Self-serve ads are available again! Check out our new advertising page here.
Photography isn’t art. You’re just taking something that somebody else created (either by nature, or by man) and capturing it for yourself.It’s “art” in the sense that taxidermy is, you’re taking something and making it lifeless. There is no room for creative input other than Instagram filters.
Why do you spam threads anon? Who hurt you?
Nobody here cares anon, we still enjoy it
>>3857016Everybody hurt me. I’m jokerpilled
>>3857014>It’s “art” in the sense that taxidermy isTaxidermy is an art, there's specialized techniques and the creative mind of the specialist.
>he thinks taxidermists are responsible for killing the animal they're stuffing, in the momentThat's pretty metal but you're wrong.
>>3857020No, you're an incel.
>>3857014I'm an artist in the sense that Vermeer was an artist.
if you can't turn photography into art that's a problem with you and your creativity, not the medium itself
>>3857014Humans aren't capable of creation you idiot. Everything we made is stolen from nature.>>3857020Also have sex
>>3857065Vermeers camera obscura was a highly involved process. There’s a reason he only ever produced 36 paintings
>>3857087>humans can't create anythingLiberal communist line of thinking>Create the colt, Ford Model-T, the internet and paint the sistine chapelsBased line of thinking[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5D Mark IVCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.0 (Macintosh)Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Image-Specific Properties:Compression SchemeJPEG Compression (Thumbnail)Image Height4431Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2020:11:17 13:34:39Vertical Resolution300 dpiHorizontal Resolution300 dpiImage Width6646Lens Aperturef/2.5Exposure Bias0 EVExposure ProgramManualColor Space InformationsRGBWhite BalanceAutoRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualExposure Time1/5000 secFlashNo FlashF-Numberf/2.5ISO Speed Rating100Focal Length35.00 mmMetering ModePatternScene Capture TypeStandardLight SourceUnknown
>>3857419Everything humans can think/make comes from nature. If you were born in a box and fed with a tube until you die, without ever knowing anything about anything, how could you design a rotary engine?
>>3857014>oh I don't take photos because it's not ART, you see>I'm too smart to photograph things, you see>photography is below me, only philistines do that, you see>>>NOPHOTO COPENOPHOTO COPE>>>NOPHOTO COPENOPHOTO COPEWhat are you even doing here?
>>3857430>born in a box and fed with a tube until you dieThat's not a natural life. False equivalent aside 1 out of 10,000 would figure a way out and that would easily be equivalent to whatever standard you're setting.That being said Africa still hasn't invented the wheel.
>>3857084OP is an autist trying to feel better about his lack of creativity. He's been making posts like this for months, it's quite sad to be honest. Let me explain.Imagine wanting to relate to other people through spontaneous self-expression (props to you if you get the reference), but all spontaneity you have is random fits of autismo rage, because your brain is broken and you'll always be like this.This must hurt, or at least make you aware that you'll always be isolated and never be like everyone else. So he turns to the internet to vent.
>>3857397Ain't technology grand.
>>3857014You're mistaking photography for "the one you have with you" snapshitter mentality.
>>38570146/10 pretty good bait
>>3857458>That being said Africa still hasn't invented the wheel.Who did invent the wheel, anon?
>>3857659We tend to think that inventing the wheel was item number two on our to-do list after learning to walk upright. But several significant inventions predated the wheel by thousands of years: sewing needles, woven cloth, rope, basket weaving, boats and even the flute.Evidence indicates they were created to serve as potter’s wheels around 3500 B.C. in Mesopotamia—300 years before someone figured out to use them for chariots.https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/a-salute-to-the-wheel-31805121/
>>3857014On the contrary my friend, the art of taxidermy is the art of making the dead lifelike.
>>3857683>Evidence indicates they were created to serve as potter’s wheels around 3500 B.C. in MesopotamiaIt wasn't Donald Trump either but I'm sure he would claim it and you would believe him.
