photography is not art

I agree. Photography is for talentless hacks that want to call themselves creative. It's repulsive.

File: nicholas.png (37KB, 131x127px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 131x127px

>>15731
>>15730

>>15730
>So let me get this straight.

>You take your paintbrush, stand and canvas and colors, and you paint a picture
>Some other dude goes, puts his paintbrush, stand and canvas and colors in the same place, moves the brush on the canvas and boom - he made exactly the same painting.

>And that's art?
>Don't make me laugh.

File: 1490252527541.png (252KB, 493x387px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 493x387px

>>15736
>pressing a button is the same as painting

pffffffffffffffffffffffffffahahahahahahahahahah

File: Death of an American Soldier.jpg (84KB, 736x947px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 736x947px

>>15730
retake this photo, op

>>15747
lmao, OP just got destroyed.

/thread

>>15730
:^) Isi t you?

>>15744
>he thinks painting is this super esoteric activity only for the chosen ones
lmaooooooooooo

your mom could learn to paint proficiently in a month, 1 class every saturday. i could teach her.

>>15747
but knowing ((((robert capa))), that was maybe staged. you will never know what was happening there. all photo is essentially fake.

File: 1481592469361.jpg (3MB, 7000x7000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 7000x7000px

>>15747
>implying there weren't three other photographers right next to him snapping the exact same photograph
>implying it's an artform to be in a place and press a button

>>15770
How many classes do I need to take to learn how to press a button? Oh, that's right, none

So let me get this straight.

You take your clothes, you put them on
Some other dude goes, puts his clothes on the same way, closes the buttons and viola - he made exactly the same outfit.

And that's fashion?
Don't make me laugh.

You people probably thing using branded clothes is fashion too lmao, put on clothes and have fashion pfahaha

I don't get it... just be the right person at the right time, so be rich and travel a lot with a camera and you're a photographer

File: Yngwie.jpg (73KB, 530x723px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 530x723px

>>15730
>>15731
>>15773
So the harder something is to do, the more artistic merit it has?

Does your music collection consist entirely of Yngwie Malmsteen mastubating out 256th note scales over and over? 'Cause, ya'know, all other music is much easier to play and therefore has less artistic merit.

File: shiggy.jpg (114KB, 660x506px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 660x506px

>>15783

>he doesn't make his own clothes out of potato sacks and curtains

>>15783
I'm not a /fa/ggot
keep trying loser

>>15730
Don't even get me started on the trash that is black-and-white photography

>>15794
>takes a picture
>mom im an artist!

>>15804
>addressing my argument

I mean it's valuable to have pictures of stuff like records. But it's not creative, you're just recording Gods art

>according to photographers me pressing control+c and control+v on an image file is art

damn that's like three buttons too...

>>15794
yeah pressing the button on the camera twice is at the same level probably

>>15809
You can take pictures that look nothing like reality you silly goose

>>15730
I'll bite

>Composition, lighting, timing, framing, exposure

These are things that take practice to time to learn and figure out. The people who think you just push a button are the people who think that all that you need to have an interesting photo is an interesting subject. While the subject matter is indeed important, it's not the only thing that makes a good photograph.

I'll say it again, the ONLY people who think a good photo=just happening upon a good subject are just too lazy or too naive to even try to go beyond that.

>>15794
I wouldn't say that the harder something is the more artistic merit it has, but more that photography has no creative element. You go to see something that someone else has made, and take a picture - this image has historical value, but it took no creativity on the photographer's end to create. Yet, individuals want to take credit for their photos, when a camera set in the same place with the auto-shutter turned on could have done the same. It's just luck, being in the right place at the right time.

This doesn't cover photography in which the photographer arranges the scene, which is trending more towards genuine creativity.

>>15890
>photography has no creative element
>except when it does


Nice anon, you managed to backpedal in just one post.

great thread

Photography isn't art but it is a means that the artist can use

>>15747
OP btfo

File: 1432576785002.jpg (137KB, 900x599px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 900x599px

>>15878
Pretty much this. If the two dudes snapping a photograph know anything about photography then each one will actually end up with surprisingly different results, even if they're in the exact same location. One might privilege stronger shadows, the other might prefer a softer image, maybe one of them has a hard-on for strong overexposed lights, maybe the other likes to leave the subject background unfocused, he might even be a hipster that likes a little bit of grain, etc. And that's not even counting with the amount of stuff you can do in post-production, just lightly changing the RGB curves can radically alter the overall color and aesthetics of your image.

Honestly, I don't get why people who think doing proper photography is just skilless pointing and shooting don't immediately start selling their phone snapshots on GettyImages or else.

>>15929
At the same of paintings, there are only medium

>>15961
That the artist can use to say something

>>15929
op eternally btfo
delete this thread rn

>>15730
>photography is not art
>spent 8 hour in the snow to take a snap
what did you say mother fucker?!

>>15929
>>15961
>>15966
Photographing isn't art in the same way that writing or painting or recording a video isn't art. It is, however, a process that can create something aesthetically significant in the hands of a capable artist. Literally nothing is inherently art by itself but everything can be turned into art if you have the proper vision and skills.

