Originally posted by BrianR edit- some much nicer examples of his old works are here- We’re for Sydney | Daily Telegraph, all talented nature photography, a handful of them are outstanding.
With all due respect, Brian, those examples are incredibly artistic. Compare this with these. One does by painters and undeniably artistic, Steve's done by a photographer, and equally artistic.
18 best Canadian Wildlife Artists images on Pinterest | Wildlife art, Painting art and Wildlife paintings
Like this is art... a pintest Canadian WIlife Painter
And this isn't. From your "this is not art, this is a documentry" link. Steve Parrish , from when according to you, he wasn't into creating art.
[
With all due respect, you guys are picking at nits and I have no idea why.
Why is it do difficult for you guys to admit good photographers create good art? Where does this odd philosophical distinction come from? The biases of painters looking down their noses at photographers? Some deluded painter telling you "no matter what you do with your camera, it will never be as good as what i do." It must be hard to use a camera under that kind of weight.
In essence all photography is art. If you aren't interested in artistic expression, you aren't good at photography. Documentary photography without artistic values is so rare you couldn't even come up with an example. Very interesting that gaweidert has gone Stockholm on us, and internalized the values of one of them.
From my experience the "photography is not art " school of thought is promoted and kept alive by not very good painters who resent the competition from those who they feel are inferior to themselves.
Anyone who decides a whole group of other artists are inferior to themselves is by definition myopic and delusional. I expect to meet the odd painter suffering from such delusions. I don't expect to see such thinking on a photography forum. You are identifying with your tormenters.
The fact that there is a long history of painters who thought photographers were inferior, doesn't mean they were right, ever, not even in the very beginning of photography. Photography was always about aging art. It did to a large extent replace technical illustration, which cost many "artists" income. In my mind that is the source of the "photography isn't art "movement. It's about money, not about artitistc values. And by those who for some reason have negative attitudes toward the idea of artists because don't slave away in the fields or factories making useful things to improve our material wealth.
Reminds me of Money for Nothing.
https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=aaplw&p=MOney+for+Nothing+DIr...6&action=click
The story of the song being a bunch of truck driving delivery men in bar, and their attitudes towards people who make their money through art. You guys have been Stockholmed. You have adopted the attitudes of your detractors.
Ho is it possible to won and make use of camera, while having such negative attitudes towards the medium? You must feel guilty every time you pick up the camera.