There's  an increasing trend to photograph wall art (murals and graffiti) and post it in the Photography Gallery. Unfortunately, most of these uploads  are being relocated to the 2D Gallery. 

If you want to show us street art...show us the street or building or something... Make it a part of the street scene. Same with posters on the wall or a painting in an art gallery...

When it is photographed as a flat piece of art work and a single subject, it no longer has the 3rd dimension. 

Three dimensions minus one equals... 2D Gallery.

I think art in the 2D gallery should be BY the artist, so unless the wall art is a product of the RR artist, it should maybe be in the snapshot gallery!
What do you think?
Andrea

Hee...being a devils advocate here, what D is this wall painting in Frederick, Maryland?

travel.webshots.com/photo/1109094804038887408eXLvhX

Compared to 3d digital images, this is simply done without the digital with paint.

I do agree photos of art or posters, etc., need some surrounding material.  And, one needs to consider © violations possible.

Tom, you do like to poke with that pitchfork, huh - you "devil's advocate" you.   :-)  Well, I did have an image I was reviewing not long ago that was a 3D painting. Images like that are certainly considered on an individual basis.

Andrea, the problem with keeping the 2D Gallery for only the artist's own work, is what do you do with other people's 2D?  In Photography, we created the Snapshot Gallery to handle posts of other than the member's own work...so do we create another gallery option to choose from for other people's 2D creations?  People have so many gallery options now they have trouble choosing the one just right for them. 

I do understand what you are saying though, but until there is a better system for further dividing up the galleries into specialty areas, we just have to work with what we have.  2D is anything with height, width but no depth...flat art, regardless of creator.  As Tom says though...be aware of copyrighted art when posting.

To go back to other peoples 2D....it so much depends on context....Bill has very skillfully taken pics of WW1 posters, should they be in 2D, even though they required technical know-how in photography? 
I have just finished digifiddling a photo of some plants in my garden to make the image FLAT...but at least it's my work, whichever gallery I put it in.
I see no point in posting other folks' work without the context unless it is as sort of holiday snaps, or unless it has been reworked in someway.   Such an interesting subject and .....
A minefield, PJ! 
It's a bit like one of the questions in my degree exams! 
Something like"To make art you must do something new, or do something old in a new way" Discuss.
What fun!
Andrea

I frankly don't care whether it's labeled either Photography or 2D, if the usual people that visit my gallery (and maybe some more) go on visiting it in any case. After one of my photos was moved to the 2D gallery (the one with the Roman mosaic) I considered that gallery for the first time. I'm sorry to say that before I haven't given it a thought, and missed very good artists. However, I was puzzled to see works that hadn't very much in common with my mosaic floor. The other side of the coin is that they gave me some ideas I'll experiment sooner or later. As to the 'flat' aspect of the work, what about the 'trompe d'oeil' whch feigns the three dimensions in Italian art? should I post an example of it in order to give you an idea?
One more remark: there'll always be a grey area between the sections, and therefore numberless arguments about this issue (or others). I'm working on a website of mine abouth anthropological issues, and we divided it into a (very short) number of sections: we are already struggling with the problem of putting some articles in which section. I suppose that some sense and the old good thumb rule should reign, but in a controversial case, one should blame the color grey/gray. even its spelling is controversial! ;-)

Sorry for the preaching, Ciao,

Sandra

Bottom line, if you are going to post images of "wall art" or Graffiti, it needs to be shown in context..

There is some really cool stuff out there, and I don't want anyone to feel they can't share images of it..

Just make sure you include enough building or wall or something so everyone knows what it is..

What you shoot for your self is your own business..We're just trying to be consistent  with the galleries.

From the FAQ in the 2D gallery here at Renderosity;

"Q: What about Photography?
A: While the art of photography also produces two-dimensional images, again the tools required for and the process for producing images are quite different from drawing/painting. Renderosity offers a fine Photography forum and gallery for photo-buffs.

Q: When might we see CG-3D or Photography in the 2D Graphics forum?
A: Both CG-3D and Photography items are welcome if the 3D/Photo aspects were used as a "base" from which to build upon. If your final image was completed freehand, using paints/pencils or a digital paint program, for more than simple "post-render touch-ups," please share it! "

 

Sandra, please see the link on my post earlier in this thread.  We had the same thought about trompe d'oeil.   This is a place we visited by accident in 2003.  I have many images of the wonderful painting.

When I upload an image, I choose gallery and then genre.  Where does the image fall for me?  It falls right into my gallery.  Sure, folks browsing the various methods galleries may find my image but  I suspect most who will visit and view and perhaps comment will do so in my personal gallery, where all methods are combined into a single gallery representing my work.  That is fine with me. I do not see much in lost viewers if I go to 2D or Photo.  

