Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => But is it Art? => Topic started by: ripgriffith on December 11, 2014, 02:37:15 am
-
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/dec/10/most-expensive-photograph-ever-hackneyed-tasteless?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2
-
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=95855.0
Late to the party?
-
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=95855.0
Late to the party?
No, this is about the review, not the photograph. Perhaps you should read before leaping.
-
No, this is about the review, not the photograph. Perhaps you should read before leaping.
Well, from what I understand, the meaning of the review is something in the tone of "I could have done it and get paid millions of the shot, but for some reason I didn't and I hate it!".
IMHO, if a photographer is able to convince someone to pay that much for one of his photograph, he's surely an artist.
Some may say he's a con artist, but I think that it's not that easy to produce a strikingly beautiful photo, a photo that touch some cords.
-
He's pretty much on an anti-photography roll these days, dredging up long dead debate to generate clicks and ad impressions for his masters at The Guardian. And doing a wonderful job at it.
-
No, this is about the review, not the photograph. Perhaps you should read before leaping.
Did you read the link I posted before you started your thread and ignored it or did you not read it at all? Essentially they are the same and the further posts are essentially the same. Therefore no need for two threads on the same subject. :(
-
To be fair the other thread is in an extremely odd choice of sub forum.
-
What is it with the Guardian? I count at least three threads here in the last week or two about assorted outrages over Guardian articles.
Are they becoming the new Ken Rockwell?
-
Did you read the link I posted before you started your thread and ignored it or did you not read it at all? Essentially they are the same and the further posts are essentially the same. Therefore no need for two threads on the same subject. :(
Of course I read it, and it has nothing to do with a pompous critic setting himself up as the prime arbiter of whether photography is or is not an art. That is the sole reason I posted the link and perhaps it is my mistake that I did not spell it out in great big capital letters so that everyone would know that this was not about whether someone can receive gigantic amounts of money for a photograph.
-
Your link was posted and discussed in the cited thread.
-
Your link was posted and discussed in the cited thread.
If so, I missed it, and so what? Is it your mission to scold anyone who is "late to the party"?
-
Yes? No? I don't even know what you're on about. You're certainly being obnoxious, though.
It's standard practice, when someone posts a new thread, to point out that there's already a thread active on the topic, to redirect discussion there, so we don't wind up with multiple overlapping threads, which is confusing for everyone. You're apparently either unaware of this, or you don't care. Anyways.
Knock it off, this thread is redundant.
-
Provide any opportunity to misunderstand and it will be accepted with alacrity ;-)
+1
-
Back to what I assume (rightly or wrongly) was the initial intention of this post...
To some extent I agree with Jonathon Jones, particularly when he says,
"If this is the most valuable “fine art photograph” in history, God help fine art photography. For this hollow and overblown creation exposes the illusion that lures us all, when we’re having a good day with a good camera – the fantasy that taking a picture is the same thing as making a work of art."
For all we might like to think about ourselves as artists, creating art is more than being at the right place at the right time with the right camera and the right technique. On purpose, I use the the tag line on my website "revealing the art inherent in nature". I'm not an artist if I point my camera at a spectacular natural scene and capture in silicon and on paper for posterity. People may think and say otherwise, but I don't think it is "art".
At the same time, I do not agree with Jonathon Jones' earlier pro-photography editorial (Jan 2013) where he goes on about validating photography - and at the same time limiting its scope - as an art form for its ability to capture human emotion. Yes, it does that well, but photography is also the best art medium for capturing nature's emotions without only minimal human interference - which is where I'm coming from as a photographer. Sure I choose the lens, the angle, aperture, etc., etc., but all of that exists whether I'm standing there or not.
Is it art? Who cares?! I do what I like to do and keep doing it.
-
You work with breast implants!
The sky is crying and so am I; but I'm the one with emotions not the sky.
You are correct on both counts, Isaac. Spelling aside, I made the uniquely human mistake of anthropomorphizing nature by giving it emotions. The emotions I'm photographing are simply my (the viewer's) interpretations. My apologies for getting so wrapped up in the topic that I forgot myself.
-
Yes? No? I don't even know what you're on about. You're certainly being obnoxious, though.
It's standard practice, when someone posts a new thread, to point out that there's already a thread active on the topic, to redirect discussion there, so we don't wind up with multiple overlapping threads, which is confusing for everyone. You're apparently either unaware of this, or you don't care. Anyways.
Knock it off, this thread is redundant.
+1
-
My apologies for getting so wrapped up in the topic that I forgot myself.
As you thought it worth mentioning, it would be helpful to provide a URL to "Jonathon Jones' earlier pro-photography editorial (Jan 2013)".
As you use it "on purpose" and a basic definition of art would involve human creative skill, in what way do you think there is "art inherent in nature" ?
-
Since humankind seems unable to arrive at a universally acceptable answer to "What is art?", perhaps there really isn't any such thing. Perhaps it's just one of those "really big questions" to keep us busy until Judgement Day. In the meantime I, for one, will just keep on shooting and printing, and maybe I'll call it art, or maybe I'll just call it Fred in memory of Holly Golightly.
