I feel like maybe lots of people have asked this before or spoken about this before. Lately, I've run into a bunch of different people who keep telling me photography is not art.
I know photography is art but my question is why do so many people not see it as art?
Is it because they don't see the person who put in the work and only see what the image is. Maybe because they don't know what work goes into creating a shot or is it something else?
zabuza88 wrote: I Lately, I've run into a bunch of different people who keep telling me photography is not art.
Some people don't think photography is art. Some people think a painting where the person took a paint filled brush and slung it 5 times at the canvas and calls it art. Even though a 5 year old could do it.
People think that (insert anything here) is (or is not) art.
Don't care what other people think. Do what you want to do. If you are trying to win a photo contest, then you need to figure out the rules they use and abide by them, but if you are shooting for you. Don't worry about what others think and understand they have a right to have an opinion about your photographs and they may tell you in a kind or not kind way. You have to develop thick skin. I have posted here and on other boards, people don't like some of the stuff I do. But if I post it on a board, then I make myself a target for someone to say, your images sucks. Suck it up, or don't put your photography out there
Suni Park wrote: It is an art. Photography has the ability to convey a story, record a moment in time, document, and an expression of oneself. It is definitely an art.
Welcome!
While I agree with you. Do you think a snapshot is art? Do you think a computer spinning a camera on a wheel randomly taking pictures. Is that art? Some painters say that photography is not art, but painting is.
How about this. Are drummers musicians? They don't produce music. Is rap music music or song?
How about this. A while back someone took a little statue of the Virgin Mary put it in a jar, filled the jar with their urine and called it was art. Is that art?
A photographer did something like this and called it Piss Christ.. Is that art?
timeline.com/this-artist-peed-on-jesus-a...-pissed-9962819db021
People have differences of opinion on these.
I feel like maybe lots of people have asked this before or spoken about this before. Lately, I've run into a bunch of different people who keep telling me photography is not art.
I know photography is art but my question is why do so many people not see it as art?
Is it because they
mobdro.onl/
don't see the person who put in the work and only see what the image is. Maybe because they don't know what work goes into creating a shot or is it something else?
Why do some people think it's not art? Probably because of social media. Snap a picture - of anything - post it and get likes. Only photographers worry about things like lightning, framing, mood, editing, etc. Social media has made it easy to get likes for photos that are terrible. It's cheapened it to the point where most people don't even try anymore.
Esseff wrote : Social media has made it easy to get likes for photos that are terrible. It's cheapened it to the point where most people don't even try anymore.
Esseff wrote: Snap a picture - of anything - post it and get likes. Only photographers worry about things like lightning, framing, mood, editing, etc. Social media has made it easy to get likes for photos that are terrible. It's cheapened it to the point where most people don't even try anymore.
So you are saying if you just snap a picture, and don't think about lighting, mood, framing, ect. You are not a photographer and your image is not art?
But if you put more effort into your photography, then it is considered art and you are now because of your effort a "real" photographer?
Esseff wrote : Social media has made it easy to get likes for photos that are terrible. It's cheapened it to the point where most people don't even try anymore.
100% Spot on Sebastian .
db3348
So you are saying if you just snap a picture, and don't try then your image is cheapened so much, it is not considered art?
r1ch wrote: So you are saying if you just snap a picture, and don't try then your image is cheapened so much, it is not considered art?
Art is still the ultimate form of expression. It lives beyond the artist. Regardless of the type of art it should convey meaning, emotion, mood and ultimately truth. Have you seen the schlock that makes up the bulk of Instagram and other social media sites?
I'm not saying people shouldn't photograph their holiday or their dinner or whatever. My statement above merely points out that digital photography is accessible to everyone and social media makes it easy to share your photos. And the fact remains that they're not all art.
To illustrate my point, the most popular photo on IG is of an egg. Nothing else, just an egg on a white background. The number two image is of the baby of someone called Kylie Jenner. These images are hugely popular but convey nothing wrt meaning, emotion, etc, etc. The baby photo was number one by popular vote (I assume this Jenner is/was a celebrity) and the egg image was created for the sole purpose relegating the baby photo two the number slot. Popularity uploads.
