Definitions of Art and Photography

Photography is to art as obscenity is to art: you know it when you see it.

" The basic material of photographs is not intrinsically beautifull. It's not like ivory or

tapestry or bronze or oil on canvas. You're not supposed to look at the thing. You're

supposed to look through it. It's a window. "

John Szarkowski

Phylo--thank you very much for that quote.

 

Rich--many these days are blurring the line pretty well through image editing along with all of its intrinsic debates regarding manipulation. That is why, I believe, the book Paolo referenced above could be written.

 

Pico--"diagram adds nothing to the definition" is correct only from a strictly content standpoint. If I write "shout" I communicate it one way but if I shout the word in your ear it makes a different impression with a different outcome. Clearly, the inclusion of the Venn diagram did something for the communication of the ideas expressed in the figure captions...as evidenced by the discussions in this forum. Even if the diagram pissed people off , it still stimulated valuable discussion.

 

William...sorry I missed your post. I will go ahead and search for it.

 

And finally...Maris...your concept of the "mind map" is very well appreciated.

Chip: <p>

 

Your diagrams are simple: Photography is, or is not, within the scope of art. See how that

works? Simple words suffice You created the so-called context. Now live with it.

<p>

If you want to create an aura of and ambiguity to obvuscate your profound insensivity of

the subject, then resort to deconstructive poetry and perhaps you will find a home. <p>

It remains that art/phtography/drawing/presence-art/and everything else will not be

constrained by friggin Venn diagrams.<p>

Art is outside of all that.

Your stubborn refusal to accept the basis of this post of mine or any other is yet another indication of your intellectual insecurity. Your consistant need to cut down and criticize is surely indicative of how small you are.

LOL!

 

Okay, this is great! I've just read through all these posts from highly intelligent people and if you notice, the words get longer and the sentences more complicated as the posts go on. You guys are great. I've certainly been entertained and educated at the same time.

 

Personally, I believe "art" as we've come to use the word, means something created for the purpose of stirring the emotions and intellect of the the viewer/user to look beyond the mere appearance of the thing and into what MAKES it. If a photograph was taken purely for the purpose of teaching someone how to use a screwdriver (for example), the photo is a tool, not art. Art is meant to seek the quintesence behind the mundane, the substance that is unattainable otherwise. Art isnt supposed to have a practicle purpose. Photo's of celebrity's in pretty dresses is just meant to show me what they wore that day. I dont consider that art. If I create a pitcher so I can pour water into a cup, the pitcher is not art. If I create a pitcher in order that it's lines, color, texture ect... appeal to the asthetic eye, it is art.

So personally yes, I believe a photograph can be both art and just a plain old picture.

 

 

As far as the diagrams are concerned, some people can create a visual picture of a thought process just by reading the words, and some people need some visual assistance to grasp the intended concept. Its not a bad or good thing either way.

 

(please excuse my spelling, it's been bad since highschool :) )

btw--my diagrams were intentionally simple...and you still don't get it! Nothing for me to get over here. Still you fail to be able to comprehend, or at least articulate that you have comprehended, the value of Venn diagrams, suggesting a continuing and "perhaps willful ignorance" of many aspects of human interaction and perception, something in which you clearly lack skill or tact for. You have displayed repeatedly that you are without humility and are incapable of certain types of learning. Where is the "sensitivity" in the tone you use in your posts? Do you really think you are going to be convincing by continuously insulting? Get over the war, guy.

 

As for me, I am quite happy with my photography and my overall use for it. And to be sure, and as a reminder, this post was not intended for the bowels in which you lurk.

You see Pico? Nicole understands. And the correlary is that I can only increase my the comprehenison of my readership though the use of the Venn diagram.

Your illustration "says" this: <i>"Photography is fully or partially within the realm of art."

</i>

<p>

Then you ask, <i>The question remains, however, whether there is any photography which is

not art.</i><p>

The answer is there in the lefthand diagram.<p>

Why? Because if all photography is art, then nothing is art.<p>

Think about it. Draw it up and see.

I drew it up on the right hand side--a proposal which I think can be rejected based on the responses to this post. The answer to the question posed on the figure on the left would be "yes".

 

Your penultimate sentence is nonsensical without further rationale articulated...via editing. One way that might work is to clarify dual definitions of art within the sentence, but I will leave such clarifications to you.

