What is "fine art" photography

magkelly · 09-26-2010, 08:31 PM

I guess that depends upon what you see when you look at a photo. Is it just a recorded image or do you sometimes see it as a kind of live painting made with light and shadow via a camera? Sometimes it is just a recorded image of something, not much different from a frame saved on a web cam, for instance. Other times I can look at a photograph and it's like someone painted only using a camera instead of a brush.

Some painters and photographers remind me of each other actually. Looking at an Ansel Adams photograph and at an Andrew Wyeth is a very equal experience to me. There's a similar use of light and space even though the medium is entirely different. Wyeth tends to focus more on people in his landscape more, but if you really look at how he paints it it's not so different from how Adams sees his world. I can almost feel the wind in Adam's landscape photos sometimes. Ditto Wyeth.

In my mind the real "art" photographers, they're often the people who seem to see the most like painters do.

cbaytan · 09-26-2010, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by johnmflores

There's a bigger question here that's not being asked - is photography art? Take the best photograph from the best photographer that you can think of and place it next to a Picasso or a Van Gogh - how does the photograph fare?

Almost all major fine art museums already answered if photography is an art or not. Whats the difference with photography and other forms of painting? They paint with brush on the canvas, we paint with light on the film, no sorry, on CMOS. Any visual recording technique can be fine art as long as the fine art requirements are fulfilled, we already talked about that.

Originally posted by johnmflores

It's a bit of a loaded question in a camera forum, but isn't it telling that nearly all of the examples that are being cited in this thread are painters, not photographers?

Because painting is about 15.000 years older than photography, so painting's samples and artists outnumbered photographers hence they're more widely known to discuss about, thats all. For instance my favorite artist nowadays is Jeff Alu. Especially early visions. Here is the link. (He used to use a 2MP pocket camera in his early work) What do you think about his work?

Early Visions

cbaytan · 09-27-2010, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by magkelly

Some painters and photographers remind me of each other actually. Looking at an Ansel Adams photograph and at an Andrew Wyeth is a very equal experience to me. There's a similar use of light and space even though the medium is entirely different. Wyeth tends to focus more on people in his landscape more, but if you really look at how he paints it it's not so different from how Adams sees his world. I can almost feel the wind in Adam's landscape photos sometimes. Ditto Wyeth.
.

Andrew Wyeth really? Actually Adams seems to me a B%W version of Albert Bierstadt, click on the walls below the page. Especially the 1st & 3rd wall

Albert Bierstadt Paintings

magkelly · 09-27-2010, 06:10 AM

Yeah, the sense of movement is the same sometimes, I think Adams and Wyeth. But I can see why you'd compare him to this guy too. Thanks for the link. That's a new painter for me actually, though I think maybe I recognize the name, and I very much enjoyed going there and looking at his work.

Blue · 09-27-2010, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by johnmflores

There's a bigger question here that's not being asked - is photography art? Take the best photograph from the best photographer that you can think of and place it next to a Picasso or a Van Gogh - how does the photograph fare?

It's a bit of a loaded question in a camera forum, but isn't it telling that nearly all of the examples that are being cited in this thread are painters, not photographers?

Is a painting art? Or is sculpture art?

Blue · 09-27-2010, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by cbaytan

Almost all major fine art museums already answered if photography is an art or not. Whats the difference with photography and other forms of painting? They paint with brush on the canvas, we paint with light on the film, no sorry, on CMOS. Any visual recording technique can be fine art as long as the fine art requirements are fulfilled, we already talked about that.

. . .

Great. You just went and excluded all the CCD people and threw the 645D out the window.

brofkand · 09-27-2010, 11:18 AM

Any time a new medium comes up, the question is asked; is it art?

We tackled the question thanks to Steiglitz, the Pictorialists, the f/64 group, etc with black and white photography. Color photography was deemed art thanks to William Eggleston, et al.

