• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Art or not?

Ossi Raimi

New member
"Stairway to Hell or to Heaven?"


full



Few words about this "over cooked" HDR:

HDR has been made by Photomatix, after that the picture has been moved to Photoshop and tone mapped with DCE redynamic plug in, after that it has been sharpened and after that colors and light has been rebuilt with Topaz Labs' Topaz Adjust plug in....and after that I built frames and re sized it.... and here it is....

Is it Hell or Heaven to you?
 

Daniel Buck

New member
my opinion on "hdr" tonemapped images is probably already known, I don't like them. However, that's just my personal feeling. There are other types of art that I don't really care for as well, but that doesn't mean they aren't art to someone. Just means that I don't appreciate them ;-)
 
I like the HDR look in certain instances. This one is nice and I like the abstract nature of the photo. It does not however bring either Heaven or Hell to my mind. I don't understand that part of your post. It must mean one of these to you so why not explain and give us your thoughts on that? Is it art or not? I suppose everyone's definition and their beliefs are different. That topic is argued over and over again and as far as I have seen, no one side is that much more convincing than the other. Again, what are your beliefs on this? Is this photo art to you? To me it is but I am easy and everything I see is art. Do you need or want someone else to say it is art before you believe it or what?
James
 
Art? Definitely! But possibly not worth looking at depending on one's priorities.

If, for example, one wants to look at pictures generated in a sensitive surface by the impact of light, what some people call photographs, then "Stairway to Heaven or Hell" is a complete waste of eyesight. If one is content with evocative patterns of colour and form suggesting real or conceivable things then "Stairway to Heaven or Hell" is in the same mainsteam as the rest of Western art, Sistine Chapel or Mona Lisa included.

As for the HDR, well this is a powerful return to tradition. Remember, until photography was invented ALL pictures were HDR.
 

Ken Tanaka

pro member
If you have gallery representation in New York, Chicago, SF, or London and are getting at least 5-figures for the print, it's "art".

Consider: Gabriel Orozco takes an unfocused photo of two dead flies floating in an orange drink. Tomorrow evening it may be auctioned at Phillips de Pury in NY for $8,000 - $12,000. (Note that there are six of these...collect them ALL!)

I'm not really just being a smart ass, Ossi. Create the images YOU enjoy seeing. Let others worry about definitions such as "art", "amateur snap", and "crap".
 
Wow Ken. That was an eye opener seeing those flies. Who in their right mind would buy such garbage? I have a great photo (in focus mind you) of a big fly sitting on the side of my soft drink cup I took at my job one day that surely should bring a couple of grand. Where do I sign up?
James
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
full
"Stairway to


Hell or to Heaven?"
Is it Hell or Heaven to you?

Ossi,

What's the consequence of answers you might get? Is this to get some confidence to submit for a show, competition or to include in a portfolio to represents you work? If so, then specify that and we'll try to see if we are qualified t give a response.

I'd ask you the following:

  1. Do you feel drawn in to this?
  2. If the file was corrupted and unreadable, what this be felt by you as a real loss?
  3. Does this image give you a satisfactory array of experiences for which you feel you want to return and to share with others?
To me if the answers to these questions are in the negative, it's not art in the esthetic sense that I value the most.

Thanks for sharing.

Asher
 

Ken Tanaka

pro member
I feel compelled to add two points to refine my earlier remarks which could be construed as unintentionally harsh.

First, regarding Gabriel Orozco... He is a reasonably well-regarded Mexican artist in modern art circles. He is NOT a photographer. Rather, he's a conceptual artist that works in whatever medium suits his objectives...paint, pottery, etc. So to view the piece I linked earlier as purely a photograph would be unfairly narrow-minded. Like so many artists, his work is driven by a concept or experience objective. I may still think the work is crap but I view it from a wider angle.

Which brings me to my second point...ART. I cannot say what is art. But perhaps the key distinguishing delineation between "art" and "stuff" is the intellectual propellant that lead to a piece's creation. For example, Ossi, if your image represents nothing more that a little time spent behind a keyboard manipulating software until you stumbled upon something "cool" it's not "art".

