yaaay first commenter
i love the detail of the bricks
nice work
...everytime

A photograph enters the realm of art only when the photographer puts a part of his or her emotional “self” into his or her image.


Nearly every photographer selects a subject, frames and composes the image, decides when and how to make the exposure and makes decisions on how to present the photograph; so these types of decisions alone do not make a photograph art unless we are ready to concede that all photographs are art.


Merely presenting a subject in an artistic manner does not make it art. Many designers can create beautiful and artistic looking displays with very little thought about it. That is what they are trained to do.


Simply presenting a technically perfect image does not make a photograph art. Many photographers can make nearly every image they take reasonably close to perfection, especially in the controlled environment of the studio.


Art takes great thought and consideration by the artist of what he or she is trying to present to the observer and then how best to make the presentation. In my opinion art requires an interaction between the artist and the observer – and most importantly it must communicate emotion between the artist and the observer, and this emotion must be freely interpretable by the observer.

Here's a quote from John Szarkowski, a former director of the Museum of Modern Art in NYC, that I clipped a couple years ago:

As a way of beginning, one might compare the art of photography to the act of pointing. All of us, even the best-mannered of us, occasionally point, and it must be true that some of us point to more interesting facts, events, circumstances, and configurations than others. It is not difficult to imagine a person—a mute Virgil of the corporeal world—who might elevate the act of pointing to a creative plane, a person who would lead us through the fields and streets and indicate a sequence of phenomena and aspects that would be beautiful, humorous, morally instructive, cleverly ordered, mysterious, or astonishing, once brought to our attention, but that had been unseen before, or seen dumbly, without comprehension. This talented practitioner of the new discipline (the discipline a cross, perhaps, between theater and criticism) would perform with a special grace, sense of timing, narrative sweep, and wit, thus endowing the act not merely with intelligence, but with that quality of formal rigor that identifies a work of art, so that we would be uncertain, when remembering the adventure of the tour, how much of our pleasure and sense of enlargement had come from the things pointed to and how much from a pattern created by the pointer.

I think that does a good job of addressing some of the criticisms that have been posted here this week. Yes, photography is (at least sometimes) a reproductive art, but even "straightforward" reproduction can be a creative act. No pun intended.

Rock/Aaaron: there's something that you both allude to – that "art takes great thought and consideration", and that there's a "pattern created by the pointer" – that's largely missing from most photoblogs; i.e. that the most compelling photography, the most artistic if you like, is that which is presented as a series. The sequential presentation of a single photograph clearly doesn't build a pattern no does it demonstrate "great thought and consideration".

Take Quarlo for example. There the emphasis is very much upon establishing a narrative, a sequence of images that form a pattern. Admittedly, I don't always understand the patterns he creates, but at least he's making the effort.

All of which, I suppose, says more about this form of photoblog than it does about photography or art; i.e. this medium may not be the best way to present our work, at least not always.

It doesn't matter, art or no art, all talk about it has always restricted access and appreciation. Dudes, it it all now more accessible to us all, which is why we do it and why we like it.

Most definitions of art are inward focused. Art also has a socal aspect so I propose a different take on the definition:
1. An object is a piece of art if someone other than the creator says so
AND
2. There's a value transfer involved in owning it, usually a payment to the creator or previous owner.

Anything else is "merely" craft (not worse just different).

So, even if you think you've created a photograph worthy of being called art, unless you can persuade someone else of that, it remains, however beautiful, a piece of craft work. Then, not only does someone have to agree with you, in this modern world they have to part with some of their hard earned to prove it. Caveat: the value transfer doesn't need to be cash, merely a value of some sort .... Finally just because its a picture doesn't mean its art.

So can a photoblog be art? On this definition no (unless you've got your micro billing sorted out!) Does it matter? No not really - we'll respond to it in just the same way whatever its called.

So to your current series of graffiti - I reminds me of a series I took last winter in Manchester. It's great to see your take on the subject - inspirational as ever - you have a very distinctive eye for composition as well as a high degree of technical skill I can only aspire to.

First on the photo, I like the perspective and the grunginess of the colors. It matches the feeling of graffiti.

