Have you ever gotten a strong emotional response after viewing a specific phot, like you would in a movie ? Or maybe going to an exhibition or reading a book ? Or is photography just "pretty cool" at best ?Pic related is the first response I got when searching " best art photography ever" online. While it's really good and impressive, I can't really say it makes me feel anything in my gut.Post pics that make you feel something, inspiring photographers/books etc.
>>4462806yes it's art as not everyoje can take a good photo and not everyone can learn to take a good photo.think of photography like modernized painting even though people still paint.
If a photograph conveys a certain atmosphere that resonates with me, I'd say yes, it's art. This excluded 99% of street photography. Street photography isn't art to me. At least the Paulie B type of street photography.I enjoy photography that does a good job at encapsulating the atmosphere of a place. It makes me feel a place, or an idea. To me that's art.
Totally art. It's not the subjects, it's totally the guy clicking the buttons. Peter Lindbergh would be Peter Lindbergh even if his subjects were british slags.
>>4462806Photography is a thought experiment that proves that art and craftsmanship are different things, for all the people who still thought dull realistic paintings literally copied from existing scenes were somehow art (manually produced snapshits).
>>4462819Peter Lindbergh is pretty good but I'm not sure I will keep thinking about pic related for a couple of dayswhat's the last photo you've seen that kept poping up in your mind days after you've seen ? Maybe I just lack taste, but none comes up to my mind (also I'm not very cultivated about photo, though I've heard about Cartier-Bresson and the likes)
>>4462819>muh coomer shit
>>4462806Trying to objectively say what is and isn't art based on the most obvious personal biases is a hallmark of retarded American teenager behaviour. Here is some gospel: defining what is and isn't art is a Sisyphean task. It doesn't matter. At all. It's just a concept that has no objective base in reality. Being 'art' doesn't even make something good. It's a waste of time. If you like doing something, just do it.
>>4462899You are standing right now at the peak of mount stupidity in pic related. Yes there is no objectivity to art, but it wasn't my question either. My question is, can you through the usage of the medium itself that is photography, intentionally produce something that is likely to bring a strong emotion to a big enough of people (not just your mom and your dog, but also people who know nothing of you and your environment). It's not a matter of me doing photography at all. It's not a matter of using the label "art" to bring value to something. I will list a couple of examples from the recent years (outside of photography) of things I would consider art in the following posts to try and make my point clearer.
>>4462904The banana stuck on the wall is I would say arguably the biggest art piece of the recent years as far as classical arts go. I can't think of any art piece that has brought intentionally as much attention and provoked thought in so many people as pic related. I really like it's spontaneity, it's violence and rawness and it's cheekiness.
>>4462907in a less scandalous way I was pretty moved by pic related. I find the concept and realization really good and I felt a strong sense of doom, sadness and keenness when I think about it. I still think about it sometimes years after seing it. (watch the video)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ooVr6RZ_nw
>>4462910to end it a more pictural way, last time I went to the museum I was pretty moved by pic related. I can sense the mass, the muscles and the temporary intimacy forced by wrestling. The framing of it and the colors gives to the scene a sense of spectacular and impact that is due to the medium itself.
Mine is not.
>>4462899so my point for creating this thread was the following : learning about some artists that used photography as medium to make art.some might say the exemples I've given (see >>4462907 >>4462910 >>4462914 ) are pedantic and self-masturbation, but they just don't know enough about art to really have an opinion worth considering.The one example that strikes my mind is the guy who would stick a flash and a camera in peoples face in NY and getting in tough posts because of it. Or at least one of the first ones who did it, but I forgot the name. Maybe he will pop up eventually in this thread.
>>4462904>start a thread titled “is photography art?”>dismiss an anon who directly responds to that questionfrog_face.jpeg
>>4462904Anon, you literally just made up a definition and asked if photography fit it... trolling surely..?
>>4462907Reactions != artGo spout some bullshit and make meaningless use of the words human, communication, paradigm, narrative, and critical while you’re at it. Art is first and foremost, beauty. For the "educated", it is a club so that they may pretend to be intelligent even if they are not. For the masters of the domain, it is bogus goods in a freeport that exist to justify the anonymous transfer of cash and precious metals.
