Seems pretty random. Or perhaps that is what you were trying to achieve?
Posted by Doyle Thomas on November 27, 2006 at 6:53 PM
Food for thought from Ayn Rand, philosopher, from the book "The Ayn Rand Lexicon": A certain type of confusion about the relationship between scientific discoveries and art, leads to a frequently asked question: Is photography an art? The answer is: No. It is a technical, not a creative skill. Art requires a selective re-creation. A camera cannot perform the basic task of painting: a visial conceptualization, ie., the creation of a concrete in terms of abstract essentials. The selection of camera angles, lighting, or lenses is merely a selection of the means to reproduce various aspects of the given, ie., of an existing concrete. There is an artistic element in some photographs, which is the result of such selectivity as the photographer can exercise, and some of them can be very beautiful--but the same artistic element (purposeful selectivity) is present in many utilitarian products: in the better kinds of furniture, dress design, automobiles, packaging, etc. The commercial art work in ads (or posters or postage stamps) is frequently done by real artists and has greater esthetic value than many paintings, but utilitarian objects cannot be classified as works of art.
Posted by Rick Lamb on November 27, 2006 at 7:03 PM
A random image indeed. I'm not quite getting enough of a purposeful texture or feel from this one though.
As far as "art" goes - I prescribe to the theory that "art" is truly in the eye of the beholder. And my camera is my paintbrush. If an image I created invokes a sense of mood or emotion then it has served my intended purpose as a work of art.
Doyle, was that quote (which I don't think I agree with) a response to my comment about randomness? I'm having problems making the connection.
Posted by Doyle Thomas on November 29, 2006 at 10:59 PM
"There is an artistic element in some photographs, which is the result of such selectivity as the photographer can exercise."
This image is an example of not exercising selectivity.
Posted by Erik Lundh on November 30, 2006 at 12:01 AM
Doyle,
This is a shot that can be achieved almost anyware. It's a good effort but probably wouldn't be on top my fireplace mantle.
If you intentionally exercised no selectivity, isn't this itself a form of intentional selectivity?
Posted by Doyle Thomas on November 30, 2006 at 9:13 AM
there is no such thing as a non-conformest, people just conform to different ideas so your answer (Swami) is yes.
Erik, The question i hate the most from people is "where was this taken?" First off, I don't take anything and secondly, why should it matter?
there are Photographs almost everywhere almost all the time. the better you understand what you are looking for the more you will find.
Discussion
8 repliesone stop bellows extension
F/22
1 sec
210mm
1995
As far as "art" goes - I prescribe to the theory that "art" is truly in the eye of the beholder. And my camera is my paintbrush. If an image I created invokes a sense of mood or emotion then it has served my intended purpose as a work of art.
This image is an example of not exercising selectivity.
This is a shot that can be achieved almost anyware. It's a good effort but probably wouldn't be on top my fireplace mantle.
Erik, The question i hate the most from people is "where was this taken?" First off, I don't take anything and secondly, why should it matter?
there are Photographs almost everywhere almost all the time. the better you understand what you are looking for the more you will find.