Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => But is it Art? => Topic started by: Isaac on July 16, 2015, 05:50:39 pm

Title: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Isaac on July 16, 2015, 05:50:39 pm
Quote
Has the person who has accidentally taken a superb photograph made a work of art?

… one day Rosenthal took eighteen exposures, one of which would become the most famous and reproduced photograph from the war (http://www.archives.gov/global-pages/larger-image.html?i=/historical-docs/doc-content/images/iwo-jima-flag-raising-l.jpg&c=/historical-docs/doc-content/images/iwo-jima-flag-raising.caption.html), and he had no idea which one. … "When you take a picture like that," he said, "you don't come away saying you got a great shot. You don't know."

The photograph of the flag raising was arguably produced as much by the Associated Press editor who selected and cropped it for distribution as it was by Rosenthal.

"Photography and the Art of Chance (https://books.google.com/books?id=ZQu1CAAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&vq=%22parked%20or%20privileged%20subject%22&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false)"


Quote
Some say it's the most famous, perfectly composed news photo (http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/22/world/cnnphotos-iwo-jima/) of all time.
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: luxborealis on July 16, 2015, 11:15:52 pm
Quote
"Ya gotta be good to lucky and lucky to be good."
– My Dad (and just about everyone else's!)

Quote
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity."
– Seneca

Has the person who has accidentally taken a superb photograph made a work of art?

To answer your question - no, one cannot "accidentally" make art, not according to the definition of art I live by. I think of art as something that is intentional. It can be experimental, but even that is intentional. But more than that, the work created must also be solely the product of the artist's creative mind and aesthetic skills. Art is an ideal that few are able to achieve.

Being in the right place at the right time does not make it "art". Rosenthal's photograph may be famous and may be well-composed, but it's photojournalism – a type of documentation – not art. Culturally, we have come to call it art, because of its artistic nature, but, in my view, it isn't really art.

In fact, most of what we see and call art is not art. It's documentation, it's pictorial, it's eye-catching, it's full of design, it's aesthetic, it's beautiful (or not), but it's not art.

My working definition is this: Art is the product of a creative, expressive mind. Art is made when an artist creates something using their own creative mind and aesthetic skills.

Photographers make a photograph (that's something, isn't it), but rarely is the content a product of the photographer's own creative mind. Rosenthal didn't create the flag raising (the content that everyone raves about); he used his photojournalistic instincts and keen eye (his aesthetic skills) to record the event in an engaging and compelling way - but that doesn't make it art.

Michelangelo carved "David" from a block of marble - he created it from his own imagination using his aesthetic skills. He painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel based on what was in his head (and approved by his patron - Pope Julius II).

What about painters who paint from a photograph, though – is it art? Hmmmm... grey area here. If they paint exactly what the photograph shows, then no - they are simply using paint to document a scene from a photograph. But if they add their own creative interpretation by changing what the photograph shows or by combining photographs, then it's approaching that "ideal" of art.

What about painters who paint landscapes, the Group of Seven (https://www.google.ca/search?q=group+of+seven&espv=2&biw=1436&bih=805&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CDYQsARqFQoTCNK66vOH4cYCFVCAkgodEcgKQg&dpr=1), Tom Thomson (https://www.google.ca/search?q=tom+thomson+most+famous+paintings&espv=2&biw=1436&bih=805&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CBwQsARqFQoTCJ2lk5-I4cYCFVYTkgod7iwLvQ) and Emily Carr (https://www.google.ca/search?q=emily+carr+paintings&espv=2&biw=1436&bih=805&site=webhp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMItb29yojhxgIVE0KSCh1bhwJG) (must see: Exhibit at the AGO (http://www.ago.net/emilycarr) - on until 9 Aug.) – they are artists. What exists on their canvases is a creation of their mind's interpretation of the scene in front of them.

Yet, some will point out that photographers add their own interpretation of a scene when they choose a lens, aperture, shutter speed, filter, perspective and composition – doesn't that make it art? My feeling is still, no. They aren't capturing something that is the product of their creative mind – all of the content captured by the photographer still existed whether or not the scene was photographed, so they are documenting. They are being very specific about what they are documenting, taking advantage of the conditions that exist at that time and place to create a compelling photograph, but it is still documentation. What would make it "art", by the definition I'm working with, would be if the photographer re-created the scene in a new way, perhaps through long exposures, camera movement, multiple exposures combined in a new way (no, not HDR!).

Is black-and-white photography art? While it is a departure from the scene, it is still not a product of the creative mind, but rather a technical process that converts what we see into a different form.