The current question asked by curators, historians, etc is this: Is an image processed by an analog to digital converter and spit out of a machine that sprays dots onto paper art? I think the question is as silly now as it was when people were asking if black and white photography is art.

johnmflores · 09-27-2010, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by brofkand

Any time a new medium comes up, the question is asked; is it art?

We tackled the question thanks to Steiglitz, the Pictorialists, the f/64 group, etc with black and white photography. Color photography was deemed art thanks to William Eggleston, et al.

The current question asked by curators, historians, etc is this: Is an image processed by an analog to digital converter and spit out of a machine that sprays dots onto paper art? I think the question is as silly now as it was when people were asking if black and white photography is art.

Perhaps I phrased it too provocatively. It is undoubtedly an art. Maybe the question is - is photography seen on equal footing as painting and other more traditional art forms?" I offer these to anecdotes to the discussion:

1-a good friend, an accomplished photographer, believes that photographs are discriminated against at juried shows/competitions where different media are accepted.

2-a great photo portrait can take hours and days to set up and plan. A great painted portrait however can take weeks and months. Does the fact that it is relatively easier diminish photography in the public's eye when compared to painting?

Looking forward to responses

cbaytan · 09-27-2010, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by johnmflores

2-a great photo portrait can take hours and days to set up and plan. A great painted portrait however can take weeks and months. Does the fact that it is relatively easier diminish photography in the public's eye when compared to painting?
Looking forward to responses

Speed is superiority of the photography, an average person can/might think, "uhm yes, I don't /can't have a canvas and all sorts of painting equipment and have no ability to paint, but I have a camera I have the ability for taking pictures, so I can be or I am an artist too".
Is that what you mean?

If yes, my answer would be go ahead and make some fine art, Jeff Alu had $150 camera and you have better one. Bresson had only single 50mm lens for all his work, technically you are in superior condition, just do it, do it.

BTW why public opinion&acceptance concerns you that much? People who understands the fine arts, fine art critics and curators actually matter. What if one single person wouldn't understand your fine art piece? Remember Bach and the Van Gogh? In terms of fine arts seeking early public acceptance wouldn't be a problem, because fine art message is, a unique message and concept for the societies. Your works will/might talk in the future to the people, along with your immortal name. Let them think you're just nuts, for now.

johnmflores · 09-27-2010, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by cbaytan

Speed is superiority of the photography, an average person can/might think, "uhm yes, I don't /can't have a canvas and all sorts of painting equipment and have no ability to paint, but I have a camera I have the ability for taking pictures, so I can be or I am an artist too".
Is that what you mean?

If yes, my answer would be go ahead and make some fine art, Jeff Alu had $150 camera and you have better one. Bresson had only single 50mm lens for all his work, technically you are in superior condition, just do it, do it.

BTW why public opinion&acceptance concerns you that much? People who understands the fine arts, fine art critics and curators actually matter. What if one single person wouldn't understand your fine art piece? Remember Bach and the Van Gogh? In terms of fine arts seeking early public acceptance wouldn't be a problem, because fine art message is, a unique message and concept for the societies. Your works will/might talk in the future to the people, along with your immortal name. Let them think you're just nuts, for now.

Can,

I've already recognized that photography is an art. There have been some great photographers - I just met two Magnum photographers the other night. That is not the point I am trying to make. Like it or not, there is a hierarchy in the art world, and like it or not, I don't think photography carries the same weight or importance as other media.

For example, a couple of years ago I had a couple of beers with a potter. He's relatively successful in his field - successful enough to be invited to teach at one of the most reknowned pottery/clay schools in the country. We talked about this very issue regarding pottery, and he echoed my thoughts - that clay artists struggled to be accepted as equals to the painters, sculptors, etc...

These attitudes and opinions are not universal; this is not a black/white situation. But they are out there, and so I thought that I'd bring them up in the context of this conversation.

Here's another way to look at it - compare quilting to painting. Quilting, as creative as it is, has not reached the same expressive potential that painting has. There are probably some very amazing quilts that have been made by some very talented individuals (please share if you can), but can they compare with a Van Gogh?

