Thread 4462806

Have you ever gotten a strong emotional response after viewing a specific phot, like you would in a movie ? Or maybe going to an exhibition or reading a book ? Or is photography just "pretty cool" at best ?
Pic related is the first response I got when searching " best art photography ever" online. While it's really good and impressive, I can't really say it makes me feel anything in my gut.

Post pics that make you feel something, inspiring photographers/books etc.

>>4462806 (OP)
yes it's art as not everyoje can take a good photo and not everyone can learn to take a good photo.
think of photography like modernized painting even though people still paint.

If a photograph conveys a certain atmosphere that resonates with me, I'd say yes, it's art. This excluded 99% of street photography. Street photography isn't art to me. At least the Paulie B type of street photography.
I enjoy photography that does a good job at encapsulating the atmosphere of a place. It makes me feel a place, or an idea. To me that's art.

Totally art. It's not the subjects, it's totally the guy clicking the buttons. Peter Lindbergh would be Peter Lindbergh even if his subjects were british slags.

>>4462806 (OP)
Photography is a thought experiment that proves that art and craftsmanship are different things, for all the people who still thought dull realistic paintings literally copied from existing scenes were somehow art (manually produced snapshits).

>>4462819
Peter Lindbergh is pretty good but I'm not sure I will keep thinking about pic related for a couple of days

what's the last photo you've seen that kept poping up in your mind days after you've seen ? Maybe I just lack taste, but none comes up to my mind (also I'm not very cultivated about photo, though I've heard about Cartier-Bresson and the likes)

>>4462819
>muh coomer shit

>>4462806 (OP)
Trying to objectively say what is and isn't art based on the most obvious personal biases is a hallmark of retarded American teenager behaviour. Here is some gospel: defining what is and isn't art is a Sisyphean task. It doesn't matter. At all. It's just a concept that has no objective base in reality. Being 'art' doesn't even make something good. It's a waste of time. If you like doing something, just do it.

>>4462899
You are standing right now at the peak of mount stupidity in pic related. Yes there is no objectivity to art, but it wasn't my question either.
My question is, can you through the usage of the medium itself that is photography, intentionally produce something that is likely to bring a strong emotion to a big enough of people (not just your mom and your dog, but also people who know nothing of you and your environment).
It's not a matter of me doing photography at all. It's not a matter of using the label "art" to bring value to something.
I will list a couple of examples from the recent years (outside of photography) of things I would consider art in the following posts to try and make my point clearer.

>>4462904
The banana stuck on the wall is I would say arguably the biggest art piece of the recent years as far as classical arts go. I can't think of any art piece that has brought intentionally as much attention and provoked thought in so many people as pic related. I really like it's spontaneity, it's violence and rawness and it's cheekiness.

>>4462907
in a less scandalous way I was pretty moved by pic related. I find the concept and realization really good and I felt a strong sense of doom, sadness and keenness when I think about it. I still think about it sometimes years after seing it. (watch the video)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ooVr6RZ_nw

>>4462910
to end it a more pictural way, last time I went to the museum I was pretty moved by pic related. I can sense the mass, the muscles and the temporary intimacy forced by wrestling. The framing of it and the colors gives to the scene a sense of spectacular and impact that is due to the medium itself.

Mine is not.

>>4462899
so my point for creating this thread was the following : learning about some artists that used photography as medium to make art.
some might say the exemples I've given (see >>4462907 >>4462910 >>4462914 ) are pedantic and self-masturbation, but they just don't know enough about art to really have an opinion worth considering.

The one example that strikes my mind is the guy who would stick a flash and a camera in peoples face in NY and getting in tough posts because of it. Or at least one of the first ones who did it, but I forgot the name. Maybe he will pop up eventually in this thread.

>>4462904
>start a thread titled “is photography art?”
>dismiss an anon who directly responds to that question
frog_face.jpeg

>>4462904
Anon, you literally just made up a definition and asked if photography fit it... trolling surely..?

>>4462907
Reactions != art

Go spout some bullshit and make meaningless use of the words human, communication, paradigm, narrative, and critical while you’re at it. Art is first and foremost, beauty. For the "educated", it is a club so that they may pretend to be intelligent even if they are not. For the masters of the domain, it is bogus goods in a freeport that exist to justify the anonymous transfer of cash and precious metals.

>>4462904
>ask "is photography art"
>get an answer responding directly to you explaining why the question is pointless
>no no actually i meant "does photography elicit emotion?" (my definition of art)
So not only are you asking a question as retarded as "is X art" but you've already decided upon your own baseless, incoherent definition of art. Incredible thread, anon, thanks for this. To answer your question, I imagine yes, somewhere on earth at some point in time someone has felt an emotion while looking at a photo.

Art is the individual communication of a perception unfiltered.

So basically, pure art = pure communication of how you interpret something through the filter of your mind.

The sensor/Film of a camera can act as a canvas upon which a person can place an image of their perception.

Therefore - yes, photography is an artform.

Burt would know this, but few know he does, because he posts his real works of art (carefully staged still lifes) on /k/

>>4462904
>My question is, can you through the usage of the medium itself that is photography, intentionally produce something that is likely to bring a strong emotion to a big enough of people (not just your mom and your dog, but also people who know nothing of you and your environment).
yes i do it regularly

>>4462968
Same, and even with pics of my dog too lol.

>>4462932
>>4462936
>>4462938
>>4462943
I don't know why everyone suddenly decided to be retarded at once and post in my thread. Maybe I just responded too harshly to anon and every like-minded individual on this board got bewildered and decided to add there own meaningless grain of salt without even contributing to this thread by posting a picture they like and not repeating what other anon said.
All of you retards think my definition of art is so special but it's literally the first and de facto definition of art that everybody learns in school. I even went on the Oxford dictionary to fetch it for you, pic related.
As I said to other anon you're all standing on top of mount stupidity and you should take that opportunity to study what art actually is before thinking you've got something interesting to say about it (which I don't btw, everything I said is bottom of the barrel common sense).

We're past 20 posts and there is still no art and beauty in this thread, I'm actually very disappointed in you /p/. Maybe this board is really just gearfags shooting pictures of dogs.

