Photography and art

Discussion in 'Photography' started by UC, Apr 2, 2005.

  1. UC

    UC Guest

    A serious question though : Why don't you consider Photography art?


    Let me try this one more time:

    Consider these objects:

    1) A household steam iron

    2) Something that looks exactly like a household steam iron

    3) A picture (painting) of a boy in blue clothes

    4) A color photograph of boy in blue clothes

    5) A color photograph of the (painting) of the boy in blue clothes

    Let's start with the steam iron, shall we? If you leave it around your
    house, no one is going to ask 'what is that a steam iron of'?
    You're inclined to say: 'Excuse me, I don't quite understand you!', and
    you'd be right. A steam iron is not a steam iron of something else.
    It's self-contained.

    Turning to No. 2, the 'mock' steam iron, you could call it a work of
    art I suppose, but if there is no structural difference, how can we
    call that art? Suppose an 'artist' comes to the steam iron factory one
    day and takes away a bunch of slightly off-tolerance parts that are
    rejects, and then assembles these in exactly the correct way so as to
    form a working steam iron. Is there really any difference? I'd say
    we're straining to say so.

    Now, to No. 3, the painting. boy.jpg

    Why is this 'art'? Well, in its day, it may not have been! The term
    'artist' has been corrupted today to mean someone far more significant
    than that of the portrait painter. By those lower standards, I could
    accept that photographers are 'artists', but I must caution that I am
    talking only from the standpoint of portraiture, and that calling
    someone an 'artist' was more of an insult than a compliment. Ancient
    Greek and Roman sculpture that we praise so highly was essentially a
    commodity. What we have left today from them is mostly the cheap marble
    stuff. The good stuff was made of bronze or other metals, and most of
    it disappeared centuries ago.

    Now, is the color photograph of the boy in blue clothes 'art'.
    Certainly not in the modern sense, but perhaps in the ancient sense,
    and again the term 'artist' was more a term of derision than praise.

    Finally, our fifth object is but a mere copy of an artist's portrait.

    Oh, I almost forgot the most important point of my little essay. The
    steam iron is not a steam iron of something else, but a photograph is
    always a photograph of something else. That is its nature.
    UC, Apr 2, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. UC

    Steven Wandy Guest

    but a photograph is always a photograph of something else.

    Is the painting not a painting of "something else"?
    The painter - granted it takes a lot more talent atleast in
    my eyes to properly paint the young man as opposed to
    taking his picture - did not imagine this, he painted what
    he saw, same as a photographer would do.
    Steven Wandy, Apr 3, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. UC

    UC Guest

    Not necessarily.

    UC, Apr 3, 2005
  4. UC

    UC Guest

    Not in any causal way..

    UC, Apr 3, 2005
  5. UC

    Steven Wandy Guest

    Not necessarily.But there also are photographers who start with some basic photos and use
    like Photoshop, etc. to make images that only their imagination dreamt up.
    Steven Wandy, Apr 5, 2005
  6. UC

    UC Guest

    dreamt up.

    Those aren't photographs. They're composites.
    UC, Apr 6, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.