Likewise with photography. But again, this is not a black/white argument. Just the other night I saw a photograph by a young photographer that in many ways is as expressive as Munch's "The Scream":

More here: http://www.burnmagazine.org/essays/2010/09/andy-spyra-kashmir/

It's work like Spyra's that convinces me that photography is a fine art. But is it the equal of painting? Who is photography's Picasso?

If there is a photographer that has been able to produce photos as rich and complex and expressive as this, than please share.

RioRico · 09-27-2010, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by Chiroptera

This is an extremely shallow view of what fine art photography can and cannot be.... Go look through the work of Alfred Stieglitz, Henri Cartier-Bresson, or Eduard Boubat... There is nothing pretentious about fine art photography; unless you consider pushing yourself forward to find new ways of creative expression and communication, through re-representation with a camera, pretentious. If that's the case I wouldn't call you much a photographer at all.

I have a rather fair understanding of art and photography, having studied and worked thither for about a half-century. Yes indeed, many photographers produce brilliant art. But many of those who style themselves as "fine-art photographers" (FAPs) seem to fall short. Yes, HCB was a great artist with a camera (and he studied 'art' before going photographic) but IIRC he never called himself a FAP. (Alas, that acronym is also a rude euphemism. Ironic, eh?)

Any field that labels itself a 'science', probably isn't. Cf. Christian Science, Political Science, Computer Science, Creation Science, etc.

In my experience, those pushing the envelope of creativity in photography or any other visual arts field, aren't called Fine Artists, but are often slapped with vicious invective. And those who adopt the Fine Arts label too often produce pretentious and insipid imagery such as I mentioned. Calling yourself a Fine Artist doesn't make you one.

BillM · 09-28-2010, 12:03 AM

Is there an 'age' at which a human being comprehends art?

If we were to have a child old enough to converse,and never having seen 'Guernica' and without caption, ask that child, what do you see? what would that child say.

If we have that same child, like wise, look at what Robert Capa did on normandy beach
What might that child say?

cbaytan · 09-28-2010, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by johnmflores

Can,
If there is a photographer that has been able to produce photos as rich and complex and expressive as this, than please share.

Before the Digital age, photography had it's limitations like you could not distort images as you can in painting, but with digital you can produce an image like Picasso's Guernica, but still photographers had counterparts for Guernica even at that film era. To me: Capa's Death of a loyalist photo

And Hugh Thomas' Spanish War photo's well gave the message as Picasso's Guernica.

Today you can produce an image more complex than Guernica with using several photos and heavy distortion with PhotoShop, but would it be called still Photography? It's debatable. I believe no, the description of "Digital Art" would be more proper even though it is produced from more than one photos. But who cares, if you give your message with a single photo or a mosaic from several photographs. Thats still Art. That could be even richer than Picasso's if you have the PhotoShop talent.

P.S. A small detail, when Munch painting theme is pure "Social anxiety", Kashmir photo represents "Pain&Fear". to me.

brofkand · 09-28-2010, 07:55 PM

Photomontage has been around a lot longer than Photoshop, Cbaytan.

One could create an image like Guernica using many negatives and an enlarger. It would be a lot of work, but it would be possible. It wouldn't look painterly necessarily, but it would be a montage.

I don't know if Photography has a Picasso; David Hockney did create a lot of cubism-inspired photomontages.

johnmflores · 09-29-2010, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by cbaytan

Before the Digital age, photography had it's limitations like you could not distort images as you can in painting, but with digital you can produce an image like Picasso's Guernica, but still photographers had counterparts for Guernica even at that film era. To me: Capa's Death of a loyalist photo

And Hugh Thomas' Spanish War photo's well gave the message as Picasso's Guernica.

Today you can produce an image more complex than Guernica with using several photos and heavy distortion with PhotoShop, but would it be called still Photography? It's debatable. I believe no, the description of "Digital Art" would be more proper even though it is produced from more than one photos. But who cares, if you give your message with a single photo or a mosaic from several photographs. Thats still Art. That could be even richer than Picasso's if you have the PhotoShop talent.

