Is photography, Art?

[ricktas]

An interesting read about Peter Lik's $6.5M photo. But more interesting is the discourse on whether photography is Art, in general

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/dec/10/most-expensive-photograph-ever-hackneyed-tasteless

I can see the reporters point of view that photography is not necessarily Art, but then I wonder if someone approached him for a black and white of one of his iPad photos and offered him $1M, would he turn it down simply cause he does not see photography as Art, and that the value is not there?

[arthurking83]

I just read that article too, and I reckon the (co called) reporter responsible for the article could have easily used the voice recognition feature in his highly capable iPad to create the article.

Does that make it journalism?

I'd love to see some of the reporters iPad images for the purpose of clarity, that is, to see exactly what he is referring too when he says that the images are "gorgeous to look at"
I'm sure they are as 'gorgeous' as Peter Lik's images. :rolleyes:

Not that I agree that a photograph is worth $6m .. but I think the point that it's one of Peter Lik's images is totally lost on this particular (so called) reporter.

Are Van Gough's painting really worth $250m? ..
Are some old Ferrari's really worth $5m

Something is only worth what the last person was willing to pay .... (btw, that article is not something I'd pay for ;))

Lik's photo has nothing to do with whether it's art or not.

Had the (so called)journalist introduced any reasonable arguments as to why the photo is not considered art .. one would more likely have paid more attention to it(and dare say even be swayed if the argument had any merit) .. But this is a diatribe based solely on, what appears to be, dubious opinion.

[rellik666]

I saw this yesterday and wondered if anyone would pick it up.

For me the article quoted is nothing but a mindless rant of someone who could never earn so much. However I understand there is a point to be discussed.

I have a couple of questions with regards to what has the purchaser actually bought and how that relates to Art?

If you buy a VG as Arthur mentioned, you are getting a one of a kind, something unique, yes there will be similar pictures or sketches but nothing exactly the same. This is cannot be said for a photograph can it? I have no idea the origins of this particular photo, whether digital or film, but what is being sold here? The rights to the photo? A special print? A negative? For $6Mill I'd want to know no-one else could use or have that photo or at least it be very limited edition.

I shall stick my neck out and say photography is ART but is it the same as a painting or a sculpture no, but neither is interpretive dance, opera or the ballet but they are still ART.

Some people just want to belittle others, that is all I am seeing this "journalist" doing because instead of being something for the few photography is now an ART for the masses.

[MissionMan]

I think photography is art, but sometimes I question price tags, particularly ones which seem to relate more to the marketing than actual talent. The Rhein II is another photo that I think is overpriced. It's a good photo but is it worth $4.3 Million? Is it $4,299,000 better than some of the photos I've seen for $1000 which are mindblowing? Not as far as I am concerned, I think I have seen better photos out there and I don't look at this photo and say "wow, this is the most incredible thing I've seen" and I would expect to do that for a $6 million. I'm not saying that photographers shouldn't have the opportunity to make good money, but $6 million for a photo seems more than just a little ridiculous.

At the end of the day, it looks like the photographer has created an artificial market for his talent and good on him for doing that.

BTW, on the author and sour grapes, what was incredibly funny was people (in the comments section) linked to a previous article he wrote saying photography is art. Makes his entire article seem like a contradiction. Multiple personality disorder? Here is the previous article.

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2013/jan/10/photography-art-of-our-time

[Grant S]

Aside from obviously being slightly jealous of Peter Lik, the reporter appears to have a few roos loose in the top paddock. Of course photography is art the acceptance or otherwise has been established for some time. Even more so given the digital editing suites available where the very pixels that make up the image can be altered to suit the artists whim. Is it worth what the buyer paid, well only the buyer can answer that.

[JJM]

Some people are actually question the validity of claimed sale amount and suggesting its just a marketing stunt to get more people through the gallery doors.....

http://petapixel.com/2014/12/10/expensive-photo-world-best-marketing-stunt/

[farmmax]

If someone requests a photograph of an animal I have for sale, I go out and take the best photo of the animal I can to make it look appealing. Do I consider that "art"? No, I don't.

