Is it still art?

Altohught i have posted on a different forum, ill post it here too because ithink its interesting.. Im a photography student and the people in my class have mixed feelings on weather taking pictures of females in a more provocative way (ie: Playboy) is still art. what are you thoughts.. likeh eres an example of what i mean. It doesnt have to be nude http://www.paulbuceta.com/images/pho...otford_012.jpg

theresa photographer we were discussing in class that makes his living off these types of photos
www.paulbuceta.com

take a glance at it if you want, but its mainly the same sorta stuff.

so.. is it still art?

You could make the argument in either direction. At the end of the day it will come down to opinion.

For me this is not art.

It's a product shot meant to sell something, just like a shot of Jiffy peanut butter or a box of Kleenex.

Can someone argue that a even product shot is art..i guess they can. But for me, not art.

Hope that helps,

marko

I think it's art even though it's commercial.

It's just a different form of art.

Just my opinion. :)

In one respect, I disagree with Marko. A product photo can be art, if it is well done in terms of being artistic and creative.

But in this case it is not art, and that is not my opinion.

It is simply a poorly done photo. Any photo of people needs the eyes which are mirrors to the soul, express the personality, mood and a considerable number of other emotions to the photo. Hiding the eyes is down right poor technique. It is a negative comment to say: "Make up and hair by....." and having the hair look absolutely terrible. The models are certainly NOT flattered by this shot, quite the contrary, and this is the difference with Playboy shots. The splashing water is a considerable visual distraction and adds nothing to the shot whatsoever. There is no sensual nature to this shot either. Whatever he is trying to portray is badly done and unsuccessful.

Tegan

Just to clarify, yes I guess in some cases product shots can be 'art' - it's not the case here - in my opinion.

Unlike tegan, I this photograph is successful in what it was trying to acheive...but i maintain that it's not art.

I guess the word, "art" has different meanings to different people.

To me, anything can be art. An important thing about art is it gives the viewer/listener/ect. a choice to determine if they either like it or not.

With the example picture above........How far fetched is it for someone/anyone to appreciate that picture? If this person bought a print and framed it will you tell that person it's not art?

If you would, it could be a dangerous suggestion. Are you possibly suggesting there are "rules to art" or "limits to creation"?

Skill is not art. It's the technical side of art. Skill is judged differently than art. It's either good or bad, right or wrong, better or worse, ect.

Again with the example picture. I think this shot was done well and probably successful for what it was intended for. I can't imagine this shot was intended to be a portrait nor a landscape shot. Why critique it like it is?

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. You don't have to agree with me but maybe this will give readers a different view on how to tackle this subject on their own.

Totally out of topic. I think it's a great thing that we can all discuses/share ideas without any tempers or ego's flying around. Then again.......there's only 3 of us. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marko

Unlike tegan, I this photograph is successful in what it was trying to acheive...but i maintain that it's not art.

---

OK, that assumes you know what it was trying to achieve. So, as one who does not see what it was trying to achieve, please, explain the objective and why you think it was successful. :)

Tegan

w3rk5:

Although art may mean different things to different people, there is a consensus among the top pros and top amateurs as to what constitutes photographic art. These standards determine whether your photos will be accepted for publishing in magazines, books, displayed in galleries, salon competitions or even used for advertising, public relations or other purposes.

They fall into two areas: technique: which is the technical side of photography and composition: which is the elements of design from the field or art used to evaluate the artistic side of a photo. Bottom line is that if every element of your technique and composition contributes to the quality and effectiveness/impact of the photo then it is an artistic high quality photo.
If, on the other hand, a method, approach, technique, disregard of standards distracts or detracts from the effectiveness/impact of the photo, then it is a weakness.

This is not a personal view or opinion. This is simply how it is in the field of photography and has been for more than the last 50 years.

Tegan

This makes sense to me. :)

http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/artart...iststoday.html

Quote:

---

OK, that assumes you know what it was trying to achieve. So, as one who does not see what it was trying to achieve, please, explain the objective and why you think it was successful.

---

Sure i'll spar with ya :) (gotta get more smilies in here)

I think the goal of this shot is to show 2 sexy women playing provocatively in the water to suggest some future girl on girl action in the hopes of titilating a male to look at the picture and buy the magazine.

Although I never buy these types of magazines, I do find the shot 'sexy'

You are free to disagree of course, but the mere fact that these types of shots are everywhere, suggests that they sell or work.

