Is photoshop art?

[DragunovHUN]

Read my first comment, you personify it.

Ditto.

 

[Iron Mal]

Photoshop can used to create art but it is not an artform in itself (it is in fact a computer program).

Not everything made on Photoshop is art and not everyone who can make a pretty picture on it is an artist (it doesn't matter how you try and defend it, at the end of the day photoshop doesn't compare to a canvas or sculpture in terms of artistic worth and talent, although this is not to say that everyone who uses it is talentless).

It won't be recognised or appreciated by most as a valid artform for quite a while (at least not until we see an end to the leigons of neurotic emo college boys who spew out torrents of the 'representations of their teenage angst and emotional suffering') but give it time.

 

[MassiveGeek]

By definition: Yes
Personal Opinion: No

When it comes to art the only one i think of as real art is paintings and illustrations done by hand, cause it's the only one that takes actual talent to make something good, photography anyone can do well, same with photoshop, all you need is a quick tutorial and some time and you can create really stunning pictures using photoshop, but it never takes any talent, same with photos, of the friends i speak with on a daily basis about 5 of them are self-proclaimed photographists, and sure, they take a couple of nice photos using filters and different angles and stuff, but anyone can do that with the right equipment.

Hand-drawing on the other hand is something not everyone can do well, i know myself after trying really hard to become good at it, i failed miserably, much like just about all my mates did, so drawing by hand takes talent.

I use photoshop for my drawings. Its a great way of working with color, and I know from experience that you cant make great art with photoshop and a tutorial. And as other mentioned, art is a way of expressing yourself as an artist, and method doesnt matter.
I do agree some people get credit for crap becuse they made some cool effect in photoshop, but I swear to you that real artists see through it at once. Also, I started as most people with simple pencil and paper, and thats still where I start everything when I draw. I sketch, and choose if I want to work with it by hand or in photoshop.
Your whole point with this shows that you have barely any experience in the subject. And your wrong about the getting good thing to, you cant expect to become great at something over night, even WITH "talent". It all takes practice, and practice makes perfect, not tutorials.

 

[Neesa]

Photoshop can used to create art but it is not an artform in itself (it is in fact a computer program).

Not everything made on Photoshop is art and not everyone who can make a pretty picture on it is an artist (it doesn't matter how you try and defend it, at the end of the day photoshop doesn't compare to a canvas or sculpture in terms of artistic worth and talent, although this is not to say that everyone who uses it is talentless).

It won't be recognised or appreciated by most as a valid artform for quite a while (at least not until we see an end to the leigons of neurotic emo college boys who spew out torrents of the 'representations of their teenage angst and emotional suffering') but give it time.

I agree. Haha. Most people that are in the art world look down about digital art as a whole. It's not "true" art. Like Iron Mal said, Photoshop is a computer program, not an art form. It really isn't. Even though the use of the digital MEDIA has been around for awhile, I dunno if the art would would embrace it so kindly. Not yet at least. Right now, digital art will be the art that always gets a fruitcake for Christmas cause no one likes it.

 

[CoziestPigeon]

It can be art. And your spelling and grammar terrify me.

 

[Kastil]

I think it depends. If you're justing taking a cut out and slapping it on another picture, I don't think it's really artwork. IMO, the photo or picture you work with should be changed drastically. Some people hear the word photoshop and they think it's adding some funny (or moronic) saying to it ALA LOLCats.

I like to do both, actually. I love putting pencil to paper and oil painting but the fact is, I don't have the time I used to. I do a lot more digitally with the help of my Wacom tablet. It makes a cleaner picture to start with IMO.


Vanguard1219- your two examples were spot on.

 

[Wicky_42]

By definition: Yes
Personal Opinion: No

When it comes to art the only one i think of as real art is paintings and illustrations done by hand, cause it's the only one that takes actual talent to make something good, photography anyone can do well, same with photoshop, all you need is a quick tutorial and some time and you can create really stunning pictures using photoshop, but it never takes any talent, same with photos, of the friends i speak with on a daily basis about 5 of them are self-proclaimed photographists, and sure, they take a couple of nice photos using filters and different angles and stuff, but anyone can do that with the right equipment.

Hand-drawing on the other hand is something not everyone can do well, i know myself after trying really hard to become good at it, i failed miserably, much like just about all my mates did, so drawing by hand takes talent.

