Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > DIGITAL is not ART !

Reply
Thread Tools

DIGITAL is not ART !

 
 
kashe@sonic.net
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-09-2004
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 10:51:43 +0100, al-Farrob
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>DarkRoom ForEver wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm not the only one thinking this...
>>
>> http://henrystop.port5.com
>>
>> DarkRoom ForEver.

>
>Imho, the fast spreading of compact digital cameras will have the same evil
>effects on photo art as the spreading of ball-point pens had on
>literature)



Nowhere near as deleterious an effect as they had on
penmanship.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
schuetzen - RKBA!
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-10-2004
if digital is not art, then neither is any form of photography.
logic dictates that.
is this just another TROLL started controversy???
chas
--
chas
The new Canon DSLR elist. no trolls, etc
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canon-dslr/join

....




DarkRoom ForEver wrote:

>
>I'm not the only one thinking this...
>
>http://henrystop.port5.com
>
>DarkRoom ForEver.
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mick Brown
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-10-2004
And if photography is not art, because it's just recording the scene in
front of you, then neither is painting, drawing and sculpting.


--
Michael Brown
Melbourne Australia
www.photo.net/photos/mlbrown
"schuetzen - RKBA!" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> if digital is not art, then neither is any form of photography.
> logic dictates that.
> is this just another TROLL started controversy???
> chas
> --
> chas
> The new Canon DSLR elist. no trolls, etc
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canon-dslr/join
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
> DarkRoom ForEver wrote:
>
> >
> >I'm not the only one thinking this...
> >
> >http://henrystop.port5.com
> >
> >DarkRoom ForEver.
> >

>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Matt Ion
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-10-2004
~Darrell Larose~ wrote:

> Didn't they say in the 1800's and early 1900's that Photography wasn't art?
> The photographers were just a bunch of bad painters??? The same arguement
> arouse out of colour photography. His sample looks like a Holga image with
> the statement "Can you do this with a digital camera?" The image is soft,
> flat low contrast. It could easily be produced with a digital P&S, dSLR,
> Sigma SD* or a Holga...


Heck, I could do that with a good set of pencils. Obviously B&W
photography isn't art either.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Matt Ion
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-10-2004
Dave Martindale wrote:


> Even if the photographer shoots on Auto and gets their prints from the
> local drugstore with no input into the processing, they are still
> deciding what subject to shoot, and under what lighting conditions.
> This can still involve skill and creativity, and it can still be art.


Not to mention, the simple decision of whether to stand, crouch, kneel
or sit while recording an image can change perspective and thus the
outcome... and can sometimes make the difference between a good picture
and "art".

This is no different for other image artists, whether using paints or
pencils - the angle from which you look at something can make ALL the
difference.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Matt Ion
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-10-2004
Roland Karlsson wrote:

> "Tony" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:QWU9d.54987$(E-Mail Removed). com:
>
>
>> Then a MACK truck is art by your definition. Art is art - no matter
>>whether you exist or not. I take the commercial view - anything
>>purchased as art is art.

>
>
> So - if you sell a MACK truck as art - then it is art.


To some people, the mechanical form IS art...
 
Reply With Quote
 
Matt Ion
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-10-2004
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 10:51:43 +0100, al-Farrob
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>DarkRoom ForEver wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'm not the only one thinking this...
>>>
>>>http://henrystop.port5.com
>>>
>>>DarkRoom ForEver.

>>
>>Imho, the fast spreading of compact digital cameras will have the same evil
>>effects on photo art as the spreading of ball-point pens had on
>>literature)

>
>
>
> Nowhere near as deleterious an effect as they had on
> penmanship.


Not to mention the effect that the proliferation of computers with
spelling and grammar checkers have had on written communications...
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-10-2004
I DID leave the original text - not my fault if you can't read it. I'm not
here to cater to your weaknesses.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Prometheus" <Prometheus@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <blY9d.19770$(E-Mail Removed)> , Tony
> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
> >Never have but by your definition I wouldn't have to sell it, merely

impact
> >you with it. Get it?

