Post a paragraph with your thoughts and respond to two of your class mate's postings, at least 1 paragraph each.
Due on the day of Roll 3's due date.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Why is Photography Considered a Fine Art Form?
Photography was once a controversial new technology and when photographers started to claim it was an actual art form, much controversy ensued. Research "pictorial photography", "Paul Strand", "Alfred Stieglitz", and "straight photography". What are your thoughts on Photography as an art form based on your research? Reflect on photography's journey into becoming a legitimate art form.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that you cannot label all of photography as an art form or not because Photography is to broad a topic to merely label as an art form but instead we need to further divide photography into smaller sub-categories in order to find what about photography is really art. I Will divide photography into the following categories: Military, Business, documentary, educational, night, nature, abstract, pictorial, amateur. while night, nature, abstract, and pictorial photography are art forms Military, Business, documentary, and educational photography are not forms of art but serve some other purpose in society such as recording an important historical event. amateur photography is sometimes art and sometimes not and incorporates everything that does not fall into any other category.
ReplyDeletePeople first began to think of some forms of photography as an art in 1885 with the birth of pictorialism and ended in 1914 with the emergence of modernism. In 1911 the Encyclopedia Britanica termed pictoralism as, "Personal artistic expression" or art. That was the first time photography was referred to as an art form. Paul Strand and Alfred Stieglitz helped get modernism recognized as an art form in the early 1900's. by the end of the 1940's photography was a widely accepted art form. Straight photography is photography that looks at the subject objectively and is not considered an art form.
Without question I think every form of photography is art although there are definitely different kinds of art. When taking a picture you need to think about how it is going to come out, how the colors are going to blend in with each other just as if you were painting. One usually puts a lot of effort and time into shooting, a fine art's quality.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand there are also styles of photography which are coarse, plain or abstract. For those I think the definition of fine art(Fine art or the fine arts describes an art form developed primarily for aesthetics and/or concept rather than practical application.) does not apply.
Pictorialism which largely subscribed to the idea that art photography needed to emulate the painting and etching of the time, expresses fine art. Straight photogaphy which refers to photography that attempts to depict a scene as realistically and objectively as permitted by the medium, renouncing the use of manipulation, can be classified as fine arts depending on the topic of the photo. Alfred Stieglitz' work represents the pictorial idea whereas Paul Strand's photos illustrate straight photography.
references:
1)http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&biw=1167&bih=778&gbv=2&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=paul+strand&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
2)http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&biw=1167&bih=778&gbv=2&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=Alfred+Stieglitz&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
Art is defined as the products of human creativity. I agree with Leo, that photography has many of sub topics, but I also agree with Giovanna that photography is an art form. When you look through a camera and press the button, you are making art. Paul Strand, Alfred Stieglitz and Edward Weston, all helped establish photography as an art form in the 20th century. Straight photography is defined as possessing no qualities of technique, composition or idea, derivative of any other art form. Pictorial photography is the art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces. Both of these forms are a type of are, which then makes photography art.
ReplyDeleteThere are many arguments that discuss if photography is or isn't an art form. Any people throughout the ages have tried to convince people that photograhy is art. Robert Balcomb says that after he learned all the techniques he found that photography is more of an art form than he thought. To create art you musst be creative, to take a perfect photo you must be creative, therefore photography is art.
1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictorialism
2.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Strand
3.http://www.answers.com/topic/photography
4.http://www.thescreamonline.com/essays/essays06-01/rsb_photo_essay.html
I think that all types and forms of photography are art. Art is anything that can be used to express oneself, and because of that are there not dozens of types of art?
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Leo when he said "Military, Business, documentary, and educational photography are not forms of art but serve some other purpose in society such as recording an important historical event." Just because they serve another purpose doesn't mean that aren't art. Can't a thing serve multiple purposes? Saying that documentary photography is not art is like saying that a historical novel is not a book because it serves to educate someone as well as entertain.
the definition of art is as follows: the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
can a military photograph not be beautiful? Can it not have significance?