It's opinions like this that art teachers loath these days. 'Oh, it's not art because he didn't paint it' - come on, have you not been to a modern art gallery? Seen a sculpture, perhaps? What about Michael Angelo's David? No, that's not art, is it - it's not a painting -.-U

Maybe you meant to include sculpture as well in your definition. Ok, cool, thats a little more open minded. What about installations? Collections of objects and/or structures that can often be experienced my moving through them? Not exactly a single artistically created object, and can quite often consist of normal, everyday things that either have a special relevance to the artist or come together in a meaningful way. I guess the artistic community must be wrong about those two, since the artist didn't necessarily MAKE all the objects used, and hell, anyone could sticka heap of junk together and call it art, right?

Well, lets go with the art community on that one, shall we? What about Christo and his wrapping of various buildings and structures? He certainly didn't build them, he just wrapped them up in plastic sheets - but does that constitute a creative process in itself. Funny chap, but if that wasn't an artistic statement, what was? Is not art often used as a way to change our perceptions of things we see every day, to re-perceive the banal? Is art limited merely to painting a pretty picture? Has it not developed at all over the thousands of years since early man scraped berry juice over their cave walls?

People have mentioned photography as not being 'art'. To you I say, where's you evidence? How is an exquisitely framed, beautifully structured photograph any different to a beautiful painting? Is it just that spending half a year working on an oil painting magically validates it above the thought, preparation, finding site, lighting, composition, finding models, taking the perfect shot with the right settings and post processing that goes into a good artistic photograph? And cannot those opportunistic shots, capturing a fleeting moment of beauty, such as the light shining just so through the clouds, or a bird fleetingly pausing an a blossoming tree branch, have just as much artistic integrity as the more painstakingly, but artificially set up shots and paintings?

To discount anything that was intended as art off hand is an expression of closed-mindedness, an instinctive conservatism to not have your perception of the world challenged or changed. It's like saying, 'I know paintings are art, so nothing else is art - it's just pictures or models, because obviously they don't have the skill to be real artists'. Yeah, sure, I can't paint very well, but I can animate, I can sketch, I can manipulate photographs, all of which allow me to express the ideas I have. Some of them I think of as being art, others not so much, but just because they weren't painted, or even drawn on paper with a pencil doesn't mean that they are by default not art.

 

[Neesa]

There's not "real" definition for art since it's such a vast media. Cause technically we can add in film then. But traditional artist are stuck in their ways. It's hard to introduce change to people that are so comfortable in what their good at. Some of the old masters were real artist because they tried various medias, themes, etc. They weren't scared of trying something different, even if they might've lost clients that only wanted portraits done.

Hats off to them... even if they've been dead for hundreds of years.

 

[Fronken]

When it comes to art the only one i think of as real art is paintings and illustrations done by hand, cause it's the only one that takes actual talent to make something good, photography anyone can do well, same with photoshop, all you need is a quick tutorial and some time and you can create really stunning pictures using photoshop, but it never takes any talent, same with photos,

Read my first comment, you personify it.

So just because someone doesnt like something (art for example), means they dont understand it?, That's gotta be one of the most retarded things i've read all day, I know how to use Photoshop in order to create/edit pictures into "art", i just find it to be to easy to be considered art.

But thanks for proving that my theory on art-lovers is correct, they can't handle other people having personal opinions, much like some christians with their "Holier than thou" attitude, art lovers are apparently the same, they arent smart nor mature enough to understand the fact that not everyone agrees with them, therefore they feel the need to bash those who arent as much into art as they are.

But i gotta give some credit to Moodels as well, who actually went through the hassle of adding me on MSN just to spew out arrogance in my face cause i dont agree with her.

 

[Kellerb]

definatly. i prefer it ^^

 

[Fronken]

By definition: Yes
Personal Opinion: No

When it comes to art the only one i think of as real art is paintings and illustrations done by hand, cause it's the only one that takes actual talent to make something good, photography anyone can do well, same with photoshop, all you need is a quick tutorial and some time and you can create really stunning pictures using photoshop, but it never takes any talent, same with photos, of the friends i speak with on a daily basis about 5 of them are self-proclaimed photographists, and sure, they take a couple of nice photos using filters and different angles and stuff, but anyone can do that with the right equipment.

Hand-drawing on the other hand is something not everyone can do well, i know myself after trying really hard to become good at it, i failed miserably, much like just about all my mates did, so drawing by hand takes talent.

It's opinions like this that art teachers loath these days. 'Oh, it's not art because he didn't paint it' - come on, have you not been to a modern art gallery? Seen a sculpture, perhaps? What about Michael Angelo's David? No, that's not art, is it - it's not a painting -.-U

Maybe you meant to include sculpture as well in your definition. Ok, cool, thats a little more open minded. What about installations? Collections of objects and/or structures that can often be experienced my moving through them? Not exactly a single artistically created object, and can quite often consist of normal, everyday things that either have a special relevance to the artist or come together in a meaningful way. I guess the artistic community must be wrong about those two, since the artist didn't necessarily MAKE all the objects used, and hell, anyone could sticka heap of junk together and call it art, right?