>>4462968
>>4462969
post it then

>>4462950
it can but does it ? Show me pictures

>>4463057
i think photography is unique among visual crafts for its enthusiasts' utter obliviousness to the world of art. rather than artists and art enjoyers, it's full of gadget collectors and optimizers. i'm a novice myself but even i as well as you can notice how 95% of instances art is mentioned on this board, the poster gives away their narrow and stunted conception of art`

>>4463093
yes, THANK YOU. Finally someone for posting actual quality content on here. I feel like we're starting to get somewhere and I must say I find the picture you posted quite interesting

>>4463093
>the poster gives away their narrow and stunted conception of art

Yes you did, didn't you

>>4462904
>>4462938
Ok answer this simple question:

You are put in a room with two doors in front of you. Someone tells you that behind both there is a canvas with some paint on it. Behind the left door, that painting is "art", behing the right door, that painting is "not art".

Now, please tell us what you can say about either of the two paintings that isn't tautological. Protip: there is nothing you can say because the term is meaningless

>>4462806 (OP)
Photography can be art, but it doesn't have to.
>>4462938
Art can be beautiful, but it doesn't have to. What matters is that it has creative intent. In the case of visual arts, this is brought upon by the intentional use of visual elements, arrangements of shapes, colors, light. It is the materialization of some inner vision. That's why snapshits aren't art, they're just grabbing what's already out there. There has to be some intent on the image itself rather that the mere intent of pressing the shutter.
>>4463134
If the guy opening the doors is honest, then one is intentional and the other isn't. If he's from the establishment then it just depends on some jew's greed and the distinction itself is fake.

>>4463141
>one is intentional and the other isn't
what paintings are not intentional?

>>4463134
I can't believe I'm actually wasting my time responding to this midwit.
I know what you mean from the first post you did and the one the other anon did. I didn't care responding to it because it's dumb and uninteresting and a waste of time. You still haven't posted any interesting pictures by the way.
Since you seem bothered, I'll try to explain it to you. The term "art" has, in fact a meaning (as pictured here >>4463057 ). What your thought experiment highlights is that it's a subjective notion, and that you have to trust someone when they say something is art. But everything is subjective, objectivity is an unattainable goal and a delusion. If you change your experiment to someone telling you that between one door is a blue car and between the other is a red car, you cannot say anything either. The person or you or both might be daltonian and not perceive colors correctly. Maybe he is lying to you. Colors exist (probably) but you cannot say anything other than this person said etc.
If you re-read my first post, what I asked is to show me things that YOU would consider an artful photography. If no one can show or produce something that is artful to a big amount of people, than photography is probably as much an art as, say, truckdriving is.
I think this video of Vsauce talks about this ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXW-QjBsruE In any case I don't know how to make it clearer, though it's really basic stuff really

>>4463141
the banana (>>4462907) is still art and expensive and I'm not jewish though

now that all those preschoolers forced us to talk about the "philosophical" aspect of this can we get some actual art and beauty in this thread ? These anons get it (>>4463093
>>4463141) but the output so far is rather underwhelming.
Anybody who wants to talk about what art is or isn't please go read this https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-aesthetics/ and only come back when you've understood how foolish those discussions are and are ready to post actual art photography.

>>4463160
>has dogshit opinions
>is schizophrenic
my "first post" is precisely the one you just replied to. log off the internet and hallucinate phantom posters elsewhere thanks.
> If you change your experiment to someone telling you that between one door is a blue car and between the other is a red car, you cannot say anything either.
Are you really this dumb that you wrote an entire wall of text just to use the most shitty refutable useless "counterexample" imaginable?
Yes, the terminology for colors is also subjective, this is why when people get serious about colors they start to use frequency of light measurements, which are an objective metric to determine color. What terminology do people who are serious about art and want to prove something is art use? None.
>show me things that YOU would consider an artful photography
I cannot do that because I don't understand your request. I sincerely do not know what "artful" means, since it doesn't exist.

>>4463167
I don't care. Post pictures.
(by the way artful doesn't mean I what I thought it meant, I meant artistic)

This is the last time I will respond to any similar comment unless the thread is really dying. Anything that needs to be said has been said already and if you want to talk philosophy go to /lit/.
From now on to post in this thread you MUST post some photography you find artistic (google it up if you don't know what it means)

>>4463172
>Post pictures.
Sure, here's a random picture
>google it up if you don't know what it means
just did, there is no actual definition that I can apply to the photos I have saved on my computer so I can post one here. you must be really stupid

>>4463057
You're still not responding to what I said. You cannot justify your definition of art, so it sucks. Of course a dictionary has 'a definition' of a common word you absolute retard. That doesn't mean some random dictionary definition is the metric against which something can or cannot be considered art, in fact this is the most autistic way you could have possibly tried to measure this. You're calling everyone else stupid yet you're the only one not responding to any arguments. Everyone else is explaining to you why you sound like a first year arts student and that you should kill yourself immediately, then you just go off on some random tangent and call everyone else stupid when you cannot comprehend what you are being told.

Photography is whatever you want it to be, for me it's escape. All of the world's problems disappear when I'm trying to get a shot, or when I'm shitfaced and set my camera up on a salt flat and sleep for 5 hours, and only remember to close the shutter because I woke up and threw up.

I shoot for myself I could give a shit what other people think and I think that's a huge problem today, people are shooting for likes and retweets, vapid social media, they're shooting to get noticed by strangers and people they will never meet, I could give a shit less. These are not true artists nor are they photographers, they are invaders, they are clout chasers who want to be noticed and be popular like it's fucking high school.

Photography is the closest thing man has to a time machine, you can freeze a moment in time and look back on it forever.

Is photography art? I don't know, it's whatever you want it to be, it's a medium like watercolor or stipple, what defines art these days is trivial when you have people paying for banana peels taped to walls in an art museum. None of this matters, go outside and take pictures.

>>4463198
>I shoot for myself I could give a shit what other people think and I think that's a huge problem today, people are shooting for likes and retweets, vapid social media, they're shooting to get noticed by strangers and people they will never meet, I could give a shit less

Careful, this stance is divisive on this board. Shooting for yourself is verboten.

