For the first time this year, I've entered a number of mixed media art competitions/exhibits, all in the Chicago area. Note that these aren't purely photo competitions/exhibits; photos are typically 1/4 to 1/3 of the total submissions with the rest mostly paintings and drawings, but typically including some small number of sculptures and other forms of visual art. The competitions I've entered have all followed, to one degree or another, the following format: a significant cash prize--in some cases, well into the four figures--for best in show. Smaller prizes--but well into the hundreds of dollars--for a handful of additional images. An "honorable mention" kind of recognition--but no cash--for perhaps 10 more images. The shows have typically had submissions numbering from 100 to 250 or thereabouts.
My images have done pretty well overall. I finished "in the money" once (not best in show) and won honorable mention (or whatever they've termed it) three times, and went unrecognized once. So this isn't "sour grapes" based on how I feel my material was judged; if anything, I've fared better than I expected.
However...my sense is that there's an innate bias against photography at these mixed media shows. I recognize that the following represents something less than a scientific, meaningful sample, but...
In none of the five shows has a photograph won best in show. Only one photo in the five shows other than mine has won a cash award. In three of the shows, my photo was the only one recognized at all. In the one show where my image went unrecognized, no photo was recognized at all. In only one show were there more than two photos (three, in this case) recognized. In none of the shows did the number of photos recognized match or exceed the percentage of show entries that were photographs.
I don't know if there's a fire here but there's an awful lot of smoke.
My sense is that this bias on the part of judges (some of whom are photographers themselves, I hasten to add) isn't conscious. I get the feeling that judges generally regard, for example, a very good painting as more "worthy" than a very good photograph, presumably because of the notion that the former requires more skill, talent and/or effort than the latter.
I'm curious whether anyone else's experience and judgment mirror or contradict my own.
Thanks.
Posted by Tom Nevesely on October 12, 2007 at 11:32 PM
I get the feeling that judges generally regard, for example, a very good painting as more "worthy" than a very good photograph, presumably because of the notion that the former requires more skill, talent and/or effort than the latter.
I agree. I think this is because everyone and their dog has a camera and everyone takes pictures. All you doing is taking "better" pictures than most people. Or so their thinking goes.
If you paint, no matter how good/bad you are you're considered an artist.
If you take photographs and you aren't particularly good at it then you are just a person with a camera.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on October 12, 2007 at 11:36 PM
I think that there is a remaining bias in the visual art community that photography is not an art or that it is less "difficult" than the other creative visual arts. There also seems to be a bias in the gallery market in favor of photographers who use traditional methods as opposed to digital methods.
I don't know that this can be extrapolated to the events that you are attending, but I think it is possible. The only solution I can think of is to create the best work you can and present yourself in the most professional manner.
There was an article in our local paper recently that turned on a light bulb for me. They mentioned, in passing, the difference in the valuation of art versus that of craft. The article was not about photography ( I think it was about quilting). I caught the implication immediately. Craftsmanship is relegated to a lower level of esteem than is art.
Photography is considered craft by many/most people. After all, the subject was there, all you did was point a camera at it. So, all we did was craft an image. There seems to be a sense that ,if the viewer were there, he or she could have crafted that same image
This might be a reason photography seems to lose to "real art."
"Craftsmanship is relegated to a lower level of esteem than is art. "
Maybe, but only by artists!
I was refused entry to an "open art exhibition" because I wanted to enter some b&w prints! When I asked why the pompous git responded "well because it's not really art, is it".
I went in later in the week to view the 'art' that HAD been accepted and I have to say that the daubs and general rubbish that graced their walls was embarrassing to behold. The overwhelming majority of the work apparently done by people seriously lacking in knowledge of lighting, perspective and composition, not to mention imagination. The sole criterion seemed to be if it was done with a brush it could get hung - I felt like exhibiting my recently painted toilet door.
I had the pleasure of managing to get an opportuntity to give a lecture to these folks some time later, on composition and lighting in photography, and they looked utterly bewildered and completely astonished. I may have opened a few eyes, but sadly the majority are still tightly shut.
There seems a difficulty on some people's part to understand that painted art isn't simply good because it was painted. It can be painted and be unmitigated rubbish, or utterly wonderful, exactly as is the case with photography.
I love to point out to painter friends who use cameras to take images as 'references' for their art work that they're just doing painting-by-numbers.
Any painters here?
Whats your opinion?
Posted by Ed Cordes on October 13, 2007 at 10:29 AM
I remember about 40 years ago, when I first began to learn B&W printing that this discussion was taking place and, in fact, had been on going for decades. It seems that the traditional art world as defined by those who get art degrees view photography as less than "real" art.
Some early ground breakers such as Ansel Adams were viewed as documenters of the far west while painters such as Frederick Remington were considered "artists".
I believe some of this began to change when Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Capa, Alfred Eisendstaedt, and others began to demonstrate that the creative use of composition and light made powerful images. Unfortunately the landscape photographers still fought prejudice by the landscape painters.
I agree that today the bias still exists. The public thinks that after all, when you made that image you took of Mt. Moran at Sunrise or Mesa Arch at Sunrise, or that beautiful waterfall with just the right lighting and slow shutter speed you just "walked up and snapped it".
How many of your friends and neighbors are amazed when you tell them what it took for your to get that great image from your last outing? Most think that you have a "good camera" so the image is good. I love explaining the compositional and lighting elements of my images to my friends. They learn that photography is an art and many will begin to pick up a camera and experiment themselves.
I've been a member of judging panels in juried multimedia competitions. The other judges were a mix of painters, photographers, fabric artists, potters, and what I'll call "generalists," artists that work in multiple medias. We've talked about this specific topic almost every time we worked together, both before and after the judging. I think I can offer some useful insights.
There are common threads among the other judges:
-They all went to art school.
-They've dabbled or had deep experience in a wide variety of mediums.
-They almost never took a photography class while in school, or if they did it wasn't a very good one.
-They only use a camera today as a snapshot tool to record things that they'll later incorporate in their art or less often, to document their own work for submission in competitions.
-They have discovered that photographers usually are pretty uniformed about art mediums other than photography.
-They defer to photographers on the panel to pick the winners in photo categories, but expect the same of photographers in other mediums.
-They can and do leave photographers on the judging panel in the dust when applying adverbs and adjectives to the winners of each category and debating which single artwork is the best of show.
Stir all that up, and the judging photographer along with the exhibiting photographers are pretty well outnumbered by folks who know a lot more about art and the other media, but very little about photography. You can bet that if a panel of five judges consisted of four photographers and one other, a photo would be best of show. Same thing viewed from the other end of the pipe.
It's not much different in juried photo shows where the judge/s are famous artists from other media rather than famous photographers. You will be amazed and probably dismayed by the results. I well recall the top juried photography show in Alaska a few years ago (I wasn't entered, BTW) judged by a famous artist from LA. From among some of the best photography I've seen in a long, long time he picked an enlarged snapshot of a dented snow shovel leaning against a picket fence and surrounded by rotting snow. Technically it was a very poor photo, but he went nuts over the symbolism. Offended as I was, the relative roles of technical excellence and symbolism or "message" in his decision has always struck me as the divide between typical photographers discussions and priorities, and the perception of photography in the larger art world.
I've grown to accept that photos are never going to do well in juried multimedia shows until photographers become more "artistic" in the eyes of other artists, both in their education and their products. The other alternative is to stack or rig the jury panel with a majority of photographers, just as they are now effectively stacked or rigged with non-photographers.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on October 13, 2007 at 6:40 PM
There are a lot of good reasons mentioned above, but I would like to add a couple of observations I have picked up.
The current state of photography, with digital and Photoshop, seems to be especially snubbed. I have run across a number of "artists" (having seen their work, the quotes are unfortunately appropriate), who believe that my best work was created in Photoshop. Of course, this is obvious when you consider that the sunset was never that bright, Velvia simply doesn't produce those colors, and any piece of crap can become a masterpiece in Photoshop. Clearly, I can't be that good of a photographer
Besides, even if my presentation was honest (it was all done in Photoshop anyway, so the point is an irrelevant tangent anyway), all I am doing is recording what is there, which takes no creative talent.
