And the $50,000 Scotiabank 2019 Prize in Photography goes to...

[RSL]

To paraphrase a Clintonism, Slobodan: I guess it depends on what the meaning of the word "it" is. Maybe Oscar will explain.

[amolitor]

It is a truism that of you have to explain it, it's not art.

But why? Why isn't something that requires an explanation (for you) not art? Is an airplane unable to fly because you don't understand aerodynamics?

If it's not art, what is it?

[faberryman]

It is a truism that of you have to explain it, it's not art.

Because I am not an expert, I have always thought explanation gives me greater insight into art. It is why I say I don't get contemporary photography. I have never read a cogent explanation of it. Note: I do not consider artist statements cogent explanations - more like MFA-babble.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

It is a truism that of you have to explain it, it's not art.

But why? Why isn't something that requires an explanation (for you) not art? Is an airplane unable to fly because you don't understand aerodynamics?...

What if I understand aerodynamics, but the explanation offered, in not so few words, is that it is God's will it flies?

[OmerV]

What if I understand aerodynamics, but the explanation offered, in not so few words, is that it is God's will it flies?

Heh! 

[KLaban]

The arts challenge, confront and open the door to controversy.

Photography as an art form should challenge, confront and open the door to controversy.

[Rob C]

The arts challenge, confront and open the door to controversy.

Photography as an art form should challenge, confront and open the door to controversy.

Possibly; however, the photograph in question does absolutely none of that. The only reason we discuss it is because this is LuLa and there's not a helluva lot more we can do here. If nobody had raised the topic, had I just stumbled onto the image online - without its backstory and the fact somebody had wanted to talk about it - I'd have rapidly flicked to the next image.

I understand perfectly exactly what Oscar is saying; the problem for me, is this: none of it applies to the picture under discussion. It does not ignite the touchpaper.

[KLaban]

Possibly; however, the photograph in question does absolutely none of that. The only reason we discuss it is because this is LuLa and there's not a helluva lot more we can do here. If nobody had raised the topic, had I just stumbled onto the image online - without its backstory and the fact somebody had wanted to talk about it - I'd have rapidly flicked to the next image.

I understand perfectly exactly what Oscar is saying; the problem for me, is this: none of it applies to the picture under discussion. It does not ignite the touchpaper.

Three pages of comment here says it does.

[rabanito]

The arts challenge, confront and open the door to controversy.

Why should that be valid? Is just an opinion.
I don't see these characteristics in Leonardo, Turner or Rembrandt.
Just awesome
Modern "artists" just cannot reach those heights.
Then one redefines Art to fit what one has.

We have three pages of controversy, but it is about why those things should be praised at all, not for their content.

[KLaban]

Why should that be valid? Is just an opinion.
I don't see these characteristics in Leonardo, Turner or Rembrandt.
Just awesome
Modern "artists" just cannot reach those heights.
Then one redefines Art to fit what one has.

We have three pages of controversy, but it is about why those things should be praised at all, not for their content.

You have to be joking.

Turner was an expressionist before expressionism was even a twinkle in the eye of the expressionists. Leonardo challenged the accepted scientific and medical knowledge of the time. Rembrandt brought a new understanding of light, shade and realism. They all challenged the mores of their time, as do 'modern artists'.

Long may they continue.

 

[Rob C]

Why should that be valid? Is just an opinion.
I don't see these characteristics in Leonardo, Turner or Rembrandt.
Just awesome
Modern "artists" just cannot reach those heights.
Then one redefines Art to fit what one has.

We have three pages of controversy, but it is about why those things should be praised at all, not for their content.

Exactly.

There's a huge difference between discussing art and something that is just symbolic of another naked emperor. A real naked emperor would have been more interesting. It doesn't open any discussion about its intrinsic, visual value because it doesn't have any, but discussion of how it gatecrashed the party. You could put a photograph of a turd in its place and at least that would have forensic interest: is the turd fresh or old; is it of herbivore, carnivore or possibly clue-busting mixture of both, designed to throw off the hunter after truth?

Sobering to think there is more to be said about a turd than about a lousy photograph.

;-)

[rabanito]

You have to be joking.

Turner was an expressionist before expressionism was even a twinkle in the eye of the expressionists. Leonardo challenged the accepted scientific and medical knowledge of the time. Rembrandt brought a new understanding of light, shade and realism. They all challenged the mores of their time, as do 'modern artists'.

Long may they continue.

Njet.
Leonardo Turner and many more did more than that.
They are awesome in their own right.
Then and NOW

I mean:
They ARE STILL considered art, even without the "challenging, confronting or controverting" thing.
ART in capitals.
No excuses or pioneering deeds needed.
Because we are here and now and we lowly amateurs who perceive this as ART don't need explanations to enjoy and appreciate it.
Just maybe sometimes a little push but not theories

[KLaban]

Their work is up there on that pedestal because they used their undoubted talents to challenge the existing mores and in doing so their remarkable work changed understanding, opinion and the very direction of art and artists.

Please note, I have not expressed any opinion on the image or body of work that this thread referenced.

[KLaban]

Exactly.

There's a huge difference between discussing art and something that is just symbolic of another naked emperor. A real naked emperor would have been more interesting. It doesn't open any discussion about its intrinsic, visual value because it doesn't have any, but discussion of how it gatecrashed the party. You could put a photograph of a turd in its place and at least that would have forensic interest: is the turd fresh or old; is it of herbivore, carnivore or possibly clue-busting mixture of both, designed to throw off the hunter after truth?

Sobering to think there is more to be said about a turd than about a lousy photograph.

;-)

There were those who at the time thought much the same of Leonardo, Turner and Rembrandt.

[rabanito]

Their work is up there on that pedestal because they used their undoubted talents to challenge the existing mores and in doing so their remarkable work changed understanding, opinion and the very direction of art and artists.

But the artists that followed them were also artists.
There is a difference between pioneers (artists in our case) and "just artists", who were ALSO artists, no doubt
I guess you are referring to the former.
I shouldn't have named names. My fault

[elliot_n]

Rabanito, Stephen Waddell's work – like the work of Jeff Wall before him – is very much engaged with the tradition of painting you rightly admire. I suspect you would find much to savour in an exhibition of his work. Remember these are sizeable prints (painting-sized), not teeny jpegs to be liked on Instagram.

[faberryman]

This is exactly my point... truly NEW art is not understood.

One difference is the half life of movements. It would seem things are changing so fast that you can't understand them before they are superseded. And if they are rapidly superseded where they ever more than just a photographers style.

[rabanito]

Rabanito, Stephen Waddell's work – like the work of Jeff Wall before him – is very much engaged with the tradition of painting you rightly admire. I suspect you would find much to savour in an exhibition of his work. Remember these are sizeable prints (painting-sized), not teeny jpegs to be liked on Instagram.

That's a point. It could very well be.
A Rembrandt (or else) in a book is not the same as in nature :-)

[Rob C]

Rabanito, Stephen Waddell's work – like the work of Jeff Wall before him – is very much engaged with the tradition of painting you rightly admire. I suspect you would find much to savour in an exhibition of his work. Remember these are sizeable prints (painting-sized), not teeny jpegs to be liked on Instagram.

So, in essence, you are saying a big turd is justifiable even if its smaller brother is not?

Is it, then, a matter of critical mass on the pavement?

:-)

Rob

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I understand perfectly exactly what Oscar is saying; the problem for me, is this: none of it applies to the picture under discussion...

Amen, brother!