>>4463214
At least one guy on here seems to get personally offended if you post photos of a subject they don't like. It's really quite mentally ill.
If a photo is well executed and thoughtful I can still appreciate it even if I find the subject boring.

>>4463122
no problem. i have a folder full of images which struck me

>>4462904
Dunning-kruger when invoked in debates is just a passive-aggressive way of pretending to know better.

>>4463058
im not posting shit.
Your bait thread sucks
this is /p/ doesnt matter how good the photo is you just want to call something shit to make yourself feel better about yourself

>>4463198
based

>>4463178
shit

>>4463093
literally nothing

>>4463241
literally nothing

>>4463258
You can't take a picture of nothing, and especially not literally nothing.

>>4463258
boring

>>4462950
yes exactly

>>4462910
yes but that's an actual art pieces meant to depict desperation and futility.
>>4462907
this is literally just a banana taped to a wall and it depicts a banana taped to a wall i suppose you could give it meaning like not all things last forever or something. but the robot depicts that much better

not all art has to depict somethinf and some art can just be pleasing for the sake of being aesthetically pleasing (landscape or architectural photography)

>>4463241
don't listen to other anon please post more
they may seem to think they have interesting opinions but you could ask anyone in the street and they would tell you the same thing

>>4463268
From what I remembered the banana taped on the wall was meant to be shitpost and kind of a joke, in the legacy of Marcel Duchamp's toilet. The fact that so many people reacted to it positively or negatively is actually a win for the artist as it was his goal to question what are is and isn't in this day and age. Also everybody talked about it everywhere which is a pretty impressive feat for a piece of contemporary art nowadays.
I didn't mention it but I find Take the Money and Run by Jens Haaning to be very cool too when you know the story behind it

>>4463270
All pictures posted on p are a sort of performative art.

>>4463271
true, a form of modern seppuku

>>4462907
>>4463268
The banana is a great piece and it's even better because it filters so many people. It's natural material in presented context. It decays and requires conservation. It has a surface level meaning and a deeper one. It has an immediate recognizable visual appeal. And you can eat it.
It's one of the best executed conceptual pieces since "Shoot," and every time I see someone say it isn't art I become more enamored with it. How can so many people miss so obvious a point?

>>4463275
>How can so many people miss so obvious a point?
i mean i get it. But to me it's still a banana taped to a wall.
Many people miss it because a lot of people look for what i stated
>some art can just be pleasing for the sake of being aesthetically pleasing
a layman isnt going to look at a painting the same way someone who went to school or studies art as a hobbies is
the layman sees a banana taped to a wall. it's like a musician listens to music differently than someone who listens to Metallica to get themselves hyped up for something.
Is it a great depiction of the fragility of time and the things around us? that depends on who you ask

>>4463299
>muh shitty graderd digi slop

Can't be arsed anymore. Anyway I wouldn't know if photography is an art or not - frankly the question doesn't interest me. Whatever has the power to evoke anything is interesting and that's enough.

>blurry snapshits and photos with no clear subject
not helping your case, m8

>>4463278
>But to me it's still a banana taped to a wall
why is the material composition relevant?
A photo is just some colored paper. So?

>>4463314
thanks for posting, those are pretty cool

>>4463316
shitpost that adds nothing to the conversation

>>4463317
why is that the only part if my post you get stuck on
do you have comprehension issues?

>>4463299
>>4463308
>>4463309
>>4463310
>>4463311
>>4463312
>>4463313
>>4463314
these are all excellent examples of photography as art and the different types of tastes people have when it comes to art
some people simply like aesthetic others look for a story or deeper meaning like >>4463241

>>4463317
He can't engage with modern art because he is a hylic. The taped banana is a little interesting and does bring up good questions. The anon can't see it because he is to busy arguing for a political viewpoint.

>>4463475
>bait this bad

>>4463270
ok

>>4463509
i like how the rainbow becomes dim as it goes passed her. it gives off the illusion that it originated from her

>>4463478
yet you bit it

>>4463514
you idiot she's killing the rainbow

here's a landscape posted a few months ago here by anon

>>4463516
no

>>4463516
>doesnt know how bait works

>>4463521
im not fixing that

>>4463313
>>4463312
>>4463509
>>4463517
I really like these
it kind of reminded me that art is also about being open to it and looking for it as much as you can, even if it means inventing stuff that the author never meant to put in there. It just makes it way more interesting.
I guess this thread isn't such a failure after all

>>4463561
art can be a mirror you hold up to yourself

>>4463595
Kissing is unironically gross. The non-autistic are so irrational. Newflash normies. We have sperm banks now. Primate mating rituals are out.

You should shoot something truly emotive like a cat striking an interesting pose, or a gun next to a hamburger.

>>4463602
kek

>>4463620
dude this is so good

>>4462954
i refuse to believe they're the same person

>>4462907
I would rip it off and eat it if I was there.

>>4464556
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-65446331
actually a guy did it a few years ago. The banana is changed every week so it's no big deal and the artist didn't care

>>4464557
>free banana every week
>money launderer doesn't care
win-win I guess

>>4462806 (OP)
The artistic aspect of photography is to capture and convey what you felt when you saw the subject.
For this you need to develop skills to hide distractions and bring forth the subject.

Fan Ho did some epic stuff.

>>4462806 (OP)
All photographie is not art. and it shouldn't be.

It can convey artistic senses but not an art.
In fact, treating the photographie as an art is disrespecting it's fundamentals. If you treat it as an art form it becomes not photographie anymore.

>>4464797
any arguments or proofs to backup those claims ? Are are we supposed to approve your dogmatic claims without asking questions

>>4464581
Yeah Fan Ho is the shit

>>4464581
such a boring photo.
>ok we have some sort of object that divides the space in 3 empty blotches of water
>I know, we must fill all of them up!
literally the first thing that comes to mind. uninspired.

>>4464846
Show me a photo you consider exciting.

>>4464895
the opposite of boring and uninspired is not exciting

>>4464846
It sounds like you truly hate photography. What an incredibly braindead post.

