Photography (and painting and writing) is an art only if it succeeds to say something meaningful. If it doesn't...well, not really.
Everybody can write (well, most of us) but not everybody is a writer. Everybody can produce a photography but it is not a photographer. Because there is no meaningful message there.
In criticism, the intent of the author should be set aside - not ignored - but not prioritised. As a reader, what one photograph may say to me, may say nothing to you. Which of us decides if it is art?
that argument applies to any other well established art: painting, writing, knitting. who decided that this are arts and photography is not? as far as i know, up to now, officially photography is not considered an art. i disagree but that is me
Photography is art. It is science. It is documentation. It is pop culture. It is vernacular. It is permanent and it is transient. In some cases, it is nothing. Man Ray, Garry Winogrand, Cindy Sherman, Robert Frank (certainly his later work) would all I'm sure argue their photography was art. When it became so, that's definitely up for discussion, some would argue Julia Margaret Cameron or the pictorialists made it art. Others might argue that it took until Szarkowski became curator at MoMA. Who knows? :)
For me, at least as a photographer and a writer on photography, I am in no doubt that it is an art form. :)
Oh, 100% :) I know you're on my side of that coin. I just enjoy the discussion. I guess what I'm trying to say is in response to your comment that maybe 'officially' photography is not considered an art. There's no-one to decide that. I think that may have been true in the past, but not any more :)
Arta este subiectivă, la fel și frumusețea. Fotografia este jumate arta ( dacă este, așa cum spune Victor ) jumătate știință . Putem extrapola și include și programatorii ( mai multă știință, mai putina arta) . Putem fi creativi in orice domeniu, dar asta nu înseamnă că ceea ce creem se numeste arta . Exista o linie care delimitează și protejează excelenta de cotidian. Și e bine ca exista ; fără aceasta limita, n-ar exista artă.
Unii da, altii nu. Unii sunt doar simpli coderi, simpli utilizatori ai unui limbaj de programare, nimic special la ei.
iar eu nu te contrazic
Photography (and painting and writing) is an art only if it succeeds to say something meaningful. If it doesn't...well, not really.
Everybody can write (well, most of us) but not everybody is a writer. Everybody can produce a photography but it is not a photographer. Because there is no meaningful message there.
In criticism, the intent of the author should be set aside - not ignored - but not prioritised. As a reader, what one photograph may say to me, may say nothing to you. Which of us decides if it is art?
that argument applies to any other well established art: painting, writing, knitting. who decided that this are arts and photography is not? as far as i know, up to now, officially photography is not considered an art. i disagree but that is me
*these instead of this
Photography is art. It is science. It is documentation. It is pop culture. It is vernacular. It is permanent and it is transient. In some cases, it is nothing. Man Ray, Garry Winogrand, Cindy Sherman, Robert Frank (certainly his later work) would all I'm sure argue their photography was art. When it became so, that's definitely up for discussion, some would argue Julia Margaret Cameron or the pictorialists made it art. Others might argue that it took until Szarkowski became curator at MoMA. Who knows? :)
For me, at least as a photographer and a writer on photography, I am in no doubt that it is an art form. :)
as i said, for me it's art. we are both on the same page
Oh, 100% :) I know you're on my side of that coin. I just enjoy the discussion. I guess what I'm trying to say is in response to your comment that maybe 'officially' photography is not considered an art. There's no-one to decide that. I think that may have been true in the past, but not any more :)
in their eyes, the bride dressed in newspapers is the most pure form of art
Arta este subiectivă, la fel și frumusețea. Fotografia este jumate arta ( dacă este, așa cum spune Victor ) jumătate știință . Putem extrapola și include și programatorii ( mai multă știință, mai putina arta) . Putem fi creativi in orice domeniu, dar asta nu înseamnă că ceea ce creem se numeste arta . Exista o linie care delimitează și protejează excelenta de cotidian. Și e bine ca exista ; fără aceasta limita, n-ar exista artă.
si manelistii canta, nu inseamna ca fac arta. asta referitor la "nu tot ceea ce creem se numeste arta". suna tare bine!