Artography

I like it. Somehow separates the men from the boys..........snaps vs higher art...........

It's also used as an AKA for photo-manipulations and has been around for a few years, here and there.

Well, I like it much better than "photo manipulation". I was liking and using Photographic Art after seeing someone here mention the term in discussions not too long ago.

@Phillip - I take it to mean exactly what Wendy said....another term for photo manipulation but it sounds much better. As in photo images that are combined with other elements, not just a straight photograph. You do some of that don't you?

OK.......so, what then makes a photograph a work of Art ?

I've been using the description Photographic Arts ever since I started doing this. At the time, I wracked my brain to come up with something to describe "photo manipulation," which doesn't have the best ring to it. Photographic arts just seems like the most apt description for work that is taken beyond photography. Some use Digital Art, but that is something else again. It's really frustrating once you get started trying to define this. I see Philip's point, too.

The work I saw by the person using the term Artography was photo collages with different elements combined with portrait work and textures, etc. Found her on etsy but here is her direct website: http://www.spokeninred.com

Second question for Philip, what do you call your photo manipulation work? Do you have a problem with the term "Artography"?

Melissa, it's a cool word, but might confuse potential buyers. When Googling the term, you'll find some digital/photo work, but more straight photography sites.

In general, buyers/consumers tend to be confused by the intent of 'made up' words. (Meaning words and terms not found in a standard dictionary.) They won't always take time to visit UrbanDictionary.com or its ilk.

For now, I'll stick with John H's 'Photographic Art', which I've really come to love and is oh-so-much nicer than 'photo-manipulation'. :-)

Not a new word. As said may confuse some and seems to be more used by amateurs and wannabees. I have a friend that uses it and it seems to be a cover for lack of basic photo skills, but a good eye for art.

@Wendy, I couldn't remember who it was that was using Photographic Art as a term, thanks, yes, I'll probably stick with that, I just thought Artography was a great descriptive word, but if straight photography sites are using it...that's misleading I think.

@Bradford, is your friend's final results pleasing to the eye of a buyer, is it good work?! and are they using it for photo manipulation?

@King, yes that would fall into the category I think :o)

What's wrong with Photo Art? That's what I have used for years.

I hate the word manipulation. Such a negative context. Artists manipulate the paints they are using, but it's called painting.

Searching staley photo art I see I have 36 listed, and 25 for photo-art.

Works for me Chuck ;o) yes, don't like the other word either!

Melissa, I don't think it's misleading, at all. They're probably using 'artography' to describe 'artistic photography', 'photographic artistry', 'the art of photography', or something similar.

Therein lies the confusion with faux-words -- similar to faux-letter-words, they can mean anything the user pleases. ;-)

Now about this particular artist....who we already know has not coined the word artography...here is her statement:

About Spoken in Red...
Spoken in Red offers a unique fusion of photography and graphic art that I like to call "artography." My vision is to go beyond the lens to capture moods, scenes, the beautiful and the ugly, the enlightening and the morbid, the fantastic as well as the bizarre, as much as my resources can achieve and then to stretch even beyond those.

I think any photographer worth his salt is doing this already.

No matter what she calls it, I really like her use of flat lighting, textures, costumes, text and minimal color to make her work different.

I can see why she would not want to call it "photography."

But that's just me.

She is also here on FAA, of course:



Mostly self portraits.

Oh for pete's sake...sigh....okay, how this discussion evolved into think "photography" on it's own merit isn't "art" I have no idea. I don't see anywhere that I gave that impression so I'm not sure where that's coming from exactly. All I can respond to that is "duh"....of course photography is an art!!! And in any "ART" form, some are better at it than others - @Philip - as to whether a photo is a "work of art", also @Marlene's comment of " any photographer worth his(you left out "her" btw) salt is doing that already".

I had just never seen the term used before (artography) and after viewing Spoken in Red's work, I thought it was a PERFECT word to describe what she was doing, as it was a blending of an image, through use of software, adding textures, text, creating fantasy images...with the starting point of a photo.

Maybe I'm wrong in the head, I just like some separation of terms to describe what kind of art something is. Like "watercolor", "oil on canvas", "charcoal", etc, etc...you know what those are immediately and it would be really really nice and really really helpful to buyers/collectors/artists if there could ever be some consenus and agreement for everyone to use the same terminology to describe....okay, so I've had this discussion here before...maybe a couple of times, lol!

