Hi Raffee and everyone else in this discussion hope you dont mind me joining in.

Wanted to start a little discussion about art and photography based on some work i did at college.

When does a photograph become art?

For example. I went to an Exhibition a few years ago called All Human Life. The show was a collection of some of the greatest photojournalism over the last 50 years.

My point is that these photos were taken to report on a news event..They appeared in their respective newspapers and magazines and then mostly forgotten about.

Now 40 - 50 years on these pictures are framed and exhibited and have become works of art...

So it just a sense of nostalgia that makes them art.?
Were they art when they were first taken?
When does a documentary photograph become Art?
And why?

Just a few points i thought might be fun to discuss.

Look forward to your views..

Raff lovely pictures. If its ok with you ill dig out a few of mine and post them on here for people to see and pass comment on.

Hoppy!

clever pionts grasshopper!
I wish Raffee or someone else would explain them fully..

will be waiting for ur photos :)

well i dont think they are points with direct answers they are subject to opinion.

As a photograper myself i see all photos as art..

As Henri Cartier Bresson once said..

Photography is painting with light.

opinion?! well.. I'm not good in photographing.. but I do have some good photoes.. I think to include sth in the Arts category.. the photoes have to have sth special about them.. sth outstanding.. strange.. or maybe the colors.. or the angles from which u took the photo.. different factors determine a beauty of a picture..

wish u'd send ur's sooooooon :)

Im at work at the moment Floret so cant send anything.. will do later today when i get home though

What about if the picture is badly taken. out of focus.. poorly lit etc etc but the subject matter is of a one off event say.. then all the usual rules of photography go out the window

Hmm.. yes.. maybe being out of sense is a sign of arts in a photo.. don't u think so?!

Originally posted by grasshopper
Hi Raffee and everyone else in this discussion hope you dont mind me joining in.

Wanted to start a little discussion about art and photography based on some work i did at college.

When does a photograph become art?

For example. I went to an Exhibition a few years ago called All Human Life. The show was a collection of some of the greatest photojournalism over the last 50 years.

My point is that these photos were taken to report on a news event..They appeared in their respective newspapers and magazines and then mostly forgotten about.

Now 40 - 50 years on these pictures are framed and exhibited and have become works of art...

So it just a sense of nostalgia that makes them art.?
Were they art when they were first taken?
When does a documentary photograph become Art?
And why?

Just a few points i thought might be fun to discuss.

Look forward to your views..

Raff lovely pictures. If its ok with you ill dig out a few of mine and post them on here for people to see and pass comment on.

Hoppy!


Hopster,

Sorry I didnt respond to your great discussion earlier. Ive just been really busy, but im here now.

Ok, well I really dont feel qualified to respond on any meanigful or informed level because I dont have any academic grounding in the art of photography.

Having said that however, as I am highly opinionated, I am more than willing to give you my own personal insight and views on this subject.

'When does a photograph become art?'

Well, I think almost all photos are artistic in their own individual ways. I dont think its fair to categorise art, as it is highly personal, and open to interpretation.


'So it just a sense of nostalgia that makes them art.? '

Well yes and no... they gain that element in their artistic value in retrospect, although this does not deny their artistic value from the very beginning.


'Were they art when they were first taken?'

Most definately.


'When does a documentary photograph become Art?'

Again, I think even documentary photos are artistic, even unintentionally. The viewer is free to take whatever he or she chooses from the picture.

I personally relate my interpretations to photographs to my own history of experience. Some images will conjure up more emotional responses due to my experiences and my exposure to various subjects in my life; others may be rejected for that very reason.

And others again may be appreciated purely for their aesthetic merit/appeal.

Raf

Thank you for your opinion. I couldnt agree more on all of the above.
Nice to meet someone who can appreciate photography as an artform.

What excites you about photography raf..
For me it is the ability to capture a moment in time. Funny thing is although all moments are priceless capturing the wrong moment may not make for a good photograph. A split second before the expression on the subjects face is yet to be seen, a fraction later and its passed.