>>4462904>ask "is photography art">get an answer responding directly to you explaining why the question is pointless>no no actually i meant "does photography elicit emotion?" (my definition of art)So not only are you asking a question as retarded as "is X art" but you've already decided upon your own baseless, incoherent definition of art. Incredible thread, anon, thanks for this. To answer your question, I imagine yes, somewhere on earth at some point in time someone has felt an emotion while looking at a photo.
Art is the individual communication of a perception unfiltered.So basically, pure art = pure communication of how you interpret something through the filter of your mind.The sensor/Film of a camera can act as a canvas upon which a person can place an image of their perception.Therefore - yes, photography is an artform.
Burt would know this, but few know he does, because he posts his real works of art (carefully staged still lifes) on /k/
>>4462904>My question is, can you through the usage of the medium itself that is photography, intentionally produce something that is likely to bring a strong emotion to a big enough of people (not just your mom and your dog, but also people who know nothing of you and your environment).yes i do it regularly
>>4462968Same, and even with pics of my dog too lol.
>>4462932>>4462936>>4462938>>4462943I don't know why everyone suddenly decided to be retarded at once and post in my thread. Maybe I just responded too harshly to anon and every like-minded individual on this board got bewildered and decided to add there own meaningless grain of salt without even contributing to this thread by posting a picture they like and not repeating what other anon said.All of you retards think my definition of art is so special but it's literally the first and de facto definition of art that everybody learns in school. I even went on the Oxford dictionary to fetch it for you, pic related. As I said to other anon you're all standing on top of mount stupidity and you should take that opportunity to study what art actually is before thinking you've got something interesting to say about it (which I don't btw, everything I said is bottom of the barrel common sense). We're past 20 posts and there is still no art and beauty in this thread, I'm actually very disappointed in you /p/. Maybe this board is really just gearfags shooting pictures of dogs.
>>4462968>>4462969post it then
>>4462950it can but does it ? Show me pictures
>>4463057i think photography is unique among visual crafts for its enthusiasts' utter obliviousness to the world of art. rather than artists and art enjoyers, it's full of gadget collectors and optimizers. i'm a novice myself but even i as well as you can notice how 95% of instances art is mentioned on this board, the poster gives away their narrow and stunted conception of art`
>>4463093yes, THANK YOU. Finally someone for posting actual quality content on here. I feel like we're starting to get somewhere and I must say I find the picture you posted quite interesting
>>4463093>the poster gives away their narrow and stunted conception of artYes you did, didn't you
>>4462904>>4462938Ok answer this simple question:You are put in a room with two doors in front of you. Someone tells you that behind both there is a canvas with some paint on it. Behind the left door, that painting is "art", behing the right door, that painting is "not art".Now, please tell us what you can say about either of the two paintings that isn't tautological. Protip: there is nothing you can say because the term is meaningless
>>4462806Photography can be art, but it doesn't have to. >>4462938Art can be beautiful, but it doesn't have to. What matters is that it has creative intent. In the case of visual arts, this is brought upon by the intentional use of visual elements, arrangements of shapes, colors, light. It is the materialization of some inner vision. That's why snapshits aren't art, they're just grabbing what's already out there. There has to be some intent on the image itself rather that the mere intent of pressing the shutter. >>4463134If the guy opening the doors is honest, then one is intentional and the other isn't. If he's from the establishment then it just depends on some jew's greed and the distinction itself is fake.
>>4463141>one is intentional and the other isn'twhat paintings are not intentional?
>>4463134I can't believe I'm actually wasting my time responding to this midwit.I know what you mean from the first post you did and the one the other anon did. I didn't care responding to it because it's dumb and uninteresting and a waste of time. You still haven't posted any interesting pictures by the way.Since you seem bothered, I'll try to explain it to you. The term "art" has, in fact a meaning (as pictured here >>4463057 ). What your thought experiment highlights is that it's a subjective notion, and that you have to trust someone when they say something is art. But everything is subjective, objectivity is an unattainable goal and a delusion. If you change your experiment to someone telling you that between one door is a blue car and between the other is a red car, you cannot say anything either. The person or you or both might be daltonian and not perceive colors correctly. Maybe he is lying to you. Colors exist (probably) but you cannot say anything other than this person said etc. If you re-read my first post, what I asked is to show me things that YOU would consider an artful photography. If no one can show or produce something that is artful to a big amount of people, than photography is probably as much an art as, say, truckdriving is. I think this video of Vsauce talks about this ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXW-QjBsruE In any case I don't know how to make it clearer, though it's really basic stuff really
>>4463141the banana (>>4462907) is still art and expensive and I'm not jewish though
now that all those preschoolers forced us to talk about the "philosophical" aspect of this can we get some actual art and beauty in this thread ? These anons get it (>>4463093>>4463141) but the output so far is rather underwhelming. Anybody who wants to talk about what art is or isn't please go read this https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-aesthetics/ and only come back when you've understood how foolish those discussions are and are ready to post actual art photography.