If I go in the first members competition for 2015 titled "Alone", will that be "art"? Yes, hopefully it will be an artwork :)

Some photographs are not art, and were never intended to be. I don't know how many of you would consider your school photos to be a work of art :D But, other photographs are definitely "art" and personally I find those ones much more satisfying to create.

[snappysi]

Art, or lack thereof, is always in the eye of the beholder........everyones opinion will differ, and for different reasons. Doesn't make anyone right or wrong, its just an opinion....i am entitlled to mine as much as any one else is to theirs, and there's nothing wrong with that. Same reason that most would probably not see the 6 million for this picture, yet obviously someone does.

[bcys1961]

Dictionary definition of "Art" according to the Oxford Dictionary:

""The expression (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/expression) or application (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/application) of human (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/human) creative (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/creative) skill (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/skill) and imagination (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/imagination), typically in a visual (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/visual) form such as painting (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/painting) or sculpture (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sculpture), producing works to be appreciated (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/appreciate) primarily (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/primarily) for their beauty (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/beauty) or emotional (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/emotional) power"

So using this definition I think for a photo to be elevated to "Art" there has to be application creative skill and imagination to create a work primarily appreciated for its beauty or emotional power. The emotional power could be positive or negative emotions. Of course there are some photos that generate tremendous emotional power ( like the napalmed girl running down the road during the Vietnam war) but I would not say they are art . There was no particular creative skill or imagination employed by the photographer other than being in the right place at the right time , and any competent photographer who had been there could get the shot. Kudos for being there though!

[I @ M]

So using this definition I think for a photo to be elevated to "Art" there has to be application creative skill and imagination to create a work primarily appreciated for its beauty or emotional power. The emotional power could be positive or negative emotions. Of course there are some photos that generate tremendous emotional power ( like the napalmed girl running down the road during the Vietnam war) but I would not say they are art . There was no particular creative skill or imagination employed by the photographer other than being in the right place at the right time , and any competent photographer who had been there could get the shot. Kudos for being there though!

I share that way of thinking. When a photographer is capturing the moment as in your example they probably never set out with the intention of creating an artwork. Much the same way that many of us are out and about capturing scenes, people, animals etc with no intention of creating a work of art.
Then there are those who have an idea in mind, travel to a place where they can bring that idea to fruition and then use their vision to capture the image.
They may spend hours, days or weeks getting the image that they have in mind and that to me becomes a work of art.

[arthurking83]

I've been suspicious of Lik's 'claimed' prices .. ever since the first 'million dollar' photo (http://petapixel.com/2011/01/13/australian-landscape-photographer-peter-lik-sells-photo-for-1-million/).

The buyer always seems to want to remain anonymous! :rolleyes: .. etc, etc.
(/sarcasm:on/ .. could the anonymous buyer be Lik himself? :p /sarcasm:off/)

That image is referred too as 'One' by Lik, as it was a fleeting moment in time, and his (then) best image ever .. etc, etc..

What a load of tripe (andother bowel contents).
I've only been doing landscape photography for about 10 years now, and one thing I know is that moments like that are not that fleeting and are easily replicated time and time again if you're willing and capable of returning to the location.
They generally tend to last at least a few minutes .. generally more like a minimum of 10 or more. The image wouldn't have looked all that much different ten minutes later!

Lik is the master marketer, in photographer terms, and his appearance on early morning US chat shows is testament to this.
Kudos to him for being so pro active .. as this is the most important aspect of being a (financially)successful photographer.
(ps. there is no need to be jealous of Lik other than his ability to market himself! .. his photos aren't really worth so much on the open market)
But he's building a 'future' for his name with these 'stunts'.

The value of an artwork is all in the name behind the works .. not usually the work itself.

Had any modern painter painted any of VG's painting now .. for sure they couldn't command hundreds of millions of dollars. They sell at auction for the prices they do because of the name behind them!

This Age article (http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/buyer-beware-treat-peter-lik-photo-sale-with-scepticism-20141212-125khz.html) is a more appropriate discourse on Lik's claims. What I didn't like about the article Rick linked too was the manner in which the blogger wrote it.

[Nick Cliff]

An interesting discussion, what value could be put on a signed Apollo 8 Earthrise photograph taken by astronaut William Anders?