>>4464927
>post a photo saying it's "epic"
>literally babby's first compositional idea

>>4464936
>Doubling down on the most pathetic take ever.

Legitimately depressing how much some people hate photography and the visual arts.

Post something you have made that's better.

>>4464846
>>4464936
>>4464940
NTA, it's a good photo but do not overcomplicate photography as 90% of compositions is "oh hey that looks cool" and then listening to the lightmeter to under or over expose to get the look you desire.
The majority of people saying photography is complicated are the same people that have like 100 50mm lenses all of different brands

>>4464943
not only that but a ton of photographers rely heavily on post processing nowadays because they cant take a photo to save their lives

>>4464943
>do not overcomplicate photography
probably why every photo posted itt is so MID

>>4464947
Post one of your good photos?

>>4464950
I don't have any, hence why I made the thread

>>4464940
>you hate photography because some retard posted a decent photo saying it's "epic" and you called him out

>>4464940
>Post something you have made that's better.
babby's first empty space-filling ideas? sure, here's one

>>4464940
>>4464964
and here's another

>>4464940
>>4464965
and a third one with a moving subject

>>4464964
>>4464967
bretty good

>>4464965
not my cuppa T

>>4463656
you would be right.

>>4464967
>>4464965
>>4464964
Your pictures dont come even remotely close to the Fan Ho picture. Sorry.

>>4464962
Cope.

>>4464967
>>4464965
>>4464964
these don't work as well graphically though. The OG pic had a thematic aspect to it. The sinuous aspect of the branch is reminiscent of the shape of the river the boat people are travelling on. It all gives an idea of movement, of travel which is linked to the subjects shown. It all works because it's cohesive and very well light. There are also branches that allow us to understand that the sinuous thing in the middle is a branch and not something else.
Your photos aren't bad but they are way worse than Fan Ho's

>>4464969
nibba youve been here forever

>>4464973
>>4464974
>comparing snapshits with a literal composite image where the author could put whatever the fuck he wanted
L M A O

>>4464978
>coping this hard

LMAO

>>4464981
sorry, I don't care about the opinions of a nophoto

>>4464975

>7 years hes been here
>2015

God damn I'm old

>>4464982
Wow you are absolutely seething. I can post some pics if you want, but that won't take away from the fact that your pictures don't come close to fan ho's.

>>4464985
i can't say his photo is boring because I don't take better pictures, therefore you can't say my photos are boring because you don't take better pictures

>>4464986
You can say whatever you want. Im just disagreeing with you. You're over here dismissing a great image because you think it has boring or basic composition. Sometimes a simple composition is all a photograph needs to be a great image.

>>4464986
you can absolutely call a photo boring even if you cant take better pictures
it's all about how you criticize it.
simply saying, "it's bad" like what 90% of this board does is bad criticism, if you cant provide a reason why it's bad than dont say anything. Another thing to note is that how you handle useless criticism says a lot about you. If you cant handle being told you're shit without any actual reason it's a sign you need to grow thicker skin

>>4465013
I am tearing all my hair reading this thread OMG I can't handle this mommy help

>is photography art?
A thousand times: yes.
Art House: The Collection of Chara Schreyer
Sally Mann
b. 1951
Virginia at 6

gelatin silver print, signed, titled, dated, copyrighted, and editioned '5/25' in pencil on the reverse, framed
image: 9⅝ by 7⅝ in. (24.4 by 19.4 cm.)
frame: 24½ by 20⅝ in. (62.2 by 52.4 cm.)
Executed in 1991.

>>4465076
great another pedo

>>4465076
>gelatin silver print, signed, titled, dated, copyrighted, and editioned '5/25' in pencil on the reverse, framed
>image: 9⅝ by 7⅝ in. (24.4 by 19.4 cm.)
>frame: 24½ by 20⅝ in. (62.2 by 52.4 cm.)
nobody cares, pedo
Executed in 1991.

>>4465081
>>4465082
Get a load of these retards. Sally Mann is based. Her framing and dream like atmosphere is great.

>>4465076
Yeah this makes me uncomfortable. Get this shit off the board. Idgaf if you claim it's ""art"", it's creepy pedo shit

Only hacks and retards care about definitions and what is or isn't art. This is same a gear faggotory but in an academic setting.

Just do projects and say whatever you want with your art and tell stories. Who gives a shit about theoretical nonsense? Let those careerist subhuman academic uncreative navel gazing care about this pile of dog shit. If you are capable of creating your world then you're an artist, simple as.

>>4465086
Why it makes you uncomfortable? These images were taken by Sally Mann and these are her children. She is depicting an ethereal place where they lived in harmony with strange nature around them.

>>4465087
>Just do projects
I don't get this mentality. Most people who enjoy Picasso never painted shit. Most people who enjoy Rodin never sculpted anything worthwhile. Most people who enjoy Bach never composed anything and probably never played any instruments. Why is it that in photography in order to enjoy it you need to take pictures ? Half of the retards in this thread claimed that the art aspect of it didn't matter and that you only needed to enjoy what you did. So you buy that gear, take pictures of your dog, post it on socials maybe, get a few critics if you're lucky and so what ? Where is the aesthetic research in that ? Who cares ? It's just braindead consuming for the sake of it. I know that there are some cases of people uneducated in art producing a piece that's museum worthy and discussion worthy but in most cases, people who produce acclaimed works of art in any actual real art field know very well what's been done before and what everything is about today. Why is it that the common /p/easant has no care for the research of beauty and knows nothing about what photography can do when used at it's potential ?

>>4465088
It's a naked 10 year old girl being passed around an internet forum. Yeah good luck justifying that you faggot.

>>4465093
>passed around an internet forum.
why are you phrasing it like this you sick freak?

>>4465091
I agree with you on every single point. I have whined about this quiet a lot in the past but I don't bother now.

