Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×

:iconjustanothersomeone: More from justanothersomeone


Featured in Collections

JOURNALS by martaraff


More from DeviantArt



Details

Submitted on
November 12, 2013
Submitted with
Sta.sh Writer
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
9,103 (1 today)
Favourites
40 (who?)
Comments
53
×

“There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.” 
- Ansel Adams


  When photography was first created it was used primarily for portraits. It was not yet mobile and therefore could not yet be used in genres like landscape or journalism. Portrait painters at the time felt that photography was not legitimately artistic, and this spurred the "Pictorialist" photographic movement. In defense of their art, Pictorialists depicted subjects with soft visual effects and artistic poses. At the beginning of the twentieth century a man named Paul Strand countered the "Pictorialist" movement stating that it was too apologetic, and did not take advantage of the new medium.

  Paul Strand was an American Modernist photographer leading the drive to establish photography as a valid form of fine art. However, he did not believe that all forms of photography held artistic value. His argument was based on the idea - central to modernist art, of 'truth of materials'. Strand believed that photography had to be 'based on inherent qualities' of the 'medium' and work with the 'true laws of photography'.

  US photo-modernism, identified with Edward Weston and Ansel Adams, followed the path marked out by Strand and the later Stieglitz. Painterly subjects and effects were ditched for sharp focused precise photographs.

"At every turn the attempt is made to turn the camera into a brush, to make the photograph look like a painting, an etching, a charcoal drawing or whatnot, like anything but a photograph..." - Paul Strand


  It was not until the past few decades that photographers began to challenge these rules that had been set out for photography. Artists began to explore new technologies and techniques to create photographic works that were abstracted. Photographers began to create a new visual language in photography by using depth of field and focus to blur parts of or entire images. A small selection of some of the leading photographers of today who work in this style:


Uta Barth






Robert Stivers







Keith Carter







David Levinthal






Andres Serrano








  Here on DeviantArt many photographers are exploring these ideas and creating beautiful works that are reliant on the lack of sharpness and focus in order to convey a thought or emotion. Here is a small selection of some of these artists:

Under the sun by JakezDanielIn transit by JakezDanielSatori (with colors) by JakezDaniel

<da:thumb id="381549188"/><da:thumb id="371785630"/><da:thumb id="372794557"/>

BURN by K-E-I-TEMILIA by K-E-I-TONIRICA by K-E-I-T

storm coming by ForrestBumpDeja Vu landscape XXXI by ForrestBumpDeja Vu landscape XXV by ForrestBump

Ghost Phenomenon Sign by peterle28Lost In Space... by peterle28Under My Earth... by peterle28

Beacon by vonsacThe Veil by vonsacIsland by vonsac

Walls Have Eyes II by IzaaaaaMy Alabaster Wings by IzaaaaaUntitled by Izaaaaa





Questions for the Reader:


  1. Is abstraction valid in photography? Or should it be left to the painters, who during the previous century, already fully explored and mastered abstraction and non-representational art.
  2. Are there any other artist, either on DeviantArt or elsewhere, that you'd like to share and that can add to this discussion?
  3. Which do you think makes the most successful photograph: Full tack sharpness throughout, some sharpness mixed with some blur, or fully abstracted?







Add a Comment:
 
:iconpeterle28:
peterle28 Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2013  Professional Photographer
Sorry for my delay, my friend! Thank you so  much for featuring my work!
Reply
:iconjustanothersomeone:
justanothersomeone Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2013  Student Photographer
No worries. It's a pleasure!
Reply
:iconnicpi:
NicPi Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2013  Professional General Artist
:heart: if you love this kind of photography, you might want to take a look at :iconbeautiful-blur: Thank you for this article!!!
Reply
:iconwtek79:
WTek79 Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Just one last word about your first question.

As some already said, saying that abstraction has been already fully explored by painters sounds a little bit off. It's like saying that "all dreams have already been dreamed"... how could we know ?

And actually I think that on the contrary, photography is a great addition to the abstraction genre. I feel it brings a new concept that painting does not have. Let me try to explain.

Painting is a pure creation process, you start from a blank canvas, and you have to create everything from scratch. And the viewer looking at a painting knows about that.