Ummm, right.
I recently sat through a presentation by an artist/photographer of her best work from the last 40 years. I was excited to see her work since apparently she is well known in the academic art community for her photography. In the end, I was disappointed. Exactly two images, of the hundred or so she presented, made me think that it was more than just technically good. Neither were nature shots, so it wasn't that as a bias. There just was no "soul" to the image. I listened to what she said the images were trying to convey, and it just wasn't there.
Another experience I had was applying to a gallery. I didn't get accepted for display space there, but I kind of expected that. It is a fairly tough gallery to get into and a lot of good artists don't make the cut either. I am fine with that. So one night during Gallery Hop (most of the galleries in one part of Columbus, including this one, are open the first Saturday night of the month), I stopped in to see what is there. As 24x30 Cibichromes, there are 4-5 prints taped to the wall. Yes, you read that correctly. Taped. The images were mediocre shots of the same house, with unexciting compositions and off color casts. The color casts weren't compositional, just slightly off but noticable if you knew what you were doing. Also, I suspect they were from 35 mm frames, since at that size, sharpness simpy wasn't there. I really had to wonder if either the gallery or the artist took their work seriously. I have never been back there.
A lot of the problem I think comes down to most people believing that they could have taking that picture as well. Or if they had that latest superlens with a 38.9432 megapixel camera like I surely own (nope), that would make them a great photographer. The art of seeing what to see, and more importantly, what not to see, just doesn't enter into the equation. Composition, lighting, quality subject matter (a good flower specimen vs one slightly beat up), field time, and technical mastery of the camera are overlooked since Photoshop will cover it.
Another thing - Most of the photographers I know (and some really good ones at that) simply haven't learned the b.s. to describe a photo. It doesn't seem to be a game played by those artists.
Hello. This is a really interesting discussion. I hesitate to say what I’m about to say but here goes:
First, I’m a photographer. If you like, you may see some of my images in this months featured portfolio on photoportfolios.net. I love a good photographic image and respect the skill that it takes to make one. But, I literally look in awe towards master painters in oil or watercolor. The art they create, I believe, goes beyond what a photographer or a photographic image represents. I believe this is especially true with color photography. I say this despite personally preferring to work in color.
I’m sure some of you have taken oil or watercolor painting classes. If you have, you know what skill it takes to mix accurate colors, let alone to put the paint on the canvas! I tried to become a reasonably good painter and, frankly, failed. Maybe I simply didn’t have the talent. What I do know is that through the effort I now appreciate what is represented in a good oil or watercolor painting. I honestly have more admiration for that work than for a photographic image. That doesn’t mean I don’t love the fact that a photographic image can take me to a place I may have never been, can move me, can inspire me, and can educate me.
There is no randomness in creating a good painting. It takes vision and one heck of a lot of skill. In painting, there is never the possibility of a “lucky” image, like there is in photography. There is never a random “good shot.” Also, it is not typical for photographers to produce just one “original” as is the case in oil or watercolor painting. There may be duplicate prints, but there is only one original. This is naturally going to increase the value of an original painting compared to a photographic image that may have 350 or more copies.
One last thing: I do believe the era of photoshop and other tools to manipulate photographic images has lessened the perceived value of photography. Photography always had one “ace in the hole” that painting did not have: You had to be there for the moment! Now, photography doesn’t fully even have that. Through digital manipulation we can, to some extent, create or alter the moment.
Anyway, that is my take on it. It doesn’t affect my respect for great photographers and photography. It is just that I admire a good painter/painting more. Hope I didn’t offend anybody. RB
I have tried and tried to get "that perfect shot" in the morning... in the evening... first the trouble to get there, then the weather or Mother Nature has other plans. I know this is not technical... but it is very much a part of photography... the getting to that place, at the right time, right circumstances. Then there is the getting on the same level.. never mind it is a mud puddle, or that a bee is trying its best to get you to miss the shot.
Not many artists paint in the field. They cut a image out of National Geographic, a face from a fashion magazine... I know for I asked. If there is a tree they don't want... they leave it out! They can change the colors very easily, change the lighting to fit the mood they want.
Yes, I have managed to save an image in PhotoShop, but I have come to learn since joining here that getting that good original is a real challenge! Yes, I can take many shots to find that special one, but it does not always work that way. I can take 50 shots or more and maybe find 2-5 that fit what I want.
As for painters having a one time shot at doing their work. A very good watercolorist I know, finds it a great challenge to save some bad paintings and she does quite well. I myself have painted over parts of an oil or acrylic painting to try and salvage a work.
I received a degree in Fine Art, I taught art...I did wood sculpture... I chose photography. It is work, it takes time, effort, not just equipment. I shoot with a Digital Rebel (300D) I do use PhotoShop and Painter, but that is because I have so much trouble with the light, settings, speed and all that the photographer needs to know. Plus, I am lazy
Posted by Carl Donohue on October 14, 2007 at 5:22 AM
Hey Folks
I tend to agree with what Richard Bullough said above. I think most of this discussion actually points to one of the main differences, and that is most photographers perceive their work 'technically', whereas most artists think somewhat more about expression. A quick look through all the various discussion forums here, and at similar sites, seems to support this. It's probably particularly true of nature photographers (I'm generalising, of course, but that's ok .. this thread is, by its nature, about generalisations). I don't think great writers, poets, painters, dancers, musicians film makers, etc are as inherently hung up on "technique" as they are other elements of their work. Nature photographers, on other hand, are often seemingly exclusively focused on technique. Photography itself requires technology, unlike say, painting, singing, poetry, story telling, dance, and various other art forms, so it's naturally, IMO, rare that photography doesn't revolve around technique - technique and technology are clearly intertwined.
In fact, for example, I'd suggest that each of the various points made by Barbara, above, about photographers' work, versus that of painters, point to photography being, by its nature more journalistic or documentary. Art needn't be either - though it can certainly be a powerful medium when it's one or even both.
As a "so-so" artist using oils, and a better than average photographer, my take on this subject is that the two mediums are soooo very different. In photography, the search for good light, the occasional great result, the companionship and travel all bring very gratifying results. Painting is a singular event in which you look inside yourself to produce a gratifying result when you take a blank page and fill it with shapes, tones, lines and colors to make an occasional masterpiece. About the only common thread is that in both mediums you have to have a "good eye" for composition, a good choice of subject matter and the technical skills to make everything work.
There is definitely a reverse bias here at NPN. "Artsy" is used as a dirty word in comments and to make my point just take a look at the views of Photo Art vs. ESS. Very few people outside of serious photographers realize that It takes skill, imagination and thought to produce a good photograph.
If a photograph excels, or a oil paint excels they will hold there own within their medium. Put all mediums together and the paintings will always average ahead of photographs. The perception is that it takes more skill to paint than to push a button on a camera. This is likely to get worse as more and more people can take images... even using their phones.
In summary, its like trying to judge apples vs. oranges. All mediums are different, but both are a pleasure to view. I appreciate a great photograph and a great painting, for each is unique in their own right.
Me again... with a favorable comment about a local gallery. They are having a Juried Art event where artist can submit their works. No photography, but a new category has been added, called Computer Generated. Well, I am going to test it with a composite of photos that I have worked on in Photoshop and Painter. I also created a sheet showing the original images, the painting layers etc. This is photography taken several steps forward and all has been greatly manipulated.
Quote from Patricia above: "In summary, its like trying to judge apples vs. oranges. All mediums are different, but both are a pleasure to view. I appreciate a great photograph and a great painting, for each is unique in their own right."
Yes, photography is technical, but I look at the components of the camera, the filters etc as the brushes, paints (washes and full paint). The papers used to print can bring about similar changes as to the water color papers, canvas. There is a great deal of creativity in photography, much of it has to come from within... knowing how to look at a scene, knowing what is needed in an image to make it come alive vs a plain jane photo.