Alfred Stieglitz strived to create photography that mimicked paintings. At that time people did not accept photography as a distinctive art form, so he made photographs that appealed to the common person.
While I admire Stiglitz for his work in promoting photography as a distinctive art form, I feel like groups such as f/64 did more to advance photography. They created a distinctive, new, striking way of photography that is just as, if not more important in the art society today, as Stielitz's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Stieglitz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictorialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_f/64
I think it all depends on how you define art. My personal definition of art is something that appeals to your senses. In that case any photo that intrigues you or pulls you in with its good composition styles will be art. And any photos that do not seem to thrill you or make you wonder about them are not really art because they do not stimulate your senses.
ReplyDeleteTo comment to Leo's comment I have to say that military and business photography are very much art. In the military their photography is mostly made to appeal to the audience either making them like the military and want to join it or if it were trying to make the military look bad.
In business its all about appealing to the audience again making it a piece of art. Any kind of commercial photography in that case is art
I believe that photography is a form of art, but like others, it depends on your interpretations. I believe that both straight photography and pictorial photography are interesting forms of photography that were part of the great revolution of what is today, modern photography. Based on my research, photography is a form of art because it holds emotions to it and demonstrates through people and life through a different perspective, such as a lens and a light meter. Photography's journey into becoming a legitimate art form was not easy as it was not always taken as a form of photography but simply a hobby. I believe that photography has been through a lot, through not being taken seriously to being used as a way to see the world to digital photography to being famous for your photos.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Leo’s comment. I do believe that the military and business photography are both very interesting forms of art and are used very often. I believe that theses techniques of photography are very efficient because it is used to appeal to the audience through the emotions of the people or the tension and emotion of the picture. It all depends on the purpose of the photo and the conditions and items actually photographed.
I also agree with Elizabeth, that photography and art are human creativities. I believe that Elizabeth is very right; the skills that we have learned throughout this class include creating our own scenes and paying attention to all the elements that are being photographed. We have learned that Photo I is not a “snap shot” class. We as photographers have learned to take our time and be patient when taking photographs, while also paying attention to our light meter and emotions of the photo.
I think that, regardless of the type of photography, it can be regarded a form of art. An interpretation of the word art would suggest that as long as an object provides something for the senses to respond to, it should be categorized as art. Photography, clearly, adheres to this definition, because of its way in which it influences the mind, and instigates an attempt to comprehend the meaning behind the photo. Visual response is not exclusive, however, to art, as items such as music and sculpture appeal to senses other than vision.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Oliver's thoughtful opinion on the definition of art, I would whole-heartedly agree with his statement that,"art is something that appeals to your senses." I think that this definition was part of what initiated and fueled the pictorialism movement.
I also agree with the thoughts of Leo, in that there are multiple facets and subcategories of photography. However, I disagree with him that only certain types of photography fit the definition of art, because all types are created for a certain reason, and have a relative appeal to at least one group of people.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictorialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Stieglitz
http://www.answers.com/topic/straight-photography
I think art can be defined as original work that is pleasureful to the senses. For instance, music is soothing to the ears and photography to the eyes. Photography is an art form because it is both original and appealing to the viewer. Photography requires creative talent as well as incorporation of the world that surrounds the artist.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Oliver when he stated, " My personal definition of art is something that appeals to your senses." However, I don't agree with his statement that some photography is not art because it does not stimulate the senses. I believe all photography is a form of art, some photographs being more artistic than others.
I agree with Leo' statement that, "night, nature, abstract, and pictorial photography are art forms." But I disagree with his view on, "military, business, documentary, and educational photography." He states that these forms of photography are not forms of art and I beg to differ. These aspects of photography require creative implementation and stimulate senses.
