Art Or Graffiti?

[fotografr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't know if this qualifies as "Street Art," but I think it goes beyond ordinary graffiti. Personally, I think it improves what the buildings here would look like without it. This is in Portland, Oregon.

Q3

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited June 11, 2024 by fotografr

[Louis]

Brent, this is a beautiful shot and would be perfect in the street art gallery.

[erl]

Aside from documenting the work, which in itself is legitimate, I don't like 'straight' photographing someone else's work of art. When I do, which is often, I am only using it as background to 'my' main subject. ie. value added and contributing atmosphere.

[war]

11 hours ago, erl said:

Aside from documenting the work, which in itself is legitimate, I don't like 'straight' photographing someone else's work of art. When I do, which is often, I am only using it as background to 'my' main subject. ie. value added and contributing atmosphere.

Yours is an interesting take on the subject. If you mean going into a museum and taking a shot of a painting other than to document it, I would agree. I don't see that photographing artwork in the public way, whether as the subject of the photo or as a background for it, is harmful or unethical in any way.  How about outdoor sculpture, must I have a bicycle propped up next to it or a person in front of it to legitimatize the photo?

[erl]

8 hours ago, war said:

Yours is an interesting take on the subject. If you mean going into a museum and taking a shot of a painting other than to document it, I would agree. I don't see that photographing artwork in the public way, whether as the subject of the photo or as a background for it, is harmful or unethical in any way.  How about outdoor sculpture, must I have a bicycle propped up next to it or a person in front of it to legitimatize the photo?

I do not suggest straight photographing artworks is unethical. What I am stating is that it is boring just copying another artists creation. Totally OK for documentation purposes, which I often do, but to present it, for example, on the forum under ones own name, it is not really the copyists work. It is just copying. I like to think the work we all present here is 'ours' in some way.

As an example I have included several of my own 'takes' on Picasso and another general artist whose name escapes me. In the latter it could be asked, 'will the real subject please stand up'.

Of course you are free to disagree with my POV.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[stuny]

Some tags are truly art.  Your Portland shot mixes representational art, tags that art art, and some graffiti.

[war]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, erl said:

I do not suggest straight photographing artworks is unethical. What I am stating is that it is boring just copying another artists creation. Totally OK for documentation purposes, which I often do, but to present it, for example, on the forum under ones own name, it is not really the copyists work. It is just copying. I like to think the work we all present here is 'ours' in some way.

As an example I have included several of my own 'takes' on Picasso and another general artist whose name escapes me. In the latter it could be asked, 'will the real subject please stand up'.

Of course you are free to disagree with my POV.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Ah then, I think we agree. 

And these examples are very nice photos indeed.

Regards, Wally

[Louis]

The issue is this thread is what Brent is asking in regard to his post. He is not “copying” a “piece of art” but is wondering if the picture is qualified as a street art. I believe it does. It is clearly a painted wall in a street as a decoration and could as well be posted in the street art thread, if he wished.

Few posters, including myself, are posting shots of murals or sculptures decorating streets. This is the topic of that thread and the purpose of shooting them is obviously not “copying” them, selling them, or suggesting we are the artist, although some of the pictures may be considered as art by themselves. Very often, I shot murals in the presence of the artists who were proud to see their work being photographed. Some viewers may like, some may not; but I don’t think taking pictures of artworks decorating street, without a passer by, is wrong. 
BTW, if a dog or a biker pass in front of a painted wall, I, personally, would consider the picture more as a “street photography “ rather than a “street art”!

Edited June 13, 2024 by Louis

[erl]

Louis, basically I agree with you that Brent's pic is of 'street art' and I enjoy such works myself. My point was, possibly off topic, but I find a plethora of pics of street art posted on a photo forum a bit 'bloaty' because it is not presenting original work of the photographer, but only a copy of the original artists work. Incorporating that into a scenario of ones own is quite different. It becomes the photographers work or interpretation. Again, just my POV. Not right or wrong.

[fotografr]

On 6/11/2024 at 10:08 PM, erl said:

Aside from documenting the work, which in itself is legitimate, I don't like 'straight' photographing someone else's work of art. When I do, which is often, I am only using it as background to 'my' main subject. ie. value added and contributing atmosphere.

