"What is art?" (With a nod to Robert Henri)

[Isaac]

I was trying to start off with a broad, fundamental and inclusive definition that applies in all circumstances, regardless of differences of opinions, likes and taste, and regardless of the various types and styles of art.

Doing that completely ignores how language works; so however much it may amuse you to wander off on a tangent, it's far from the point.

[Isaac]

For me the hardest thing is working out what an image is about.

Do you mean an image you are in the process of making, or do you mean an image someone else has made?

A common mistake people make is thinking the object photographed is the subject of the work.

Often people are correct to think that the object photographed is the subject of the work --

"About half the portraits were close-up, shallow-focus images that riveted one's attention to the eyes and facial features of the various subjects. The rest were pictures like this one: full-length pictures against a black background that simply described their subject as faithfully as possible from an objective distance, drinking in every detail while isolating the whole." (page 85)

Take this photograph of Corfe castle. ... He explained how the castle was besieged from the valley floor, just outside of canon range. ... That's what this image is about. Taking an entrenched position. Complacency.

Do you feel the image expresses complacency in some way, or is it just a notion that crossed your mind while chatting?

I would not have guessed from your anecdote that one of the garrison treacherously allowed enemy troops to enter and capture the castle, and that the walls were destroyed after the castle was captured.

[David Sutton]

Do you mean an image you are in the process of making, or do you mean an image someone else has made?


Often people are correct to think that the object photographed is the subject of the work --

"About half the portraits were close-up, shallow-focus images that riveted one's attention to the eyes and facial features of the various subjects. The rest were pictures like this one: full-length pictures against a black background that simply described their subject as faithfully as possible from an objective distance, drinking in every detail while isolating the whole." (page 85)


Do you feel the image expresses complacency in some way, or is it just a notion that crossed your mind while chatting?

I would not have guessed from your anecdote that one of the garrison treacherously allowed enemy troops to enter and capture the castle, and that the walls were destroyed after the castle was captured.

Mostly people are wrong to think that the object photographed is the subject of the work. An image reveals a lot about its maker, music its composer, a reply to a post its author. Often unintended, but none the less real.
We reach a point in our work where we have to just put it out there. We think we know the subject matter, but because we are drawing on the realms of our poetry, our dreams and the vicissitudes of our lives, we may be mistaken. We are just the artists, what do we know?
No creative person I know can be bothered with questions on the nature of art, they are too busy asking themselves "is this any good?"  Meaning, they are not looking for any form of objectivity. They have moved on and are long gone while others are still questioning their placement of commas.
Let me make it plainer. Make your own analysis and form your own opinions. Do the hard yards. 
Then forget what others do or say and go make your own art. Make a start and have fun. Create something controversial enough to have critics, and then go head-butt them.


As to what I have written, I'm with Robert Frost on this one:  “You want me to say it worse?”

[Ray]

Doing that completely ignores how language works; so however much it may amuse you to wander off on a tangent, it's far from the point.

Not true! It's exactly how language works. Every word I've used  has a well-defined meaning, and anyone with a grasp of basic logic would understand what what I've written.

Dictionary definitions usually include a variety of meanings showing how the word has changed over the years, and how the meaning can be different according to context.

The fact that there appears to be so much confusion on the meaning of the word 'art' suggests that the usual dictionary definitions are inadequate. I've tried to remedy this situation by providing a modern meaning of the word that would include every 'claimed' work of art from the incomprehensible to the ridiculous, and from the sublime to the ordinary.

To the extent that a man-made object has a utilitarian purpose, it is not art. To the extent that a man-made object has no utilitarian purpose, it falls into the category of art.

Sometimes the two purposes are in conflict, as is the case with many styles of clothing, particularly women's shoes which are sometimes designed to appear like art, that is, expressive of elegance and beauty, but as a consequence have a diminished utilitarian function for the purpose of walking. Such shoes can pinch the toes, distort the feet over time, and can be very dangerous for running.

What's not clear?

[Isaac]

Dictionary definitions usually include a variety of meanings showing how the word has changed over the years, and how the meaning can be different according to context.

Yes, words have different meanings according to context; not "a broad, fundamental and inclusive definition that applies in all circumstances..."

[Isaac]

Mostly people are wrong to think that the object photographed is the subject of the work.

Repetition doesn't make it any truer, although I do see the attraction of that kind-of flat assertion -- Mostly photographers are wrong to think that the subject of their work is more than the object photographed.

[Ray]

Yes, words have different meanings according to context; not "a broad, fundamental and inclusive definition that applies in all circumstances..."

Wrong. Because words often do have different meanings according to context, it does not follow that they cannot, or should not, also have a broad and inclusive definition that applies in all circumstances.

An example would be the word 'temperature', as in the degree of hotness or coldness of an object or environment.

is there any object you can think of which doesn't have a temperature?

[elliot_n]

Repetition doesn't make it any truer.

But he didn't just repeat. He elucidated - '...We think we know the subject matter, but because we are drawing on the realms of our poetry, our dreams and the vicissitudes of our lives, we may be mistaken...'

It is surely hard to argue with that?

[Isaac]

But he didn't just repeat. He elucidated - '...We think we know the subject matter, but because we are drawing on the realms of our poetry, our dreams and the vicissitudes of our lives, we may be mistaken...'

This "Mostly people are wrong to think that the object photographed is the subject of the work" is from the perspective of someone looking at an image; but this "We reach a point in our work where we have to just put it out there. We think we know the subject matter..." is from the perspective of someone making an image.

When the maker of an image may be mistaken about the subject, then there's not much basis for telling someone looking at the image that the object photographed is not the subject.

Thinking-that complacency could-be-the-subject is distanced from complacency is-the-subject by everything that must follow from Make it so!

Such questions remind me that many viewers expect a photograph to be the literal simulation of reality; of course, many others are capable of response to an image without concern for the physical realities of the subject. Either the photograph speaks to a viewer or it does not. I cannot demand that anyone receive from the image just what I saw and felt, the image will contain qualities that may provide a basis for imaginative response by the viewer.

page 64, Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs, Ansel Adams.

[Isaac]

Wrong. Because words often do have different meanings according to context, it does not follow that they cannot, or should not, also have a broad and inclusive definition that applies in all circumstances.

Because words ordinarily have different meanings according to context, we're all going to continue to use words that way. It's the way language actually works.

[Ray]

Because words ordinarily have different meanings according to context, we're all going to continue to use words that way. It's the way language actually works.

A word of advice, Isaac. Don't constrain yourself with ordinariness. Think outside the box.