You'll see this any artform, be it photography, music, painting, dance, whatever. The moment the emphasis is laid on popularity (or monetary gain) the creation loses it's soul. Just ask Metallica...
Also: I'm not saying my photos are the best. I'm an amateur at best. I do try to improve my technique and - more importantly - I try to develop a unique style or signature. 'Likes' don't come into it.
Esseff wrote: Art is still the ultimate form of expression. It lives beyond the artist. Regardless of the type of art it should convey meaning, Are you saying that if a person takes a snapshot.. It has no meaning? Maybe not to you, but to them it does, so in your definition, the snapshot has meaning there for is art?
emotion, mood and ultimately truth. Have you seen the schlock that makes up the bulk of Instagram and other social media sites? Are you saying if the image does not contain the above.. emotion, mood, truth It is not art? If I take a picture of my house, then I edit it in photoshop, it is no longer truth. There for it is not art even though I put the effort into photoshop? So then the snap shot was truth, thus was art before I edited it and made it no longer truth, then it is no longer art?
I'm not saying people shouldn't photograph their holiday or their dinner or whatever. My statement above merely points out that digital photography is accessible to everyone and social media makes it easy to share your photos. And the fact remains that they're not all art.
Really? Who determines if it is art or not? You? Me? Your 3rd grade art teacher?
To illustrate my point, the most popular photo on IG is of an egg. Nothing else, just an egg on a white background.
What if the person owns a pet chicken. The chicken has it's first fertilized egg, the person is so overjoyed that it will have a little chicken they take a picture of the egg. This shows emotion, mood, meaning. Is this not art? I may have no meaning to you, but it reminds me of breakfast, to another it reminds them that evolution could never happen because a male and a female chicken would have to come first, but the chickens could not exist because they would have had to been hatched from an egg, that makes the person mad, So your egg now. Has meaning, evokes emotion, and causes the person to think about their own being. Women have pictures taken of them when they are pregnant with a "egg" sitting on the front of their body. Other women become emotional when seeing it because it has deep meaning to them and it is only a snapshot.. Are you saying that is not art?
The number two image is of the baby of someone called Kylie Jenner.
You are obviously not a woman, because babies cause women to be emotional with meaning of their own children, and for woman who cannot have children it is a sad reminder of what cannot be. Some of the strongest emotions and these snapshots are not art? Are you single without a wife or girlfriend? LOL
These images are hugely popular but convey nothing wrt meaning, emotion, etc, etc.
Tell your girl friend or wife that. LOL. The reason the images a hugely popular is because they have great mean and emotion for people who have animals that lay eggs or children. Are you the eye that judges what art is and what carries emotion or meaning for someone else?
The baby photo was number one by popular vote (I assume this Jenner is/was a celebrity) and the egg image was created for the sole purpose relegating the baby photo two the number slot. Popularity uploads.
If the baby is a celeb, That has more meaning to more people than any of your photos, and cause more emotion than your photos. So if emotion and meaning are the criteria of art, then these images are way more artistic than yours or mine, because it effects more people correct?
You'll see this any artform, be it photography, music, painting, dance, whatever. The moment the emphasis is laid on popularity (or monetary gain) the creation loses it's soul. Just ask Metallica...
So you are saying that photos that are popular and make a lot of money are not art? Isn't that why people spend millions of dollars on painting or pictures (Peter Lick comes to mind) and those people who created those images/pictures did not create art and are not artists based on your criteria that are cannot be popular or make money?
Also: I'm not saying my photos are the best. I'm an amateur at best. I do try to improve my technique and - more importantly - I try to develop a unique style or signature. 'Likes' don't come into it.
That's my 2c anyway.
Are you saying that you are an amateur photographer at best and that makes you an expert on judgint what art is or is not? LOL
Now you see the problem. Who can judge what art is? Who can define it. And that makes for a big problem. That was my point in my previous post. But I find your definitions quite interesting. So if everyone likes my photo, and wants to pay me lots of money for it, It is no longer considered art? LOL.
