Is it still art?

[Courtney]

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

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?

[Marko]

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

[w3rk5]

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

It's just a different form of art.

Just my opinion.

[tegan]

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

[Marko]

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.

[w3rk5]

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.

[tegan]

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

[jellotranz]

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.

[Marko]

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.

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

[jellotranz]

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...