Is photography art?

[stuff about selection vs creation]

Yes, really. An infinite choice of locations

Some buildings have a look of strength and power, and that may be the architect's wish ...to convey the strength and power of his client...

In any case, where architecture is a deliberate aesthetic and art for its appearance (outside and in), where it relates to the soundness of structure, it is discipline, not art.

I think I pointed out that I didn't even want to argue the term, because the debate reallly comes down to plasticity, which comes in degrees, not yes/no; I argued that photography is far less plastic than painting, and
I argued that this limitation is actually a strength, it is what makes photography special, important.

You're missing my point; the recognizability of the artist is an illustration of the plasticity of the medium. The more plastic the medium, the more moldable, the more sensitive to the lightest touch, the more sensitive to the slightest *difference* between two painters (if the term "plastic" is unfamiliar I hope that explains it). The more plastic the medium, the more the individuality of the painter is telegraphed. A good analogy is handwriting: everyone has a distinct style of writing, and usually you can tell who wrote what. The reason is that every single word that you write constitutes maybe hundreds or thousands of subconscious choices as to how, exactly, you will write it, and this is so because the underlying medium (pen on paper) is highly plastic, moldable, sensitive to the slightest differences between people. In contrast, two people can type out the same thing (like "the quick brown fox..." into Microsoft Word, and you no longer can so easily tell who typed what.

That's really not getting my point. I'm not saying that "recognizability means art". I'm using recognizability to illustrate my point about the plasticity of the medium, its sensitivity to individual variation.

I believe that the traditional method[0] is to punch a few holes in the muffler with an icepick.

[0] According to P.J. O'Rourke.

Dunno about you, but I'm reading this in rec.photo.equipment.35mm.

It's what's left over after you post a misspelling rant.

Reminds me that back in the 20's people thought that beavers had engineering skills because of the cleaver dams they were able to build under varying circumstances..........

That's an example of a repeatable experiment, so anyone can check
Muybridge's results. Where is the repeatable experiment in the argument over photography's status as art? There is none.

All you have pointed out about the photographic controversy is that there was a shift in opinion with MOMA as a major trailblazer. You gave no reason for the shift, you pointed out no evidence supporting one side of the argument, no equivalent to Muybridge's photographs.

They are facts about belief. As I said, neither popular belief nor belief by respected authorities make photography art, nor does it show that photography is art. In contrast, Muybridge's photographs show how horses walk.

You are reduced to arguing by insult. Not impressive.

I used to know whether photography (photographs) is (are) art, but I forgot.

Truly, dr bob (I think)

I said nothing about emotion. Nothing whatsoever. And I have described art many times earlier. It's a wearing subject.

What are they impressed with?

That seems to be the case in so much of the "art" world.

Art is dynamic. It moves in time. It cannot be stamped, frozen in a few words. He who finds great solace in the dictionary is one easily pleased, and quite likely one who will not grow.

I have to give the participants in this subject a lot of credit. I have been involved in a lot of subjects, politics for example, where lengthy and involved discussions have evolved into,... Well,.... Something really ugly.

I am enjoying much of these well thought and, mostly civilized, arguements. I may not agree with many of them, and I may not be able to understand others. I do enjoy reading these exchanges though.

Well.....Not to MY wall, he doesn't....I require some proof of skill before
I'll pay for any work of art.....Sometimes just the skill is enough....I can spend 30 minutes just staring at that piece of broken bread, or the wineglass half full of wine in Dali's, "Last Supper". His incredible ability to use a paintbrush just astounds me.........

Persig may have had in mind the oriental calligrapher's art where brushing a character (also a figure) in the particular oriental esthetic is like dance.
He projected that onto the experience of the man who was brazing his damanged fender. Nonetheless, it is not the same thing, except in Persig's mind but it did serve a literate purpose and the literature _was_ art.

Nope not to purists, Its the "subject" striped down to basic form and shape coupled with "light". Much like graphite drawings.

Really color photo is just that "COLOR" bold or subtle....although saleable.
Very pretty sometimes,.... when subtle to my eye,....you have to be able to see the same image translated both ways to understand, I shoot Color negative and B

For this to be "empirically verifiable" as a *distinction of importance*, you'd have to demonstrate that learning is not the reason behind the ability to recognize painters more easily than photographers. And, with a couple of million years' learning the nuances of paintings vs. about 200 years' with photography, that may not be an easy task.

But, directly *to* your point: what is the significance of this recognizability? As far as I can tell, it means nothing with regard to the creation of art, and that's my point.
I will state outright that the manipulation of the image post-camera is an inherent, inexhorable component of the photographic process (regardless of additional options such as Photoshop et al), and as such exposes the plasticity that you claim is missing from photography. Hence, my request for you to show this lack of plasticity in some meaningful way. Your point is pretty easily understood... I just disagree with it.

Rap music is like painting.

What is important is that the art produced looks as realistic as possible and is made or painted by hand and contains talent that most people do not have.
The fewer people that can duplicate or create it, the more it qualifies as art.

Not many can paint the Mona Lisa. Anyone can take a photograph.

Critical thinking and reason.

Granted, this stuff is precious and in short supply.

Don't mistake atheism with lack of values or lack of moral direction.

rafe b.

Some one else's prerecorded music that they just talk over, not even sing over. Rap people are nothing more than disc jockeys that talk over the whole song, not just the intro.

What is "modern" jazz? Do you mean "new age" music?

I like Jazz, but I am not a big fan of New Age.

Thanks for your emotionless response :-/

By definition the process is important. "Art" has the same root as
"artifact" and "artificial". "Ars" meant "skill".

So the answer to that particular question is, yes, the process is important. Something that occurs naturally is not made. What about a photograph? A photograph of nature is produced by an interaction between the photographer and nature; part of the input is skill, but a large part is natural. In common speech we say "take a photo" more often than "make a photo", and this reflects a reasonable understanding of the relative weight of photographer's versus nature's input.

An interesting exception is if a photographer photographs something man- made, especially something intentionally made beautiful. It's easier to get beautiful photographs shooting pictures of the work of great architects like Gaudi than it is to get great photographs shooting pictures of the local strip mall. So, while we can say that a photograph of a Gaudi building has two artificial inputs, i.e., the input of the photographer, and the input of Gaudi's building, it would be reasonable to think that much of the credit for the beauty of the photograph goes to Gaudi and not to the photgrapher.

If a photographer gets beautiful pictures of the local strip mall, or of some other thing that seems ugly and un-photogenic to everyone else until the trailblazing photographer shows them how to extract beauty from it, then in that case we can give much more credit to the photographer.

Of course they can be and are, but you are speaking of art in different senses.

Dead animals are especially artistic, though some subjects such as dead birds have been done to death. (Oops.)

Yes, that makes a powerful statement. That no one can figure out what the statement MEANS makes it even more powerful art.

Let's not forget important art techniques such as mutilating the negative before printing it, by making random scratches in the emulsion for example.
Such a photo becomes art even if the original shot was such a bland, boring thing that no one would ever want a print of it.

A fellow told me once that he did photography because he couldn't draw. So he made photos like those he saw in artsy photography magazines, in the apparent belief that that would be art.

What film should I use to make the bike go faster? Should I use a
Hasselblad to get more money for it? If I use a tripod, am I more likely to find a stable buyer? If I shoot it in B

Why are you assuming I read everything you wrote or remember that you wrote it?

Be civil. Now there's an art.

You know, this argument is over 150 years old. I am not sure what else new anyone can bring to the discussion after all this time.

Well said. Photography just is.

I would be less abusive of "Sharpen" and learn effective "Unsharp mask" techniques..