The term photo manipulation while being correct in the methodology, is the same to me as someone saying I manipulate watered down pigment and smear it around on paper....no, it's called a watercolor and everyone knows what a watercolor is. There is unfortunately no consensus on terms for what can be done when photography goes beyond a "traditional" straight from the camera work of "Art" and becomes something more than the original image.

A mix of digital and traditional photography:Photographic Art, Photo/Art or Artography....because these terms do mean something a little different than calling them digital art.....since that encompasses work that does not have to start with a photo.

I'll stick with using Photographic Art......that can't possibly offend anyone.........still think the other word was cool, lol!

@Chuck, I was going to look for her here too! Thanks for finding that. I love her work....

For what it's worth, I use the term "Artistic Photography" to describe what I do and call myself an "artistic photographer". I rarely publish anything straight from the camera anymore, and often use layers of textures as well as hand painted textures to create the look I want for the finished work. Some look more painterly, some look more photographic, and many look in between. I've seen the term "artography" as well as "paintography" to describe it. I also use the term "Photographic Art" in some of my descriptions on my website.

P.S. I like her work too. Kind of reminds me of Brooke Shaden's work (whom I love).

--Jai

Thanks for sharing Jai :o) I'll be sure to look for Brooke Shaden...right now!

edit: found her site and I had previously bookmarked, lol! Didn't remember her name..

If we're going to go in that direction, I kind of like the term "Altergraphy" better, since the "Art" portion could be somewhat subjective while "Alter" indicates it is altered photography but leaves the opinion of whether it's art up to the viewer. Plus, there is no added letter such as "o" in artography needed. It also rolls off the tongue a little easier.

Most of my images are photos that have been altered digitally. To differentiate them from unaltered images I often use the terms, altered, manipulated, or enhanced, (although that may be a matter of opinion). Because some may use a variance of related search terms, I may include tags such as, digitally manipulated, digital manipulation, digitally enhanced, digital enhancement, digitally altered, digital alteration, etc. given FAA's choice of search engine is restricting. For instance, you would not be able to search for "trees" by using the search keyword "tree" while most other search engines look for any word with "tree" in it.

Yes Melissa my friend that calls herself an artographer does manipulate her images. It is not very advanced but her best work is amazing . Mostly she just plays with the RGB channels. She is mainly a painter and sculptor. But she breaks out her Nikon DSLR from time to time. Her natural creativity compensates for knowledge and skill. Sometimes.

Artography-biography of an artist? Altergraphy-photographs of alters? I think these are to confusing to become mainstream.

well, lemme add that I am a fauxtographer and my first series was called "p HOTography"

“It's not the manipulation or lack of manipulation that makes it art or not art.”

I agree, Philip.

Marlene,
may I ask you for an exclusive RM license for using your brilliant terms in my FAA biography?

(And some day, when people around hear me speak English and die from laughing, I will blame it on you!)

- Gabriele

"Maybe you mean by these photographers at the eagle nest simply being people taking pictures without any artistic intent" - Yes, that's what I meant. These are people who just want to get a clear shot of the birds and are happy if they do. When I said straight photography, I meant different from a photo coming "straight from the camera" (like a snapshot with no forethought or planning and very little -- if any -- editing afterwards). I didn't know straight photography was a term until this thread came up. I also had not heard of pictorialism until this thread. And I find it all very interesting!

This is one of the guys from the nest who creates very artistic photography only with his camera:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Wilder-Images-Landscape-Nature-Photography/210990865639613

His name is Joey Wilder and I think his work is amazing! There's a lot of thought and planning he puts into the photo. " Deliberately and artistically created", as you said above, describes his work to me. He tried to explain to me all he does within the camera to get his shots -- a lot of it was greek to me, just like me explaining what I do with textures drew a couple of blank looks from him. :)

Does anyone think the term "Pictorialism" is going to fit today? I'm not sure it can cover the definition of what photo manipulation is today. Possibly New Pictorialism could.....but it's a heavy word, antiquated a bit and I think it would leave buyers, and artists with a "huh?" expression without a history lesson! Also, I would be suprised if everyone who "messes or plays" with their photos would all agree to use the term! A consensus? Yeah right, but what other terms to offer?

