Digital photography isn't art - no sir. . .

[episodic]

http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,71599-0.html?tw=rss.culture

BTW, I totally disagree with the article, but I knew that headline would get alot of ya here. What do you think about this guy's position?

 

[jagec]

Art isn't about how hard it was to accomplish.

A talented digital photographer, or someone who is really good at 3d modelling/rendering, is MUCH more of an "artist" IMHO than some of the traditional paint-and-canvas people who do things like this.

 

[johnjohn320]

I guess I kind of view it the same way I view the synthesizer when it comes to music. It's cool in the ways it opens up new possibilities, but sucks as a replacement for acoustic instruments. So, if people do some cool stuff with digital photography, I could see it being a new direction for photography as an art. But it has to be something new and unique to digital photography.

Don't know if that made any sense or not.

 

[imported_Mike]

Originally posted by: jagec
Art isn't about how hard it was to accomplish.

A talented digital photographer, or someone who is really good at 3d modelling/rendering, is MUCH more of an "artist" IMHO than some of the traditional paint-and-canvas people who do things like this.

QFT

It's in the eye of the beholder

 

[jpeyton]

Art is so broad, it could range from a toothpick statue to an oil-on-canvas masterwork. I'm not going to try to define what art is.

As for photography, I have seen some of the most beautiful, moving images captured by 35mm disposables, Holgas, toy cameras, pocket digitals, and full-frame DSLRs. Your shot, your composition, processing or post-processing make the difference. Equipment helps, but in the end digital vs. film, cheap vs. expensive doesn't matter.

 

[wfbberzerker]

if i'm a photographer and my pictures developed at walgreens, its still art.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: jagec
Art isn't about how hard it was to accomplish.

A talented digital photographer, or someone who is really good at 3d modelling/rendering, is MUCH more of an "artist" IMHO than some of the traditional paint-and-canvas people who do things like this.

making things that look random look balanced is hard as fvck to do

 

[michaels]

Ehhh yeah..those painting is horseshit and something a 1st grader can do. Artists are so full of ******..

 

[Goosemaster]

Art is expression; the most profound dictation of one's thoughts to a medium.

perhaps the degree of passion that the act of creating art emotes out of your orfices is less with a pc or a digicam, but that doesn;t make that emotion, that expression, any less real, any less viral...





I swear, that was the best Bs that I could come up with

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: michaels
Ehhh yeah..those painting is horseshit and something a 1st grader can do. Artists are so full of ******..

sounds like someone got cheated on by a liberal arts major

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: michaels
Ehhh yeah..those painting is horseshit and something a 1st grader can do. Artists are so full of ******..

The quality of your education is accurately reflected in this post.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: michaels
Ehhh yeah..those painting is horseshit and something a 1st grader can do. Artists are so full of ******..

The quality of your education is accurately reflected in this post.

OUCH

 

[axelfox]

Obligatory: "What is art? Are we art? Is 'art' art?"

 

[ZOXXO]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: jagec
Art isn't about how hard it was to accomplish.

A talented digital photographer, or someone who is really good at 3d modelling/rendering, is MUCH more of an "artist" IMHO than some of the traditional paint-and-canvas people who do things like this.

making things that look random look balanced is hard as fvck to do

Looks like a piece of drop cloth to me, but if it impresses you, enjoy.

 

[virtuamike]

I agree there's a fine line between photography and graphic design, and that people can tend to rely too heavily on post processing for their images. To have this guy discount digital phtography as a whole as artless though sounds like he has a stick up his ass. Medium is just one part of it.

 

[txrandom]

Tony Long is dumb.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

mr. emo needs to spend more time in his dark room

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: axelfox
Obligatory: "What is art? Are we art? Is 'art' art?"

Art, like most things in life, is purely subjective.

 

[destrekor]

i somewhat agree because half of the art of photography is in the dark room.
a perfectly exposed negative goes into the darkroom and is processed normally. process it with different effects, tools, filters, etc etc.. and you may get a photo that is beyond perfect.
look at ansel adams. he was the best when it comes to photography as an art. he's my photography inspiration as well.
the darkroom is where its at, and it hasn't been perfectly digitally recreated yet. photoshop and adobe's upcoming 'Lightroom' products do a good job of presenting the same types of effects, but the effects are never recreated in the same way.
to me, film is more respectable. but it depends on what your doing.
going after art, or doing portraits or something equal in terms of importance. digital is a perfect medium for professional photographers who should have the benefit of digital, but people out in the mountains and in the fields taking photographs for artistic purposes should be using film and working countless hours in the darkroom if they want to be called artists.