Poll: can photography be art?

This is your mark...your niche.... I too find that 'galleries' are for many parts, in the past...or at least formal galleries. I do see some that look for that difference thing, be it art or photo. So keep doing what you are doing... your niche. It is unique.

Also...I find that many photo's demand a gallery of work as opposed to a painting where a work of 'one' is okay. While many photo's no doubt stand on their own like a painting, projects and themes (much like you have) need a gallery. Keep searching, you will find one.

A light painting is a light painting....somewhere in the world and lost in between. Photography? yes? ...artistic movement with hands recording on a photo? Yes ....There are a set of skills needed to capture the light one wants or, one can just wing it and see what you get. Either way, I don't think it fits any more into a group and label it under a huge umbrella as photography is now, any more than I would say that Portrait Street is in the same group as Candid street. I wouldn't want photography to become so rigid that 'IT HAS TO FIT" into some category and yet as it is now, they all fit under one category in galleries which is just ART.

But I feel an explanation of sorts belongs to each photo. So captions.. and in that caption tell what was done and by what. Why do we have to think of photography the same way we think of paintings (oil, pastel etc).... where one word states it all and separates them all? Why not have captions that explain that photo? jim

Traditionally, the descriptor that is applied to a photograph that is similar that applied to paintings (oil on board, acrylic on canvas, etc) describes the way the print is produced (inkjet print on watercolor paper, Pa/Pt print on linen, etc).

But you're talking about something that describes the entire process, I think. So what would that look like for conventional B&W film photography? Camera, lens, film, settings, developer, enlarger, paper and grade or filters used, all the dodging and burning that was performed, contrast reduction mask description if used, bleaching description, paper developer, fixing and hypo neutralizing methods, toner, how the spotting was done, mounting method?

I like to title my images, and I sometimes caption my reportage work, but I’m generally of the opinion that if I have to explain the picture, I’ve failed as an artist.

In the other thread about this I got told off by someone when I tried to explain what art is to me 😉So this time I'll say, no it can't be. Never seen anything taken with a camera that says to me, I'm art. Plenty of want to be artists I see, by the ton, but yet to see one that I consider art. Not here or anywhere. Everyone has a different opinion.

Danny.

All my images get a title. The title always has a meaning to me. But it may not have an obvious meaning to an observer.

It may be descriptive in some way, or refer to color in the image. Sometimes the title is simply a location, or the name of the event in which the image was taken. But, as you have said, if it needs to explain the image, I've failed.

Rich

Must admit, I've used titles for years on shots.

I mean why not.

Danny.

Well, I think you've illustrated something additional about titles.

The best way I can say it is: "If the image stands on its own, the title is an additional enjoyable element."

Except for the first image, I like all the other titles. I would have bought any of them for the inherent image quality and would have enjoyed the whimsical nature of any the titles, even identifying them in framing and displaying them.

I have done just that for many of the images that hang in my house.

(BTW, some of your images are art.) 😉

Rich

To muddy the waters a bit… (more?)

Unraveling the Mystery of 'Boring' Photography | The Photographic Eye

I might have difficulty identifying an individual Eggleston image as art, but the body of work qualifies.

I have this challenge myself with Minor White — I just don't get it and, overall, his work doesn't speak to me. He was a favorite of the first photography curator at one of our big local art museums though — so I get to see a lot of the work, printed and hanging on a wall. (Personally, I wish they'd devote more of that space to their Dianne Arbus folio.)

Edit to add: I do intend to revisit White's work with an eye toward it being a precursor to The Haiku School.

While I agree with the sentiment, I do find it sad that Adobe has such a grip on the world of imaging that the term "photoshop" is used when any editor could apply.

Typed on my Adobe-free computer, of course ...