Painting Vs. Photography As Fine Art?

Question

Here is a copy of a simple photograph I took of the branches of a bare tree.

http://pics.livejournal.com/unmired/pic/0004dscz/g57

With the aid of Coral Paint I clicked on the ‘photo negative’ button. Then clicked on the ‘page curl’ button. And guess what? Instant, two-click art.

But is it really art? Does having the ability to take a stupid picture of a stupid bare tree, then clicking two commands into a computer software program make it as substantial, as profound, as unique as original paintings?

And who should get the credit for these photographic masterpieces? The person who can ‘doctor’ a photograph or the creator and designer of the software program?

Wouldn’t it be nice if we painters could duplicate our paintings a dozen different times and then select the ‘best’ copy to call art and discard the other copies? Does anyone else here think photography is too easy?

Some wonderful, well-thought answers here so far. But remember, I'm only wondering if ... I actually like the pic and think it's cool. Perhaps I should have asked if painters would naturally be good photographers?

Answer 1

It is too easy. I've been out of the loop for a while, but I know you could use certain oils/colored pencils to add color to a b/w print made with fiber paper. That's both an art and a craft, something a computer can never replace. Take the long way around and you'll earn some art cred. At one point there was liquid emulsion which you could use in combination with watercolor paper.

Answer 2

Well, this is an interesting question. To answer part of it, I see the software as no more than a tool, like pencils, brushes, or pastels to the traditional artist. E.g., should the inventor of the color pastel get credit for Degas's beautiful pastel drawings? No. And so likewise for today's software developers (although some of them may be artists, too).

Art is in the eye of the beholder (as is beauty), so some may think your picture is definitely art. Much photography is definitely art, and photographs do hang in museums. Painters can do the same picture as many times as they want--variations on a theme so to speak. I wouldn't discard the first, they would likely all be valuable as art (unless you weren't a good artist!). Anyway, these are interesting questions to think through. Thank you . . .

Answer 3

Well... photography is art, and painting is art, and painting on a photograph is art... so yes, it's art - regardless of the tools one uses.

As for the program - could one just as easily give credit to the makers of brushes and paints? I don't think so.

And I don't think photography is easy... at least, not GOOD photography. It still takes a bit of technical knowledge, but most of all a great photographer includes the elements of good design in their work (balance, texture, form, value, yadda yadda) otherwise it's just a snapshot.

I have a few friends who modify photos with various paint and digital rendering programs, and their work looks like art when it's done.

And that's the final word on "is it art" - when the elements of design are incorporated into a work that moves you. Does the final result move you? Cuz that's where your answer lies.

Answer 4

Painters actually can duplicate their paintings. There's a very healthy trade in it in fact. Many owners of famous painting comission copies to actually display and keep the real ones somewhere safer (like a vault).

While you could make a case that what you did with that photograph was art, in terms of difficulty, it comes nowhere near what professional artists that work in photography do.

If you look at the work of people like Cartier-Bresson, Michael Kenna, Adam Fuss, the work they do is really amazing and requires an insanely high level of technical profiency. Just because the images can be reprinted doesn't necessarily decrease their value as art.

The argument you're making right now is exactly the kind of thing many people we look at as the greatest artists ever were rebelling against.

Look at Rodin's gates of hell for instance, he made many copies of that in different sizes and it's considered the seminal piece of modern art.

Or what about Duchamps readymades? The man incited an artistic revolution with a toilet urinal.

Or how about Degas' ballet dancers? Much like photographs, those sculptures can be recast over and over to produce multiple copies, so are you saying that Degas' and Rodin's work is "too easy?"

Once you create this paradigm for what "good" art is, you're closing yourself off to the reality of it and just encouraging an ever smaller range of artistic expression. In my opinion it's no better then fascism.

Answer 5

its a nice pic. and yes it belongs to you, see you either bought the program or it was freeware, so the maker of that program has released all functions of that program to you. For example Triheerd is a machine-making company There machines are used to make clothing-buisnesses buy these machines-make their own clothes and then sell those clothes. it is the same concept with programs

Answer 6

Here is what the internet hyperlink you gave us truthfully says - for those who afflicted to learn it: One unit (one yr-lengthy path) required in any of the next classes: dance, drama/theater, tune, or “VISUAL ART". I suppose you will have replied your possess query. If you continue to don’t get it, I without doubt wish you don’t have got to take the SAT for admission, as you gained’t go the “Critical Thinking” component to the examination.