Philip, who exactly are you talking to that you think doesn't think the medium of "straight photography" is artistic? I don't see them anywhere in this thread.... Of course both straight and manipulated can/are both fine art photography. Watch the youtube link below, I think you will like it.

Here's some links I found relevant to the direction the discussion shifted...

http://kcbx.net/~mhd/1intro/f64.htm
.was organized in 1932 by Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Willard Van Dyke, Imogen Cunningham, and others, to promote "straight" photography. The group was in response to the "artistic," soft-focus, pictorial type of photography which was popular at the time. Emphasis was placed on "pure" photography, sharp images, maximum depth-of-field, smooth glossy printing paper, emphasizing the unique qualities of the photographic process. The significance of the name lies in the fact that f/64 is the smallest aperture on the lens of a large-format camera and therefore provides the greatest depth-of-field.
The manifesto is of historical interest in the midst of the controversy over the addition of non-photographic techniques to traditional photography.

Group f/64 Manifesto
The name of this Group is derived from a diaphragm number of the photographic lens. It signifies to a large extent the qualities of clearness and definition of the photographic image which is an important element in the work of members of this Group.

The chief object of the Group is to present in frequent shows what it considers the best contemporary photography of the West; in addition to the showing of the work of its members, it will include prints from other photographers who evidence tendencies in their work similar to that of the Group.

Group f/64 is not pretending to cover the entire of photography or to indicate through its selection of members any deprecating opinion of the photographers who are not included in its shows. There are great number of serious workers in photography whose style and technique does not relate to the metier of the Group.

Group f/64 limits its members and invitational names to those workers who are striving to define photography as an art form by simple and direct presentation through purely photographic methods. The Group will show no work at any time that does not conform to its standards of pure photography. Pure photography is defined as possessing no qualities of technique, composition or idea, derivative of any other art form. The production of the "Pictorialist," on the other hand, indicates a devotion to principles of art which are directly related to painting and the graphic arts.

The members of Group f/64 believe that photography, as an art form, must develop along lines defined by the actualities and limitations of the photographic medium, and must always remain independent of ideological conventions of art and aesthetics that are reminiscent of a period and culture antedating the growth of the medium itself.

The Group will appreciate information regarding any serious work in photography that has escaped its attention, and is favorable towards establishing itself as a Forum of Modern Photography.

Pictorialist and Straight Photography (great little clip)


Found this excellent discussion from a few years ago on straight vs pictorial: http://www.apug.org/forums/forum50/37267-straight-photography-pictorialism.html

Call me old fashion but I see nothing wrong with calling a photographer,...just that,......a photographer.
Growing up,....An artist was always someone who painted on a canvas.

Today everyone is competing for a title distinction.
I appreciate and understand in today's competitive world that everyone wants that edge,... setting them apart.

I do not look at a photograph,...and see,...art,.......... I see a photograph,........... that is done to a certain level of expertise.

I never call myself a fine art photographer,.....I'm just a photographer,...good, bad or indifferent.

I see the artistry,..that goes into the creative process,....getting out there, knowing your gear and mechanics of it all,....and pulling an image together,....
to make a Fine photograph,...maybe...be that as it may,...the art is photography,....made with a camera.

Bestowing the title of Fine Art photographer on myself just doesn't fit me personally,....but that's me and I'm flattered if others introduce me as such.

The completed print, painting, sculpture or whatever artistic format,..... makes the final statement,...no matter what the person calls him or herself.

Actually if you come right down to it, it is the viewer who really decides what the artist should be classified as,....and that to will differ viewer to viewer always.
Just my two cents.

I love FAA and being in the presence of many, many artists who I admire for their fine work.
I constantly work at improve my seeing and my skills with a camera, I often fall short of my expectations,
on occasion everything comes together, sometimes a bit of luck,...but always always thankful I am fortunate
to be able to give my best.

Just my thoughts.
Marty









.

“Does anyone think the term 'Pictorialism' is going to fit today?”

I do.

As far as: “Philip, who exactly are you talking to that you think doesn't think the medium of "straight photography" is artistic?”