Are the photographs created by Ansel Adams art? They are artistic and certainly cutting edge for his time, but, no, by this (some would call strict) definition, they are not art because the content existed whether or not he tripped the shutter. Now, he was interpretive of the content, but anyone there at the same time would have seen the same thing. They may not have the technical skills or aesthetic eye to capture it, but the end work existed outside of the photographer's mind – in colour, mind you, but it existed. Adams captured what he saw; that's not art. Weston added even more interpretation and he certainly looked and saw more closely than most. But even his subjects existed outside of his mind. He had a wonderful aesthetic touch and skill, but he didn't create anything that didn't already exist outside of his mind.

From my perspective, artists create the thing they call art. We photographers can do this (and some do - like some of the work maddog (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=101656.0) is doing, or the smoke images by wmchauncy (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=98924.0) and the work BobDavid (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=99063.0) is doing here on LuLa, but also Jerry Uelsmann (https://www.google.ca/search?q=jerry+uelsmann+photography&espv=2&biw=1436&bih=805&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMI1bCWz5ThxgIVhBWSCh0wEQBp)). But by far, most of us (me included) get ourselves to the right place at the right time to use our technical knowledge and aesthetic eye to capture what is already there. We don't create the thing we photograph, we capture it, then call it our own.

The problem is that, too often, we confuse technical and aesthetic competence in a specific medium with art. Art is creative and is a product of the artist's mind. The artist uses a specific medium to re-create what they imagine, not what already exists.
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Alan Klein on July 17, 2015, 12:11:49 am
Is the painting of the Last Supper art or some form of pictorial journalism?  Art serves little or no utilitarian function but creates an emotional feeling in the person viewing it.  Most of the times this comes from aesthetic qualities.  However, feelings can also be religious as in the Last Supper or patriotic as in the Iwo Jima photograph.    The fact the picture is drawn from light rather than oils is a difference without a distinction.
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: luxborealis on July 17, 2015, 12:26:20 am
Is the painting of the Last Supper art or some form of pictorial journalism?  Art serves little or no utilitarian function but creates an emotional feeling in the person viewing it.  Most of the times this comes from aesthetic qualities.  However, feelings can also be religious as in the Last Supper or patriotic as in the Iwo Jima photograph.    The fact the picture is drawn from light rather than oils is a difference without a distinction.

I disagree, Alan. We, as photographers, like to think we "draw with light", but we don't. The light hits the sensor or film in a very predictable and repeatable way with no interference by the photographer - only a lens. It's a lens of their choosing, but that doesn't change the scene in front of the lens, which is what's needed for it to be art (using the definition outlined in my response).

DaVinci's "Last Supper" is completely his interpretation of the event based on the (rather sketchy) details he had. He wasn't there and no one had a photo. Rosenthal was there - his photograph is of the event itself, not his interpretation (as defined in my response) of the event. Therefore, his photo is documentation, not art. That doesn't change the emotional reaction to the content of the photograph, but Rosenthal cannot be credited with the scene in the photograph, whereas DaVinci can.
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Alan Klein on July 17, 2015, 01:33:31 am
It's not predictable or repeatable.  Otherwise we could stand exactly where Ansel stood and get the same shot.   Thousands have tried including putting the tripods on the exact spot the original was shot at.  And failed.  Time of day, lighting angle, perspective, content, subject's position, luck, the photographer's interpretation during the shot and in post processing and printing all play into getting a great picture that can be considered art.  It's why most shots are only snapshots - even by the experts.  Ask them, including Ansel, and you'll find only very few are outstanding shots taken over an entire career.  When you Google their name the same photos come up time after time.  Because the great ones are limited.    They really are special.  I think we all aim to get that special photo. And continue to seek them.  That's the challenge, otherwise why bother?  We're like the golfer always looking for the hole-in-one or at least a couple of birdies.  If all I sought were snapshots, I'd stop shooting.  But there's always the hope around the corner for a great one.

Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: amolitor on July 17, 2015, 01:53:02 am
Is Art defined by what it does, or how it is made?

Luxborealis, I will note merely that your view of Art is perhaps 100 years out of date, and leave it at that.

