Is Photography An Easy Way To Make 'art'?

Yes. And there are "easy" ways to work in any medium.

OK, the answer is maybe and maybe not.

Lets not troll or take offense but present the OP with why or why not.

I will start with this. There are literally thousands of images on here that would be great for an "assignment" in school but will never sell. They may well be easy art and many are in fact art. There is a huge difference between creating art and creating art that you can sell. I will tell you right now that if you are coming out with 20/100 images that are good you are either a prodigy or you are simply creating "easy art." that will never sell.

OK, so why won't it sell? Because the fact of the matter is if it is easy then anyone with a consumer grade DSLR, point and shoot or even a cell phone camera can do it and they will. Why would they buy something that is easy to do? Generally, they won't.

To produce photographic art that will sell is not at all easy. It takes a LOT of time. It takes vision. It takes research. It takes travel. It takes a LOT more than an artistic eye and yet anther flower or dragonfly image. It takes more than pretty sunset that you pull over and shoot. It takes more than finding an interesting angle on a faucet.

Very well said JC!

Here are some examples, both my own, and yours, of easy art that will have a hard time selling. The reason is not that there is anything wrong with them but rather they are easy and there are thousands of other images just like them.

Generic sunset.... Pretty but what sets it apart form the 10K plus other sunsets on here? It might sell because it is the dead sea but frankly, there is nothing in the image that says dead sea. Not a thing.



Generic flower. OK, it is a pretty flower but what sets it apart from the 10K plus other lowers on here? Not much. I have sold two or three flowers online and I mean ever and I have built a following.



Generic sky shot from an airplane window. Same shot millions have taken with their camera phones. Pretty, but a hard sell to anyone.



Insert any "easy" art you like in here and guess what, it probably won't sell.

So, what sells?

OK, this image not only has the sky and rocks but also has the Chesapeake Bay Bridge which links it to the location. The foreground gives it depth. It is a one in a hundred sunrise so it takes a bunch of tries or a lot of luck to be in the right place at the right time and oh, just being there to try means getting up at 2:30 AM in the morning just to be there an hour before the sunrise.



OK, art with a particular audience in mind. This one has a very specific audience but it is not just a snap of the boat. I worked near this marina and saw this sunset developing and took a break so I could get it. But, it took me over a year with the shot already in mind to get.



OK, this one is an iconic corner in a wealthy area but has snow and no people. I went out in the middle of a blizzard that literally shut down the DC metro area to get this shot. There was absolutely nothing easy about it.



Lastly, luck can help. I rounded the corner on a country road and found this. Luck is great BUT you will only get a few lucky opportunities to find scenes like this.



Photographic art is actually easy. Photographic art that sells is not.

Let me add that "digital art" is no more easy than painting on canvas with oil or acrylic or on paper with watercolors. I have created many digital art pieces - I'll tell you that some of my watercolors have taken less time and effort, some more. My digital art begins with a picture - it doesn't matter which for most of them, although some have the color - but what I'm after for my digital creations here on FAA is size and a starting point. I usually ditch the "background" image fairly early in the process of my work. Many of the works require more than 12 layers, each layer adds something, then there is merging and more layers, deleting layers that aren't working, sending some layers down, bringing others up, erasing parts, using my photo processing software to add effects, twist, twirl, blur, cut, paste - very seldom do they take less than three hours - unless I am part way through my creating and I see a different path to take at that point - I can save the image and it's layers there as a new file, then continue with the one I'm working on. I must be careful - one mistake, one deletion in the wrong place, one save without separating the layers and it is what it is. I've never been able to duplicate any one of my creations once they are complete and the file saved. There is no going back and it's useless to try and start over to get there.


Good fine art photographs aren't easy either - and I've learned by hard knocks - the camera is a box that takes images - but if you fail to compose it, fail to use a tripod when you should - you get nice snapshots - but you seldom get fine art images that will sell. I've been lucky and I still have a pretty steady hand - but this last trip - I wish I had followed my own advice about using the tripod - over 2,000 shots - and maybe 50 really good ones. the weather did not cooperate and my time was limited. Zion was awash with dust the first day and snow the second. Snow on the landscape is good - trying to take pictures while it's snowing pretty heavily - well - you get a lot of snow blobs in the image and you are cold and the camera adjustments weren't quite right. Just one more day, a clear, crisp day, the snow still fresh on the landscape, time to take time - I could have had fine art images of Zion. Here is snow while driving south in Utah this last month (I put over 6,000 miles on my new car in a little over two weeks)

anything can be art. it could be that your school either wasn't creative enough to recognize what you made as being creative . it's a school, it's not that hard. do you have samples of this easy art? good art is hard, it takes time, it takes skill. anyone can make art though if people recognize it as such. most good photographers don't need to take 100's of images in an hour to get something good. chances are you can hand a monkey a camera and at some point you'll get something creative as well. a good photographer just needs the one shot.

so where are your photos that you submitted to class?


---Mike Savad

i specialize in hdr photos



and also digital art



outside shots




---Mike Savad

With photography you're working within the limitation that your starting point is something that exists in the world - not just in your imagination. You don't create the perspective in the image, for example - it already exists (although you can manipulate it somewhat). Usually you don't create the colors, or the subject itself for that matter. The value in a photo is often found in the personal 'spin' you show by finding (noticing) something interesting or pleasing in the world, and then choosing or inventing a way to present it, a context or treatment, that adds something to the preexisting subject. I really think it's a quite different thing from painting or drawing. I can't do those things, and I'm filled with respect for those who can. Yes photography is obviously easier in important ways. Photography happens faster, there is less assembly required, as it were. With it you can, if you have imagination and perception, create an image that has value, and says something, in relatively quick order. Just going to beautiful or exotic places and skillfully capturing images is certainly a big part of photography, but there are many other things one can do with a camera.

