I am sure we all have our own ideas of what Photo Art is and isn't. I would like to open up a discussion by asking the question, "what is your take on an image being Photo Art or not?"I know in our posting guidelines we say:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Photo Art Gallery - Digitally manipulated or multiple exposure images that are intended as obvious artistic renditions of nature.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who doesn't use a lens or camera adjustments to manipulate images or blending layers,curves, level adjustments to name a few in PS? It seems like in this digital photography age that all digital photographers manipulate their images in one way or another but what makes an image Photo Art? I would love to hear your thoughts.
Posted by Mark Seaver on March 28, 2011 at 9:13 PM
Great question. To me photo art means either manipulating a photograph beyond the reality of the scene or taking advantage the situation to make a photo that presents the reality in a highly artistic fashion. In the first case, I see (and make) so many comments suggesting "crop that out" or "enhance the contrast", that I often wonder where reality ends and art begins. Clearly in today's photography market the emphasis is on drama but the drama in nature occupies only a tiny fraction of the time, so where is the line between drama and reality? With respect to presenting nature in a highly artistic fashion, I see a lot of great shots in particularly the flora gallery that seems to me like the photographic equivalent of still life art. Thus, I would opine that most of those are art. Then there are the abstract photos (of which I'm working on reflections) that again while they are true captures of the natural world, the natural nature is very much disguised by the artistic impressions. That my story for the time being and I'll stick with it until somebody convinces me otherwise.
A real "poser" digital photography has blurred the line between photo realism and art. Much digital manipulation, such as contrast boosting or reduction, hue adjustments, saturation, opening shadows are a result of trying to render reality in an image. Digital cameras are meant to emulate film cameras to such an extent that they fail in many ways that they do. Although not to the extent that certain types of film do. That being said I think due to the hazy line between that "ART" would be defined as a removal or additions of elements or objects that did not exist or did exist in the original ( unprocessed and technically well done ) image until that image fails to be an accurate rendition of the original. Which of course is based on interpretation and opinion. Thereby further blurring the line. I have placed images in photo art that may be perceived a realistic, but I know I have cloned out or in, or enhanced to the point that it is more me ( my digital abilities ) than the original. That's my first but probably not my last words on the subject, it would be easy to go on and on, but I won't. I do hope the question receives the responses it deserves because I think as well it is a consensus and not just a few random opinions that will make the definition clearer.
This is easy for me to answer as it applies to my own work but almost impossible for me to answer as it applies to other people's work.
My personal approach to photo art is very simplistic. I don't create brand new images by putting together parts of two or more images or by adding elements created in Photoshop. In my own work, I create photo art from images that I really like when the image as it stands, after lighting and contrast adjustments, maybe some saturation adjustments, doesn't have the impact I want it to have or doesn't convey the impression I want it to convey. I sometimes shoot an image with the specific intent of creating photo art from that image. Lastly, I sometimes look at an image that does have impact but I immediately see the potential beauty of photo art created from the image and decide to do that. I use artistic filters of various kinds to take such an image to the point at which looking at the image satisfies me. I try to work until it completely satisfies me. I don't always get there.
Regarding other people's work that they display as photo art, I think there is or should be no controversy there. If an artist/photographer displays work as photo art it should be accepted without question as such, in my opinion and without regard to their reasoning.
Regarding other people's work that they display as photography and not as photo art, I personally often have question marks in my mind there. I find this most often in Flora and in Landscape. In Landscape, many of the images with hundreds of views and dozens of raves often look very unreal, though beautiful, to me. I personally would consider those images photo art. In Flora, images are sometimes processed to such an extent that I personally would consider those images photo art.
For landscape especially, talking about the camera end only, the lens you use, the POV, the DOF and other things can make a landscape image look completely unreal. Has this always been considered photography? I don't have the background in photography to know. Is photo art new or old in the history of photography?
Posted by scott lanz on March 29, 2011 at 12:34 PM
but what makes an image Photo Art?
It's like the definition of pornography - I know it when I see it.
Wish defining it was that simple. Was makes an image an unrealistic depiction of a scene or subject? Black and white is certainly an unrealistic depiction of a scene or subject, at least to most people, yet it is considered by many as the most pure, traditional and unadulterated form of photography - the virtual antithesis of Photo Art. Go figure.