Tragedy of photography is that most photography communities are filled with drooling retards and failures who are gearfags or who pretend like pressing a shutter button is a virtue so they are the greatest photographer of all time that's why other photographers are not worthy of his time. This is how people from other mediums also view photography, they think that anyone can just point camera at something and become the next Edward S Curtis. They think that camera does everything for you. But when you progress in your knowledge of photography you discover that photography is quiet possibly the most brutal art medium with cut throat competition. Become a distinguished photographer is same as becoming a distinguished painter, I would say becoming a great photographer is even harder than making it a painter. To be a photographer you need to be mentally and physically healthy, you need to have a lot of free time for wandering around/editing, you need to have social skills, you need to put in a lot of money without the hopes of ever getting it back, you need to do it for a crumb of recognition which other mediums etc.

The enter barrier to photography is so low that's why you get these hoards of drooling retards. People who make music listen to other musicians much more than their own music. 99% of drooling retards don't care about photography. They just want to press a shutter down and pretend to be an artist. This is exactly why large majority of photography is just plain trash. It is like your diet, whatever you put in shows on your body.

There are people who do give a shit about aesthetics in photography and who do follow and support good photographers but they are the most tiny part of any photography community. State of photography is totally sad. It is the most underrated art medium.

>>4465091
>>4465096
So yes my general point is that aspiring or hobbyist photographers themselves don't give a shit about great photographers or other photographers so expecting for average man to care about photography doesn't makes much sense.

Everyone treats photography like a second rate art medium.

>>4465094
Nigger this shit wouldn't pass on /b/, no fuckin idea why it would pass here.

>>4465099
Only a sick freak like you would think that this is a Certain Picture. You area a golem with no sense of aesthetics.

>>4465085
>you don't understand, I need to shoot little girls to get framing and dream atmosphere

>>4465103
Bodies of little girls and boys are not sexual. They exist in state of androgyny which worked well for Sally Mann to create an ethereal atmosphere.

>>4465096
>>4465097
Thanks. I hadn't precisely figured it out quite as well but it all makes sense now.
There is probably no real point in browsing /p/ reddits or flickr then. I should go waste my time at my local library reading about photography instead of here. Maybe even go to irl events. I've got access to a couple of art magazines, maybe there is some cool things to learn in there

>>4465104
>yes, it's totally ok to shoot photographs of your naked children who are unable to properly consent and make them famous
the only "dreamy" things in that photo are the pose, the shape of the hair on the body and the blurry background, all of which can be achieved with a subject over 18

>>4465106
The girl is now a lawyer and could easily take her mother to court. But she was aware of what was happening and was allowed to destroy any photo she didn’t like at the time.

>>4465106
This precise series from Sally Mann's work have raised controversy for at least three decades because of the nudity of the children. It is in fact hers and as adults they defended their mom's work so there is that.
There are definitely things to say on the sexualisation of children bodies and why it comes up to our minds immediately even though it's not explicitly shown in the picture.
At least for that I would consider it interesting art wise. Though I'm not sure if 4chan is the best place to discuss it and I wouldn't be surprised if it was deleted by some jannies. We can't really know if the poster is not an actual pedo looking for other pedos to exchange pictures or something. On the other hand it kind of doesn't make sense to ask for art and be annoyed by the first thing that disturbs you.

>>4465105
You should lurk on /p/ from time to time(this is the best we have, all other platforms are censored heavily and ban casual discussion) and try to make threads about other photographers. There are always 1 or 2 anons willing to discuss or recommend.

>I should go waste my time at my local library reading about photography instead of here. Maybe even go to irl events. I've got access to a couple of art magazines, maybe there is some cool things to learn in there
This is the best way really. There is whole photobooks scene that you can explore. There are some very good accounts on instagram.

For photobooks you can start from here:

>https://josefchladek.com/

>>4465102
>projection
>>4465104
>delusion
>>4465107
>logical fallacy

Your pedo tactics don't work here, faggot.

>>4465105
>>4465111
This website is paywalled for photo of spreads. So fuck him. There are a lot of Youtube and Vimeo channel which uploads fillip through videos of photobooks.

>>4465113
12.50€ per year doesn't seem that expensive for the catalog. Though it could already take me a while to read for free all the photo books of the local libraries I have close by which are in the best quality possible. I didn't know about the youtube videos, I'll check it out thanks

>>4465111
Thanks for the reccs !

>>4465114
for that price you also get a very extensive collection of thumb pictures which is always a great thing to have

>>4465108
I don't care about the sexualization of children because whoever does it is a pedophile and should be dealt with accordingly. My concers are purely with underage subjects who at the time cannot give consent. Maybe in this specific case the children didn't repudiate their mother's photos, but you can agree that this is an exception and as a rule of thumb it should be the default to NOT publish them and just wait 20 years to get a confirmation

>>4465114
>I didn't know about the youtube videos,
Yeah channels like these

https://www.youtube.com/@RafaelBoscoVieira
https://www.youtube.com/@BeyondWordsBooks
https://www.youtube.com/@fofofoto

But yes library is really the best option. I would recommend Photography: The Whole Story by Juliet Hacking for the history of photography. She is liberal but if you can look past that, that book is alright.

Curious. Why are you all so insecure about being photographers that you have to cling to some nebulous notion of art to give yourselves meaning.

>>4465116
Yeah I would agree with that rule of thumb. But the sole fact that you mentioned pedophilia even though those are just children bodies shows that you sexualise them. When shown with pictures of cars, most people don't think about the sexualisation of cars even though some people have sex with cars. Idk there is something to talk about here still

>>4465118
see >>4465091
and the following discussions

>>4465121
>Most people who enjoy Picasso never painted shit. Most people who enjoy Rodin never sculpted anything worthwhile. Most people who enjoy Bach never composed anything and probably never played any instruments. Why is it that in photography in order to enjoy it you need to take pictures ?

You don't need to, of course. But if you are not a photographer then your perspective can only ever be that if a consumer.

But why even thinka bout "art", take photographs.if some people think it is art, that is fine. If others think it is not art that is also fine. It's only opinion.

>>4465120
If the number of people who had sex with cars were big enough, people would start taking it into consideration. What the fuck kind of argument even is that? Also you were the one to mention sexualization, I never did and only talked about pedophiles after you talked about it

>>4465118
who here is doing that?

>>4465112
The only people who shun bodies are the same ones who abuse people.