But a photograph always starts with something "real" : what is in front of the camera at the moment you press the button. Then, using many different tools (selective focus, rotation, cropping, color manipulation, etc), the artist come up with something abstract. Even if visually the result might be "similar" to a painting, there is a huge difference to me : the viewer always knows, because it is a photograph, that it started from something real.

And for me this concept (the reality beneath the picture) is a great addition to the Abstraction genre because the artist can play with that. For example make the viewer wonder : "what was that to begin with ?". The artist can leave enough clues, but not too much, like some sort of a game.

Another usage of that concept would be that the reality beneath, when perceived, adds an additional sense to the whole picture. Let's say that an abstract picture represents what looks like endless repetitive lines. Then, you realize that it is actually a building. Thus the whole picture might become some kind of a metaphor of the monotony of our urban lives.

Well, you could always say that you can paint exactly the same thing, so what would be the difference ? Yeah, you might be right. But still, in a painting there "might" be a reality beneath. In a picture there is "always" a reality beneath. And for me it is a great pleasure to play with that ! :)
Reply
:iconjustanothersomeone:
justanothersomeone Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2013  Student Photographer
I wholeheartedly agree with you. That's why I chose photography as my main medium. It comes with the inherent challenge of having to be created from what is around us. Painting felt too open for me creatively and the potentiality of the ability to paint anything I desired actually constricted my creativity instead of liberating it.
Reply
:iconmiontre:
miontre Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
  1. Yes, I think it's definitely valid. There's no reason why it shouldn't be valid. I sometimes come across "professional" photographers or "elitist" groups who think their photos are the best because they're technically perfect: sharp focus, textbook composition, expensive lighting, slightly over-saturated colours... While these people's photos may be good, they usually aren't very compelling. I think it's breaking the rules that make a photo interesting - not only lack of focus, but any other rule. It's what makes a photo unique, compelling, and worthy of attention. I always go back to the photos which are little imperfections, but never go back to the ones which are perfect.

  2. Most definitely. ^arctoa and `DpressedSoul would probably add well to this conversation. They both have interested work too. I'll share some below along with some of my favourites:

    Black Static by arctoa  Swarm Intelligence by DpressedSoul  no rules 5.5 by esracolak  The Saucer Tree by JillAuville  Flames Of The Wind by KizukiTamura

  3. It really depends on what the artist's goal is. But, like I said before, I'm usually more attracted to photos with imperfections. They are far more interesting, in my opinion. Of course, that isn't to say I don't like photos which are more "perfect", but I find imperfect ones much more artistic and story-telling.
Reply
:iconjustanothersomeone:
justanothersomeone Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2013  Student Photographer
^arctoa and `DpressedSoul are both amazing artist and make great contributions to the discussion. Thank you for taking the time to comment. I agree with you about the imperfections. That's what makes alternative processes so beautiful and rewarding. In that you know with a certainty that your image will not come out perfectly like one does when you print a digital photograph. Each print will have its own character and flaws.
Reply
:icondpressedsoul:
DpressedSoul Featured By Owner Dec 6, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Thank you, kindly. I wish my English skills would be good enough to contribute to the discussion, but I'll let my work speak for me instead. :)

As for me, I always choose impact before technical perfection. Most of the flawless high quality photography doesn't move me at all. 
Reply
:iconladykylin:
LadyKylin Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2013
The very idea that abstract should be only left to painters and the like is ridculous. That makes about as much sense as telling painters and other traditional artist they shouldn't bother with hyper realism since a photogrpah can do that. Whatever tool an artist usses they are only limited by thier ablity and imagnation.

As to what kind of photo's are most succesfull, I haven't a clue, I personally perfer a focused center point with less focus around it so it's much how I would see something but I haven't delved into abstract photogrophy as I'm not much into abstract to be honest.
Reply
:icongarance-verdier:
Garance-Verdier Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2013
Very interesting, and thank you!
Reply
:iconjustanothersomeone:
justanothersomeone Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2013  Student Photographer
My pleasure!
Reply
:iconragnar949:
Ragnar949 Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2013  Professional General Artist
 Most of what I would add has already been said....