The was actually a period in the early twentieth century where photographers intentionally used sets, models and soft focus to create photo art, replicating graphic art and paintings with photography. It was called pictorialism, Ansel Adams briefly flirted with pictorialism before breaking away with such luminaries as Edward Weston, Imogene Cunningham and others to form f/64 a group of photographers dedicated to what would be called by some photo realism. The group name came from the smallest aperture setting on a camera of that era that rendered images with deep depth of field, extreme sharpness and clarity. Earliest photography was looked upon as documentary, hence the inclusion of Wet plate photographers such as William Henry Jackson and Timothy O'Sullivan in the great Western Land Survey's of the American West after the Civil War. Even with the limitations of their equipment many of their images are now appreciated as Art. So are f/64 group photographers appreciated as artists, but they were striving for the composition, light and scene rendered realistically to be considered artistic, in a way letting photography stand on it's own rather than manipulating it to emulate art. I hope that answers your inquiry Barbara.
To me photo art is displaying in your image a bit of your soul and your passion, possibly a mood that the scene gives you while standing near it. I believe it is creating something that is deep within you and might not really be there but is only in your minds eye. I think the real challenge is to bring to the finished work that which is deep inside of you. This is not an easy task, at least for me, but it is well worth the effort. I personally feel that all true photographers are photo artists. I do see photo art in all the NPN galleries.
Posted by Ron Pederson on March 31, 2011 at 7:00 AM
There are probably as many definitions as there are opinions. And one person’s opinion will be biased toward their knowledge of “how” the final image was manipulated and what boundaries they personally place on the use of post-shutter computer generated digital tools to create the completed image.
So, what is “photo art” and what isn’t? Depends on what you want to achieve and who makes the rules. Within the “Photo Art Gallery” the guidelines are vague and open to interpretation. The definition we have now includes “…obvious artistic renditions...” in italics. I think that currently includes a portion of images that appear in most galleries.
I would be in favor of NPN adopting the guidelines used by the Windland Smith Rice competition from Nature’s Best Photography (with more details on what is acceptable processing):
“All photographs must accurately reflect the subject matter as it appeared in the viewfinder. Nothing should be added to an image, and aside from dust spots, nothing should be taken away. Normal processing of RAW image files and minor adjustments to color and contrast are acceptable, as is minimal cropping.”
Anything else…would fall in the category of “Photo Art.”
Sometimes adjustments have to be made so that the photo will look the way the scene actually appeared. I feel that anything beyond that is photo art. I don't feel that cropping is photo art as long as the part of the photo that remains is an accurate depiction of the scene. I agree with the others who feel that many of the photos posted in other galleries are actually photo art.
One of the things I love about photo art is that it sometimes gives me the ability to show how the scene looked to me in my mind's eye or how being there felt to me. Sometimes I take a picture and when I look at the photo I know that's what the scene really looked like, but it doesn't convey the feelings I had about what I was photographing. With photo art, sometimes I can create a picture that I can look at and say "That's it! That's how beautiful it looked to me!" And hopefully it will convey this message to other people and it will be something they enjoy looking at.
This topic has been and continues to be on my mind. For starters, I've never liked the term "Photo Art" as it relates to naming a category. To me, it implies that other genres of photography like landscape, avian, flora,etc., are not "art." Of course most of us photographers think of much of the work we do as art (I do anyway.) So just designating a category for "manipulated" or "artsy" images and calling in "Art" just doesn't fairly describe many other aspects of photography. But that's just me.
I had the opportunity to craft a definition of "photo art" for my local County Fair photography/fine art competition coming up this summer. Myself and two other togs came up with this definition for one of the entry classes:
"Creative Digital Photographs: Color or black-and-white photograph that has been creatively altered, manipulated, or enhanced to introduce effects or elements not present in the original scene or photograph."
We mulled over and discussed this topic for a couple weeks. One thing was very clear, the very moment you introduce a specific example (Orton effect, composite, cloning, yada, yada, yada) you pigeon-hole yourself in to a definition that can and will be easily challenged with other examples. there are just too many possibilities and of course all of it is subjective.
What is not mentioned above, or in NPN's definition but has sort of been touched on by a few folks here, is intent. And that of course is the one thing that can't really be judged or assumed by a critiquer of a photograph. But from my own point of view, and perhaps if you put yourself in this point of view, you may agree, I think intent makes the difference. For example, I may apply a layer of the "Orton Effect" to one of my images. If I think to myself, I would really like to create an abstract wild glow that really takes this beyond reality to more of a fairytale fantasyland, I would call that Photo Art. If, on the other hand, I thought, "I'm going to add an Orton layer at 15% opacity to boost the contrast slightly to make the image pop just a little more like I felt and saw at the time." To me, I'm adjusting the image to better present some technical aspect, but not alter the original contents of the scene. And in this case I wouldn't hesitate to post in Landscape or whatever other gallery it may qualify for.