An "easy way to make art" perhaps - but the competition is fierce - and the ability of many to drown your work right out of the picture.

How many photographs have you sold? If not, why not?

Also, a photograph called "Rhein II" by Andreas Gursky sold recently for $4.3 million at Christie's. That easily broke the previous record set by Cindy Sherman's "Untitled #96" which sold at a $3.89 million price point.

No.

It's easy to make a properly balanced, in-focus snapshot with a digital camera but that doesn't automatically make it art.

Photographic art takes effort, it does not pop out of the camera automatically. Digital cameras, editing software, digitizing tablets, sable paintbrushes and palette knives are nothing but tools. It takes an artist to select the proper tools and create art. Many of the photographic artists will tell you they spend many hours on a single image and develop them using 5, 10, 20 or more layers in editing software.

However, keep in mind that just because someone uses a paint brush it's no guarantee their work will be outstanding. It too can be formulaic and uninspiring.

FAA is a POD so you will find all kinds of images posted for sale here. Some of it's art and some of it less so. However all buyers are not looking for the same thing. Many are looking for the perfect image to hang over a sofa, or an image that reminds them of a special place. It may not be art but if it's well done they will love it and buy it. I'd like to believe I have both in my portfolio.

I don't believe Conor said anything about selling.

I think ALL art forms are easy. Once you get close to that magic 10,000 hour mark.

People that have spent time doing anything can make it look "easy".

But, as we all know, doing something and doing something well are two very different things.

Nicely said, Lynn. John, I'm not sure that you can pull creativity out of a hat, no matter how many hours you put into it. Conor has some very creative digital and photographic work in his gallery. Some of you are implying that sales are a measure of success. I'm not sure I agree with that.

I don't find any of it easy.

Photography is not easy. Taking a picture is easy, the art of photography isn't.

I only know that it takes a minimum of a week or 25 hours for me to produce a saleable painting. That doesn't include preliminary sketching and composition. I don't know how long it takes to post process an image. There seems to be a trend (online) to more and more photography. I'm happy as long as I can sell my originals and get great satisfaction in knowing I created everything on the canvas by hand. There is an added satisfaction of having the 'original' at the end of the day.

Conor, you have worked in both mediums so perhaps you have more insight than others like myself?

I honestly believe that patrons of painted art will not switch to photographic images on a whim, nor vice versa. Are we truly chasing the same customers?

"People that have spent time doing anything can make it look "easy". "

That is what I said. I didn't mean it WAS easy, they just make it look that way.

The non-art person doesn't understand the hours it takes to create, and create well.

"Ansel Adams just pushed a button".

I agree Patricia, I don't think creativity can be "taught". I think it is a drive people have or don't. I think any education related to art is nothing more than teaching techniques to help create but they don't really teach people HOW to create art. Remember I am saying this as someone with a degree in graphic design. They taught me how to use Adobe products, which was very helpful, but they never really taught me HOW to create.

It is when we get to that point where we find we are on "auto pilot" that our hours start to pay off. We no longer think about WHAT we are doing, we just do it. (like driving a car). I believe that is the place that (what would be considered) REAL art comes from. Getting to that place takes time. Using a camera does not shorten that process, it still takes time.

P.S. for those that do not understand my 10,000 hour refrence I would HIGHLY recommend a book called "Outliers: The Story of Success" by Malcolm Gladwell.

http://www.amazon.com/Outliers-Story-Success-Malcolm-Gladwell/dp/0316017922

To me I can't even draw but I can draw with photography. Yes photography can be easy, but its easy with snapshots. What is hard about photography is finding something that people don't normally see. It takes alot of patient. And I have to agree JC .

Photography has an influence upon my art / paintings and elements of art have influence upon my photography. I enjoy both, equally.

Perhaps whatever craft one chooses, it's a matter of mastering a craft to the best of your ability, be it a musical instrument, wood carving, weaving, ceramics, etc., etc.,

Photography is the easiest art, which perhaps makes it the hardest.” — Lisette Model

I'm going to be a bit brutal.

If one can SEE one CAN DRAW.

Every great artist, whether a painter, sculptor, photographer, digital, could put on paper with a pencil and/or pen.what they actually saw.

Even Jackson Pollock

And besides the ability to draw , Discernment is a requirement. With the original disciplines, that is necessity....A painting can not be done without the conscious decision for every brush stroke applied......I wonder about how much discernment is involved, when one has thousands of images presented for sale..

I am going to have to agree with Conor here.Photography is just really simple and easy...

To prove it, look at the photo below. I was just driving down the highway and saw this scene. I rolled down the window and snapped a shot, one hand on the steering wheel, the other on the camera. I was lucky the cactus all sort of lined up for me in all the right places...



Here is another shot that shows how easy photography is.. I was hiking across a field of sunflowers one evening, and tripped, and my camera accidently triggered the shutter, and luckily it was pointed towards this flower. Walmart screwed up and accidently printed it black and white and a little blurry... but I kept it anyway..







And finally, the photo below was an accident. Everyone knows you should not point your camera at the sun, you might hurt the sensor or worse your eyes. In this case I was trying to take a sunset shot with the sun at my back, but was holding the camera backwards when I shot - whoops....

