what is art

Guys. As much as I am enjoying all this, it rather strays from my request that we define art in photography. Do we need to stray into architecture and painting to reach some deffinition?? Maybe, but lets all read carefully what is being written and digest it before we dash into a reply. Let us also be careful in our replies. I think Pentaxophile has challenged me most with his deffinition that applies to photography very well.
thoramay

Ah sorry I thought you only talked about beauty.
That things can get so heated by one misinterpretation

Now a different matter since we agree with this.
Does something that is created with these intentions also need to be excepted as art, or is the purpose of creation enough to make it art?

Quite a lot of portrait are painted not because of the artistic value but because someone wanted a painting of himself but a number of those portraits or called art, what makes them different from the rest and why are they art or not?
What I'm trying to say is, isn't it the viewer the one that makes it art or not?
You can make something beautiful with the intend to be art but what if no one sees it as art, what then?

Do you get my drift?

Surely the definitions we've been discussing can be applied to photography as easily as any other field.

I.e. something created using skill which is beautiful/interesting/has meaning.

So a simple snapshot of a building which offers nothing more than would have been seen by someone looking at the building might not be considered art, put a careful composed photograph, perhaps utilising a small DOF or interesting angle of view could be considered art.

Then comes the question of Photoshop...

Stefan, the Sydney Opera House would not exist if there was not the need for an opera house. First and foremost it was created to be something of use, something functional. Okay, they treid to make it unique, challenging, memorable, but without the need for an opera house it wouldn't have happened in the first place.

You can do virtual tours of some galleries from the comfort of your own home.

Robbie..You miss my point, or I have not made myself clear. Pictures depicting the whole gammit of art when viewed on the web from an art gallery are a poor reflection of the real thing which needs to be seen from many angles and from a distance to appreciate the whole. Not so photographs which is what this thread started out as. Art in photography is an altogether different medium to most other art forms. Taking issue on whether an opera house is art, in my opinion, does not address the fundamental difference that art is in photography, but I am being picky because you guys are obviously enjoying the discussion. I just hope that you can return to the thread once in a while for my education.
thoramay.:

No problem Stefan, it's easy to miss one word in 4 pages of text!

That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish In my uneducated opinion the object is art or it isn't art. It doesn't matter what a particular viewer thinks of it.

I don't feel I'm missing the point, nor would I suggest that a "virtual tour" of a gallery replace the real thing. But if circumstances prevent a visit, then I believe a virtual tour is better than nothing. Many museums/galleries offer virtual 3D tours and with a decent monitor you can at least get the essence of what is being displayed.

Back on point. In my mind what photography shouldn't be classed as art is fairly clear, shots made for reference of a place/event, passport photographs, etc. I wouldn't consider art.

Shots that have been taken for no other reason than to depict something beautiful/interesting in a way a person couldn't necessarily have seen it if they were there themselves, then I would consider that art.

For example, and using the Sydney Opera House to illustrate. A picture of the Sydney Opera House straight on, with no other thought to it I would not consider art. The reason; anyone who went to Sydney could see the very same thing if they went to the Opera House themselves. It is purely a record of something that exists.

If however the photograph used a long exposure at night, or implemented HDR (on a number of images), or was from an unfamiliar viewpoint which offered an image that we weren't familiar with, etc, etc. Then that potentially could be considered as art. These images would not be simply what a tourist saw when they strolled up to the Opera House, and as such offer the audience something extra.

I've got more thoughts on this area, but I need to think how best to illustrate them to demonstarte my point.

Most art forms are seen in three dimension, in context and from many different viewpoints. Photography is seen as a flat image. It cannot evoke a similar response. That, to me, is the important difference and why I feel that a discussion of an opera house misses this vital difference. Defining art through photography must encompass this element.
Similarly, viewing at a gallery is a world away from viewing those images from a flat screen. It cannot evoke the same response. It might be argued that these images stop becoming art when shown on the flat screen because they do not evoke the same emotional response as when seen in reality.
I know the different response I have in seeing a photograph of my grandson and then seeing him in the flesh.
Being contentious, do I create art when I photograph a recognised work of art, or do I simply take a photograph?
thoramay

Paintings, one of the oldest and most recognised art forms are 2D (okay with certain paints you may get a slight third dimension, but you get my point). Does a painting stop being art because I view it on a screen? No, but the creator of the art is the painter, not the person who took the picture of it to put it on the internet (more on this in a second).

I would also disagree entirely that photography cannot evoke the same emotions as other art forms, it depends entirely on the subject matter.

Even so, the fact that photographs might generate different emotional responses to other forms of art isn't really significant. Art, as we seem to be at a consensus about, is something which triggers the emotions, we don't have to specify which emotions it triggers.

By taking a picture of a great work of art you do exactly that, take a photograph of it, unless your photograph offers something beyond what the user would see by looking at the work of art themselves (an interesting visual effect for example).

The point regarding your grandson is a (with all due respect) ridiculous one, of course you will react differently seeing him in person, he is himself a person who interacts directly with you. If discussing an artistic piece of architecture is going off the beaten path of this topic I would suggest bringing people into the equation means we've lost sight of the path altogether.

You asked for definitions of what makes photography art, definitions have been provided of what people believe makes anything art (photography included), but you don't seem to be acknowledging this in your responses, merely focussing on the fact a building is not a photograph (in fact I was talking about a photograph of a building in my last post, is that considered off-topic?).

It sounds like you've already made your mind up about what art is, which begs the question why create the forum topic in the first place?

Like Robbie says in a sort of way art is art for me, I don't see why I should discriminate because of the methods that are used to create art or can you give me a good reason why I should?

Now architecture or other forms of design can come close to art in my view and that's why I brought that up because why isn't that art?
Now that question is answered so no point discussing that.

No I don't think so, i think it is important because you need to "consume" something like art to make it art or else it's just what it is, some paint on a piece of paper, a snapshot, ect.
For example a portrait, if it was for example your grandfather that stood model then it will always stay a portrait for you nothing more nothing less.
However if it's so well painted/drawn/photographed and some one who see the portrait and doesn't know anything about it can see it as art, who are you to say it isn't art for him?

Can you see what I mean?
Nothing against our discussion earlier since you're right but I think this also matters.

Stefan back when I lived in Hong Kong a prominent building in downtown Hong Kong installed a replica of Michelangelo's David in their lobby. After several complaints by passers-by regarding the naked male statue, the matter was investigated by a quasi-governmental body known as the Obscene Articles Tribunal. They, after a public consultation and much debate, decided that the David statue was not art (and thus exempt from the Obscene Articles Legislation). In fact they declared it to be obscene (by the standards of Chinese culture) and ordered it's removal.

A ludicrous situation, I'm sure you'll agree. However their decision was that the item was not 'art' by the standards of admittedly rather prim Chinese culture. Presumably most people in China, and there are rather a lot of them, would feel the same way about a statue of a naked man. Does that mean the statue is not art?

Depends on the people and their custom and culture.
If it's in a culture shocking and not done to see someone naked I don't think a statue of a naked man will be excepted as art by them however someone who can appreciate the human body would say something else.
Different people, different values.

I'm sure that if you show someone living in 1600 AC this art work, that they wouldn't call it art either.
Is it art yes it's art for us but it does not to be for someone else.


I hope you can agree with this or we would have a discussion again

It's the same with music, music is also art but I'm sure some cultures can't except/see hard-rock as music

I think I feel about coloured geometric shapes the way Tim does about upside-down urinals!

That could be made in Microsoft Paint.

Out of interest, could an iPad be considered art?

(running for my life and hiding!)