As for art or no art, I agree that, that definition is a bit highbrow. I believe art is somethign that invokes feeling in the creator, the rest of the world be damned. I'm going to guess that somehow this picture, or the last picture triggered something in you, or else you wouldn't have taken it. I mean unless you walk aroudn all of Britain with your finger down on the shutter button, you still make the decision of taking the picture or not.

Of course the photograph is art. The wall is too! The bonding (the pattern the bricks are laid in) is “Flemish” and the “pointing” of the joints is carefully done in a style often seen in the UK but not so often seen in Canada where I am from.

too much bricks and walls on this site.....change the subject jaaniiii

I read it initially as a miss-spelt "Sorry"

I propose that art is in the eye of the beholder.

The beholder can be the same person as the creator.

I've always asrcibed to the belief that the height of art is a "reaction". Good or bad. So if I am viewing a photograph, a painting, or music for that matter, if I have a reaction to it I feel it can be considered art.

I realize this is a very broad brush stroke for the definition, but I feel it's a simple enough heuristic to apply to ones one work.

Having said that, I frequently visit this site because I'm almost always guaranteed a moving "reaction" to your spectacular work. Thanks again for sharing.

Dan from San Diego

awesome find..
the blinding point would've occured if u'd have neared the wall :)

Oh, I don't give much credence to someone who doesn't know the difference between "accept" and "except". Methinks someone is (a) up his own arse and (b) jealous.

All due respect to Tim, but he's talking out of his a__.

With art, you get out of it what you put in. Sometimes, you can divine what the artist is saying with a piece. Maybe it's evident, and maybe it's obscured; maybe it's said well, maybe it's said badly. However, if it says nothing to you, that's your own failure, not the artist's, and has absolutely no bearing on whether the piece is "art" or not.

I feel David is a very creative ARTIST along with many other photoblogers out there . Visiting this site and many others, everyday , and have come across a lot of successful work and some not so successful. That however does not make him or any other photographer any less of an artist. The idea of a blog and posting everyday is a daunting undertaking, and may result in having to post some work that might not be the strongest. I believe however that it should be looked at , as an incentive for an artist to keep creating, and not a portfolio.
As for what makes something art, that issue has been debated for ages with no definitive answers. There are some "rules " ( design elements and principles ) that do make some work more successful than others. Those rules combined with ones personal likes and dislikes are what make a piece , art or not.
As for the issue of Photographing graffiti I believe straight reproduction of what is on a wall without the photographer giving it his or her own " spin" is simply documenting.
If the photographer is able to give it a personal spin, it becomes appropriation , a form of visual "sampling'.

This strikes me as a very mediocre photograph. I'm just an anonymous voice out here on the internet so I won't waste too much time building a case against this being anything more than a poor document of a piece of outright vandalism. The only merit I see here is to archive this for local authorities to help in a case against SORE.
Here is a fictitious, but possible dialogue between Sore and the photographer. Sore: Hey man, I am an artist because as is the fashion with other hooligans I scribbled my nickname in spray-paint on property that did not belong to me. Photographer: Wow cool man, I am an artist too. I'll take a picture of it.
What a waste. I'm ok, you're ok has turned into I'm and artist, you're an artist.

street style...

I always figured most artistic paintings were pretty colours and nice lines!
I love how easy it is to get into a discussion about what is/isn't art/not art, I always thought of photography as art - but that's partly because I've been brought up with that.

Speaking of which, I've always wondered whether writing is a form of art.

The answer to art is simple. All you have to do is look it up:

Art - The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.

Simply put, art is anything the aritst wants it to be. It conforms to nothing and is simply the expression of an individual through whatever means they choose to display that expression. Art to one person will not always be art to another, but that connection is not a pre-requisite that determines whether something is or isn't art.

Art can cause nobody to enjoy it, one person to enjoy it, or everyone to enjoy it. Art is not about other people, it is about the expression of the artist, period. No person has the right to characterize a persons work as art or junk.