Sorry for the late reply, I was down with the 'rona...
To your points, I'm not sure if you're trolling me or if I wasn't being clear. But here goes...
Are you saying that if a person takes a snapshot.. It has no meaning? Maybe not to you, but to them it does, so in your definition, the snapshot has meaning there for is art?
[/color]
My photos have meaning to me, to varying degrees. Are they art? Absolutely not. They are not relevant to anyone else but me. Some of them are decent photos but certainly not art.
Are you saying if the image does not contain the above.. emotion, mood, truth It is not art? If I take a picture of my house, then I edit it in photoshop, it is no longer truth. There for it is not art even though I put the effort into photoshop? So then the snap shot was truth, thus was art before I edited it and made it no longer truth, then it is no longer art?
[/color][/color]
It may contain truth. But is it culturally relevant? Does it 'move' people? Probably not.
[/color]Really? Who determines if it is art or not? You? Me? Your 3rd grade art teacher?
[/color][/color][/color]
Tough one to answer. Who decides? I don't know tbh. My photos get low to moderate views online and they aren't displayed in galleries so maybe that's an indicator...
What if the person owns a pet chicken. The chicken has it's first fertilized egg, the person is so overjoyed that it will have a little chicken they take a picture of the egg. This shows emotion, mood, meaning. Is this not art? I may have no meaning to you, but it reminds me of breakfast, to another it reminds them that evolution could never happen because a male and a female chicken would have to come first, but the chickens could not exist because they would have had to been hatched from an egg, that makes the person mad, So your egg now. Has meaning, evokes emotion, and causes the person to think about their own being. Women have pictures taken of them when they are pregnant with a "egg" sitting on the front of their body. Other women become emotional when seeing it because it has deep meaning to them and it is only a snapshot.. Are you saying that is not art?
[/color]
At this point I would consider technical apsects of the photo i.e lighting, frame, etc. This can drastically alter the quality of the photo.
You are obviously not a woman, because babies cause women to be emotional with meaning of their own children, and for woman who cannot have children it is a sad reminder of what cannot be. Some of the strongest emotions and these snapshots are not art? Are you single without a wife or girlfriend? LOL
[/color]
I had a son once. He's been gone five years now. He was eight. That was the end of the marriage too. I'm well aware how emotive baby/child photos can be. Doesn't make every snapshot of a kid a work of art. I also don't think you need to be a woman to feel a certain way about those kind of photos. Still doesn't make every snapshot of a child or baby a work of art.
If the baby is a celeb, That has more meaning to more people than any of your photos, and cause more emotion than your photos. So if emotion and meaning are the criteria of art, then these images are way more artistic than yours or mine, because it effects more people correct?
[/color]
Again, the content of the photo is just one side of the coin. What are the technical aspects like. Also, it's worth pointing out that society these days worships celebrities. Doesn't necessarily make them culturally relevant.
So you are saying that photos that are popular and make a lot of money are not art? Isn't that why people spend millions of dollars on painting or pictures (Peter Lick comes to mind) and those people who created those images/pictures did not create art and are not artists based on your criteria that are cannot be popular or make money?
[/color]
That's not what I said at all. A true artist has a knack of seeing and then communicating a subject to his/her viewers without having to bow to popular demand. Make money all you want. An artist can do so without compromising their vision imo. Sometimes there's overlap.
Are you saying that you are an amateur photographer at best and that makes you an expert on judgint what art is or is not? LOL
[/color]
Never said I was an expert. Quite the opposite in fact. But I have my views on this as does everyone else. Not looking for a debate. We probably just don't see eye to eye on this. But I maintain that social media has massively cheapened photography.
Now you see the problem. Who can judge what art is? Who can define it. And that makes for a big problem. That was my point in my previous post. But I find your definitions quite interesting. So if everyone likes my photo, and wants to pay me lots of money for it, It is no longer considered art? LOL.[/quote]
So I wasn't trolling but making a point. Each person has their own idea of what art is. And you have your own view. But you also recognize that who is the proper judge. So if you took a snapshop of yours that you don't consider art, and put a motion blur filter on it or some other creative filter. Is it art?
