Automotive Photography...art?

MaleficZ

It seems that whenever I call any automotive photography art, a few people get mad....

So the question stands. Is Automotive Photography art?

dragon300zx

as with any kind of photography it most certainly is, and it most certainley isn't. It depends on the style. A automotive picture for a car ad in a magazine (like auto trader) I would consider more of a commercial photograph than art (technicality) but then there are other automotive photos that are 100% art.

Mike Lane

dragon300zx wrote:

as with any kind of photography it most certainly is, and it most certainley isn't. It depends on the style. A automotive picture for a car ad in a magazine (like auto trader) I would consider more of a commercial photograph than art (technicality) but then there are other automotive photos that are 100% art.

That's a good answer dragon...

It's an interesting question: What is art? Are there various levels of art or is something either art or not art? Who gets to decide? Is there some kind of criteria.

You see this played out in the press a lot when it comes to art that touches a political or religious or whatever nerve (statues of the virgin mary made of poo for example).

Note: I'm certainly not making any judgements (nor do I feel qualified to make any judgements) about the artistic value of anything, just conversing.

dragon300zx

I think alot of what would make it art is decided by the one who takes the photograph. If you are setting out to try and make a beautiful picture, something that you would hang on your own wall, something that makes you feel something, (whether anyone else would or not) thats more of what I think of as being art. Granted as with anything sometimes that fits and sometimes it doesn't (art is like love, you can't really define it 100%). You go out and take a photo of something just to get a photo and document it could it be a great photo that becomes art, yes, typically however it's just a photograph (auto trader, insurance documentation, mug shots) and not art. But then again beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To some a cambells soup can is a glorious peice of art. To others it's what lunch came in and you toss it as soon as lunch is out of it.

Mike Lane wrote:

That's a good answer dragon...

It's an interesting question: What is art? Are there various levels of art or is something either art or not art? Who gets to decide? Is there some kind of criteria.

You see this played out in the press a lot when it comes to art that touches a political or religious or whatever nerve (statues of the virgin mary made of poo for example).

Note: I'm certainly not making any judgements (nor do I feel qualified to make any judgements) about the artistic value of anything, just conversing.

MaleficZ

Very true both of you. And it really depends on how the photographer shoots it. I like to think I'm in the middle. None of that artsy all you can see is a 5 inch squar of fender.

Mike Lane

dragon300zx wrote:

I think alot of what would make it art is decided by the one who takes the photograph. If you are setting out to try and make a beautiful picture, something that you would hang on your own wall, something that makes you feel something, (whether anyone else would or not) thats more of what I think of as being art. Granted as with anything sometimes that fits and sometimes it doesn't (art is like love, you can't really define it 100%). You go out and take a photo of something just to get a photo and document it could it be a great photo that becomes art, yes, typically however it's just a photograph (auto trader, insurance documentation, mug shots) and not art. But then again beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To some a cambells soup can is a glorious peice of art. To others it's what lunch came in and you toss it as soon as lunch is out of it.

It's definitely not easy to quantify is it? Consider that you could certainly use auto trader, insurance documentation, mug shots, and outright pornography (my addition to your list) to make art. Art to me is something that makes you think, if even for a second. That's a little bit loose, but here's what I mean. I think you're right, the auto trader shots are just shots of cars to convey the idea that the car isn't a complete piece of junk, but if those shots could be used in some way to convey some kind of irony or as a statement about the world (I'm not that great of an artist to know how exactly) would those shots not then be considered art?

One thing I'm thinking of is the photo mosaics that I've seen recently. There was one that was a huge mosaic of John Ashcroft made of thousands of hard core porn images. It's a bunch of hard core porn, but you could consider it art. The other mosaic was a mosaic of Bush made with the standard military head shots of the soldiers that died during the Iraq War. Those standard headshots aren't art per se but the way they were combined is (in my view).

Still not arguing (it's so hard to tell with just text to read)...