Member of the Month

PartyBullshiit
March, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Insight wanted: Photography as a form of communication vs. pure art

profile picture
hoodSlayer
Posts: 900 - Karma: 7
Fellow photographers of newschoolers, I have a question for you (and this is meant to be very open ended). At what point does a photograph go from being a form of communication, to purely a work of art? For (a very basic) example someone might photograph a flower to document it for an encyclopedia, while another person might shoot it because of its color in a particar light, with little regard for what type of flower it is or whether it can be recognized as such. Where the point of one is to display a fact, the other is to convey an idea or emotion. Do all photos have elements of both or can you have examples where its 100% one or the other. I think this is particularly interesting in regards to skiing because so many photos are taken to show an event or document an accomplishment, but are also in themselves works of art. Discuss.
Jun 16 2012 9:01AM
1 0
profile picture
edai
Posts: 4983 - Karma: 4,632
That's really interesting man! Now that I think about it, I'm also interested.

As for a contribution, I'd say you'd have to experience the change to know what it's like, but it surely doesn't happen over night. I'm not quite at that level yet, but I feel I may be creeping up to it. I mean, there's always new rules and ideas to play around with in the camera, but I like what you said about it becoming a form of communication. I never though of it that way.
Jun 16 2012 9:19AM
0 0
profile picture
miroz
Posts: 10333 - Karma: 3,947
You answer your own question yourself, and in doing so pose another one.

All photography is a form of communication, by nature. At the most basic level, the photograph is showing people an image. Looking at that picture, no matter what it is, is like reading a descriptive paragraph of what is in the image. It is literally the conveyance of information, whether it be simply visual, factual, or if truly a good photographer, emotional. I argue that all digital media, and more generally all art, is communication.

Your question can be rearranged into discussing what types of things photography communicates: you can ask "photography communicating facts and details versus emotions?"

Just my two cents.
Jun 16 2012 11:32AM
0 0
profile picture
Kevski
Posts: 7056 - Karma: 2,785
Yeah I don't think the two are really mutually exclusive. I don't think there's such thing as art that doesn't communicate something. Isn't that the point of art in the first place? To communicate thoughts/perspectives/emotions?

So for photography, I feel like it crosses into the art territory as soon as there is intent or at least some level of emotion behind or in front of the lens. If you're just documenting what you see, it's not art. But as soon as there's a reason beyond "look at what I saw, cool eh?" it gets closer to the artistic realm.

I feel like everyone will have different opinions on this though. Art snobs will probably scoff at what I consider art.
Jun 16 2012 5:14PM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,385
I think even the most non-representational photo will communicate something, even if it's simply communicating that what you're looking at it something that the artist worked to create, which is a simple message that almsot anyone can appreciate.

Jun 16 2012 5:18PM
0 0
profile picture
zbphoto
Posts: 7789 - Karma: 12,037
Everyone know there are two different sides to photography. On one side you have 'art' photographers like Ansel Adams, his work is more focused on the pure ascetics. On the other side, you have photographers like HCB, Robert Frank, & The Americans, a group of photo journalists. But I think, regardless of what side your work leans towards, your images will always have both elements in them. When you look at the work of Richard Avedon and Edward Steichen, you can easily see both elements.

Sidebar: If you don't know who those people are please for the love of god go look them up!

As for my self personally, I think that when anyone starts out in photography, they focus more on the aesthetics. Then, as a person matures and becomes more comfortable with the medium, they can start to communicate something with their photos. At least for me, that's the biggest change I've noticed in my work in the past few months.
Jun 17 2012 10:19AM
0 0
profile picture
Utard
Posts: 2132 - Karma: 296
Most photographers do their work with one of those two goals in mind, to either create something artistic or to document something and tell a story but that doesn't mean they're mutually exclusive. My favorite photographs of all time do both well.
Jun 18 2012 3:16PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
I'd just like to add that any attempt to dichotomize such a thing is a hopeless attempt to place lines on a gradient. At what point does yellow become orange?

All photographs communicate and are artistic to some degree. Even photos that are strictly utilitarian (advertisements, wikipedia entries) have some degree of art, however secondary it may be. Conversely, fine art photography relies on communicating emotion through numerous visual principles (color, tone, composition, etc).
Jun 18 2012 3:26PM
0 0
profile picture
newkid900
Posts: 632 - Karma: 138
Art is Communication. Just look at the work of Bansky.
Nov 25 2012 1:10AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)