I have to commend the gallery for giving this new area a chance... at least for 'Artsy' computer generated work. They may be looking for Mike Gallo's Photo Art... I am going to try anyway.
I couldn't resist joining in on this one. Since I'm currently slogging through the bowels of art school I'm hit in the face with this issue on a daily basis. I think the big divide is not so much that photography is perceived as "easy" (although clearly it's suffered from the ubiquity of cameras and the marvels of photoshop, etc..). I think Hank and Carl hit on it when they brought up (in Hank's words) "the relative roles of technical excellence and symbolism or "message"" in assigning value to a piece of work. For people who come out of the "art world" the whole definition of what art IS, is based on whether or not a piece of work participates in artistic discourse. The "art world" is basically one big conversation --about the world/society/art/making art/whatever-- and in order to be valued as "art" (in that context) you've got to participate in the conversation.
This is where a lot of photography (and nature photography is particular) has a really hard time. A lot of photographers go to great lengths to remove evidence of themselves from the photograph. Even though the photographer may have spent a year in the field and practically died to get the shot this effort is (often intentionally) hidden in the final output. And also a lot of photographers explicitly position their work as "I am showing my subject exactly as it seemed to me at the time". I know that there have been many conversations on this board about how no photograph really conveys reality but still a lot of the time when photographers talk about their work it is framed in a very documentary way. So when this collides with the "art world" the response often is, "Okay, you're showing this subject as it appeared but what does that contribute to the conversation?"
So I guess the question for the individual photographer is, do you want to enter that world at all? The answer could be no. But if the answer is yes then you have to somehow find a place in the discourse and do things like write the dreaded artist statement.
Anyway, that's my take, for what it's worth since I haven't found my place in the discourse yet either!
Outstanding contributions from everyone with art experience beyond photography. That's really insightful Ana, and quite in line with what I have heard from other judges.
I heard the best summary of all this in a workshop with photograher Bill Neill: "I don't care about all the cow pies and broken glass you crawled through to get a photo. I want to hear what the photo has to say for itself."
Conversations between photographers spend a lot of time on the cow pies and broken glass, but almost none on what the photo has to say. That bores non-photographers to death.
Posted by Steve Foss on October 14, 2007 at 2:32 PM
Ana, thanks for that perspective. Well thought out, trenchantly expressed, and an excellent addition to an interesting discussion. With luck, that message will resonate. Hank, the cow pies and broken glass don't only bore non-photographers to death, they bore ME to death, which is why I rarely look for critiques of my work from other photographers.
Elitism and exclusivity always come into play when members of any group or movement try to assert some kind of superiority over another. This is certainly the case here but is certainly not unique to photography. There are countless examples in the art world, even within a given discipline.
In my mind the best thing we can do is not to respond defensively. When someone tells you they don't consider photography as art, what they are actually saying is that they are unable to appreciate or enjoy it on the same level as other disciplines. If anything, they deserve your sympathy for suffering from such a handicap. Arguing will likely not change their mind. Appreciation of art comes from within and often involves letting go of age-old convictions, which many people are simply unable to do.
At the end of the day you can't please everyone. Share your inspiration with those who can appreciate it.
To Richard's point, I have often thought that if I could paint like Bierstadt or Monet (oh my, am I a pictorialist or an impressionist... which one is real art again?) I may not have been as motivated to pursue photography as I do. Alas, this is what I'm good at and my art demands to be expressed. I consider myself very fortunate to have the capacity to be moved by a profound visual, whether painted, photographed, or a fleeting natural display.
Guy
Posted by Richard Wong on October 14, 2007 at 8:30 PM
I find it amusing when people try to dismiss photography because it makes them look bad. This is the 21st century not 1520 in Rome. Everybody has their own thing. For me, paintings bore me whereas I love looking at photos. Should that mean that painting is less than art?
Posted by Jim Sabiston on October 14, 2007 at 10:29 PM
Excellent thread. This is a topic I have given a good deal of thought to and can offer an observation or two.
First, there is some excellent, spot on commentary regard photography's place in the art world. Ana and Richard Bullough make particularly salient points. I should mention that I have a background in mixed media illustration: pencil, watercolor, and airbrush. I was a freelance artist in the mid-70's and used to make a living ( a poor one!) selling my paintings. I supplemented this by painting van murals and custom showbikes. A jack of all trades with a checkered past, you might say.
First, all judges and art dealers suffer from personal biases. They are human, after all. These biases often seem to become exaggerated in the area of judging or evaluating others work regardless of the medium and biases can be powerful even within a favored medium. If you are trying to impress one of these people and your work lies outside their preferred range, you are likely to be disappointed with the result of the interaction. I would like to say serious art critics are more liberal and 'open' than their non-artistic human counterparts, but this is really not the case. If anything, accrued biases can make them even more judgemental. If you want to enter the 'art' world, this is a fact that you will have to deal with. I advise developing a good set of emotional calluses.
As far as photography as art goes, as most have noted here, the odds are stacked against us for all the numerous reasons noted. Most are a matter of erroneous perception, but they are no less real for the perceiver. I will focus on one particular aspect which I suspect plays a large part in the general reception of photography. As a fairly new member here, I echo the observation that the primary focus (pun intended) in the NPN forums is technique rather than content. Given the technical nature of what we do, this is hardly unexpected, even natural. I rely on this bias as learning tool within these forums. That said, an 'artful' photograph must offer something similar to a great painting or great sculpture or great music. It must 'speak' to the observer on more than a superficial 'ooohh-that's pretty' level. Most photography (and most other art for that matter) falls into this latter category. A technically perfect photograph is still nothing more than a well captured picture if it offers nothing to the soul of the observer. A technically flawed photograph can speak volumes to an observer if it captures, even accidentally, something of this mysterious quality. Photographic art is finally achieved at the point that the technical and the spirit converge to produce that image that grabs your audience by the heart, not the eye.
True art is a rare thing, regardless of medium. I have studied thousands of images in all known mediums, by the masters and by total unknowns. The majority of work by the masters of old leave me cold, tho I am still likely to admire their mastery of their technique. Most paintings remain mere illustrations of something or other. Photography is especially subject to this aspect, as 'pictures' are relatively easy to take these days. A good photograph will reflect the skill of the photographer, but does it contain that elusive quality that makes it art? Very few do and there are a lot more photos around than paintings.
I have always had an interest in photography, even when painting, and digital technology has finally made it a practical reality for me. My approach, such as it is at this early stage, is to study the techniques and images of the excellent photographers within this forum, but to also study the images of certain painters that I admire. My goal is to use refined technique to produce images of a high artistic caliber, perhaps having more in common with certain paintings than photography per se.
For some perspective and examples, I offer two artists (painters) whose work I hold in especially high esteem: Maxfield Parrish and Andrew Wyeth. Mr. Parrish was a well known commercial artist whose work will be recognized by many, but I refer specifically to the landscapes he painted in his latter years after he retired from commercial work. Almost anything painted by Wyeth will make a good example. This man really had something. Both artists also provide examples of the enormous amount of preparation and planning that went into a successful image. A single painting typically took many months from concept to completion. How many photographs have taken that level of effort? Truly breathtaking images are the result in the hands of Parrish and Wyeth.
I have taken thousands of photographs so far and have a portfolio of about a hundred decent (saleable) images or so of which maybe a dozen are semi-respectable to my eye from an 'artistic' viewpoint and only one that comes close to my goal as stated above. This latter image can be seen in the Fall issue of Nature Photographer magazine (pg 17) if you happen to have access to a copy. This one image comes passingly close to what I consider Parrish lighting. It invariably stops people when I show it and it invites long deep gazes.
If you want your photography to be considered art, it must contain something of this quality. Nothing is more difficult to capture in an image.
Posted by Jack Graham on October 14, 2007 at 10:33 PM
Not to be to short winded ( for those of you who know me know I'm just the opposite)
but.....
Are we all Rodney Dangerfield's? and if we are... I for one " Don't give a damn!!!
LET'S JUST KEEP MAKING GREAT IMAGES!