The gouge is a tool, the paintbrush is a tool, the camera is a tool, nothing else.  A tool is a "thing" that allows one to express an idea as has been said in the previous post.   Some people try to define everything separating everything into "is" and "is not."  Why would someone want to limit themselves like that?  Whether it is about abstraction or not, some make up definitions with very hard edges and no compromise.  Definitions, categorizing and rules have no value in Art.  Throw all the definitions and comparisons away.  What real use are they outside of an Art  History class or for a pseudo intellectual "Gallareno?"
Reply
:iconharrisons-forge:
Harrisons-Forge Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2013  Professional General Artist
Thank you for an interesting article ;)

Is abstraction valid in Photography? Or should it be left to the painters.....
Yes. Photography as a purely artistic form of expression has been accepted for some time, so why should it not explore all avenues. A camera is a tool, it depends how you choose to use it artistically that decides the final outcome for an image. Abstraction in photography can be many things, not just sharpness or softness in a photograph...

Are there any other artist, either on DeviantArt or elsewhere, that you'd like to share and that can add to this discussion?
Having myself used various degrees of blur, motion and depth of focus in my work, I think that every photographer should explore the medium to the best of their ability. You do not know what will work for you until you have tried it, and you often need to try several different methods before you find the result you are looking for. 

Which do you think makes the most successful photograph: Full tack sharpness throughout, some sharpness mixed with some blur, or fully abstracted?
It really depends on the subject matter and the brief. You wouldn't want to give the  chief exec of a large international corporation anything less than a pin sharp image of the new HQ.....it did cost several billion and he wants to see it in fine detail. On the other side of the coin, you would not want to give a bride an image so sharp you can see the pimples under her make-up, soft focus and romance are generally the order of the day. Full abstraction is generally conceptual and speaks more directly to the emotional side of the brain. Each can be extremely successful when used appropriately.
Reply
:iconcherardon:
Cherardon Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2013
Uta Barth : This bluriness, it's the epithome of photo art!!!
Me : No, it's just like how the world looks like without my specs. Now shut up.
Reply
:iconjustanothersomeone:
justanothersomeone Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2013  Student Photographer
haha :P
Reply
:iconjakezdaniel:
JakezDaniel Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2013   Photographer

Me: And when you put your specs on?

Are the sharp art pictures artistic because they're sharp compare to the blurred one?

Is the sharpness relevant for art photography? Why?

 

Reply
:iconcherardon:
Cherardon Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2013
Well, with my specs on the nose, at least I can see them, lol.
You know, if your point about visual art is to pretend you can attain superior intellectual credibility by rendering captured stuff hard to see (which I can do automatically, and that's not a super power btw), why don't you push the enveloppe a bit further and try to judge a painting by blinking super fast, or pour ink in your eyes, or shake your head in all directions while trying to discern some picture?
Perhaps we could make olympics out of that, who knows?
Geez, those lazy "artists" don't know what to invent next these days in order to get a bit of desperate attention.
Oh! I believe it would be funny if the text on the exhibition's invitation coupon were to be blurry.
- Look, it's art, you can't understand.
- I'm a doctor Jim, not a fashionable krook!
Reply
:iconjakezdaniel:
JakezDaniel Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2013   Photographer

I don't know those artists, I mean personally, so I can't know if they just want some desperate attention or no. You probably do know them, from your high judging chair and your specs on the nose, so you are able to call them lazy "artists".

 

Anyway you didn't answer to my questions:

 

Are the sharp art pictures artistic because they're sharp compare to the blurred one?

Is the sharpness relevant for art photography? Why?

 

About this:  if your point about visual art is to pretend you can attain superior intellectual credibility by rendering captured stuff hard to see...

It's not my point no. Art isn't about getting better than the other one. It's not a competition.

 