Is there room for some technical improvement - yes. But it's still a sexy shot that fulfills its intent IMO.

I do think this is a fascinatating topic by the way and i also think there is NO answer to this issue.

I'm sure many of us have seen stuff hanging in a museum (either photography or painting etc) that we would not think is art. Does the fact that it's on the wall mean it's art. Does the fact that it was created, does that in and of itself make it art. For me, NO. But for many people yes.

A few years ago maybe 10ish there was this whole thing in the montreal museam of contenporary art. Some artist hung a side of beef in the museum. His explanation was decay of society, stripping away the facade - yada yada. The public did not think it was art. Some artists did, but the public did not. Who is right?

I have seen large black canvases (a giant framed canvas of only black on it) that are worth millions of dollars. I have seen the same canvases in blue.

I have seen dead people's faces and fleshwounds in photography exhibits by Andreas Serrano that i thought was art - but MANY people did not think so. Who is right? He also has that famous shot called Piss Christ below of a crucifix in urine with cow's blood.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...%281987%29.jpg
You can bet your best black bible that the majority of the world will not think that this one is art. Who is right?

and to get really nitty gritty...people collect roadkill, and even feces. They photograph it and exhibit it....and the lighting isn't even that good - but it makes it into some exhibit somewhere where people call it art.


So if anything CAN be art it stands to my reasoning anyway that 'art' has no definition. Not no meaning, but no definition that will be universally accepted. Technique - that you can define...but not art. One peson will say it is and 1 person will say it isn't...and these people can be totally lay people OR masters of their craft and there will still de very heated debates.

Your turn :)

Marko

I agree Marko. This is basically what I was trying to say. :)

It's also a good to point out something that kinda ties in with what we're talking about........everything changes.

Techniques, standards, technology, opinions, definitions, you, me, ect. Everything. You either change/adapt or you don't. If you don't, you should at the very least recognize that there is change.........for better or worse.

Again, these are only my opinions. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marko

I do think this is a fascinatating topic by the way and i also think there is NO answer to this issue.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by w3rk5

I guess the word, "art" has different meanings to different people.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marko

So if anything CAN be art it stands to my reasoning anyway that 'art' has no definition. Not no meaning, but no definition that will be universally accepted.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by w3rk5

To me, anything can be art. An important thing about art is it gives the viewer/listener/ect. a choice to determine if they either like it or not.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marko

Technique - that you can define...but not art. One peson will say it is and 1 person will say it isn't...and these people can be totally lay people OR masters of their craft and there will still de very heated debates.
Marko

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by w3rk5

Skill is not art. It's the technical side of art. Skill is judged differently than art. It's either good or bad, right or wrong, better or worse, ect.

---

Is Courtney still here?

Is she still reading or taking notes on this thread?

I hope so, cause these ideas we're talking about is gold. :D

w3rk5:

Although art may mean different things to different people, there is a consensus among the top pros and top amateurs as to what constitutes photographic art. These standards determine whether your photos will be accepted for publishing in magazines, books, displayed in galleries, salon competitions or even used for advertising, public relations or other purposes.

They fall into two areas: technique: which is the technical side of photography and composition: which is the elements of design from the field or art used to evaluate the artistic side of a photo. Bottom line is that if every element of your technique and composition contributes to the quality and effectiveness/impact of the photo then it is an artistic high quality photo.
If, on the other hand, a method, approach, technique, disregard of standards distracts or detracts from the effectiveness/impact of the photo, then it is a weakness.

This is not a personal view or opinion. This is simply how it is in the field of photography and has been for more than the last 50 years.

Tegan

Bottom line is that if you are an amateur, you can hold any opinion you want, even if it is wrong. If you are a professional and particularly if you are working for a large organization, then if you do not follow the recognized standards then you will quickly become a STARVING ARTIST. I happen to believe that the standards are correct and valid and have been involved as a supervisor in firing a self-proclaimed "artist" who did not meet the needs of the organizaion.

Tegan

I think there's a misunderstanding Tegan. :confused:

You're talking about rules/standards for a professional photographer. Most professional photographers get paid to take pictures of what they are asked/assigned/hired to do. Produce what the client wants/needs. I don't think they are often hired to be a artist.

I agree with that. That's why they are professionals, but that's not what we're talking about. We're discussing, "what is art?" You're talking about the standards for usable art in the commercial/business point of view.