Free to recognize SERENDIPITY and free to use it, is another element in Art....This applies to all disciplines

If art is the process of producing pretty pictures then photography is quite easy. If art is the process of producing pictures that are superior in quality, composition and perhaps concept and subject to what the average person can produce, then - de facto - photographic art is not easy. If art is the process of marketing your name to a self-appointed cultural elite with piles of money, then every medium is equally hard (and Rhein II is a fabulous work of art).
So it all depends on the meaning of that slippery word "art". I still don't know whether I have ever produced something that could justifiably be called "art", it's up to other people to decide whether that is what it is. I do know that I have chosen and shot quite a lot of subjects in a way that is similar to various famous photographers - but whenever I stumble across such a picture by someone else I always wonder why something that is simple that I could do it is regarded as being worth putting in a book.
If you want to see some genuine photographic art, take a look at the work by Sebastaiao Salgado - but, of course, that was news reporting, not fine art, Or can photographic fine art and reportage be the same thing?

When I was in an art school photography program, many moons ago, I decided to utilize the Cliché Verre process for my Junior Thesis project. Cliché Verre dates back to the earliest days of photography in the first part of the nineteenth century. Here are some examples, which were, in fact, some of the images I used:











Now here's the 'kicker.' I was criticized by the other photographers for doing work that was "too easy" compared with theirs. My work involved film, painting, enlarging, b/w and color darkroom skills, etc. Go figure.


If you're interested, more of my Cliché Verre work can be found here:

http://murraybloomphoto.com/clich-verre-images

Photography is not easier to make art, it is just easier to have confidence. We have a natural feeling to find easier to do things we feel confident doing.

"While photography is the easiest medium in which to be confident it is the hardest medium in which to have a distinct personal vision" Chuck Close

Let me explain:

Photography is the easiest for of art of mimesis "the copy of reality". And is the copy of reality on which people are usually more attract of. And is the copy of reality most people will pre judge as good quality.

But when trying to do something else a part from mimesis photography can be even more challenging than other form of art. Because it quite completely copy of reality, expecially now a days with digital that most people don't even need to craft their work in order to have a image ready to print, so most people with a camera will be confidente that they are doing a good photo as soon as they can see a good image quality (not good art) in ther LCD screen.

It means, to go beyond mimesis, painting, sculpture, etc are easier than photography. It also means that to self expression photography may be more difficult because you have to work with real things that you photograph instead of create from the imaginary. And that's why photography is the hardest medium to have a distinct personal vision.

You don't need much skills to press a button on the automatic camera or to throw paintings or mixing colour on canvas, or even to create shapes in sculpture, as far you can do it with good composition, harmony or even message, etc. But photography and other medias can demand more skills and craft if you want to make something else.

Try to do a platinum print with a view camera and tell me if it is easy.

If you ask a child if painting is easy they will tell that it is very easy because they feel confident doing so. Until they grow up and is told that the good stuff looks like reality.

Of all the millions of photographs taken daily and the thousands of images then presented as art I think that only a tiny percentage can be truly regarded as art let alone good art. Try as I might I find that a photograph of virtually any subject a poor substitute for a painting of the same subject. Although I appreciate that there is indeed a helluva lot of time, effort and skill required to produce good photographs and I can look at and admire a good photo for what it is I still have difficulty perceiving the result as Art with a capital A. I think it is because so many of the images produced by the camera just lack soul, or warmth if you like, which even the most amateurish of paintings with some exceptions manage to convey to the observer.

Therefore I would say that yes it is easy to produce images with a camera but making art of the result is far more difficult even if the image sells. From a purely personal standpoint I would never dream of hanging a reproduction of a photograph on my wall in lieu of a reproduction of a painting and in fact the only pictures on my walls are originals but having said that the art created by Mike Savad FROM photographs occupies a niche that is the exception if I was a buyer.

Finally and this again is only my opinion the camera could never replace the sheer enjoyment and satisfaction the painting process gives of actually using the simple tools of pencil and brush to make an image onto a blank piece of canvas. One has complete control over the process, every brushstroke is deliberate and thought out whereas using a camera leaves too much to chance and happy accident.

I photograph wildlife (mainly resident in a zoo if you wish to be specific) and also paint wildlife. Comments on my photographs frequently mention 'capturing the personality' or similar. Personally I get a great deal of satisfaction from creating an image with the camera which I feel does justice to the animal, and if I decide to do a painting I enjoy that also but no more than the time and care taken to obtain a photographic image of the animal first. So I would consider both to be artistic creativity!

I was a video game render engine programmer for about 8 years, now i find some new tech to generate something special (i suppose), it is digital art, is this easy?
And it is a long way to have my first sale, i am trying.

Like anything else in life, if you can do it, it's easy. If you can't, it's not...

I can paint a house - with house paint - I suppose that is easy - bucket of paint, brushes, rollers - but it's just not that easy - not even for professionals - or we wouldn't pay to have it done.

Luck, being at the right place at the right time, having the equipment on hand and ready - yes - most photographers have been there - now - go back and take that shot again.

The question of is it easier? There is a fundamental difference between creating an image and capturing an image. In capturing an image the perfection of size, proportion and believability is there instantly. In creating (painting) an image all these basic hurdles must be overcome. Are the hands in proportion? Is the face a good likeness? This can take days or weeks. Both require good composition and design skills to make the art marketable.

Of course photography is art. It takes an artist's eye to see something beautiful and then frame it into your viewfinder so that everything is balanced and composed, and then produce something to give others the chance to experience that moment in print. I don't think the ease of creating it has anything to do with it. I don't think art becomes better art the more blood sweat and tears you give it. I don't think "man-hours" determines the quality of art--just the dedication of the artist.