Reply
:iconcherardon:
Cherardon Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2013
Way to miss the point... perhaps because it was blured... thus art? lol
If misfocused stuff is your thing, go for it, just don't expect me to regard it highly.
You know, blur has always been used in a canvas to enhance another sharp part of the same work.
In this case we're talking about intelligent partial blur. But the random full-blur material I saw is just laughable.
Now if all is blured, and you expect me to go through dozens of such myopic works of [whatever], the only thing you're going to enhance is my damn headache.
This is just dragging art down to the degenerate level of vision-disabled people (like me, since I can't see a thing without me specs).
This full-blur stuff (Serrano's, Stivers', Barth's, etc.) or the uninspired one (Levinthal's) is so devoid of sheer intrinsic quality that it begs to get a point stacked on it in order to get people chirping about it on and on.
If it ain't laziness, then it's purely a lack of talent. All in all, if both claim to make art, they're krooks.
Reply
:iconjakezdaniel:
JakezDaniel Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2013   Photographer
It seems that those unsharp works are difficult for people who are having specs (myopic?).
I think it is something understandable.
Reply
:iconcherardon:
Cherardon Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2013
Not really. That's why people wear glasses. To see things. Useful or beautiful things.
Anyway, let's just agree to disagree. :p
Reply
:iconjakezdaniel:
JakezDaniel Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2013   Photographer
I don't wear glasses, so I have the choice.
Reply
:iconjakezdaniel:
JakezDaniel Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2013   Photographer
and you think this is an argument?
Reply
:iconforrestbump:
ForrestBump Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2013

Thanks very much for the feature!

1.In times when was photographed everything, of course, it gives to the authors opportunity freer expressions and the customer own not limited interpretation. 
2.I really like and recommend Polly Chandler :www.pollychandler.com/:
I also recommend the essays on photography by Susan Sontag and François Soulages.
3.How many fields of photography as many answers :P 

Reply
:iconjustanothersomeone:
justanothersomeone Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2013  Student Photographer
My pleasure!

Thank you for sharing Polly Chandler's work. I was not aware of her. It is stunning work and she lives near me. I will check out those essays as I get time.

Thanks again for sharing!
Reply
:iconforrestbump:
ForrestBump Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2013
You're welcome  :)
Reply
:iconwintersread:
WintersRead Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2013  Student Photographer
Thank you for this article! As for the questions...

1. I do believe that Abstraction is valid in Photography. While painting is an often impressive means of abstraction, photography (with the large exception of photomanipulation) adds its own element: it is composed completely of reality.

2. There are many I could share, but I'll go for one influential and some lesser-known deviants.

:iconarctoa:




:iconkizukitamura:




3. I think that each of the three resides in the most successful photography, even for abstract, but it depends on how you use each of them. Personally, I think the most successful from any of these will communicate a story, idea, or theme clearly to the viewer.
Reply
:iconjustanothersomeone:
justanothersomeone Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2013  Student Photographer
I'm glad you enjoyed it! Thank you for commenting and adding to the discussion. I very much agree with all of your points.
Reply
:iconwtek79:
WTek79 Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
A very interesting reading ! :clap:

Though I have to admit I have a little doubt about the main idea that is conveyed here (if I understand it well).

I have the feeling that you try to oppose Abstraction and razor sharp picture, and you are kind of saying that Abstraction would be synonym of blurry pictures.

So I am not so sure about that. For me, a picture can be 100% sharp AND 100% abstract. Another way to say that is that you don't need any blurry-textured-strange-effect techniques to produce an abstract picture. Just take anything close enough, and it will be an abstraction. (because you won't be able to recognize what it is anymore, it won't be figurative anymore).

Another thing is that you seem to imply that Ansel Adams and Eward Weston being both subscribers to sharp pictures (the legendary F/64 group), are in opposition to Abstraction. Again, I am not so sure about that. If you look at their work, there are quite some totally Abstract pictures : the very well known Dunes of Weston, or the Surf sequence of Adams. 100% sharp and 100% abstract.

I would also dare to say that the deep black skies in many Adams picture could not be qualified as realistic features. Again, so sharp but very surreal at the same time.

And finally you seem to oppose Modernism and Abstraction, again, I am no expert, but I thought modernism led precisely to Abstraction (and amongst others things because of the interest of the materials).

Sorry, perhaps it is all mixed up in my head, again, I am no expert :p
Reply
:iconjustanothersomeone:
justanothersomeone Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2013  Student Photographer
Thank you for reading and taking the time to comment.

Let me start by saying I am no expert as well :P Although I think I have more than enough knowledge of art and art history I'm new to actually putting the thoughts down and creating blogs and discussions. So I'm learning as I go.

