Music Banter

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   The Lounge (https://www.musicbanter.com/lounge/)
-   -   Photography Thread (https://www.musicbanter.com/lounge/16041-photography-thread.html)

Reznorslave 05-29-2006 09:47 PM

I think the old philosophy One man's junk is another man's treasure should apply here. What's art to me may not be art to you and so forth and so on. Art can't be defined. It just is!!!

hiu 05-29-2006 09:54 PM

I think people have different interperatations of art as you say and people have different opinions of what constitutes commercial photography and artistic photography.

Merkaba 05-29-2006 09:59 PM

http://www.sportees.com/images/fabri...lack_small.gif

Photo taken in the pitch black, if someone can identify any artistry to it, I will give them a cookie.

Otherwise, I say Stone Magnet has made a fair argument.

Reznorslave 05-29-2006 10:01 PM

My favorite color is black, does that count?

Scarlett O'Hara 05-30-2006 12:30 AM

Photography is art. Stonemagnet was 10 pages of arguement really necessary?

hiu 05-30-2006 12:52 AM

He didn't say all photography wasn't art, just taking photos of other peoples art with a digital camera isn't.

Stone Magnet 05-30-2006 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanilla
Stonemagnet was 10 pages of arguement really necessary?

Was it necessary for several members to berate me for their own assumptions? I never said that all photography is not art.

bungalow 05-30-2006 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stone Magnet
I like some photography, though I've never really understood what's so artistic about looking through a diminutive box and pushing a button.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stone Magnet
I could consider it photography, as in the process of taking and printing photographs. It is not art. It is void of any artistic merit.

Whether he meant to or not, he did say that photography was "void of any artistic merit".
Please explain to me how an exhibit on urban life in the 20th Century done by a photographer is not artistic.

Stone Magnet 05-30-2006 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bungalowbill357
Whether he meant to or not, he did say that photography was "void of any artistic merit".
Please explain to me how an exhibit on urban life in the 20th Century done by a photographer is not artistic.

Once again, I said that the process of taking and printing photographs is void of any artistic merit. For example, taking pictures for a newspaper. That is the mere process of, well, taking pictures. It is of no artistic value or even intent. Photography can be a process, or it can be an art. You said that yourself.

Taking photographs of a town does not imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature. It is not imaginative, it requires nominal skill, and it is not aesthetically gratifying.

Not all photographers are artists.

Decoy 05-31-2006 06:38 PM

1. The graffiti section really was just a little display of some local pieces and character's displayed in a fashion that is a bit unique, I thought at least.
2. If you don't think capturing graffiti is even an art in itself then what about architechture photography? Millions of dollars go into the just PICTURES of the buildings, not even the buildings themself. (the millions are not refering to one building, but rather a whole business)
3. What does it matter? Everyone is an art critic now but I think I would like to see some of your art before your complain about it what is/isn't.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:29 PM.


© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.