Why 'art' is a word that people somehow feel they have a personal stake in defining is something of a mystery. My feelings and ideas about the word 'dog' have no bearing, after all, and yet I could bleat on about what I 'feel' Art to be and nobody would think it odd.
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: spidermike on July 17, 2015, 03:22:00 am


Yet, some will point out that photographers add their own interpretation of a scene when they choose a lens, aperture, shutter speed, filter, perspective and composition – doesn't that make it art? My feeling is still, no. They aren't capturing something that is the product of their creative mind – all of the content captured by the photographer still existed whether or not the scene was photographed, so they are documenting. They are being very specific about what they are documenting, taking advantage of the conditions that exist at that time and place to create a compelling photograph, but it is still documentation. What would make it "art", by the definition I'm working with, would be if the photographer re-created the scene in a new way, perhaps through long exposures, camera movement, multiple exposures combined in a new way (no, not HDR!).

Is black-and-white photography art? While it is a departure from the scene, it is still not a product of the creative mind, but rather a technical process that converts what we see into a different form.

Are the photographs created by Ansel Adams art? They are artistic and certainly cutting edge for his time, but, no, by this (some would call strict) definition, they are not art because the content existed whether or not he tripped the shutter. Now, he was interpretive of the content, but anyone there at the same time would have seen the same thing. They may not have the technical skills or aesthetic eye to capture it, but the end work existed outside of the photographer's mind – in colour, mind you, but it existed. Adams captured what he saw; that's not art. Weston added even more interpretation and he certainly looked and saw more closely than most. But even his subjects existed outside of his mind. He had a wonderful aesthetic touch and skill, but he didn't create anything that didn't already exist outside of his mind.



So what about portrait photographers? Still life photographers?

That particular 'scene' existed only because the photographer created them. So that seems to elevate them to art. There is even discussion that the Iwo Jima picture was staged by the photographer - does that suddenly elevate it to art because without him it would not have existed.
What about a (what we now call) 'photorealistic' painting - the artist is attempting to make no personal interpretation of the scene. Whether an interpretation exists or not is secondary because the intention was not to, and if he failed (ie he did include some personal interpretation) it is 'accidental and therefore 'not art' by your definition.

Then there is Pollock and his drip paintings. He splashed paint around on canvas and created painting after painting and only selected the ones that he felt had a certain balance. He knew the general thing he was trying to do but the final creation was down to luck. Not art. But I guess there will be some collectors  who wold be mighty pissed off if you told them so. Not to mention Christies and a host of auction houses.



Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: stamper on July 17, 2015, 03:48:01 am
Isaac will be happy that he has achieved what he set out to do? Started another senseless debate about what art is and isn't. :(
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on July 17, 2015, 07:46:10 am
Has the person who has accidentally taken a superb photograph made a work of art?

If you're asking whether that person made a work of art or no, my answer is no.
But if you're asking whether thet photograph made by that person is a work of art or no, my answer is yes.

So I think I only partially agree with luxborealis's definition of art: i agree that "Art is the product of a creative, expressive mind", but I don't agree that the mind must be that of the artist: it could be the one of the viewer.



Isaac will be happy that he has achieved what he set out to do? Started another senseless debate about what art is and isn't. :(
The debate may be senseless but that doesn't means it's useless: exploring ideas is worthed even if no conclusion is reached.
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Otto Phocus on July 17, 2015, 07:56:23 am
Unless Rosenthal tripped and while he was falling inadvertently hit the shutter button, he did not accidentally take any picture.

I think the actual question you intend on asking is whether any photographer has ever taken a picture that they initially thought was average but turned out, later to be very popular.  In that case yes, that happens quite often.

The only photographs I take accidentally are of my lens cap or my feet.... and strangely few people complement me on those shots.  :)
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: spidermike on July 17, 2015, 09:16:14 am
If you're asking whether that person made a work of art or no, my answer is no.
But if you're asking whether thet photograph made by that person is a work of art or no, my answer is yes.


That really is descending into philosophical sophistry (to put it politely). What practical use is that conclusion (and by 'use' I am not referring only to the physical utilitarian but in terms of advancing a discussion)?
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: spidermike on July 17, 2015, 09:17:32 am

I think the actual question you intend on asking is whether any photographer has ever taken a picture that they initially thought was average but turned out, later to be very popular. 


But surely if it is popular it is not art....  ;D
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on July 17, 2015, 09:25:46 am
That really is descending into philosophical sophistry (to put it politely). What practical use is that conclusion (and by 'use' I am not referring only to the physical utilitarian but in terms of advancing a discussion)?
Once you realize that you're not always in "divine act of art creation" you start realizing how important is the interaction with the viewer, which may have the pratical use to improve your success has an artist.
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: spidermike on July 17, 2015, 09:40:32 am
Firstly, I think you missed the point of my comment - the picture is a work of art but as the person who took the picture I didn't create a work of art.
It is that sort of meaningless drivel that gives philosophy of any sort a bad name.


