Is it still art?

[Courtney]

Altohught i have posted on a different forum, ill post it here too because ithink its interesting.. Im a photography student and the people in my class have mixed feelings on weather taking pictures of females in a more provocative way (ie: Playboy) is still art. what are you thoughts.. likeh eres an example of what i mean. It doesnt have to be nude

theresa photographer we were discussing in class that makes his living off these types of photos
www.paulbuceta.com

take a glance at it if you want, but its mainly the same sorta stuff.

so.. is it still art?

[Marko]

You could make the argument in either direction. At the end of the day it will come down to opinion.

For me this is not art.

It's a product shot meant to sell something, just like a shot of Jiffy peanut butter or a box of Kleenex.

Can someone argue that a even product shot is art..i guess they can. But for me, not art.

Hope that helps,

marko

[w3rk5]

I think it's art even though it's commercial.

It's just a different form of art.

Just my opinion.

[tegan]

In one respect, I disagree with Marko. A product photo can be art, if it is well done in terms of being artistic and creative.

But in this case it is not art, and that is not my opinion.

It is simply a poorly done photo. Any photo of people needs the eyes which are mirrors to the soul, express the personality, mood and a considerable number of other emotions to the photo. Hiding the eyes is down right poor technique. It is a negative comment to say: "Make up and hair by....." and having the hair look absolutely terrible. The models are certainly NOT flattered by this shot, quite the contrary, and this is the difference with Playboy shots. The splashing water is a considerable visual distraction and adds nothing to the shot whatsoever. There is no sensual nature to this shot either. Whatever he is trying to portray is badly done and unsuccessful.

Tegan

[Marko]

Just to clarify, yes I guess in some cases product shots can be 'art' - it's not the case here - in my opinion.

Unlike tegan, I this photograph is successful in what it was trying to acheive...but i maintain that it's not art.

[w3rk5]

I guess the word, "art" has different meanings to different people.

To me, anything can be art. An important thing about art is it gives the viewer/listener/ect. a choice to determine if they either like it or not.

With the example picture above........How far fetched is it for someone/anyone to appreciate that picture? If this person bought a print and framed it will you tell that person it's not art?

If you would, it could be a dangerous suggestion. Are you possibly suggesting there are "rules to art" or "limits to creation"?

Skill is not art. It's the technical side of art. Skill is judged differently than art. It's either good or bad, right or wrong, better or worse, ect.

Again with the example picture. I think this shot was done well and probably successful for what it was intended for. I can't imagine this shot was intended to be a portrait nor a landscape shot. Why critique it like it is?

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. You don't have to agree with me but maybe this will give readers a different view on how to tackle this subject on their own.

Totally out of topic. I think it's a great thing that we can all discuses/share ideas without any tempers or ego's flying around. Then again.......there's only 3 of us.

[tegan]

Unlike tegan, I this photograph is successful in what it was trying to acheive...but i maintain that it's not art.

OK, that assumes you know what it was trying to achieve. So, as one who does not see what it was trying to achieve, please, explain the objective and why you think it was successful.

Tegan

[tegan]

w3rk5:

Although art may mean different things to different people, there is a consensus among the top pros and top amateurs as to what constitutes photographic art. These standards determine whether your photos will be accepted for publishing in magazines, books, displayed in galleries, salon competitions or even used for advertising, public relations or other purposes.

They fall into two areas: technique: which is the technical side of photography and composition: which is the elements of design from the field or art used to evaluate the artistic side of a photo. Bottom line is that if every element of your technique and composition contributes to the quality and effectiveness/impact of the photo then it is an artistic high quality photo.
If, on the other hand, a method, approach, technique, disregard of standards distracts or detracts from the effectiveness/impact of the photo, then it is a weakness.

This is not a personal view or opinion. This is simply how it is in the field of photography and has been for more than the last 50 years.

Tegan

[w3rk5]

This makes sense to me.

http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/artart...iststoday.html

[Marko]

OK, that assumes you know what it was trying to achieve. So, as one who does not see what it was trying to achieve, please, explain the objective and why you think it was successful.

Sure i'll spar with ya (gotta get more smilies in here)

I think the goal of this shot is to show 2 sexy women playing provocatively in the water to suggest some future girl on girl action in the hopes of titilating a male to look at the picture and buy the magazine.

Although I never buy these types of magazines, I do find the shot 'sexy'

You are free to disagree of course, but the mere fact that these types of shots are everywhere, suggests that they sell or work.

Is there room for some technical improvement - yes. But it's still a sexy shot that fulfills its intent IMO.