[jjphoto]

This article goes a little further than most. And the links in it are very interesting too.

http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/this-peter-lik-photograph-reportedly-just-went-for-a-world-record-785-million-20141212-125f49.html

- - - Updated - - -


An interesting discussion, what value could be put on a signed Apollo 8 Earthrise photograph taken by astronaut William Anders?

To me, that has far greater value/worth than anything Mr. Lik has produced. The Earthrise image is considered by many the greatest image ever shot and it's has been suggested that it kickstarted the conservation movement. But signed prints don't make them dramatically more valuable. The image was reproduced all over the world and there are probably lots of prints from the neg floating around, and probably mostly 8x10's too (at a guess, based on other such images I've seen).

[arthurking83]

Good article jj .. but the link to Scott Reither's blog(s) are the 'killer' back story to the Lik news.

I've now bookmarked Scott's blog and will keep an eye out for it too from now on.(he seems pretty reasonable).

[Nick Cliff]

Well it might be time to sell the much loved jousting sticks and grab a signed Apollo 8 photo. For the serious Coke can collectors I noticed an empty sealed Coke can online for $25000, the old price vs value conundrum, go figure.

[arthurking83]

This article goes a little further than most. And the links in it are very interesting too.

http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/this-peter-lik-photograph-reportedly-just-went-for-a-world-record-785-million-20141212-125f49.html

- - - Updated - - -..... The Earthrise image is considered by many the greatest image ever shot .....

One of my favourite images of all time .. warts and all. (there's a major flaw on neg for that file which makes it even more interesting.
I've downloaded a 4800x1600 version of it in jpg format(legal downloads available from a NASA site) .. in fact I have tons of space images saved to my PC.
Hard to use as a background tho due to the dimensions, and cropping it seems to dilute the image.

Some see it as a documentation of human existence and achievement(ref: the Megan Dick quote in the Age article jj linked too) .. I see it as art.

- - - Updated - - -


...... For the serious Coke can collectors I noticed an empty sealed Coke can online for $25000, the old price vs value conundrum, go figure.


"Tell'im he's dreaming!"

:D

[Nick Cliff]

Thanks Arthur you just saved me a fortune, for our overseas members we are referring to lines from the Australian cult movie classic "The Castle".

[arthurking83]

No worries Nick, just got back in. Had to start the Camira, to get it out of the way of the Gemini, so I could move the Commodore, which was blocking access to the Kingswood! :p



As for this notion that the original (so called)reporter's claim that photography isn't art .. again .. simple pleb dribble from a perspective of an ignoramus.

Is literature a form or art .. or is it simply documentation?
Most knowledgeable people seem to think it's both .. that is, we therefore have art literature. Poetry is just one example.

But, documentation can also be art. An example of this would be something like the Magna Carta.
It's a simple documentation of law and liberties created 800 years ago. I doubt that the authors/creators of the piece ever considered it to have such a high value especially for close to 1000 years, so much so that the surviving copies would be encased in glass and environmentally sealed ...

sounds like the way you would handle a precious work of art to me.

If it wasn't a work of art, why all the trouble to preserve it in this manner .. as opposed to the more common sense approach of simply preserving the content of the article in multiple forms in multiple locations?

Me thinks the (so called)journalist at the heart of this topic is probably not as knowledgeable as he makes himself out to be.

Irrespective of what we think of Lik's work .. it's art .. fine art photography. It's marketed and sold as such. It's purchased as such.
If someone is willing to pay ludicrous prices for it(again which I'm personally suspicious of, unless it was to some overly intoxicated rich person, now too embarrassed to renege on the deal), then that's their right(or wrong, depending on your perspective of the situation! :D)

[Nick Cliff]

I am unaware if the cameras used on the Apollo missions can be purchased. If available one would have thought their perceived value may a bit more than my jousting sticks (actually glorified Tomato stakes) and Arthur's Kingswood combined, what a dilemma! Certainly there is some very fine art photos of interest to me, particularly some of the early French artists that then moved into photography, particularly Nadar a fascinating pioneer in many fields.

[Kym]

Apollo 11 had various cameraw including a bunch of Hassleblads
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/photography/

[jim]

Most photographers who try self-consciously to create art produce only kitsch. Yet the dully workaday policemen who took the photos in this book: http://www.amazon.com/City-Shadows-Sydney-Photographs-1912-1948/dp/1876991208 produced images that look a lot like art to me.