P.S. A small detail, when Munch painting theme is pure "Social anxiety", Kashmir photo represents "Pain&Fear". to me.

Looking at Hugh Thomas' horrific photo brings up a good question - where's the line between fine art photography and reportage? In other words, is Thomas an artist or a photographer? If someone today with no artistic aspirations walks onto a scene of similar violence and snaps a picture with their iPhone, does that make them an artist?

And I'd still argue that there's a gap between Capa and Picasso. If we are to believe that Capa's shot is authentic (there are many debates to the contrary), then Capa's brilliance was in being at the right place at the right time. He was, in some ways, the lucky victim of circumstance. Granted, he put himself in the position to be there, but contrast that with Picasso's process for Guernica. Picasso started with a feeling (outrage? sadness? shock? horror?) and an idea and at one point faced a blank canvas. He had to take a blank canvas and create a scene of horror and devastation from nothing. His process is much more conceptual than Capa's.

As I've said though, it's not black and white - the photo I shared of Kashmir is arguably closer to Picasso than Capa is - from a conceptual standpoint, not the subject matter.

This debate is not new - they've compared painting to sculpture for centuries. I'm enjoying it nonetheless.

09-26-2010, 11:44 PM	#32
cbaytan Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Trabzon/Turkey Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,010	Originally posted by johnmflores There's a bigger question here that's not being asked - is photography art? Take the best photograph from the best photographer that you can think of and place it next to a Picasso or a Van Gogh - how does the photograph fare? Almost all major fine art museums already answered if photography is an art or not. Whats the difference with photography and other forms of painting? They paint with brush on the canvas, we paint with light on the film, no sorry, on CMOS. Any visual recording technique can be fine art as long as the fine art requirements are fulfilled, we already talked about that. Originally posted by johnmflores It's a bit of a loaded question in a camera forum, but isn't it telling that nearly all of the examples that are being cited in this thread are painters, not photographers? Because painting is about 15.000 years older than photography, so painting's samples and artists outnumbered photographers hence they're more widely known to discuss about, thats all. For instance my favorite artist nowadays is Jeff Alu. Especially early visions. Here is the link. (He used to use a 2MP pocket camera in his early work) What do you think about his work? Early Visions Last edited by cbaytan; 09-26-2010 at 11:48 PM. Reason: Add info

09-27-2010, 10:45 PM	#41
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by Chiroptera This is an extremely shallow view of what fine art photography can and cannot be.... Go look through the work of Alfred Stieglitz, Henri Cartier-Bresson, or Eduard Boubat... There is nothing pretentious about fine art photography; unless you consider pushing yourself forward to find new ways of creative expression and communication, through re-representation with a camera, pretentious. If that's the case I wouldn't call you much a photographer at all. I have a rather fair understanding of art and photography, having studied and worked thither for about a half-century. Yes indeed, many photographers produce brilliant art. But many of those who style themselves as "fine-art photographers" (FAPs) seem to fall short. Yes, HCB was a great artist with a camera (and he studied 'art' before going photographic) but IIRC he never called himself a FAP. (Alas, that acronym is also a rude euphemism. Ironic, eh?) Any field that labels itself a 'science', probably isn't. Cf. Christian Science, Political Science, Computer Science, Creation Science, etc. In my experience, those pushing the envelope of creativity in photography or any other visual arts field, aren't called Fine Artists, but are often slapped with vicious invective. And those who adopt the Fine Arts label too often produce pretentious and insipid imagery such as I mentioned. Calling yourself a Fine Artist doesn't make you one.