If I want to move the camera during exposure because I want to "create some wild, colorful and artistic patterns," then to me that is Photo Art. If I want to set up my camera, open the shutter for 2 hours to capture star trails, to me, that is recording the scene as it happened. Sure, we can not see the star trails, but they can be recorded simply by exposing the scene over a long period of time. Nothing really being manipulated in that example, only "time" is what creates the result; the scene is really unaltered.
Many, many examples and scenarios, but in the end, was the intent to alter the image that in some way altered the original scene or are you trying to present the scene as best you recall or experienced?
I think anything that is not photo journalism is Photo art and we should not try to distinguish some of it as art and some of it not as art. Perhaps we are talking about manipulated photos vs. non manipulated, but I believe anything that is taken for the joy of looking at is art.
Posted by Linnet Long on April 12, 2011 at 1:22 AM
David, I think your "photo art blog" is a good example of "photo art"! Of course, some of the photos are extremely realistic - just not "documentary" in nature. So I tend to agree with Lon about intent. Some of my bird photographs, for example, I consider sort of documentary...and I still like to polish them up to be visually appealing. There are probably relatively few of the "plain" bird photographs I would consider "photo art"...but then on the other hand, when I crop them, give them a border, create a card out of them, or a calendar - that seems like photo art. Or a collage, or...whatever. Many photographs not labeled "photo art" are more than worthy of hanging on someone's wall for the purpose of decorating, if you will - like art. I think a lot of our distinctions are just fodder for discussion --or debate, or whatever. Probably most people who post on NPN think of photography as art, even the ones who would be mortified if they had to clone out a stray telephone pole
In any case, I'm glad we now have a photo art forum. I think I shall like it here
This has been enlightening for me. Great comments and opinions from everyone. Thanks everyone for sharing and let's keep this going when the writing inspiration comes. Photography first.
Discussion
12 replies------------------------------------------------------------------------
Photo Art Gallery - Digitally manipulated or multiple exposure images that are intended as obvious artistic renditions of nature.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who doesn't use a lens or camera adjustments to manipulate images or blending layers,curves, level adjustments to name a few in PS? It seems like in this digital photography age that all digital photographers manipulate their images in one way or another but what makes an image Photo Art? I would love to hear your thoughts.
A real "poser" digital photography has blurred the line between photo realism and art. Much digital manipulation, such as contrast boosting or reduction, hue adjustments, saturation, opening shadows are a result of trying to render reality in an image. Digital cameras are meant to emulate film cameras to such an extent that they fail in many ways that they do. Although not to the extent that certain types of film do. That being said I think due to the hazy line between that "ART" would be defined as a removal or additions of elements or objects that did not exist or did exist in the original ( unprocessed and technically well done ) image until that image fails to be an accurate rendition of the original. Which of course is based on interpretation and opinion. Thereby further blurring the line. I have placed images in photo art that may be perceived a realistic, but I know I have cloned out or in, or enhanced to the point that it is more me ( my digital abilities ) than the original. That's my first but probably not my last words on the subject, it would be easy to go on and on, but I won't. I do hope the question receives the responses it deserves because I think as well it is a consensus and not just a few random opinions that will make the definition clearer.
Paul
My personal approach to photo art is very simplistic. I don't create brand new images by putting together parts of two or more images or by adding elements created in Photoshop. In my own work, I create photo art from images that I really like when the image as it stands, after lighting and contrast adjustments, maybe some saturation adjustments, doesn't have the impact I want it to have or doesn't convey the impression I want it to convey. I sometimes shoot an image with the specific intent of creating photo art from that image. Lastly, I sometimes look at an image that does have impact but I immediately see the potential beauty of photo art created from the image and decide to do that. I use artistic filters of various kinds to take such an image to the point at which looking at the image satisfies me. I try to work until it completely satisfies me. I don't always get there.
Regarding other people's work that they display as photo art, I think there is or should be no controversy there. If an artist/photographer displays work as photo art it should be accepted without question as such, in my opinion and without regard to their reasoning.
Regarding other people's work that they display as photography and not as photo art, I personally often have question marks in my mind there. I find this most often in Flora and in Landscape. In Landscape, many of the images with hundreds of views and dozens of raves often look very unreal, though beautiful, to me. I personally would consider those images photo art. In Flora, images are sometimes processed to such an extent that I personally would consider those images photo art.
For landscape especially, talking about the camera end only, the lens you use, the POV, the DOF and other things can make a landscape image look completely unreal. Has this always been considered photography? I don't have the background in photography to know. Is photo art new or old in the history of photography?
