Why is photography art?
Photography is a form of art.What is photography and what is painting or rather, what is visual art? Comic books are unarguably the first visual art form humans have invented, although at that time, comics were not printed but carved onto cave walls. Before comic books, there were eyes and the visual system in our brains. Light waves hit the surface of an object, then get reflected or diffused or refracted into our retinae. This process ends that our brains generate the image according to the visual information but Photoshoped it through a serial of chemical signals. The ideal of visual art is the creation of an image. Photography and painting are but tools we invented to perform the creation of an image. The creation of an image does not depend on the existence of its subject. To say that photography is reliable in terms of determine whether something exists is to say that human eyes are reliable, since cameras are designed according to the part of the structure of human eyes. Are human eyes reliable? There are multiple experiments saying no.The tools we use to create visual art change over time, from stones to herbal or mineral dyes, to synthetic paints, to films to computers. These changes are inevitable and have their rises and falls. The difference between photography and painting lies in the difference sizes of the brush. Painting has a smaller brush while photography has a larger one. A small brush captures a small piece of color, and a large brush captures a larger piece of many colors. With a small brush, it takes thousands of strokes to make up one image while with a large brush; one stroke is already an image. Does an artist cease to present her thoughts because of the size of the brush she uses? Does an image get inseparable to its subject because of the size of the brush?
What is some background information on photographer Ed Cortes?
Ed Cortes Born in Chile 1963. Cortes curses studies in USA and England. His background as a photographer is short , but unusually productive. On his clients list figures publications like Elle, Nikita , Cosas, Ultra and for name some of his artist portraits such as the famous painter Odd Nerdrum, American singer Coolio or the Spanish pride Joaquin Cortes are part of his work.
What is your favourite art form: music, photography or film?
Music is my favorite art form to consume, but movies are my favorite form to create. I like music because you can have more elements at once—more so than you can have with film. I was just listening to a song in my car, and I realized I was jamming to so many different strands at once: the drums, two different melody lines, a voice, etc., all threaded together. Now of course in any one shot of a film we have elements like color, costuming, writing, acting, etc., but they are not as married. They’re not especially equal. And part of the reason is that when we watch a movie, we are usually preoccupied with trying to find and follow a story. It becomes, unfortunately, a more cerebral activity than the pure pleasure of music intake. With music, there’s a flow, which is much better than a story—we can have peaks and valleys, or, in any case, movement through time. I feel like it is harder for us to process all of the visual information we get in a movie at once, as opposed to the auditory information in music. We see music with our mind’s eye—or ear, as it were. Our imagination runs rampant. We can do other things at the same time—which should not be underestimated: Music is more easily tied into our experience. With movies, we are nailed down to the one visible reality in front of us (although the best films, of course, get our imaginative blood pumping). And then, just personally, there’s a cap to what I can do musically—it’s limited to the dexterity of my fingers (or lack thereof) and my impatience with practice—other than the practice I got naturally by composing! I spent time in the recording phase tweaking parts to sound how I wanted, but whenever I played live I was nervous about what I felt was my amateur level of playing, and the added difficulty of having to sing and play keyboard at the same time. Whenever I get the chance to make a short film, I can throw myself into all of the clothing of storytelling. There is time to construct the puzzle of another reality. And, at the very least, all I have to do is pick up a camera, which is a lot easier than needing to learn how to master an instrument. But it sounds like you are combining all three in your own art, in which case, you get the best of all worlds. You can create a full, multi-dimensional piece, and exploit the spaces between the different mediums to astonish your audiences.Thanks for the A2A
How much money does an architecular photographer make?
You should search the web for "architectural photography". Your spelling was a little off.
Are paintings more valuable than photographs (or other forms of digital art)? If yes, why?
People might like to think photographs are as valuable as paintings, because they like the medium. And there are a few - by a couple of very noted photographers, and a couple of historical photographs - that have merited high auction prices. But NO photographs or photographers have EVER come near the auction records that painters regularly reach. And I think that is what that question is asking.I believe there are three main reasons for this.Even though it can take a lot of knowledge and practice to become a great photographer, anyone can push a button and take a picture, and often, a very good picture. And technology is increasing the ability of regular, everyday folks to do this, not decreasing it. This diminishes the perception of skill required in the art of photography and has effects on its value.At its base, photography is a photomechanical process. A button is pushed, and the mechanics proceed. If something truly and deeply creative happens, it is in the darkroom, when negatives are manipulated. Wait - before you start throwing rocks at me…… I know that images are selected and that objects in photos are often skillfully arranged, but those things are also done when commercials are shot, and they are rarely considered “art”, so I have to discount that part of the process.A photograph is by definition a multiple. Though some people swear they only print one image - the possibility of multiple images always exists. A painting is never multiple. There is only one, and can only be one original painting. No reproduction will create that original - that object, unique in the universe.I do not believe that anything that photography does in the future will ever overcome these obstacles and give it parity with painting. They are different. Photography is great, but it does not do what painting does, and this has nothing to do with what it captures or how people see it. It is the nature of the process itself.As to your subquestion - whether this argument can be extended to traditional arts vs. digital arts, I think there are some areas in which it can be. I think the skill levels do differ, and I think the question of mechanical issues, originality and reproducibility do arise. But I really don’t know enough about digital art to be as intelligently responsive as I’d like, so I’m going to slide… sorry.Thanks Maria, for the compliment of the A2A.
What is the purpose of a photograph?
- To record a moment.- To enhance the memory of an experience.- To document an event.- To have some fun doing any of the above.Going beyond the verb and into the noun of photography:- To visually interpret the subject.- To visually interpret light (Very few reach this level).- To create a work of art.- To meditate.- To immerse oneself in some beauty.- To chase perfection, and when good sense prevails, excellence.There may be other motivations like:- To win a photography competition.- To be the "one" who caught "the" moment - like an explosion, a tsunami, a volcano, etc.- To acquire evidence.- To strengthen an argument.- To look where eyes may be awkwardly placed.- To spy.Further, and these are the worst:- To use that expensive camera I bought.- To feed my ambition of becoming a photographer.- To satisfy an urge.- To justify having bought a fancy cellphone.
Information on Representational Landscape photography? PLEASE Help! :)?
'Representational' in Art is usually meant to define an image which is realistic or recognisable, as opposed to, say, abstract expressionism. Thus, most photographic landscapes are representational. In short, if it looks like a recognisable lanscape, it's representational.