>>3857703TDS is real lol
>>3857703this isn't plebit nigger. I can hate all of you at the same time. When you come to terms what who you is, I hope it's not too late.
>>3857703>mean orange man still living rent free in the minds of /trannypol/
>>3857707>>3857709>>3857721That really upset you didn't it?
>>3857777Wasted quads. Jew tricks will always upset me and millions quietly.
>>3857778They were very well used quads, you must be really stupid
>>3857419>Liberal communist Not only is "liberal communist" a self-contradicting title, conservatives are the ones constantly shitting on artists and calling their degrees worthless but okay.
>>3857014Have you ever used several flash units to light an image? The SUBJECT was made as you say, but the art is in the point of view, lighting, the situation, the posing, lighting, freezing/blurring motion appropriately... art isn’t just a physical object- that’s the result
>>3857014I used to think like this until I realized it's pointless and a fallacy.For instance in music you just arrange pre-existing notes in ways that someone else has probably already done. There are only so many different combinations for the notes to sound good. You have limitations. Just like in photography you're limited to what you can actually capture and you need to be creative within those boundaries. But like I just demonstrated, it applies to all art. If you want to truly create a piece of art from scratch you must first create the universe. In a sense God is the original artist, but as we all know, you posted this as a bait so none of this matters really. You'll never reach hyper originality unless you create the atoms that you used in your piece. And then you should consider the fact that atoms aren't physical matter on the deepest level, it's just vibrating energy and mathematical fields.
>>3857948>God
>>3857014Kek, good troll thread.
>>3857571Vermeers paintings still looked like paintings.
>>3857948Except no, because in music>there are hundreds if not thousands of instruments to learn>there are 100 different ways to play one piece of sheet music, one person could interpret the composers idea differentlyYou can still add your own touch to music. You can't really add your own touch to a photo, no matter how much you compose or wait for the right exposure you're just taking something that already exists.
>>3858080>You can't really add your own touch to a photoi wonder it it's comfortable or painful to be this stupidprobably comfortable.. i'm honestly a little jealous
>>3858094>playing with lightroom sliders is the same as interpreting a piece of music
>>3858102>playing with lightroom sliders is the only way to manipulate a photoyou're not helping your case, dodo
>>3858107composition is not "manipulating" it is framing>inb4 muh filters
>>3858113your low functioning autistic rigidity and inability to think creatively is the problem here
>>3857801If you fags can change definitions and sex at will so can I. deal with it. Also an art degree is worthless you fucking moron. A batchelors degree is basicly worthless even in liberal arts. (the real lib arts like STEM not the faggy feminism and tranny shit)
https://medium.com/muddle-mag/why-photography-isn-t-art-893cc144e241This article is right. With photography, ALL, and I mean A L L you can do is choose a subject.With real art, choosing your subject is literally just one of many steps in creating a piece. And in real art, you are not limited by the subjects that already exist in the world.Sure, a painter can go to a beach and paint what's in front of him, but he can make up an entirely new landscape with his imagination instead. And then he puts all sorts of creative touches into it.With photography, you're just stealing a subject. You're an ape. That's why photography isn't hard, and why you can master photography in four weeks but you can spend a lifetime painting and never become a master.>inb4 COPE
>>3858408>medium.comdid you write the article?
>>3858369I love how the average edgy right winger tells on himself by having to leak out his suppressed rage and paranoia over lefties and LGBTs in every possible internet forum.
>>3858408Interesting points in the article but a lackluster and faulty conclusion. The writer assumes photographers and people who view photographs are only interested in one thing. The fact that photography is often used to simply document something does not preclude it from being used as a medium for artistic expression. If that was the case then everyone would just shoot jpeg and make the exposure and color balance as objective as possible.
>>3858415>having to leak out his suppressed rage and paranoiaI mean to be fair that someone who saw a /pol/ out of nowhere was the one who started it allAlso in the other thread some loonie brought Trump out of nowhere. Fucking americans are insane at this point
>>3858416The article also makes a good point about only being able to capture a subject though.