What about photographing a building or house, such as one designed by FLW or Calatrava? Certainly they could be considered original works of art that are publicly displayed. Works by artists like Christo are literally made to be photographed. I don't see any problem with accommodating that. My point is that public artwork comes in various forms and of one is impressed sufficiently to point a camera at it I don't see the problem, particularly when the ultimate goal is simply to document and share it with others on a forum like this where the viewers would be unlikely to see it on their own.

Edited June 14, 2024 by fotografr

[erl]

Brent, I am not disagreeing with you. I do agree and somethings need to be documented, which is mostly what we do, IMO. My 'beef' is when so much graffiti and wall art is photographed and displayed on the forum. IMO, it needs to be presented in an interesting way, not just copied and pasted. This is a photography forum and emphasis IMO, should be oriented to the creative photography aspect, not just copying other works of art. I fear a 'swamping' effect such as phonecams are already having on photography. Too much is too much.

To give a silly example, most of my working career was done without a standard lens. In that way I figured that my images would have more interest because the subject could only be viewed via my photographs. ie. we don't have WA or Tele vision. Changing the aspect is sometimes enough.

[fotografr]

On 6/15/2024 at 6:50 PM, erl said:

Brent, I am not disagreeing with you. 

Nor I with you. I think we're on the same page with this.

[David Cantor]

I'm understand the 'beef' about street art but it is part and parcel of a forum such as this and in the main I usually ignore the posts for the same reason. There are plenty of other ‘soft’ options in these-here parts. However, I think that being too prescriptive may have disadvantages. I usually photograph street art on arriving at my day’s location to check the camera settings, get in the zone and so on so that when something I do want presents itself, the mechanical things should work fine. I’ve taken the liberty of attaching one of my first ventures in photography on the street, it was a grab’ shot. The skinhead and the fundamentalist joined in vitriol and the apprehension on the faces of the young couple and so it does have content other than the art.

Over the years, I must have seen dozens of variations of street art on the same stretch of wall. One scene was of a group of men with grossly characterised Jewish features getting rich oppressing and exploiting the working classes. The local council rightly ordered it to be over-painted on the grounds that it was anti-semitic. The then leader of the opposition party in Parliament declared that the order was a denial of free speech and expression. He was widely rebuked and withdrew his remarks.

On one occasion, I struck up a conversation with a street artist working on the wall. I mentioned that I had photographed it several times (with some human content) and he said that a collection of the images of the wall would make an interesting historical record of that part of London. He was right of course and I immediately regretted the times when I couldn’t be bothered, there was a street art walking group blocking the view, a car parked in the way or a shadow because the angle of the sun.

Just my two-penny worth.

David

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

[fotografr]

3 hours ago, David Cantor said:

I'm understand the 'beef' about street art but it is part and parcel of a forum such as this and in the main I usually ignore the posts for the same reason. There are plenty of other ‘soft’ options in these-here parts. However, I think that being too prescriptive may have disadvantages. I usually photograph street art on arriving at my day’s location to check the camera settings, get in the zone and so on so that when something I do want presents itself, the mechanical things should work fine. I’ve taken the liberty of attaching one of my first ventures in photography on the street, it was a grab’ shot. The skinhead and the fundamentalist joined in vitriol and the apprehension on the faces of the young couple and so it does have content other than the art.

Over the years, I must have seen dozens of variations of street art on the same stretch of wall. One scene was of a group of men with grossly characterised Jewish features getting rich oppressing and exploiting the working classes. The local council rightly ordered it to be over-painted on the grounds that it was anti-semitic. The then leader of the opposition party in Parliament declared that the order was a denial of free speech and expression. He was widely rebuked and withdrew his remarks.

On one occasion, I struck up a conversation with a street artist working on the wall. I mentioned that I had photographed it several times (with some human content) and he said that a collection of the images of the wall would make an interesting historical record of that part of London. He was right of course and I immediately regretted the times when I couldn’t be bothered, there was a street art walking group blocking the view, a car parked in the way or a shadow because the angle of the sun.

Just my two-penny worth.

David

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Terrific shot, by the way.