Is photography "Art"
In this section of the blogger I will be discussing is photography “art”, this is the question people have been asking for around 180 years. I will be discussing why i think photography is art for me and why or some images are not?
Vincent VAN Gogh was a very famous oil painter, artist but his work became priceless after his death. Staring Night was one of his last paintings. Looking at this painting below, it is painted as the painter saw the stars and the sky and it surrounding, not as how one may see it with a camera, so we are seeing the painting via GOGH's mind and not how it appears in real life. this is art work as it makes you think and look at it for hours and makes you wonder what he was thinking of at the time he painted the oil painting, he was dying at the time.
the two images are from Mark Rothko painter
This piece of art work is by Mark Rothko it shows bold green paint work in straight oblong blocks, with a yellow straight line to separate the big green block and a orange line above . The orange and yellow sharp lines cutting through the green colour gives the painting its depth and brightness to the painting.
However, the green paint is not even as it is oil painting so the texture can be seen clearly.
This above yellow, orange and cream painting is happy energetic painting due to the orange and yellow colours, which reminds me of the summer warm days.
This above photograph says a lot for example, its clear, clean, calming and it has texture. The movement of the clouds has similarity with the river movement and is a similar colour. There are sharp straight lines similar to MARK ROTHKO’S work and there is no litter on the lawn or on the path. This above photograph was taken by Andreas Gurskys and sold for £2.7m at auction
Is photography "Art"
250 FOR AND 250 against
250 FOR AND 250 against
I would say "art" is how a person sees it during a period of time, how it captures the person, what it does to their thinking and emotions. One may want to continue looking at an image for ever, that is what "art" is.
If we see something, the question is, does it work for us at that period of time? If we are willing to pay a lot of money for it, then this means it does work for us and so that means it is a piece of art for us.
I think for an image to be considered as "art", it should have colour, tones and shades, have some sort of shape, dimension or texture. The image should also be in focus and cover the whole page and be unique to some extent .
Creating a painting is a lot harder than taking a digital photograph and can take months even years. But taking a picture via a camera, requires a simple machine that allows us to capture the whole image as it is.
For example, Leonardo Da Vinci had years of talent, practice and studying to create true art, whereas, some people just take seconds to create a photo that can be considered "art".
For "art"
When taking photographs one must know what a good image is and is not, the angle the image is shot at and the image should have some unique points. The image should speak for itself without words and snatch /capture the viewer’s mind totally on the image.
The photograph doesn't have to be anything special but it has to have some sort of a meaning to the person to call it art. People who have experience in taking pictures know what to look for and capture it in their image with the correct lighting.
Some colours work with other colours and some don’t, for example the same image can be a disaster with two colours
A photograph captures an image more fully, plus all the surroundings and can be taken and at some point at different angles. Whereas, in art work for example, oil painters or sculptures don’t.An image captured on camera has a more realistic history value than the art itself to some point if the script is accurately recorded. An image captured on camera at the time and used for news and documentaries is recorded history as it is seen and one can go back to this history which will have different vales due to the time period.
Photo taken by a digital camera and then it is processed in Photoshop
When an image is taken and then changes are made to it to improve it for the viewer then it does become “art” because it is not as it is but how we want it to be beautiful and pleasing to look at again and again and over years.
“ART”
True art, like oil paintings and water paintings have texture and a realistic feel to them, whereas an image captured on camera will never have that. Even though you can process it in Photoshop, for example, poster edge will do some sort of a job, but it will not give the same texture as a paint brush will. Also there is no way sculpture work can be represented on a photograph to show it is a 3D sculpture work
conclusion
piece of art work can be any thing that makes you feel good and make the surround look good and you want to own it as you want to carry on looking at it. It can be unique or not but have meaning to you alone. Tt may exist in surreality or it may exit in reality but it it must work for you to be seen as art.
It can be cloths you wear or worn by someone famous, can be a sculpture, painting or even old items e.g. coins, stamps etc.
BELOW IS WHAT I MAY SAY IS ART WORK 
This photo of cans can be a piece of art work because it can bright up a dull cafe wall, act as an advertisement in the room and it nice and colourful plus over time there may not be tin cans any more due to the depletion of the raw material.
My second picture above of a flower I would say it’s a piece of art because its how i see the flower and not how it appears in real file.
Photography is a form of art. It is a digital form of art. A painter paints it with the help of his hands while photography is done with the help of camera. So it is a part of an art.
ReplyDelete--Deepak Kamani