The Difference Between Photography And Traditional/digital Art

OFFS. Here we go again.... what is the point of this discussion?

the point of any discussion is just that.. discussion - and to hopefully make people change.

and for me to get that beef off my chest.

---Shawn Dall
ShawnDall.com

Didn't we just go through this?

Y'all have fun. I'm out of this one.

Afterthought: Did M. Danl put you up to this?

I am a photographer .... And I AM an ARTIST!

Good grief!

if you do not actually do art, then you are NOT an artist. I do not cook from a recipe and state I am a chef, it is the same thing!

there is a reason why culture states art as "art" and photography as "photography" - it is photography - it's own distinct class.

---Shawn Dall
ShawnDall.com

It appears someone is bored.

... the difference between people who read the forum and those who do not.

Off now to start my topic, "What Is Art".

Ugh. Another divisive thread.

Many photographers devote their lives to the art. The ART. They know shutters and lenses and pinholes and darkroom chemistry, the intimate nuances of the different grains of a hundred types of films, the difference between a silver gelatin print, a palladium print and a chromograph. They travel long distances and get up at ungodly hours just on the off chance that they may get a shot at capturing a moment they've envisioned for years. There is a TON of nuance and skill behind a talented photographer. You may not know about these technical details, but they are what makes photography art.

This man is a photographer. And he is absolutely, undoubtedly, 100% an artist.

http://www.agrons.com/

those are "technical" details - just like there are technical details in anything.

if you want to blanket that definition in that way, then practically EVERYTHING under the sun is art, and this site should cater to all of them. Selling automotive parts, selling food, etc.

also hate to break it to you - but the majority of people these days do not do any of that - they point a camera or digital camera or phone up to something, and they click.

---Shawn Dall
ShawnDall.com

Ok so let me make a list of what differentiates art from non-art:


Subject
Time it took to create
Amount of "work" involved (what ever that means)
Digital manipulation or not
Use of a recipe
Any use of your body such as your voice or dance or acting

Did I miss anything?

art is created by having actual dexterity in your hands to have something physically wrought in some way, digital paper or otherwise.

photography is a craft which involves knowledge of everything cynthia mentioned to set up a shot and then take it.

Art takes imagination and skill of the hand - photography takes a good eye and knowledge of what cynthia mentioned.

cooking takes knowledge of ingredients - textures of food, proper ratios and a good ability to combine tastes, and yet we don't call it art - we call it cooking. People seem to understand this. How is photography so much different? Both are visual. In fact one could say cooking is even more "art" because you are actually using your hands to a degree to craft something, but we don't call it art.

The one thing that sets a photographer apart from an artist is the final product. An artist creates a one of a kind piece that can be professionally authenticated as an original. A photographer creates a piece by making a print (not an original) that can not be professional authenticated as an original. The photographer may say it is an original print concealing the fact that the original image is saved on their computer or flash drive. It is still a print of the original. Yes, photographers will always be photographers and artists will always be artists...and the twain shall never meet.

So if I plan a trip to photograph some far off landscape, get up at 3 am, hike to my pre-visualized spot at capture the right light, choose the proper equipment/settings to capture the image the way my imagination sees it, then process it on the computer using my hand on the mouse and making the adjustments needed to bring out my vision, its not art.

Amazingly narrow-minded thinking.

THANK you Monsieur Danl, that is what I was trying to communicate. Do not call yourself something if it is not what you do.

---Shawn Dall
ShawnDall.com

no it is nor narrow - what is narrow is that you think doing those PHYSICAL things is what makes are art.

also like I said in my original post - if you digitally manipulate it on a computer after, that DOES make it moreso art than it would be if you had just snapped it - hiking and trekking to the spot, choosing your physical camera pieces does in no way make it art whatsoever.

Like I predicted in my original post - this is going to offend a great many people - but at the end of the day it's still true. Art and photography are two separate things.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art:

: something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings

: works created by artists : paintings, sculptures, etc., that are created to be beautiful or to express important ideas or feelings

: the methods and skills used for painting, sculpting, drawing, etc.

Not everybody that owns a camera is an artist any more than everybody that owns a pencil and paper is. Whether a person is an artist or not has nothing to do with the medium they use.

yes, and nowhere in that definition did it include "photographers"

you do not create a sunset with imagination - nature did.

---Shawn Dall
ShawnDall.com

You're showing your lack of understanding. Most people who point their cameras don't do it for the sake of the image. They simply want to share a moment with others. That's a snapshot.