Whether or not a painting has 3d qualities, it is still 2D. The honestly flat looking paintings I have seen are mostly terrible work...or a face I tried to paint once..the man who was stopped suddenly by a glass wall. ..also terrible waste of acrylics.  ; )

I suppose the fine distinction is between software which emulates 3D or 2D renders.  No one questions that paint on gesso is 2D, even if it happens to be quite superior to a similar scene done digitally in a 3D software.  The distinction appears more method than dimensionality and that is appropriate.

Dear Tom,  I agree with you. I may add that actually everything which is inside a screen is by its nature a 2D piece. Do you remember those movies with the faces of ghosts coming out of walls? if something comes out of my screen, that's the 3rd dimension. Which means, logically, that also the so-called 3D artwork actually is 2D. Sorry if someone thinks I am a sophist, but  I love discussing for argument's sake, maybe because of all the philosophy I studied at the grammar school (high school or lycée) In my opinion, too few people out of the many photographers in the galleries, participate to a debate. In truth, Andrea's jokingly put question about art innovation or invention has been buzzing aroung my skull like an angry bee since I read it! Again for argument's sake, I'm posting a photo I made in Rome. It's a famous piece of trompe d'oeil. According to the categories in RR if I cut the marble door frame off, it's 2D, but if I leave it, it's a photo, if I understand well. OK, and the artist's intention? In those centuries patrons and artists alike loved practical jokes, so if someone wrongly took it for a door and asked the monk room to pass through, to put it in a 2D category would have meant to spoil the joke and the merriment. Of course, I'm also joking. What I can't understand, not even to save my life, is why those who organized RR decided for so many categories. Is there a historian of RR that remembers that? Although I myself am not a Catholic, I live in a Catholic country. A thing that has always been a problem for the priests is putting down a satisfactory categorization of sins and penances for the use of confessors. I can't tell you here the number of dirty jokes about it, because someone in RR may have a fit of convulsions. But I can tell you a very good one if you like, privately. What I mean is that this categorization, which the Jesuits transformed into an artform because of its subtlety, still is unsatisfactory. Maybe, if here categories were fewer, or the reasons why they exist were known and obvious, maybe fewer people would put their posting in the wrong category. I suppose it has less to do with art, and more with turf. The moderators for the different categories aren't the same people, and maybe some of them  may be annoyed that what S/he considers as belonging to his/her turf is sent to another one's. But this is only worthless guesswork, probably.I've spent too much time in politics, and I know turf wars too well ;-). Tell me what you think of this shot. I confess that I had to look more than twice to the one you sent before realizing the gate was painted and nor a 3D gate. Really impressive!!! Ciao Sandra

 I think the main aim of it not being in the photography gallery falls within the same argument as copyright - it simply isnt your art... I'd go one step further and say that your photo posted above is not your art even with the frame and bit of floor.  you are effectively showcasing someone elses art and not creating any yourself...  That should be the deciding factor in whether it should be allowed in the photography gallery at all.  I also think this would allow for those who take photos of their own art to showcase here in the 2d gallery... easy distinction (and hence why it was mentioned earlier that it is on a case by case basis...)

Now - say you put someone else into the frame interacting with the art on the wall, now that would be ok, in my view, as you are taking somone elses art and interacting with it, thus creating your own...

Incidentally is that monk giving us the two finger salute?! 

Dear inshaala,
First, the monk is pointing at St. Bruno on the door. He is a  monk belonging to the Carthusian Order. The two fingers area pointing at the silence vow and the work vow typical of these monasteries. In fact, this life-size painting is in the cloister of a former Carthusian monastery built transforming part of the tepidarium of Emperor's Diocletianus' Baths. The cloister and a church using part of this ancient Roman series of buildings was designed and partly built by Michelangelo when he was about 80 yo.
Second, I find a philosophical flaw in your argument.When you say: ' you are effectively showcasing someone elses art and not creating any yourself', I counter argument that this is also true of a photo of a statue. I didn't carve the statue, ergo, (following your reasoning),** it shouldn't be allowed in the photography gallery at all**. The same is true of buildings, shop-windows, museum items, billboards ane so on. I didn't made them, therefore, 'it simply isnt your art... ', you say, and hence it should go in the 2D or some other (?) category.
I frankly think it more coherent the distinction made by RR about flat or non-flat, in comparison with your distinction. As a matter of fact, my photo actually reproduces what is called a 2.5D, In fact it exploits a part which is 3D, that it the marble doorframe, the step and a wooden door (transformed into  an illusory shelf-case with false objects painted inside it. So it isn't the fact that I photographed a bit of the frame and the step which makes it a photo, but the fact that the artist himself made it a 3D image, using architectural items such as a real door which had been closed!
This technicque was very fashionable during the late Renaissance, and later copied at least until the 18th century. In many churches, for example, they used to create false domes by painting them around real windows. A typical example is that of the Church of St. Ignace of Loyola, the founder of the Jesuit order, in Rome.
I hope someone goes on and finds other interesting examples of art to discuss about, not to question the categories here in RR, but simply for the love of a good forum thread.
Ciao,
Sandra

