Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => But is it Art? => Topic started by: PeterAit on August 31, 2013, 06:30:04 pm

Title: What is art?
Post by: PeterAit on August 31, 2013, 06:30:04 pm
A timely reminder to all the sharpness and technique fanatics on LuLa. Yes, just a refrigerator magnet, but the message is no less true.

Title: Re: What is art?
Post by: Peter Stacey on August 31, 2013, 06:39:05 pm
Well this certainly produces an emotional response in me, but that doesn't make it art and it remains a huge waste of public money:

(http://www.canberra100.com.au/storage/cache/42ceff9588ba54f73b83b8e65b26a4eb.jpeg)

In photography, the quality of the print itself also has artistic value and the technical aspects most certainly can (and often do) contribute to the artistic value of the final result.

While (at risk of referencing and often used quote), a sharp image of a fuzzy concept is not good; a fuzzy image of a sharp concept can be just as disappointing.
Title: Re: What is art?
Post by: HSakols on August 31, 2013, 07:45:36 pm
Interesting medium

Title: Re: What is art?
Post by: Gulag on September 01, 2013, 12:51:49 am
Marcel Duchamp argued everything is work of art, not only ready-made objects, (for example, urinal) are art, even everyone's breathing is also art. On the other hand,  Andy Warhol stated, "making money is art and working is art."  The belief that only "artists" make art is so superannuated and we live in an age where art has ceased to exist in the traditional western intellectual definition.  

"This is the reason for this journey into hyperreality, in search of instances where the American imagination demands the real thing and, to attain it, must fabricate the absolute fake; where the boundaries between game and illusion are blurred, the art museum is contaminated by the freak show, and falsehood is enjoyed in a situation of “fullness,” of horror vacui."

— Unberto Eco. “Travels in Hyperreality.”
Title: Re: What is art?
Post by: Rob C on September 01, 2013, 04:44:00 am
Well this certainly produces an emotional response in me, but that doesn't make it art and it remains a huge waste of public money:

(http://www.canberra100.com.au/storage/cache/42ceff9588ba54f73b83b8e65b26a4eb.jpeg)

In photography, the quality of the print itself also has artistic value and the technical aspects most certainly can (and often do) contribute to the artistic value of the final result.

While (at risk of referencing and often used quote), a sharp image of a fuzzy concept is not good; a fuzzy image of a sharp concept can be just as disappointing.



I'm not so sure; that photograph is a beautiful example of interesting subject and damnd nice framing and capture.

Rob C
Title: Re: What is art?
Post by: PeterAit on September 01, 2013, 09:40:54 am

While (at risk of referencing and often used quote), a sharp image of a fuzzy concept is not good; a fuzzy image of a sharp concept can be just as disappointing.

I have nothing against sharpness per se and seek it out in most of my photos - but, I treat it as a necessary element of *some* good photographs, and not as an end in itself.
Title: Re: What is art?
Post by: mezzoduomo on September 01, 2013, 01:05:51 pm
A timely reminder to all the sharpness and technique fanatics on LuLa. Yes, just a refrigerator magnet, but the message is no less true.

This topic is bound to dissolve into semantics, sensibilities, and subjectivity. My wife often says, "If I can say 'I could have done that', it's not art". I disagree with her.

Is a urinal 'art'? If one thinks it's art when presented in a gallery, does it remain art when it's on the wall in the train station restroom?

If a person creates a concept (contemplative photo, abstract painting, upside-down bicycle fork mounted on a stool, modern dance piece, 21st century 'classical music'...whatever might challenge someones conventional definition of 'art') and then executes that concept intending for it to be perceived as art, then it's art.

The Mona Lisa, an Ansel Adams print, or a steaming pile of elephant dung on a silver platter becomes 'art' when it is conceived, executed and presented as art. Whether good or bad art is an entirely separate matter.
Title: Re: What is art?
Post by: Peter Stacey on September 01, 2013, 06:18:39 pm
I'm not so sure; that photograph is a beautiful example of interesting subject and damnd nice framing and capture.

