James Porto

[Rob C]

The definition of what constitutes art is easy, as it is simply a matter of engagement. So if what you do engages people, then it is art and if it doesn't, then it isn't...

Dave 

So, if somebody whacks you on the nose, thus engaging you, He/she is an artist?

:-)

Rob

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

Apparently pornography is the #1 search engine subject.

;-)

Well am I am sure some people will class it as art, such as some of the work by Robert Mapplethorpe, who's works certainly sells at eye wateringly high 'artistic' prices and perhaps even more so since some of it was classed as pornography 

So, if somebody whacks you on the nose, thus engaging you, He/she is an artist?

:-)

Rob

Come on Rob, you are teasing me here and we all know what I mean, that if you are able to create something that people find engaging, then that is art and can be classed as such. But if you are unable to create something that people find engaging and no matter how good you think it is, then it isn't art.

I was just trying to use as few words as possible to say that 

Dave

[32BT]

+1, but I excuse Michael Kenna from blame because, well, I like him, and he puts a lot of work into his art.

That said, I've been thinking a lot about this art topic these days, and I think I have to conclude that, as written and suspected before, there really is no photographic art as such. What there is is the personality of the artist, the ability and emotional slant that allows his work to contain another dimension which removes it from the prosaic by giving it a sense of containing more than its purely visible parts, something that is an additive process in that the more one learns of a photographer the more one can or can not see the extra quality that makes the difference. In other words, where the non-artist frames and makes his click, the artist is able to inject that something else which beggars description but is sensuously (not necessarily sexually) there. Of course that's not precise, but its presence or lack of makes the difference. Viewer sensitivity is thus challenged, too. Challenge, perhaps, in the sense of self-challenge, for I doubt the seasoned artist really cares that much about the viewer unless within a strictly commercial context. Which does not alter his blessed state of being an artist. I say blessed, yes, but that is far from implying that his life will essentially be one of comfort and ease.

Rob

After chewing on it for a couple of days, the more i think about it, the more i like it. The true artist provides a certain consistent sensitivity in his/her art, call it style if you will, and it takes a certain sensitivity on the part of the audience to be receptive to that style. You could call the latter part engagement, but i don't much like the passive approach to engagement as is mentioned in the previous posts. The engagement of audience is not necessarily an indication of "successful" artistic expression. Otherwise we'd have serious problems with the next mobile phone generation, and that is why it's still useful to have filters in the form of curators. They can help society to preselect the art expressions for which it at least pays off to spend effort on its appreciation.

[Rob C]

Well am I am sure some people will class it as art, such as some of the work by Robert Mapplethorpe, who's works certainly sells at eye wateringly high 'artistic' prices and perhaps even more so since some of it was classed as pornography 

Come on Rob, you are teasing me here and we all know what I mean, that if you are able to create something that people find engaging, then that is art and can be classed as such. But if you are unable to create something that people find engaging and no matter how good you think it is, then it isn't art.

I was just trying to use as few words as possible to say that 

Dave

Of course, Dave, and my wife often teased me, too! That was quite pleasant, if different.

(Blinks; not quite sure himself of what the hell he means to communicate there.)

Rob