Goodness. Perhaps I missed something but nowhere in the thread did I find any suggestion by Philip that indicated such.

“Yeah right, but what other terms to offer?”

Actually, Melissa, I suggested a couple of terms that might fit, yet they were ignored.

“Liking raw photography is liking "straight photography" but shouldn't mean another method doesn't have value in the art world.”

I do hope that I have not been perceived as one that believes that other methods have no value. They certainly do. I simply believe that the insertion of the word * art * in front of “ography” seems (to me) a bit pretentious.

While we are on the topic: Why not suggest a new form of the word, “artography”? If one engages in such, that would make one an “Artographer” would it not?

If one produces “fine art photography”, by what term would one separate the straight photographer from the pictorial photographer?

Melissa wrote: “I can't believe you could look at the example image above and say that it is now a "diminished and diluted" photo, it has been changed and is more than a photo now.”

While I completely concur that the image is certainly not diminished, and diluted, I disagree with the concept that the image is * more * than a photograph. Different, yes. More? Not so much.

Especially when one considers the fact that the term “Artography” now incorporates the term * Art * whereas the term photography does not, and inherently implies that if such image is not (overly) manipulated, the simple (straight) photograph may not---or at least should not---be considered a work of art.

RE: ARTOGRAPHY

Gee, I always thought that "Artography" was something like "Etch a Sketch"


:" Photography " defines the act of directly using light to create an image.

So to me, It's the "Photo" half of the word, that is determinate. of that act.

I don't think clients could care less what you call your art. If they want to buy it they will. Why do photographers have to fight over a stupid word and try to philosophize its meaning to them, or quote what other famous artists said about art.
Who cares guys?

Not to be confused with Artograph -- a line of projectors & lightboxes -- dating back to 1947.

http://www.artograph.com/


;)




~ Carmen Hathaway

Great word Melissa, use it.

How 'bout OMGgraphy? ;) LOLgraphy? And the always present WhatTheHeckIsThatgraphy......

Or .."I can't believe it's not a _________ (insert appropriate media here) " -phy. Alternate extension 'ism'.


e.g. "I Can't Believe It's Not A Paintinggraphy."

"I Can't Believe It's Not A Photography."

Currently under consideration -- Esotericism-ish. ;)


~ Carmen Hathaway

@ Roger - maybe you're thinking of "Artograph" a manufacturer who makes light boxes, tracers, projectors, etc ... ;)

ETA - Hahahaaa... I see someone already mentioned that!

Just wondering,

Excuse me, if the following has already been brought up.

Has anyone checked out artography.com ??

If so, is this what we are talking about??

Roger - I've seen her site. To me it's photography but on her home page she defines what she thinks the word means. I think many people will have various definitions for a word ...
Urban Dictionary defines "artographer" when I ask for a definition of "artography":

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=artographer

The following is from artography.com.

Our Story
Artography was conceived by a team of graduate students at Harvard. Upon moving into our new apartments, we each faced the same frustration of not being able to find unique artwork that was within our student budget. We had travel photos that we wanted to hang up, but the low photo resolutions were too prohibitive. We also looked into commissioning an artist to turn our photos into large-format photorealistic paintings, but were turned away by the $1,000+ price tags.

We founded Artography to provide an alternative to unoriginal, mass-produced prints, expensive art galleries, and ordinary photo printing services. We are excited to share our technique in delivering meaningful, one-of-a-kind artwork at an affordable price.

Funny, we had the same kinds of discussions back in the 70s when videos came out.

You didn't want to call it cinematography, so a friend tried to copyright "Videography."

He wasted half his life threatening to sue people for using the term, but no one cared.

Melissa -- I've got it! How bout Oolalagraphy? ;)


~ Carmen Hathaway

@ Roger -

The artography.com I'm aware of is Floridian Stacie Daughtery's website. What is the address you're looking at?

http://www.artography.com/

I found my email this morning, minutes ago and the flood of emails regarding this "name thing" is unbelievable. Before I change my settings on getting these again, I just have one question?
Is this what consumes your days, or when do you "do" art? Fascinating.

@ Mary - Why do you care what other people are doing with their time? If you don't want emails on a topic then turn it off. It's simple.