As an example. you are asked to take a picture of someone enjoying the first refreshing drink of the day.
When do you take the picture to sell that moment.
Moments before the drink touches the lips to capture the anticipation? As they drink? or moments after as the cup is lowered for the satisfaction on the subjects face? None of these are right or wrong but you see my point.

photography is a fascninating subject full of rules to be learnt, mastered and then broken.

Yes, I read the following recently in the New Scientist Journal:
" When amateurs are snapping away, they often fail to notice the top half of a lamp post growing out of granny's head. They only see granny - possibly only her teeth, if they are waiting for her smile.
A good photographer not only has to take note of the lamp post and similar distractions close to the subject, but also to swiftly take into account all objects that fall within as much as a 75-degree angle of camera vision. To do this it is necessary to overcome both the instinctive blindness to all but the subject and the instinctive "filling in", by actually observing the shapes, highlights and shadows of background and foreground areas of the picture.
A professional can make decisions about all these factors within seconds. "

as every other thing realted to art. photography is a gift, and not everyone can master it. you have to have an artistic mind, and vision in order for you to capture that special moment. light, atmosphere all effect the picture taken. even the mood reflects on it.

the other day i saw this picture which the company's (the one i work for) photographer took. it was of the reamins of a dead cat and was still deteriorating . it was just amazing that he thought of taking that picture, and the way he captured it was just brilliant as it had the perfect lighting. i was blown away, as most people if they see such a thing they'd get disgusted from it and go away.

what can i say..art is wonderful. :)

fantastic Seham.. I like that.

I read these in a book a while back and they made me laugh. You may like them too.

The Laws of photography.

"The rate at which a subject moves out of the camera frame is directly proportionate to how much you want to photograph it"

"The best shot is always between frames"

"The best moment always unfolds when you have run out of film"

"A subject will remain on a predictable speed and heading until which time you want to take a picture when its movement will become totally random and unpredictable"

"Lighting is perfect until you press the shutter at which point clouds form instantaneously and she subject falls into shadow"


"for every perfect photograph there is a badly placed lampost or child pulling a face"

Thought you might like those. they made me chuckle...
In my collection i have plenty of heads that grow lamposts, aircraft that appear to fly into walls, records of a day that somehow dont show the most important event of the day and Strangley shadowy faces.

This discussion was splited from the thread Art in photography (http://www.englishsabla.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=8954), so memebers, please continue here. :)

Hi BI and welcome to the discussion. The point you made over the dead cat photograph is a good one...
Why did he take that picture. what did he see and what was he trying to say? Do you see what he tried to convey i wonder. Maybe it is as simple as a dead cat but it invokes a thought process doenst it..
What about Photojournalists who can sometimes be faced with some of the most horrific images imaginable..
For example the famous photograph of the Vietnamese girl running from her napalmed village.. It is a timeless photograph and speaks a thousand words.
These photographs can change national opinion, stir the deepest of emotions or conflict with the strongest of views. Photography has captured some of the most significant events of modern history. The photo-journalist carries a huge responsibility. They have to decide in split seconds which photograph to take and why.

Originally posted by grasshopper

These photographs can change national opinion, stir the deepest of emotions or conflict with the strongest of views. Photography has captured some of the most significant events of modern history. The photo-journalist carries a huge responsibility. They have to decide in split seconds which photograph to take and why.

I totally agree Hoppy... the photo-journalist plays a most significant role in relaying the events that they capture, and although, their images are open to interpretation by the individual eye, their meanings are nevertheless constricted by their artful skill in capturing what he or she intends.

The onus therefore lies on the photo-journalist to capture the appropriate image for their desired reading of the story... after all, had that picture of the Vietmanese girl been replaced with that of an orphaned American soldier's child, perhaps a different reading might have been made, and in turn, a different angle might be shed on this event's position in history.