Conversely, if it represents a purposeful exercise towards expressing a broader concept or vision then it certainly is "art".

That is, "art", particularly contemporary varieties, is generally defined more by the intellectual means than the ends. This remark deposits you at precisely the same place as my earlier remarks but might provide you with a bit more framework to consider.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
For example, Ossi, if your image represents nothing more that a little time spent behind a keyboard manipulating software until you stumbled upon something "cool" it's not "art".
Hi Ken,

If we can look at various attributes of what might be meant by "cool" then we might find instances where we are indeed creating art. For example, if there are cases in which "manipulating", (which has at times, a negative connotation) really means "exploring using software to generate novel changes in the image", then we might be see the creation of new art.

After all, I can wander along the beach and then find a wave-beaten object in which I can see and or ascribe meaning. That could become "found art". Similarly, one might be able to work in the chance environment of a software generated "manipulation" (used in the sense described above) and select successive generations of images, each with with increasing meaning to us and stature. What's important here is the guidance by the mind, and not chance alone, to the next generation of changes and selections. I'm not saying that this will generate art. I just think art, evocative art with value and meaning, can be made this way.

Ken, you asserted, and I agree that

".. perhaps the key distinguishing delineation between "art" and "stuff" is the intellectual propellant that lead to a piece's creation."

To me it means, in this particular case of software "manipulation", the almost universal need for a brain-generated "backbone" to a work's formulation and refinement. I strongly believe that great art is possible when even fairly random software induced changes are under repeated sequential selection by us.

Asher
 

Ossi Raimi

New member
First thing first; Thank you for comments! It was great (and fun) read them!
It does not however bring either Heaven or Hell to my mind. I don't understand that part of your post. It must mean one of these to you so why not explain and give us your thoughts on that?
My thoughts; I just want to make discuss, and I get 7 answers less than 12 hours ... so I guess I made it....
As for the HDR, well this is a powerful return to tradition. Remember, until photography was invented ALL pictures were HDR.
Yes, if you talk about paintings etc.....but with photography, there wasn’t any HDR before digital era....

I'm not really just being a smart ass, Ossi. Create the images YOU enjoy seeing. Let others worry about definitions such as "art", "amateur snap", and "crap".
Yup, I admit, discuss about art, or not ... is simply endless, someone says Lee Friendlander’s photos are art, someone says they aren’t...someone says Ansel Adams’ photos are art...etc... (as a simple examples)
I'd ask you the following:
1. Do you feel drawn in to this?
2. If the file was corrupted and unreadable, what this be felt by you as a real loss?
3. Does this image give you a satisfactory array of experiences for which you feel you want to return and to share with others?
I guess you know, there aren’t simply positive, or negative answers to those questions. In fact, I like that picture, but a little bit different format...my first answer tells why it is like it is now.....
Which brings me to my second point...ART. I cannot say what is art. But perhaps the key distinguishing delineation between "art" and "stuff" is the intellectual propellant that lead to a piece's creation. For example, Ossi, if your image represents nothing more that a little time spent behind a keyboard manipulating software until you stumbled upon something "cool" it's not "art".

Conversely, if it represents a purposeful exercise towards expressing a broader concept or vision then it certainly is "art".

That is, "art", particularly contemporary varieties, is generally defined more by the intellectual means than the ends. This remark deposits you at precisely the same place as my earlier remarks but might provide you with a bit more framework to consider.
Simply one of the best answers to this topic, Thank you for putting things simple format.
One thing makes me wonder; how it is possible I got so many answers for this strongly modified photo, but almost none to my others topics, maybe someone enlighten me?
 

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
...One thing makes me wonder; how it is possible I got so many answers for this strongly modified photo, but almost none to my others topics, maybe someone enlighten me?
My wild guess is; due to the challenging question you've asked whether it is art or not. I cannot say why your other pictures got almost no replies. In order to be able to give an educated answer I'll have to dig in into your posting history, which I don't have the time for right now. Maybe later. :)
 

Ossi Raimi

New member
due to the challenging question you've asked whether it is art or not.

How it can be more challenging than those just "Critique Desired:", and I'm not just talking about my pictures ... there are too many Critique Desired: topics with only few, or without answers (of course I must take a look to mirror too....)
 