Am I right? :)

Marko.......isn't that what we were talking about? :o

Marko.......isn't that what we were talking about?

I guess the 2 can be related in some way, but ultimately according to the thread title we are talking about what is art. Or Is that shot art which led us into this discussion.

Although art may mean different things to different people, there is a consensus among the top pros and top amateurs as to what constitutes photographic art. These standards determine whether your photos will be accepted for publishing in magazines, books, displayed in galleries, salon competitions or even used for advertising, public relations or other purposes.

They fall into two areas: technique: which is the technical side of photography and composition: which is the elements of design from the field or art used to evaluate the artistic side of a photo. Bottom line is that if every element of your technique and composition contributes to the quality and effectiveness/impact of the photo then it is an artistic high quality photo.
If, on the other hand, a method, approach, technique, disregard of standards distracts or detracts from the effectiveness/impact of the photo, then it is a weakness.

This is not a personal view or opinion. This is simply how it is in the field of photography and has been for more than the last 50 years.

I too,think this definition is very strict and confusing tegan when it comes to defining art. It is fairly good (because standards can change - they are not etched in stone) for technique, but not art.

Which is why judges with decades or more of experience will OFTEN not see eye to eye when judging other professional photographers' work. I too have been to a number of these competitions and sometimes the opinions are as diverse as the American Idol Judges' opinions.

Even though the technique may be excellent, many of the judges won't think certain shots are art. They may not even like the shots and may use words like boring, superficial, overdone, contrived to descibe shots with excellent technique. Why, because 'art' or even whether you like a photograph defies standards/definitions IMO, it is mostly based on personal opinion. Technique usually helps and may well be one of the elements that may make a shot artful, then again maybe not.

and the band played on...and the beat goes on..ball of confusion.:p

Interesting discussion. For what it's worth this image is not art to me. JMO. Some product shots can be art though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Courtney

Im a photography student and the people in my class have mixed feelings on weather taking pictures of females in a more provocative way (ie: Playboy) is still art. what are you thoughts..

---

I just started listening to the Podcasts so I am a little behind on them at the moment, but I thought I would take a minute and throw my two cents in for what it’s worth. At this point the image is no longer working so I can’t see the original piece in question, but I think I have a pretty good idea of the types of photographs mentioned. The initial question was:

“Im a photography student and the people in my class have mixed feelings on weather taking pictures of females in a more provocative way (ie: Playboy) is still art. what are you thoughts”

Despite the fact that this is probably as opposite of a genre as you can get for what I generally shoot (Concert photography) for 3 years or so I shot for the Adult Industry. This is not something I generally mention in forums like this, not because I am embarrassed or ashamed I did, but more so that the subject has a tendency to offend people, plus I don’t like to field the usual questions such as “How could you?” But I believe in this case my experience is extremely relevant to the question so here it goes..

When people look at nudes regardless of the medium used (Photography, Paintings, sculptures etc,) they immediately form a mental opinion on the subject (If they don’t already have one). Many times this opinion is based upon their religion, upbringing, social status and many other factors but it seems to me that rarely is the opinion actually about the work itself.

When I say the work itself the first thoughts that come to mind is the medium used. I mention this only because it seems that the medium seems to makes difference in the Average person’s eyes. Take the average person on the street and show them Danaë by Tiziano Vecelli and most people would call the nude “art”. Now take that same person, show them a technically perfect, well light photograph of a nude women laying on a bed similar in most aspects to Danae and they will call it pornography or at the very least they will tell you that the photograph is NOT “art”.

To me the human form is something that should be appreciated for what it is. Now before I go any further I should say that not all “Nudes” to me qualify as “Art”, but then again defining what makes a piece art is a difficult thing to do as it is so subjective.

Now obviously when I was shooting for the Adult Industry, in the minds of the Industry I was NOT making art. They didn’t want art, just as newspapers don’t what art, they both just want photographs that serve their purpose.

This caused me a lot of problems in the beginning! I wanted and was going to shoot art… It may end up not being used for that exact purpose, but how people use my photography generally isn’t my concern as I don’t EVER shoot for anyone else but me. So my shoots while technically pornography and graphic in nature were art (at least to me). Every single frame I submitted was lit properly, exposed properly, the costumes and locations were chosen very carefully to match the look “I WAS GOING FOR”. Luckily I have never been in a position where I had to rely on my photography to make a living. This gave me the freedom to shoot how I want and when I want.