<i>The answer to the question posed on the figure on the left would be "yes".</i><p>

That's what I wrote.<p>

<i>Your penultimate sentence is nonsensical without further rationale articulated...via

editing. One way that might work is to clarify dual definitions of art within the sentence,

but I will leave such clarifications to you.</i><p>

In other words, you give up.<p>

What do you mean by dual definitions? Do you mean contrasting/opposite definitions in

one sentence? What would that demonstrate other than a clever use of punctuation? Or do

you mean complimentary definitions? Synononyms or congruences? <p>

See what we are getting into here?<p>

First, there is no science upon which to appeal for this discussion, therefore the thread is

in danger of slipping into argumentation which won't work because its goal is to win,

which is impossible and silly.<p>

Second, and to return to an earlier point, Cartesian logic is indadquate to discern 'art', and

that's where the Venn diagram fails. Truth tables will also fail. <p>

An alternative is, as I wrote, to consider 'art' as that which the curators, historians and

critics say it is, for better or worse, and let it be. It's a social convention and changes.<p>

I think it all depends on your definition of art. Photography is not pure creation like most forms of art are. Photography is the art of observation, not creation (for the most part). All that being said, not all everyone is capable of observing as well as some are. If you've observed well and if you have the technical skill to be able to capture what you think you see then you might be an artist.

" Do you mean contrasting/opposite definitions in one sentence?"

 

Yes, but more importantly, what did you mean? After all, you wrote the sentence.

 

"the thread is in danger of slipping into argumentation which won't work because its goal

is to win, which is impossible and silly."

 

Well, that would be a good reason to "give up"...but more importantly, the original basis

for this post has already been fulfilled for me through the provided definitions of art, eg.

your social definition of art by curators, etc. And beyond that, if you consider

argumentation whose goal is to win both impossible and silly, then why do you engage in

and instigate it so frequently here on PN???

 

However, Pico, "there is no science upon which to appeal for this discussion" while false, is

practically speaking probably going to remain true. I have thought that it might be

interesting to design a controlled study to observe the perception of photographers,

comparing between groups of subjects, for example, the presence and absence of a Venn

diagram. I'm quite certain that differences would be observed in comprehension, ie.

improvements in comprehension would be observed in the group provided text with Venn

diagrams in comparison with a well matched group given text alone. I would leave the

actual design of such a study to cognitive psychology, however.

 

Clayton, "Photography is not pure creation like most forms of art are. "

 

This is a false statement. The artist who synthesizes all of their materials and tools from

naturally occuring materials only could possbily start to argue reasonably that they are

engaged in "pure creation." It is reasonable to argue, however, that this is not the case.

Additionally the artist and photographer both use many tools and engage in many

processes to produce the final outcome.

<i><b>Clayton, "Photography is not pure creation like most forms of art are. "</b>

<p>

This is a false statement. The artist who synthesizes all of their materials and tools from

naturally occuring materials only could possbily start to argue reasonably that they are

engaged in "pure creation." It is reasonable to argue, however, that this is not the case.

Additionally the artist and photographer both use many tools and engage in many

processes to produce the final outcome.</I><P>

Nope. Photography includes a great potential of the accidental, and then there is the

subject which is often what makes the photograph attractive. No such thing exists for the

painter. Certainly, it is unlikely that he creates his own pigments, but that is a small factor

considering the creation of the image compared to photography.

"...that is a small factor..."

 

Thus you admit it is a factor, and as such imply that artists are not engaged in "pure

creation." It's not the size of the factor, it is its existence. Also, the artist, like the

photographer, may be in the right place at the right time. For example I recall a number of

years ago I was in a cafe in La Jolla, where I decided I would pencil sketch a picture of a

guitarist on the wall. I was surprised and pleased at the result, which I found better than

any drawing I had ever done and that I have done since. I really can't draw or paint at all. I

considered that a fortunate accident. It may be rarer with drawing than with photography

but it does exist.

 

Photographers and artists alike work with existing elements, and even the most abstract

art is derived from images, however distorted or altered, that have existed previously in

some form, if nowhere else, in the mind of the artist. Granted the photographer *may*

already have the image largely outlined for them, and even with that being the case, there

is much that goes into the composition of that image.

