-

DinghyDog

-

Aga81

I think art is what you want it to be. If you think it's good enough... and if you find ppl who say that... I love take pictures and I don't care if anyone say it's good or not. It's my fun, my pleasure, and my hobby. The most important thing is to love what you're doin and make it fun

DinghyDog

-

justam

I was trained as a musician and don't know much about visual art. Meaning, I don't know why some things are better than others in a technical sense. I'm ignorant that way.

However, I've noticed that the best photos are more than just the objects in them. For the feeling they give you, or the way the shapes look, or the way the colors combine, or the way the light hits the subject, or the unusual way something is captured makes a photo look like art to me.

I'm sure there are rules about composition that trained photographers know in the same way that trained artists know about composition and focal points, etc...

For an untrained person like me I feel there has to be SOMETHING in the picture that gives me a feeling or that captures my attention or curiosity,

But, everyone is different and their eyes may not be interested in the same things. How's that for a vague answer?!

DinghyDog

-

Aga81

DinghyDog wrote:

Aga81 wrote:

I think art is what you want it to be. If you think it's good enough... and if you find ppl who say that... I love take pictures and I don't care if anyone say it's good or not. It's my fun, my pleasure, and my hobby. The most important thing is to love what you're doin and make it fun

Ha, I was hoping to have plenty of discussion about this, but it looks like you might have summed it up in your very first line "art is what you want it to be". I think you might have been right when you said "if you think it's good enough" than it is art, but I don't necessarily agree that you have to find other people who also say that it is good enough. Maybe the difference between someone who takes photos (which is just about everybody) and an artist is solely the passion and the joy of taking the photograph. I look at my family photos and see no art there, just documentation. And although I had joy and passion for the subject matter of the photo, I was not particularly passionate about the photography process.

but look at the paintings - Picasso - how many ppl would say it's awful when so many others call it art... He wasn't artist when he was alive but now... I don't think art has any rules or borders

DinghyDog

-

justam

I think you might get the type of answers you're looking for if you took your question to an art forum or a photography forum.

This is a PJ forum where some of us just have the hobby of taking pictures because we enjoy it! :P

catefrances

justam wrote:

I think you might get the type of answers you're looking for if you took your question to an art forum or a photography forum.

This is a PJ forum where some of us just have the hobby of taking pictures because we enjoy it! :P

and then theres the tragics who cant not take pics.

justam

catefrances wrote:

and then theres the tragics who cant not take pics.

DinghyDog

-

DinghyDog

-

7RayZ

I love photography. It was my first love. I always pictured my home when I grew older would have a darkroom.

( so much for dreams)

It really takes a fantastic eye and sense to find & capture a fleeting glimpse or a picture on how you view the world which always makes for a spectacular photo.

sj.brodie

I suggest reading a book called "What Is Art?" by Leo Tolstoy. The main argument is that art is essentially a spiritual exersize and uniquely human, therefore unification is a crucial value. According to Tolstoy, good art always contains the same components (such as sincerity and religious consiousness) The extent to which art is good depends more on ideals than technical ability. It's an inspiring read!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Art%3F

LloydXmas

"What is art? Are we art? Is art art?"

L. Turtle

catefrances

DinghyDog wrote:

catefrances wrote:

justam wrote:

I think you might get the type of answers you're looking for if you took your question to an art forum or a photography forum.

This is a PJ forum where some of us just have the hobby of taking pictures because we enjoy it! :P

and then theres the tragics who cant not take pics.

Do you feel stressed out or just a little on edge or even just not quite satisfied with life if you can't take photos? I find drawing and painting very relaxing (and sometimes stressful, but enjoyably so) and I always feel better when I am doing it a just not quite right when I haven't done it for ages. And I've done very little in the last 7 years or so.

What kind of things to you consider when you are taking a photo?

i feel like an arm is missing when i dont have my camera with me. and i do feel anxious if for some reason i cant take pics when im somewhere where that was my intent. late october i was in a cemetery(my fave place to be) and my batteries ran out. i was not even half way through my wander and i didnt have backup power. inside my head i was trying to reason with myself, telling myself it was ok, that i could just take in the beautiful trees and monuments. and that wasok... i couldve done that if only id not have had my camera dead in my pocket. but then i kept thinking this cemetery is 10000 miles from my home and what if i dont get another chance to document what ive seen.. to have those rememberences. then the friend i was with said i could take pics with my phone. for a minute i was buoyed by that thought and i did take a few pics. then it started to rain and ive never been so relieved to have an excuse to get out of a cemetery in my life. fortunately i will get the chance to go back to that cemetery next year and i just cant wait. but i also know its equal parts for the photography and that ill be able to complete the experience of engaging in my favourite pasttime in my fave environment with a friend i want to share that with. i find it interesting that people taking photos in the same environment and not being that far from each other at any time can take different photos. they see things differently... they choose to include and exclude different things... they decide on different angles. and im always interested in why a certain pic was taken. sorry to be so long winded but...