The stuff I market here is part photography and part digital creation, all arranged. rearranged, and tweaked in Photoshop. Some of them are done in no time, and some take days. I don't know enough about my camera to call myself a photographer, but I do know my way around Photoshop and have resorted to doing crazy things with really bad photos.

As far as marketability goes, I think it's finding the right people to respond to your work. I once tried to sell my stuff in a flea market, and didn't make a penny, but the table next to me sold the crap out of their Beanie Babies.

@Dean Harte - Photography is the easiest art, which perhaps makes it the hardest.” — Lisette Model

@Marcio Faustino - "While photography is the easiest medium in which to be confident it is the hardest medium in which to have a distinct personal vision" Chuck Close

Both of these quotes mentioned by Dean and Marcio are really good points. It seem to me that to be a beginner/amateur/novice in photography is quite easy as everyone these days has access to a camera and from the click of a button they can capture a beautiful subject, a nice composition, a wonderful landscape, a warm sunrise etc. which is already created for the eye to see. But to be a talented, creative photographer is very hard, as you are limited to what the world has created for you to work with. To stand out from the rest of the competition (which are millions in comparison to painters) is the real challenge.

I think we can all agree from all the comments above that to be a beginner at photography, creating nice photos, is much easier than being a beginner at painting, creating nice paintings. But my personal opinion would be that it takes a lot more artistic creativity and talent to be a master of painting than it does to be a master of photography.

I really appreciate all the above comments, and more importantly that it was a constructive and critical discussion as opposed to an argument which I was dreading would happen. Some very interesting viewpoints have been raised and I think that we all have plenty to read over and think about

Could you define 'artistic creativity' and 'talent' for us, please?

Artistic - Having or revealing natural creative skill; Of, relating to, or characteristic of art or artistry.

Creativity - The use of the imagination or original ideas, esp. in the production of an artistic work.

Talent - Natural aptitude or skill; A person or people possessing such aptitude or skill

@Philip. I agree with your philosophy. In delving in to the question asked "Is Photography an Easy Way to Make Art" you cannot answer the question without considering the labor, time and skill set involved. Capturing an image and creating that same image by hand are very different. The outcome is probably for another discussion. Assuming both images have an outcome that is of a quality where both are considered as works of art, which would have been easier to produce? A painter can take days or weeks to produce a quality portrait. How long does it take for a photographer to produce the same portrait? To answer this question the work involved needs to be considered.

@ Patricia. While the OP did not ask or mention selling this is a sales site so the natural tendency is to focus some on marketability of the work. That aside, the reality is photography is pretty easy once you know the basics. But because it is relatively easy, and some of the above quotes elude to this, it is very hard to create something unique. Unique is what can make the art stand out and is tied to marketability. But even if you take the sales factor out, it is still the unique vision that can lead to standing out as an artist.

The clouds, or lack there of, made the sunrise I planned a complete bust so I shot some dandelions. Now, are they art? Sure. Will they stand out among the millions of dandelion shots taken daily? Not really....



All I was trying to say was art in general is easy. Unique or really great art, not so much.

Painters also travel, make appointments, do preliminary sketches, adjust lighting and settings for portraits, familiarize themselves with their subjects. Then they go to the studio. The same applies to a lot of landscape work. A photo isn't always used as the sole reference.

As much as I love what I do creatively I try not to take myself too seriously for $$$$ or otherwise.

I would put the same amount of effort into it whatever art style I enjoyed, paint, sculpture and such.

I am thankful though that I have the health I have and that can pursue and express myself (I hope at least) creatively in some small way while on this passage called life.

There is a personal self satisfaction in using the tools of ones art to express the beauty, splendor and mystique one sees in life and to hopefully in some small way do it well.

What good is any art anywhere if not seen by others?

How many of us would repetitively create thousands of variations of our visions to have them lie idle and unseen,...though I'm sure some do.

Here's my computer hard drive,...it's got thousands of images of paintings, photographs, sculptures on it,...aren't they beautiful,..............doesn't quite convey the same meaning.

I surely am not that important it the whole scheme of things, nor are my photographic endeavors.

Art, creativity, vision, seeing, appreciation, expression,are necessary meaningful vehicles we elect to use to give shape and meaning to our self identity with others.

So for me,...A little humor goes a long way,.....after all we're all just passing thru,.....

"If you compare yourself to others you may become vain and bitter: for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself"

I came into this world with nothing and still have most of it,......

Live every day as if it were you're last,...eventually you'll be right.

May be simplistic for some but not me.

Just my thoughts.


;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)

the typical amount of time it takes me to make a single image (non hdr), provided i stay focus, will be about an hour or so. to do an hdr it could take 2-8 hours depends on the level of detail, noise, lighting, complexity. a digital work, could take a week to make.

good things take time. but these timings don't include the travel it took to get them. the miles of walking with heavy camera gear in the hot sun. sorting etc takes time.

painting has advantages - it's easier to remove elements because you don't paint them. if you can translate whats in your mind to a canvas that's very nice and it gives you more flexibility as well.

photography - well, if i want a scene of a small french bistro, with a lady eating a piece of bread, a small dog under the table, her bike leaning against a wall, etc - i need to either find that, or set it up. i can't just create it, it does actually take quite a bit of work. then there are lighting issues, if this is a session, you would need people holding reflectors or getting lights set up. otherwise it's a candid and you have to use the light you have. which is also hard.

anyone can take a snapshot and call it art. but it has to be actual art, and recognized as such and it does actually have a look.

and the gear involved to get those shots are a whole different story. tv commercials like those coolpix commercials, featuring that doofus, telling us how easy it is to use the camera. they compare some guy with an slr, shooting these birds. compared to the guy with the pocket camera getting the same shot... which is impossible since the shot he has on his screen, he would have to be on top of that scene to get it. but it sets up this idea in people's heads that photography is made simple just by using this little toy camera. and it's not true.