Well, lets go with the art community on that one, shall we? What about Christo and his wrapping of various buildings and structures? He certainly didn't build them, he just wrapped them up in plastic sheets - but does that constitute a creative process in itself. Funny chap, but if that wasn't an artistic statement, what was? Is not art often used as a way to change our perceptions of things we see every day, to re-perceive the banal? Is art limited merely to painting a pretty picture? Has it not developed at all over the thousands of years since early man scraped berry juice over their cave walls?

People have mentioned photography as not being 'art'. To you I say, where's you evidence? How is an exquisitely framed, beautifully structured photograph any different to a beautiful painting? Is it just that spending half a year working on an oil painting magically validates it above the thought, preparation, finding site, lighting, composition, finding models, taking the perfect shot with the right settings and post processing that goes into a good artistic photograph? And cannot those opportunistic shots, capturing a fleeting moment of beauty, such as the light shining just so through the clouds, or a bird fleetingly pausing an a blossoming tree branch, have just as much artistic integrity as the more painstakingly, but artificially set up shots and paintings?

To discount anything that was intended as art off hand is an expression of closed-mindedness, an instinctive conservatism to not have your perception of the world challenged or changed. It's like saying, 'I know paintings are art, so nothing else is art - it's just pictures or models, because obviously they don't have the skill to be real artists'. Yeah, sure, I can't paint very well, but I can animate, I can sketch, I can manipulate photographs, all of which allow me to express the ideas I have. Some of them I think of as being art, others not so much, but just because they weren't painted, or even drawn on paper with a pencil doesn't mean that they are by default not art.

1: This is a discussion about paintings, other forms of art, Movies, Music, Sculptures etc..arent what we're discussing here, but thanks for misinterpreting the entire thread and giving me such a huge wall of text thanks to that.

2: Much like i said in my text, this is only my opinion of it, and when it comes to art, that's the only thing that matters, no one can say what is and what it not art, it doesnt work that way, and thats not what i said, what i said was that I didnt think so, if you dont agree, good for you.

3: My point (which EVERYONE seems to have missed), is that it takes much more talent to draw a painting that looks good by hand rather than to do it on a computer where you can add layers/filters/effects with the push of a button.

 

[Valiance]

Spoiler

<img src="http://fc48.deviantart.com/fs10/i/2006/096/2/8/Dreamcatcher_by_viperv6.jpg" /img>

That was rendered in Bryce, and everything else was done in Photoshop.

Try telling me it's not art. (also, source is here [http://viperv6.deviantart.com/art/Dreamcatcher-31420640])

 

[DragunovHUN]

3: My point (which EVERYONE seems to have missed), is that it takes much more talent to draw a painting that looks good by hand rather than to do it on a computer where you can add layers/filters/effects with the push of a button.

It doesn't take more TALENT to make something on canvas than digitally, i think you're mixing talent with proficiency. The way i see talent, it's the actual creativity which you either have or don't have. Everything else can be learned.

 

[kwaker]

By definition: Yes
Personal Opinion: No

When it comes to art the only one i think of as real art is paintings and illustrations done by hand, cause it's the only one that takes actual talent to make something good, photography anyone can do well, same with photoshop, all you need is a quick tutorial and some time and you can create really stunning pictures using photoshop, but it never takes any talent, same with photos, of the friends i speak with on a daily basis about 5 of them are self-proclaimed photographists, and sure, they take a couple of nice photos using filters and different angles and stuff, but anyone can do that with the right equipment.

Hand-drawing on the other hand is something not everyone can do well, i know myself after trying really hard to become good at it, i failed miserably, much like just about all my mates did, so drawing by hand takes talent.

It's opinions like this that art teachers loath these days. 'Oh, it's not art because he didn't paint it' - come on, have you not been to a modern art gallery? Seen a sculpture, perhaps? What about Michael Angelo's David? No, that's not art, is it - it's not a painting -.-U

Maybe you meant to include sculpture as well in your definition. Ok, cool, thats a little more open minded. What about installations? Collections of objects and/or structures that can often be experienced my moving through them? Not exactly a single artistically created object, and can quite often consist of normal, everyday things that either have a special relevance to the artist or come together in a meaningful way. I guess the artistic community must be wrong about those two, since the artist didn't necessarily MAKE all the objects used, and hell, anyone could sticka heap of junk together and call it art, right?

