LOL

You do have some valid points, however, can you imagine the world without photography? There are some great photographers, many of whom have risked their lives in places such as Vietnam to tell the story, long before tv. however, there are many amateurs in this game who with the latest Nikon thinks their the next Richard Avedon.Digital has much to blame, give these GWC’s an old manual camera and they’d be lost!!!!!!

I’m guessing at some point this person who wrote this thread either had a negative experience at art school, or feels that his photography was better than the crap that art school laps up. Between the lines this person feels a sense of injustice or seeking acceptance.

The funny thing about photography taught as an art form is that the pictures are usually crap- like fine art really. Then the ‘artist’ has to resort to theory, quoting boring books by Susan Sontag or Roland Barthes Camera Lucida to sound clever. The scene is full of blaggers who fail to realise that The Mona Lisa is famous because of 2 reasons: (a) no one knows what it means and (b) it’s painted with a high level of technical skill that even now not many can achieve.

In my 4 years at art school I have not once seen many inspirational pictures by peers, but have indeed heard plenty of excessive wind. Debate, I thought photography was visual. The most sucessful photographers, film makers in the world got there by doing, not talking. No one would say a bad thing about Star Wars for example.

The liberal art scene is mostly made up of failed artists who became part time teachers, writers or otherwise yet another lefty, who preaches solidarity whilst daddy actually pays the rent. These talentless jerks really have nothing new to say other than serving up last nights reheated pizza with a dollup of mayo, otherwise known as ‘post modernism’.

I’m guessing at some point this person who wrote this thread either had a negative experience at art school, or feels that his photography was better than the crap that art school laps up. Between the lines this person feels a sense of injustice or seeking acceptance. The funny thing about photography taught as an art form is that the pictures are usually crap- like fine art really. Then the ‘artist’ has to resort to theory, quoting boring books by Susan Sontag or Roland Barthes Camera Lucida to sound clever. The scene is full of blaggers who fail to realise that The Mona Lisa is famous because of 2 reasons: (a) no one knows what it means and (b) it’s painted with a high level of technical skill that even not many can achieve.
In my 4 years at art school I have not once seen many inspirational pictures by peers, but have indeed heard plenty of excessive wind. Debate, I thought photography was visual. The most suceesful photographers, film makers in the world got there by doing, not talking. The art scene is mostly made up of failed artists who became teachers, or otherwise another liberal, who preaches solidarity whilst daddy pays the rent. These talentless jerks really have nothing new to say other than serving up last nights reheated pizza with a dollup of mayo, otherwise known as ‘post modernism’.

My sister, totally untrained, can take better photos than any photographer I’ve met. It is funny how a flash on a “35mm” digital camera can make photos awesome. But… I can take a cell phone camera and make a high-resolution panorama of the forest in winter. But… she is an artist perhaps, and I am a simple photographer. The problem lies with, if you don’t consider photography an art, then what do you consider it? These snapshots which I would gladly hang on my wall in place of a Van Gogh?

You, of course, know the difference between a guy that “paints houses” like Bob Ross and a guy that “paints houses” like Bob Villa, one is an artist the other is an engineer. But if you “photograph houses” and want to call it art, you have to separate it from someone that likes to “photograph houses” and print them in the classifieds.

So what makes a photo a work of art? Not the photographer… but the observer. Surely DaVinci made drawings that were simply used to explain what something looked like, and did not have artistic reasons behind it. But his designs were art, even if the drawing wasn’t, but if the drawing was beautiful, then is it art also? It is a complex inquiry, but I think we need to allow photography to be art. Simply labelling everything photographed as photography, would be too simple and lazy, and dangerous.

I would hate to lose art because we can’t define it concretely.

i suggest you go fuck yourself with a knife, sir. photography is most definitely an art. sometimes in fact a photograph is nothing more than a prepared canvas that goes through photoshop and comes out as something completely different. sometimes it’s just capturing the feeling of something, and sometimes its just letting the world see through someone else’s eyes.

This point doesn’t make sense.

6. No future. You can’t make money taking pictures. If you do, you’re not an artist, you’re a businessman. Nothing more.

Thats exactly the same for any art form.

What a ridiculous and stupid article

p.s. Rad is my real name