ArtBistro

I can understand this problem. I do try and stay away from anything that is someone else's if I can, such as grafitti art, paintings, certain structures, sculptures, etc. Considering the fact that you can see any number of works already posted on official sites of famous artists or dead artists, there is no need to really post those types of things here or on any other art site.

Are you talking about peoples graffitti or just photographers?

I want to say it was in a recent Wall Street Journal article I read once about a museum full of oddball modern art, the curator was asked "What qualifies as art?"  They answered that if someone who calls themselves an "artist" calls it "art", then it is.  This is funny because for example, one "piece of art" was a suit hanging on a hanger in an empty room.  I suppose there was some kind of statement behind it, but ...yeah...

I don't consider myself a serious photographer at ALL...most of my stuff is just the result of me playing around, it's an enjoyable and recreational process.  I've only recently started to think that some of my self-pics might be art if for only the sense that they don't really look like me.  They are more interpretations of my face.  I don't know.

What bugs me isn't photography, even that of other artists' work...it's the pieces hanging in museums getting huge recognition that an able bodied adult made, but my six year old could have.  I'm sorry but man I've seen some stuff, I don't know how you work up the nerve to present something like that.  And yet some really amazing and visually delightful work goes unrecognized on the internet, or at best the covers of paperbacks.  The art world aint fair.  I think it depends more on where you went to school and who you know how "valid" your creations are as art, at least to the rest of the world.

ahhhh, but what if it was an artistic pictures of another person's art?  o.O

Wolfmom says ...

ahhhh, but what if it was an artistic pictures of another person's art?  o.O

 

 

I say go & find something on your own to create. Why bother focusing on photographing someone's art 'artistically' or not (unless they ask you to) when you can allow your own creative juices to flow on many other things. 

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM......

 I'LL TAKE A PHOTOGRAPH OF A PHOTOGRAPH THAT SOMEONE ELSE TOOK OF MY OWN WORK ( OF COURSE ILL ENHANCE IT) 

PUBLISH  IT AND CALL IT ART!

OR WILL I GET SUED FOR COPYWRIGHT INFRINGEMENT OF MY OWN SHIT?

HOW BOUT  DAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RISKFCK says ...

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM......

 I'LL TAKE A PHOTOGRAPH OF A PHOTOGRAPH THAT SOMEONE ELSE TOOK OF MY OWN WORK ( OF COURSE ILL ENHANCE IT) 

PUBLISH  IT AND CALL IT ART!

OR WILL I GET SUED FOR COPYWRIGHT INFRINGEMENT OF MY OWN SHIT?

HOW BOUT  DAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Go right ahead man.

phoenixfirestorm says ...

I dont think he is referring to photographing others artwork himself.  I believe he is referring to the rash of people who are posting in their portfollios photographs that they have taken of others work.  Some are not clarifying in their artist statements that they are images of others work.  Honestly, I dont think anyone should post up works of others.  That being said that I do have fanart in my gallery but I do give proper copyright notices and I do these for practice.  If you are practicing with photography, if that is the route that is going to be taken from my post here, then you can easilly photograph scenery, animals and people all around you.  I could do the same thing with my art, but its a little bit different in regards to drawing versus photo.  Especially, If I want to get into comics and such.

 

 

I wasn't being serious.  And I don't want to get into comics & such.

 Photographing someone else's artwork is simply a reproduction.  Observing and photographing is just quicker than "realistically" drawing or painting a subject matter of which I have done both.  Realistic reproductive drawing or painting is just pains taking photography.   Interpretation of what is happening with the subject is seen outside of the mechanical means of recording.  That in my humble opinion is art.  It does not matter the medium. 

 Art is subjective.  You or I may not agree that a piece of art is in fact "Art" or even close to artistic, but that is the beauty of art itself.  No other person is needed to validate if something is in fact art.  That's impossible.  We, and others can only give opinions on what we think or how we feel about a particular piece.  

That being said.  Just photographing someone else's work and claiming it as an original artistic piece is lame.  However, there is tons of grey area here.  Take for example a building or car.  These are in fact someone's art.  Someone put a lot of thought and hard work into it's design.  Now, if I come up with a great idea that involves photographing this element in such a way that I find artistic, who's to tell me it isn't art?  I'm not just taking a snapshot of a car and posting on my port, claiming I'm the one responsible for how cool this car looks.  If photographers are photographers and not just people with cameras clicking away at everything they see, they will be putting in some serious thought, talent and skill into a photo.  That's art.

Just my 2 cents.

Wolfmom says ...

I want to say it was in a recent Wall Street Journal article I read once about a museum full of oddball modern art, the curator was asked "What qualifies as art?"  They answered that if someone who calls themselves an "artist" calls it "art", then it is.  This is funny because for example, one "piece of art" was a suit hanging on a hanger in an empty room.  I suppose there was some kind of statement behind it, but ...yeah...

I don't consider myself a serious photographer at ALL...most of my stuff is just the result of me playing around, it's an enjoyable and recreational process.  I've only recently started to think that some of my self-pics might be art if for only the sense that they don't really look like me.  They are more interpretations of my face.  I don't know.

What bugs me isn't photography, even that of other artists' work...it's the pieces hanging in museums getting huge recognition that an able bodied adult made, but my six year old could have.  I'm sorry but man I've seen some stuff, I don't know how you work up the nerve to present something like that.  And yet some really amazing and visually delightful work goes unrecognized on the internet, or at best the covers of paperbacks.  The art world aint fair.  I think it depends more on where you went to school and who you know how "valid" your creations are as art, at least to the rest of the world.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE FCK IM TALKING ABOUT, THATS WHY I HATE THESE NO TALENT BUMS!!!

HE TAKES A PICTURE OF MY WORK THEN SELL'S IT??? THATS FUKIN BULLSHIT WAIT TILE I CATCH HIM "CODE OF THE STREET"

AND I WILL!!!

www.worldofstock.com/closeups/AAB1737.php

Life is entertaining and beautiful and sad and angry and happy and exotic and photgraphy captures all of that and more... Anyone can take a picture of grandma on the front porch, but do they tke the time to makes sure the single ray from the sun frames her face? Just a random example....

On this site, its ONLY Art if it doesnt contain any nudes in it.  Flowers, bugs, animals (most likely female since they dont have an extra appendage floating in the wind) fruits, vegetables, and scenery are perfectly all right.  Nudes find your local porn site and submit them