arguably the visual art of choice for the masses

[Gulag]

You might call yourselves artists because you might believe you create art. However, there is high art and there is low art. Low art always obeys while high art disobeys, according to Marcel Duchamp. Low art is for visual decadence while high art reflects the inner voices and worldviews of its creators, according to Edward Hopper.  All Art is propaganda, according to George Orwell, but low art only perpetuates ruling ideology.

[petermfiore]

There is high art and there is low art. Low art always obeys while high art disobeys, according to Marcel Duchamp. Low art is for visual decadence while high art reflects the inner voices and worldviews of its creators, according to Edward Hopper.  All Art is propaganda, according to George Orwell, but low art only perpetuates ruling ideology.

This part is true.

Peter

[luxborealis]

You might call yourselves artists because you might believe you create art. However, there is high art and there is low art. Low art always obeys while high art disobeys, according to Marcel Duchamp. Low art is for visual decadence while high art reflects the inner voices and worldviews of its creators, according to Edward Hopper.  All Art is propaganda, according to George Orwell, but low art only perpetuates ruling ideology.

Some will find this offensive, but, like it or not, it's true.

[Alan Klein]

I think Andrew makes a good point.  If someone is telling a story with pictures and maybe prose as well, an extracted picture may have no point out of context nor have aesthetic value as well. 

There's another factor at work too.  Everything's been photographed pretty much.  So in an effort to be different, we shoot what's left or what's already been done in ways that seem different.  Tilt the camera, stick the person in the upper right corner, blur this or blur that, etc etc.   That gets pretty boring and what makes it banal as well.  How many pictures of blue cans can you look at?   I think if a picture grabs you attention for three seconds or more, it's a success. 

[luxborealis]

 I think if a picture grabs you attention for three seconds or more, it's a success. 

Only 3 seconds? Really!?! That's barely enough for ad impact. I'm looking for a lot more...something I can put on the wall and not tire of. I know that means decided fewer "successes" but how many do we really "need" to feel a sense if success? Maybe I have low expectations of myself, but if I get one "keeper" per outing and 6 to 10 good enough for the wall per year, then I'm successful (given that I'm also working more than full-time hours at my day job).

[wmchauncey]

Referencing one's own work...I put that image on my desktop.  If it survives that, it's good enough to hang on my wall.   

[petermfiore]

I think Andrew makes a good point.  If someone is telling a story with pictures and maybe prose as well, an extracted picture may have no point out of context nor have aesthetic value as well.  

There's another factor at work too.  Everything's been photographed pretty much.  So in an effort to be different, we shoot what's left or what's already been done in ways that seem different.  Tilt the camera, stick the person in the upper right corner, blur this or blur that, etc etc.   That gets pretty boring and what makes it banal as well.  How many pictures of blue cans can you look at?   I think if a picture grabs you attention for three seconds or more, it's a success.  

All of this speaks to technique or manner and that does little to make something any good. Concepts are what make works of art. For that we all need to dig a little deeper.

Peter

[Isaac]

...something I can put on the wall and not tire of.

You seem to be confusing art with decoration.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

You seem to be confusing art with decoration.

Is there a difference? I mean we decorate with art, no? Granted, it can be kitsch art, low art, high art, etc., but some kind of art it is with which we decorate.

[petermfiore]

Is there a difference? I mean we decorate with art, no? Granted, it can be kitsch art, low art, high art, etc., but some kind of art it is with which we decorate.

Yes there is a difference. One you show and collect.

Peter

[Isaac]

I mean we decorate with art, no?

And we decorate with non-art objects.

(And there's art that we probably wouldn't choose to decorate our homes with.)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Yes there is a difference...

So, what is the difference then? This is a genuine question, not trying to be difficult.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

And we decorate with non-art objects.

(And there's art that we probably wouldn't choose to decorate our homes with.)

I understand that. However, when we decorate with non-art objects, aren't we at the same time creating art, however low and personal it might be?

[RSL]

Oh boy! Now we're going to get a definition of "art." After all this time. . .

[petermfiore]

So, what is the difference then? This is a genuine question, not trying to be difficult.

Art has a soul and it lives. That's a start. The rest is a full life's journey to that understanding.

Peter

[Isaac]

However, when we decorate with non-art objects, aren't we at the same time creating art, however low and personal it might be?

Perhaps; or even if we are artists perhaps, this time, we are just decorating.

[Alan Klein]

Only 3 seconds? Really!?! That's barely enough for ad impact. I'm looking for a lot more...something I can put on the wall and not tire of. I know that means decided fewer "successes" but how many do we really "need" to feel a sense if success? Maybe I have low expectations of myself, but if I get one "keeper" per outing and 6 to 10 good enough for the wall per year, then I'm successful (given that I'm also working more than full-time hours at my day job).

I too enjoy looking at photos I like over and over.  That's why I said three seconds or more.  If a picture doesn't grab you for at least three seconds, then you won't put it up on your wall.  It could grab you in the first second when you won't have time to notice the technical problems.  That's a successful picture.  Most technically accurate photos have no real content so they don't grab you.   This is why content almost always wins out over technical competence and we should spend our time where it really counts.

[luxborealis]

Agreed, Alan.

Art has a soul and it lives. That's a start. The rest is a full life's journey to that understanding.

Peter

[Rambling alert!]

First of all, Peter, I agree with what you are saying, including the comment about "one you show and collect". High art is also conceptual, communicative and evocative. It causes one to stop and think.

I'm curious, though, about what gives art it's "soul" and "life"? The artist or the collector?

I'm not being facetious; I'm only trying to make a point about how seemingly shallow this concept of art really is in that high art is defined not by the "artist", but by the collector. I realize anyone can claim to be an artist, so we apparently require some gold standard, a stamp of approval by a "collector" to be in the high art league.

One could make a million photos of out of focus glassware in a cupboard or two blue pails or people at a museum, but none will have "a soul" or will "live" until a collector (someone "in the know") comes along and says "I'd like to buy that one for my collection." Or, one could make stunning, large format black and white landscapes of areas of the US southwest rarely photographed at the time (say the 1930s or 1940s) or even flowers or peppers beautifully lit. If someone "collects" it, it's high art.

Collectors want something special, something rare, it seems. Something that is unique and has not been done before. I get that. It's why the photos in the OP's link are different from what we usually see.

Unfortunately, the moment the masses say, "Wow, this amazing art" or worse "this is pretty; I want it on my wall", the same works somehow become relegated to the "low art" or "decorative art" shelf. It seems that as long as the masses don't like it, it remains rare, almost untouchable and, therefore, of interest to the high art collector.

While in one sense, I understand that "high art" could never be defined by the masses, after all, the masses are, in fact, ***es, and are too easily pleased by passing fads and trends. But I don't fully accept that high art can only be defined by someone other than the artist. There is much more to it than that, as you eluded to.

In the end, it doesn't matter one iota to my being and what I am creating as an artist. I may never be "collected", but I'm having a great time plying my craft and selling my work to those who appreciate it, be it for decoration or for the deeper thoughts and concepts my work represents.

[RSL]

Well said, Alan. I'd add this: If you get past the three seconds and hang the picture, the acid test will come three or four months later when you walk by the picture and decide you don't want to take it down. I love your statement about technical competence. Wonderful stuff, but as you said, it never, never, never can take the place of content. Good content can erase a lot of technical incompetence, but the reverse isn't true.

[petermfiore]

I'm curious, though, about what gives art it's "soul" and "life"? The artist or the collector?


An artist makes art. The value is the business of art. That is another topic entirely.

Peter