Sources:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictorialism
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art
photography is a type of art, but it depends on how you think of the meaning of art, just like Salvador said. if it appeals to you then it is a form of art that you enjoy. I believe that the necessary skills to develop an artistic photo depends on its depth of field, texture, shapes, forms, and different styles. A photograph must show emotions for it to be a strong form of art. like all things photography also has a level of how artistic and meaningful a photo can be. if it shows movement, actions, and emotions that you can feel then it is considered to be a strong form of an artistic photo. Any type of photography can be considered as art, from military to fashion photography, it can all be considered as art, but it depends on how you look at it.
ReplyDeleteI would like to change my opinion. all of photography is art because no matter what form of photography it is, it took creativity to create. it doesn't matter that its main purpose was to inform, because it took some artistic thought, creativity, and expresion all aspects of photography must be considered art. this does not meen however that all forms of photography are equally artistic. while it may be true that an artistic process was included in the making of the piece, intention must be thought of as well. Had Jackson Pollock(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_Pollock) not intended to create art when he first splattered paint on a canvas, splatter painting would not be considered an art today but rather a way of dealing with stress or a fun way to get rid of extra paint. with this in mind one must conclude that intention is relevant to art and as different types of photography have varying degreese of intention to create art we can further conclude that different types of photography are not equally artistic but rather vary in their artisticness.
ReplyDeleteThis is fantastic so far! All of you have wonderful points and I'm glad to see this discussion taking place. It is important to have a point of view but it is equally important to be willing to add to that point of view. I'm happy to see that here.
ReplyDeleteKEEP UP THE GREAT WORK!
The debate over whether or not photography is a form of art stems from the drastic difference between photography and other, more ancient forms of art. Photography in essence is a mechanical reproduction of an image that we previously had seen. Critics of photography claim that there is no way to alter a photograph to give it more depth and meaning. However, as we have seen in the three short months that we have been in photography there are many ways to alter the content of a photograph, if not physically altering the picture in the darkroom; we can use composition styles to dramatize the content of our pictures.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Leo’s argument that not all forms of photography is a form of art, because there are many novice photographers that just take pictures of their friends without any meaning besides their memory, but on the other hand, professional photographers know how to alter photographs to show deeper meaning.
I would also like to comment on Oliver’s comment that photography is anything that appeals to your senses, many types of documentary photography are supposed to do the opposite. They are supposed to make you feel horror and shock at the atrocities that are going on. This contradicts his comment about Leo’s post that he made later.
I agree with Leo's first point, that not all forms of photography should be considered art. Because in my opinion, it all depends on the photographer's intentions. For instance, when people use satellites to photograph pictures of houses for Google Earth, it is for the purpose to inform you of where buildings are in the real world. But when a photographer takes the picture as a form of expression, then it is art. Art is used to express yourself, or send a message in a creative way. The pictorial movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s was a form of expression, the reality slightly altered to the artists' preference. There the intentions were not to create a picture that accurately portrayed the real world, but create a picture that would entertain and engage the viewer. But the modernistic movement pioneered by men like Paul Strand and Alfred Steiglitz should also be considered a form of art, again because of the intentions. The intention was to send a message, and again the angles and settings that made up those pictures were based on creativity from the artist. The pictures were a form of expression from the artists, and in my opinion that is the definition of art. Also, "straight photography" should be considered art. The shots are creative and the intentions are artistic, and therefore it should be considered a form of art.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emil, who said that for the most part photography should be considered a form of art, but not every single photo should be considered art. When a professional uses photography as a form of self-expression, that is the definition of art.
I also agree with Oliver, who said that art should appeal to your senses. This means that pictures that do not appeal to the senses nor have artistic intentions should be considered art.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Strand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_photography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictorialism
I agree with kieran's definition of art however i disagree with him in that intention determines whether or not something is art. If someone intends to create a work of art they will portray it as one. but if they don't none will consider the photograph a work of art. I have yet to meet someone who claims that Google earth is an art form.
