Photographic art - What makes it unique???

The truth, i personally think is that photographs cannot become art _simple!.. so you capture a beautiful landscape..so?! whats so special about that (identical replica of reality).





But if an artist captures a beautiful landscape eg 'Fine art'.. elements of lighting / contrast / strokes / shadows / techniques which the artist employs to assist in the creation of his master piece.. which is visually represented and stimulating...


(THIS IS ART).





Any other perspectives on this issue... PLEASE enlighten ME and prove me otherwise (if you can).

Photographic art - What makes it unique???
As both a fine art and commercial photographer I will be the first to admit that not all photography is art. However, in the same light I have to say that not all painting or for that matter sculpture is art. Just because a piece of work employs a mastery of techniques, doesn't automatically make the work art. For example I have worked on the set of some very large photo shoots, most recently a shoot for a new Toyota. With a crew of nearly 10 peop,it took almost two days to shoot in the studio and so far has taken nearly a month of Photoshop work. Good photography,at least in terms of commercial photography is not as easy as simply point and shoot, and requires a lot techniques which not everyone can master. However, just because it takes a lot of effort, and knowledge to shoot a photograph of this nature, does it make it art? It is definately not art, its an advertisement. Maybe superficially it seems like art, as it does employ characters of art: contrast, sepparation, depth, color etc... however art is more than just color, contrast, strokes etc...


Modern art, at least as it has been understood since the turn of the 20th century expands beyond just a mastery of technique. Modern art often explores concepts, and reaches out to break preconceived notions, to let the mind wander in directions it has not taken before. Modern art takes the benign, the everyday and metaphorizes it into something beyond itself. So back to your notion that landscapes photographs are not art. I would agree that a lot of landscape photography is not art, and not because there was no mastery of technique employed. No, the reason for this is because to be honest most landscapes don't expand beyond their own meaning. For example a tree is a tree, a mountain is a mountain, and a sunset is a sunset. In art we are looking beyond the actual meaning of the object itself, we seek for a deeper meaning. Ansel Adams was able to achieve this, his landscapes typically have a deeper meaning beyond itself. How was he able to do this, part of it was a mastery of not just photography but a mastery of basic design concepts: light, balance, space, etc...Fact is that a lot of your really good fine art photographers have a deep understanding of art history, as well as basic art and design concepts of which they employ in their photography. A good example of an interesting modern fine art photographer can be seen here http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/im...


Joel Peter Witkin is just such an example of a photographer who has a firm understanding of art history as well as a firm understanding of art and design concepts.


Anyhow, I would suggest that you don't concern yourself with technique so much as concern yourself with concept. But if technique is your biggest factor in determining who is and who is not an artist then I would suggest you try to study the Zone system of photography, or perhaps how to use a view camera, or better yet study photo lighting. However, even if you master all the above don't think for one moment that you are some great artist. Technique means nothing if there is no concept.
Reply:Your eye. The "eye" of the photographer.


If a photographer does not see things as artistic stuff, then just forget about it it is no art it is just pictures.
Reply:a photo is an object frozen in time,taken in a micro second surely this makes each photo unique as even the same object retaken would belong to a differant time.
Reply:Photography also involves "elements of lighting / contrast / strokes / shadows / techniques which the artist employs to assist in the creation of his master piece."





I'm referring to real photography, not one taken with a cell phone.





And, a landscape portrait isn't "an identical replica of reality." What determines the "reality" of a landscape? How much should be included/excluded to make it an identical replica? What time of day should it be taken? What time of year?





People see color differently, and people look at things from different angles and heights. Two people will look at the same landscape and see different things.





Photography is an art because of the infinite individual interpretations of the same place. Doing it uniquely and effectively is what makes you an artist.





Peace.
Reply:If you where an artist you would know that photography is art.
Reply:Art is a subjective critique of the world around the artist, regardless of what medium, materials or technique they use, and so in that perspective photography is as valid as anything else you may regard as art. Honestly I think your opinion on art and photography in general is slightly ignorant, but you are entitled to that opinion nonetheless.
Reply:I'm a great fan of B/W photography (and cinema) so have no trouble answering this question.


B/W is not just a straight reflection of the world that we see, but for a photograph to be effective, as well as composition etc., it has to translate everything into pure tones and light values. This is also how any good painting or colour photograph should work anyway so as not to appear 'flat'.


And do have a look at Ansell Adams. He's amazing.
Reply:Photography is an art.


It takes skill to produce some amazing photographs.


A photographer has to set up the picture the way he/she wants the world to see it.


Sure, its easy for an amature to take a really good picture.


But I think photography is a way of appreciating the beauty of the world without having to change its pureness.





Art is anything created by anything that at least one person thinks is beautiful.


it doesnt matter how it was created, but what it is.
Reply:Art is not only a beautiful landscape, or capturing an image of a spectacular sunset, person, or whatever. Art can as easily


be captured by a camera as by a painter, the moment must be


that split second which captures something that can never be


seen again, nor copied through a parody. It's the ultimate moment of something that can't be painted or drawn, because it's happening now and it will never ever happen again. For instance...some of the photography of 9/11.


or as today, the bridge collapse in MN. It is now and peoples


faces, the terror, the sadness, that is as much art as a


Rembrandt.