It's like the definition of pornography - I know it when I see it.
Wish defining it was that simple. Was makes an image an unrealistic depiction of a scene or subject? Black and white is certainly an unrealistic depiction of a scene or subject, at least to most people, yet it is considered by many as the most pure, traditional and unadulterated form of photography - the virtual antithesis of Photo Art. Go figure.
The was actually a period in the early twentieth century where photographers intentionally used sets, models and soft focus to create photo art, replicating graphic art and paintings with photography. It was called pictorialism, Ansel Adams briefly flirted with pictorialism before breaking away with such luminaries as Edward Weston, Imogene Cunningham and others to form f/64 a group of photographers dedicated to what would be called by some photo realism. The group name came from the smallest aperture setting on a camera of that era that rendered images with deep depth of field, extreme sharpness and clarity. Earliest photography was looked upon as documentary, hence the inclusion of Wet plate photographers such as William Henry Jackson and Timothy O'Sullivan in the great Western Land Survey's of the American West after the Civil War. Even with the limitations of their equipment many of their images are now appreciated as Art. So are f/64 group photographers appreciated as artists, but they were striving for the composition, light and scene rendered realistically to be considered artistic, in a way letting photography stand on it's own rather than manipulating it to emulate art. I hope that answers your inquiry Barbara.
Paul
So, what is “photo art” and what isn’t? Depends on what you want to achieve and who makes the rules. Within the “Photo Art Gallery” the guidelines are vague and open to interpretation. The definition we have now includes “…obvious artistic renditions...” in italics. I think that currently includes a portion of images that appear in most galleries.
I would be in favor of NPN adopting the guidelines used by the Windland Smith Rice competition from Nature’s Best Photography (with more details on what is acceptable processing):
“All photographs must accurately reflect the subject matter as it appeared in the viewfinder. Nothing should be added to an image, and aside from dust spots, nothing should be taken away. Normal processing of RAW image files and minor adjustments to color and contrast are acceptable, as is minimal cropping.”
Anything else…would fall in the category of “Photo Art.”
One of the things I love about photo art is that it sometimes gives me the ability to show how the scene looked to me in my mind's eye or how being there felt to me. Sometimes I take a picture and when I look at the photo I know that's what the scene really looked like, but it doesn't convey the feelings I had about what I was photographing. With photo art, sometimes I can create a picture that I can look at and say "That's it! That's how beautiful it looked to me!" And hopefully it will convey this message to other people and it will be something they enjoy looking at.
I had the opportunity to craft a definition of "photo art" for my local County Fair photography/fine art competition coming up this summer. Myself and two other togs came up with this definition for one of the entry classes:
"Creative Digital Photographs: Color or black-and-white photograph that has been creatively altered, manipulated, or enhanced to introduce effects or elements not present in the original scene or photograph."
We mulled over and discussed this topic for a couple weeks. One thing was very clear, the very moment you introduce a specific example (Orton effect, composite, cloning, yada, yada, yada) you pigeon-hole yourself in to a definition that can and will be easily challenged with other examples. there are just too many possibilities and of course all of it is subjective.
What is not mentioned above, or in NPN's definition but has sort of been touched on by a few folks here, is intent. And that of course is the one thing that can't really be judged or assumed by a critiquer of a photograph. But from my own point of view, and perhaps if you put yourself in this point of view, you may agree, I think intent makes the difference. For example, I may apply a layer of the "Orton Effect" to one of my images. If I think to myself, I would really like to create an abstract wild glow that really takes this beyond reality to more of a fairytale fantasyland, I would call that Photo Art. If, on the other hand, I thought, "I'm going to add an Orton layer at 15% opacity to boost the contrast slightly to make the image pop just a little more like I felt and saw at the time." To me, I'm adjusting the image to better present some technical aspect, but not alter the original contents of the scene. And in this case I wouldn't hesitate to post in Landscape or whatever other gallery it may qualify for.
If I want to move the camera during exposure because I want to "create some wild, colorful and artistic patterns," then to me that is Photo Art. If I want to set up my camera, open the shutter for 2 hours to capture star trails, to me, that is recording the scene as it happened. Sure, we can not see the star trails, but they can be recorded simply by exposing the scene over a long period of time. Nothing really being manipulated in that example, only "time" is what creates the result; the scene is really unaltered.
Many, many examples and scenarios, but in the end, was the intent to alter the image that in some way altered the original scene or are you trying to present the scene as best you recall or experienced?
Just my thoughts.
Lon
In any case, I'm glad we now have a photo art forum. I think I shall like it here