Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Can a Photograph have the Significance of Art  (Read 6916 times)

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Can a Photograph have the Significance of Art
« on: September 23, 2015, 06:01:06 PM »

pdf "Can a Photograph have the Significance of Art", Manuscripts #4 December 1922. Statements invited by Alfred Stieglitz.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16614
Re: Can a Photograph have the Significance of Art
« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2015, 04:35:03 AM »

Right away, two good definitions:

"One might define a work of art, as something that 'wears well';" -------  Carl Zigrosser.

"This, however, is sure: the man who believes that what we call Art today limits the infinitude of possible means for the achievement of the ecstasy of art is a barbarian."  -------  Waldo Frank

Thanks for the link.

Rob C

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9486
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Can a Photograph have the Significance of Art
« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2015, 06:39:43 PM »

Frankly, I think the question is absurd. It's like asking: "Can photography have the significance of music?" Without a prior definition of "art" and "significance" the question doesn't make sense.

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: Can a Photograph have the Significance of Art
« Reply #3 on: September 28, 2015, 07:10:12 PM »

… doesn't make sense.

How wondrous that others have so little difficulty putting the question into context.
Logged

Otto Phocus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 617
Re: Can a Photograph have the Significance of Art
« Reply #4 on: September 29, 2015, 07:45:58 AM »

"Can a Photograph have the Significance of Art/"

Sure, why not?
Logged
I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light.

Jimbo57

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
Re: Can a Photograph have the Significance of Art
« Reply #5 on: November 13, 2015, 11:22:38 AM »

Given that photography IS art, shouldn't the question be "Can a photograph have the significance of other artforms?"

And, for the life of me, I cannot imagine any reason why is could not.

It's a bit like asking "Can a watercolour have the significance of an etching?"
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: Can a Photograph have the Significance of Art
« Reply #6 on: November 13, 2015, 12:24:37 PM »

Given that photography IS art…

Is it a given that all photography is art?
Logged

Jimbo57

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
Re: Can a Photograph have the Significance of Art
« Reply #7 on: November 14, 2015, 08:08:34 AM »

Is it a given that all photography is art?

No, of course not. Unless you want it to be.

But you phrased the question "Can a photograph have the significance of art?"

Logged

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6672
Re: Can a Photograph have the Significance of Art
« Reply #8 on: November 14, 2015, 09:45:25 AM »

"Can a Photograph have the Significance of Art/"

Sure, why not?

I agree, and it's (something I do not say often) a stupid question as it is phrased.

Obviously, whether a specific photo can be classified as Art, requires some definitions, e.g. what is Significance and what is Art?

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: November 14, 2015, 10:19:57 AM by BartvanderWolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10669
    • Echophoto
Re: Can a Photograph have the Significance of Art
« Reply #9 on: November 14, 2015, 09:51:49 AM »

+1 :-)

Erik


Frankly, I think the question is absurd. It's like asking: "Can photography have the significance of music?" Without a prior definition of "art" and "significance" the question doesn't make sense.

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: Can a Photograph have the Significance of Art
« Reply #10 on: November 14, 2015, 12:17:17 PM »

No, of course not. Unless you want it to be.

In which case, reject the premise "Given that photography IS art…"


But you phrased the question "Can a photograph have the significance of art?"

No,  Alfred Stieglitz phrased the question.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2015, 12:24:41 PM by Isaac »
Logged

wmchauncey

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 793
Re: Can a Photograph have the Significance of Art
« Reply #11 on: November 14, 2015, 01:06:41 PM »

Aah...what does it matter...futility might be described as debating something that is indescribable.
Logged
The things you do for yourself die with you, the things you do for others live forever.
A man's worth should be judged, not when he basks in the sun, but how he faces the storm.

My stuff...http://1x.com/member/chauncey43

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9486
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Can a Photograph have the Significance of Art
« Reply #12 on: November 14, 2015, 01:56:43 PM »

Exactly, Chauncy. To talk about the "significance" of art is akin to talking about the significance of "orange."

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1279
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Can a Photograph have the Significance of Art
« Reply #13 on: November 14, 2015, 02:25:42 PM »

Isaac, what's your answer?
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

wmchauncey

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 793
Re: Can a Photograph have the Significance of Art
« Reply #14 on: November 14, 2015, 09:56:47 PM »

IMHO...it has the same comparative artistic significance as does a pro athlete compared to a Enrico Caruso.
The plebeians among us pay money to see them both.
Logged
The things you do for yourself die with you, the things you do for others live forever.
A man's worth should be judged, not when he basks in the sun, but how he faces the storm.

My stuff...http://1x.com/member/chauncey43

Stanmore

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28
    • My Website
Re: Can a Photograph have the Significance of Art
« Reply #15 on: November 17, 2015, 04:41:14 AM »

Can a Photograph have the Significance of Art", Manuscripts #4 December 1922. Statements invited by Alfred Stieglitz.

A very valid, relevant question and debate  ... in 1922.
Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1624
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Can a Photograph have the Significance of Art
« Reply #16 on: November 17, 2015, 07:03:20 AM »

A very valid, relevant question and debate  ... in 1922.
Indeed, and Manuscripts is in a way what this forum is in 2015.
If you look at the responses, how well they are written. we can still learn from that.
In this fast world we forget often to think before we write...
Thank you Isaac for posting it- ; as always i like the respons of the rebel Duchamp..
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3243
Re: Can a Photograph have the Significance of Art
« Reply #17 on: December 04, 2015, 02:49:52 AM »

I'm no art historian but as far as I know at the early days of photography it was "under attack" and questioned by painters, many thought that photography could not be art, as it was just a snapshot of what you saw and had not been "filtered" through the mind of the artist as a painting.

Later landscape photography as a genre was particularly questioned, and still is today to some extent, as being too simplistic and trivial from an art perspective.

Personally I'd say that anything the author say is art is art, but what the quality of that art is depends on many factors and is in the eye of the beholder.
Logged

Mike D. B.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 694
    • Mike's Images
Re: Can a Photograph have the Significance of Art
« Reply #18 on: December 04, 2015, 03:31:55 AM »

Personally I'd say that anything the author say is art is art, but what the quality of that art is depends on many factors and is in the eye of the beholder.
I agree.  And taken to an extreme, any shit can be art, if someone says so - but the viewers or collectors need to decide for themselves on validity or quality: Artist's Shit

My sister worked at an insurance which had to insure some of this crap for an exhibition.  We still laugh about it.

PeterAit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2664
    • Peter Aitken Photographs
Re: Can a Photograph have the Significance of Art
« Reply #19 on: December 04, 2015, 11:04:08 AM »

What is Art? Here's Art:

Logged
Peter
"Photographic technique should always be a means to an end and never the end itself."
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up