Donna,

It was the first on the list.

I now see, it's just artography.co without the "m"

I'm going to respond in sections, too much for one posting and I need to go run some errands in a minute too...

@Marty
"Call me old fashion but I see nothing wrong with calling a photographer,...just that,......a photographer. Growing up,....An artist was always someone who painted on a canvas. I see the artistry,..that goes into the creative process,....getting out there, knowing your gear and mechanics of it all,....and pulling an image together,....
to make a Fine photograph,...maybe...be that as it may,...the art is photography,....made with a camera."

Agree with you on your points. When you are talking about gear and mechanics and made with a camera, after Philip's history lesson here, we now know that is apparently considered "Straight Photography" So Marty, photo manipulated images - what would you call them? If we go back to one of Brian's first post, he admits to needing to used about 9 terms/phrases to describe his images...now why is that?! Because nobody agree's one one term or word and everyone is describing photo manipulations differently. Why not have everyone use the term "Photo Manipulation" you may ask?! We don't all like that term or the manipulate......"What do you do for a living?"......."Well, I am photo manipulator"...........surely we can do better than that!

@Carmen....I think you are having entirely too much fun with this, lol!!!

I am so ;) From you I knew I could count on a smile

Funography...Bestofthelotgraphy... Figureitoutgraphy...

Outtaheregraphy... later

Melissa,

I've been playing around in my mind, while cranking out "Art", all sorts of possible, and acceptable words.

I concluded on "Photo modulation", until I googled that term.

Maybe " Photo transformation"???

Edit:

No!, No! Can't use that!!!

.

Another excellent elucidation, Philip. Thank you.

Marty here,
Sorry,...I just can't get hung up on defining what I do,....or what I call myself,.....why,.....what's the point?
My ego doesn't demand that.

Is there a meaningful purpose to defining whether someone performs his/her craft in a purist manner or otherwise?
or define their use of tools/software methods as they pertain to manipulation,..or not?

Even if nothing is done out of the camera,....it has been minipulated already by,...individual seeing,...visual consciousness,..or,....from merely passing thru the camera software algorythems onto the media card,.....or in past years transposed onto film emulsions and chemically altered on the substrate.,.....ohhh,...and then there's the optical theory characteristics of various manufactured glass in lenses,....which wavelengths do or do not convey light more or less manipulatedly. (I made up that word)
It's never ending,....just keep beating that dead horse to death.

Are any of us capable of defining what another photographer sees thru his/her eyes,.........if we're side by side both viewing the identical scene or subject.
Kind of presumtious of us to do so,....that's why it's always refreshing to see different images by different photographers,...from identical locations.
Hey,....I didn't see it that way.

We all do the same thing different....We all see the same thing different.

Someone once said Ansel Adams images,. are so natural, he's a master of seeing and printing.
Another answered,....Good thing the landscape was black and white.

I can only get sooooooo philosophical about picking things apart,....am just a less is more kind of person,...it's me against myself to improve,....I care about that person.

We all draw from our own experiences and knowledge in the end.

The cameras that you and I use,.... each possess all the features and variables,....and more,......as any camera,... that has taken the greatest images ever made,...period.

The only difference is,....who was,...looking thru the viewfinder at the time,...the photographer.

That's you, and I .

oops,...I just used up 15 minutes typing this,...that I could have been minipulating images.

Okay, using bold and italic codes for the first time...no telling what may happen with the post! Carmen will be so proud if it works...
I will not be doing that often...way to much time, geez...I symphathize Marty!

From Walter:
As far as: “Philip, who exactly are you talking to that you think doesn't think the medium of "straight photography" is artistic?”
Goodness. Perhaps I missed something but nowhere in the thread did I find any suggestion by Philip that indicated such.

I found that being implied several times as Philip keeps insisting "But a photograph doesn't have to be manipulated in order for it to be art." Also a couple more times with similar statements....the problem is nobody had said or insinuated that the medium of straight photography isn't art. Nor that the use of a term like Artography means other modes of photography are not ART as you later insinuated in a post. "Especially when one considers the fact that the term “Artography” now incorporates the term * Art * whereas the term photography does not, and inherently implies that if such image is not (overly) manipulated, the simple (straight) photograph may not---or at least should not---be considered a work of art. Nobody but you and Philip are implying or insinuating that anyone thinks that way. IT'S ALL ART!!!
Then Walter, you posted that you agreed with Philip's above statement.

