I see many photograph that have been manipulated by extractions from another photograph. Some are very beautiful, and done very well. Is this considered to be photo art/and or digital art? I see that company's that print on canvas consider this as a category.
Posted by Lon Overacker on January 18, 2012 at 4:26 PM
Jackie,
Good question and perhaps a good spark for a discussion. In my mind they can be considered one in the same. Although "photo art" doesn't necessarily mean "digital." In other words, photographers have been using the analog darkroom to create "photo art" and so it doesn't necessarily have to mean digital. It's like digital art would be a subset of photo art, if that makes sense.
I had a chance to help update and re-write the photography categories for our local county fair last year. We came up with 4 divisions of photography for entering the fair. 1. Color photograph, 2. Black & White photograph, 3. Alternative Process/Mixed Media (polaroid transfer, hand tinting, pinhole, IR/XRay,etc. etc.) and lastly 4. Creative Digital Photograph. We defined that last category as:
"Creative Digital Photographs: Color or black-and-white photograph that has been creatively altered, manipulated, or enhanced to introduce effects or elements not present in the original scene or photograph."
Personally I didn't like including the word "digital" simply because it might exclude some creative work done in a darkroom. However, we concluded an entry could then be put in the Alternative process division. But I liked the definition specifically because it does not include examples. For the second you list something like say, camera-blur, then you can have equally valid arguments for or against whether or not that is "manipulation" or whatever. And by having it vague, you can take any example and apply it to the rule to see it it's true or not. Rather than listing every possible manipulation and determining if it's "photo art" or not.
Not sure if this addresses your question or not, but my two cents.
Lon
Posted by Brad Mangas on January 18, 2012 at 8:19 PM
I understand your question Jackie and believe Lon done a fine job of addressing what probably is the just of your question.
I would like to address this from a point of view that struck me. You ask about Photo Art & Digital Art, with emphasis on the "Photo" and "Digital" part, the one thing you mentioned that is common to both is "Art". What designates something to be classified as "Art"? Just because someone takes a picture and puts it in a expensive frame by no means makes it "Art". The same holds true for a digital creation by whatever means. Could it be the real question is at what point is a photograph or any creation considered "art" vs just something you have produced. We should seriously consider that before applying labels such as Fine "Art" Photography, it could actually be doing way more harm in the form of completely diluting what has for decades been the basis of true "art".
I guess I strayed from your question so please forgive my using of your post for such deviation, but it is what came to mind when I read the question.
Took a look at your facebook page, Brad. Great photographs.
Posted by Jim Bullard on January 19, 2012 at 9:48 AM
To me the distinction would be in the starting point. If the image began life as a photograph but has been modified through the use of filters or other digital means, it is 'photo-art' while a image that was created from scratch in a digital drawing/painting program using a tablet or mouse it is 'digital-art'. The difference may not be apparent to the eye as anyone who has seen the digital paintings of Burt Montroy http://www.bertmonroy.com/ will attest. Ultimately it is a distinction without a lot of meaning. I once had a gallery director suggest that I could no longer call my digitally altered photos "photographs" because they didn't look like photographs. My response was "If someone paints photo-realistically is it no longer a painting?" She had no answer and my own concern is more about the quality of the image than what it is called. I know that those managing galleries and shows like to make distinctions though so I stick to the definition that if it began life as a photograph, it is photo-art and it was created from scratch using a tablet or mouse, it is digital-art.
Posted by Stan Wojtaszek on September 19, 2012 at 6:00 PM
I'm not sure where "digital" stops and "photo" begins.
If we have to pigeon hole it, maybe both these genres should be lump together into a "computer generated art" because neither one actually exists. (?)
I don't think this is actually considered an issue with something like painting, is it?
Hi Stan, the company that prints my photographs prints them on canvas. They also sell my work and always ask what category.should this print be listed in. If I create a photograph from many photographs then I always list it for sale as digital art. I do paint on canvas and prefer that my photographs to be printed on canvas. Of course the customers have a choice about what they want it printed on, but for me, always canvas. Personally, like you, I like the term "computer generated art" as well.
Discussion
7 repliesGood question and perhaps a good spark for a discussion. In my mind they can be considered one in the same. Although "photo art" doesn't necessarily mean "digital." In other words, photographers have been using the analog darkroom to create "photo art" and so it doesn't necessarily have to mean digital. It's like digital art would be a subset of photo art, if that makes sense.
I had a chance to help update and re-write the photography categories for our local county fair last year. We came up with 4 divisions of photography for entering the fair. 1. Color photograph, 2. Black & White photograph, 3. Alternative Process/Mixed Media (polaroid transfer, hand tinting, pinhole, IR/XRay,etc. etc.) and lastly 4. Creative Digital Photograph. We defined that last category as:
"Creative Digital Photographs: Color or black-and-white photograph that has been creatively altered, manipulated, or enhanced to introduce effects or elements not present in the original scene or photograph."
Personally I didn't like including the word "digital" simply because it might exclude some creative work done in a darkroom. However, we concluded an entry could then be put in the Alternative process division. But I liked the definition specifically because it does not include examples. For the second you list something like say, camera-blur, then you can have equally valid arguments for or against whether or not that is "manipulation" or whatever. And by having it vague, you can take any example and apply it to the rule to see it it's true or not. Rather than listing every possible manipulation and determining if it's "photo art" or not.
Not sure if this addresses your question or not, but my two cents.
Lon
I would like to address this from a point of view that struck me. You ask about Photo Art & Digital Art, with emphasis on the "Photo" and "Digital" part, the one thing you mentioned that is common to both is "Art". What designates something to be classified as "Art"? Just because someone takes a picture and puts it in a expensive frame by no means makes it "Art". The same holds true for a digital creation by whatever means. Could it be the real question is at what point is a photograph or any creation considered "art" vs just something you have produced. We should seriously consider that before applying labels such as Fine "Art" Photography, it could actually be doing way more harm in the form of completely diluting what has for decades been the basis of true "art".
I guess I strayed from your question so please forgive my using of your post for such deviation, but it is what came to mind when I read the question.
If we have to pigeon hole it, maybe both these genres should be lump together into a "computer generated art" because neither one actually exists. (?)
I don't think this is actually considered an issue with something like painting, is it?