Kevin Stenhouse wrote:
If I can see it hanging on a wall or in gallery I'd consider it art. If it seems more fitting that it's in a book, ad, sign etc I call it a photo/illustration. With some cross-over of course.

Kevin... Looking at your portfolio you seem like one of the people who can't help but make art.

It's a way of relating and a way of looking at what you are creating. It's not just a captured subject, it's a vision for how to express the subject.

Sometimes the grace or beauty of a particular model is so moving that anyone could stand behind the camera. More often though art has me feel like I'm seeing the world through a new pair of eyes... that someone is showing me a way of looking that opens me up to all new perspectives.

Koryn Locke wrote:
I create trash and filth.

It's awesome.

As someone who considers himself an artist in a word that often shit on my work I think this is a great attitude. I was doing tattoos before they were cool and paintings that art school teachers said were garbage. I always knew I was making art no matter what anyone said.

So looking at your stuff... I see art. I see you beautifully expressing yourself in images in a way that is not simply about being "hot" or "beautiful" or "naked". I see you being boldly expressed as a subject of fine art. Call it trash and filth... enjoy the freedom of that... and I totally disagree. You are creating beautiful works of art.

And I suppose trash and filth CAN BE art.

johnreefphotography wrote:
You tell me.

Looking at your work I don't think I have to tell you... making art looks like all you do.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
There are two dirty words in photography; one is 'art', and the other is 'good taste'.

- Helmut Newton

Lol...
That's a great quote. I do like to talk dirty sometimes.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
I shoot primarily in B&W, ergo it must be art

It's funny, but there is a grain of truth in that. Somehow B&W often ads a layer of creative interpretation. That said there is way more that I'm experiencing in your work that has me relate to it as art. It seems carefully crafted and expressive.

DAN CRUIKSHANK wrote:
Personally, for me to consider a photograph to be a work of art it must be pleasing to look at, display beautiful composition, evoke some kind of feeling or initiate a deeper narrative, and it must be suitable for display in public view, whether in my home or in a gallery.

Dan...! I agree. I'm really inspired by your portfolio. I could fill my home with work like this. Stunning!

David Bollt wrote:

It's funny, but there is a grain of truth in that. Somehow B&W often ads a layer of creative interpretation. That said there is way more that I'm experiencing in your work that has me relate to it as art. It seems carefully crafted and expressive.

Well the irony is its not adding, its subtracting. I love color. It adds another dimension beyond depth and tonal value.

David Bollt wrote:
I say... craftsmanship, imagination, creative intention and above all... GOOD TASTE.

Are you creating images that seem like real art? How much of what you see at Model Mayhem seems like art to you? What do you think makes an image a work of art, as opposed to just a photograph or a picture of a model?

You an I have very little to say about what IS art. That's left to magazines, collectors, galleries and critics. But to me the main test of art that most people fail to take into consideration is time. Hot stuff today becomes next year's also ran. Style is another forgoten element it seems. Many people flit from look to look like they are a dozen different artists. Others do the same stuff for 40 years. Another Faux method used to imply style where there is none is to include the same prop in every photo. Style develops or it doesn't. IT can't be forced. An Edward Weston Pepper shows his touch as surely as any of his nudes.

David Bollt wrote:
I say... craftsmanship, imagination, creative intention and above all... GOOD TASTE.

I see a lot of art that is in bad taste, but it is art.  (bad taste is everything I don't like)
I have seen art galleries hosting instagram shows, and craftsmanship was laking. Don't need much craft to press a button and upload to instagram. Ah, but they must be imaginative, eh?
Not really. Aren't paintings done by elephants sold as art? Do elephants have imagination? Perhaps.
Basically, I'm saying there is no definition for art.

David Bollt wrote:

Dan...! I agree. I'm really inspired by your portfolio. I could fill my home with work like this. Stunning!

Thank you. Right back at you!