>>4463160>has dogshit opinions>is schizophrenicmy "first post" is precisely the one you just replied to. log off the internet and hallucinate phantom posters elsewhere thanks.> If you change your experiment to someone telling you that between one door is a blue car and between the other is a red car, you cannot say anything either.Are you really this dumb that you wrote an entire wall of text just to use the most shitty refutable useless "counterexample" imaginable?Yes, the terminology for colors is also subjective, this is why when people get serious about colors they start to use frequency of light measurements, which are an objective metric to determine color. What terminology do people who are serious about art and want to prove something is art use? None.>show me things that YOU would consider an artful photographyI cannot do that because I don't understand your request. I sincerely do not know what "artful" means, since it doesn't exist.
>>4463167I don't care. Post pictures.(by the way artful doesn't mean I what I thought it meant, I meant artistic)This is the last time I will respond to any similar comment unless the thread is really dying. Anything that needs to be said has been said already and if you want to talk philosophy go to /lit/.From now on to post in this thread you MUST post some photography you find artistic (google it up if you don't know what it means)
>>4463172>Post pictures.Sure, here's a random picture>google it up if you don't know what it meansjust did, there is no actual definition that I can apply to the photos I have saved on my computer so I can post one here. you must be really stupid
>>4463057You're still not responding to what I said. You cannot justify your definition of art, so it sucks. Of course a dictionary has 'a definition' of a common word you absolute retard. That doesn't mean some random dictionary definition is the metric against which something can or cannot be considered art, in fact this is the most autistic way you could have possibly tried to measure this. You're calling everyone else stupid yet you're the only one not responding to any arguments. Everyone else is explaining to you why you sound like a first year arts student and that you should kill yourself immediately, then you just go off on some random tangent and call everyone else stupid when you cannot comprehend what you are being told.
Photography is whatever you want it to be, for me it's escape. All of the world's problems disappear when I'm trying to get a shot, or when I'm shitfaced and set my camera up on a salt flat and sleep for 5 hours, and only remember to close the shutter because I woke up and threw up.I shoot for myself I could give a shit what other people think and I think that's a huge problem today, people are shooting for likes and retweets, vapid social media, they're shooting to get noticed by strangers and people they will never meet, I could give a shit less. These are not true artists nor are they photographers, they are invaders, they are clout chasers who want to be noticed and be popular like it's fucking high school. Photography is the closest thing man has to a time machine, you can freeze a moment in time and look back on it forever.Is photography art? I don't know, it's whatever you want it to be, it's a medium like watercolor or stipple, what defines art these days is trivial when you have people paying for banana peels taped to walls in an art museum. None of this matters, go outside and take pictures.
>>4463198>I shoot for myself I could give a shit what other people think and I think that's a huge problem today, people are shooting for likes and retweets, vapid social media, they're shooting to get noticed by strangers and people they will never meet, I could give a shit lessCareful, this stance is divisive on this board. Shooting for yourself is verboten.
>>4463214At least one guy on here seems to get personally offended if you post photos of a subject they don't like. It's really quite mentally ill. If a photo is well executed and thoughtful I can still appreciate it even if I find the subject boring.
>>4463122no problem. i have a folder full of images which struck me
>>4462904Dunning-kruger when invoked in debates is just a passive-aggressive way of pretending to know better.
>>4463058im not posting shit.Your bait thread sucksthis is /p/ doesnt matter how good the photo is you just want to call something shit to make yourself feel better about yourself
>>4463198based>>4463178shit>>4463093literally nothing>>4463241literally nothing
>>4463258You can't take a picture of nothing, and especially not literally nothing.
