"Photography isn't art" - C/D

What makes an image essential?

http://home.comcast.net/~1000bwc/indie.jpg

PEOPLE USING PICTURES OF THEIR FRIENDS IN FLIERS - C/D

http://www.departmentofeagles.com/hipster%20irochrys2.jpg

MAKING ART TO USE AS YOUR MYSPACE/FRIENDSTER PHOTOS - C/D

VANITY STENCILS

90% of the time, are of photographer themselves looking arty
75% of the time, include someone in the fetal position
80% of the time, are too high contrast, which is arty I guess
45% of the time, has words writen on top of it or a quote from an emo band, because expressing something without words is not arty, I guess
30% of the time, has a really vague reference to 1950s standards of what it means to be a woman

Theyre not all mutually exclusive, the best ones include all of the above.

Tuomas this is nonsense - back me up here Anthony

On the other, I'm like "this is painfully OTM."

90% of the time, are of photographer themselves looking arty
75% of the time, include someone in the fetal position
Not necessarily looking arty, often looking deranged, depressed, or dressed up in a motherfucking costume.

Photo majors of the world, please find someone to rip off besides Cindy Sherman and/or Nan Goldin. K Thx Bye.

80% of the time, are too high contrast, which is arty I guess
Guilty and not guilty.

45% of the time, has words writen on top of it or a quote from an emo band, because expressing something without words is not arty, I guess
30% of the time, has a really vague reference to 1950s standards of what it means to be a woman

Poss. because I've mostly been in a photo program comprised mostly of women, that last needs to be higher. 80-85% easy.

And in defense of photo majors everywhere - most of the stuff we/they turn in is half-assed last-minute BS. Just like everyone else. Project due in three hours? Print random things and spray paint slogans on top. When asked about meaning, be vague. Repeat.

OTMFM

And in defense of photo majors everywhere - most of the stuff we/they turn in is half-assed last-minute BS. Just like everyone else.

The problem with that logic is that you can't necessarily do that with a lot of media - oil painting, sculpture, intaglio, litho ... etc. Also, I think that the ease of delivering a "finished" project is what lures most people into being photographers and they often end up producing derivative, unchallenging work because that capability is inherent in the medium.

Photo majors who believe their own hype and think that whatever they finished just to turn something in is a masterpiece, they're indefensible.

That's true of just about anybody... not just photographers and not just college students. Anyone who thinks whatever they just finished is a masterpiece has at least some amount of cocky asshole in them.

However, it's pretty common for someone makes something artistic for reasons other than money to think that what they're working on at any given time is masterful. Otherwise they'd likely not continue to work on it.

Keep in mind, she has won awards for her photography (the kind of art that wins awards and gets you into art school is all so trite and simmilar, it makes me wonder if there's one person who is choosing all of the art around the country) and puts a lot of pride in it, so I didn't really want to insult her or make her feel bad about it, but I really didn't want to lie. Of course, after I mumbled something about the composition, she said "What do you think it means?" and my head nearly exploded.

(otherwise everything everyone has said about college photography students is OTM, of course)

People who ask this of their own work C/D?

i dont know if photos are art, im reminded of judd who refused to call his work sculpture, and defined art as things that were "interesting", i think its a modernist arguement thats not worth having...but then when i take pictures, i take them as a documentary exercise, and am not sure i consider them art (artist is dead, et. al--do my viewers, no not at all, have i shown them in a fine art context, no not at all..does the context matter--i dont know)

i find venacular photos more interesting then i often find fine art photos though...the whole other peoples albums, antique store and junk store finds...etc (like is there any difference b/w the glossy advertising photomurals at my local macs and gursky ? What is it ?)

i dont know is this making sense >

Well she need something to tell her professor!

I tend to agree about vernacular v. the Gurskys of the world, but I wouldn't call it ambivalence toward fine art photos. It's ambivalence toward a art-world/gallery favorites for me. (Wouldn't a Gursky supporter say that the difficulty in separating his work from the glossy adverts of the world was part of the point.)

Saying "Photography isn't art" is like saying "Writing isn't art." The conceptual problem is that so much BESIDES art is made with photography -- real estate photos, perp photos, porn, crime-scene photos, random family snaps, porn, yearbook photos, wedding photos, porn, travel photos, advertising, porn, medical imaging, used-car-listings photos, porn, and -- yes -- lots of crap done by students and other people who think they're being "artsy" but really don't have much of an aesthetic or conceptual purpose. (Sometimes the results in the above categories can look cool anyway; though I think you could only call it art if you repurpose it -- do a Duchamp and sign it as your own.)

You could say the same for writing. There is lots of truly great fiction, nonfiction and poetry being made -- but would you say "Writing isn't art" and then use as your proof a uncomprehensible IM transcript, a dull technical manual, and a bad short story written by someone trying to imitate David Foster Wallace on meth?

I don't want to belittle what you've posted... It just seems like you're not replying to anything already on the thread.

Also note that "a bad short story written by someone trying to imitate David Foster Wallace on meth," aside from sounding like a poorly written book review, would arguably be art.

and a question.
what happens if we value the "real estate photos, perp photos, porn, crime-scene photos, random family snaps, porn, yearbook photos, wedding photos, porn, travel photos, advertising, porn, medical imaging, used-car-listings photos, porn" over the "art"

also can we manage to find a new word for it, one that finds a way to say that pictures are both art and (what ever else), or that neither of those matter, or that both of them do

And obviously a fair amount of photography that isn't intended as art is nonetheless cool (see the whole found-photo culture, things your five-year-old nephew does with a Polaroid, etc.) -- and a lot of photography created as art is relatively cliched. I've been in many public darkrooms and made lots of crap myself.

And of course "a bad short story written by someone trying to imitate David Foster Wallace on meth" would arguably be art; i was using that as a parallel to the whole indiefriends-blurry-cropped-off-portraits thing mentioned upthread -- stuff that's intended as art, and IS art, just isn't very original.

I just wanted to throw in the "writing isn't art" analogy as another point to bring up when confronted by someone who says "photography isn't art" and believes it, which isn't most of the people here.

/as you were