I'm posting a more complete view of the monk framed by the door and the context. BTW, I'm thinkong to post this monk also in the framed shots challenge! ;-)

Sandra, in this distant view of the work the monk comes alive in dimension, as intended when  was painted.  Putting all together works for a very intriguing image.

Sandra, in this distant view of the work the monk comes alive in dimension, as intended when  was painted.  Putting all together works for a very intriguing image.

a building is the work of the architect, a statue that of the sculptor etc - i wasnt questioning that fact.  Take a photo of a sculpture which removes it from its setting (ie black backdrop and even lighting) and yes it shouldnt be part of the photography gallery - however with buildings and scuplture it is extremely difficult to depict these 3d objects out of their environment - i challenge you to try taking a photo of anything 3d (which is immovable into a studio setting) which doesnt incorporate its surroundings or present a perspective which can be seen as interpretative by the viewer of the photograph.

For instance - try taking a photo of the London Eye without getting in the rest of the london skyline.  I have a photo in my gallery of the London Eye (Eye to the Sky) but it is an abstraction of the whole "building" and thus my own interpretation and thus my own art.  I also have two very different photos using St Pauls Cathedral as the focal point which incorporates other bits of "art" (ie the milenium bridge and surrounding buildings) to make it my own (St PaulsII or St Pauls)

Logically extending your argument to the limits of credulity - we made nothing in this world and therefore it is not ours to photograph and create art.  Everything we take a photo of was created by someone or something else  and therefore the photography gallery should not exist on those terms...(i have a photo of some gummi bears in my gallery - they were made by someone else (well - probably a machine) - does that mean it isnt my art?)

My reasoning was that a 2d peice of art can only be viewed as a 2d object and thus a flat photo of a painting etc is just copying the artist's work.  If the painter of your 2.5d peice decided that the use of the frame and floor were interacting with his art and made use of it, then that too is included in the "art" you are copying.  Just as if you took a photo of my photo of St Pauls (which incorporates more than one object of art / creation by an author) so to does your photo of this 2.5d work as the author incorporated the frame into the art (which was probably made by someone else)...

I will simply stick to the means by which the image was created as the definition of gallery..i.e., a photograph in a photo gallery, an image reasonably considered a 2D in that gallery and one created by 3D graphics in those galleries.   I would think an experiment in 3D photography would go in the photo galleries, since it is essentially photographs.

The ownership of a piece of art is another consideration and not to be confused with galley classification of the item.  How an item is presented may very well determine free usage or violation of ownership rights.  The Eiffel Tower at night lighting is one possible example.

Now, to have more fun, I might re-read the posts from Sandra and Rich....

Tom - i think the ownership of the piece of art is key to understanding whether it is a photograph (the ownership lying with the photographer) or a piece of 2D art, meaning the ownership lying outwith the photographer and the photographer only making digitisation of the art possible...

Yet, if that be so of ownership, the 2D art of which you speak by difinition should not be in the "2D" gallery on this website.

Yes, there must be some interaction of the photographer to bring the image beyond the status of  blatant copy or even well intentioned copy.

I will have to check out the snapshot gallery to see if other party photos truly are workable there.

To be honest, they snapshot gallery never really became what it was intended to be..

We used to have a "members"  gallery before the PHP conversion..It was just a place to share casual photos..Pictures of your self, party  pics..things like that.

Snap shot was also supposed to be like a "little brother" to the photo gallery.. A place for non-photographer to share stuff.. There are some folks who are afraid to post here because of the quality of the work in our gallery !!

What we as staff do see, is a member who posts a very nice photo, then we read their son,daughter or husband took the picture..

Even if they have permission  go ahead and post it...is that really fair to the photographers here?

I really think snapshot needs a name change and to be re-invented..More like a friends and family gallery. I think stuff like that is a good community building tool..

As to the entire 2D debate..

I think the second Q&A that Gradient made reference to is a decent statement..