>>4463258boring
>>4462950yes exactly
>>4462910yes but that's an actual art pieces meant to depict desperation and futility. >>4462907this is literally just a banana taped to a wall and it depicts a banana taped to a wall i suppose you could give it meaning like not all things last forever or something. but the robot depicts that much betternot all art has to depict somethinf and some art can just be pleasing for the sake of being aesthetically pleasing (landscape or architectural photography)
>>4463241don't listen to other anon please post morethey may seem to think they have interesting opinions but you could ask anyone in the street and they would tell you the same thing>>4463268From what I remembered the banana taped on the wall was meant to be shitpost and kind of a joke, in the legacy of Marcel Duchamp's toilet. The fact that so many people reacted to it positively or negatively is actually a win for the artist as it was his goal to question what are is and isn't in this day and age. Also everybody talked about it everywhere which is a pretty impressive feat for a piece of contemporary art nowadays.I didn't mention it but I find Take the Money and Run by Jens Haaning to be very cool too when you know the story behind it
>>4463270All pictures posted on p are a sort of performative art.
>>4463271true, a form of modern seppuku
>>4462907>>4463268The banana is a great piece and it's even better because it filters so many people. It's natural material in presented context. It decays and requires conservation. It has a surface level meaning and a deeper one. It has an immediate recognizable visual appeal. And you can eat it. It's one of the best executed conceptual pieces since "Shoot," and every time I see someone say it isn't art I become more enamored with it. How can so many people miss so obvious a point?
>>4463275>How can so many people miss so obvious a point?i mean i get it. But to me it's still a banana taped to a wall. Many people miss it because a lot of people look for what i stated>some art can just be pleasing for the sake of being aesthetically pleasinga layman isnt going to look at a painting the same way someone who went to school or studies art as a hobbies isthe layman sees a banana taped to a wall. it's like a musician listens to music differently than someone who listens to Metallica to get themselves hyped up for something.Is it a great depiction of the fragility of time and the things around us? that depends on who you ask
>>4463299>muh shitty graderd digi slop
Can't be arsed anymore. Anyway I wouldn't know if photography is an art or not - frankly the question doesn't interest me. Whatever has the power to evoke anything is interesting and that's enough.
>blurry snapshits and photos with no clear subjectnot helping your case, m8
>>4463278>But to me it's still a banana taped to a wallwhy is the material composition relevant?A photo is just some colored paper. So?
>>4463314thanks for posting, those are pretty cool>>4463316shitpost that adds nothing to the conversation
>>4463317why is that the only part if my post you get stuck ondo you have comprehension issues?
>>4463299>>4463308>>4463309>>4463310>>4463311>>4463312>>4463313>>4463314these are all excellent examples of photography as art and the different types of tastes people have when it comes to artsome people simply like aesthetic others look for a story or deeper meaning like >>4463241
>>4463317He can't engage with modern art because he is a hylic. The taped banana is a little interesting and does bring up good questions. The anon can't see it because he is to busy arguing for a political viewpoint.
>>4463475>bait this bad
>>4463270ok
>>4463509i like how the rainbow becomes dim as it goes passed her. it gives off the illusion that it originated from her
>>4463478yet you bit it
>>4463514you idiot she's killing the rainbow
here's a landscape posted a few months ago here by anon
>>4463516no
>>4463516>doesnt know how bait works
>>4463521im not fixing that
>>4463313>>4463312>>4463509>>4463517I really like theseit kind of reminded me that art is also about being open to it and looking for it as much as you can, even if it means inventing stuff that the author never meant to put in there. It just makes it way more interesting.I guess this thread isn't such a failure after all
>>4463561art can be a mirror you hold up to yourself
>>4463595Kissing is unironically gross. The non-autistic are so irrational. Newflash normies. We have sperm banks now. Primate mating rituals are out. You should shoot something truly emotive like a cat striking an interesting pose, or a gun next to a hamburger.
>>4463602kek
>>4463620dude this is so good
>>4462954i refuse to believe they're the same person
>>4462907I would rip it off and eat it if I was there.
>>4464556https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-65446331actually a guy did it a few years ago. The banana is changed every week so it's no big deal and the artist didn't care
>>4464557>free banana every week>money launderer doesn't carewin-win I guess
>>4462806The artistic aspect of photography is to capture and convey what you felt when you saw the subject.For this you need to develop skills to hide distractions and bring forth the subject.Fan Ho did some epic stuff.