ReplyDeleteI think photography is a true, perhaps more true than painting or sculpting, art form because it is the most realistic form of expression. Painting, while also expressive, is often modified or changed to depict what does not exist in reality. Photography, on the other hand, uses real life subjects and the way they are photographed determines your opinion on them.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Oliver's statement: "art is something that appeals to your senses." Because photography is the most realistic, it is often easier to relate to it, increasing its value as an art form. Photography straddles the two planes of creativity and realism, and manages to use both to express pure art.
I disagree with Emil's last comment, that because documentary photography often creates a sense of horror or disgust it is not supposed to appeal to your senses. Just because the picture is not appealing does not mean that it was not intended to appeal to your senses. these photographs are created to instill this sense of disgust, therefore it's still art.
ReplyDeleteI support Brenna's comment, that even if a photo creates a sense of horror or disgust it is still art because it still expresses emotions, even if they are of a sad kind. Banning those "negative" emotions out of the definition of art is a little bit like banning them out of our lives - impossible, because they belong to us; the world is imperfect.
ReplyDeleteI agree with rebeccas statement that photography is probably the most realistic form of expression. However, I want to add to her comment which states that painting is often modified or changed, that photography (at least digital hotography) can and is often manipulated, too.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Leo's first comment. Yes photography can be divided into different categories but business and educational forms of photography can still be included as an art form. Although they serve multiple purposes such as teaching and recording historical events, they can still be looked at as art. National Geographic photographers visit different cultures to document other peoples' lives, but I think most of the photos are looked at in artistic ways.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Giovanna's last comment about paintings and digital photography. When a painter looks at a subject to paint, they can paint it any way they want. Taking a picture captures exactly what is happening at that time, but it can always be modified to fit the photographers vision, just like a painter can take a picture with their minds but they can modify the final product.
I believe that all photography should be classified as art. It was believed that since a camera is a machine, it cannot produce art because only people can produce art. If a camera is a machine or a tool, aren’t paintbrushes and pencils tools too? A person is needed to guide a paintbrush on a canvas, just as a person is needed to adjust lighting, focus, depth, blurr, and all other aspects of photography with a camera. Since this is so, the idea that photography comes from a machine and therefore isn’t a form of art is incorrect.
ReplyDeleteDuring the pictorial photography movement, in which photographers used darkroom techniques and tricks to show evidence of the human hand on their photos, photography was promoted as a form of art. Unlike in painting or drawing where the artist can create whatever effects they want on their artwork, it is much more difficult to do so in photography. Nevertheless, photographers such as Alfred Stieglitz would stand out in the snow to get the foggy and subtle effect that paintbrush strokes would give to a painting. Using weather, rather than paintbrushes is definitely art.
The Straight photography movement still promoted photography as art, but in the appearance of normal photographs not of paintings. Photography is expressing the world in the way the photographer sees it. This idea forces photography to be art. Paul Strand was a famous photographer who promoted straight photography as art.
Sources:
http://www.artsmia.org/get-the-picture/stieglitz/index.html
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAPstrand.htm
I agree with Giovanna’s first post about all photography taking time and effort to shoot. Photographers dont just click the shutter, and end up with amazing works of art and brilliant photographs. They must first, think of a subject or scene that has an important meaning or message. Then they have to create the piece of art by using all aspects of photography to do so. Photography is a form of art because it takes all the same time and effort to create as painting or drawing.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Oliver’s post saying that art is something that appeals to your senses. I agree that art that was intended to make someone happy or sad should do so in order to be good art. All photography is art though, even if it doesn’t make you wonder or feel something.
Overtime photographers began to invent and create new ways to take better pictures. Different photographers took different kinds of pictures and expanded the variety of styles and different techniques used. Photographers like Paul Strand used straight photography which relied upon nature itself rather than changing a picture to make it better after it is taken. On the other hand, Stieglitz's style is mostly through natural elements like rain, snow, and steam to unify components of a scene.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Elizabeth that photography is a form of art. Like art, photography can be percieved in many different ways. Depending on the photographer pictures can be taken from a different perpectives, similar to a piece of art work. Also similar to a painting or other type of art, people can see different things in a photograph that other people may not.