09-28-2010, 12:32 AM	#43
cbaytan Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Trabzon/Turkey Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,010	Originally posted by johnmflores Can, If there is a photographer that has been able to produce photos as rich and complex and expressive as this, than please share. Before the Digital age, photography had it's limitations like you could not distort images as you can in painting, but with digital you can produce an image like Picasso's Guernica, but still photographers had counterparts for Guernica even at that film era. To me: Capa's Death of a loyalist photo And Hugh Thomas' Spanish War photo's well gave the message as Picasso's Guernica. Today you can produce an image more complex than Guernica with using several photos and heavy distortion with PhotoShop, but would it be called still Photography? It's debatable. I believe no, the description of "Digital Art" would be more proper even though it is produced from more than one photos. But who cares, if you give your message with a single photo or a mosaic from several photographs. Thats still Art. That could be even richer than Picasso's if you have the PhotoShop talent. P.S. A small detail, when Munch painting theme is pure "Social anxiety", Kashmir photo represents "Pain&Fear". to me. Last edited by cbaytan; 09-28-2010 at 01:35 AM. Reason: Add info

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New website - fine art landscape photography - need your feedback	José Ramos	Photographic Industry and Professionals	12	05-30-2010 08:14 PM
"You Picked a Fine Time to Lead Us, Barack"	wlank	General Talk	19	04-04-2010 11:24 AM
Landscape "Soul Searching" - long exposure fine art	José Ramos	Post Your Photos!	12	03-26-2010 04:01 AM
The scene I'd been waiting for for a long time ("auto art" from street lighting)	m8o	Photo Critique	7	11-03-2008 09:24 PM
k20D "fine sharpness" SUCKS! Too much noise!	rburgoss	Pentax DSLR Discussion	8	06-22-2008 06:59 AM

09-26-2010, 08:31 PM	#31
magkelly Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,901	I guess that depends upon what you see when you look at a photo. Is it just a recorded image or do you sometimes see it as a kind of live painting made with light and shadow via a camera? Sometimes it is just a recorded image of something, not much different from a frame saved on a web cam, for instance. Other times I can look at a photograph and it's like someone painted only using a camera instead of a brush. Some painters and photographers remind me of each other actually. Looking at an Ansel Adams photograph and at an Andrew Wyeth is a very equal experience to me. There's a similar use of light and space even though the medium is entirely different. Wyeth tends to focus more on people in his landscape more, but if you really look at how he paints it it's not so different from how Adams sees his world. I can almost feel the wind in Adam's landscape photos sometimes. Ditto Wyeth. In my mind the real "art" photographers, they're often the people who seem to see the most like painters do.

09-27-2010, 12:07 AM	#33
cbaytan Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Trabzon/Turkey Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,010	Originally posted by magkelly Some painters and photographers remind me of each other actually. Looking at an Ansel Adams photograph and at an Andrew Wyeth is a very equal experience to me. There's a similar use of light and space even though the medium is entirely different. Wyeth tends to focus more on people in his landscape more, but if you really look at how he paints it it's not so different from how Adams sees his world. I can almost feel the wind in Adam's landscape photos sometimes. Ditto Wyeth. . Andrew Wyeth really? Actually Adams seems to me a B%W version of Albert Bierstadt, click on the walls below the page. Especially the 1st & 3rd wall Albert Bierstadt Paintings

09-27-2010, 06:10 AM	#34
magkelly Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,901	Yeah, the sense of movement is the same sometimes, I think Adams and Wyeth. But I can see why you'd compare him to this guy too. Thanks for the link. That's a new painter for me actually, though I think maybe I recognize the name, and I very much enjoyed going there and looking at his work.

09-27-2010, 11:09 AM	#35
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by johnmflores There's a bigger question here that's not being asked - is photography art? Take the best photograph from the best photographer that you can think of and place it next to a Picasso or a Van Gogh - how does the photograph fare? It's a bit of a loaded question in a camera forum, but isn't it telling that nearly all of the examples that are being cited in this thread are painters, not photographers? Is a painting art? Or is sculpture art?