As for the abstraction argument, you are completely correct. Abstraction was definitely not the right word to use in this article. As they say, hindsight is 20/20. A voice in the back of my head was telling me not to use that word but I couldn't think of a substitute. I couldn't say blurred images, because blur requires movement, which does not encapsulate all the images. I also didn't want to use "out of focus" over and over because it would just read badly and be annoying. Abstract works in a sense because when using blur or out of focus imagery the subjects are abstracted, not necessarily to the point of non-representational but abstracted nonetheless. Maybe there is a better word to describe this aesthetic but I can't think of one, so if anybody knows the proper word or phrase please share :D

The Modernism and Abstraction discussion is a bit more complex. There's a problem with the word modern in general because it is used in many different ways depending on context. There is the actual "Modernism" art movement but modern is also thrown around for it's literal definition. It should be replaced in the later by using the word contemporary in my opinion. But that's another discussion altogether so back to topic. Adams, Weston, and Strand were all modernist artist but for them it had a very different result than for the modernist painters. Painters created the style in the wake of the industrialization of the world in which they felt the old dogmas, rules, and traditions were no longer relevant not only in society as a whole but in art as well. They believed that painting should not be governed by it's traditions as using it as a means to an end and a way to spread religious, idealistic, and romantic views but rather, that painting should be about painting. This is where the 'inherent qualities' of a medium idea comes into play. Through studying the inherent qualities of painting as the art itself the artist began to slowly deconstruct their imagery and yes this led directly to abstraction. However, photography's path at the time was almost opposite that of painting. Whereas at this time photographers were using special techniques like blur and very complicated processes of different color applications in order to make their work have more "artistic" value in eyes of the art market. So Strand, and later Adams and Weston, were looking at photography from a "Modernist" view and exploring the medium through it's inherent qualities. This meant that unlike the photographers before them who were desperately trying to impose themselves and their own hand into the work, they would need to let the camera speak for itself and reveal the world around us for what it is. The photograph is something that must be made from the world and therefore they believed the camera should "see" the world for what it is. They decided to leave the deconstruction of images to the painters and take advantage of the fact that a photograph comes directly from life and the power of it relies on that fact. So they believed the photographer should not intentionally distort their photographs to remove them from reality but should instead remove themselves from the photograph and let everything out in the world speak through the image rather than the artist behind the lens. Come to think of it, maybe "distortion" was the proper word for this article.

Anyways, I hope that made sense and it cleared a few things up. Although I think you knew what I meant and it was more of just a problem of vocabulary than anything else. Thank you sincerely again for taking the time to voice your ideas and concerns and for keeping me in check ;)

Reply
:iconwtek79:
WTek79 Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Thanks a lot for your long and very insightful reply. It is now much clearer to me, and yeah, words are often misleading, and I guess now we agree much more :nod:

Thanks again for that very enjoyable reading ! :hug:
Reply
:iconjustanothersomeone:
justanothersomeone Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2013  Student Photographer
It was my pleasure! Great getting to chat with you about these fun topics.
Reply
:iconeinsilbig:
Einsilbig Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
I like your journal entry a lot and your ideas for discussion are much appreciated.

 "painters, who during the previous century, already fully explored and mastered abstraction and non-representational art."
I do not share your point of view here, I think abstraction will never be fully explored nor mastered.
And that said, I guess it´s enriching that other art movements shed some light on this area.

What I miss in the discussion is the multifacetedness of abstraction - its not only blur. So I want to contribute other
influences in the abstract arts with the following (only examples):


wtek79.deviantart.com/




gva.deviantart.com/gallery/256…




Endless possibilities..

:wave:
Reply
:iconjustanothersomeone:
justanothersomeone Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2013  Student Photographer
I'm glad you enjoyed it! Thank you for taking the time to comment and add these amazing works to the conversation. Please read the discussion between me and *WTek79 to clear a few things up about the multifacetedness of abstraction.