---Mike Savad

For photographic art that blows away most other media, look here:

http://lightbox.time.com/2013/03/28/in-the-beginnings-sebastiao-salgados-genesis/#1

@Phillip. I'm not going down this long road of debate over art vs. craft. I only tried to answer the question of "Is Photography Easier". I am well aware of how photographers travel long miles and endure the elements. I do believe that taking photographs is capturing a scene, setting, face. How well it is done is judged later and I have seen gorgeous photography that are works of art. Creating a scene from scratch is just that. When I take photos for painting I am usually interested in parts or key elements for reference. The background, etc. may not even be present in the photo as I create that.

"A painter can take days or weeks to produce a quality portrait. How long does it take for a photographer to produce the same portrait? To answer this question the work involved needs to be considered."


Why does that matter?

Is something always "better" if it takes more time? Does anyone decide a work is good based on how much time it takes? The time put into a piece really only matters to the person that spent the time creating it.

Is Photography An Easy Way To Make 'art'?

Technically it would depend upon the individual and what they consider to be art. But in general, I would say no. Splashing paint on a canvas and moving it around a bit seems quite easy, however.

I'm going to weigh in from a digital perspective. I work in digital mixed media. For those of you not familiar with that term, it means I work digitally in a number of different applications, using photography, 3d and 2d.

When I sculpt, I do it with software. Sometimes it's simple:



Sometimes more complex:



Neither were "easy" or started with anything other than what is in my head. No reference photos, no people to look at, no place that exists, just me.

And this one, I'm giving up close and personal. This a 3D render that took over 1000 hours to render. So you'll forgive me if a week to 30 days doesn't seem like much time. It was inspired by a song I heard and a commercial for American Tourism. Didn't use any of the imagery from the commercial or video, but went with the inspiration I felt from the song and watching it.

Just because I don't have to wait hours or days for paint to dry doesn't mean it takes less time or is easy.



I'm also curious how many weighing in here have worked in Photography or Digital media? How extensively? Because if you haven't done either, how can you say how much easier it is or isn't?

I think art is something Inspiring people's mind, so it is always hard to do whether you spend time on the method or process.

I can't draw or paint. I am a natural at photography. So for me photography is way easier. I suppose I could produce 10 or 20 photographs any given day, but they would not be anything people would want to buy nor anything I would want to show off, so why bother. In a contest to produce a masterpiece I would guess that a water color artist who has already developed a style would beat me. It takes less then a second to take a photo but lots of planning and waiting to be in the position to take a great one. My mentor is Galen Rowell. I never climbed a mountain but I always admired the great lengths he would go to to get a shot. Like climb an active volcano in Antarctica to take pictures. Or walk out on a building ledge to photograph a peregrine falcon in flight. He taught me to pre-visualize the shots I want to take and then go out and find them. In the end it is always serendipitous.

I suppose if "making art" is the goal, then one might see photography as an easy way to do it. My goal is simply to do what I love, enjoy nature, and share what I see with others who appreciate it. I'm not concerned if I "make art" or not, especially considering that each and every person has their own definition of what "art" is. :-)

The word "Art" is an open ended term when used in this context. Assuming it IS indeed "Art", is it good art, bad art, complex, simplistic, clever, genius, unique, stimulating, provoking, etc. etc. You cannot simply say, one way of making art is "easy". What is easy for one person may be difficult for another. Besides, what is the point? Are you trying to say that if you're a photographer, that's an easy path compared to other artistic endeavors?

There's a difference between taking snapshots, and creating art through Photography. Factoring the difficulty of photography as a measurement had better take into consideration things you may not automatically associate with other mediums such as painting. For instance, many photographers take high risks in getting particular shots. In this respect, how much "courage" is required to paint? What about the type of picture, location and effort to get there... planning, equipment, costs, hassle. Once there, what about the access, timing, patience, opportunity, knowledge of equipment. Are you alone, or do you have assistance, ability to improvise?

Even those things above do not consider related expertise for processing and editing. Just trying to make a point that every form of art has too many variables to simplify down to a question of what is easier.

Brian,

You wrote:..." In this respect, how much "courage" is required to paint? What about the type of picture, location and effort to get there... planning, equipment, costs, hassle. Once there, what about the access, timing, patience, opportunity, knowledge of equipment. Are you alone, or do you have assistance, ability to improvise? "

Courage required to paint.......Ask Mr. Larney...Enver is a true artist...Finding unusual locations around the world, lugging all the paraphernalia. to paint as real painters paint..OUTDOORS

So if you don't paint outdoors, you're not a real painter? Just trying to keep up here.

Roseann,

If you have the guts, you paint outdoors, dealing with the logistics,the terrain, the weather, and the people looking over your shoulder, making inane comments.

And Roseann,

As the weather warms up, and the ongoing situation as the result of Hurricane Sandy settles down, I HAVE to get outside to sculpt and paint.

In the meantime, I'm at this laptop, using the touch pad and basic Photoshop , producing work like this:

.

Roger,

I think you must see the point I was trying to make, but I was thinking more along the lines of "Running with the bulls", Mount Everest, under fire, underwater, and the like. I believe I also qualified my statement with the last sentence... "Just trying to make a point that every form of art has too many variables to simplify down to a question of what is easier".