@Walter, I heard you when you said you thought it was pretentious adding "art" to photography...I just didn't and still don't agree that was the intention with the artist's whose work I saw using the term. I found it clear as a bell she meant merging graphic arts medium with photography and then "merging" the words together for Artography. I wasn't looking or seeing hidden meanings that you took from the word when you said "that the manipulated images are a cut above what is usually considered “straight photograph" However, after Wendy pointed out other sites that are using the term to describe photography that is actually "straight" not enhanced or layered, etc...that is looking pretentious. My background is commercial art and advertising design plus photography, so the direction my mind went to was merging graphic arts through software medium with images taken with a camera. If your background is more of the straight photography variety - well, it wasn't the interpretation you got!

My apologies to you also, that you interpreted my statement that an enhanced photo was more than a photo, I only meant it was no longer a "straight" photo. Next time I'll be sure to use the "different". I was not implying that it was better, just that it had more stuff than the original image - so smooth your feathers back down. I am not, nor have ever "dissed" on the art of raw/straight photography in the past, present or future...

Then you post "While we are on the topic: Why not suggest a new form of the word, “artography”?". That...is exactly what I asked for. How did you miss that?!lol

Brian's "Altergraphy", I don't think that rolls off the tongue easily and it makes me think of alters...

A reminder of all the terms Brian has come up with to help in search: (Brian) "Most of my images are photos that have been altered digitally. To differentiate them from unaltered images I often use the terms, altered, manipulated, or enhanced, (although that may be a matter of opinion). Because some may use a variance of related search terms, I may include tags such as, digitally manipulated, digital manipulation, digitally enhanced, digital enhancement, digitally altered, digital alteration, etc." " there does seem to be a few newer technical or artistic areas that need their own descriptive name and this is one of them."

Marlene's ;o) fauxtographer...lol
Peggy's ;o) Phartography....photography and painting....snicker!
Carmen's ;o) WhatTheHeckIsThatgraphy...Oolalagraphy....my favorite two..har har!
Roger's Photo Transformation...yeah, I looked that up and your right, can't use that! lol

Philip's pictorialism.....but even Philip admits that doesn't cover all photo-manipulation
Philip's still life montage...in response to Jai, again doesn't cover all photo-manipulation
Walter's graography.......? I don't think anyone would ever connect that with graphic art + photography
SpokeninRed's artography.......combining graphic arts and photography
Andrea's artography.......when she was trying to come up with a word to describe the work a few yrs ago
Jai's artistic photography
Patricia's photographic art (other's too including myself)
Other's photo - manipulation...describes the process, but..."what kind of artist are you?" "I'm a photo manipulator"...um no,

Traditional painters - you guys have it easy compared to this " I'm a watercolorist, oil painter, I work with acrylics, I'm a Mixed Media Artist, I'm a Sculptor, etc..." Why am I wrong to want a more accurate term for digitally altered photography? Something short and sweet...One that would or could be a search category? One that lay people would understand?


@Philip, as to your pretend conversation, I found that was you know..kinda sorta like, you know....condescending, insulting, and unneccessary.

To respond to Philip that we do not need new terminology when old ones are good enough...they are only "old" terms to us. Once they were new and coined to best describe a "New" art or technology. "The coining of the word "Photography" has been attributed in 1839 to Sir John Herschel based on the Greek φῶς (phos), (genitive: phōtós) meaning "light", and γραφή (graphê), meaning "drawing, writing", together meaning "drawing with light"

The term "straight photography emerged in the 1880's to differenciate from the composite and pictorialist's works.

Pictorialist: The name itself derived from the thought of Henry Peach Robinson, British author of Pictorial Effect in Photography (1869)."

Did I miss a law being passed that we can't develop or coin new phrases in the 21st century? I don't think so.

@Marty, my approach to this was truly to find a better word, that those of us doing similar works, that "play" with our photography could all agree to use. It was not for ego, I did not intend for it to come across as such. There are a couple people here that may remember me posting about terminology here before....with as much luck as this thread has had! Oh well...