Once you realize that you're not always in "divine act of art creation" you start realizing how important is the interaction with the viewer, which may have the pratical use to improve your success has an artist.


What about the 'artist' who does not care about 'success'. If such an artist considers he has reached a apotheosis of his 'art' who is anyone to tell him he is wrong - in which case 'connecting with the viewer' is irrelevant. And if he considers his work as 'art', then he is always in the 'divine act of art creation'* no matter what you or I think.  
Of course this all comes back to the position exmeplified by Macel Duchamp's urinal.

*let alone discussing art in the terms of 'divine' - bordering on self aggrandising obsession.
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on July 17, 2015, 09:53:18 am
Firstly, I think you missed the point of my comment - the picture is a work of art but as the person who took the picture I didn't create a work of art.
It is that sort of meaningless drivel that gives philosophy of any sort a bad name.
As it's meaningless for you it may very well be meaningful for others.


What about the 'artist' who does not care about 'success'. If such an artist considers he has reached a apotheosis of his 'art' who is anyone to tell him he is wrong - in which case 'connecting with the viewer' is irrelevant. And if he considers his work as 'art', then he is always in the 'divine act of art creation'* no matter what you or I think.  
Of course this all comes back to the position exmeplified by Macel Duchamp's urinal.

*let alone discussing art in the terms of 'divine' - bordering on self aggrandising obsession.

What about the artist who does care about success?
Or just the artist who does care about interacting with the viewers?
Again, if something has no value for someone that doesn't means it has no value whatsoever.
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: luxborealis on July 17, 2015, 10:20:05 am
Is Art defined by what it does, or how it is made?

Luxborealis, I will note merely that your view of Art is perhaps 100 years out of date, and leave it at that.

Why 'art' is a word that people somehow feel they have a personal stake in defining is something of a mystery. My feelings and ideas about the word 'dog' have no bearing, after all, and yet I could bleat on about what I 'feel' Art to be and nobody would think it odd.


This notion is not a hundred years out of date - it's as alive today as ever. Just visit a gallery showing modern art. Many of us hate it but it's intentional and completely a product of the artist's mind.

Art is an ideal, few ever achieve. So, the rest of us who are trying to be artists make up all kinds of reasons to explain why what we are doing should be called art. We want it to be recognized as art, but really, it's not. It's artistic, but not art.

This doesn't lessen what we're doing. I'm still going out tomorrow to make more landscapes using photography as my medium of choice. It's what I love to do, but I've come to the realization that while I put much time, effort and creative and aesthetic thought and technique into what I do, my photographs are not creations of my mind, but  reasonable facsimiles of beautiful moments, not too difficult to repeat. (Alan, the physics of light through glass onto a sensor is predictable and repeatable - I'm sorry I wasn't clear on that.)

Art, like a Picasso work, cannot be repeated. Art is an original product of the creative mind. It can be reproduced and similar works can be made, but that's just copying an idea and a style, not creating. What I and most landscape photographers are doing is copying nature - we're really not creating anything new.

As photographers, we don't like to hear this because we've spent the last century trying to get photography recognized as art. Some of it is, as I pointed out in my post above, but, by far, most of it is not.

BTW - Thanks to Isaac for opening this can of worms. Isaac and I have battled over the years here on the forum, but his original post forced me to think about what I'm doing in relation to art and what exactly art is. As Stamper pointed out, the discussion is irrelevant, particularly because to most people, it doesn't really matter what art is.

For me, drilling down into this philosophical notion of art is helpful in creating context for the work I do. However,  if a paying customer wants to call what I do art, I'm not about to launch into a diatribe about why it's not. I'll just take the compliment in the context of what I believe art is and move on. Is that deceitful? Perhaps, but I would also like to sell a few photographs to support my habit. :)
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: amolitor on July 17, 2015, 10:26:46 am
Just because the art you see happens to be the product of intentional labor, this does not imply that the definition of Art includes intentional labor.

Duchamp pretty much killed that definition dead.
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Arlen on July 17, 2015, 01:06:31 pm
Terry, thank you for what you wrote in your original reply. Though your conclusions mostly follow from your definition of art--the most controversial and amorphous aspect of the whole question, I think--you make an articulate and cogent argument for your point of view. It's both thoughtful and thought provoking, which is always a good thing.



To answer your question - no, one cannot "accidentally" make art, not according to the definition of art I live by....


