Hmm. It's an interesting proposition. But I don't think that the order of execution necessarily divides art and craft. Art is quite often (usually?) based on the direct experiences or the artist; things they have seen, heard, felt, etc., including others' work, perhaps using the same subjects that they are using in their own work. And how does this proposition work for photographers, that, by definition, are quite often capturing an image of something that has already previously been photographed? Can a photograph of a plant never be considered a work of art because there have already been 40 million (just an estimate :)) other pictures of plants? Can photography then never be art? I don't have the answer, but I do believe that a photograph can be just as much art as Picasso's "The Old Guitarist", or Dali's "The Persistence of Vision". Andrew On 02/04/2010 10:53 PM, Veli Izzet wrote: > What Emily says is actually the difference between art and craft; if you > conceive something and do it first, it is art. > > Doing what is done already is a craft, although craftsmen can be better than > the artist herself. > > Veli Izzet > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andrew Sharpe > Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 8:38 AM > To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students > Subject: Re: The inspiring photograph - Flickr > > Well said, Emily. I was very blunt in my lack of enthusiasm for the > images (even though a couple of them are very nice), but you've > succinctly articulated my feelings. > > Andrew > > > On 02/04/2010 04:05 AM, Emily L. Ferguson wrote: >> At 8:38 AM +0000 2/4/10, Howard wrote: >>> Which all goes to show that opinions about photographs are all very >>> personal. What one person likes.... >>> >>> I don't like Cartier-Bresson, nor Ansel Adams! Am I alone? >> No. But you're probably in a pretty lonely place! >> >> The interesting thing about that Flickr page is that the commenters >> don't seem to have any thing to say except, sycophantically, "oh yes, >> wise one, the photographs you've selected this week are indeed inspiring." >> >> Inspiring is not an adjective I'd use for those images - they don't >> inspire me to do much except go hunt for someone who paints on velvet. >> And, unlike the work of Adams and Cartier-Bresson, when I look at the >> gallery, no one image jumps out at me and sticks in my memory. >> >> Either because we're so educated about the history and technique of >> photography, or because we've simply been exposed to so much, we're no >> longer impressed with yet another gritty face, especially when we've >> stared at Steve McCurry's Afghan girl and Dorothea Lange's Migrant >> Mother for a great deal of our education. >> >> My personal opinion is that, in the case of McCurry and Cartier-Bresson, >> some things are great because they're the first. >> >> Steve's image turns out to be formulaic, if you go and track down more >> of his work. >> >> And here's the difference: Cartier-Bresson's isn't. > -- http://andrewsharpe.com