There is a difference between a snapshot and an image made for the sake of the image (for many, the definition of art, an object made with the intent to be art). All art has quality. That's the commonality. Quality and intent. If those are present, the result can be art regardless of the medium used to achieve it. Everything under the sun can be art. I had a guy install drywall once and it was like watching ballet. They guy was beyond a craftsman, he was as intent and skilled as anyone I've ever seen. Dance is art. Writing is art. Storytelling is art. Meditation is art. Woodworking is art. Manipulating columns of computer code can be art. It's all about the quality and intent, and the bringing forth of something into the world that wouldn't exist without that effort.

David King true, but I am talking about people who do and are masters of their profession.

---Shawn Dall
ShawnDall.com

Shawn, you should just leave your paper blank because adding your mark to it certainly doesn't make it any different than the blank page. Don't change the physics of the page!

BTW: "etc" means we are not going to list every form of art.

Shawn, this reminds me of the people who come up and say, "That's such a nice camera, it must take great photos!"

Anyone can click the shutter button but can take hours, days, weeks, even months to get a shot. Sure it's just a second to press the trigger but what goes into it is sometimes quite lengthy and extreme, just as painting or whatever you call art.

You make the assumption that photography is like walking around pressing the "easy" button that Staples sells.

Sometimes it is, other times not even close.

A painter could look at "digital" art and say the same thing. This guy just sits around with a mouse and a keyboard or a stylus or whatever and plays on his computer and calls it "art". He has no artistic talent. If he did he'd be using a paint brush. Anyone can use a computer to generate images.

Who really cares what the definition of "art" is. Its in the eye of the observer. Unless you have some idea of what someone actually does or what goes into it, it's usually best not to throw stones.

Is imagination so pure and so removed from lenses? Human eyes have lenses - eyes just do not have an instantaneous recording medium to imprint the momentary impressions. Imagination still uses what the lenses of the eyes register, however. Imagination can also apply to what the lenses of cameras register.

Human eyes can see with little imagination, just as camera lenses can focus with little imagination.

Does juggling three different cameras and a bowling ball count as art?

yes, and my family has whole family albums full of photos - but in no way has my family ever stated that because they took those photos that they are artists. What I see here are people trying to puff themselves up to appear more important. I don't draw a stick figure and pretend I am picasso.

you're all just personally hur because you take pictures, and you want to be an artist because you do. Try making art, drawing painting, etc and see if you actually find it takes the amt of skill needed to do photography. If you can replicate what you photographed, and it looks GOOD, then congrats, you ARE AN ARTIST!

You probably all won't agree with me on this - that's fine - this is my view on it - as someone who does both art AND photography.

---Shawn Dall
ShawnDall.com

the question becomes where does one draw the line. If you are going to use the broad definition of imagination in that way, then a lot of things we DON'T consider art suddenly become art.

I could buy a car and park it in a gallery and sell it as a piece of art then. I could claim I was imaginative in thinking in a way nobody else has, and tag whatever meaning I want on it, even though I had no part in making the car.


---Shawn Dall
ShawnDall.com

if you tell anyone in the real world that you are an artist, the first thing they will ask you is oh what do you use? Paints, charcoal? watercolours? They might even ask if it's digital. They won't ask you "oh what is it, photography?"


---Shawn Dall
ShawnDall.com

The line is drawn by the patrons. Individual collectors who buy it and consider it art. Or institutions such as the Tate Modern that allow taxidermy or spin art to be displayed in their museum.

The line is rather fluid as you know if you are actively engaged in the art scene.

I find it surprising that such a young man has such a closed minded, old fashioned take on this subject.

Of course snapshots and casual photos of someone's sandwich aren't art. That's stating the obvious.
There simply is an art to photography, and many photographers are artists in that medium.

If you're unable to see that, then you're entitled to your opinion.

"What I see here are people trying to puff themselves up to appear more important."

By starting threads minimizing what other people do because they don't understand it?

I guess you missed "Speed, Style, and Beauty Cars from the Ralph Lauren Collection March 6, 2005 – July 3, 2005" at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston.

Cars parked in a museum.

I have my opinion, and I am allowed to state it - like Cynthia says - it doesn't make me wrong - it simply makes it my opinion.

also just because something is classified as art, doesn't mean it should be.

I believe I have said all I need to here.