JG
Posted by Fred Stearns on October 14, 2007 at 10:55 PM
I'm delighted with your citation of Parrish, Jim. I admire his work to the point that I once tried to produce a photo that incorporated his lighting effects. "Produce" is the right word, because it required five separate exposures on a single sheet of 4x5 film. The results were promising after three nights of trying, but still not right in the end.
This was in the days before digital cameras and LCD viewing screens, and it probably would have taken several months of nightly shooting to bring all the elements into perfect balance. I could probably do it now in one night with a digital camera and especially with the help of Photoshop. But trying to get it all done on a single sheet of film showed me that I needed a quantum leap in craft skills to fulfill my vision. This kind of harks to Barbara's points about computer generated work, doesn't it?
Looking back, that was probably my single most ambitious attempt at "art" with a camera, but the memory inspires me to try it again sometime. An excuse to return to Zion! Thanks a million for that!!!
I think Guy nailed a key issue by saying "...my art demands to be expressed. I consider myself very fortunate to have the capacity to be moved by a profound visual, whether painted, photographed, or a fleeting natural display."
In my mind that is really the issue here. We are so fortunate to appreciate a "profound visual" and even more fortunate to be able to express, through film or digital capture. Personally, my camera is an outlet and a motivator. When a gin and tonic is sounding mighty good after a long day of hiking or river running, it gets me off my butt, out of camp, to a ridge, and allows me to witness natural wonders. For me, this makes the question of art or craft become irrelevant. RB
Posted by Stan Rose on October 15, 2007 at 3:33 PM
Amen to that, Richard! I might have aded something if id seen this thread earlier, since ive been a painter for 3+ decades and a photographer for only 3+ yrs. Suffice it to say that as mentioned the two pursuits are extremely different, and regardless of your ability i highly recommend photographers to take a stab at some other art from, because you will learn reams from the experience. It does seem to me that some photographers are so tunnel-visioned with regard to their preferred artistic method that they have trouble seeing their work in a larger artistic context.
Posted by David Senesac on October 15, 2007 at 6:01 PM
We landscape and nature photographers will always be mugged by the rest of the art community just as has been the case generally in the past. Famous photographers sitting up in their caskets on coming Halloween and looking at this thread on their upgraded casket WIFI screen would only smile and shake their head at such questions.
I've always felt discussions of fitting landscape photography into some context of art is misguided. The sooner we as a community separate ourselves from desires of being referred to as artists on the level of othe visual artists, the better. That is not to say some photography style are not art as some certainly are, but most photography categories taint. Certainly not news, current events, cultural, travel, fashion, scenic, nature and the like. Rarely do I capture images that fit the artsy category and if so they are almost always geometric abstraction closeups. Sure I refer to my prints on my business card as fine art prints but that is merely a formality in letting people know my product is packaged at the highest level of serious art quality like others that likewise sell such photography. If others stopped labeling their photography so, I would be quick to drop that. Photography does share some conceptualizing with those that create visual art and that is especially so with painters, but beyond that imagination is a wholy different skill of being able to perceive an optimally aesthetic frame within a larger visual landscape and refine that down to a statement of captured beauty versus being able to create one. Thus I see the capture of landscapes as a reflection of a person's ability to perceive and refine a frame of beauty in nature. That is one reason why I tend to not prefer the style of those in our community that tend to be more post processing creative even if that ends up with relatively superior aesthetic quality. Not that there is anything wrong with such a style, but simply that it is different from my own pursuits. For that matter I am not much a fan of any of the above other photography categories I mentioned not because I can't see the skill in what they do but again because it isn't something I have personal passion for. For the same reason, I don't expect to ever get much interest from most sculpters and oil painters for similar reasons. ...David
Posted by John W. Wall on October 15, 2007 at 7:56 PM
If you consider yourself a good photographer but not a good artist, maybe you're just not narcissistic enough.
I used to paint (oils and watercolors) before I got into photography. I was fortunate to receive some formal training in school. I put in a lot of hard work to develop my skills and over time I felt I was able to produce work of decent quality. Then, I switched to photography. Although I have made a lot of progress with this new medium, I feel that I am a lot more lazy these days when it comes to the "effort" dept. Thankfully, the technology surrounding photography has made it possible for me to produce work of higher quality (in the craft dept.) than my paintings. Given this (huge) advantage, I wonder though if I am really making effective use of it to create expressive art.
This is an interesting disscussion. I would like to throw in some of my thoughts although I don't know if they will be relevant.
I am an engineer, or at least that is what I was trained at in school. I can't draw a straight line without a ruler, let alone draw anything that resembled reality. However, I have always been exteremly creative, intuitive, and empathetic. And so even though engineering is very left brained, I always approacehed it from a right brained manner. Thus when I found photography it was the perfect combination to express my feelings in an "artistic" manner through technical means. This is not to say the painting, drawing or sculptor is not technical, because they all have their technaical aspects of form and color and perspective etc.
When I started taking photos, it was more technical in nature - nailing exposure at first then coing up with "good" compositions. However a few years ago I managed to make a photo that for some reason struck people emotionally, in fact it brought several women, all in defferent venues, to tears for reasons they could not explain. As I thought about that image, and what it meant to me personally I realized that art is an expression of what the artist holds his or her heart. That expression comes out in the work produced. The more sincere the expression the more effect it will have on the hearts of those who experience it, and in the end, it makes no difference what medium is used or what the subject matter is - if it is sincere, it will move others.
This changed how I approached photography drastically. I still concern myself with the technical, but now I am more interested in the heart - my heart and the heart of the viewers and what the image I try to make effects those hearts.
I enjoy looking at art to see how it makes me feel. Most "art" has not effect on me at all regardless of the medium, while sometimes I get really moved and then I know where that artist was coming from what what the message conveyed is.
I can care less if the "art world" does not consider photography or how we come up with the final image as art, I know my work moves peoples hearts and that is the only thing that should matter to the "artist" - the patrons, not the critics. Because critics are biased, patrons are not.
Posted by Carl Donohue on October 16, 2007 at 4:51 AM
I know my work moves peoples hearts and that is the only thing that should matter to the "artist" - the patrons, not the critics. Because critics are biased, patrons are not.
Hey Youssef
I don't disagree with much of what you've written in your post, and I don't disagree with what you probably meant to say here .. but I don't think an artist's audience are the only thing that matters at all. I work at making art for what it does for me, and when I do that well enough, it seems to resonate with some of the audience. The only thing that should matter to the artist, IMO, is not the audience at all, but the art itself, and how the experience of creating it moves the artist. Everything else is secondary.
I think everyone following this discussion will be fascinated by this exhibit at the MMA, as described in todays NYT. Photography as art in the 1840's, with comments that fit nicely into this discussion!
Posted by Frank Winters on October 16, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Photography is an art form when it's done artistically (whatever you take that to mean). We use tools to produce works on paper. So do painters and those who draw. The git who said, "it really isn't art" was acting as a judge. To deny a piece because its B&W photography is to deny Henri Cartier-Bresson and Ansel Adams -- pretty silly.
Art is established by presentation and context. Rauschenberg displays flattened cardboard boxes -- he calls them ready mades -- in places like the Guggenheim and Museum of Modern Art in NY. Is it art? If you squint and look into the sun it is. Or if its in the Guggenheim it is. Or if Bob Rauschenberg says it is... Oh and Rauschenberg uses quite a bit of photography in his 'combines' Some of them are his some are 'borrowed.'
If we want to be accepted as artists we err when we over emphasize equipment, technical perfection and accuracy. We are artists when we use photographic tools to catch a glimpse of our own vision of the world and hold it up for others to see.
(I was in a group show at a gallery with two painters in February. We like each other and the painters love my work -- they bought a number of prints; some to paint from some to hang. I love their work as well. We all sold quite a few pieces during the month the show was up. I thought the debate over photography as an art form was over. It is to me in any case.)
Posted by Frank Winters on October 16, 2007 at 12:13 PM
Another thought:
In some respects photography has rejected art.
If a photograph is not up to a predetermined standard of 'sharpness' it is rejected by most photographers.