[Modified to save space]
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Isaac on July 17, 2015, 01:50:47 pm
Unless Rosenthal tripped and while he was falling inadvertently hit the shutter button, he did not accidentally take any picture.

'… [Rosenthal] confessed that its making was "largely accidental." … "I have often thought," he said a decade after making his famous photograph, "of the things that happened quite accidentally to give that picture its qualities."' p208


I think the actual question you intend on asking is…

No, it is not.

The only photographs I take accidentally are of my lens cap or my feet…

Do you control every aspect of what is included within the frame? Do you stage your photographs?

Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: MattBurt on July 17, 2015, 03:20:51 pm
I think a purposeful capture of the scene is certainly art. The product maybe mostly craft, but when a person is trying to take what they see and distill it, leaving out some things, being sure to include others, and arranging them in a visually appealing way, it's art to me. Purely documentary photography isn't but any interpretation by the photographer makes it have an element of art to it. The line between documentary and art is also a blurry one with some works like that flag shot falling close to that line.

When I got my art degree as a watercolorist I felt less this way. I guess I've softened and become more inclusive with my definition, especially when I feel like I'm making art when taking photos in the right circumstances.
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Isaac on July 17, 2015, 03:39:56 pm
Why 'art' is a word that people somehow feel they have a personal stake in defining is something of a mystery.

Obviously there are people who do have a personal stake in what the word 'art' is understood to mean: many call themselves artists; others - curators, dealers, institutions, art schools, collectors, … The Art World.

Quote
"And of course probably one of the strongest reasons why you’d want your activity to be called art is economic because there’s an awful lot of money - 43 billion pounds last year - sloshing through the art market, so that’s quite a nice incentive to call what you do art.

That idea of what art is is still very, even in the 21st century age, is still very pertinent."

The Reith Lectures 2013 : Playing to the Gallery (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03dsk4d)   (pp 4-5 in the transcript)
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Alan Klein on July 17, 2015, 04:31:44 pm
Is Art defined by what it does, or how it is made?...


The viewer cares about the effect on his mind and soul, the whole point of art.  Only critics care about how it was made.
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: spidermike on July 17, 2015, 04:36:05 pm


What about the artist who does care about success?
Or just the artist who does care about interacting with the viewers?
Again, if something has no value for someone that doesn't means it has no value whatsoever.

I totally agree with you Diego - but as you have not argued against my points you have reinforced my thinking that trying to design a global definition of art is futile - a definition must fit all cases or it is not a definition.
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: amolitor on July 17, 2015, 04:41:06 pm
The viewer cares about the effect on his mind and soul, the whole point of art.  Only critics care about how it was made.

This is certainly the modern viewpoint. It admits a surprising number of things as "Art" however.

Also, quite a lot of people think it can't be Art unless there's technical skill, intent, and effort involved. This was, indeed, the prevailing view prior to the early 20th century. It's relevant here because Photography as a form played a part in changing this conception. Photography is, obviously, Art. And yet, it requires none of these things.
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Isaac on July 17, 2015, 04:57:29 pm
Photography is, obviously, Art.

"Next boundary marker: photography. Problematic."

pdf Lecture 2: Beating The Bounds (http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/radio4/transcripts/reith-lecture2-liverpool.pdf)
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on July 17, 2015, 05:11:03 pm
I totally agree with you Diego - but as you have not argued against my points you have reinforced my thinking that trying to design a global definition of art is futile - a definition must fit all cases or it is not a definition.

A global definition is impossible, but that doesn't mean that a personal definition is always futile: knowing what others consider art is a hint of their mind.

What this hint is good for it's up to the person getting it.
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Isaac on July 18, 2015, 12:30:36 pm
… forced me to think about what I'm doing in relation to art and what exactly art is. … the discussion is irrelevant … drilling down into this philosophical notion of art is helpful in creating context for the work I do.

Sounds like the discussion is directly relevant to what you do ;-)

(Lest we forget, this part of the LuLa forum is titled "But is it Art? A free form forum for opinions on photography as an art form.")


Duchamp pretty much killed that definition dead.

And now … ?

"Now we are in a time of post-historical art, anything can be art but not everything is art. … We’re in a state now where anything goes. But the thing is I think there are boundaries still about what can and cannot be art, but the limits are softer, they’re fuzzier. … the boundaries of contemporary art (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03dsk4d). They are not formed by what art can be, but where, who or why."
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: spidermike on July 18, 2015, 04:23:37 pm
A global definition is impossible, but that doesn't mean that a personal definition is always futile: knowing what others consider art is a hint of their mind.

