To repeat what @stuck says - beauty is in the eye of the beholder. there are plenty of artists, who create art, that I don’t think of as particularly “beautiful” or to my taste. There are others I have simply fallen in love with, especially the those from the Impressionist movement. Something like this…
Or a photograph by Léonard Missone like this…
There is something fundamentally wrong in you asking this question.
So far, you have distinguished images to be either journalistic or illustrative.
Now, you come up with another black vs. white kind of pattern.
Please free your mind from that kind of either-or thinking. There are a lot more tones in grey than black or white. Embrace nuances!
Why stick a label on things?
We can take the two examples as both illustrative and beautiful. No matter whether showing tough work or a romanticised upper class life. Both images can also be understood as artistic, due to the way the scenes are set up, lit and photographed.
The rights of the author are not in taking the picture, but in making it by whatever thoughts or deeds create a unique expression. There is some art in this, but whether the result qualifies as art or not, depends on mostly subjective matters.
Art requires continuity.
An artist does author work, which requires work and vision. Be it in the “objects” created, in the way they are created or otherwise.
A single, isolated work could hardly be considered a work of art.
The artist’s continuity, perseverance and vision grant him the title of artist and his work that of art.
I like labels.
Perhaps others don’t.
Agreed.
As I see it, this is your opinion, which you are obviously welcome to.
I disagree with it. A painting/photograph/sculpture stands by itself. That doesn’t imply that past or future creations determine whether that single item is or is not a work of art. Just my opinion.
A painter, a photographer, a sculptor does not do only one work of art.
It is possible, of course, to see only one work of art from an artist.
Vision, work and time of life devoted to this work are keys.
This thread has taken a weird turn. I am certainly not an artist, and unfortunately lack an artist’s eye. I often do try, mostly in vain, to be creative and capture things from a different point of view than I might have in the past. It’s one of the reasons I now restrict myself to using fast wide angle MF primes. Manual focusing with self imposed limits on framing forces me to slow down and view the world differently.
There were things I liked about this image, and things I did not. It was intended as an exercise in abstraction. Whether it succeeded or failed I leave to the better judgment of others here.
Mark
Sorry, I probably have not read the whole topic (or too fast somewhere). My response was not intended to describe your work.
And a part of artist work is often research.
There is no need for apologies. This discussion is very interesting, I just wanted to make it clear that it has very little to do with the image I initially posted which I do not view as art.
Mark
I agree. here’s what you posted originally.
I love your lens choice - Voigtlander - and they are available for what I consider reasonable prices. I’m only aware of the full frame lenses, not the ones suitable for your future Zf. But they are always well made, sharp, and infinitely less expensive than Leica lenses - not that I can afford the Leica lenses to do my own comparison. I enjoy searching the Camera Quest website.
The Nikon ZF is a full frame body. My current Nikon Z fc has an APS-C sensor. My Voigtlander 40mn f/1.2 Nokton is a full frame lens which is why It will be my go-to lens when I acquire the ZF.
Mark
Aha! It’s your older body that is not full frame.
On the ZF it will cover more “wide angle”.
Sorry, my goof.
yet, it has something that goes beyond documentation imo.
While it may not be documentation, to view my composition as art would be rather presumptuous of me since I don’t see myself as an artist and don’t see my image as art.
Mark
Does that matter? If others see it as art, they are perhaps “seeing” things you may not recognize. You (and Joanna) perhaps take things for granted, when other people say “Wow!!”.
It also probably means you (both) experiment, and sometimes things “work”, and other times “not”. But “not” is not the right word, as others may see something in your photos you were oblivious to. Or not.
I suspect we all try to share with others what we are thinking/doing. Sometimes people catch on, and other times (me, for example) they don’t. From the responses to your photo, there must be something “there” that others may appreciate. We are all tuned in to different things.
I’m just trying to say that even if you don’t see yourself as an artist, others obviously do. It’s their thoughts that make you an artist, not your thoughts.
…still, there was something that made you take the image and it was not the bunch of weeds I presume. That was part of the creative process, while opening the aperture and pressing the shutter can be considered to be trade basics.
Again, there is a lot of room between black and white or between being a “snapper” and an artist.
Have to agree with Mike. The image should impress you on it’s own … it shouldn’t need an explanation. However, an explanation (aka ‘context’) can add an extra ‘wow’ factor. An image that needs an explanation to be successful is not a successful image IMHO … it places too much weight on the intellect over the visual. (Of course, this doesn’t necessarily apply to photojournalism, etc., where a focus on the aesthetic can raise other ethical issues).
I never said it needed an explanation. I initially provided the details because I thought some people might be interested, especially because this is not just random photography site, so I added some insight to how the picture was captured. Of course any image stands on falls on its own. People with either like it or they will not.
My response to Mike was because he gets confused very easily when there are objects in a photograph that he does not understand and I was attempting to give him some context.
Mark
What’s there to be confused by? It’s not a matter of “understanding”, it’s a matter of making the best image of the subject for that image. I’m usually simplifying things - if something doesn’t add to the image, why include it?
It’s easy to INCLUDE lots of stuff.
It’s much more difficult to EXCLUDE stuff.
To me, miscellaneous “other” stuff in an image detracts from the goal of the image. One word, “simplification”. But obviously, many people feel otherwise. And some times, they are right.