Cartier-Bresson called the emphasis on sharpness a fetish. I agree.
When Ansel Adams abandoned pictorialisim (a soft painterly approach) for what he and Paul Strand (I think it was) called straight photography the direction was set and we are still under that influence.
While sharp photos can be delightful, so can softer ones. It depends on what the artist is trying to do and what the impact is.
Of course there is a school of 'fine art photography' that seems to believe that if a photo is in focus and sharp its boring and not art. In fact there are lots of fine art photographers such as Cindy Sherman who are well accepted by the art community but they are not found here on NP or 99.999% of the other web sites.
I think the trick to creating art with photographer's tools is to learn all the craft possible but keep the beginners mind when applying them. Keep discovering and capturing whatever life puts in our path.
Easier said than done.
Posted by Buck Ward on October 16, 2007 at 7:49 PM
I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread, although it has taken me about three evenings to find the time to read it to the end.
Many kernels of wisdom and thoughtful insights.
I am artistically illiterate, but the photos that I make are my artistic expression. Are they real art? Are they good art? Well.....
About two weeks ago, I joined our local art league, but I haven't been to any functions yet. I guess I will find out about the art scene. There are some photographers who display their work at the Art League's gallery, but I noticed on the league's schedule of classes and lectures there is no mention of photography.
Interesting discussion. I couldn't help but notice how quickly it evolved from any question about whether the bias exists to one about why it exists and, somewhat more elliptically, about whether it's justified.
Guy's statement really resonated with me: "...I have often thought that if I could paint like Bierstadt or Monet...I may not have been as motivated to pursue photography..."
I have said essentially the same thing; in fact, I may go even further. If I could draw or paint in a manner that I found personally satisfying, I very much doubt I'd have ever become seriously involved with photography at all. But I can't. And thus, perhaps, I'm every bit as biased as the judges.
Posted by Carl Donohue on October 17, 2007 at 3:46 PM
Hey Kerry
I don't think it's a question of whether this perspective exists or not - a simple browse around the web shows a gazillion posts and comments on this notion. I don't think one can rationally argue that this kind of idea isn't prevalent (I wouldn't really call it a bias though).
As for whether I'd paint Vs photograph, I remember one year I headed up to Alaska with a friend of mine, a painter. The difference in both the volume and expense of our gear was, let's say, substantial - reason enough to be a painter. :)
I don't believe that Photography should be judged by the same criteria as art which is created in other mediums any more than you could apply a universal criteria to assess the merits of a rock band as compared to Mendelson. Yes, it's all music but the difference is so obvious that we wouldn't be so ridiculous as to enter the two in the same competition.
Photography is definitely an art but how can you judge it by the same criteria that would apply to canvas and brush? It should be judged by the criteria that applies to photography.
That is not, however, my biggest beef. I get really peaved by "would be photographers" who don't know their ass from a hole in the wall thinking that they could do as well if they had my kind of camera. I have observed that many people who entertain such arrogant notions don't even see the difference between their pitiful attempts and a truly well crafted photograph even after it's pointed out to them. I help out a fellow photographer at his workshop/teaching sessions and I have observed that it's usually not until a student has dispensed with the beginners arrogance that he can begin to see the sublties that sets apart a fine work of photographic art. After that, he begins to get a grasp on the fact that if he learns his craft well he can do it with just about any old camera.
Bob
Posted by Frank Winters on October 17, 2007 at 9:58 PM
Bob,
My mother-law sometimes looks at a photo of mine and says -- wow -- great photo that really is a good camera.
She knows absolutely nothing about photography and has no interest in it. Its ignorance that is speaking in her case and in the case of the arrogant beginners you refer to.
Yes Frank, it's absolutely rooted in ignorance and, truth be told, I was once that ignorant too (a lot of years ago). But I got humbled pretty quick when my instructor began to lead us through the intricacies of the zone system, or choosing a paper surface or contrast grade or exposing for the highlights and printing for the shadows etc. etc. etc. And now, in hindsight, I am very grateful that I was forced to learn it from the ground up because the more I learn the more I realize how much I don't know. But just because I was once that arrogant doesn't make it right for me or anybody else and that's really the point I was trying to make.
Discussion
38 repliesMy images have done pretty well overall. I finished "in the money" once (not best in show) and won honorable mention (or whatever they've termed it) three times, and went unrecognized once. So this isn't "sour grapes" based on how I feel my material was judged; if anything, I've fared better than I expected.
However...my sense is that there's an innate bias against photography at these mixed media shows. I recognize that the following represents something less than a scientific, meaningful sample, but...
In none of the five shows has a photograph won best in show. Only one photo in the five shows other than mine has won a cash award. In three of the shows, my photo was the only one recognized at all. In the one show where my image went unrecognized, no photo was recognized at all. In only one show were there more than two photos (three, in this case) recognized. In none of the shows did the number of photos recognized match or exceed the percentage of show entries that were photographs.
I don't know if there's a fire here but there's an awful lot of smoke.
My sense is that this bias on the part of judges (some of whom are photographers themselves, I hasten to add) isn't conscious. I get the feeling that judges generally regard, for example, a very good painting as more "worthy" than a very good photograph, presumably because of the notion that the former requires more skill, talent and/or effort than the latter.
I'm curious whether anyone else's experience and judgment mirror or contradict my own.
Thanks.
I agree. I think this is because everyone and their dog has a camera and everyone takes pictures. All you doing is taking "better" pictures than most people. Or so their thinking goes.
If you paint, no matter how good/bad you are you're considered an artist.
If you take photographs and you aren't particularly good at it then you are just a person with a camera.
I don't know that this can be extrapolated to the events that you are attending, but I think it is possible. The only solution I can think of is to create the best work you can and present yourself in the most professional manner.
Mel-
Photography is considered craft by many/most people. After all, the subject was there, all you did was point a camera at it. So, all we did was craft an image. There seems to be a sense that ,if the viewer were there, he or she could have crafted that same image
This might be a reason photography seems to lose to "real art."
Pete D. just thinking...
.
Pete D.
Maybe, but only by artists!
I was refused entry to an "open art exhibition" because I wanted to enter some b&w prints! When I asked why the pompous git responded "well because it's not really art, is it".
I went in later in the week to view the 'art' that HAD been accepted and I have to say that the daubs and general rubbish that graced their walls was embarrassing to behold. The overwhelming majority of the work apparently done by people seriously lacking in knowledge of lighting, perspective and composition, not to mention imagination. The sole criterion seemed to be if it was done with a brush it could get hung - I felt like exhibiting my recently painted toilet door.
I had the pleasure of managing to get an opportuntity to give a lecture to these folks some time later, on composition and lighting in photography, and they looked utterly bewildered and completely astonished. I may have opened a few eyes, but sadly the majority are still tightly shut.
There seems a difficulty on some people's part to understand that painted art isn't simply good because it was painted. It can be painted and be unmitigated rubbish, or utterly wonderful, exactly as is the case with photography.
I love to point out to painter friends who use cameras to take images as 'references' for their art work that they're just doing painting-by-numbers.
Any painters here?
Whats your opinion?
Some early ground breakers such as Ansel Adams were viewed as documenters of the far west while painters such as Frederick Remington were considered "artists".
I believe some of this began to change when Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Capa, Alfred Eisendstaedt, and others began to demonstrate that the creative use of composition and light made powerful images. Unfortunately the landscape photographers still fought prejudice by the landscape painters.
I agree that today the bias still exists. The public thinks that after all, when you made that image you took of Mt. Moran at Sunrise or Mesa Arch at Sunrise, or that beautiful waterfall with just the right lighting and slow shutter speed you just "walked up and snapped it".
How many of your friends and neighbors are amazed when you tell them what it took for your to get that great image from your last outing? Most think that you have a "good camera" so the image is good. I love explaining the compositional and lighting elements of my images to my friends. They learn that photography is an art and many will begin to pick up a camera and experiment themselves.
There are common threads among the other judges:
-They all went to art school.
-They've dabbled or had deep experience in a wide variety of mediums.
