Well my thoughts on this topic are that I do think that photography is art in some circumstances. For a photograph to be considered art or artistic it should have the qualities that deem it "fine art" these pictures are possibly made in a certian way, useing various darkroom/photoshop techniques. For example i'll say that an artistic photograph maybe maniupulated with cepiatone or using a vignetting around the picture. where as taking your pictures to wegmans to get develped may be not as artistic. Something like say the nude as an art form...i defintly think that there is a difference between something like Man Ray's nudes and a nude one would fine in Playboy.
But then again what do we consider art anyways? In france there was a man, for the life of me i cant remeber it, who put a toilet on the wall of an art gallery and called it art. Is it art because its in an art gallery? if so, anyone can do that. Example some people have a huge conterversy over Jackson Pollok's art work, of which i love, being just paint thrown on canvis. When i was at the Andy Warhol museum in Pittsburgh there was a piece of copper that he pissed on and called it art. to me that was crossing the limits.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment