Menu
#137. When is it art ?
By pascaljappy | News
Which of the two pictures below (if any) would you consider to be art ?
Hand made panorama using Photoshop Elements
Both are quick evaluations of the potential of a panorama, to determine whether it is worth spending more time on the picture or not.
Stitched and converted to monochrome
Both will appeal to very different viewers (or not ;))
There’s no doubt that with a little more work to tame the very harsh lighting (and no AUTOPANO wording all over the picture :)) the latter will produce a print much closer to what photographers refer to a fine art. It would probably be the easier print to sell.
However, I like the sloppy first better, because it evokes the moment rather than printing skill.
The second picture evokes a shiny object. The first is a memory. The beauty of the place doesn’t need artificial . In the first, I am calling to your primal instincts. In the second, I am hoping you will admire my work at the computer or the darkroom.
It’s all a matter of taste. A bit like a match pitching David Hockney & Uta Barth VS Ansel Adams & Edward Weston.
So, which would you hang on the wall ?
Session expired
Please log in again. The login page will open in a new tab. After logging in you can close it and return to this page.
I lean toward the first, but I feel that neither image is art yet. The first may work well enough as a memento or souvenir for one who was actually there. The different exposures and color balances hint at the possibility of a collage-like communication of an experience, but that has yet to be explored and exploited. Nor, presumably, has the possibility of the perfectly evocative rendering overall been pursued. The second exhibits some post processing skill (and technology) toward an appealing image, but to what end? What vision? We’d like to think that Adams and Weston knew where they were going, their considerable skills serving that vision, not merely exhibited for their own sake. Whether either version successfully evokes a place, a moment or emotion in the beholder, or has reached its full potential to do so, is I feel the important question behind the one posed in the title. Maybe a better question would be: When is one an artist? Or: What would an artist do with these frames? Don’t take this personally–it’s just a meditation on a very good question.
Hi Robert,
thanks for the inspiring comment. Those are exactly my thoughts as well.
Ansel Adams and Edward Weston had perfected technique to a higher level, used it to support a well explained and evident purpose and had whole portfolio of consistent work. That’s what made them true artists to me. A vision served by technique and described in books, exhibitions, workshops, conferences …
As you suggest, the first picture is not art (it wasn’t meant to be, it’s a 5 minute collage to evaluate potential), again mainly because it is just presented there alone, with no particular vision or context.
“When is one an artist ?” That’s a great question ! I wish I knew, I really do. This post emerged spontaneously after these 2 quick variations when I thought to myself that I personally would hang neither on the wall, that -weirdly – the technically worse picture appealed to me more than the monochrome and that it’s not infrequent to see these sorts of pictures in art galleries when, to me, they are not art.
“What would an artist do with the pictures ?” Probably include them in a broader portfolio of similar images describing a common thought or emotion, identify and analyze what appealed most to him/her most and get out to make a new one. Exactly the opposite of what most photographers (myself included) do when they shoot what is in front of them. I think a true artist hunts for (or creates) the scene that serves his vision.
Thanks again. Cheers,
Pascal
““What would an artist do with the pictures ?” Probably include them in a broader portfolio of similar images describing a common thought or emotion, identify and analyze what appealed most to him/her most and get out to make a new one…. I think a true artist hunts for (or creates) the scene that serves his vision.”
I think you’re absolutely right, Pascal!