What the heck is art anyway?

[WhoDo]

What the heck is art anyway?

...and that's the whole point, jim. "Art" is something aesthetically pleasing to the viewer. What I consider Art you may not and vice versa. Is Photography "Art"? No, but some photographic artists can use it as a medium to create "Art". Is painting "Art"? No, but some artists can use painting to produce art (others just cover up rust on old bridges, etc.). Same goes for sculpture, too. Some chisellers create "Art" and others tombstones. The presence of the conscious artistic effort does NOT guarantee an artistic, i.e. aesthetically pleasing, outcome any more than it's absence does the opposite. Frankly, I prefer to adhere to the school that says artists create "Art" for themselves and if anyone else sees the "Art" in their creation that's a bonus. No artist would ever countenance a creation that was not aesthetically pleasing to their own eye. How many painters have painted over unsatisfying canvasses and started again? Or broken an unsatisfying sculptural effort? Perhaps we'll never know but thank goodness they do (start again).

[Hamster]

Lik's record has already been beaten ;)

http://petapixel.com/2014/12/13/artist-jeff-frost-inches-past-recently-set-world-record-expensive-photograph-ever-sold/

[Steve Axford]

I'm sure Peter Lik's photo is very good, but if you or I took that photo, how much do you think we would get for it? It's the mystique that the photographer/artist creates around themselves that sells the work. They then have to have a very good photo, but no more than very good.
I would love to sell a photo for that much and I wouldn't really care if it was art or not. I'm sure that deep down Peter doesn't care either.

[bobt]

Of course photography is art ....... not necessarily *my* photography, unless you count it as poor art. However, as to the price paid, that's not necessarily related to the "value" of a photograph as "art", it's just what someone with too much money was (perhaps) prepared to pay at a given point in time. If he tried to re-sell it, maybe no-one would buy it. The prices paid for things do not necessarily reflect their intrinsic value. I've seen some awful photographs in art galleries that have no such value in any sensible objective application of the term, yet they command prices which are simply unwarranted.

Sometimes the value of art simply reflects the reputation of its creator. One an artist achieves a level of fame, then anything they create tends to come with a financial premium, but that doesn't mean that every piece produced by that individual is intrinsically valuable in the absence of that pedigree. View some work of "famous" individuals without knowing who the maker was and you can arrive at an entirely different perception of its worth.

[ricktas]

Well it might be time to sell the much loved jousting sticks and grab a signed Apollo 8 photo. For the serious Coke can collectors I noticed an empty sealed Coke can online for $25000, the old price vs value conundrum, go figure.

I have a set of 4 glass coke bottles, unopened, that I bought in 1972-4 (was young and cannot recall the actual year). They were put out in a small cardboard box with santa images for Christmas at the time. The price is noted on each as $0.05. Maybe I should go look at ebay and see if they are worth anything. At my place they become a talking point with visitors at times. They are on an open shelf in my kitchen. I have also never assumed them to be Art, but considering their display and discussion, perhaps they are ?:D

[Dug]

One of Jonathan Jones colleges, a photography reporter gives a well considered response.

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/dec/11/photography-is-art-sean-ohagan-jonathan-jones

[bcys1961]

I have a set of 4 glass coke bottles, unopened, that I bought in 1972-4 (was young and cannot recall the actual year). They were put out in a small cardboard box with santa images for Christmas at the time. The price is noted on each as $0.05. Maybe I should go look at ebay and see if they are worth anything. At my place they become a talking point with visitors at times. They are on an open shelf in my kitchen. I have also never assumed them to be Art, but considering their display and discussion, perhaps they are ?:D

This raised a new issue - rarity . These bottles will take on value as there would not be many unopened 1972 coke bottles around and no more can ever be produced. There are collectors out there who want them and are prepared to pay. Supply and demand. ( And I wish I had kept all my old matchbox cars in the box and not played with them as a kid!.) A painting once completed can never be reproduced , particularly after the artist dies.