I agree and disagree with Leo's first post that photography is not a form of art because it is so broad. Because photography is so broad it helps bring more perspective to each photograph. People/photographers can spend more time on different types rather than just one and widen the variety of photographs taken.
By: Rachel Hamamoto
I believe that all photography should be classified as art, but I agree with Emil in the way that not all are forms of art. When it is used as a form of self-expression and enjoyment, photography
ReplyDeleteI think that, regardless of the type of photography, it can be regarded a form of art. Art can be interpreted many ways, but as long as it stimulates the senses and creativity, like photography, it should be considered as art. Also, the detailed processes behind photography are similar to any type of fine art. When taking pictures, you need to think about all the elements of design and aspects exactly like fine art.
I really like Anica's analogy of the camera as a machine with a artist's paintbrushes and I totally agree. A person extends one's ability though a machine to create the art, which is still originally from creativity and skill, like any other art. Photography is like music. If not considered fine art, it is at least still a creative piece.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_f/64
Art is an expression of a person's perception of beauty,and creativity. The majority of photography meets this definition, and so, the majority of photography should be considered a fine art form. But with everything in life, there are exceptions. Alex mentioned that when Google takes satellite pictures of houses, it is not a form of art. I strongly agree with this point, as these pictures are taken for their application Google Maps, not to express their creativity or their perception of beauty.
ReplyDeleteIt was correct for men like Alfred Stieglitz and Paul Strand to promote photography and finally have it widely accepted as a fine art form. Both the pictorial and straight forms of photography that followed these movements should be considered art, as they expressed people's perception of beauty and creativity.
I also agree with Giovanni's point, for there are novice photographers who shoot and do not intend for there to be meaning or beauty in the photographs.
I also agree with Oliver's point that art should appeal to one's senses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictorialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Stieglitz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_photography
Continuing my last paragraph-
ReplyDeletePictures lacking intention, purpose, will not be considered art, as they will most probably not appeal to one's sebses
I think that photography is definitely a form or art and expression. More than anything else in the world, one picture can say a thousand words simply with colors, lighting, and scenes. Originally, photography was only meant for wealthy people who could afford to pay for their pictures. These would often be of their side or angle, and they were always dressed up in their nicest clothes, as this was likely the only photograph they would ever be in. Over time, however, photography became cheaper, and more lower class people could afford to have their picture taken, and eventually, even own their own camera. This immensely widened the perspective and possibility of capturing more moments and emotions than ever before. Originally, only painters and sculptors were considered to be artists. But once photography become more widespread and easier, many photos changed traditional and strict, serious ways that photographs were taken. For example, the common picture was a portrait of a wealthy man or woman. But suddenly with smaller and more cameras, people could be taking pictures of smiles and tears and laughter. Photgraphy became something for everyone, not only the wealthy families.
ReplyDeletePhotography is a fine art because of the meaning and feelings in the photograph. Lighting, shadows, and highlights are only some of the factors that affect and portray the emotion or worry of the subject. A good photograph, however, must maintain meaning behind it, and the subject must have a good reason for being photographed. Taking a picture of a teddy bear sitting on the ground is 2-dimensional and flat. there is no meaning or depth behind the teddy bear. However, place the teddy bear in a little kid's arms, and photograph the little kid sleeping and dreaming of far off places with his teddy bear tightly clutched between his arms, and you instantly add depth and emotion to the photograph, also popping questions into the viewer's head, like what the kid is dreaming about. Photography has the unique ability to capture 3D objects and people, so we must use it to our advantage and keep feeling in our photographs in order to be able to call it fine art.
I agree with Dhruv that pictures lacking intention aren't considered art. As i mentioned above, you need to add feeling. Also, allowing the viewer to relate to the subject in the picture helps too.
I agree with anica that photography cannot be flat. It still is a photograph, but to maintain its name of fine art, there must be meaning and more depth to the picture.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAPstrand.htm