What this hint is good for it's up to the person getting it.

Surely even your own personal defintion of art must be all-encompassing otherwise those grey areas I commented on are undefinable.
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on July 18, 2015, 04:44:37 pm
Surely even your own personal defintion of art must be all-encompassing otherwise those grey areas I commented on are undefinable.
Newtonian theory of gravity doesn't  encompass relativistic situations and yet it's far from useless
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 18, 2015, 05:11:26 pm
The OP referenced image is neither accidental, nor art, so why all the fuss?
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Isaac on July 18, 2015, 06:30:01 pm
… neither accidental …

'… [Rosenthal] confessed that its making was "largely accidental." … "I have often thought," he said a decade after making his famous photograph, "of the things that happened quite accidentally to give that picture its qualities."' p208
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 18, 2015, 06:42:49 pm
The "things" might have been accidental, the photograph wasn't.
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Isaac on July 18, 2015, 07:29:54 pm
If the "things" that "give the picture its qualities" were accidental…

For anyone interested in the story of the photograph told by the photographer -- pdf "The Picture That Will Live Forever (http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com/pdf/Joe_Rosenthal_Article.pdf) … What difference does it make who took the picture".
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Ray on July 18, 2015, 11:27:11 pm
.. a definition must fit all cases or it is not a definition.

Surely even your own personal defintion of art must be all-encompassing otherwise those grey areas I commented on are undefinable.

You've hit the nail on the head, Mike. The problem as I see it is due to the prevalent paradigm in ordinary, everyday language of the binary state of mutual exclusion, that is, the duality of 'either/or'. Something must be 'either X or Y', but not 'both X and Y'. Something is either 'hot' or 'cold', but not both 'hot and cold'.

The concept of a precise temperature is perhaps a good example to demonstrate the problem. Is 100 degrees Centigrade hot? Within a domestic situation in the kitchen, boiling water can scald your hands. It's definitely hot. What about 40 degrees? Is that hot? In the kitchen, water at 40 degrees is just warm. In the atmosphere outside, 40 degrees is bloody hot, almost unbearable. In a furnace designed to melt metal, 40 degrees is bloody cold.

The word 'art' falls into a similar category. There's a broad spectrum of artistic quality that every object can contain to some degree. The more 'pure' a form of art is, the less is its direct, practical purpose, as opposed to any indirect practical effect due to an emotional uplifting of the spirits.

A tool designed to serve a practical function is generally not considered to be a work of art. If its design, shape and form are influenced by artistic considerations, then it can become less practical, as in the example of a woman's high-heeled shoe, or many types of fashion clothing.

Photography, and specific photographs, can fall into the category of potentially being 'both a work of art and not a work of art'. Even a forensic photograph of a crime scene could have elements of artistic influence.

Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Isaac on July 19, 2015, 03:32:01 pm
… nor art …

-- "Art created in North America includes objects made by native cultures of the present-day United States and Canada; paintings and decorative arts produced during colonial times; 18th- and 19th-century masterpieces; and the work of contemporary artists and photographers (https://www.mfah.org/art/detail/old-glory-goes-mt-suribachi-iwo-jima/)."

-- "Mr. Rosenthal said would say he was lucky to catch the flag-raising at its most dramatic instant, producing a masterpiece of composition acclaimed as a work of art (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/21/business/media/22rosenthalcnd.html)."

-- "Even more than half a century later, Rosenthal's picture retains its emotional power as a work of art (http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/JOE-ROSENTHAL-1911-2006-Photo-was-his-fame-2490706.php) as well as a patriotic icon."
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: spidermike on July 19, 2015, 05:44:32 pm
Newtonian theory of gravity doesn't  encompass relativistic situations and yet it's far from useless

More exactly, Newtonian physics does not contradict relativistic situations, but it is a good guide for all real-word situations most of us encounter. In the round, Newtonian physics is a subset of quantum mechanics and relativistic physics where gross assumptions are good enough for real applications - an architect does not have to calculate spin states in every atom in a building to know if it will be stable.

By contrast your 'definition' cannot be a subset of anything because your definition is exclusionary (if it doesn't meet my criteria it isn't art). 

Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on July 19, 2015, 06:15:15 pm
More exactly, Newtonian physics does not contradict relativistic situations,
Nevertheless,  Newtonian physics does not encompass relativistic situations and yet is far from useless.
Any theory, even a wrong one, is much better than no theory at all.