>>3858077No. Pleb.
>>3858420Honestly no, no it doesn't. Photographers have a wide variety of methods of capture not to mention nearly boundless possibilities with things like image composition, exposure, editing/darkroom manipulation, printing surface, and so on. If his argument was that people who shoot stock photos for science textbooks aren't artists then I could see it. But the argument just seems unfair and disingenuous. It's like if I said painting isn't art because the person who paints the interior of a store one solid color isn't trying to express himself or tell a story (although interior design, down to the color of the walls, could be seen as expression...I digress).
>>3858417>Someone who saw pol out of nowhere >The one who started it all If you're taking about this guy >>3857419 then sure. Yeah, he started it all with a bad take on "liberal communism" which is not a thing.
>>3857014>I’ve never seen a photograph in an art museum or as a personal or commercial wall decorationYou’re right[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width738Image Height415Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>3858429you need to actually visit art museums if you want to see what's inside them
>>3858369Rent free[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height802Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>3858430No real art museum has photographs. You have to go to the designated "photography gallery," try going to a big boy museum like the Cleveland Museum of Art or The Metropolitan Museum of Art and finding a photograph.
>>3858433https://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2020/photography-last-century-ann-tenenbaum-thomas-lee-collection
>>3858430>>3858430I was being sarcastic :|
>>3858435>The collection is particularly notable for its breadth and depth of works by women artists, its sustained interest in the nude, and its focus on artists' beginningsIt's a SocJus pet project.
>>3858433>No real art museum has photographs.>You have to go to the designated "photography gallery,"pick one
>I have yet to see — much less produce — a color photograph that fulfills my concepts of the objectives of art-ansel adams
>>3858440I, for one, pick there's no photos on real art museums
>>3858457>there's no photos on real art museumsthat's because the photos are generally inside
>>3858454said by the hack who's legacy is shit tier b/w landscape photos
>>3858460>shit tierSays who?
>>3858462nice
>>3858465take your meds
>>3858459Proof?
>>3858436how is it my fault you don't know how to write a joke?
>>3858696>didn't get the MDE referencehow is it my fault you're not cultured?
>>3857778>waaaah da joosgo back and don't come back
>>3858118this, see >>3857462
>>3858697references and sarcasm aren't jokes
>>3858704autist
>>3858704how is it my fault you're unable to apply a reference to a new context and comprehend a joke?
>>3858460sour grapes
>>3858705>>3858706i was being sarcastic and referencing the thread :vDDD
>>3858710snap, i see what you did there, damnit, getting slow
>>3858454"I'm going to outsource my opinions and thoughts to someone else"-Anon>>3858080>>3858102>>3858113The thing you manipulate is the presentation of the subject, and most of that happens exactly when you take the shot. You don't get it because you don't take photos, so all you see is shit that's already taken and then being manipulated in post
>>3858707same fag cringe
painting is not art because people paint walls and cars sometimes
>>3858431yes pedophiles consistently make me angry
>>3858415The lot of you all should be publicly executed.
>>3858893Imagine having shit like this saved on your computer or phone lmao
>>3857014Is it so wrong to enjoy the cold?
>>3858905Imagine having anything saved in your computer.Go cloud!
>>3858415
>>3859232Nice selfie
>>3857087>>3857062>incels bad
>>3861624Spot the lie incel
>>3861624Name two (2) good things about incels
>>3861627>>3861629lol that was quickstop being obsessed with people who don't have sex anons its not healthy
>>3857020Based and jokerpilled. Keep doing you, they don't know what you've been through and they're just hating mindlessly
>>3861630>adhom responsetypical
Bad art is still art. Your argument is stupid.
>>3863293He didn't claim it was bad art, he claimed it wasn't art. And I agree with him with a caveat, photography can be art but the passive act of taking a photograph is not. Terry Richardson is an artist, if arguably a bad one.
>>3863298>He didn't claim it was bad art, he claimed it wasn't art.Exactly...