-They almost never took a photography class while in school, or if they did it wasn't a very good one.
-They only use a camera today as a snapshot tool to record things that they'll later incorporate in their art or less often, to document their own work for submission in competitions.
-They have discovered that photographers usually are pretty uniformed about art mediums other than photography.
-They defer to photographers on the panel to pick the winners in photo categories, but expect the same of photographers in other mediums.
-They can and do leave photographers on the judging panel in the dust when applying adverbs and adjectives to the winners of each category and debating which single artwork is the best of show.
Stir all that up, and the judging photographer along with the exhibiting photographers are pretty well outnumbered by folks who know a lot more about art and the other media, but very little about photography. You can bet that if a panel of five judges consisted of four photographers and one other, a photo would be best of show. Same thing viewed from the other end of the pipe.
It's not much different in juried photo shows where the judge/s are famous artists from other media rather than famous photographers. You will be amazed and probably dismayed by the results. I well recall the top juried photography show in Alaska a few years ago (I wasn't entered, BTW) judged by a famous artist from LA. From among some of the best photography I've seen in a long, long time he picked an enlarged snapshot of a dented snow shovel leaning against a picket fence and surrounded by rotting snow. Technically it was a very poor photo, but he went nuts over the symbolism. Offended as I was, the relative roles of technical excellence and symbolism or "message" in his decision has always struck me as the divide between typical photographers discussions and priorities, and the perception of photography in the larger art world.
I've grown to accept that photos are never going to do well in juried multimedia shows until photographers become more "artistic" in the eyes of other artists, both in their education and their products. The other alternative is to stack or rig the jury panel with a majority of photographers, just as they are now effectively stacked or rigged with non-photographers.
The current state of photography, with digital and Photoshop, seems to be especially snubbed. I have run across a number of "artists" (having seen their work, the quotes are unfortunately appropriate), who believe that my best work was created in Photoshop. Of course, this is obvious when you consider that the sunset was never that bright, Velvia simply doesn't produce those colors, and any piece of crap can become a masterpiece in Photoshop. Clearly, I can't be that good of a photographer
Besides, even if my presentation was honest (it was all done in Photoshop anyway, so the point is an irrelevant tangent anyway), all I am doing is recording what is there, which takes no creative talent.
Ummm, right.
I recently sat through a presentation by an artist/photographer of her best work from the last 40 years. I was excited to see her work since apparently she is well known in the academic art community for her photography. In the end, I was disappointed. Exactly two images, of the hundred or so she presented, made me think that it was more than just technically good. Neither were nature shots, so it wasn't that as a bias. There just was no "soul" to the image. I listened to what she said the images were trying to convey, and it just wasn't there.
Another experience I had was applying to a gallery. I didn't get accepted for display space there, but I kind of expected that. It is a fairly tough gallery to get into and a lot of good artists don't make the cut either. I am fine with that. So one night during Gallery Hop (most of the galleries in one part of Columbus, including this one, are open the first Saturday night of the month), I stopped in to see what is there. As 24x30 Cibichromes, there are 4-5 prints taped to the wall. Yes, you read that correctly. Taped. The images were mediocre shots of the same house, with unexciting compositions and off color casts. The color casts weren't compositional, just slightly off but noticable if you knew what you were doing. Also, I suspect they were from 35 mm frames, since at that size, sharpness simpy wasn't there. I really had to wonder if either the gallery or the artist took their work seriously. I have never been back there.
A lot of the problem I think comes down to most people believing that they could have taking that picture as well. Or if they had that latest superlens with a 38.9432 megapixel camera like I surely own (nope), that would make them a great photographer. The art of seeing what to see, and more importantly, what not to see, just doesn't enter into the equation. Composition, lighting, quality subject matter (a good flower specimen vs one slightly beat up), field time, and technical mastery of the camera are overlooked since Photoshop will cover it.
Another thing - Most of the photographers I know (and some really good ones at that) simply haven't learned the b.s. to describe a photo. It doesn't seem to be a game played by those artists.
Enough of the rant. Time to take some pictures.
First, I’m a photographer. If you like, you may see some of my images in this months featured portfolio on photoportfolios.net. I love a good photographic image and respect the skill that it takes to make one. But, I literally look in awe towards master painters in oil or watercolor. The art they create, I believe, goes beyond what a photographer or a photographic image represents. I believe this is especially true with color photography. I say this despite personally preferring to work in color.
I’m sure some of you have taken oil or watercolor painting classes. If you have, you know what skill it takes to mix accurate colors, let alone to put the paint on the canvas! I tried to become a reasonably good painter and, frankly, failed. Maybe I simply didn’t have the talent. What I do know is that through the effort I now appreciate what is represented in a good oil or watercolor painting. I honestly have more admiration for that work than for a photographic image. That doesn’t mean I don’t love the fact that a photographic image can take me to a place I may have never been, can move me, can inspire me, and can educate me.
There is no randomness in creating a good painting. It takes vision and one heck of a lot of skill. In painting, there is never the possibility of a “lucky” image, like there is in photography. There is never a random “good shot.” Also, it is not typical for photographers to produce just one “original” as is the case in oil or watercolor painting. There may be duplicate prints, but there is only one original. This is naturally going to increase the value of an original painting compared to a photographic image that may have 350 or more copies.
One last thing: I do believe the era of photoshop and other tools to manipulate photographic images has lessened the perceived value of photography. Photography always had one “ace in the hole” that painting did not have: You had to be there for the moment! Now, photography doesn’t fully even have that. Through digital manipulation we can, to some extent, create or alter the moment.
Anyway, that is my take on it. It doesn’t affect my respect for great photographers and photography. It is just that I admire a good painter/painting more. Hope I didn’t offend anybody. RB
Not many artists paint in the field. They cut a image out of National Geographic, a face from a fashion magazine... I know for I asked. If there is a tree they don't want... they leave it out! They can change the colors very easily, change the lighting to fit the mood they want.
Yes, I have managed to save an image in PhotoShop, but I have come to learn since joining here that getting that good original is a real challenge! Yes, I can take many shots to find that special one, but it does not always work that way. I can take 50 shots or more and maybe find 2-5 that fit what I want.
As for painters having a one time shot at doing their work. A very good watercolorist I know, finds it a great challenge to save some bad paintings and she does quite well. I myself have painted over parts of an oil or acrylic painting to try and salvage a work.
I received a degree in Fine Art, I taught art...I did wood sculpture... I chose photography. It is work, it takes time, effort, not just equipment. I shoot with a Digital Rebel (300D) I do use PhotoShop and Painter, but that is because I have so much trouble with the light, settings, speed and all that the photographer needs to know. Plus, I am lazy
I tend to agree with what Richard Bullough said above. I think most of this discussion actually points to one of the main differences, and that is most photographers perceive their work 'technically', whereas most artists think somewhat more about expression. A quick look through all the various discussion forums here, and at similar sites, seems to support this. It's probably particularly true of nature photographers (I'm generalising, of course, but that's ok .. this thread is, by its nature, about generalisations). I don't think great writers, poets, painters, dancers, musicians film makers, etc are as inherently hung up on "technique" as they are other elements of their work. Nature photographers, on other hand, are often seemingly exclusively focused on technique. Photography itself requires technology, unlike say, painting, singing, poetry, story telling, dance, and various other art forms, so it's naturally, IMO, rare that photography doesn't revolve around technique - technique and technology are clearly intertwined.
In fact, for example, I'd suggest that each of the various points made by Barbara, above, about photographers' work, versus that of painters, point to photography being, by its nature more journalistic or documentary. Art needn't be either - though it can certainly be a powerful medium when it's one or even both.
Cheers
Carl
There is definitely a reverse bias here at NPN. "Artsy" is used as a dirty word in comments and to make my point just take a look at the views of Photo Art vs. ESS. Very few people outside of serious photographers realize that It takes skill, imagination and thought to produce a good photograph.