Rob C

I agree and admit my initial reply was a bit facetious.

I don't think any discussion of art used as a basis to criticise can be summarised in a 50 c fridge magnet. The whole basis of the thread to me is flawed.

A photograph, as in the physical thing itself, also has an artistic quality and to provide a 'timely reminder to the sharpness and technique fanatics on LuLa' is not the way to start a thread in my view, particularly in relation to photography where the craft is as intimately a part of the process as the 'vision' (for want of a better word).

In some cases, the execution of fine craftmanship can be the art.

To be honest, I don't think LuLa has a problem with fanatics that requires any sort of timely reminder.

So my reply was a bit facetious in relation to hundreds of thousands of dollars given to an artist to design a hot air balloon to commemorate the centenary anniversary of Australia's capital city. The end result bears no relationship to Canberra and without an explanation, it does nothing to represent the centenary in any way.

As a piece of art, it fails the fridge magnet test but is still widely regarded as a piece of art (and a waste of money by many other people in the city).

So either the fridge magnet message is wrong, or it simply isn't sufficiently detailed enough to be used to criticise anyone. My bet is it isn't detailed enough. Art is much deeper then that and in many cases (eg. centenary hot air balloons) explanation may well be needed.

At the same time I have seen many prints (and have a couple hanging on the walls of my house) where the print itself has been masterfully produced and is a thing of beauty on its own. It's thanks to fanatics that these prints exist.

For me personally, the perfect marriage of a fine concept with masterful execution is the ultimate goal in my photography. Both are required for certain works.
Title: Re: What is art?
Post by: PeterAit on September 01, 2013, 06:26:50 pm
I don't think any discussion of art can be summarised in a 50 c fridge magnet. The whole basis of the thread to me is flawed.


No offense, but - gimme a break! The bloody magnet - 4 dollars by the way - was meant only as a succinct expression of one of many possible approaches to the "what is art" question. There is (of course, DUH!) no answer to this question, but is does make for some interesting discussions!
Title: Re: What is art?
Post by: Peter Stacey on September 01, 2013, 09:11:19 pm
No offense, but - gimme a break! The bloody magnet - 4 dollars by the way - was meant only as a succinct expression of one of many possible approaches to the "what is art" question. There is (of course, DUH!) no answer to this question, but is does make for some interesting discussions!

Sure it does. So why not open the thread that way, in the positive rather than the negative?

When trying to make a point about the value of art as an emotive medium, there's no need to criticise people who get involved in technical discussions. Both approaches are valid and really good photographic art often excels in meaning and execution.

There are some discussions where the technical aspects are extremely valid to achieving quality output. In some cases, the quality of the technique helps to focus attention on the meaning.

Technique and meaning don't sit on opposite sides of a divide. They compliment each other.
Title: Re: What is art?
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on September 02, 2013, 08:24:00 am
Quote
Is a urinal 'art'? If one thinks it's art when presented in a gallery, does it remain art when it's on the wall in the train station restroom?

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and sometimes...well...you know, that context thingy kind of changes things along with one's perception about it.

The art is in the fact the perception was changed without one's knowing about when and how. That's when the magic happens!
Title: Re: What is art?
Post by: PeterAit on September 02, 2013, 09:48:01 am
Sure it does. So why not open the thread that way, in the positive rather than the negative?

When trying to make a point about the value of art as an emotive medium, there's no need to criticise people who get involved in technical discussions. Both approaches are valid and really good photographic art often excels in meaning and execution.

There are some discussions where the technical aspects are extremely valid to achieving quality output. In some cases, the quality of the technique helps to focus attention on the meaning.

Technique and meaning don't sit on opposite sides of a divide. They compliment each other.

Maybe if you read (and understood) my posts before replying....? Just a thought.
Title: Re: What is art?
Post by: Isaac on September 02, 2013, 12:08:07 pm
Maybe if your posts clearly expressed your understanding...?
Title: Re: What is art?
Post by: Manoli on September 02, 2013, 12:37:29 pm
Maybe if your posts clearly expressed your understanding...?