Well, lets go with the art community on that one, shall we? What about Christo and his wrapping of various buildings and structures? He certainly didn't build them, he just wrapped them up in plastic sheets - but does that constitute a creative process in itself. Funny chap, but if that wasn't an artistic statement, what was? Is not art often used as a way to change our perceptions of things we see every day, to re-perceive the banal? Is art limited merely to painting a pretty picture? Has it not developed at all over the thousands of years since early man scraped berry juice over their cave walls?

People have mentioned photography as not being 'art'. To you I say, where's you evidence? How is an exquisitely framed, beautifully structured photograph any different to a beautiful painting? Is it just that spending half a year working on an oil painting magically validates it above the thought, preparation, finding site, lighting, composition, finding models, taking the perfect shot with the right settings and post processing that goes into a good artistic photograph? And cannot those opportunistic shots, capturing a fleeting moment of beauty, such as the light shining just so through the clouds, or a bird fleetingly pausing an a blossoming tree branch, have just as much artistic integrity as the more painstakingly, but artificially set up shots and paintings?

To discount anything that was intended as art off hand is an expression of closed-mindedness, an instinctive conservatism to not have your perception of the world challenged or changed. It's like saying, 'I know paintings are art, so nothing else is art - it's just pictures or models, because obviously they don't have the skill to be real artists'. Yeah, sure, I can't paint very well, but I can animate, I can sketch, I can manipulate photographs, all of which allow me to express the ideas I have. Some of them I think of as being art, others not so much, but just because they weren't painted, or even drawn on paper with a pencil doesn't mean that they are by default not art.

1: This is a discussion about paintings, other forms of art, Movies, Music, Sculptures etc..arent what we're discussing here, but thanks for misinterpreting the entire thread and giving me such a huge wall of text thanks to that.

2: Much like i said in my text, this is only my opinion of it, and when it comes to art, that's the only thing that matters, no one can say what is and what it not art, it doesnt work that way, and thats not what i said, what i said was that I didnt think so, if you dont agree, good for you.

3: My point (which EVERYONE seems to have missed), is that it takes much more talent to draw a painting that looks good by hand rather than to do it on a computer where you can add layers/filters/effects with the push of a button.

Dude he didn't misiterpret the whole thread because this is a thread about art anyway and anyhow. Sure the title doesn't say "give the definition of art" but it is what I was going for when I started the thread, a discussion about art and why people think it is art and why i shouldn't be considered as art. And trust me there is much more to photoshop than layers, filters and effects.

But anyhow please keep the debate going its very intresting to read all ure views on the subject

 

[Fronken]

3: My point (which EVERYONE seems to have missed), is that it takes much more talent to draw a painting that looks good by hand rather than to do it on a computer where you can add layers/filters/effects with the push of a button.

It doesn't take more TALENT to make something on canvas than digitally, i think you're mixing talent with proficiency. The way i see talent, it's the actual creativity which you either have or don't have. Everything else can be learned.

I see myself as a prime example of why painting on a canvas/paper is much harder and tales more talent than to do it on a computer, i may have grown up with computers, but the programs used are still very easy to learn (Photoshop for example), and making something that looks stunning in it isnt all that hard with all the options ready for your disposal, painting by hand on the other hand, there you have to practice like crazy to get good blurring effects/shadows/layers etc.., i tried for about 6 months with painting by hand, and i had a teacher that was good at painting and such, but i never got anything that was even respectable out from it, Photoshop on the other hand i learned from mates on LAN parties, and that i found to be very easy when it came to making stunning pictures.

 

[Fraeir]

Photoshop? Art in itself? Hardly xD

However, I think the works you can do in Photoshop, indeed is. Well, depending on what you do, if you copy paste a face around for the lulz, that's all it is, lulz, not art..

If you, however, sketch, line, colour and shade a picture from the ground up, then yes, I will consider that as art, as long as you did it all yourself. Heck, I will also consider it art if you colour something another artist has made, as long as you have said artist's permission to do so and show it (and credit the original maker, you fiend!)

I'm an artist (though I hate calling myself that, as I feel it sounds like I have status, which I don't) and I'd choose digital over say, painting, anyday. Mostly because I can't handle a brush as well as a stylus, and pencil drawings/doodles comes in between painting and digital. However, paints have their less evil parts, such as acrylics, which doesn't hate me as much as oils do... But yeah, on topic; digital works is, to me, fully plausible as to be called art.

 

[Fronken]

By definition: Yes
Personal Opinion: No

When it comes to art the only one i think of as real art is paintings and illustrations done by hand, cause it's the only one that takes actual talent to make something good, photography anyone can do well, same with photoshop, all you need is a quick tutorial and some time and you can create really stunning pictures using photoshop, but it never takes any talent, same with photos, of the friends i speak with on a daily basis about 5 of them are self-proclaimed photographists, and sure, they take a couple of nice photos using filters and different angles and stuff, but anyone can do that with the right equipment.

