I'm doin an essay on the above topic so i'm interested to hear the opinions of fellow clubsnappers. Personally i think it is. Any1 begs to differ and why? 
Is fashion and advertising photography considered an art?
- Thread starter Mystix
- Start date
- Status
it is an art because some people create **** while some others create beautiful images that help sell a product.
very cheemz qn =)
does ur coursework provide any definition of what "art" is? :think: if u can argue until photography conforms to that given definition..then ya, it should be an art form ;-)
does ur coursework provide any definition of what "art" is? :think: if u can argue until photography conforms to that given definition..then ya, it should be an art form ;-)
Advertising, no. Because photographers just have to take care of lights and exposure. Composition and concept is dictate by Advertising agencies. Of course photographers can advise on composition, but, always, they need to stick to agencies idea.
Fashion photographers are art directors. fashion designers expresses their idea on their designs and photographers create the image of what the designer is trying to express on their designs. Compositions, light, locations are up to photographers. Its more creative.
Fashion photographers are art directors. fashion designers expresses their idea on their designs and photographers create the image of what the designer is trying to express on their designs. Compositions, light, locations are up to photographers. Its more creative.
i tink photography itself is an art....its the outcome tt define's art...though the process can be described as an artistic one...at the end of the dae...when people say art about photography, unconsciously they mean the end product.....
anyway mystix u writer also??? wat do u write about???? i'm a writer too....haha...
anyway mystix u writer also??? wat do u write about???? i'm a writer too....haha...
if the "fashion photos" are shots that anyone and everyone can produce if they were at the event or shoot, it's just snapshots.
Fashion and Advertising photography.
Fashion photography is a how the photographer, with his own style of art direction, protrays the designs of the fashion designer thru his lens. It is therefore an artform because a good fashion photography can articulate "This fashion" quality clothing into "HOLLYWOOD Runway style"
Advertising photography is an art form in the sense that the Art directions comes from the agency. The photographer isn't engaging his own art style, but exercuting the photo to that of the agency where there is a strict style for that campaign etc.
So from a photographer's POV Advertising photography isn't really much of an art form. From a consumer POV, both are considered art.
Fashion photography is a how the photographer, with his own style of art direction, protrays the designs of the fashion designer thru his lens. It is therefore an artform because a good fashion photography can articulate "This fashion" quality clothing into "HOLLYWOOD Runway style"
Advertising photography is an art form in the sense that the Art directions comes from the agency. The photographer isn't engaging his own art style, but exercuting the photo to that of the agency where there is a strict style for that campaign etc.
So from a photographer's POV Advertising photography isn't really much of an art form. From a consumer POV, both are considered art.
sehsuan said:
Fashion photography are those glamour orientated kind, eg. Leslie Kee's work on Christine chong etc.. and the cheesy stuff from FHM etc.. not those u see in clubsnap's event coverage photos of some fashion event.. it has to be properly set up for that purpose
yes, viix, i know what you mean. personally, i'm not fashion-oriented, but i appreciate the lighting in proper shoots, like you mentioned, the occasional ones in FHM. but definitely not those captured "live" at some catwalk by most of those on the forum, no offence. plenty of snapshots from fashion events on this forum that i find are just... normal.
To quote Geoff Ang, he said, successful fashion shots are the result of good teamwork between the fashion stylist, hair stylist, makeup artist and the photographer. It is usually not the sole effort of the photographer.
Hi,Mystix said:I'm doin an essay on the above topic so i'm interested to hear the opinions of fellow clubsnappers. Personally i think it is. Any1 begs to differ and why?
This is a rather subjective question, isn't it?
IMO, perhaps you may wanna ask yourself what is the definition of art? What does art mean to you?
To me, art is something where you used a medium to convey the artist's expression, their feelings and their point-of-view of something. It can be a piece of work even though it defies the usual rules of photography but at the end of it, it's still the artist's opinion of something.
But if we are talking about fashion and commercial photography, IMO, I feel it is no longer an art anymore because both the photographer and the client are trying to achieve a final result for the audience. Let's state an example - a fashion shoot for a magazine. In another words, even at the back of the photographer's mind he/she can probably feel a certain pose sucks but because of the requirment of the readers and what the readers want, he/she has to do it. Furthermore, with the client standing behind the photographer during the shoot and giving comments about the pictures, I believe at the end of the day the final product, if given the chance, isn't really what the photographer wanted to achieve.
It really makes a difference how you want to interpret art as. It has a very general meaning afterall.
Good luck in your writing! Hope my interpretation has not confused you even further.
Cheers,
-Michelle-
Mystix said:I'm doin an essay on the above topic so i'm interested to hear the opinions of fellow clubsnappers. Personally i think it is. Any1 begs to differ and why?
Only if there's nudity involved and you want to get past the censors... :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:
Witness said:
ermm no heheh. this is just something that i picked to do as my sch assignment. Anyway i agree that it's really subjective as to whether these 2 really conforms to as an art form. Coz to me as long as one decides to do art, he/she can still come up with something that is considered to be a work of art even if they are obligated to give what the clients want. So it boils down to the photographer i guess. Some may just go thru the motions, set up the lights, and fired off without thinking but while some others would make an effort to make it as artistic as possible. Just my 2 cents
thanks Mystix. may i add too, if the photos are rotated like some zany angle just to get a fresh angle when all it does is to strain people's necks trying to look at it... it might just be snapshooting as well
not trying to be elitist, but practical
not trying to be elitist, but practical
at the end of the dae its still a matter of perspective..
beauty lies in the eye of the beholder..
beauty lies in the eye of the beholder..
Anything done for economic reasons is no longer an art. The sole motivation for success is money.
It's like the difference between a "graphic designer" and a "painter". The designer is instructed to create a design that sells. The painter paints whatever he likes without instructions nor monetary rewards, nvm that he dies a pauper eg Gauguin and many others like him.
David Ogilvy puts it best when he said: If it sells, its creative. Advtg and fashion photography is "designed" to sell the product.
But then again over time, what's "commercial" becomes in itself an "artform" like the 60s "pop art" which became fashionable much later.
Haha... hope u get wat i m trying to say
It's like the difference between a "graphic designer" and a "painter". The designer is instructed to create a design that sells. The painter paints whatever he likes without instructions nor monetary rewards, nvm that he dies a pauper eg Gauguin and many others like him.
David Ogilvy puts it best when he said: If it sells, its creative. Advtg and fashion photography is "designed" to sell the product.
But then again over time, what's "commercial" becomes in itself an "artform" like the 60s "pop art" which became fashionable much later.
Haha... hope u get wat i m trying to say
maybe you want to ask yourself what photography does to be qualified as an art (therefore you need to define art first as well)
and from there what fashion and advertising photography can/cannot do to be qualified as art.
in art there's also the problem of the relationship between the creator, the object (artistic entity) and the subject (observer)
add: what the fish, just realised that this is a 3 year old thread, now who digged this out! ancient threads like this ought to be locked!
and from there what fashion and advertising photography can/cannot do to be qualified as art.
in art there's also the problem of the relationship between the creator, the object (artistic entity) and the subject (observer)
add: what the fish, just realised that this is a 3 year old thread, now who digged this out!
ancient threads like this ought to be locked!maybe you want to ask yourself what photography does to be qualified as an art (therefore you need to define art first as well)
and from there what fashion and advertising photography can/cannot do to be qualified as art.
in art there's also the problem of the relationship between the creator, the object (artistic entity) and the subject (observer)
add: what the fish, just realised that this is a 3 year old thread, now who digged this out!
A PCB design is called an artwork. Is it art? I think it is! :thumbsup:
- Status
Similar threads
