Interesting question. In my opinion, many forms of art have been undermined by the use of computer technologies, including photography, film, music, poetry, and prose. On the other hand, if it weren't for computer technology, I probably wouldn't be jumping into the photography medium as much as I am, simply due to the fact that I have space for a PC, but not for a darkroom. I also use a digital camera, because it's cheaper than getting things developed by a third pary. I don't think the technology is really what undermines the art, it's the people who use the technology, and how they use it. Poetry and prose, for example, are much easier to create and distribute, thanks to computers, but that doesn't mean the author knows how to write.

No matter the medium, computer or "traditional", I think this is the case. Animation, in my mind, is an art. Cartoons are not. The creators of both use the same tools. The same can be said for photography or film.

-Taltos

Just as a moot point, the reason for the "jungle" pic above is to point out how it can be a "computerized jungle" out there for good old snappy, hehe ;-) Um...well, you just put me onto another question now, which is, why do you think cartoons are not art?? I have seen it suggested many times in many places of late, even HERE at Renderosity, that photography is not really an art, much like you say about cartoons. One person recently asked why we even have a photography gallery here. I thought that was very benign. I don't agree on both counts, I happen to feel both are art forms only differing medium types, and very signifigant in their own rights. But I won't elaborate, I am curious how others feel instead of stealing this with my own opinions ;-)

I'm comming down from a sugar rush . So please excuse my typos and lack of coherentness. Peter- did you mean Benign or malignant-RE: The comment about photography. I think I sould say it makes plenty of sense for there to be a photo gallery. 3D medium frequently reguires photographs for use as textures. I suppose one could create the textures by painting but that is I believe VERY difficult. I'm amazed how few people seem to attempt their own textures from pictures. Cartoons are a form of animation. I'm not sure I understand Taltos's point. Assuming I did understand how animation and cartoon's are different I would say both are a form of art. Which brings up the question of when is a creation NOT art? I don't think photography has been undermined. If one believes Pure photography ( IE film only. ) has been lost as a medium by computers I think they are placing the cart before the horse. The use of film as a medium to create has simply been supported through the use of computers. I would think many early photographers would be quite pleased to see what can be performed. To say photography has been lessened by computers is like saying "pure painting" has been lessened by mixed media. Is photography less of an art because there are movies? I think not. Is photography less of an art because there are color pictures not just b/w I still think not. ect ect. Peter-While I agree with you, one should know what they are doing. The progress of techniques does not lessen the medium. It does make it more prevalent. I suppose my sentiment is that "Now everyone can be an amatuer photographer". As opposed to there are now less photographers. Bsteph

It's funny that you picked up on my animation/cartoon comparison, because I started thinking about it after I had posted the thought. There really is very little difference in how they are produced, much like there is very little difference in an artistic photograph and a snapshot. I guess the difference lies in how it is used, or maybe how it is viewed. The animation in Pink Floyd's "The Wall" I consider art, while the cartoon "South Park", while it may be amusing, I don't consider art. I don't really consider the cartoon "Scooby Doo" to be art, but I've seen artistic pieces done, by the same animators, using the same characters.

I think it runs into the ages old question of what is art. One man or woman's nude shot becomes someone else's pornography. It just depends on how you look at it.

Hmm... I've become awfully philosophical. That doesn't happen often!

Anyway, I guess the simple answer to your original question is, no, there is no simple anwer. My opinion is that photography is not being undermined, any more than any other art form is.

I like BSteph's question of when is something not art. Maybe every creation is art, it's just that some of them are my artsy (arty?) than others?

Hehehe, oh boy, that word benign, I forgot that it could be taken two different ways. I meant the benign as in TUMOR, when a tumor is benign it means that it will not spread or grow. For someone to suggest that photography or any form of "creativity" is not art or a valid medium towards artistic merits is a thought of stagnation, for it leaves no room for growth and utilization of all those wonderful innovations and/or tools of learning available to us as artists. There is so much at our disposal in the world of art and although we cannot possibly be expected to learn each and every form of medium to our hearts content, that does not mean that they have no purpose or role as value or nourishment to the way we look at things and play out our roles and talents as artists. There was a time when photography stood out strong as a major competitor for fine art, which really should never have been the case as far as I am concerned personally, because I feel the two aid and nurture one another extremely well. Today it has become more a battle of wits between Digital Art and Fine Arts, the feud is still quite similar but instead of having a major role as a contestant, photography has been kind of swept in with digital art somewhere and has no real stamina on its' own merits anymore even though it is still a very signifigant "differential" in many ways. This is how it "appears" to be far too often among computer arts people who think photography is just a shot in the dark and not real art; in behind the scenes one cannot even take a legit art course without photography 101 and yet there is nothing at all about digital art as a pre-requisit...strange how backwards it all seems?? Again I find that Digital VS Fine Art is a rather sad stumbling block because I feel that once again the opportunity for a healthy relationship of creativity combining two prominents may well be missed far too often by bias and insecurity and a refusal to grow.