In the beginning I was turned down A LOT with people saying it’s too “Artsy” this was purely because I was seeking the wrong venue for my work. Eventually I found venues who appreciated my artistic vision when it came to my work.

Now I will say that even though in my mind I was shooting “art” I was still working for the Adult Industry and this meant that at some point during the shoot I did have to start making the transition from pure art to well… I guess I would call it erotic art perhaps.. So as my shoots progressed, I would slowly move from just Art to the more erotic side. (Really I tend to think of the work I did then to be more erotic than pornographic, especially when you consider that the all so popular “money” shot I NEVER DID. Somehow I went 3 years in the industry and more than 250 shoots without ever doing that particular shot.

So.. Was I really creating art? Dunno.. In my mind yes I was. I’m sure in most others eyes, I was not. Do these things concern me? Nope not in the least. Why? Because I shoot for me, and no one else. All that matters in my mind is that I am happy with what I produced.

So in a nutshell and to answer your question, if done correctly, and when I say correctly, I mean all the aspects that make non nude photographs good (Lighting, framing, exposure, background etc) exist in this type of photograph then yes its art or at least it is to me.. But then again, I’m biased.

For those of you who are interested, click here to view one of my pictures I did back then. It is NOT a nude or at least this shot wasn't.

It's still an interesting discussion even though the thread is a year old. We are in a time of transition where EVERYBODY is taking photos these days and so the "is it art" question comes up again and again, partially because people love to consider their work as art.

Quote:

---

When I say the work itself the first thoughts that come to mind is the medium used. I mention this only because it seems that the medium seems to makes difference in the Average person’s eyes. Take the average person on the street and show them Danaë by Tiziano Vecelli and most people would call the nude “art”. Now take that same person, show them a technically perfect, well light photograph of a nude women laying on a bed similar in most aspects to Danae and they will call it pornography or at the very least they will tell you that the photograph is NOT “art”.

---

I disagree with this. Show them an open beaver shot ( a la hustler style) and they will surely say it's porn. Show them a photographic emulation of the Titian painting, they will say it's art (I really think most people can tell the difference).

In terms of your shot you linked to. I'm on the fence if whether I think it's art but I'm leaning toward no. For me it has an overly commercial feel. Yes commercial shots can be art, but this shot is similar to the original shot posted. It's more interesting - but similar. No offense intended.

Thx - Marko

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marko

No offense intended.

---

lol, at this point in my life it takes a whole lot more than that to offend me!!
On the can people tell the difference. Sure an open beaver shot... No questions there!! But I do have to say that alot more people than you think take offence to nudity.. I really wish they didn't but they do. But thats just my opinion. Believe me I have been in the cross hairs of some of these people and for pictures that really were just nudes and not porn.

On the is the commercial photo art? This particular photo just happens to be of my wife, and is printed and framed 30"X45" on my livingroom wall. It looks rather nice there.. Maybe that makes it art... :)

Perhaps the answer is in the intention of the creator. If the artist is creating the work in order to stimulate a sexual response, then the work is pornographic. If not, than maybe aritstic?

I don't know.

It's funny though. I think of those old black and white nude photos that were pornographic at their time and seem like art to me now. Why would that be? Maybe because they are black and white? Maybe because of the way the models were posed?

Hold on..is there such a thing is "nude" or "porongraphic" or are they the same???

Quote:

---

It's funny though. I think of those old black and white nude photos that were pornographic at their time and seem like art to me now. Why would that be? Maybe because they are black and white? Maybe because of the way the models were posed?

---

I love all these interesting points and this is another good one.

It's VERY interesting how certain images "become" art over time and early b/w nudes (porn for their time) are now art. This is especially true after an artist dies. And in many cases, mere 'longevity' influences the opinion that something is or isn't art.

Bad example but nobody took the Bee-Gees seriously when I was a kid. But now, they have been inducted into the hall of fame. Many people consider them great artists. Many people consider Madonna a great artist..boy I'd like to photograph her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marko

It's VERY interesting how certain images "become" art over time and early b/w nudes (porn for their time) are now art. This is especially true after an artist dies. And in many cases, mere 'longevity' influences the opinion that something is or isn't art.

---

This is one thing I like about art is that it evolves. When we look at art history there are eras each being an evolution of the form. We look at ancient cultures where sometimes their basic stoneware becomes the art of the time since that is what we have to represent their culture.

Who knows what they will consider the art of our time in a hundred years.