other people's artwork

Does taking a straight, documentary picture of somebody else's artwork constitute good photography?

If I had gone to great lengths to create a great composition which included or focussed on some public art piece or was an exquisite photo of maybe a portion of an object then that would be different.

What d you think?

(bit of a rushed question, I might have to explain myself later)

I'm pretty sure that whichever piece of public art you choose to shoot, that you could do a very good job, very poor job, or somewhere in-between, so if done well, good photography.

the only issue is copyright.
If somebody photographed one of your photos and started selling it for commercial gains......
so what constitutes fair use? editorial, social commentary, and such.
If somebody photographed a group of people reacting to one of my photos, with my photo prominent in the image, and used it for say, a magazine artical, in good taste, I'd drop 'em a thank you note.
If used offensivily, I'd drop em a cease and decist letter.
if they just photographed it and started selling thier photos as postcards, or advertising a product......well they'll either pay me alot of money, or they'll be paying some lawyers alot of money...but they won't profit from it, if there's anything I can do about it.

Well that sums it up nicely!

What we are probably talking about here is the recording of an exact record of a piece of artwork, maybe for a book on Art or an article for a magazine. In this context the image must be absolutely perfect to be a job well done. A product shot would be an example where this is taken one step further to show the object creatively.

It's a big subject for a hurried question - what exactly is the context?

I agree, but really, I'm on on a - 'can a straight photo of someone else's work ever be a good photo?' vibe.

Personally, I think not, and even an exquisite composition would have to give due reference to the original inspiration - the art piece.

I'm trying to be a little cryptic and purely philosophical here, so as not to offend anyone. Which I have been known to do

I'm confused. If you mean a photograph of a painting taken for reproduction purposes then it can and should be technically excellent but not in itself artistic. Elliot Erwitt is the master of photographing works in museums and saying something.

http://www.ellioterwitt.com

IMO any photo of an art piece (any art) where the photo itself has no more merit than being sharp etc. is to me essentially the creative property of the original artist and the photo is nothing more than a technical record for which the photographer could be paid for his time. The photo shouldn't be reproduced or shown publicly without the permission of the artist and no accolade other than technical can be awarded for it.

This is just my view, I have always held this opinion, I'm just wondering if I am alone

The grey area is at which point the photo stands out on its own merits as a creative piece. But in any case at no point should the original art be dismissed or not given due recognition.
If it is a public statue (for instance), the recognition is implicit, as the piece is widely recognised, but the photo has to stand alone even if the statue is really great and automatically makes a great photo!

I understand the point you are trying to make, but I just wonder whether the example is not helpful to the argument.

If someone were to copy a painting (and people do for all sorts of reasons) it might be a snap of the Mona Lisa, just to show we were there, which would technically be of no merit perhaps but is just a momento and has value as that. It might be a technically perfect reproduction for one of those fantastic Taschen books and I think that would have merit, purely as a photographic job well done.

In neither case would the photographer be claiming artistic merit.

A picture os a statue might fall into the same categories, but then again in that case an interesting choice of lens, some unusual and dramatic lighting, some Photoshop to add flesh tones to the face and we might be starting to make a new work of art with the original as just a starting point.

So I'm not so sure that I'd be quite so positive as you are suggesting the sutuation is, and maybe I would suggest that each and every instance should be taken on its own merits.

Perhaps you have some examples in mind that we could look at?

I can think of quite a few but I don't really want to get involved in naming and ...well, whatever.

You're right tho John, at some point, really quite close to 'a snap' or straight technical record, the photographer can begin to take creative ownership of the image, but stood next to a completely original photo of otherwise equal merit the second photo should be seen as better by any standard I can think of.

I think I need to stop here and just let peole have a say.
I was just thinking out loud really. Dangerous that!

Not dangerous at all, it was an interesting and valid point to raise.

BTW, Thanks for the link Gartmore - astonishing images.
Cultural desert me.
When I see these images I realise that trying to reinvent the wheel without any frame of reference, although fun and refreshing is not really working!

I'm a bit weird, something in me says that (consciously) getting inspiration from other work belittles my results. which is just wrong wrong wrong...

I'm getting over it.

The great Canadian philosopher, Marshall McLuhan, said 'we travel forward looking in the rear view mirror' (or words to that effect). The history of art is written by those influenced by what they have seen and been inspired by it. There may be exceptions and I was about to cite Pablo Picasso, but then he was hugely influenced by African sculptures which were just appearing in Europe.

I don't think we're all out to get you, so it must be just normal paranoia...

Just look upon it as "record" photography.

And to expand on Johns opinion there are many things that can be considered "someone else's art/work" stained glass windows, floral displays, well dressing, jewelry, even architechture, the list is endless.

Ahh...you've been busy while I was away.
Lots of images have played a part in my question, not least in a photo book I had to print for someone. But I guess one or two images in the competition galvanised me into writing a question here because I seemed to be alone in my view.

Epithet Man, your scare crow was definitely well received and was definitely on the brief in being humorous/ugly so I have no problem with it being there.
If you want an opinion on the comp, then I feel that unlocker's dramatic architecture photo adds more - creatively and technically, to the original creation.