As an individual who did not create a work, you are simply an observer who should comment about the work using opinions to describe it--OPINIONS, not classifications. If i visit Chromasia, I am an observer of the work displayed to me, not the artist of it. Therefore, I cannot classify the work as art or junk, or anything else. The only thing I am entitled to is my own opinion about the work itself, the fact that I enjoy viewing it or not. If I enjoy it, I issue that opinion. If I do not, I issue that. If I leave those paramaters and make the statement that Chromasia's work is junk and not art, I discredit myself as a reasonable audience and clearly display my lack of understanding for what art is.

The only person who can issue a statement of whether a work is art or junk is the artist of that work.

vijeshv said , "too much bricks and walls on this site"

Can you see two bricks the same?

It's not just a wall, it's a collection of elements of a wall.

I don't know why everyone is so adament to find a line between what is art and what is not. Most of you need to get off your high horse and ease the swelling in your head. If you come to this site, then you must (at least partially) enjoy the photos. Why do we even have to label it as art or not?

As for plagerism in photos...Aren't all photos plagerized? Everything you take a picture of was created by someone else. (ie: buildings, landscapes, people...the list goes on forever!)

People....just enjoy the way chromasia views the world, I certainly do!

I like this alot. Photography is art. Just like painting a nature scene with paints on a canvas is art. We paint with pixels and light, our paintbrush is a camera and we decide how much red, green and blue there is. The painter records the nature scene one way the photographer another.

Art is whatever the creator and the viewer decide that it is. My own opinion is that each of us are presenting the world with art everytime we present something we have created.

If the viewer doesn't think something is art, that does not mean that it is not art at all, only to that person.

I really enjoy the urban feeling of this picture. The bricks are a very hard and stony colour. It makes a FANTASTIC look against the white letters. I could imagine Nike using a photo like this for an ad, although it would obviously say Nike instead of Sore.
Good shot. well found. :_D

I think that one of the reasons for art is to inspire others that view a piece of work. It can transcend the object of 'art' it self. To react to art in an empirical way that merely focuses on the physical object is to fail to grasp the whole story. As this story is subjective and personal, one man's art will be another's pretty postcard.

This photoblog (and others) is full of comments as to how inspirational they have been to the viewer, and therefore in my book constitute art.

I have been inspired by what I see on/in(?) 'Chomasia' on many occasions and my 'art' is all the better for it.

Some very highbrow commenting going on here... I like to take photos which make for pleasing images to look at, and whether you're taking photos of someone else's art (in this case graffiti) makes no difference. If the end result is a pleasing image to look at, then the photo was a worthwhile effort. I wouldn't go into an art gallery and take a photo of a painting of course, but in this case (and the previous couple of images here) the photos have been a record of a street scene, which I think is a valid subject. I don't think we have to insist that every photo is "art" in its own right.

How far do we want to take the argument? In the case of architectural photography, a photographer can take a great photo of a building or a city skyline, but what they've really done is steal someone else's work. All the architects and engineers and builders have made the effort to create something, and all the photographer did was come along after the fact and steal an image of it. Complete nonsense of course, but a logical extension of the previous arguments here.

Anyway... I love the converging lines here, and the diagonal composition. The graffiti seems to float above the bricks, so doesn't seem to get smaller in the same way the bricks do. Very nice, and just the kind of thing I would have walked past while looking for something to photograph! I need to develop an eye for these kind of subjects!

Photography is art. It is capturing a moment or a sight you found interesting and that you want to share. Putting the moment onto some sort of medium (flash card, then the internet) and sharing it with people who otherwise wouldn't have known about the "moment" makes it art I think. I think Tim has had a philosophy class too many.

Thanks everyone.

James: that was tongue-in-cheek, right? ;-)

As for art: there are numerous ways you can look at it. For me, it's something to strive toward, rather than a defining characteristic of what I do, but I guess that there isn't really one clear definition we're ever likely to agree on.

I've been visiting your photoblog for many time, and it strikes me that anybody could argue whether it is art or not. Besides being this a pointless and unimportant matter, here's my personal opinion:

Art is about emotions, or more precisely about the "dynamics" of emotions: something you see or experience impels you to work on something. The "outcome" of that work is the translation of your original feeling into something material, and that will vary according to your skills, your mood, your available time, your age, the moon, whatever...