-
Since humankind seems unable to arrive at a universally acceptable answer to "What is art?", perhaps there really isn't any such thing. Perhaps it's just one of those "really big questions" to keep us busy until Judgement Day. In the meantime I, for one, will just keep on shooting and printing, and maybe I'll call it art, or maybe I'll just call it Fred in memory of Holly Golightly.
Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
-
Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Or, is art really as much or more in the eye of its creator?
-
Or, is art really as much or more in the eye of its creator?
Nature does not become Art because it is depicted by an artist, but rather the artist's interpretation may become a work of Art.
Peter
-
As he often is, Peter's right on the money. Art can be created with brushes, chisels, spray paint, words, cameras, and dozens of other things. The fact that the meaning of "art" is so fuzzy leads to truckloads of BS being written about "art," including the BS in this thread.
-
Nature does not become Art because it is depicted by an artist, but rather the artist's interpretation may become a work of Art.
Peter
Not sure how nature got pulled in here. Please note: I used 'creator', not Creator. Let's substitute 'artist', as in....
"Art is in the eye of the creator artist."
Should anyone save the artist get to define or categorize something as art?
-
(Should anyone save the artist get to define or categorize something as art?)
Nature, because Mr Lik's work is a landscape.
Of course. There are many people, that don't make art, that categorize art every day all of the day and always will.
Peter
-
(Should anyone save the artist get to define or categorize something as art?)
Of course. There are many people, that don't make art, that categorize art every day all of the day and always will.
Peter
That's twice you've missed my point. Oh well...
Another time, perhaps.
-
That's twice you've missed my point. Oh well...
Another time, perhaps.
Now I know, I'm on solid ground....
Peter
-
Not sure how nature got pulled in here.
'twas luxborealis "revealing the art inherent in nature" (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=95878.msg783526#msg783526).
-
May I suggest that art is part of one's imagination? What you imagine it to be .... it is? Far to much silly threads on here and other forums, as well as books, about how to define it. No doubt there will be another thread started in the near future with the definitive answer. :(
-
May I suggest that art is part of one's imagination? What you imagine it to be .... it is? Far to much silly threads on here and other forums, as well as books, about how to define it. No doubt there will be another thread started in the near future with the definitive answer. :(
And then the poster will be scolded for being "late to the party".
-
You are absolutely correct. :)
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=95875.msg784021#msg784021
-
Now I know, I'm on solid ground....
Peter
Maybe an example will help. When Brancusi made Bird in Space, it was art, because he said it was art. He wasn't the only person who considered it art, but even if he was, his was the definition that mattered. Customs inspectors called it 'a manufactured metal object', and later categorized it under 'kitchen utensils and hospital supplies'. But he put it into the world in good faith as art, and therefore....it is and always was and will always be...art.
-
Maybe an example will help. When Brancusi made Bird in Space, it was art, because he said it was art. He wasn't the only person who considered it art, but even if he was, his was the definition that mattered. Customs inspectors called it 'a manufactured metal object', and later categorized it under 'kitchen utensils and hospital supplies'. But he put it into the world in good faith as art, and therefore....it is and always was and will always be...art.
Therefore, proceeding from your example, that which I (or Lik) put into the world and call art is, and always will be, art (not that I disagree with you).
-
Maybe an example will help. When Brancusi made Bird in Space, it was art, because he said it was art. He wasn't the only person who considered it art, but even if he was, his was the definition that mattered. Customs inspectors called it 'a manufactured metal object', and later categorized it under 'kitchen utensils and hospital supplies'. But he put it into the world in good faith as art, and therefore....it is and always was and will always be...art.
It was his concept and creation therefore it's art....The artist's successful interpretation.
Peter
-
Gosh! Maybe I should stop calling my photographs 'kitchen utensils and hospital supplies' and start calling them Art instead. ;)
-
Since humankind seems unable to arrive at a universally acceptable answer to "What is art?", perhaps there really isn't any such thing.
Humankind seems unable to arrive at a universally acceptable answer to "What is football?", and yet I am watching a game of football.
-
It was his concept and creation therefore it's art....The artist's successful interpretation.
Peter
Do we have to believe someone when he/she creates something that they believe is art? If someone creates an image of a dog s**t and calls it art am I compelled to agree?
-
Of course not. Although it might be interesting to try to understand what their point of view.
Exactly!! The point of view is what I find interesting.
Peter
-
Do we have to believe someone when he/she creates something that they believe is art? If someone creates an image of a dog s**t and calls it art am I compelled to agree?
I think many of us who create art don't really care whether you or anyone else agrees.
-
I think the feeling is mutual.
-
Exactly!! The point of view is what I find interesting.
Not exactly: "it might be interesting to try to understand their point of view" :-)
One of the Huxley's opined that they prefer to understand a person's opinion before they disagree, and that seems sensible to me.
-
Not exactly: "it might be interesting to try to understand their point of view" :-)
For me it's not might be. I might not agree, but it's always interesting.
Peter
-
For me it's not "the point of view" that I find interesting, but trying to understand.
Did we get there yet? :-)
-
For me it's not "the point of view" that I find interesting, but trying to understand.
Did we get there yet? :-)
After all, tis the season of giving....We are there.