Isaac, you're a scream ... !
Title: Re: What is art?
Post by: Peter Stacey on September 02, 2013, 02:52:09 pm
Maybe if you read (and understood) my posts before replying....? Just a thought.

What does 'a timely reminder to all the sharpness and technique fanatics' mean? Was that written as a compliment and I somehow missed it?
Title: Re: What is art?
Post by: Jim Pascoe on September 03, 2013, 06:33:46 am
I basically agree with the fridge magnet, and with the idea of the emotion being more important than the substance.  Photography can be art, but most photographs are not 'art', and why should they be.  Because the emotional impact is the key thing, a piece of art will appeal to some and not others. Sometimes I think that for something to have value as art it needs to have as many detractors as devotees.

The message I take from the OP is that far too many photographers concentrate on the technical aspects of the medium and relegate the creative.  Possibly that is because while a challenge, the technical side is much easier to master than the creative - at least it is for me and most photographers I know! Personally I have no great urge to become an artist, I will just settle for being a good photographer.

Jim
Title: Re: What is art?
Post by: Manoli on September 03, 2013, 07:28:37 am
Sometimes I think that for something to have value as art it needs to have as many detractors as devotees.

DaVinci ?
Picasso ?

.. the technical side is much easier to master than the creative - at least it is for me and most photographers I know!

British mathematician, Sir Erik Christopher Zeeman, once said, "Technical skill is mastery of complexity while creativity is mastery of simplicity."

Personally I have no great urge to become an artist, I will just settle for being a good photographer.

Couldn't agree more, +100
Title: Re: What is art?
Post by: Rob C on September 03, 2013, 10:13:04 am
Whilst I tend to agre with Señor Pascoe on this, I also find that Manoli's quotation attributed to Sir Erik has hit the button too.

Simplicity is often the key to something impressive, much as a bloody nose also delivers an unmistakable, if simple, stark message.

Not much in favour of bloody noses (at least for myself) I am utterly convinced that simplicity is a massive part of art that works. Not only is this true of contemporary art works, but also in the commercial world of advertising, where complexity usually breeds confusion and not a lot more. Incidentally, the advertising and magazine photography of the 50s, 60s and 70s produced some memorable runs of quality themes, leading me to conclude that the better aspects of photographic imagery were then to be found within the commercial sphere. Admittedly, there wasn't much else going on then in the photo-world outwith the commercial sectors... today, there is, and I generally wonder why.

Anyway, you don't become an artist: you either are one or you are not. Again, as starkly true and painful news as that bloody nose.

Rob C
Title: Re: What is art?
Post by: PeterAit on September 03, 2013, 10:38:16 am
What does 'a timely reminder to all the sharpness and technique fanatics' mean? Was that written as a compliment and I somehow missed it?

No, it was most definitely not a compliment. It was (I don't know why I have so say this over and over) an expression of my opinion that sharpness and technique are A MEANS TO AN END and not THE END ITSELF. If you don't understand this, there's really nothing more I can say.
Title: Re: What is art?
Post by: Rob C on September 03, 2013, 02:32:06 pm
No, it was most definitely not a compliment. It was (I don't know why I have so say this over and over) an expression of my opinion that sharpness and technique are A MEANS TO AN END and not THE END ITSELF. If you don't understand this, there's really nothing more I can say.


But I can: +1.

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: What is art?
Post by: mezzoduomo on September 03, 2013, 06:28:33 pm
Simplicity is often the key to something impressive, much as a bloody nose also delivers an unmistakable, if simple, stark message.

"Simplicity is the final achievement. After one has played a vast quantity of notes and more notes, it is simplicity that emerges as the crowning reward of art." – Frederic Chopin
Title: Re: What is art?
Post by: Peter Stacey on September 03, 2013, 06:35:04 pm
No, it was most definitely not a compliment. It was (I don't know why I have so say this over and over) an expression of my opinion that sharpness and technique are A MEANS TO AN END and not THE END ITSELF. If you don't understand this, there's really nothing more I can say.

