It is a question I ask myself as I see more and more photographs being accepted in jury shows. Personally, I have no problem with a well-composed and beautifully rendered photograph. (Think Ansel Adams or Imogen Cunningham.) The question comes up for me in this digital age with the digitally-modified/manipulated photographs.
Is it art or are we just inured to the concept because of all the special effects in movies?
The reason I ask is because with the digital imaging programs such as PhotoShop and PaintShop, anyone can make amazing and interesting changes to an image. Is that art or just skillful manipulation of a software program? Is the adult/child/ape who manipulates the image is some interesting way deserve to be called an "artist?"
I suppose one could liken the software programs to a paint tube, brushes, and myriad other art-making tools. It's just that I wonder. Do digitally manipulated
photographs deserve to be considered in the same way as say, a well executed oil painting? or perhaps a perfectly registered multicolor woodblock print? or a smoothly polished sculpture?As for me, I am having a little trouble with it. I have one of those software programs and I love all the ways that it allows me to modify an image for a website or some other graphic. Personally, I don't consider that to be making art.
Do you think I'm just behind the times? Is this the new direction art is taking? What is your opinion?
I understand using digital photos for ads and fun, but I don't much like it for journalism. Is it art? I'm not so sure it is. Judy
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't seem like art to me. Maybe I'm being inconsistent, since I consider a skilled musician an artist.A musical instrument (a piano for instance) is a mechanical device that is mastered by the player. But somehow to me the computer manipulation of a photo doesn't rise to the status of art. SZ
ReplyDeleteFractal art is pretty popular. Britt
ReplyDeleteYes, just as regular photography is art. Peggy
ReplyDeleteIf art is "The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty; specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium," I guess it is. (American Heritage Dictionary, 1969) I don't even know if it needs an explanation of how it is created. But in this day and age I think there should be sidebars on how the "artist" composed the piece. I still prefer art that is more the product of hand and eye without a lot of mechanical manipulations. Heck, I still bristle at the use of iron on backings for applique. Shoot, I wonder if "applique" is really quilting since my form adheres to fabricating, sewing each little piece to another. But, I do use a sewing machine. Yours is a very Good Questions and I'm sure a lot of people are conflicted. Ann D
ReplyDeleteYes, I think it can be - depending on the artist's intent. Anne
ReplyDeleteart is art look and you will see digital photography. Cindy
ReplyDeleteI think if one uses the digital programs artfully, than it is art... color, value, strength of line, application of effect, etc. That being said, I think there is a lot of junk out there that looks like a computer threw up and the maker thinks he made art because he can click a mouse. Ruth
ReplyDelete