However, after I get all giddy about a picture, I realize that "art" is in the eye of the beholder (or in the eye of the "artist" but the term "artist" is also in the eye of the beholder, so now I feel like I'm trapped in a Russian nesting doll situation of personal labels, but that's beside the point). Somehow, art has become one of those things that has been popularized as "something that everyone can do" (which I whole-heartedly disagree with, but that's something I'll tackle another day, preferably while drinking and sucking on Costco-sized Pixie stix). I'm not sure who gets to decide what qualifies as art, so we've kind of just been running on an honours system, haven't we? There's a picture of a sad child with a hole in its T-shirt. Art. There's a picture of a bug taken with a macro lens. Art. There's a picture of a man holding an up-side-down burning cross wearing only a clown wig over his junk. Art. There's a exhibition of 99 photographs of soap-on-a-rope. Art. Who gets to freaking decide?
What made my photo "art"? Was it? I thought it was kind of interesting to look at. I took it with my nice camera. But just because I liked it, doesn't mean anybody else would. What if no one else liked it? Does that mean I can't consider it art any more? Then I had to sit down because I could feel the vein in my neck throbbing and the balls of my feet were going numb. This was way too much anxiety for a photograph I took of my dog looking contemplative (not easy, by the way; she's like the Groucho Marx of the animal kingdom).
Someone once said, "Buying a Nikon doesn't make you a photographer. It makes you a Nikon owner." As a Canon owner, I completely agree. I joke, but the essential message is true. You also need an eye. A good eye, and one that can see beyond the lens and the mechanics of light, lens, click. I'm not saying I have this, but I enjoy photography and I would like to keep it as soap-on-a-rope free as I possibly can. If we work together, I believe we can achieve this.
Here are some basic categories of what has come to be known as "art" photography. This won't be a instructional guide but an informative or suggestive guide. A photographer's eye cannot be taught, so I'll just give you the goods on the styles and you can decide which one you "see", if any at all. Good lord... The pretentious part of me is winking and smoking a large Cuban cigar at that last sentence, while the down-to-earth part of me wants to jump off of a plateau into a pile of mutant scorpions.
Nature
This is a very basic category; plants, animals, landscapes, etc. Anyone can take a nature photograph. I think the point to taking "art" nature photographs is to find something unique that gives the viewer a new perspective on that particular form of nature. Standing on a road and taking a picture of a mountain does not take any skill whatsoever. Showing nature in a new "light", if you'll pardon the photography pun, is something that takes practice. Nature photography can be considered either very easy (I mean it's right there, just put down your X-Box controller and go outside, find a leaf and click), or very challenging (everything near me is so boring, I'd need to drive four hours into the mountains or fly to Timbuktu to get any interesting nature). I think you can turn anything boring into something interesting through the lens of a camera, you just need determination, patience, and talent. The talent might be more difficult to conjure up though, but that's where the patience comes in (and a little bit of magic in some cases).
Example of a good nature art photograph. I did not take this.
Example of a bad nature art photograph. I took this. I think the rock looks like a face.Portrait
As much as I enjoy portrait photography, I've found that there really isn't any middle ground to their quality. They either look like really bad High School graduation photos taken of some kid with a lip twitch and painful constipation, or they look like they could be in Vanity Fair. Anything else doesn't qualify as portrait photography (yes, people that take their own self-portraits for their Facebook profiles, I'm talking to you). OK, I suppose photos that are taken as headshots can be somewhat considered portrait art, but that's walking a very fine line (and usually depends on the attractiveness of the subject, it's the painful truth). My advice for portrait photography is to find someone attractive, just use one bright key light and shine it on their face from the side, do their hair all edgy-like, pop some strange coloured contact lenses on them, and shoot it in sepia. That, or find your own creative style. Either way will work.
Example of a good portrait art photograph. I'm starting to feel very insecure.