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
How it can be more challenging than those just "Critique Desired:", and I'm not just talking about my pictures ... there are too many Critique Desired: topics with only few, or without answers (of course I must take a look to mirror too....)
Because the two questions are totally different in nature. You did not ask for "critique" but stated a question at the beginning of your thread. "Critique desired" can apply to any photo posted, even the ones in the entry level. But if you post a picture in the art forum and ask others whether it is art or not, it is a different ball game. You have challenged us to judge your work whether it is art or not, without stipulating your intentions, vision or concept. That in itself is like holding a proverbial red cloth to a bull.
 

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
... there are too many Critique Desired: topics with only few, or without answers (of course I must take a look to mirror too....)
This is a problem that applies to all the posters in OPF. Time after time Asher reminds us to be active in giving our C&C so that we shall also get feedback when we post a picture for C&C.
 

Ossi Raimi

New member
This is a problem that applies to all the posters in OPF. Time after time Asher reminds us to be active in giving our C&C so that we shall also get feedback when we post a picture for C&C.

Why not to make "a team" from older members, and that team will be responsive to give C&C ...only needed is some half dozen members for that. In fact it probably makes more discussion etc....

So this has been a little bit off topic... so back we go: Let's take a different look to my HDR:

full


Is it now more art, or is it same?
 

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
..Is it now more art, or is it same?
Hi Ossi,

This may sound harsh but did you understand what has been written by Ken and Asher? If so, then why do you ask this question? How can changing color of a picture make it more or less art? This is totally irrelevant.
 

janet Smith

pro member
Hello Ossi

I wouldn't like to comment upon whether it is "Art" or not, this is a discussion which crops up time after time, there is no definitive answer, we all have our own opinions about what is art or not..... Therefore all I can say is that I like the shot and I have a strong preference for the B&W version you have now shown....
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Ossi,

You asked an inflammatory question and of course you got a lot of answers.

However you have not answered the defining questions and each can be answered in two ways only for this exercise:

For my art I ask:

  1. Do you feel drawn in to this?
  2. If the file was corrupted and unreadable, what this be felt by you as a real loss?
  3. Does this image give you a satisfactory array of experiences for which you feel you want to return and to share with others?

You should give a clear yes or no to these questions. That then qualifies you to work further and it then might deserve our in depth and hopefully useful discussion here. Why should anyone invest in going into the depth of your work when you have not placed it in some context for us as requested?

Otherwise one may as well be negotiating a sale of a nuclear submarine to a gasping blind Darfur orphan on the side of the road, caked in dust, within 3 last breaths of his painful death.

To me if the answer to any of these is "No!" then the matter is settled, it's not likely art for me at this stage at least, it's maybe an an idea for something in the future but right now it's definitely not art for me, the author.

Art, I believe should have both an intellectual background, may have humor but not churning of crap that means nothing to us. If a work is not your cherished child, likely its not your art and like not for many others either! (There are huge exceptions with folk who burned all their work before a certain year, or hoarded and kept it hidden as "failures" that were in fact "masterpieces" to the rest of us!)

Next, if you invest in other people's work, you might get to answer these questions yourself.

Logging in and watching for hours for the next post to one's own thread is not the way for folk to get the best experience.

Log in and look at low-reply and orphan posts. Likely they are not in your sphere of interest, but amongst them will be the best photographs to enjoy, be inspired from and learn from.


full


© Ossi Rami Staircases



Re Your picture, now in B&W, It's far more agreeable. I can now bear to look it, I find it interesting. I'd even be willing to return to devote time to such a photograph well-printed and then decide, just for me, if it was art.

Asher
 

Ossi Raimi

New member
For my art I ask:

1. Do you feel drawn in to this?
2. If the file was corrupted and unreadable, what this be felt by you as a real loss?
3. Does this image give you a satisfactory array of experiences for which you feel you want to return and to share with others?

Once again, I can't give "yes" or "no" answers to your question... it depends. The world ain't black and white place where every question can be answered... I doubt even you can give those answers for your pictures. If you can, then I'm pretty envy.....

