Singular objets d'art or singular vision?

[Isaac]

"All" photographers do is select image contents and then modify to taste. There isn't the degree of individuality conferred by having to use hand and arm to create an image. Drawings and paintings show the characteristic pencil/crayon/brush/pen strokes and brush strokes of the individual artist - as individual as a person's handwriting. The more mechanical nature of photography accounts for its reputed objectivity and for the eternal question "But Is It Art?". In some ways the "new film", "alternative/historical methods" movement and the use of experimental photography as part of mixed media art are attempts to get away from the mechanical objectivity to something that feels more like traditional art. (and of course some people just like to mess around with wet plates, etc).

No doubt I just lack appreciation of "the degree of individuality conferred by having to use hand and arm to create an image" on different substrates and have more curiosity about why the picture was made.

Less interest in what might be incidental differences:  "… processes and techniques that allow artists and photographers to build a body of work with their own singular style. My use of the processes in my own work will be different from other people's uses because the hand is involved in the process -- and that's inherently variable".

More interest in: "First and foremost it's about a photographers singularity of vision." Diane Dufour

[Isaac]

Less interest in Race Riot, 1964 - Andy Warhol; more interest in Charles Moore's photographs.

[Isaac]

The more mechanical nature of photography accounts for its reputed objectivity and for the eternal question "But Is It Art?".

One of the things, I haven't understood well enough is that the concept of mimesis is everywhere in the philosophy of art.

It isn't just photography.

[RSL]

That's because at its heart, art IS mimesis.

[Mousecop]

That's because at its heart, art IS mimesis.

I must politely disagree.  A few counter-examples:

1) Chinese calligraphy isn't about mimicking objects.
2) A Chinese scholar stone isn't about imitating an object.
3) What is Levitated Mass imitating?
4) What is Jackson Pollock's Number 11, 1952 imitating?  Or Rothko's Four Darks in Red?

[mezzoduomo]

Cue the pointless circular conversation about the definition of art.
 

[Isaac]

My apologies, I failed to step-in quickly enough with a pointless meta-comment about pointless meta-comments about pointless conversations about… :-)

[mezzoduomo]

You're nothing if not reliable, Isaac.

[RSL]

I must politely disagree.  A few counter-examples:

1) Chinese calligraphy isn't about mimicking objects.
2) A Chinese scholar stone isn't about imitating an object.
3) What is Levitated Mass imitating?
4) What is Jackson Pollock's Number 11, 1952 imitating?  Or Rothko's Four Darks in Red?

Hi Mouse,

1. Chinese calligraphy isn't "about" mimicking objects. A lot of it MIMICS objects.
2. A scholar stone isn't "about" imitating an object. It IS an object.
3. Same thing with a levitated mass.
4. Pollock's Number 11, 1952 imitates insanity with paint dripped on canvas, and Rothko's mess imitates insanity with paint smeared on canvas.