Example of a bad portrait art photograph. This is me. I call this one "Don't mess with me, because I'm in medium contrast grainy black & white."Fashion
Fashion photography can be very fun as there are no limits to the creativity that exists in fashion. You just need to find someone who owns or even designs some interesting articles of clothing. If you don't, don't fret! Slap some sunglasses on your model and then it doesn't matter what they're wearing. Just have your subject lean against a building and you're set. If you happen to have a higher budget, then you should go all out. Make sure your final design includes plenty of shiny clear plastic, asymmetrical lines, jagged edges, half-zipped zippers, holes placed in borderline pornographic areas, and some kind of biodegradable materials like bread, soil, or animal tears. Once you have an extraordinary outfit, the photograph almost takes itself. The more effort you put into the clothing, the less effort goes into the photography and vice versa. Simple math.
Example of a good fashion art photograph. The weight of the hat broke her ankle.
Example of a bad fashion art photograph. Another one of mine. It may not be perfect, but it has what the critics like to call "badassery". Model credit: Micah Henry (I'm sure he doesn't mind...)Still Life
Taking photos of random inanimate objects can be kind of boring. That's why this subject requires a particularly creative mind in order to find the beauty, the originality, or the strangeness in everyday life. Use your wildest imagination. Shoot the underside of a coffee table. Shoot a rainbow in black and white. Shoot your shoes so they look like they're chasing eachother. Be dangerous! Go crazy! Stack things that don't normally get stacked together!
Example of a good still life art photograph. Who still uses a Walkman? Exactly!
Example of a bad still life art photograph. This is my mom's lighthouse lamp. I'm not sure what you were expecting out of this caption. It's a lighthouse lamp.Abstract/Surreal
This is my favourite. Not only because it's where you find the most utterly f***ed up photographs ever, but also because the whole "genre" is a lie. There really is no way to categorize this type of art, so they cram it all under "abstract" or "surreal". That's what makes it so awesome. A red wine stain shaped like heart on a coffee stain shaped like a skull on a white carpet? Abstract! Several paring knives stuck into a tomato with "the man" written on the side of it? Surreal! Sure, some people need to be reminded of what these terms actually mean, but who are we to argue with their art-making ways? Anyway, go nuts. Just make sure you have an intent, or people will call you out on your lack of talent. Or they won't. This isn't very good advice, is it?
Example of a good abstract/surreal art photograph. That looks uncomfortable.
Example of a bad abstract/surreal art photograph. I like to tell people that this was supposed to turn out this way, but in actuality, I just accidentally left the shutter open too long.I think it says something about my talent that all of the "bad" examples of art photography in this guide were taken by me, and none of the good ones. I'll work on that. To conclude, I suggest just taking as many photos as you can. Some of them won't suck. Take those good-ish ones and give them clever titles like "Water as an Existential Loophole" or "My Consciousness in Fava Beans" or "Deliberation!". Then print them and frame them. You're as good as gold. Maybe not gold, but at least a nickel-chromium alloy.
Who still uses a feather as a pen? Exactly!!
ReplyDeleteI notice you use the term “art photography” as opposed to “photographic art“. Leaves me wondering if you look at the definition of “art” in regards to photography to be somewhat as I do.
I’ve a tough time calling most any photography art, be it Nature, Portrait, Fashion, Still life, Abstract or otherwise. To me, the true art, if you can call it that, is in the composition. If you’ve the time and inclination to be artistic, the manipulation of light, shadows, preparation of subject and backdrop, waiting for that perfect time of day … that to me would be the art. The photograph is simply a method of capturing and preserving this art for sharing. Or for commercial distribution for they who make a living selling these pictures of they’s artful ways.
On the other hand, digital manipulation of a photograph, or taking bits and pieces from several photographs to create something all together different could in my eye be considered photographic art as opposed to art photography. The clearest present example I know of for this medium is the work of Pierre Beteille (Monkeyman). His work is to me a true form of photographic art, and can be seen throughout his photo stream in “Flickr”. http://www.flickr.com/photos/pookhy/ There are plenty ’a folk who indulge in this nature of art, but few I would consider to be as artful as Pierre.
Is an interesting read Jackie.