Anyhow, whatever the result is, it is likely to induce feelings or emotions to other people, that will enjoy the "outcome" according to their own sensitivity and vital experience. If somebody from the audience of your work is not able to enjoy it, that doesn't disqualify it as art.

Something very different it is the quality of the work as a craft ;-)

hmm... I don't think art can be defined.
Anyway, this is a great photo. Did you cheat with the top-right corner?

Art is subjective.

What is one person's 'art' is another person's 'sentimental craft—pretty colours and nice lines, but no feeling, no heart, nothing that challenges ideas and preconceptions.'

My definition? If I put it on my walls, it's art!

;-)

Art or not, I like it.

Sometimes I enjoy a nice photograph for one simple reason - that it is a nice photograph. I do think, however, that your work has heart and feeling. We all experience things differently. Even art concidered "emotional" can make me feel empty, but I can still enjoy it if it pleasing to the eye.

You are incredibly talented.

David- You are an artist in the truest sense of the term. And photography is an art for sure, in my opinion.

I know I’m cashing in a little but late on the topic. Home network problems…

Of course the definition is high brow—but it is a good one, and it has a firm heritage. Naturally, however, it’s not the only definition. We could turn to Wordsworth: art is something that, “sees into the life of things,” it is an organic web; the artist can hear “the sad, still music of humanity.”

Of course, Nick’s perspective earlier in these comments is a good one: other people (lots of other people, and who are qualified to boot) have to label your work as art. Throw this caveat out and you have Testadura the philistine drawing realistic pictures of chipmunks and showing them in the Louvre.

My purpose is not to demean the work on this site. It is good work, but it is craft (“not bad, just different”). And it is important that it recognize its place—after all, anything that claims status as something that it obviously is not runs the dreadful possibility of falling into the bottomless hole of kitsch.

Good design is art!

Art is only art after someone views it and derives a feeling from it. That's why elephants at the zoo get famous by painting masterpieces with their snozzles.

If you take a photo, and you look at it and feel love, it's evoked a feeling. Therefore, it's artwork. Artwork is not merely photographing or painting, it's anything. If you feel pleasure from driving a car quickly, that's art. If you build an impressive website, and someone hates it or loves it, it's simply art.

The only way to NOT create art in this world is to close your eyes and not feel a thing while you do an action, and then make sure it's hidden and no one ever sees it.

Art and Design are completely different.

Hmm... what is art??? So, some crazy Nuyorican guy takes a dump on a canvas, convinces a gallery to put it up and calls it art. A computer geek writes a program that can take an image of you and render it into the best portrait any human can make; do we call it art? A 3 year old finger paints a representation of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, do we call it art.

I beleive that we could start putting a whole bunch of rules and criteria around what we define as art. And as soon as we do that some yahoo in Milan will produce something that is outside those parameters and then call it art.

Me, I think that if you think it's art, whether you are the artist or the observer/participant then it's what you say it is.

I think your material is art. Keep up the good work. (is art work???)

Couldn't be bothered to read all the comments, but it sounds like Nick knows what he's talking about. It was good to meet you the other week Dave.

yup, its a craft. yup, its art. musicians can craft melodies, photographers can craft images

Hm, since when does art have to challenge ideas and preconceptions? I don't think Michelangelo's Pietà challenged the views of the masses. L/ I dislike when people define art as something that's ONLY of the highest quality and mastery. That's garbage. I think Art is simply a use of craft to express individual views and feelings. All art doesn't challenge your views, not all art is disturbing. Nor is it all good. There' sbad cooking, bad dancing, bad days, and bad relationships. Doesn't it stand to reason that there's mad to mediocre artwork? At least as far as use of craft is concerned. Not to say that anything on Chromasia is bad. I'm just against this idea that art is monadic. That THIS is art and anything less/different/challenging to my view of what art and beauty should be is not. Everything isn't meant to touch you emotionally. Some of it is meant to touch you psychologically, some is just to show you a subject in a different way, some is simply there to be beautiful. Heart, Earth, fart. Art is everywhere, from the loftiest of ideals to the most foul of auditory sensations.