>>16143
Good answer

File: 1479328372638.jpg (42KB, 898x886px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 898x886px

>>16199
>>16200

If you think that's all there is to photography you're pretty retarded

I wouldn't say it's art, because it's actually useful.

>>15730
You can probably replicate a lot of modern art, but just because you can replicate it doesnt mean it isnt art.

>>16232

That's like saying drawing isn't art because you can make diagrams.

File: daumier.jpg (157KB, 600x767px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 600x767px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015.5 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5287
Image Height	6763
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:07:15 15:20:04
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1759
Image Height	2250

>>15907
>A vast majority of all photography lacks creativity
>Except in this in specific case it may exhibit creativity
Nice misunderstanding famalam

>>16379
The majority of every kind of art lacks creativity.
It's what we call "shit art".

>>16332what kind of art are we talking about?

>>16379
You're the one who said photography has no creative element. Then you said that it does.

I'm only busting your balls because your argument is weak. There is more to creativity than literally producing something from scratch.

>>15803
If you understood how a camera worked you'd know that black and white is probably way harder to do. Taking a photo of some railroad tracks with a black and white snapchat filter isn't photography.

>>16427
>probably
It's a different way of seeing, and that's about it. In the modern age when given a choice, there can be pros and cons to both. Black and white is something that's useful mostly when the colors don't add much, or to help highlight the contrast between light and dark areas without placing emphasis on individual colors.

>taking a photo of some railroad tracks [...] isn't photography
It is. It may not be grade-A Photogrpahy with a capital P for enthusiasts or people shooting for pay, but taking an image - any image - IS photography. By definition. End of story.

>>16427
>black and white is probably way harder to do

It's not since you don't have to care about color.

File: facade.gif (356KB, 500x345px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 500x345px

>>15730
>If a piece of art can be duplicated, it isn't art
Faggots who worry about the "definition of art" are the worst.

>>15730
by this logic, paintings arnt art

File: Children on Fire Escape.jpg (254KB, 1132x915px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 1132x915px

>>15890
Photography absolutely does have a creative element. Imagine that, for some reason, you had a space in some gallery reserved for you on some upcoming date and you had to fill it with your photographs. How would you do it? What camera would you use, what lens, film, filters, etc.? What would you photograph, and from what perspective? Would you light the scene artificially, and how? Or would you use natural light - and of what nature? Would you interact with the subject matter in some way (and how?) or would it be candid? How would you develop and print, or manipulate in the darkroom, or with computer programs? Etc. Etc. Etc.

There are hundreds, maybe thousands of decisions that go into taking a photograph, and every one of them has an impact on the final product and thus is a "creative decision". All of them come with many connotations, some obvious and others clear only after having seen the work of many other photographers, which can either contribute to or detract from an artistic message. Just because some people take photos of their feet with their iPhones (which you can still call "art", just shitty art), doesn't mean that there isn't a artistic merit to photography as a medium.

>>16546
yea and lets just hope enough hipsters like it for some stupid reason they can all collectively agree on and call it cool so that everyone else can hop on your nuts and also call it cool. then you can feel cool about the stupid photos.

t.photographer who hasnt shot in 5 years and had that feeling and misses it, but now feels like he cant do it amymroe

>>16409

You know, art.

>>16568
what?

>>15730
Who gives a fuck if it's art or not

>>15730
It's just a way of illustrating in the modern world. Wether you consider it art or not is irrelevant to its function

>>16634
this - I've never been under the impression it is an art - more like a craft or a skill

>>15747
oh fuck, op got fucking obliterated

Guy A takes a camera, goes to a place, takes a photograph. It's shit.

Guy B takes a camera, goes to the same place, takes the same photograph. It's fucking swell.

What changed? Guy B didn't use a cell phone camera, went there during early morning golden hour, used a tripod, waited for a suitable 0730 rush. Processed his picture afterward to add muh artistic vision, instead of an Instagram filter that's popular with the wooden-bead necklace set at his university.

>>15747
you'd like that, terrorist cocksucker!

Photography is honestly so boring. There's no depth to it like there is in fashion.

>>15730
>photography is not art
It becomes an art, like anything else, when you do it well enough.
>You take your camera, you snap a photograph
>Some other dude goes, puts his camera in the same place, presses the button and viola - he made exactly the same photograph.
OK, go on. Try to make an exact replica of any photo that I (or anyone else) have ever taken. I'll wait...

wait guys.
what is art?

File: henri-cartier-bresson[1].jpg (190KB, 1320x890px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1320x890px

Maybe snapshit. I don't know how anyone could argue there's no artistic/creative element to something like pic related

>>16143
>It is, however, a process that can create something aesthetically significant in the hands of a capable artist
>>17122
>It becomes an art, like anything else, when you do it well enough.

This is wrong. The signifier "artistic" has nothing to do with the merit. It implies artistic intent ie composition, message, creativity, teleology, etc. There's shitty art like everything else

>>15730
>t. someone who's never taken film photography

>>15730
>viola
>photography
learn to take photographs
learn to spell
learn the French language
learn to play a stringed musical instrument
/thread

>>17700

> tfw can already do those things

why do i still feel empty senpai?

>>17700
His shitposting skills are clearly advanced enough, there is no need to learn actual frogpspeak