Hand-drawing on the other hand is something not everyone can do well, i know myself after trying really hard to become good at it, i failed miserably, much like just about all my mates did, so drawing by hand takes talent.

It's opinions like this that art teachers loath these days. 'Oh, it's not art because he didn't paint it' - come on, have you not been to a modern art gallery? Seen a sculpture, perhaps? What about Michael Angelo's David? No, that's not art, is it - it's not a painting -.-U

Maybe you meant to include sculpture as well in your definition. Ok, cool, thats a little more open minded. What about installations? Collections of objects and/or structures that can often be experienced my moving through them? Not exactly a single artistically created object, and can quite often consist of normal, everyday things that either have a special relevance to the artist or come together in a meaningful way. I guess the artistic community must be wrong about those two, since the artist didn't necessarily MAKE all the objects used, and hell, anyone could sticka heap of junk together and call it art, right?

Well, lets go with the art community on that one, shall we? What about Christo and his wrapping of various buildings and structures? He certainly didn't build them, he just wrapped them up in plastic sheets - but does that constitute a creative process in itself. Funny chap, but if that wasn't an artistic statement, what was? Is not art often used as a way to change our perceptions of things we see every day, to re-perceive the banal? Is art limited merely to painting a pretty picture? Has it not developed at all over the thousands of years since early man scraped berry juice over their cave walls?

People have mentioned photography as not being 'art'. To you I say, where's you evidence? How is an exquisitely framed, beautifully structured photograph any different to a beautiful painting? Is it just that spending half a year working on an oil painting magically validates it above the thought, preparation, finding site, lighting, composition, finding models, taking the perfect shot with the right settings and post processing that goes into a good artistic photograph? And cannot those opportunistic shots, capturing a fleeting moment of beauty, such as the light shining just so through the clouds, or a bird fleetingly pausing an a blossoming tree branch, have just as much artistic integrity as the more painstakingly, but artificially set up shots and paintings?

To discount anything that was intended as art off hand is an expression of closed-mindedness, an instinctive conservatism to not have your perception of the world challenged or changed. It's like saying, 'I know paintings are art, so nothing else is art - it's just pictures or models, because obviously they don't have the skill to be real artists'. Yeah, sure, I can't paint very well, but I can animate, I can sketch, I can manipulate photographs, all of which allow me to express the ideas I have. Some of them I think of as being art, others not so much, but just because they weren't painted, or even drawn on paper with a pencil doesn't mean that they are by default not art.

1: This is a discussion about paintings, other forms of art, Movies, Music, Sculptures etc..arent what we're discussing here, but thanks for misinterpreting the entire thread and giving me such a huge wall of text thanks to that.

2: Much like i said in my text, this is only my opinion of it, and when it comes to art, that's the only thing that matters, no one can say what is and what it not art, it doesnt work that way, and thats not what i said, what i said was that I didnt think so, if you dont agree, good for you.

3: My point (which EVERYONE seems to have missed), is that it takes much more talent to draw a painting that looks good by hand rather than to do it on a computer where you can add layers/filters/effects with the push of a button.

Dude he didn't misiterpret the whole thread because this is a thread about art anyway and anyhow. Sure the title doesn't say "give the definition of art" but it is what I was going for when I started the thread, a discussion about art and why people think it is art and why i shouldn't be considered as art. And trust me there is much more to photoshop than layers, filters and effects.

But anyhow please keep the debate going its very intresting to read all ure views on the subject

I know, there's quite alot of options and such in Photoshop, but didnt see the need to extend the list of options seeing as my point was kinda clear on that.

Oh and dont you worry about the debate, so far it's:

Me vs. DragunovHUN/Fix-The-Spade/Wicky 42/Moodels, so i wouldnt worry about this dying out anytime soon ^^, though it will take a while for me to respond to the countless bashing i'll take from the art-lovers of this thread seeing as my personal opinion isnt the same as theirs, cause i have other stuff to do irl today.

 

[kwaker]

Oh and dont you worry about the debate, so far it's:

Me vs. DragunovHUN/Fix-The-Spade/Wicky 42/Moodels, so i wouldnt worry about this dying out anytime soon ^^, though it will take a while for me to respond to the countless bashing i'll take from the art-lovers of this thread seeing as my personal opinion isnt the same as theirs, cause i have other stuff to do irl today.

Dont worry about it you are one of my favorites even though I stand on the everything is art side.xD