You said " But I have my views on this as does everyone else. Not looking for a debate. We probably just don't see eye to eye on this. But I maintain that social media has massively cheapened photography.
I would say, isn't that what Photographytalk web site about. Talking about photography even though you may disagree or not see eye to eye with someone.
Who can be a real judge and if no one can judge then it is only the person who created it to judge. What about abstract. It does not convey anything. Many consider this a form of art, but some do not. So again like you said, who is the judge. I think it comes down to the person who made it. Then I also see the distinction of "Fine Art" or Child Art" Who is to judge? If a child makes art, is it still art?
These are photos. That I edited. They were not very good photos but after editing them. If I say they are art, who can tell me they are not?
r1ch wrote: So I wasn't trolling but making a point. Each person has their own idea of what art is. And you have your own view. But you also recognize that who is the proper judge. So if you took a snapshop of yours that you don't consider art, and put a motion blur filter on it or some other creative filter. Is it art?
You said " But I have my views on this as does everyone else. Not looking for a debate. We probably just don't see eye to eye on this. But I maintain that social media has massively cheapened photography.
I would say, isn't that what Photographytalk web site about. Talking about photography even though you may disagree or not see eye to eye with someone.
Who can be a real judge and if no one can judge then it is only the person who created it to judge. What about abstract. It does not convey anything. Many consider this a form of art, but some do not. So again like you said, who is the judge. I think it comes down to the person who made it. Then I also see the distinction of "Fine Art" or Child Art" Who is to judge? If a child makes art, is it still art?
These are photos. That I edited. They were not very good photos but after editing them. If I say they are art, who can tell me they are not?
Who is to be the judge? I don't know. But I do believe we need to be a lot more discerning. Calling everything art simply because it's liked by some people diminishes real art. It would be like everybody getting the same trophy just for attending. I know this is a controversial point for some but mediocrity should not be elevated to the same level as true greatness. There needs to be discernment.
The Olympus Pen E-P7 is an affordable micro four thirds mirrorless camera with 4K video capabilities, a 20.3MP sensor, and 121 focus points, making it a solid entry-level camera for beginners.
The Panasonic G9 II is a 25.2-megapixel micro four thirds camera with numerous features that make it punch out of its weight class, like 779 AF points, 5.8K video, and weather sealing.
The Fujifilm XT5 is a 40MP mirrorless camera capable of 6.2K video at 30p. With those specs, it’s an ideal choice for photographers needing a camera to pull double duty for imaging and video.
The Canon EOS R100 is an entry-level mirrorless camera introduced in 2023. But just because it’s an entry-level camera doesn’t mean it’s a bare-bones camera. Find out why in this review!
Auto white balance is a camera setting that adjusts the color temperature of your images automatically. It often works well, but you should know a few tips to fix problems it might cause, too.
Starting a photography business can be a daunting task. There is a lot to do, and many mistakes can be made. This guide helps you minimize mistakes and maximize your success!
The Canon 6D Mark II might be an older DSLR, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a good option for 2024. In fact, this budget-friendly camera is a powerhouse for stills and videos.
In this guide to the bokeh effect, you’ll learn what bokeh is and the factors involved in creating it. You’ll also explore some beautiful example images to spark your creativity with bokeh!
Upgrade your kit in 2024 with the best intermediate camera on the market! The question is, what camera fits the bill? We’ve got three top options for you to choose from in this buyer’s guide.
The best photography jobs right now are a mix of tried-and-true gigs like wedding photography and new jobs highlighting AI’s capabilities, travel, and videography.
The Olympus Pen E-P7 is an affordable micro four thirds mirrorless camera with 4K video capabilities, a 20.3MP sensor, and 121 focus points, making it a solid entry-level camera for beginners.
100% Spot on Sebastian .
k73243391 2 posts
Tim Reeder 1 post
markburnet... 1 post