I'm not sure who wrote those..

The rule of thumb we use is when an image no longer resembles a photo.. It's not really specific..
I could run a photo thru a single filter in photoshop and make it no longer look like a photo..

The bottom line is, this is a Photography Gallery..

It's for your original Photographs..I don't want this discussion to turn into a a big issue.. It seems we have some strong beliefs on both sides of the aisle here.

I am however glad to see this going on becuase it helps the staff to to understand the feeling with in our community..

I’d like to add some more remarks to this debate. First of all, I want to sum up the fact that the debate is currently gone well beyond the 2D/Photography Galleries distinction, which is, in my opinion, a non-problem. I think that those who devised this division, had practical reasons that, on the whole, still have their usefulness. Of course, every division into categories has its pros and cons, but Tom’s criterion, that is according ‘to the means by which the image was created as the definition of gallery’, is OK, because it has the added value of simplicity.

Now, I’m going to consider Rich’s arguments against my 2.5D Monk. Firstly, I’d like to point out that I didn’t logically extend my argument ‘to the limits of credulity’. On the contrary, I submitted YOUR argument to a reductio ab absurdum, stretching it to its ultimate consequences. Secondly, you move the playground from categories to ‘what’s art’ and say: ‘you are effectively showcasing someone else’s art and not creating any yourself.’ Hence, it shouldn’t ‘be allowed in the photography gallery at all.’ The reason according to your argument is that it isn’t art, but a copy of someone else’s art. Here you make photography and art equal.
Moreover, you chose to ignore the fact that I presented ‘a perspective which can be seen as interpretative by the viewer of the photograph.’ In fact, I showed a slanted POV and a cropping which left out parts of the work in the 1st photo, while I presented the same piece of artwork in a context and from a deep field POV in the 2nd one. Yet, you absolved yourself from the sin of showcasing someone else’s art when you explained your interpretation of two items of London’s cityscape, even if you made similar choices.

Third, you equalize copyright and art. It’s a simplistic view of the issue, in my opinion. Wiligelmo was an Italian sculptor, active between c. 1099 and 1120, who first signed his work after the Fall of the Roman Empire. The idea of an individualized artist, the ancestor of the notion of copyright, starts in Italy with the first hints of self-awareness of the mercantile middle classes in the Middle Ages, but it develops fully only in the Western World and in a mature capitalist environment. At least since the WTO Uruguay Round copyright has been subject to the toughest negotiation, which is still going on. The idea of the originality of the work of art is both pretty recent , and is currently threatened by the artists themselves. Copies were perfectly fine with the Romans (think of the Discobolus), and the Victorian world relished in replicas, copies and so forth. Originality was born with the Romantic movement, and re-discovered with the Arts and Crafts movement in the mid-19th century. They protested against the mechanization and reproduction of art. In other words, they protested against photography, among the other things. In fact, as a very good article posted by Kort showed, photographers were considered humble craftspeople at least until WW2, and until the 1950s, only B/W photos were taken into consideration as artistic products. Then there was the freedom from these constraints carried out by Andy Warhol, who ‘copied’ the Campbell Soup’s logo/label, and reproduced it in series. On the other side of the Ocean, Baudrillard, Eco and the post-modern, hyperrealist thought has finally liberated photography from the dire straits of highbrow artistic/arthritic consumption.

Since I’m afraid you’re snoring after all that, I’ll stop here, and I won’t speak of the idea of ‘aura’ of super photographed places such as St. Paul’s or the Grand Canyon, or the fact that there is a movement to copyright the ‘genre’ (katchinas, rugs) or the ethnic ownership (art, genes, domestication of plants, etc.) in the negotiations about copyright/human/cultural rights.

 Evidently you are more versed in the facts and history of this debate and it seems to overshadow my ignorance of those matters but i'm just calling it as i see it without embellishment.

With caution i'll proceed with the caveat that text based discussions never work out for the simple reason of interpreting other's words.  Your part on photography equaling art for instance seemed to me to be a point you were trying to make in support of your argument but in fact it was the crux of mine - so i am a little confused... are you making a distinction between art (as in paintings and the "classical" sense of the word) and photography, or are you using "art" as the all encompassing meaning?

Also, the context of the painting was clearly that of being placed where it was and thus was part of the painter's art and interaction (think of "installation" art for instance - i'm particularly thinking of the Goldfish in a blender one in that the artist foresaw interaction with another object (namely a human turning the blenders on)) - re read my last paragraph - i apologise if it isnt easy to follow but it makes that point.  Thus, in the first photo especially, you are copying the painter's intended interaction with the world and viewers response (and art can be argued (separately) to be defined as being something which elicits a cognitive/emotional response) and thus his art, however the second photo i made no explicit reference to and in fact could be interpreted as your own work using my standpoint.