>>4465137
>no u
The pedo defense old as age (not the age of their victims off)

>>4465138
>off
ofc
I hate spell check

>>4465124
>But why even thinka bout "art",
because the pursuit of beauty is one of the only ways I have to escape my mortal condition and I wish to find beauty as much as possible in order to escape my condition as much as possible, although temporarily. What people call art is the pursuit of beauty. Hence seeking art is equivalent to seeking beauty, as much as people are able to identify beauty in art.

>>4465176
It’s art, not pornography, as reflected by the findings of courts. It needs to be obscene to be pornographic.

>>4465372
>Constantly has to defend being a pedo by bringing up technicalities
>"Well ackshually, the legal age of consent is 16 in the state we met so I'm LEGALLY AND MORALLY IN THE RIGHT, STFU"
Dude you're a pedo. Hansen would have his metaphorical fist up your ass if he were still doing his thing.

Nothing you say can change the mind of your peers. You are a pedo.

>>4465176
>>4465374
Shut up you virtue signalling retard. There is a difference between pornography and art. Everything depends upon framing. The way Sally Mann framed her kids is not prono.

>>4465376
>There is a difference between pornography and art
Correct. Nothing posted on this board is art because photography isn't art. Hurr durr, click the button!
>implies porn is a prerequisite for pedophilic-adjacent behavior
Right, so I can whip my cock out on the subway and claim it's for some vain art project, then deflect and posture that because it's art I am exempt from social standards.
Fuck off you degenerate. Feds should be checking your drives.

>>4465385
Kill yourself you fucking subhuman, you want to see me swat'd for what? That I defended Sally Manns photos on 4chan when she has been exhibiting since 90s and is one of the biggest names in photography? A subhuman like you will never understand art, you just need reasons to virtue signal and hate someone without understanding the subtleties. Just kill yourself.

>>4465388
>No rebuttal
>fag-tier rage defence
lol

also
>virtue signaling
>on an anonymous shitposting forum
lmao

>>4465389
>>>No rebuttal
>>fag-tier rage defence
Subhuman you threatened me with swatting

What "rebuttal" do you need? Just go ahead and label anyone a pedo who looks at kids on the street. Parents should never clean or bath their kids because that would make them pedos.

>virtue signaling
>on an anonymous shitposting forum
Here your (You)

>>4464964
Shit
>>4464965
Nice from a technical standpoint but creatively bankrupt
>>4464967
Good catch, nice editing.

>>4465391
>Feds should be checking your drives
>Somehow this is a swatting threat
Fuck man, you are the most assblasted individual on /p/ i've seen in ages

>>4464964
>>4464965
>>4464967
This is fucking trash. You have to be a special sort of retard to think these compete with Fan Ho. No, I won't explain why. I have no respect for you such a braindhead faggot egotist who thinks that he is better than Fan Ho for taking this trash.

>>4465395
I have no respect for a faggot (nophoto obv) who can't read

>>4465398
I would kill myself before posting such trash photos

>>4465399
Thank god you're too disabled to understand english, otherwise you would manage to tie a knot and kys indeed

>>4465400
"babby's first empty space-filling ideas?"

Autistic faggots like you think that you can interpret art by drawing few retarded lines on the photos and name it some composition but when you have few braincells, you actually see that there is a whole world going on in that piece which can't fit into these retarded academic theories or rules. You can show me a Fan Ho photo with telling me it is a Fan Ho photo and I would recognize it. While all three of your trash photos could be taken by any three different photographers during the second month of their photography practice.

>>4465404
I only talked about the banality or filling all the empty spaces in the image, and upon request I have provided everyday snapshits where I did just that: banal negative space filling. Everything else has been your schizophrenic hallucinations.

>>4465405
Fan Ho's photo is not banal. While your photos are surely banal.

>>4464965
This one is cool. Art.
>>4464967
Also art, no doubt about it. Nice!

>>4465411
>>4465404
>photo: boling.
>photo, china: IMPLESSIVE!

Why is the autist still samefagging after getting btfo multiple times now?

>>4465411
The three subjects, the main dark branches, and the gray ones behind are all pretty standard, unremarkable shots. He then put them all together in COMPOSITE image to tell a story. From a photographic aspect it is indeed a collection of extremely banal photo, just like the ones I have posted. From an artistic perspective, the story it tells can have some value, but it's not a photo.

I also find quite amusing that from the beginning I called my photos unremarkable and yet you still feel the need to hammer that point that as if I didn't know. Looks like you enjoy dragging people down

>>4464967
This is better than fan ho. He could never. The cat would be eaten first.

>>4465417
You were asked to post something that was better.

>>4465419
>You are a slave to the requests of other people
Extreme levels of cope and retardation. Also, as you yourself have quoted me saying, I replied specifying that my photos were babby's first empty space-filling ideas, so you can't even say I implicitly claimed mine were better by responding to that request.

Dude, you're just pathetic. That dead chink is not coming out of his grave to suck your cock or high five you. I know exactly what I posted and why, and no amount of empty semantics is going to "gotcha" me

>>4465415
>>4465423
Kill yourselves visually illiterate subhumans
>dead chink
There you have it. That is the whole mental space of this snownigger

>>4465423
>seething samefag continues to seethe and cope

>>4465424
Dont forget about the homosexual interracial necrophilia fantasies

>>4465428
Nice projection mate

>>4465424
>when all else fails, go into fake outrage mode
boooooooring, if you can't handle a tiny bit of strong language find another way to cope instead of inventing entire mental spaces of people you know nothing about.
>>4465426
This last resort reply officially seals the end of your pathetic attempts of baselessly insulting me. You clearly have nothing else to say except being a drooling retard hallucinating quotes, opinions, and posters

>>4465417
Man you're sooo fucking retarded and soulless.
> Looks like you enjoy dragging people down
That was what you intended with your original smug faggot reply.

>>4465430
You're just lying and changing goalposts after getting btfo many times. You were asked to post better, you posted garbage snapshits, samefagged, and now you are coping and seething at everyone pointing that out. Your photos are nothing more than snapshits.

>>4465430
Your photos suck dude. You will never meet up to even the shoe of Fan Ho. Just stop embarrassing yourself, retarded subhuman.