As you no doubt know, each case would have to be taken individually. I'm the first one to say there are exceptions to everything, so I must convey a message in generalities.

Roger - Guts has nothing to do with it; I don't paint outdoors because I can't take my entire PC set up outdoors. There would be no way to power it, for starters. I do, however, take many photographs outdoors dealing with the logistics,the terrain, the weather, and the people looking over your shoulder, making inane comments. Except I seem to get more inane comments in here. The weather here is warming up as well, and I get out as much as I can. If there is a particular real place I wish to paint or create any art with, I can photograph it. I don't have to paint on the spot.

When you say work like this, what exactly do you mean?

Roseann,

RE: Work like this:



and

It's great work, IMHO. But the way it was said, it came across as though you feel there is something wrong with it and I would certainly hope not. I like pointillism.

Painting outdoors is good if you do landscapes. When you paint living, breathing, moving objects such as children, adults, dogs, cats, horses, birds and so on this becomes obviously difficult and totally unnecessary. That doesn't mean not painting from life when possible. We are not all plein air painters. Also, not everyone has the strength to lug easels, canvases, brushes into the woods or up hills.

Roseann,

I really, really love this piece...The Composition, The Color, The Treatment.............It's a Photograph, Digital Art, Painting, and Drawing all in one..You should be very proud of this wonderful piece.

you can run the computer on potatoes. just bring a lot of them.


---Mike Savad

Loretta - and painting traditionally for some of us is not possible, due to allergies. It doesn't mean that I don't put the same effort into my work that a traditional painter does. It just means I work differently.

Roger - thank you. This is one odd one. It was an idea when I saw him napping at serious subconscious levels, then a bit more spark, a doodle or two, the camera and Photoshop and Painter.

Mike - Tell me watch Big Bang Theory?

So whats all the fuss of art and photography, who cares...... its all art related!

Connor, I'm sure you already know this. No need for the opinions of the masses. Tony Murray, has the definitive answer.

@Tony Murray
quote,"Yes. And there are "easy" ways to work in any medium". end quote.

That says it all. Think of what that really means for most of the people on this site.

I'm sure this is not an easy way:


NYC Grand Central - Celebrating 100 Years.


Beautiful picture.

Roger - that's not guts - that is self punishment. Masochism - just ain't me. I painted out of doors - Plein air - as it's called - I did it in the heat of the desert for several years - no reason not to do it in the 'studio' other than you really must try it sometime - you can do it.

Ricardo,

Are you referring to the sculptor or the person taking the photograph?

sculptures are easier then ever, using either a 3-d milling machine they can make it all in the computer and carve the whole thing. and in the future, plastic printers will make these things. they just said on the news that kids can make their own plastic, fully functional guns, on their own plastic printers. so now they have to figure out yet another way to control those.


---Mike Savad

Mike,

Those are not sculptures. They are castings. Castings are the "Prints" of the Actual Three Dimensional Art World.

Roger,

I was referring to the sculptor.

I think it can be. Sometimes a cool shoot is created by simple luck (mostly for the non trained photographer, that is) but I think that is rare. The advance of digital technology has been both a blessing and a curse. It leads people to believe anyone can be a photographer and that's simply not true. As I said in a recent FB past: It's not about the gear, it's about the vision.

Yes, there are lots of "typical" images that even an untrained person can create, but as already mentioned, is it really creative art? Can it sell?

I'll admit, I like how "instantaneous" digital photography can be. But a really great image, does require a vision. Some of the most intriguing images were created through lots of thought and effort on a photographers part. That being said, there are also some fabulous images that were created quickly, but does that mean they are any less worthy of being called art? Is something only art, if it takes hours and hours to create? I think not.

Since someone said "instant". Here's an instant shot, sort of ... :)

I'm wondering if one would be more discerning, if one would have to pay for each image one produces, as one did in the days of film.

Thank you Roger...

That was quite noble of you. It is always a difficult subject when personal sensitivities become prey to an open forum as this - where picture making have come to rule the required necessities of an Artist. However, Art is subject to much more than this because it serves the purpose of divine intervention encouraging humans to reach for higher ground. This may not mean solely producing colourful and attractive items for sale but the ability to understand the reasons why our modern world have become so crippled and being confident enough to present recourse via any chosen medium.

From the invention of photography began this debate has not stopped. Until one day computer can print things just like painting.I think this is very very boring.

I use traditional art mediums - pencil, charcoal, color pencil, pastels, acrylics and oils. I'm also a photographer and I create digital art (from scratch just like I would on paper or canvas). They all sell equally well, and I have actually made more money from my digital art than either of the other two.

For me personally, there is no question that photography is the easiest, followed by digital, followed by traditional mediums. I am also FAR less emotionally invested in any of my photographs and digital art than I am with my traditional art. But that, like the definition of 'art' is subjective and other peoples mileage may vary;)

Art isn't created by the medium used but by the person using it.

What is more difficult for the photographer is to be able to exercise control by the selection of what is more important and what is unimportant in presenting any particular image as Art. The painter holds all the cards here by virtue of being able to stage manage every aspect of the picture making process from the first pencil mark to the choice of what type of varnish will enhance the finished canvas.

Once a few simple rules regarding realistic painting become second nature the production of a painting becomes easy but that is not to say that there is a set formula for each and every image as I always try to be original in approach given the restraints of my chosen subject matter. Also picture making is to me much more than this and a little bit of my own vision and attitudes invade every work I produce consciously or sub-consciously as part of the selection process. Being an atheist and having nothing to preach I eschew divine intervention in favour of investing a picture with my own ideas as to any meaning or otherwise to what might or might not be regarded as Art in the higher sense of the word, whatever that might mean.

