A question of Art

athos

gus wrote:

Everyone can say what they like...the fact that i dont like the photo is my opinion.

of course. but the fact is you dismissed his right to have any opinion about the responses, mainly yours.

in other words, yet again, you can dish it out, but cant take it.

i really cant spell it out for you any clearer. good luck witht hat.

retro

come on,if it wasnt for the word "art" this argue wouldnt be, strong feelings is good but at a certain point it becomes childish,,:

gus

ok...we will try again. The photo (art subject) appears to me little more than someone taking a shot & hitting a button in photoshop & calling it art. When i see this 'style' i immediately think that the photo was either oof or just so ordinary that little else could be done with it...if someone likes it & buys it then hey its money in the persons pocket but i just see something that is so far removed from photography (sorry..i ment to say art ,in that little skill is req) that it cant be called so. Sorry if i dont sugar coat stuff...i call what i see.

saurora

The discussion of what defines "Art" will always stir up controversy. In the beginning there were carvings from stone and ashes and berries were used to create drawings. The advancement to pigments, oils, acrylics came along and paintings using those tools became the accepted norm. The camera was invented and "whoa!!!" all heck broke loose. Artists abandoned portraiture (why paint when a camera will do a much better job?) and they were free to explore abstract art. Interestingly, many questioned (and still do) whether this new form of painting was "art". Today, as photographers, we still are fighting the battle of whether photographic images qualify as "art". Oh, it's art if it's in the style of Ansel Adams perhaps, but what qualifies a photograph to be considered "art"? Now along comes digital and Photoshop. A whole new ballgame. I am not exposed to lots of paintings, but when I see an art show at a shopping center or wherever, I rarely see paintings that move me and make me want to purchase. Some are pure rubbish in my opinion. Does that mean they are not art? I don't really know. Just because someone used paint and a brush, does that make it art? I don't think so. Some digital images are absolutely magnificent and take hours and hours to produce and in my mind, they also take a certain amount of "vision". One quality I think is important in any form of artistic endeavor is "vision". So, there is no easy answer to whether or not this image you have rendered with software qualifies as "art". I think it is purely subjective and I don't think it was a question that needed to be put forth. You seem to have your answer to the really important question.......will people buy it. The majority seem to say "yes". So go for it! I might add, that when I was growing up every house had scads of reproductions of real paintiings done on cardboard and sealed with laquer hanging about. This was the norm back then, few could afford real "art". But they served a purpose and filled a need for art to display....which I think most people display some form of artistic expression. So it's ok for Gus to say he wouldn't buy it, because he probably displays his own images. I wouldn't buy it either, but only because I prefer straight photograhy. I have even made a few of my own just for fun. I'm not against it in any way and I think you should give it a shot.

Ok, I guess I've rambled enough!

retro

saurora wrote:

The camera was invented and "whoa!!!" all heck broke loose. Artists abandoned portraiture (why paint when a camera will do a much better job?) and they were free to explore abstract art. Interestingly, many questioned (and still do) whether this new form of painting was "art".

oh well, when we're arguing we could just as well be correct and your short "art history" aren't exactly what i would call true. Manet inspired Cezanne, who inspired Picasso and Braque to start the movement called "cubism" Personally i think photography played a very small role here. Certanly the camera wasnt the trigger for abstract art. Manet-Cezanne-Picasso/Braque-DeKooning IMHO thats the magic four/five of abstract art. Kirkeby is the follower into modern times..we could argue if he's stuck in the past or how big picassos role was in this..but I'm sure photography played a minor role.
If you want i will explain in detail.
IMHO photography now is were painting were around 1900..

saurora

retro wrote:

oh well, when we're arguing we could just as well be correct and your short "art history" aren't exactly what i would call true. Manet inspired Cezanne, who inspired Picasso and Braque to start the movement called "cubism" Personally i think photography played a very small role here. Certanly the camera wasnt the trigger for abstract art. Manet-Cezanne-Picasso/Braque-DeKooning IMHO thats the magic four/five of abstract art. Kirkeby is the follower into modern times..we could argue if he's stuck in the past or how big picassos role was in this..but I'm sure photography played a minor role.
If you want i will explain in detail.
IMHO photography now is were painting were around 1900..

I was not implying photography started the movement to abstract art, only that it freed still life/portrait artists to expore other types of art. At least, that's what I remember from my Art History classes. As my memory fails me often these days, perhaps I need to dust off my books

martin-images

I think the question I asked has been well answered, some would and others would not buy an image like this, for me well I buy what takes my fancy be it by brush or digital, beauty is in the eye of the beholder what one likes others do not , I ask myself would I buy an image like this the answer is lol possiably but I would prefere it to have been done by hand that way it is totaly original, the image posted here can be reproduced time and time again and thats the big difference, anyway thanks to "ALL" of you for your interest in this subject which i found to be interesting and very helpful
Regards
Martin

Heres another in the same style for you to look at , of course its been photoshop mangled :-)

askme2flashu

Well this leaves one to wonder where Giclee prints fits in to this whole realm of art?

I wonder if anyone would ever buy one?

Duh.

AfterImage

martin-images wrote:

Heres another in the same style for you to look at , of course its been photoshop mangled :-)

You see, that is another one I could see people buying.
Offer it up in posters and prints and I'm sure you'd sell a few if you setup shop in the right place. (Read: trendy shopping tourist town)

As a piece of art (regardless of the source) it is quite captivating and personally I like it better than the first one.

douglas

This Is the closest thing Ive seen to "Art" from a camera http://www.rangefindermag.com/magazine/Sep06/showpage.taf?page=40. From my understanding no filters or plugins were used. Alot of shaking the camera and zooming and standard photoshop tools. Its actually quite interesting and unique atleast to me anyway, ive never seen anything like it from a camera.

It doesnt matter what you call it, if it sells I say go for it.

gtc

as a photo..no way,but
maybe as a carpet ,or something like that? Hope this helps.

ziggy53

Martin,

The concept of "Art" is a subjective phenomenon that, unfortunately, people try to quantify and objectify. It is so unfortunate because it is so fruitless and gains nothing.

Does your image have "artistic qualities"? Depending on which artistic qualities you choose, yes it does.

I see good use of composition, light and color. I miss the photgraphic qualities of texture and detail.

Would it sell? Try it and see.

Would everybody buy it? Probably ... not!

ziggy53

thebigsky

Having just returned from Cornwall where I visited a number of picture and gift shops it seems you can sell any old tat these days.

I'm at the very beginning of my journey of learning photography and yet I've already taken pictures that are better than some of those that were on sale 'by famous local photographers.'

Supply and demand is a great thing, it will answer your question without any of the emotion involved in the argument.

I can't understand why anyone would buy such a picture, but they probably will so go for it.

Cantfeelmyfingers

I really like it. I'm glad that people are starting to be less conservative with they're photos, doing something a little more creative and 'outside the box'. Jamie.