This is true both for physics and for art.
How much better, is up to the use you're making of that theory

Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 19, 2015, 06:15:18 pm
Isaac, let me clarify: it isn't accidental in the sense, as someone already mentioned, that he did not trip and pressed the shutter accidentally. It is not art (imho) in the sense it isn't a classical art. Just like a toilet bowl, or a white canvas, or a can of Campbell soup, etc., isn't art in the classical sense, a documentary photograph isn't either (again, imho). I am not trying to impose my definitions on anyone, just clarifying what I think, for what it's worth. That any of these objects can be ultimately elevated or acclaimed to the status of art is a domain of modern arts.

At the same time, I do not deny that you or others might see the "accidentallity" (if there is such a word) of the image stemming from the accidental arrangement of picture elements (the angle of the pole, wind-determined position of the flag, position of arms and torsos, etc.). Unless we are talking about a photographer-arranged still life or a fashion shoot, most of us photographers are working with accidental arrangement of picture elements all the time. That clouds form a particular shape, or that light falls at a particular angle, etc. is all accidental (or Nature's creativity, if you will. However, the ability to instinctively and instantly recognize when all those accidental elements align to create a powerful combination and press the shutter at the decisive moment, is what makes a photographer great and photography art. Even if that process of recognizing happen at a later stage, in culling or post-processing.
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Isaac on July 19, 2015, 07:25:35 pm
It is not art (imho) in the sense it isn't a classical art.

"The overlapping bodies recall the bonded brothers in Jacques-Louis David's neoclassical painting Oath of the Horatii (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/his/CoreArt/art/resourcesb/dav_oath.jpg) of 1784, … redolent of sacrifice and resurrection because of its resemblance to scenes of Christ's martyrdom, particularly the bearing or erecting of the cross. … expertly synthesizes several prominent strands of form and meaning in the Western tradition (https://books.google.com/books?id=ZQu1CAAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&vq=%22parked%20or%20privileged%20subject%22&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=%22expertly%20synthesizes%20several%20prominent%20strands%20of%20form%20and%20meaning%20in%20the%20Western%20tradition%22&f=false)."
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: spidermike on July 20, 2015, 03:42:23 am
Nevertheless,  Newtonian physics does not encompass relativistic situations and yet is far from useless.


Your analogy completely and utterly fails to describe what you think it does. Newtonian physics works within our knowledge of quantum/relativistic physics - and like all approximations it has its limits of usefulness. It breaks down under definable conditions and cannot be used beyond those conditions (at very small distances or very high speeds).


If you accept that you 'definition' of art breaks down under certain conditions, then where does  that leave your theory of what constitutes art?


I note you still have not responded specifically to the situations I described, but it is sounding like those grey areas are analagous to what you see as the difference between Newtonian and special relativity.
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on July 20, 2015, 03:46:29 am
Your analogy completely and utterly fails to describe what you think it does.
It may fails for you: others may find it quite on the spot.

Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: spidermike on July 20, 2015, 06:07:58 am
It may fails for you: others may find it quite on the spot.



Art being justified by pseudo-science. Unfortunately all too prevalent.
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on July 20, 2015, 06:10:21 am
Art being justified by pseudo-science. Unfortunately all too prevalent.
Once again: if this thread or the expressed ideas are worthless or senseless to you doesn't means they are worthless or senseless to everybody.
Nobody is a golden standard.
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: spidermike on July 20, 2015, 06:41:20 am
Once again: if this thread or the expressed ideas are worthless or senseless to you doesn't means they are worthless or senseless to everybody.
Nobody is a golden standard.

Surely the only 'golden standard' is logic. Only then can it be 'sense' as opposed to 'senseless'. 
I have no problem with you (or anyone) holding a definition of art, but when a scientific concept is introduced to support their position and that concept fails at the most basic level of enquiry, challenging it will enable 'everybody' to make their own minds up as to its validity. Is this pedantic? Probably. Is it necessary? IMO, yes. Otherwise positions become inarguable, supported by irrelevancies and non-sequiturs.

I will leave it at that. Have a good day.
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on July 20, 2015, 06:48:19 am
Surely the only 'golden standard' is logic. Only then can it be 'sense' as opposed to 'senseless'. 
I have no problem with you (or anyone) holding a definition of art, but when a scientific concept is introduced to support their position and that concept fails at the most basic level of enquiry, challenging it will enable 'everybody' to make their own minds up as to its validity. Is this pedantic? Probably. Is it necessary? IMO, yes. Otherwise positions become inarguable, supported by irrelevancies and non-sequiturs.

I will leave it at that. Have a good day.
Once again: if it fails for you that doesn't means it fails for everybody.
If logic is your golden standard, good for you.


Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: spidermike on July 20, 2015, 07:06:27 am

If logic is your golden standard, good for you.





[sits dumbfounded at the implications of that one!]
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on July 20, 2015, 07:13:06 am
[sits dumbfounded at the implications of that one!]

My dumbfounded books says that the theory of special relativity was originally proposed in 1905.
The same dumbfounded books says that Newton's law of universal gravitation was published in 1687.

So, if you're right, Newton's law of universal gravitation was useless until 1905.
Good look supporting that claim.
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: spidermike on July 20, 2015, 07:30:52 am
My dumbfounded books says that the theory of special relativity was originally proposed in 1905.
The same dumbfounded books says that Newton's law of universal gravitation was published in 1687.

So, if you're right, Newton's law of universal gravitation was useless until 1905.
Good look supporting that claim.

How on earth do you reach that conclusion: it's one of those non-sequiturs I was talking about.
Unfortunately it seems you are right...logic does escape you.
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on July 20, 2015, 07:34:41 am
How on earth do you reach that conclusion: it's one of those non-sequiturs I was talking about.
Unfortunately it seems you are right...logic does escape you.
I think we agree to disagree.
Have a nice day.



Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 20, 2015, 11:40:44 am
"The overlapping bodies recall the bonded brothers in Jacques-Louis David's neoclassical painting...

Now, Isaac, we seem to be entering Virgin-Mary-toast (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4034787.stm) territory ;)

If that toast is art, than photographers can create art accidentally too. Come to think of it, based on the price of that toast, the toaster must be much better artist than I am.

Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Isaac on July 20, 2015, 12:16:23 pm
Quote
"Laughter as Diversionary Tactic: We fall into this fallacy when, unable to come up with a reasoned response (https://books.google.com/books?id=xRCkNvDlRtYC&lpg=PA20&vq=laughter%20as%20a%20diversionary%20tactic&pg=PA20#v=onepage&q=%22unable%20to%20come%20uup%20with%20a%20reasoned%20response%22&f=false) to an argument, we try to dodge it by pretending that it is not worth taking seriously."
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 20, 2015, 12:21:26 pm
Virgin-Mary-toast was a rather serious example, Isaac. A chuckle after an argument is presented is not the same as a laughter instead of an argument.
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: amolitor on July 20, 2015, 12:23:56 pm
Is Isaac actually simultaneously demanding evidence in one thread, and refusing to provide it in another, talking to the same guy in both threads?

That is a new level of boldness.
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Isaac on July 20, 2015, 12:37:11 pm
Virgin-Mary-toast was a rather serious example, Isaac.

Is your serious argument that the photograph does not plainly and intentionally show a group of figures, or that the painting does not plainly and intentionally show a group of figures?

Is your argument that the photograph does not transform "the event into a solemn act that bound the wills of different individuals in a single, creative gesture" or that the painting does not?
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 20, 2015, 12:47:32 pm
Is your serious argument that the photograph does not plainly and intentionally show a group of figures, or that the painting does not plainly and intentionally show a group of figures?

No. Both your statements above are correct, i..e, both the photograph and the painting show a group or figures, obviously. My argument is that the accidental similarity between the two, something arrived to in the post-conceptual analysis only, does not make a documentary photograph art anymore than an accidentally burned toast does. Or does it?
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 20, 2015, 12:54:43 pm
... Is your argument that the photograph does not transform "the event into a solemn act that bound the wills of different individuals in a single, creative gesture" or that the painting does not?

This edited part came after I wrote my reply above, so I'll address this one separately.

I do not think that the photograph transformed the event, it merely documented it. The painting, however, had a better chance of being the transformative force.

Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Isaac on July 22, 2015, 06:32:44 pm
I do not think that the photograph transformed the event, it merely documented it.

The event was the replacement of a small flag by a large flag. The photograph transformed that into a symbol of struggle, solidarity and victory.
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: spidermike on July 23, 2015, 03:10:35 am
The photograph transformed that into a symbol of struggle, solidarity and victory.

People's minds do that, not the picture.
Someone on the other side of a political fence could take that same picture as being a symbol of American hegemony.
Title: Re: Accidentally made a work of art?
Post by: Isaac on July 23, 2015, 12:22:47 pm
People's minds do that, not the picture.

People's minds do everything that results in their understanding of a photograph!

Someone on the other side of a political fence could take that same picture as being a symbol of American hegemony.

And that too would be a transformation of an event - the replacement of a small flag by a large flag - into, as you say, a symbol.