Christine Eadie wrote:

I see a lot of art that is in bad taste, but it is art.  (bad taste is everything I don't like)
I have seen art galleries hosting instagram shows, and craftsmanship was laking. Don't need much craft to press a button and upload to instagram. Ah, but they must be imaginative, eh?
Not really. Aren't paintings done by elephants sold as art? Do elephants have imagination? Perhaps.
Basically, I'm saying there is no definition for art.

When it comes to many modern paintings, you can't really distinguish whether an elephant or a human made them... Or if a can of paint fell off a shelf onto some canvas. Lol.

Kevin Stenhouse wrote:
If I can see it hanging on a wall or in gallery I'd consider it art. If it seems more fitting that it's in a book, ad, sign etc I call it a photo/illustration. With some cross-over of course.

David Bollt wrote:
Kevin... Looking at your portfolio you seem like one of the people who can't help but make art.

Second that.

Glenn Worton wrote:
If I'd be willing to put a big image on my wall where it can be seen, and live with it for 20 years, I'd call it art.  I've been trying to produce such images for 40 years with limited success - so far two, of which "Christine at the window" in my portfolio is one.

Part of what makes great art... is often the relentless pursuit of creating it.

"Christine at the window" is elegantly expressed. I see why you would choose that as one of your favorites.

DAN CRUIKSHANK wrote:
When it comes to many modern paintings, you can't really distinguish whether an elephant or a human made them... Or if a can of paint fell off a shelf onto some canvas. Lol.

Yes..! To me it seems like some crazy kind of hypnosis. Critics so often fear true genius and quality. It's like they put mediocrity on a pedestal and condemn excellence. Then other fear to decide for themselves and outsource their own judgment to others.

In my experience... people everywhere are moved by great art. So often it's not in a gallery or a museum, but anywhere in the world. Something inspired stops people in their tracks... it blows them away and has them experience something powerful (even if they were not expecting or or looking for it).

Christine Eadie wrote:
Aren't paintings done by elephants sold as art? Do elephants have imagination? Perhaps.
Basically, I'm saying there is no definition for art.

There is no "one" definition. The thing I'm curious about is hearing different definitions... and to see who those definitions come from.

Maybe those of us who put our hearts into creating great images have some things in common as to what "ART" means for us.

Elephants painting is a novelty / marketing achievement. To me it's not art. Also so much of what we see in galleries and museums is not art (at least not good art).

My thoughts right now...

No matter what critics or society says art is. Good art moves people and inspires them. It moves people from all walks of life. It touches people who are refined and educated as well as those who are not. Good art inspires the admiration of other artists.

The Falcons Nest wrote:
If art is suppose to provoke than how can it always be what everybody considers to be in good taste?

It will never be what "everybody" considers to be in good taste. The question is... will it be in good taste for those of us who have good taste?

Bearz Images wrote:
I let others worry about whether if it's 'ART' or not. I create, shoot, & pursue my passions.

+1

The people that care the most about art (with all it's terminology),
are usually the ones, that create the least.

nyk fury wrote:
Are you creating images that seem like real art?  rarely

How much of what you see at Model Mayhem seems like art to you? next to nothing

What do you think makes an image a work of art, as opposed to just a photograph or a picture of a model? the image is as desirable as a painting

That seems fashionably dismissive. I was just rocked by your portfolio and did not see anything in there that occurred to me as less than remarkable art.

David Bollt wrote:
I say... craftsmanship, imagination, creative intention and above all... GOOD TASTE.

Are you creating images that seem like real art? How much of what you see at Model Mayhem seems like art to you? What do you think makes an image a work of art, as opposed to just a photograph or a picture of a model?

Ya know.. I think it's that GOOD TASTE thing.. that is the stickler.. 

Once that's defined.. THEN you can actually discuss this.. but then. it's never truly defined..

KevinMcGowanPhotography wrote:
Once that's defined.. THEN you can actually discuss this.. but then. it's never truly defined..

I don't think it will ever be truly defined, but I want to hear what people experience as great art. Screw the collective definition. What moves any single person.

The viewer brings beauty into the world... not the image. What has the experience of art show up for you... in your world?