I double posted with you TaltosVT, not trying to ignore you, I am reading you post now. I think this "healthy discussion" is actually quite thought provoking and considerably signifigant in various ways cause it touches on many things too often just ignored and left to fester on ;-)

I would boldly suggest that everything could be considered art...even a plastic bag dancing in a breeze, to use a cinematic reference. It is all in the eye of the beholder as to wether it has any asthetic value or not, like in music, some people like techno, some like Bach, some even like Frank Zappa...Sure, I know what I like, but I would not presume what others may like or not...someone recently complimented some of my works but said they "hated" some of my other stuff...how can you generate so much negative vibes over an image? Hmmm...all this really is in the realm of philosophy and has been debated ever since people have been able to reproduce images in any form...as for the computer...I feel it is merely a sophisticated tool, how we use it is up to us! IMHO I don't think we need to worry about Photography being undermined...Just look at some of the images we see in our own Photography gallery!

P.S. Sorry about the typos. BTW - I realise that when people say they "hate" something it can just be a phrase they happen to use, but it's a rather strong term. I was more amused by the concept than offended... This is an interesting discussion Peter, but it's premise of a "simple question" is anything but! LOL! I like your camera in the computer jungle image too. :-)>

Well, true enough, I can't argue there, LOL. But I suppose what bothers me is even I myself, thinking back, how long has it been since I actually used a camera in preference to a computer?? And why?? I used to love my camera. Have computers made me forget all the wonders one can do with photography alone?? In reality if we think about it, it is still cheaper to have a home studio with lighting and props and get a real model rather than build your own from scratch and have to not only buy something like 3D studiomax or maya, but then take the time to learn it well enough to create something so very intricate and so real. Same could go for props and animals and scenery as well. Yet when it comes down to it Digital Art does seem to snub its' nose somewhat at photography; I am only going by the mood, I have heard it said, (and not in any particular place, just a general whereabouts), that photography as a medium on its' own is passe' and not as artistically creative in the eyes of the wow computer generation. I actually beg to differ. I think on a visual basis both have very similar ideals and realistically one can aid the other perspectfully and with versatility. The other thing that bothers me is on one end you get the snubbery of CG versus photography, and on the other spectrum you get fine art VS CG. Fine art used to have it in for photography, now it appears as if photography is more acceptable yet CG is not even near a standard unless your going into animation or games. It is almost as if one is concerned the other will take something away from the other, instead of working hand in hand as it should be and as I am certain many, many artists do anyways. What a fun world of art we live in LOL ;-) Tools, that is really all it is about, and I don't know why one has to be better or worse or wrong or righter than the other, it's what we would find more feasable economically, and what meets our needs or works best for whatever moment or project we are doing, no? I think the more mediums we open our creativity to, the better chance we may have to appreciate all possibilities and make it easier to attain our end results with our art; the more tools at our disposal the better. That is just my own opinion, my own two cents for whatever its worth ;-)

I like your two cents worth, and I agree with your sentiments...in the end, people talk, artists create...

:-)>

When you say that almost "anything" creative can be art, tis true I think, and I am certain Andy Warhol fans would rejoice, LOL. However, I still also believe there are scales or intensities of art or creativity. Can one compare a Leonardo Da Vinci painting to an Andy Warhol mock up and even dare suggest Andy's wall full of coke bottles is as good or better than a Mona Lisa, to ME one just nullifies the other although I do agree that they are BOTH art, it is just what I may see as more creative as another may be different from what someone else may percieve. The Govt. once paid three million or more for a mural of three straight colored lines going sideways to hang in our proud City Hall, probably because someone had no taste or they needed to minimize their budget or this artist was someone real special. I may sound pretty ignorant saying that and even biased, but I am not trying to be, I just think there are intensities to creativity and not all of them are the same in all of us as artists and least of all in those that are artists' customers or viewing public. Art is like music in many ways, someone's dirt is someone elses pleasantry. But at least music does somewhat work hand in hand?? Or does it??? Opera and Rock? Country and Western and Pop?? Hehehe....they do learn from each other though, artistic mediums can too. CG art and photography are very similar in many ways and really can compliment each other in so many variations ;-)

[in the end, people talk, artists create...]....I like that...well said ;-)

Honestly, I try not to get into these sorts of topics because they mostly run around in circles and do not have a concrete resolution. I agree with PunkClown, this question is never simple. I do not want to argue anymore (although I'm so tempted to contest the "cartoon" statement LOL), and the previous posts have already covered a lot of the arguments. I'd just like to share the way I see this world of creativity we move in. In the introduction of photography, somebody once said it is the death of the painting. Now photography is threatened to extinction by digital art. Then again, "Art" (however we define it) survives. Fine art is still here to stay, and so is photography. It has gone a long way evolving, but it has never put any of its forms to extinction. Fine art and photography still thrive, even though newer media seems to be more popular. The combination of traditional and new technology can give birth to new forms. Who knows, this may be a new form but we just don't have comfortable names to label it with? As _Peter put it, in the end artists create. It's the people who "uncreate" who undermine other ideas, not the art form. (*

Back from work, checking in to see how our philisophical musings are going! LOL! Comparing DaVinci to Andy Warhol...I loved that intellectual exersise! Of course what you said was right Peter

"what I may see as more creative as another may be different from what someone else may percieve." It's like comparing apples and oranges...and these different vehicles of different artist's visions suit different people depending on your taste!
As Star said, fine art and photography still thrive and years down the track when our children's children are creating ectoplasmic visions out of plasma using only their brain waves...they will still endure, I'm sure! LOL!! Take care everyone, and stay creative!
Viva la Difference!