09-27-2010, 11:12 AM	#36
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by cbaytan Almost all major fine art museums already answered if photography is an art or not. Whats the difference with photography and other forms of painting? They paint with brush on the canvas, we paint with light on the film, no sorry, on CMOS. Any visual recording technique can be fine art as long as the fine art requirements are fulfilled, we already talked about that. . . . Great. You just went and excluded all the CCD people and threw the 645D out the window.

09-27-2010, 11:18 AM	#37
brofkand Pentaxian Join Date: May 2009 Location: North Carolina Posts: 836	Any time a new medium comes up, the question is asked; is it art? We tackled the question thanks to Steiglitz, the Pictorialists, the f/64 group, etc with black and white photography. Color photography was deemed art thanks to William Eggleston, et al. The current question asked by curators, historians, etc is this: Is an image processed by an analog to digital converter and spit out of a machine that sprays dots onto paper art? I think the question is as silly now as it was when people were asking if black and white photography is art.

09-27-2010, 12:05 PM	#38
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Originally posted by brofkand Any time a new medium comes up, the question is asked; is it art? We tackled the question thanks to Steiglitz, the Pictorialists, the f/64 group, etc with black and white photography. Color photography was deemed art thanks to William Eggleston, et al. The current question asked by curators, historians, etc is this: Is an image processed by an analog to digital converter and spit out of a machine that sprays dots onto paper art? I think the question is as silly now as it was when people were asking if black and white photography is art. Perhaps I phrased it too provocatively. It is undoubtedly an art. Maybe the question is - is photography seen on equal footing as painting and other more traditional art forms?" I offer these to anecdotes to the discussion: 1-a good friend, an accomplished photographer, believes that photographs are discriminated against at juried shows/competitions where different media are accepted. 2-a great photo portrait can take hours and days to set up and plan. A great painted portrait however can take weeks and months. Does the fact that it is relatively easier diminish photography in the public's eye when compared to painting? Looking forward to responses

09-27-2010, 01:17 PM	#39
cbaytan Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Trabzon/Turkey Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,010	Originally posted by johnmflores 2-a great photo portrait can take hours and days to set up and plan. A great painted portrait however can take weeks and months. Does the fact that it is relatively easier diminish photography in the public's eye when compared to painting? Looking forward to responses Speed is superiority of the photography, an average person can/might think, "uhm yes, I don't /can't have a canvas and all sorts of painting equipment and have no ability to paint, but I have a camera I have the ability for taking pictures, so I can be or I am an artist too". Is that what you mean? If yes, my answer would be go ahead and make some fine art, Jeff Alu had $150 camera and you have better one. Bresson had only single 50mm lens for all his work, technically you are in superior condition, just do it, do it. BTW why public opinion&acceptance concerns you that much? People who understands the fine arts, fine art critics and curators actually matter. What if one single person wouldn't understand your fine art piece? Remember Bach and the Van Gogh? In terms of fine arts seeking early public acceptance wouldn't be a problem, because fine art message is, a unique message and concept for the societies. Your works will/might talk in the future to the people, along with your immortal name. Let them think you're just nuts, for now.