Anyway - i recently got into a discussion with a philosopher and he took the "keep asking questions" route to the argument to my frustration and i realised then that it is futile to argue something when you are continuously wanting to refine definitions and premises so that your whole argument stands up (we were debating the existence of "society" and the dynamics of choice and evolution within one (if it so exists)).  Coming to the conclusion that there is hardly anything you can attribute a single premise and thus reasoning for, i think we have hit on one of those things...  

I accept there are flaws in my argument -  for instance you could question whether the architect of the London Eye decided that he would design the big wheel to interact with the sky above, in whatever conditions you were in - in which case my abstraction photo is a copy of his work (i would argue otherwise - but the point can still be made and not realistically contested).

one thing my philosopher friend said after our discussion was that he apologised and that for him it was just an intellectual game because taking the stance of asking questions to poke holes in an argument was the easiest stance to take... it seems you are doing the same.  You know my standpoint, and just like the existence of the unknown, i am ok with imperfect knowledge and imperfect paradigms / reasoning (as long as they go 95% of the way there for me... and in this case they do for explaining why your first photo is not art and merely a representation in digital format of someone else's, making it not a part of the photography gallery in my view (your triptych, however, is another matter...)) - lawyers and philosophers form part of our "society" for a reason - the rest of us have other things to be getting on with ;)

"- lawyers and philosophers form part of our 'society' for a reason - the rest of us have other things to be getting on with ;)"  Yes, indeed, me knowing more of the first batch including one who is not twisted enough to be screwed directly into the earth following his demise. 

I will leave any remaining parts of this debate to the more knowledgeable and better wordsmiths than I will ever be and simply make a comment for Bruce about the Snapshot Gallery.    Bruce, the idea of a "family and friends and others" gallery makes good sense and I believe a rename (with and inviting inviting name) and a bit of in-site publicity might make it work where snapshot has not.

In hindsight, it is easy to see why non-photographers would not want to post.  I certainly would not be posting my VUE work any more readily!   Yikes..   :  )  And, I would  not want it in my gallery.  Any chance of the possible newly named gallery to accept images without the images going in the uploader's personal gallery by choice?

I'm not sure I understand the last question Tom

Bruce, I thought a different name would be a good idea. A name more like your suggestion and getting away from Snapshot might invite more folks to post basic fun images.

I will try to explain my last question.  Any post I make to my image gallery, regardless of the gallery it goes into be it photography, fractal or something else will show as a part of my personal image gallery.

I think there are possibly images I would post in a "friends and family"(or whatever) gallery that would almost by definition not be the stuff I would want in my personal image gallery.  So, the question is:  Could a casual gallery such as a renamed snapshot gallery be set up to take images  without the image being posted in my personal image gallery?   I know, this might be getting picky and is only a suggestion.

Thanks.       Tom.

Tom's question brings me back to the suggestion I made to Renderosity several years ago...that being to implement the ability to segregate one's "own" gallery into different sections....ie, one section to Terragen, one section into Photography, one section into "snapshot", one section into 2D, etc.....

That way a viewer wishing look at a person's Terragen images for example....would not have to wade through all of the photos and Bryce images....

DeviantArt has a "Scrapbook" as part of people's galleries.  Works quite well for that kind of thing - your out takes and general family photos and things can go there - up to the member to choose.

So, PJ, you began this thread with a straight forward direction to place two-dimensional art in the 2D gallery...even though photography has been used.

Follow-on comments have really fogged the original issue for me. As you know, I do have several World War I vintage posters in my gallery (probably six or so). I am not claiming the posters themselves as my art per se...I wasn't around in 1918:-)

They weren't easy to photograph...had to figure out how to capture them without all kinds of reflections from  the plain old reflective glass cases they are in.

To me they are historic artifacts.

There are no copyright issues. I checked with the museum.

Here are two recent examples:

1. http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1958717&user_id=585430&member&np

2. http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1959203&comment_page=2#comments

Elsewhere in the museum I photographed an ancient tank, old artillery pieces, rifles, etc. The posters were just another interesting artifact to me. They have been well received by those who have commented on them in the Photography Gallery.

I don't have any problem with moving them to 2D. However, I don't believe they belong in the snapshot gallery.

Any directions for me? Always willing to cooperate.

Bill:)

Wow are those neat posters....I am not official anything here but it looks like a case of..,
yikes, I don't know.    I will like to read any thoughts on your post, too.