Today in class we discussed the idea presented by Bell concerning arts ability to represent something. As mentioned in previous blogs and elsewhere, Bell is a fan of the art style known as Cubism. Cubism is known for its stretching of reality with its unrealistic interpretations of artistry. Now a point was made in class that Bell feels that an accurate representation of art is no better than just taking a photograph of something and calling it art. This caused me to consider photography in a different sense. Is photography really art? The ability to capture an image from real life with a piece of technology and label it art; is that really art? I feel that is not the case. I see photography as more of a skill. Now people reading I am sure will not like or agree with what I am saying, however I feel there is actual evidence to support this. Photographers find something in real life that they like and using a piece of technology take that image. They sometimes then edit the picture to make it seem more "art-like" with shadow and contrast. I feel that this is really just a skill because editing photos may be a difficult task, but you are not creating this piece of "art," nature did.
Therefore a question arises, if photography is to be considered art, then is real life also art? Is nature and everything around us also art?
Alright, personally, I have a lot to say on this subject to which I feel is a particularly juicy debate about art.
ReplyDeleteFirst I want to talk about photography as an art, because in our current day and time, photography is much less an art form than what it once was. However, to preface this statement, there are two things that are necesary to point out about photography to which are the different aspects of its art. The first is that photography is an art of being able to capture an aesthetic in its purest form or representation in real life imagery. The second is that it is an art of being able to manipulate the outcome of the final image that you will have. There is one thing that has to be noted about the second art though; and this is that electronic manipulation to achieve the image you desire does not qualify in the true art of photography, for it involves none of the actual strain inherent in achieving your goal. With this being said, photography is certainly capable of being art still, but its really only half art unless you are efficient enough to use a dark room.
Now to answer your second questions, a lot about life is more artistic that one would expect, for I personally agree with the concept of aesthetics being art in their own respect. So technically, there would be a lot out in nature that would appeal to the view of the artist, which can evidently be captured in an image by a camera.