Roger: "I'm wondering if one would be more discerning, if one would have to pay for each image one produces, as one did in the days of film."

The answer is "yes". I'm happy to pay $2 or so per shot for sheet film (and a lot more for colour) but I only take two or three frames for each composition and I think a great deal about the light, the aperture, the depth of field, the contrast range, the choice of film etc. The result is that I end up producing much better pictures (see my recent uploads) as well as taking far fewer shots, usually no more than six a day. Even with 35mm film, where the cost is just pennies a frame, the knowledge that the roll will soon come to an end forces you to think more and shoot less.

I do wonder how much time Michelle spends thinking about, sun direction and height, lighting, reflectors, apertures, shutter speeds, rendering motion, hyperfocal distance, whether or not to use a polariser or ND filters and how the scene would look using black and white or how she will process it to get the best from it when she says that "there is no question that photography is the easiest". After 10 years of struggling with it, I still don't find it easy - it's certainly less easy than daubing blobs of paint on a canvas.... but then, maybe there is actually more to painting than that ;)

I'll second Paul's comment. It takes surprisingly long to fill up a role of 36 if one does not want to waste money. And knowing how to point that box thingy at an object and press a button is only the beginning.

Paul, where I don't disagree with the difficulty, Michelle did say - for me personally. At least she's worked in all three. Many of the folks commenting how much easier it is, either have never worked in either digital or photography or haven't done so to any real extent.

With or without the film, I have yet to fill an entire memory card. I always try to be careful of my shots. My first thought is always the composition.

I was wondering if anyone can tell me how these two images were made:

Roseann, I would guess that it is by the addition of a coloured filter layer in photoshop (or similar). The second one looks as if it was partially desaturated first. Am I close?

Paul - Since I don't wish to make an assumption here, are you saying the base of these images are photos?

Philip - Tell me as much as you feel you can about them. What is the basis of them? If you have thoughts on how they were made? Anything.

@Roseann - The images appear to have a lot of depth in them. There seems to be a background or bottom layer which is maybe a photograph or digital work. There are layers applied on top which appear to be painted or maybe digitally painted on using Photoshop or the like.

Philip,

To me, it's not the photograph by Thomas Demand that's matters..

It's the Diorama by Thomas Demand that stands out...The photograph is just the vehicle to conveniently display that three dimensional work in a two dimensional form..

By the way, this is why I plead with photographers to at least give credit to the artists,sculptors and architects responsible for many of the photos they take...Talk about easy, when all the work is done for them beforehand,

Roger - just curious if you give credit to the companies that make your brushes, canvases, paints, nature for the world provided to us - anything and everything that is outside of yourself that you use to create your art? When someone photographs the Roman Coliseum or the statue of David, are they taking credit for the photo, or the statue created? When it comes to my photos of the George Washington Bridge, do I thank George Washington? The City of New York? The architect who's vision it was to create it? Every worker and engineer involved? At what point does it become ridiculous?

Film has done to traditional fine art as digital has done to photography.

finding the name of a statue artist is possible, but the architect? its not like they signed it and i shouldn't have to look it up. not to mention i could use using their name to sell my work which can be frowned on. the building might be made, but you still have to capture it, and there are lots of wrong ways.


---Mike Savad

This ephemeral sculpture by the great Artist Andy Goldsworthy.was.created by patiently placing particular leaves in a circle.

This fine photograph has it's importance as it immortalizes this amazing work...but to me, can never be "Art" in itself

And that's your opinion. Which you are entitled to. Just as we are entitled to ours. That fact that you don't deem it to be art doesn't mean it isn't. It means it isn't to you.

To me, it seems funny that this "Look what I've found!!" attitude extends to coming upon, with cameras clicking away, the conscious work made by others hand and eye,made particularly for that one's visual enjoyment...and then claiming the capture to be all his Art.

And by the way, the individual responsible for the beauty of the George Washington bridge was Othmar Amman. Next to John Roebling... One of the Greatest Environmental Artist that had ever lived.

"the building might be made, but you still have to capture it, and there are lots of wrong ways." I just see Mike running down the street after a building - and how did he learned the right way to capture a building on the run.?

to capture a building, you have to carry a lot of rope, the hardest part is the capture itself though, it's hard to wrangle a large one, you have to start small and work your way up. then you train the building, until it trusts you completely, after that, it will pose it's best for you.


---Mike Savad

That first image appears to be HDR, the second says it's a painting - looks mostly like watercolor. now - what's the question - and why not ask the creator of the images - "how'd you do that?"

Buildings on the run require wide open shooting and high shutter speeds.

In my early days, I dealt directly with one of the finest architectural photographers at that time, Ezra Stoller....And with all his fine work ,it was the Building first, the Architect second and his Photographs third

feral buildings are the hardest to get, i try for the ones that are older and can't move as much. the main problem with shooting these structures are - the people living in them tend to fall out the windows and everyone is angry at me because of that. i just tell them if you train your building better it wouldn't hop around so much.