>>4465433
This

>>4465431
>you can drag down dead people
I spot a pattern of mentally unwell people absolutely adoring this photographer and seething at dissenting opinions. Or alternatively, deeply illiterate people who can't even parse basic english sentences and concepts

>>4465435
>>you can drag down dead people
Fan Ho is not dead. We are discussing his art, he is literally alive right now. That's what his art has done for him, it has made him immortal. This is the evidence of his skill. Where your shit will be forgotten after shitting up the server space of 4chan.

>>4465431
100% correct. The poor guy embarrassed himself at the request of another anon asking him to post photos after acting smug and visually illiterate.

Those pics werent his true power level! I doubt we will see his good photos...

>>4465437
Fan ho is worth forgetting. I didnt know about him before this thread and will forget after.

Now daido moriyama, that’s a photographer.

>>4465438
I can bet by looking at those photos that his major work is also noob tier.

>>4465432
>You were asked to post better
I am not forced to comply to requests, so I replied the way I wanted and specified what the reply was about. I'm sorry your tiny brain cannot understand this, and I'm sorry that you think you should be able to coerce people online to do your biddings
> you posted garbage snapshits
Again, you seem to enjoy hammering on that point as if I wasn't the first one to call them snapshits ITT. Your insults keep being worthless
>samefagged
And here comes the schizophrenia
>>4465433
Boring baseless insults one after the other, *yawn*
>>4465434
>This
I could clearly accuse you of samefagging, but unlike you I won't, because I understand the concept of different people posting on a thread and agreeing with eachother even when their views go against mine

>>4465439
>didnt know about him before this thread
then you should lurk the fuck moar before posting.

>>4465441
>Boring baseless insults one after the other, *yawn*
Anons your photos are fucking God tier. Go contact galleries, they must be itching to have your anti-"babby's first empty space-filling ideas"-composition up on their walls.

>>4465440
I forgot about him pretty quick after he got btfo. I would be extremely suprised if he had anything more interesting than a cat picture.

>>4465441
Not samefagging, but you are extremely predictable. Thabks for making a fool of yourself on the internet. I hope it humbles you a little bit.

>>4465437
>Fan Ho is not dead. We are discussing his art, he is literally alive right now
I admit I was only half joking about the schizophrenia thing, but this is starting to worry me. "Dragging down" someone means to insult them and criticize them into oblivion so that they get utterly demoralized and basically drop their endeavors. You can't do that to dead people because they have already accomplished all that they could. You could tarnish their reputation, but saying that one photo he took is boring is far from doing that.

You are so desperate to win the argument and appear intelligent that you will literally cross into mental illness mysticism by treating a dead person as alive in order to criticize me for having used that expression against the other poster
>>4465443
>so boring and unimaginative he copy pastes the insult I told to myself as if it was some kind of own
I think you are under the impression that, somehow, I both believe that my photos are snapshits *and* I believe they are good. Maybe in your schizophrenic mind this makes sense, but in mine it doesn't.
I will repeat it for the trillionth time: those pics are snapshits, those pics are unremarkable, they are there only to make a point about one aspect of composition. No attempt from your side to ridicule those photos will work, because you aren't telling me anything new.

Dare I say, you are so visually illiterate that you cannot even muster up a real, novel, interesting criticism of my shit photos and instead insults are all you have LMAO

>>4465446
didn't read

>>4465444
>interesting than a cat picture.
g8 b8 m8

>>4465445
I am starting to get it now: you are extremely angry and frustrated at me because I actually posted some photos I personally took (sacrilegious on /p/, I know) and I candidly characterized them as being unremarkable from the very beginning.

This amount of honesty and individuality must have tripped something up in your brain about your failed artistic endeavors and made you go full vitriol mode. Your rage is so blinding you sincerely believe that repeating to me the same insult I told myself can somehow cause an effect of some sorts

>>4465444
>>4465450
stop samefagging

>>4465450
>Many words to say seethe and cope.

Your inefficiency reveals your remarkable stupidity. This is why I am better than you at most things, especially visual literacy.

>>4465457
>>4465448
>>4465452
The empty one liner marks the end of the effort the troll is willing to endure. I accept your concessions, you are now free to go back to the catalog and pester other threads with your nophoto fake conosseur antics. You gave a last sparkle of life to this thread and now it will sink back to the archive, where it belongs.

>>4465461
>noooooooooooo you need to use many words to say seethe and cope!

Seethe and Cope, snapshitter

seriously nobody cares about that person's pictures and their opinion. Of course they suck shit and the mere idea of comparing them to Fan Ho's work shows a deep lack of intelligence that should be clinically studied
stop replying to him and let it rest now

>>4465465
Fan ho is overrated as fuck and only ever stood out because doing composites pre-digital was more difficult.

It's like steven shore and being cool, but actually because he used a printing method that eventually got eclipsed by consumer inkjets

>>4465469
>Fan ho is overrated as fuck
who cares ? overrated on what bases ? Reddit upvotes ? Market evaluation ? What kind of monkey puts any value in those indicators ? Also what difference does it make how he got the image ? It's not like he's showing a pink elephant on the moon, It's just two boats and a tree
you guys need to stop thinking in terms of numbers and camera reference and start thinking in terms of aesthetic quality
>only ever stood out because doing composites pre-digital was more difficult.
nobody who's got anything interesting to say about art cares about difficulty

>>4465472
>nobody who's got anything interesting to say about art cares about difficulty
You're right, so let's not talk about difficulty. It's a composite of some branches representing a river, and around them he put stuff that is commonly found on rivers. Wow, many meaning, such art.

>>4465474
you could described anything like that and make it sound like it's not art. It's not about what's factually there, how it was produced, which camera was used and what kind of food the guy ate at lunch. It's about how it makes you feel and what perspective it gives you. Maybe you should spend less time browsing 4chan and more time learning what art actually is instead of thinking you've got something interesting to say about it

>>4465472
>nobody who's got anything interesting to say about art cares about difficulty
And yet, a lot, and I mean a lot, of art, is only famous because of difficulty and novel technology. Especially in photography. Wherein losers like shore and eggleston got famous simply because of their gear. The content of their photos was dogshit but because of their nice gear their snapshits were visually striking and novel compared to most other photographs.