>
> Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about, now if you were to
> leave the original text instead of blocking it we might.
>
> --
> Ian G8ILZ



 
Reply With Quote
 
bob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-10-2004
Justín Käse <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:41683998.1858461
@chupacabra:

> So to sum it up, you're denying the possibility of accidental art?


Going back to my dictonary definition, if it doesn't involve skill, then it
isn't "art". I'm not 100% sure I agree.

Is a sunset art? Is a waterfall art? I have a few photos I took before I
had any skill at all, and I particularly enjoy them. Art, or beginner's
luck? Probably more luck than anything.

If you go out and shoot 10,000 random photographs, and then choose the best
3, perhaps your real art is the art of editing, rather than the art of
photography./

I would rather shoot one good photograph than shoot 100 random photographs
and spend hours choosing one good one.

Bob


--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave Martindale
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-10-2004
"Nostrobino" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>Sure. The photographer (or his camera) makes the photograph; he didn't make
>the thing he's photographing. Similarly, someone using a copy machine makes
>a copy of something made by someone else, and the original may well be a
>work of art--a pen and ink drawing, for example. The original drawing is a
>work of art. The copy is not.


That's also a silly distinction. What if the original is a photograph
instead of a drawing, and the copy is very carefully done using a
drum scanner and printer, so the copy looks every bit as good as the
original. If the original is art, then so is the copy. (I'm not saying
that the person who did the copying is an artist, just that the final
result is just as much art as the original).

Suppose a photographer creates a wonderful image that all critics agree
is art. If he decides to release a limited edition of 10 prints, is
only one of them art? What if he releases an unlimited-edition
mass-market poster of the image - are these not art? Suppose someone
makes a copy (with or without permission) - is the copy suddenly not
art?

I don't think you can come up with any definition that sanely
distinguishes between these case - either all of the photos are art, or
none of them are. I think any reasonable definition of art has to be
based in how the viewer reacts to it, not how it was made.

>Of course. Many technicians make comparable decisions. Some may make better
>decisions than others, but making choices is not producing art.


Making choices doesn't guarantee that the result is art, but neither
does it prevent the result being art.

>Of course. Similarly, one may choose to hang a painting in a certain place,
>in a certain frame, where there will be certain conditions of light to
>enhance the painting, and so on. Making such choices may show a keen
>appreciation of art and the conditions under which it is best seen, but is
>not itself producing art.


Why not? Interior design is an art, and it involves the aesthetic
placement of paintings (or photographs). Or do you think that this too
cannot be art?

>> This can still involve skill and creativity, and it can still be art.


>Not if it's a straight, unmanipulated record. ANYONE who takes photos makes
>such choices and decisions, though some obviously will put more thought into
>it than others. Do you think that makes anyone with a camera an artist?


No, nor did I say anything like that. On the other hand, you seem to be
saying that anyone who shoots unmanipulated photographs *cannot* be
producing art. That's what I disagree with.

>Why do some people with cameras consider it so important to puff themselves
>up into "artists" anyway? What's wrong with just being a good photographer?


I don't consider myself an artist. But I think it's silly for you to
attempt to prescribe what "art" is or is not.

>To call any nice-looking photo "art" is to make the word meaningless.


What meaning would you ascribe to it? Can you define it in any
objective way that makes sense? If a photograph moves me, I'm entitled
to call it art. I don't need to check whether you think it is, or
whether it satisfies your definition (assuming you can generate one).

Dave
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Call for Digital Art and Photography from L.A. Center for Digital Art Rex Bruce Digital Photography 0 02-22-2008 06:44 PM
Call for Digital Art and Photograhpy from L.A. Center for Digital Art rexbruce@gmail.com Digital Photography 0 02-22-2008 06:02 PM
compuer nail printer nail art painting Nail Art Printer Computer Salon Digital Paint MUST HAVE arcade Computer Information 1 11-30-2006 04:11 PM
compuer nail printer nail art painting Nail Art Printer Computer Salon Digital Paint MUST HAVE arcade Computer Information 0 11-30-2006 02:40 PM
boutique and fine art royalty free images - free fine art image offer Andrew Mowat Digital Photography 0 09-14-2004 05:35 AM



Advertisments