However, this picture, or pair of pictures, has only one meaning and target. I tried to build it like mirror, where every of you can see your own opinions about it and after I built that mirror I asked one very provocative question "Art or not". Now the answers depends what you see in that mirror, I could build it like window, and if I have done that, then my opinion is more relevant. Coz then I have tried to show a world by my eyes ... but this isn't window.

We must always remember, the meaning of picture depends, there are always (at least) two people making opinions, the photographer and the watcher ... it's possible that picture means less to photographer than watcher and vice versa....

Anyway, thanks for answers, this has been very interesting topic, I hope every of you have enjoyed it too......
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Once again, I can't give "yes" or "no" answers to your question... it depends. The world ain't black and white place where every question can be answered...

Ossi,

That's a superficial answer! Many things are clearly one or the other. Diamonds are not birds and grass is not an apple, a cockroach is not dung! Most things can be clearly classified.
I doubt even you can give those answers for your pictures. If you can, then I'm pretty envy.....
Without these answers, forget about art. Photgraph product for bargain sales catalogs.

Every single picture I put forward to myself as art is one which must get positive answers on their deep value to me. If not I won't put further effort and I'll save disk space. If you cannot and will not rank things in their value to you, I doubt you can be an artist that I'd ever invest in.

Anyway, thanks for answers, this has been very interesting topic, I hope every of you have enjoyed it too......

Ossi,

I thought at first you were being honest and naive and so tried to answer to carefully set the bckground to a more cogent reply. However you and I have such different views. You already have a well packaged idea on how your stuff might be art and then there's no value to your question. Try selling it and it's not our concern whether you succeed or not. If you do not buy in to what interests us, why should we try to unravel what you might mean in the picture or intentions by your post?

I may be alone in this, but this discussion has not been either interesting not enjoyable yo me at least, since this is a one way conversation. There is no disclosure on your part. You are, essentially playing with us, presenting with what your computer generated. I have now little idea of how to deal with this, except perhaps to ignore such questions in the future.

It's disconcerting that you avoid disclosing your own value of your own picture. All my questions only have a yes or no answer, unless one is trying to be evasive, mysterious or some unapproachable guru.

We all already know that once art moves out of the realm of the artist, it requires the new observer's own values and personality are put against your picture. So foget about the "mirror" analogy, we all know about that and we want the step before that only The mirror pradigm is zero news. to us here. Also it's no excuse to not give an answer.

Well you can have a little more fun. People might engage a little more. For me however without your own intent and values, as requested, the answer to the question, "is it art" really has no meaning or interest to me. Further, I'm very sorry I answered in the first place and wasted my time and yours too. Art must start as the work of the artist or the guy who finds it washed up on the beach. If that person has no love for it, then why should I bother. We have no end to work by artists committed to what they labor to show us. Either you are part of that group or you are not.

Forget about that anyone else thinks. For at, I must start with you the artist and what do you think!

All art can have a mirror quality but here we'll now specify it's not to be shown to anyone else yet yet!

Then my question can be answered. If you, for example don't know that you would be devastated to lose the file for this image, then the subject is no longer worth discussion. I cannot give attention to art that you do not value.

The other questions are as simple.

My brother once discovered that he'd been negotiating with a buyer in an ex Soviet Government state for 10,000 IBM computers. However, the man in question did not have any authority for even 1 computer purchase! Qualifying a client is the first step in a transaction.

You need to qualify your relationship to your work to allow the question, "is it art"" or else you are just playing games with us. That's my strong opinion. In the absence of technical brilliance or some amazing artistic composition, I'd give such works no further attention.

Asher
 

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
...I may be alone in this, but this discussion has not been either interesting not enjoyable yo me at least, since this is a one way conversation. There is no disclosure on your part. You are, essentially playing with us, presenting with what your computer generated. I have now little idea of how to deal with this, except perhaps to ignore such questions in the future.
Hi Asher,

Rest assured you are not alone in this as I have felt the same way too. Actually, what you have written in another thread yesterday is quite appropriate to repeat here:
...<snip>...
...Perhaps we need to go back to these roots in photography as, I fear, digital photography has magnified the delusion that our snap shots can give birth to art with little imaginative risk and alteration on our part.