If a photograph excels, or a oil paint excels they will hold there own within their medium. Put all mediums together and the paintings will always average ahead of photographs. The perception is that it takes more skill to paint than to push a button on a camera. This is likely to get worse as more and more people can take images... even using their phones.
In summary, its like trying to judge apples vs. oranges. All mediums are different, but both are a pleasure to view. I appreciate a great photograph and a great painting, for each is unique in their own right.
Quote from Patricia above: "In summary, its like trying to judge apples vs. oranges. All mediums are different, but both are a pleasure to view. I appreciate a great photograph and a great painting, for each is unique in their own right."
Yes, photography is technical, but I look at the components of the camera, the filters etc as the brushes, paints (washes and full paint). The papers used to print can bring about similar changes as to the water color papers, canvas. There is a great deal of creativity in photography, much of it has to come from within... knowing how to look at a scene, knowing what is needed in an image to make it come alive vs a plain jane photo.
I have to commend the gallery for giving this new area a chance... at least for 'Artsy' computer generated work. They may be looking for Mike Gallo's Photo Art... I am going to try anyway.
This is where a lot of photography (and nature photography is particular) has a really hard time. A lot of photographers go to great lengths to remove evidence of themselves from the photograph. Even though the photographer may have spent a year in the field and practically died to get the shot this effort is (often intentionally) hidden in the final output. And also a lot of photographers explicitly position their work as "I am showing my subject exactly as it seemed to me at the time". I know that there have been many conversations on this board about how no photograph really conveys reality but still a lot of the time when photographers talk about their work it is framed in a very documentary way. So when this collides with the "art world" the response often is, "Okay, you're showing this subject as it appeared but what does that contribute to the conversation?"
So I guess the question for the individual photographer is, do you want to enter that world at all? The answer could be no. But if the answer is yes then you have to somehow find a place in the discourse and do things like write the dreaded artist statement.
Anyway, that's my take, for what it's worth since I haven't found my place in the discourse yet either!
I heard the best summary of all this in a workshop with photograher Bill Neill: "I don't care about all the cow pies and broken glass you crawled through to get a photo. I want to hear what the photo has to say for itself."
Conversations between photographers spend a lot of time on the cow pies and broken glass, but almost none on what the photo has to say. That bores non-photographers to death.
Elitism and exclusivity always come into play when members of any group or movement try to assert some kind of superiority over another. This is certainly the case here but is certainly not unique to photography. There are countless examples in the art world, even within a given discipline.
In my mind the best thing we can do is not to respond defensively. When someone tells you they don't consider photography as art, what they are actually saying is that they are unable to appreciate or enjoy it on the same level as other disciplines. If anything, they deserve your sympathy for suffering from such a handicap. Arguing will likely not change their mind. Appreciation of art comes from within and often involves letting go of age-old convictions, which many people are simply unable to do.
At the end of the day you can't please everyone. Share your inspiration with those who can appreciate it.
To Richard's point, I have often thought that if I could paint like Bierstadt or Monet (oh my, am I a pictorialist or an impressionist... which one is real art again?) I may not have been as motivated to pursue photography as I do. Alas, this is what I'm good at and my art demands to be expressed. I consider myself very fortunate to have the capacity to be moved by a profound visual, whether painted, photographed, or a fleeting natural display.
Guy
First, there is some excellent, spot on commentary regard photography's place in the art world. Ana and Richard Bullough make particularly salient points. I should mention that I have a background in mixed media illustration: pencil, watercolor, and airbrush. I was a freelance artist in the mid-70's and used to make a living ( a poor one!) selling my paintings. I supplemented this by painting van murals and custom showbikes. A jack of all trades with a checkered past, you might say.
First, all judges and art dealers suffer from personal biases. They are human, after all. These biases often seem to become exaggerated in the area of judging or evaluating others work regardless of the medium and biases can be powerful even within a favored medium. If you are trying to impress one of these people and your work lies outside their preferred range, you are likely to be disappointed with the result of the interaction. I would like to say serious art critics are more liberal and 'open' than their non-artistic human counterparts, but this is really not the case. If anything, accrued biases can make them even more judgemental. If you want to enter the 'art' world, this is a fact that you will have to deal with. I advise developing a good set of emotional calluses.
As far as photography as art goes, as most have noted here, the odds are stacked against us for all the numerous reasons noted. Most are a matter of erroneous perception, but they are no less real for the perceiver. I will focus on one particular aspect which I suspect plays a large part in the general reception of photography. As a fairly new member here, I echo the observation that the primary focus (pun intended) in the NPN forums is technique rather than content. Given the technical nature of what we do, this is hardly unexpected, even natural. I rely on this bias as learning tool within these forums. That said, an 'artful' photograph must offer something similar to a great painting or great sculpture or great music. It must 'speak' to the observer on more than a superficial 'ooohh-that's pretty' level. Most photography (and most other art for that matter) falls into this latter category. A technically perfect photograph is still nothing more than a well captured picture if it offers nothing to the soul of the observer. A technically flawed photograph can speak volumes to an observer if it captures, even accidentally, something of this mysterious quality. Photographic art is finally achieved at the point that the technical and the spirit converge to produce that image that grabs your audience by the heart, not the eye.
True art is a rare thing, regardless of medium. I have studied thousands of images in all known mediums, by the masters and by total unknowns. The majority of work by the masters of old leave me cold, tho I am still likely to admire their mastery of their technique. Most paintings remain mere illustrations of something or other. Photography is especially subject to this aspect, as 'pictures' are relatively easy to take these days. A good photograph will reflect the skill of the photographer, but does it contain that elusive quality that makes it art? Very few do and there are a lot more photos around than paintings.
I have always had an interest in photography, even when painting, and digital technology has finally made it a practical reality for me. My approach, such as it is at this early stage, is to study the techniques and images of the excellent photographers within this forum, but to also study the images of certain painters that I admire. My goal is to use refined technique to produce images of a high artistic caliber, perhaps having more in common with certain paintings than photography per se.
For some perspective and examples, I offer two artists (painters) whose work I hold in especially high esteem: Maxfield Parrish and Andrew Wyeth. Mr. Parrish was a well known commercial artist whose work will be recognized by many, but I refer specifically to the landscapes he painted in his latter years after he retired from commercial work. Almost anything painted by Wyeth will make a good example. This man really had something. Both artists also provide examples of the enormous amount of preparation and planning that went into a successful image. A single painting typically took many months from concept to completion. How many photographs have taken that level of effort? Truly breathtaking images are the result in the hands of Parrish and Wyeth.
I have taken thousands of photographs so far and have a portfolio of about a hundred decent (saleable) images or so of which maybe a dozen are semi-respectable to my eye from an 'artistic' viewpoint and only one that comes close to my goal as stated above. This latter image can be seen in the Fall issue of Nature Photographer magazine (pg 17) if you happen to have access to a copy. This one image comes passingly close to what I consider Parrish lighting. It invariably stops people when I show it and it invites long deep gazes.
If you want your photography to be considered art, it must contain something of this quality. Nothing is more difficult to capture in an image.
but.....
Are we all Rodney Dangerfield's? and if we are... I for one " Don't give a damn!!!
LET'S JUST KEEP MAKING GREAT IMAGES!
JG
This defines many things, including photography.
Therefore, Photography is art.
QED
This was in the days before digital cameras and LCD viewing screens, and it probably would have taken several months of nightly shooting to bring all the elements into perfect balance. I could probably do it now in one night with a digital camera and especially with the help of Photoshop. But trying to get it all done on a single sheet of film showed me that I needed a quantum leap in craft skills to fulfill my vision. This kind of harks to Barbara's points about computer generated work, doesn't it?
Looking back, that was probably my single most ambitious attempt at "art" with a camera, but the memory inspires me to try it again sometime. An excuse to return to Zion! Thanks a million for that!!!
