The first point to be made is that I am not an art critic.  In fact I am not qualified in any definable way to write art commentary.  Like anyone with a blog I will not let that stop me.

Art is entirely a matter of opinion.  Art is whatever you want it to be.  When you look at a painting or a photograph or whatever, if it looks, feels or smells like art to you than it is very much art.  To you.  Still it is hard not to acknowledge that some “artists” become recognized as such because the majority of those that view their work, come to the same conclusion that it is in fact art.   In other words there must be something to it.

I would have loved to have been a painter.  Unfortunately while my mind and soul are willing, my hands will not cooperate.  To create the style of painting I appreciate you do need that skill in the hand.  Tis not to say that I am a total literalist in my choices.  I do favor the natural landscape and I have been in love with impressionism since I was a child. From the French artists to the American Hudson River Painters to some of today’s artists, I am captivated by some that lean in that direction.   The slightly altered reality of impressionism covers my own visual perception of life.  I have always enjoyed the work of Georgia O’Keeffe as well.  She was a sweet yet tough lady with a sincere statement.   I am not always of the abstract “ilk” within art, but still there are some.  The expressionist style of Kimberly Conrad comes to mind.   I do tend to lean towards art that I feel contains some clarity during the process of its creation, and therefore is not overly ambiguous.  I also enjoy artists that vary their work a little.  Whether that is an evolution or something they return to, it makes a difference to me.  I always appreciate individuals who are not a “one trick pony”.  Thanks to Paul Simon for the above quote.

I do not know how anyone goes out to intentionally create art.  It would seem that one would simply do what they do, be it an intellectual exercise or a statement from within, and then it just is what it is.  Art to some and not so much to others.  I must admit that I am at times a bit suspicious of photographers who go out with the express purpose of creating art.  Still there are photographers who make what I consider to be art, over and over again.

What about nature photography as art?  Is is possible?  Can it be realism and still be art?  For me personally the answer is yes to all of those questions.  Like I said art is whatever it is to you.  I can wander back and forth between realism and abstractions without prejudice.  I support Photoshop creations for whomever may choose to do so, but for me personally, when I say abstract I mean a unique point of view, or use of light, not really a creation of computer work.   It took a long time before some would consider photography art at all and another chunk of time before nature photography was accepted by some as art.  Many still will not give artistic merit to wildlife photography.   Art is what we each want it to be, but I believe to eliminate a wide-ranging subject like wildlife photography is pure artistic snobbery.  Eliminating something as art before viewing it is just elitism.  Eliminating a piece as art after viewing is your own personal and valid opinion.  I do the latter myself with much of what I see in an art museum.

Is artistic intent, or a different point of view (composition) in landscape photography what it takes to make a nature photograph an art object for you?  Can a traditional but good landscape image be art?

Traditional

Maybe a bit more creative thought was put into the comp, or point of view.  Is it more or less artistic to you?

Can the natural conditions that exist when you make your photograph, dictate whether the finished image is art or not?  The top photo has been published many times and the conditions were great that morning, but it is a very standard image in its design and intent.  Does that mean it cannot be art?  The second photo was created under more unique atmospheric conditions.  I do not believe that there was any more artistic thought at work here.  Can those natural conditions create a more artful image?

If you believe wildlife imagery can be art, what is your criteria?  The top two photos are good pictures made much the same way wildlife imagery has been made forever.  One is a cute look at three fox kits, and the other is a standard flight shot in pretty light.  The creative process was put into use when the “gull on white’ and “swan detail” pix were made.  Does that mean they are art?  Should they be given more consideration?  In my view the answer is no.

All of the above pictures are mine and I certainly understand that you may not find anything that I chose to be artistic.  That in fact is normal and it again proves my theory that art is and always will (and should be) be in the eye of the beholder.

I appreciate the fact that the number of you that view these posts ( I know that by page counts) is going up once again.  I have been writing one a day because I am not sure when I will stop this process.  I will simply rattle them off while I can.  Thank you for taking the ride with me!