Asher
Well/enough said!
 

Ossi Raimi

New member
OK... I'll give straight answer , That B&W version is my mood when I first went in that tower, so the answers for B&W version is yes.... that first one, HDR, is just example somewhere between from exposure to B&W version.....

Somehow, I must comment some of your words:

Every single picture I put forward to myself as art is one which must get positive answers on their deep value to me. If not I won't put further effort and I'll save disk space.

How about pictures of your family, birthday parties, xmas, every happens etc..... by my case those are most important pictures. I don't think they're art... but most probably they will be after 50, or 100 years.

Take an example: I guess you know photographer called Jaques-Henri Lartique? He was a boy who got a camera at the beginning of 1900...he just had fun with it, he never tried to make some art, just took pictures at world around him....later the world found him and suddenly his pictures were called as an art...today his pictures can be found at the Museum of Modern Art in NY...
So, as we can see, watchers made his pictures as an art.....

edit: A little correction, it was Avedon who found Lartique...
and what more can I say than "Photography is a magic thing!"
 

Ossi Raimi

New member
Rest assured you are not alone in this as I have felt the same way too. Actually, what you have written in another thread yesterday is quite appropriate to repeat here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
...<snip>...
...Perhaps we need to go back to these roots in photography as, I fear, digital photography has magnified the delusion that our snap shots can give birth to art with little imaginative risk and alteration on our part.

Asher
Well/enough said!

I agree ....IMHO, digital pictures and silver based ones are different story; I can't say whichn one is easier, or which one is more art, but surely they're different.....
 

Ken Tanaka

pro member
Ossi,
I'm just about typed-out on this old, hoary subject which blisters several times each year on every amateur photo forum.

I appreciate your slightly argumentative, and lubricative, discussion on the topic. But photography's general status as an art form, irrespective of the artists' intentions, has been a subject of often coarse debate nearly since its recognized 1839 inception. It's not a subject that will be settled here.

If you're interested in previous "it is" / "it isn't" campaigns study up on "pictorialism", a movement of insecurity (around the turn of the last century) designed to make photographs "look" more like paintings. Alfred Steiglitz was perhaps the leading figure in this movement.

But ultimately this question has nothing to do with the work itself. Rather, it's all about the creator and the venue. Richard Prince dry mounts four prints of Brigitte Bardot, and one of Bruce Willis (none of which he photographed) to a matt board and it's offered for $70,000 at an art auction. A snapshot of a woman by Larry Sultan is offered for $15,000 at an art auction.

In the art world you are what you seem to be. Seeking affirmation of your status as an artist in a venue like OPF is a waste of everyone's time. Take your work to an art dealer or museum curator and ask the same question. (Stay away from art educators.)
 

Ossi Raimi

New member
In the art world you are what you seem to be. Seeking affirmation of your status as an artist in a venue like OPF is a waste of everyone's time. Take your work to an art dealer or museum curator and ask the same question. (Stay away from art educators.)

Well said ...for the first sentence I'll ad "in the short run....."
 

Ken Tanaka

pro member
If you have gallery representation in New York, Chicago, SF, or London and are getting at least 5-figures for the print, it's "art".

Consider: Gabriel Orozco takes an unfocused photo of two dead flies floating in an orange drink. Tomorrow evening it may be auctioned at Phillips de Pury in NY for $8,000 - $12,000. (Note that there are six of these...collect them ALL!)

I'm not really just being a smart ass, Ossi. Create the images YOU enjoy seeing. Let others worry about definitions such as "art", "amateur snap", and "crap".

FOLLOW-UP:
Gabriel Oroszco's photo actually sold for slightly more than the estimate. The gavel price was $12,125.
 

Ivan Garcia

New member
As I see it.
A large number of amateur photographers seem to think, that mastering the latest HDR/tone-mapping software, applying several photo shop filters, or converting it to BW, is all it takes to turn an average (at best) image into art.

It may be easy to convince average Joe public that an HDR image is art.. .but I think you will find the going much harder once you start mingling with people with a little more knowledge.

So to answer your question... no, I don't think your very skilled HDR rendering of a staircase is art, be it in colour, or black and white.
 
Top