic photograph, photography can defiantly and already is an art form. Anthony
ReplyDelete