I do understand it. Perfectly. I just don't agree that's it's a problem on LuLa, which is where it was directed.

This forum has one of the strongest focus on artistic meaning or value in an image of any photography forum on the internet. There is also a lot of technical discussion here, but not to the point of technique being superior to meaning.

That in my view is why this thread started wrong.

It criticised a fantom group that exists elsewhere, but not here on LuLa. Nothing wrong with the message of the magnet, though it's somewhat narrow and limited.
Title: Re: What is art?
Post by: melchiorpavone on August 14, 2014, 04:46:57 pm
Pink Floyd
Title: Re: What is art?
Post by: phlipper on August 21, 2014, 03:28:10 pm
I, a new member, would like to give my solicited opinion without the benefit of reading other's. I will unabashedly state, at the risk of being accused of copping out, that "everything is art". I'm sure that most would agree that 'art', like 'beauty', is "in the eye of the beholder". It also depends on one's perspective, literal and otherwise. A photo of a weed by itself, poorly framed, may catch no one's attention. Yet, a close up of that weed in minute detail, properly placed, focused, and with a companion flower, might not only get attention but appear, to some, to make a (oh lord - here goes) a "statement". OK - I stepped in it but I'm not going there, other than to say "I do not believe that that illusive thing we call "art" need to make a statement nor have a message. Obviously, there are camps that believe art is worthless unless it contains a social "message". In the end, a pretty picture is just that. Art can, but needn't contain, a statement. Try figuring out the statement/message in Monet's Water Lilies (forget it, there isn't one). So, once again, I have agreed with myself that "I'm not going there" (where I just was).
 Where was I? Oh yeah, everything is art. From there I will ask "Yeah, ok, it's art but is it good art"? Art is often judged by a panel of experts but who judges the experts? Historically, new art styles have not always been accepted by the art critics, much less, the public at large. It was only through the passage of time that many of the styles and artists were thought of as brilliant and ahead of their time. So, is it art? Is it good art? Time will tell -- or not.    
Title: Re: What is art?
Post by: Gulag on August 21, 2014, 04:55:26 pm
(http://33.media.tumblr.com/52df9dbcee02a106115f24594e48ebb6/tumblr_n5hxedzDc01sbw0efo1_1280.jpg)
Title: Re: What is art?
Post by: Isaac on August 22, 2014, 04:23:48 pm
I will unabashedly state … that "everything is art".

In what ways has that "definition" been useful to you as a photographer?
Title: Re: What is art?
Post by: Ray on August 22, 2014, 07:58:17 pm
If you want to find out the meaning of a word, then check it out in a good dictionary.

In my dictionary, the word 'art' is generally synonymous with the word 'skill'.

Here are some variations of the meaning of the word 'art', as described in the Oxford English Dictionary.

1. Skill; its display or application.

2. Skill in doing anything as the result of knowledge and practice.

3. Human skill as an agent; human workmanship as opposed to Nature.

4. Skill in applying the principles of a special science; technical or professional skill.

5. The application of skill to subjects of taste, such as poetry, music, dancing, drama, oratory, literary composition, and so on.

6. The application of skill to the practice of imitation and design, painting, engraving, sculpture, architecture; the cultivation of these in its principles, practice and results; the skilful production in its visible forms.

7. Anything wherein skill may be attained or displayed.

8. A practical application of any science; a body or system of rules serving to facilitate the carrying out of certain principles.

9. A pursuit or occupation in which skill is directed towards the gratification of taste or production of what is beautiful.

10. An acquired faculty of any kind; a power of doing anything wherein skill is attainable by study and practice.

11. An artifice, contrivance, stratagem,wile, trick, cunning device.

I would say definitions # 5, # 6 and # 9 are particularly relevant to photography. In general, I would say this post is a work of art.  ;)
Title: Re: What is art?
Post by: Gulag on August 22, 2014, 10:29:34 pm
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8131/8745897044_9ee3c2bb80_z.jpg)
Title: Re: What is art?
Post by: Diego Pigozzo on August 23, 2014, 04:07:15 pm
Not to mention Avida Dollars.