I agree with you to a point about it never being fully explored because I don't think any topic, genre, or style can ever be fully explored because of the simple fact that life and the world around us are constantly changing and there are always new ways to see things and new images to be made by new artist and their own unique interpretation. Having that said though I still stand by my original statement simply because if you look at where painting came from, it's depiction of realism and lifelike imagery, to where it went with artists like Matisse and Picasso, and another step of abstraction to where Piet Mondrian took it, and finally to Jackson Pollock and Gerhard Richter, you can see that as a visual language and a style, abstraction was pretty much completely explored and exhausted. That's not to discourage artists from working in these styles because every person will interpret the world differently and no two works of art will ever be exactly the same.
Reply
:icondelahkel:
Delahkel Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2013  Professional Photographer
1) Sure it is, there are no rules in photography.
2) Not a subject I personally dig, so don't know much artists in this genre.
3) That's like asking which is better, Canon on Nikon, there's no right answer, it depends on the photographer and the photographs in question.
Reply
:iconjustanothersomeone:
justanothersomeone Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2013  Student Photographer
1. On a personal level sure, but in the marketplace and context of fine art and it's history there very much are rules. Learning them is crucial to understanding what you do and why you do it and where your work fits in the greater dialogue.
2. Well I hope you'll change your mind ;)
3. There is no "right" answer here that's why I framed it as "what do you think". I think your answer to number two answers this question as well. You don't find blurred or abstracted images as successful to you personally and your aesthetic. Which is totally fine :D

Thank you for replying and adding to the conversation :highfive:
Reply
:icondelahkel:
Delahkel Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2013  Professional Photographer
1) For my commercial work, I follow the "rules" and the standards of the industry, I have to, or I'll be out of work. For my personal art though, I do what I think looks best, not what's standard and what not. Now, if that looks good or not, that depends on the viewer.
2) Maybe in the future I'll find some that I like, who knows? :D
3) Well, yeah, it's true, it's not a style I personally like to use or look at, I still think it's a valuable style, and that diversity is good.
Reply
:iconjakezdaniel:
JakezDaniel Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2013   Photographer
Hengki Lee, too is a master in blur photographs:
www.facebook.com/hengkilee
Reply
:iconjustanothersomeone:
justanothersomeone Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2013  Student Photographer
I very much enjoyed his work. Thank you for sharing! He has stylistic similarities with Keith Carter.
Reply
:iconjakezdaniel:
JakezDaniel Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2013   Photographer
Thanks a lot!
For me photography and paint can't be compared.
The first one records a laps of time "click", the second one is a progressive process.

Here some that could fit for the article



Reply
:iconro-mi-go:
ro-mi-go Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2013
Thank you so much for the mention my friend!
Reply
:iconjakezdaniel:
JakezDaniel Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2013   Photographer
Pas de problème :)
Reply
:iconimage-heart:
Image-heart Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
thanks.
Reply
:iconjakezdaniel:
JakezDaniel Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2013   Photographer
My pleasure
Reply
:iconfassod:
Fassod Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Thanks very much for the feature, 
it's an honor.
Reply
:iconjakezdaniel:
JakezDaniel Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2013   Photographer
My pleasure :)
Reply
:iconjustanothersomeone:
justanothersomeone Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2013  Student Photographer
For me, I agree with you, they cannot be compared. They are two very different mediums with different processes and results. They do communicate with each other though and they bounce off of each other. In the past they were much more at odds than companions.. Photography struggled against hurricane winds to be accepted as fine art. The critics of the time (and some still today) believe painting can do anything a photograph can do but in a more "artistic" way.

Thanks for your comment and thank you for providing more amazing works to the discussion :highfive:

Reply
:iconjakezdaniel:
JakezDaniel Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2013   Photographer
I must say that my first medium was drawing and I went on into photography quite late. So I believe I have a sensibility about not how things are looking around me but how I feel them, how I could paint them, except that I just use light, movement, focus, photographic technics and so on... and the instant, that is unique to photography (and cinema), I believe.
About the problem of is it art or not... we should wonder about what art is?
What is its purpose? To put some paint nicely on a canvas or to express the author's sensibility?
Reply
:iconjustanothersomeone:
justanothersomeone Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2013  Student Photographer
I came from a drawing and painting background as well and didn't even think of photography as a possibility until I took a class a couple of years into college so I come from a similar place as you. I feel that photography is so much more rich and engaging when someone comes at it with a background in other traditional art forms like painting.
As for the art debate. I believe "art" and "fine art" are two different things. I was referring to fine art. I think everyone would mostly agree that art is personal and has widely varying definitions. Whereas fine art has to follow a specific set of rules almost like it's a little game. If it did not and it had a more open minded approach and accepted all "art" then it would be too watered down and it would lose it's monetary value. Its unfortunate really, but to be a part of the fine art world you have to follow the rules. At the same time that's what makes it so complex and fun. You learn where you can break the rules and where you can't.
Reply
Add a Comment: