Posted by Doyle Thomas on November 27, 2006 at 7:01 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 Kim Kaiser on November 27, 2006 at 7:59 PM
just one site (with many other photo sites) with two headers that pertain to the subject,, and I seem to remeber at least a few times since i have been on this site since 2000,,this subject gets brought up,,,,i think your will get just as many varied opinoions if you would have asked a canon vs. nikon, who is better question,,,,,there is no real, right, answer, only subjective interpretations,,,which is what art,,,(imo, and we all know what opinions), whether drawn, finger painted, charcoaled, computer generated graphics,, or a photographically rendering of a scene,,,whatever medium you chose,,,,is all about,,
Posted by Mel Ladewig on November 28, 2006 at 12:08 AM
On the other hand, the art world embraces sculptures made of poo.
I ask you, which would you rather have hanging on your wall?
I have painted with airbrush (a very technical instrument, is it art?), watercolor, acrylic, gouche. I have drawn with markers, colored pencils, lead pencils, and ink. And I have used lenses to create relationships that were not there. I think of all of these as forms of art.
Posted by Frank Winters on November 28, 2006 at 1:06 AM
Doyle,
This is the same Ayn Rand who called Ralph Waldo Emerson a man with a very little mind.
She was brillant but had many strange and even silly ideas -- this one about photography is just one of them.
Frank
Posted by William Lloyd on November 28, 2006 at 1:25 AM
She was a horrific and despicable creature. Cruel, cold, and brilliant without the temper provided by a human heart.
Those who don't find any art in photography voyage in a less luminous world than those who do.
Posted by Guy Tal on November 28, 2006 at 11:58 AM
As an admirer of much of Rand's writing all I can say is I disagree on this point. And that's OK.
With as much objectivity as I can muster I have to ask "Really guys, why do we care what anybody thinks?" Will anyone's opinion change the fact that our homes are beautifully decorated with our prints? Can Ms. Rand sour the admiration that my clients feel when thay hang a piece of my work in their living room? One of my clients, Barry ...... was so pleased with the job that we did with his classic Corvette that he commissioned us to shoot his classic speed boat. Does he care that it may not be art? No. He has two beautiful 16x20's hanging in his den and he's happy and proud.
If the likes of Freeman Patterson and Robert Glen Ketchum or Frans Lanting or any of the greats including National Geo photogs had listened to this kind of crap our world would be a much sorrier place.
With as much objectivity as I can muster I have to ask "Really guys, why do we care what anybody thinks?" Will anyone's opinion change the fact that our homes are beautifully decorated with our prints? Can Ms. Rand sour the admiration that my clients feel when thay hang a piece of my work in their living room? One of my clients, Barry ...... was so pleased with the job that we did with his classic Corvette that he commissioned us to shoot his classic speed boat. Does he care that it may not be art? No. He has two beautiful 16x20's hanging in his den and he's happy and proud.
If the likes of Freeman Patterson and Robert Glen Ketchum or Frans Lanting or any of the greats including National Geo photogs had listened to this kind of crap our world would be a much sorrier place.
Bob
Posted by Bill Pelzmann on December 1, 2006 at 1:14 AM
"....utilitarian objects cannot be classified as works of art. "
It's fine with me if the world agrees to this narrow definition of "art". No sleep lost.
I, however, much prefer to hang "utilitarian objects" on my walls or view them in galleries.
Posted by Kim Kaiser on December 1, 2006 at 2:47 PM
some call a gorilla stepping in paint and walking a canvas as art,,,,, or an elephant swabbing a canvas with a mop,,, now where would all this fit into art,,,like i said in my first comment,,OP should just as well said what is better, canon or nikon,,the end result is a non definitive answer, purely subjective to the eye of the user/beholder,,,
Posted by Cliff Beittel on December 1, 2006 at 4:21 PM
Actually, I think Rand is wrong even by her own definition. She says, "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." Well, no, a camera can't, but neither can a paint brush. Many photographs clearly are conceptualizations. And if I'm not mistaken, at least some of the painters Rand liked (Vermeer, for example), were highly representational and not particularly conceptual.
Speaking of highly representational painters, if a realist painter copies a photograph (some do) and produces a painting that looks like photography, I wonder if the non-art of the photograph becomes art in the painting?
Discussion
12 replieshttp://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?s=24a20eb79bfde591cb0af22ed7fd60c5&showforum=19
just one site (with many other photo sites) with two headers that pertain to the subject,, and I seem to remeber at least a few times since i have been on this site since 2000,,this subject gets brought up,,,,i think your will get just as many varied opinoions if you would have asked a canon vs. nikon, who is better question,,,,,there is no real, right, answer, only subjective interpretations,,,which is what art,,,(imo, and we all know what opinions), whether drawn, finger painted, charcoaled, computer generated graphics,, or a photographically rendering of a scene,,,whatever medium you chose,,,,is all about,,
I ask you, which would you rather have hanging on your wall?
I have painted with airbrush (a very technical instrument, is it art?), watercolor, acrylic, gouche. I have drawn with markers, colored pencils, lead pencils, and ink. And I have used lenses to create relationships that were not there. I think of all of these as forms of art.
This is the same Ayn Rand who called Ralph Waldo Emerson a man with a very little mind.
She was brillant but had many strange and even silly ideas -- this one about photography is just one of them.
Frank
Those who don't find any art in photography voyage in a less luminous world than those who do.
Guy
That's an excellent quote, William!
Same here. And it is OK--she was wrong about Mozart, too!
If the likes of Freeman Patterson and Robert Glen Ketchum or Frans Lanting or any of the greats including National Geo photogs had listened to this kind of crap our world would be a much sorrier place.
Bob
If the likes of Freeman Patterson and Robert Glen Ketchum or Frans Lanting or any of the greats including National Geo photogs had listened to this kind of crap our world would be a much sorrier place.
Bob
It's fine with me if the world agrees to this narrow definition of "art". No sleep lost.
I, however, much prefer to hang "utilitarian objects" on my walls or view them in galleries.
Speaking of highly representational painters, if a realist painter copies a photograph (some do) and produces a painting that looks like photography, I wonder if the non-art of the photograph becomes art in the painting?