on the same trip i happened across the gateway arch and a normal person would be thinking a pic of the arch in its entirety would be sufficient for their rememberence, but there i was taking pics from different angles, with it in the foreground and in background, different angles, just sections of it... i couldnt get enough of it. had it been reflected in a body of water id have been delirious. and its quite possible id still be there now shooting it if i hadntve had some place else i had to be. its like how can i make this interesting. the digital camera technological is a boon for people who would otherwise go through roll after roll of conventional film.

oh and i got a new camera for xmas... so lookout world im coming for you!!!

catefrances

What kind of things to you consider when you are taking a photo?

i consider the angle im going to take the pic from, the size of the subject, whether or not im gonna take a full shot or just parts of the whole, its colour, its shape, its historical provenance, whether it belongs where i find it, is it permanent or just a visitor, the time of day(which determines the light available and how the subject reflects or absorbs that light). i also consider whether or not im intruding. but the most important thing is whether or not the subject is of interest to me.

catefrances

Aga81 wrote:

but look at the paintings - Picasso - how many ppl would say it's awful when so many others call it art... He wasn't artist when he was alive but now... I don't think art has any rules or borders

oh he was an artist when he was alive, tis just people, generally speaking, didnt understand what he was doing so they dismissed it(they still do). same with jackson pollock, to name another 'misunderstood' artist. society(or a certain section of society) is the arbiter of what is art and what is not and for the general populace, who have always been told what art is cause theyre access has been limited, it can be confronting to think what there looking at is something that the like and yet 'its not art' according to 'those in the know'. the art world is bullshit... if i hang it in a gilt frame and its on the wall of a prestigious gallery then its art... if however i find it on the side of a bus stop then its not. that maxim, i dont know what art is but i know what i like is one of my guiding principles.

im not a fan of the mona lisa, never have been yet the general consensus is its a priceless work or art. i find it boring. i see no motion in it and i cant connect with it... now give me botticelli's judiths return from the enemy camp and i get chills. heres a painting that oozes female power, that shows grace and movement and that isnt afraid to show women as the protagonist and not just as some submissive lady of the manor or madonna type creature. whenever i speak of the mona lisa it is always in tandem with judith... so that i can make my case as to why the art world and those that seek to control it are quite often full of shit. what art is, is a matter of opinion and i thank goodness for contrary opinions.

DinghyDog

-

catefrances

DinghyDog wrote:

catefrances wrote:

.....
oh and i got a new camera for xmas... so lookout world im coming for you!!!

Wow, sounds like photography is as important as food and water to you

I think my daughter may be a budding photographer. She had shown an interest in taking photos so we gave her our old digital camera for her 5th birthday (we have updated). She was over the moon and taking pictures of everything from every angle, including taking a picture while sliding down a slippery dip. The other day she got a special money box and we said she should take a picture of it to email to her grand parents. She was very excited, her first response was "I need more light" and off she ran to find a sunnier area of the house. I'm surprised at the things she comes up with, because we've never consciously taught her anything about photography (including needing good lighting), we've just been letting her have fun. She takes some interesting photos sometimes. Definitely thanks in a very different way to her boring old parents. Everything is new and interesting to a child.

when i was going through my memcards after my recent trip stateside i came across these pics i know i didnt take cause they were out of focus and weird angles and of things such as dolls heads, crap on the table and the floor. turns out the toddlermonster got ahold of my camera apparently so im told while i was sitting in the same room.

goldrush

DinghyDog wrote:

I've certainly seen some photographs that are obviously arty, but more often than not great photography is just beautifully taken pictures, and as much as I like seeing them and find it especially admirable because I am no good at taking photos myself, it does make me wonder what is art? Good photography is a wonderful skill, but when does it become art?

I'm not meaning for this to sound at all negative. I see that the photography threads are the most popular, and I'm not meaning to minimalise the artistic abilities of the photographers here. I am just curious to read the responses, especially from the great photographers among us.

I think all visual imagery can be considered art, whether it's a painting or a photograph. The only thing that's changed is the medium with which the image was captured. Centuries ago painting was pretty much the only way to capture visual imagery, from primitive cave paintings to the most celebrated of artists. Now as technology has evolved we have still cameras, video cameras, phones etc.

In the same way that MP3s are the modern version of the phonautograph, the family portrait that would have taken days to paint all those years ago has become the family photo that your drunk uncle takes at Christmas. It's just a new way to visually capture a moment in time.

I'm not saying that one art form is better than the other - I can't paint but I can appreciate painting, I take a lot of photos but it's just a hobby - I just think it's a natural step in our evolution. Photography for me, like all art, is all about how it makes you feel and I think it can be considered a legitimate art form. Photos are open to interpretation in the same way that paintings are and different people will get different things out of them. There are good and bad photos just like there are good and bad paintings. I have seen some paintings that have blown me away and some photos that have left me in tears.