...I just had a scary thought...they're not doing that already, are they? (the ectoplasmic visions thing) It's just I haven't been keeping up with the latest trends you know... ;-)>

I came across this topic last night, in my time frame, but felt too tired to join in then. Which is probably just as well, since Punkclown and Peter have now expressed views that pretty much match my own. Personally, I think trying to define 'art' is an exercise in frustration. I think people have different standards for what they will accept as art in different media and I think this has much to do with what they perceive as the skill required to use that medium. Fundamentally, painting and photography are both just recording media, a means to a produce an image. Almost everyone can take a faithful record of a scene using a camera, while far fewer have the skill to produce an equally faithful record using conventional 'art' materials. Place the two images side by side and I would guess that most people would accept the painting as 'art', largely irrespective of it's quality, but not the photograph. For the photograph to be accepted as art, in the past at least, the photographer must first demonstrate mastery of the media, in terms of framing, lighting, mood and tonality. In other words, to demonstrate skills that take photography beyond a simple recording medium. I think terms like 'creativity' and 'intensity' are also very relevant, but, arguably, have more to do with what people will define as 'good' or 'bad' art, rather than with the fundamental acceptance of whether an 'image' is art, or not. If you accept that perceived skill is a factor in this debate, then I think there is a simple answer to Peter's question. Yes, the computer is undermining the perception of photography as an 'art' form. The skill of many renowned photographers was not confined to the point at which they released the shutter, but was probably even more evident in their darkroom technique. While programs like Photoshop, do not reduce the knowledge required for good 'darkroom' technique, they do, from personal experience, make that knowledge more accessible and lower the skill level and dedication required to apply that knowledge. I think this is a point Peter, himself effectively made in a an earlier post and I can't help wandering if that prompted this question ? I'm not too concerned whether people regard my work as 'art' or not. Personally, I don't. I like to create 'images', first and foremost for my own pleasure and satisfaction. If sharing those images arouses some emotion in others, then that is a bonus, even more so if it is a positive emotion :) I started using Ultra Fractal a little over 12 months ago and the worst thing I did was to try and change my style to match the skill of others. I got so frustrated that I didn't use the program again for a long time. Oddly enough I tend to use UF in a style that mimics photography. is that undermining the 'art' of fractals ? :) Take care all, Mike

Thank you for all your inputs, this is an interesting topic although also very frustrating ;-) Branden, you are right in a sense. Me posting a picture I did in a darkroom long ago and the replies I got did kind of prompt me to ask this. As well a few too many folks asking time and time again about the relevance photography has on an art site, (that just bothers me to no end). And what's more, the opposite side of that coin; just for interest sake I did some research recently, went to several art colleges to inquire what all the credits are that one needs to get into a final year as an 'advanced' student so that maybe someone can get an art degree with substance to hang on a wall and one of those nifty graduation hats to wear to smart parties and being told that 'photography' is still one BIG wampum major criteria as background for any major art program, (in fact forget it if you don't have this). Digital or computer generated art is NOT, they don't even ask and half of them don't even wanna know about it or hear about it. Take care ;-)

Um...let me step back into this for a moment please, let me backtrack for a moment cause I erred here immensly in some aspects. "Digital Art", there actually is 'very much' of this that one needs to be a successful all star artist of quality and wanton noteriety. Can anyone say Adobe? And more Adobe, and yet even more Adobe and then some, and even more of some, and many, many, many more of some Adobe?!! Thank goodness I have indeed been worshipping the God of Adobe for many years because Adobe IS a God indeed, as is basic Photography, as is Life Drawing. Adobe products are considered 'digital art', and in fact they are termed as '3D art', contrary to what many in our 3D worlds seem to have established as 2D art as in postwork and after effects is in fact considered the 'creator' of "3D ARTWORK EXTRAORDINAIR", one of the most ESSENTIAL tools next to the camera and hands and imagination, odd, perplexing strangeness indeed, my brain became eggnog for a short time in awe. Now I will not even try to get into the strange, dull, glassy piercing looks of disapproval I recieved when mentioning some of the high end, (or heavens even low end), 3D softwares, but I do need to tell you I was rather 'stunned' and thrown into some realism unprepared for. Apparently one place even had a Maya course as an extra once but due to lack of interest because it was not an essential criteria, they discontinued that course. Seems many of our good tools are not well established as yet, or just plain frowned upon, or considered extra's that you play with after you get that Grad hat... Have a cool day, I have to go sacrifice some fruits of my labor to the God of Adobe...;-)