In my mind that is really the issue here. We are so fortunate to appreciate a "profound visual" and even more fortunate to be able to express, through film or digital capture. Personally, my camera is an outlet and a motivator. When a gin and tonic is sounding mighty good after a long day of hiking or river running, it gets me off my butt, out of camp, to a ridge, and allows me to witness natural wonders. For me, this makes the question of art or craft become irrelevant. RB
I've always felt discussions of fitting landscape photography into some context of art is misguided. The sooner we as a community separate ourselves from desires of being referred to as artists on the level of othe visual artists, the better. That is not to say some photography style are not art as some certainly are, but most photography categories taint. Certainly not news, current events, cultural, travel, fashion, scenic, nature and the like. Rarely do I capture images that fit the artsy category and if so they are almost always geometric abstraction closeups. Sure I refer to my prints on my business card as fine art prints but that is merely a formality in letting people know my product is packaged at the highest level of serious art quality like others that likewise sell such photography. If others stopped labeling their photography so, I would be quick to drop that. Photography does share some conceptualizing with those that create visual art and that is especially so with painters, but beyond that imagination is a wholy different skill of being able to perceive an optimally aesthetic frame within a larger visual landscape and refine that down to a statement of captured beauty versus being able to create one. Thus I see the capture of landscapes as a reflection of a person's ability to perceive and refine a frame of beauty in nature. That is one reason why I tend to not prefer the style of those in our community that tend to be more post processing creative even if that ends up with relatively superior aesthetic quality. Not that there is anything wrong with such a style, but simply that it is different from my own pursuits. For that matter I am not much a fan of any of the above other photography categories I mentioned not because I can't see the skill in what they do but again because it isn't something I have personal passion for. For the same reason, I don't expect to ever get much interest from most sculpters and oil painters for similar reasons. ...David
I used to paint (oils and watercolors) before I got into photography. I was fortunate to receive some formal training in school. I put in a lot of hard work to develop my skills and over time I felt I was able to produce work of decent quality. Then, I switched to photography. Although I have made a lot of progress with this new medium, I feel that I am a lot more lazy these days when it comes to the "effort" dept. Thankfully, the technology surrounding photography has made it possible for me to produce work of higher quality (in the craft dept.) than my paintings. Given this (huge) advantage, I wonder though if I am really making effective use of it to create expressive art.
I am an engineer, or at least that is what I was trained at in school. I can't draw a straight line without a ruler, let alone draw anything that resembled reality. However, I have always been exteremly creative, intuitive, and empathetic. And so even though engineering is very left brained, I always approacehed it from a right brained manner. Thus when I found photography it was the perfect combination to express my feelings in an "artistic" manner through technical means. This is not to say the painting, drawing or sculptor is not technical, because they all have their technaical aspects of form and color and perspective etc.
When I started taking photos, it was more technical in nature - nailing exposure at first then coing up with "good" compositions. However a few years ago I managed to make a photo that for some reason struck people emotionally, in fact it brought several women, all in defferent venues, to tears for reasons they could not explain. As I thought about that image, and what it meant to me personally I realized that art is an expression of what the artist holds his or her heart. That expression comes out in the work produced. The more sincere the expression the more effect it will have on the hearts of those who experience it, and in the end, it makes no difference what medium is used or what the subject matter is - if it is sincere, it will move others.
This changed how I approached photography drastically. I still concern myself with the technical, but now I am more interested in the heart - my heart and the heart of the viewers and what the image I try to make effects those hearts.
I enjoy looking at art to see how it makes me feel. Most "art" has not effect on me at all regardless of the medium, while sometimes I get really moved and then I know where that artist was coming from what what the message conveyed is.
I can care less if the "art world" does not consider photography or how we come up with the final image as art, I know my work moves peoples hearts and that is the only thing that should matter to the "artist" - the patrons, not the critics. Because critics are biased, patrons are not.
Hey Youssef
I don't disagree with much of what you've written in your post, and I don't disagree with what you probably meant to say here .. but I don't think an artist's audience are the only thing that matters at all. I work at making art for what it does for me, and when I do that well enough, it seems to resonate with some of the audience. The only thing that should matter to the artist, IMO, is not the audience at all, but the art itself, and how the experience of creating it moves the artist. Everything else is secondary.
Cheers
Carl
I think everyone following this discussion will be fascinated by this exhibit at the MMA, as described in todays NYT. Photography as art in the 1840's, with comments that fit nicely into this discussion!
Art is established by presentation and context. Rauschenberg displays flattened cardboard boxes -- he calls them ready mades -- in places like the Guggenheim and Museum of Modern Art in NY. Is it art? If you squint and look into the sun it is. Or if its in the Guggenheim it is. Or if Bob Rauschenberg says it is... Oh and Rauschenberg uses quite a bit of photography in his 'combines' Some of them are his some are 'borrowed.'
If we want to be accepted as artists we err when we over emphasize equipment, technical perfection and accuracy. We are artists when we use photographic tools to catch a glimpse of our own vision of the world and hold it up for others to see.
(I was in a group show at a gallery with two painters in February. We like each other and the painters love my work -- they bought a number of prints; some to paint from some to hang. I love their work as well. We all sold quite a few pieces during the month the show was up. I thought the debate over photography as an art form was over. It is to me in any case.)
In some respects photography has rejected art.
If a photograph is not up to a predetermined standard of 'sharpness' it is rejected by most photographers.
Cartier-Bresson called the emphasis on sharpness a fetish. I agree.
When Ansel Adams abandoned pictorialisim (a soft painterly approach) for what he and Paul Strand (I think it was) called straight photography the direction was set and we are still under that influence.
While sharp photos can be delightful, so can softer ones. It depends on what the artist is trying to do and what the impact is.
Of course there is a school of 'fine art photography' that seems to believe that if a photo is in focus and sharp its boring and not art. In fact there are lots of fine art photographers such as Cindy Sherman who are well accepted by the art community but they are not found here on NP or 99.999% of the other web sites.
I think the trick to creating art with photographer's tools is to learn all the craft possible but keep the beginners mind when applying them. Keep discovering and capturing whatever life puts in our path.
Easier said than done.
Many kernels of wisdom and thoughtful insights.
I am artistically illiterate, but the photos that I make are my artistic expression. Are they real art? Are they good art? Well.....
About two weeks ago, I joined our local art league, but I haven't been to any functions yet. I guess I will find out about the art scene. There are some photographers who display their work at the Art League's gallery, but I noticed on the league's schedule of classes and lectures there is no mention of photography.
Yes you said it much more clearly what I was trying to say. Thanks.
Guy's statement really resonated with me: "...I have often thought that if I could paint like Bierstadt or Monet...I may not have been as motivated to pursue photography..."
I have said essentially the same thing; in fact, I may go even further. If I could draw or paint in a manner that I found personally satisfying, I very much doubt I'd have ever become seriously involved with photography at all. But I can't. And thus, perhaps, I'm every bit as biased as the judges.
I don't think it's a question of whether this perspective exists or not - a simple browse around the web shows a gazillion posts and comments on this notion. I don't think one can rationally argue that this kind of idea isn't prevalent (I wouldn't really call it a bias though).
As for whether I'd paint Vs photograph, I remember one year I headed up to Alaska with a friend of mine, a painter. The difference in both the volume and expense of our gear was, let's say, substantial - reason enough to be a painter. :)
Cheers
Carl
Photography is definitely an art but how can you judge it by the same criteria that would apply to canvas and brush? It should be judged by the criteria that applies to photography.
That is not, however, my biggest beef. I get really peaved by "would be photographers" who don't know their ass from a hole in the wall thinking that they could do as well if they had my kind of camera. I have observed that many people who entertain such arrogant notions don't even see the difference between their pitiful attempts and a truly well crafted photograph even after it's pointed out to them. I help out a fellow photographer at his workshop/teaching sessions and I have observed that it's usually not until a student has dispensed with the beginners arrogance that he can begin to see the sublties that sets apart a fine work of photographic art. After that, he begins to get a grasp on the fact that if he learns his craft well he can do it with just about any old camera.
Bob
My mother-law sometimes looks at a photo of mine and says -- wow -- great photo that really is a good camera.
She knows absolutely nothing about photography and has no interest in it. Its ignorance that is speaking in her case and in the case of the arrogant beginners you refer to.
Frank
bob