>>4465477
He's autistic. His entire world is bottom up.

>>4465481
The autistic produce better art than the non-autistic, and the schizophrenic produce equally good art vs. the autistic.

>>4465482
garry winogrand and elliott erwitt both displayed clear symptoms of aspergers btw

>>4465482
I agree, but there are different types of autists. The autist in this thread is clearly not an art autist.
Do we need more proof than the three images he posted and his "interpretation" of fan hos art piece?

>>4465486
Fan Ho hater is the art kind of autist. He can cut through the bullshit and see washed up old news for the banal shit it is without romanticizing muh greats.

>>4465489
Sadly that is just cope. If the snapshitter was famous I would happily tell him his stacked rocks and water pic was shit and terribly edited. Makes no difference who the bro was if his art is good.

>>4462808
You don't take photos, you make them.

>>4465490
And yet you can't conceive of someone doing the same to Fan Ho

>>4465496
His shit is good tho, lil bro. Especially when compared to the rocks and cats of our resident anti-art autist over here.

>>4465497
nah rocks and cats are better

>>4465498
Hey, thanks for proving my point! :D

>>4462806 (OP)
I stopped coming here for a few months and nothing has changed. This question still comes up and people still argue about it.
This is a good answer >>4462950
For more elaboration, photography can be art but isn't always because it can be used for different things. A few biases get in the way when people say "photography is (categorically) not art".

>1) People have shit taste but are biased towards their own view of things, so they think they have good taste
Obviously, a lot of people on 4chan are autistic as well, which feeds into this aspect because autistic people often have difficulty seeing things from another's perspective.
>2) Art as a consumer and art as an artist are different things
You can have an opinion about art as a viewer of it but not be able to produce something of that caliber yourself. A good analogy is cooking: if I go to a restaurant, there's a pretty good chance that the cook will be able to produce something that I can't, but i don't need to be able to produce the same thing to know that it's better than soggy fries from a fast-food place.
>3) Doing more means it's more artistic
It could be full of sound and fury but signify nothing. As applies to photography, the argument goes that you just press the shutter button, so at the end of the day it's the camera that's doing the work. Painting, though, is an artform because you have to apply each stroke yourself. It's a misunderstanding of how you have different tools for different processes for different results.
>4) Thinking it's art only if you like it
Go back to points 1) and 2).
>5) Asking to be shown an art photograph to prove that photography can be art
This is a trap. Go back to point 4). If you don't think photography is art, why would showing you a photo and saying it's art change your mind? I think it is an you don't have to agree. Go back to point 1). Especially don't post your own photos in this instance, because you're not as good as the big names.

1/2

>>4465510
2/2

Moreover, don't expect to change anyone's mind on 4chan.org. You have to be new if you earnestly expect this to happen. The game is to be as disingenuous as possible to get people as mad as possible so you get more (You)s, all while looking for people who agree with you.
It's a lost cause. These are my points, I know I'm right. You can disagree, though, and that's okay.

>>4465510
>>4465512
>If you don't think photography is art, why would showing you a photo and saying it's art change your mind?
It's been talked about before in this thread, but widely recognized pieces of art feel like art to most people who know enough about the field and the piece to have an opinion. It's true that art is somewhat relative to the consumer but also you don't hear a lot of people saying Vivaldi's four seasons don't make them feel anything. With the original thread's question I meant to attract knowledgeable anons who would share me artists or photos which created a strong emotion in them, as pic related (not a photo) did. That was, as you can tell, mostly overestimating the average /p/ poster though some anons did get what I meant and offered useful inputs as well as a new strategy to find answers.

>>4465510
i mostly post my photos here for the community aspect + you cant be banned for posting a shit photo whereas on reddit you van be banned from r/amateurphotography for no posting a pro level photo
some anon was talking about that either a few years ago or a few months back. Many people want their photos tied to their name. I just want other people to see my photos - good or bad.

>>4465091
>art historians enjoy art
wow who could have seen that coming
it's similar to how i watch bekahart because she's hot and ended up getting really into art stuff later on

>>4465510
t. fellow oldfag
b8lords will b8. it's alright. let it go and simply make the kinds of posts you want to see

>>4465519
holy fucking based
literally

>>4465519
>water
>sky
>6 blurry people doing nothing but standing
>center framed
>center horizon
>horizon isn't perfectly level
>grainy
>too dark
>uneven lighting
>vignetting

Yeah, I'm thinking this is just a snapshit and not art.

>>4465514
I understand what you're saying, and it's a perfectly fine thing to do, but others are absolutely going to jump on it and be the kind of person I talked about. It's just a topic that's been beat to death over and over on here and it always devolves into the same thing.
An alternative could be to Google famous photographers and fall down the rabbit hole until you find something that resonates with you, because that may not be what resonates with me. You could see if your local library/bookstore has photobooks available for you to look at. These are suggestions, but I've discovered a fair number of photographers from anons mentioning their names on /p/, too.

>>4465519
I've taken to just not making any posts because it's too frustrating to engage with the community. I've been hoping to find an IRL community to discuss photography with, but that has its own challenges....

>>4465524
Heh

>Post pics that make you feel something
Okay

>>4464797
I agree with this, not all photography is art.
Some is.

an artform would involve skill, talent, craft, a process
the art of photography and the results themselves - photos, well there is a distinction there
are all photos art?
are all drawings art?

art may in a sense be a process
or is it the final result?

I have a feeling that we all knoe inherently what art is. And we can see when something is art or isn't
Photos can be art
and photography is definitely an art form

>>4462918
Bruce Gilden. If you like him you should check out Stanley Greene.

>>4465626
thanks for these

>>4465654
thanks I'll check it out

>>4465169
Art is just a word that was hijacked by commercial interests. It's a commodity which those interests built a walled garden around in order to control the product flow and keep spotty faced upstarts out. Now it seems that spotty faced upstarts defend the garden, into which they are not allowed, with all the 4chan rage they can muster.

Beauty doesn't need to be qualified with loaded words, it just is.

>>4465931
words can have multiple meanings depending on who uses them and in what context