09-27-2010, 05:00 PM	#40
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Originally posted by cbaytan Speed is superiority of the photography, an average person can/might think, "uhm yes, I don't /can't have a canvas and all sorts of painting equipment and have no ability to paint, but I have a camera I have the ability for taking pictures, so I can be or I am an artist too". Is that what you mean? If yes, my answer would be go ahead and make some fine art, Jeff Alu had $150 camera and you have better one. Bresson had only single 50mm lens for all his work, technically you are in superior condition, just do it, do it. BTW why public opinion&acceptance concerns you that much? People who understands the fine arts, fine art critics and curators actually matter. What if one single person wouldn't understand your fine art piece? Remember Bach and the Van Gogh? In terms of fine arts seeking early public acceptance wouldn't be a problem, because fine art message is, a unique message and concept for the societies. Your works will/might talk in the future to the people, along with your immortal name. Let them think you're just nuts, for now. Can, I've already recognized that photography is an art. There have been some great photographers - I just met two Magnum photographers the other night. That is not the point I am trying to make. Like it or not, there is a hierarchy in the art world, and like it or not, I don't think photography carries the same weight or importance as other media. For example, a couple of years ago I had a couple of beers with a potter. He's relatively successful in his field - successful enough to be invited to teach at one of the most reknowned pottery/clay schools in the country. We talked about this very issue regarding pottery, and he echoed my thoughts - that clay artists struggled to be accepted as equals to the painters, sculptors, etc... These attitudes and opinions are not universal; this is not a black/white situation. But they are out there, and so I thought that I'd bring them up in the context of this conversation. Here's another way to look at it - compare quilting to painting. Quilting, as creative as it is, has not reached the same expressive potential that painting has. There are probably some very amazing quilts that have been made by some very talented individuals (please share if you can), but can they compare with a Van Gogh? Likewise with photography. But again, this is not a black/white argument. Just the other night I saw a photograph by a young photographer that in many ways is as expressive as Munch's "The Scream": More here: http://www.burnmagazine.org/essays/2010/09/andy-spyra-kashmir/ It's work like Spyra's that convinces me that photography is a fine art. But is it the equal of painting? Who is photography's Picasso? If there is a photographer that has been able to produce photos as rich and complex and expressive as this, than please share.

09-28-2010, 12:03 AM	#42
BillM Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Ferguson, Mo. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,348	Is there an 'age' at which a human being comprehends art? If we were to have a child old enough to converse,and never having seen 'Guernica' and without caption, ask that child, what do you see? what would that child say. If we have that same child, like wise, look at what Robert Capa did on normandy beach What might that child say?

09-28-2010, 07:55 PM	#44
brofkand Pentaxian Join Date: May 2009 Location: North Carolina Posts: 836	Photomontage has been around a lot longer than Photoshop, Cbaytan. One could create an image like Guernica using many negatives and an enlarger. It would be a lot of work, but it would be possible. It wouldn't look painterly necessarily, but it would be a montage. I don't know if Photography has a Picasso; David Hockney did create a lot of cubism-inspired photomontages.

09-29-2010, 10:48 AM	#45
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Originally posted by cbaytan Before the Digital age, photography had it's limitations like you could not distort images as you can in painting, but with digital you can produce an image like Picasso's Guernica, but still photographers had counterparts for Guernica even at that film era. To me: Capa's Death of a loyalist photo And Hugh Thomas' Spanish War photo's well gave the message as Picasso's Guernica. Today you can produce an image more complex than Guernica with using several photos and heavy distortion with PhotoShop, but would it be called still Photography? It's debatable. I believe no, the description of "Digital Art" would be more proper even though it is produced from more than one photos. But who cares, if you give your message with a single photo or a mosaic from several photographs. Thats still Art. That could be even richer than Picasso's if you have the PhotoShop talent. P.S. A small detail, when Munch painting theme is pure "Social anxiety", Kashmir photo represents "Pain&Fear". to me. Looking at Hugh Thomas' horrific photo brings up a good question - where's the line between fine art photography and reportage? In other words, is Thomas an artist or a photographer? If someone today with no artistic aspirations walks onto a scene of similar violence and snaps a picture with their iPhone, does that make them an artist? And I'd still argue that there's a gap between Capa and Picasso. If we are to believe that Capa's shot is authentic (there are many debates to the contrary), then Capa's brilliance was in being at the right place at the right time. He was, in some ways, the lucky victim of circumstance. Granted, he put himself in the position to be there, but contrast that with Picasso's process for Guernica. Picasso started with a feeling (outrage? sadness? shock? horror?) and an idea and at one point faced a blank canvas. He had to take a blank canvas and create a scene of horror and devastation from nothing. His process is much more conceptual than Capa's. As I've said though, it's not black and white - the photo I shared of Kashmir is arguably closer to Picasso than Capa is - from a conceptual standpoint, not the subject matter. This debate is not new - they've compared painting to sculpture for centuries. I'm enjoying it nonetheless.