But a digital photo. Endless copies can be made in numerous formats. What's to stop Lik later selling this photo as a postcard via his stores. ( I assume it may be in the contract of sale?) I think this issue has arisen with some other photo's for which investors have paid high prices only to find the photographer later releasing additional copies.

[SpoonyDan]

I had to force myself to continue reading after he blatantly admitted to taking photos of landscapes with and iPad :lol2:

In anycase as someone else linked an article by the same clown almost a year earlier talks the complete opposite, so it's safe to deduce based on this and the iPad photography there is some kind of mental issue going on.
*note: My beef with iPad photography is the same person no doubt has an iPhone or whatever other phone yet parades around holding a big fat tablet up in everyones face looking like a t wat (how is that a word auto censored? lol) to achieve no better (likely worse) images.

However the discussion here is valid, personally the price seems absurd to me, but that is the human world, the value/price people put on things and inturn are willing to pay often does not relate to logic.

As for Photography being Art, the question asked earlier, what is Art totally applies. One can be highly creative in both taking a shot and in the post work after, at the same time one can be super lazy and lucky and point and shoot and also capture something people see as amazing. Anyone living in Melbourne would question what Art is in some areas, ie, apparently a fake Hotel on the side of the motorway is "Art", personally it at first offered confusion as to why there was no road/driveway/whatever haha, and then the realization it was fake, and then, 'how stupid is that'! haha.

Art perhaps to some degree needs to be creative, this can be both in thought and in the physical sense, virtual/digital and real. One that argues only the 'physical' creation is art and the other technology is somewhat hypocritical. Most physical art involves the use of technology, be it paints, brushes etc that are man made and at some point were as 'high tech' as a computer is today. In effect they can all be simply just classed as tools?

As for the value of Art, well that's just random and seems to have more to do with the 'Image' of 'value' of the creator more than the quality of the creation. Art as mentioned holds value in the viewer, but I'm sure most can agree that crazy valued art is often over hyped and valued around the all important and perceived 'Image' that is modern society? This goes for most art I'd say, be it Photography as mentioned, physical type art such as paintings and sculptures, and other such creative medias including music.

[ameerat42]

If photography is not in some way an art, then why do we have so many CC forums?

To prove that photography is, in part at least, art, consider the following breakdown of the word:

PHOTOGRAPHY

Or TRA in > direction, but on reflection it is ART.

(This should have been a poll.)
:D

[WhoDo]

To prove that photography is, in part at least, art, consider the following breakdown of the word:

PHOTOGRAPHY

Or TRA in > direction, but on reflection it is ART.

(This should have been a poll.)
:D

Am, you are truly one of a kind! I guess that makes you a "work of art"?
:lol:

[arthurking83]

Am, you are truly one of a kind! I guess that makes you a "work of art"?
:lol:

Or a 'rat' :D

scrabble anyone? :p

[ameerat42]

Well, elephants have been coaxed to paint. Haven't you herd of Cez-jumbo?
Crows can use tools. - Haven't you ever had one come up and ask to borrow something?
Rats, though often denigrated by us, are fairly intelligent and are used in studies that have been
extrapolated to humans. Haven't you heard of the "unwashed masses"?
:D

[Steve Axford]

Yep, and slime mould can design efficient networks much better than we can.

[Mark L]

Am, you are truly one of a kind! I guess that makes you a "work of art"?
:lol:
I'd be inclined to what AK said.
I have a photo of the back of am's head. Looks more like rat than art.:confused013

[ricktas]

The New York Times has an article on Mr Lik and his formula for photography. Very interesting read: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/business/peter-liks-recipe-for-success-sell-prints-print-money.html?_r=0

[Cris]

Interesting read, one can't help but think that he plays to his audience and has a very good marketing team behind him.

[Tannin]

Is photography art? Well, is writing art? Are we talking about Shakespeare here? Or a shopping list?

[Bonsai Jason]

I think photography can be a lot of things, art included. This same argument comes up in bonsai too, whether it should be classed as art or not.

I think that in the end, if you are using your creative skills to obtain whatever it is your doing, be it a photograph or bonsai, then I would consider it art. If i just stuck a tree in a pot I wouldn't consider that art, same as if I took a selfie

[Kym]

Clearly the author of the article has no idea what goes into producing a great image - doofus!