Absolutely, I love manipulating images at uni. A friend of mine did a fantastic piece recently, in the colour dark room, brought out three prints onto one, in colour using black and white negatives. Was fabulous. But the option to turn things into 'pop art' seems to be being used a lot these days in photoshop and I don't see that as photography, more of digital manipulation.

I have to say that over the last couple of years I have slowly accepted digital photography and all its benefits but the one aspect of it I cant get my head round is HDR stuff, just looks a bit too cartoony for me, but hey,horses for courses.

Art, and photography as art, is very subjective - no two people will take the same holistic view of the same piece of work; thus the boundaries and rules can be pushed, distorted, broken.

Photography as a technical discipline is slightly different, the license to deviate from technical points and doctrine becomes harder to push.

I think if you even consider the work of some of the rule-breakers - it may in the first instance seem quite off the wall and radical - however, those artists will also be the first to point out some of the strict technical doctrine they have followed to get exactly the shot they want.; most of the time that technical discipline being subtly hidden or disguised by other aspects within the work - that is often intended to deliberately give the impression of departure from convention. That leads us back to the subjectivity argument again....it's very much like two sides of the same coin, but more often clearly interpreted or left open to the viewer to interpret and make those conclusions - all of course dependent upon their depth of knowledge, understanding, technical expertise, etc ...

I like a part of the Qu'arn which says in everything, even in the things which appear to be the ugliest, there is an aspect of true beauty and form.

Isn't art a wonderful thing?

Absolutely, I love art in all its forms. Its a unique way of expressing yourself, and it fascinates me that two people can see one piece and take from it totally different things. I often feel sad that people less fortunate than ourselves aren't able to appreciate things like poetry and art because their countries don't have the funds to allow them to. But what makes me sadder is those who have the opportunities in this country and others, that don't grasp them all by the horns and take every single one!

Deviating slightly....does anyone else think about the meaning of their shots, or is it more aesthetic for you do you think?

I think “art” is a self perpetuating lie.

Art cannot be defined so anyone can claim to be producing “art”.

An animal cut in half and put in a case, a pile of housebricks, the monstrosity of painted scrap iron on Poole Quay that is “representing the sea”, an unmade bed ( I presume if one were to display a well made bed, that could be called art also), canvases with paint just thrown (literally) over them. All these and many more examples are supposedly “art”.

I believe art is a tool for certain people to exclude others, in an attempt to elevate their superior self percieved Knowledge and appreciation. Much the same as computer nerds (and other disciplines) speak in acronyms and gobbledygook to raise their perceived position in society.

Personally I think “art” is a form of elitism that is used not to encompass the vast majority but rather to exclude them.

One of my favourite photographers is Diane Arbus. She does not produce art, just wonderfully thought provoking images that captured the seedier fringes of society in all its rawness. To call her work art would devalue the images in my mind because she tried to illustrate life as it was or a certain sector of the society.

It is not wishy washy images that have to be explained to you before you can understand them (or not). They are hard hitting, pure images, upsetting at times even disturbing.

On the other hand, I can appreciate images from people like Joe Cornish but I still don’t consider them art. They are magical moments in time captured by master tradesman.

Martin Parr is another tog that I admire greatly. He has a view on life that I find just so intriguing. His images make me smile at times; at other times I scratch my head and wonder what the subjects think they are up to. But it is not art. It is a representation of life.

Steve

Maybe it becomes art when at least one other person appreciates it, or 'gets' it?

In which case art is definitely indefinable and if something cannot be defined can it be.

You find your Sony Walkman a delight to use and look at. I also think it is really neat. So is it a work of "art".

Sadly I am not educated well enough or intelligent to have the answers. What I do know is all through my life I have felt alienated by the high faluting arts circles.

Steve

Thats quite a radical opinion, obviously its one that I will disagree with. years ago you had to have lots of money to appreciate true works of art, now even the big galleries are charging a minimal fee for us to look at works both old and new that can be simply breathtaking.

Just because we don't understand something doesn't make it rubbish, it might alter someone else' life completely, it just hasn't had an effect on us personally. For example, does everyone understand Chaucer, no, was he a literary genius, so whats to say that thing things that you don't describe as "art" are not?

And that is my problem with art. It cannot be defined because it is so subjective.

If I throw a container of paint at a wall the resultant splashes, apparently, can be called art. I had very little input into the results because gravity and various other external forces determined where the splashes would land and how they spread.

If a robot arm was programmed to throw the paint, and similar results attained, would that also be art? To me neither is art but to others it is. But who is right?

I see more art in a master craftsman making a wicker basket or carving a shooting stick than I do in supposedly high art but their skills are seldom recognised as art and more as a craft. Elitism?

Steve

ps. Please don't think I am trying to have a go at any individuals here, I'm not. Just expressing an opinion and sometimes I can come over a bit blunt when I don't mean to be.

steve

Steve - you are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo blunt!!

I recently visited both the Tate Modern (again) & the National Gallery on the same day (in that order).

I didnt get to complete the NG because I wasted so much time in the TM trying to work out what half the 'rubbish' (sorry...'Art') was - even with guidance notes and listening to a guide whittling on a right load of twoddle about splashed paint and moods.

I studied art & design and quite frankly my kids have produced much better than much of what I saw in the TM - and they are not mad, eccentric, or deluded (that's just me )

Moreover.... HOW do they (I'm referring to the art elite, I guess) arrive at the ludicrous costs of these pieces of 'art'. It's beyond me.

On the other hand, art IS subjective, and the viewer will often see in it what the artist never even intended.