---Mike Savad

Roger - At no point in time do I claim to have created the GWB. At all. And anyone with an ounce of intelligence not only knows that, but also knows that I didn't create it. However, the choice how to photograph it and what did I have in mind, etc. was me. I claim ownership if the image I took and worked with. Nothing more. And do I just stop at the two names you mentioned? What about all the rest of the people who went into the making of it? Do they get no credit for being the ones to actually construct it? As for your example, I said it was art, I never said it was that good. It's a well composed photo of a sculpture. But that's about it. To make it into something more, I feel it would need to be post-worked more. Also, being as there is a big difference in photographing a bridge that the architect was already paid for, and other people constructed for him and they have all been paid (or at least the ones that didn't die making it), I'm not taking away any of their income or infringing on their copyright. In your example, I wouldn't even take that picture or attempt to sell it. That's the work of an individual sculptor. The only one who should be making money off of his sculptures and any images from them, is him. Unless you get permission to photograph them and sell it. In which case, if it were me and I had the okay, I would totally give credit to him and link back to his site, etc. That's very different than a building or a bridge.

In response to Roseann's query about how the two images were made:

I'm not sure about "LLanowar Reborn", but "Autumn In New England" was created with a software application called Vue which is used to create virtual environments. It's one of the tools I use to create images, though I usually don't use it alone, but in combination with other applications. Here's one on mine that has a similar sky:

Since I am the creator of the first image I can tell you exactly how it was made. The point I was making here is if you have no idea how it was created, how do you know how difficult it was to make or not? Since the original post noted that both photography and digital art are easier than working in traditional media, and most of the people agreeing that it is, it leads me to believe that if you have not work extensively in either, how can you make that ASSumption?

At least Michelle clarified her position by saying for me personally, understanding that it's different for all of us.

The first image, "Autumn in New England" is mine. It's an homage to the fall weather in the Berkshire Mountains in Northwestern, Massachusetts. I have yet to find a place where the colors are more stunning and rich and where I really feel my spirit say, "Whoo Fracking Hoo!" The three most common questions I get asked on this are:

Is that oils? Is that acrylics? Where did you take that photo?

Answer is none of the above. It's a mixed media 3D render and some 2D post work. Pure digital.

There was no photograph or image at the basis or used for reference. This all came from my head and the imagery I've seen. I used a 3D application and a few layers. I have a few landscapes that I constructed to be mountains and then I had to generate and choose the colors for the trees and ground. After that it was creating the sky, atmosphere, and light. And I had to render it in preview mode many times over, and over and over until I got the exact image I wanted. Then I had to wait weeks while I set it to render every single night overnight, with breaks in-between for virus and malware scans. I always render large size at 300 dpi which is optimal for printing. Then after the render I brought it into PS for post work which is usually color balance and any light adjustments I may wish to make. Sometimes I do it all by hand and sometimes I use recorded actions.

The second image, I went to his website when I first saw it, which doesn't appear to be up at the moment because I was curious, and it was listed as Photoshop and Painter. Which means that he either started with a traditional media sketch and scanned it in, or did it all digitally. Either way, that was all done by hand. When I first saw it I thought for certain it was oils. And if anyone thinks that he just pushed a button and made art, you'd be dead wrong. He's actually the founder or one of the founders of the CG Society. Some of the most stunning digital art work I have ever seen.

Excellent Daniel! Yes, it's Vue. IMHO the best world generator there is. Even the professional houses use it. There is always more to it than just that program. And so much more to be done with it.

But you may not find it all easy. Check out the galleries.

No, you did not.

You also may find ways to use the two that may not have come into your thoughts before. You've just opened a new door. Hope you find something good! :-)

Yeah, you caught me out. I thought they were heavily manipulated photos. The funny thing is that the first time I saw Mike Savad's work I thought it was all graphic design. It shows how much I know!

Paul - which is why I've learned and continue to, not assume because I don't understand how it was done, doesn't mean it was easy. :-)

There is a fellow FAA member, that had taken a series of photographs of my sculptures at a venue I was selling at and put them up for sale here...Hope he make a few bucks off those photos of my work...I did contact him, and all I asked that he just gives me a little credit....He willingly did that.

But, by the fact that he put up for sale, photos of my work without my knowledge, I feel free to use those photos, short of selling prints, as I see fit.....I will and have given him credit though each time.

Any thoughts?

Yes, first of all if you're upset with him, leave it with him and don't push it on the rest of us. Two, I feel this is copyright infringement and were it me, I would report it to FAA. The worst that can happen is nothing, but it's better than not even trying if you are in agreement.

Roseann,

I'm certainly not upset with him...I'm honored that he thought my work was not only worth photographing but possibly good enough to make a buck...And since he willingly credited me, means I got free advertising.......Plus I have more images of my work.

I enjoyed reading your comments about photography as an art form. I am a photographer [of 61 years] and watercolorist [of almost 10 years now[. Have a story to tell others, and you decide. I have a friend who is a photographer [probably should just call him Jim for now] and the bottom line is that most other photographers won't even enter a photo contest in Fort Collins, Colorado if they know he will enter as he will win Best of Show, and if they give more than one award to a person, he will get First Place too! You see, Jim has the best eye I've ever seen, for color, value, interest, and composition. He is on FineArtAmerica.com and perhaps if you put in Fort Collins you'll find him. I've sole exactly one piece on the site; Jim has sold many in the same period of time. Now the point is, just as there are beginners, intermediates, experts, and Masters in oil paintings over the eons, there are also similar categories in photography. The uniqueness of a master photographer puts them in a category equal to the best of the painters. Jim will spend WEEKS working a photograph he selected before he puts it out for others to see. Fortunately he has shared some of his secrets with me....

Roger - So what was the point in bringing it up?

Roseann,
I thought I was making a point.

Don't you think how funny it is that photographers get so,so, upset when some other artists use their photos for their own benefit.

But it's quite alright for photographers to use any time they please, other people's artwork for their own benefit??