Peter
-
The author appears to be a tad ENVIOUS!
nothing can be done for people like that!
-
I think many of us who create art don't really care whether you or anyone else agrees.
If I post one of my many crappy images on here and proclaim to the forum it is art because I say so then will the members automatically accept my proclamation? Somehow I don't think so. My self proclaimed piece of art will get nitpicked. Nothing personal but I see a certain amount of conceit on display in this thread. :(
-
If I post one of my many crappy images on here and proclaim to the forum it is art because I say so then will the members automatically accept my proclamation? Somehow I don't think so. My self proclaimed piece of art will get nitpicked. Nothing personal but I see a certain amount of conceit on display in this thread. :(
Nitpicking is a critique. All art is subject to that very process. Go to any museum and stand in front a favorite master work long enough you will hear the praise along with the varied negative points of view. Art is not always universally embraced by all. The artist needs to be secure with their choice of what they exhibit.
Peter
-
To say that art is subjective is simplistic to the point of silliness. Nonetheless one can say that art exists largely in the mind of the viewer.
If you think it's art, it is. For you.
-
Okay Andrew, now please explain the difference between the word "subjective" and the term "in the mind of the viewer."
-
Heh.
Art is, technically, "intersubjective", which is pretty much a word invented to describe the social elements of Art. Something is intersubjective if it essentially subjective, from an individual, but also a largely shared social experience. To glibly say that "art is subjective" is to deny that there's a surprising amount of agreement about what's good and what's not. And yet, there is no objective measure of "goodness" in Art.
Hence, "intersubjective"
When I make something and say "Art" then it is Art, for me. If it's not Art for anyone else, well, then it's not part of the bigger social construct that we think of as Art. But it's still, in some sense, art, but just for me.
Perhaps it's purely subjective Art at this point?
It's all kind of hair-splitting and semantic chopping, but it's something I am interested in. And it does get at the fundamental problem of:
- it's NOT objective, there are no objective measurements here
- and yet there tends to be broad, albeit not universal, agreement about what's in and what's out
-
Andrew, I would add one more element to yours two (subjectivity and society): time, as in "historic distance." The more we have it, the broader and more universal agreement (of what's art) gets.
-
Yup! There's a whole kettle of stuff about 'well, how earth do we GET this rough consensus on what's Art and what's Not?'.
It's simultaneously fascinating, and pointless masturbation ;)
-
On that note, though, in these modern times (and this is QUITE new) the first step in generating that larger social consensus is to declare firmly that what you've made is Art.
In these modern times, in order to convince "the world" that something is Art you must first take a stand. If you don't believe it, why should anyone else? This is probably what people are really getting at when they say 'art is what the artist says it is'. We can consider it, essentially, a sales job designed to generate social consensus. The sales job does not always work at building a broad consensus.
I suppose you could invent a "scale of Artness" with 0 being "only the artist believes" and 100 being "pretty much everyone on earth agrees" and then, I don't know, discuss something around that.
-
In these modern times, in order to convince "the world" that something is Art you must first take a stand. If you don't believe it, why should anyone else?
"If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And when I am for myself, what am 'I'? And if not now, when?" [sometime before 10 CE]
-
"If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And when I am for myself, what am 'I'? And if not now, when?" [sometime before 10 CE]
I believe this is from Rebbe Hillel the Elder.
-
....
- and yet there tends to be broad, albeit not universal, agreement about what's in and what's out
I think this is largely due to the fact that we all share the same biology and, therefore, the same loose categories of "good" and "bad".
-
It seems to me that this "late to the party" and, by implication, irrelevant post has certainly generated a lot of interest: to date, 2015 views, 57 replies.
-
"late to the party" is all about forum etiquette which you seem to be in denial about? You admitted you read the other post but decided to start another thread about the exact same subject. There has now been three threads - one now closed by the member who started it - on the same subject. Most forum moderators would have merged them by now but it doesn't seem to be the policy on Luminous Landscape. Ironically you were a little abusive when this was pointed out and you are still going on about it. :(
-
You are the one who brought it up? Seems like you don't like to be contradicted?
-
"late to the party" is all about forum etiquette which you seem to be in denial about? You admitted you read the other post but decided to start another thread about the exact same subject. There has now been three threads - one now closed by the member who started it - on the same subject. Most forum moderators would have merged them by now but it doesn't seem to be the policy on Luminous Landscape. Ironically you were a little abusive when this was pointed out and you are still going on about it. :(
I believe the facts indicate you are in denial about the interest in this topic, hence the number of views and posts, and you still haven't grasped what the subject was about; not about high-priced photographs and million dollar photographers, but about a self-important critic deciding he alone can determine that photography is not art. Now, at this point, you bore me, so I will go shooting.
-
Don't aim the gun at yourself. ;)
-
… all about forum etiquette …
Don't attack other people. Be charitable.
-
Of the 57 replies, 13 were talking about the thread, by my count. So, somewhat less interest than you might think.
Happily, this thread turned a corner away from Peter Lik and a boring critic, and went on to other topics. So, it started out irrelevant, but was resurrected into a new and somewhat interesting thread.
You win! You are awesome!