 

I would, however, be willing to consider the idea that painters may often times start on the

creative path to form an image at an earlier point than does the photographer. But how

would you measure something like that? With that said, I acknowledge the limitations of

Venn diagrams, but that is different from summarily dismissing their (limited) value all

together.

<i>I have thought that it might be interesting to design a controlled study to observe the

perception of photographers, comparing between groups of subjects, for example, the

presence and absence of a Venn diagram. I'm quite certain that differences would be

observed in comprehension [...]</i><p>

So you believe the Venn diagram would be pursuasive. A short sentence suffices.<p>

<i>even the most abstract art is derived from images, however distorted or altered, that

have existed previously in some form, if nowhere else, in the mind of the artist. </i><p>

Where is the machine in your statement? The abstract (as you put it) art was conceived in

the mind and then worked onto a surface to become real. I am speaking of painters of true

abstracts, and not those who choose to work with accidental techniques. I know some, and

they don't have objective models outside their mind, they don't use machines that can

accidentally create an image, they do not seek to make an image of a moment, and the

light is not from nature. Their work might have visual references to previous abstract art,

but then you get into the chicken or the egg fallacy. There is no way you can put

photography into their framework. <p>

Regarding pigments, handmade or not, mixing color is quite a craft. It doesn't matter if

the artist is squeezing grapes and flower pedals to make his colors. It is an entirely

immersive, personal thing that transcends the origin of the colors. (The choice of color

was not always entirely up to the painters, but with synthetic pigments anyone today can

mix Prussian Blue. At one point in history the Guildsmen would decide who gets certain

colors.)<p>

I have had the honor of watching two abstract painters in particular during the creation of

their works over periods of days and weeks. It is just them, the pigments and canvas. <p>

But most important - it is not <u>necessary</u> to argue that photography is or is art,

sometimes or always or never. Simply consider that there are certain <u>domains</u> of

expression and each domain has its frame, boundaries, requisites, discourse. And there

are subdomains. Sometimes they cross and that is natural, human.

"A short sentence suffices"

 

Well, I guess that can be true since I don't plan to do the study.

 

"not those who choose to work with accidental techniques"

 

I'm glad you brought that up. I met such an individual in Laguna a few years ago at an art gallery featuring her hand painting work. She goes out to the dessert, takes off her clothes and puts on headphones and a blind fold. Still I have to wonder whether she has the images existing in some form in her interesting mind before she does her wild thing. And I suppose the photographic equivalent might be to stick a camera up in the air and shoot with little or no thought (my personal example attached here.)

Having a doctor of philosophy does not make me a philosopher, although others things I do might. Exercising a mechanical reproduction process does not make a photograph art.

 

 

Of course not all photography is art, nor is it intended to be. Man creates art by whatever means (in addition to his imagination) he may use. A Xerox photocopier, pigments blown onto a cave wall, a chisel and stone, a building made for his fellows.....

 

 

If Descartes was here, he would laugh at our stupidity. Poincarre, another great French mathematician, would be happy someone has finally proved his conjecture on topology.

 

 

Art takes many forms, excluding no means of forming...

<b>Arthur</b> <i>If Descartes was here, he would laugh at our stupidity.</i><p>

 

You have piqued my interest. So why would Descartes laugh? Can you be specific? Or is this

an appeal to the authority of tradition?

<p>

"You have piqued my interest. So why would Descartes laugh? Can you be specific? Or is this an appeal to the authority of tradition?"

 

Mr. D, you have pico'd mine as well, but pray, first say why you think that Descartes (an undoubted seeker of knowledge) was the worst thing that happened to philosophy, other than the to-some(persons)-regrettable fact that he may have at least partially << highjacked philosophy >> for the science community? Or perhaps allow me (us) a reference that upholds your view?

"excluding no means of forming" End results are not acheived without means. The idea of "accidental" art, therefore, should be revised. Even if somehow the outcome were to be a pure accident, the decision to select if for presentation would not be.

 

"If anybody would start a conversation like this in my truck I would probably let him off between Fairbanks and Mustang corners to complete his trip home on foot."

 

And that person would deserve it--not for starting the conversation--but rather for entrusting in their company, not to mention as a driver, such a rasch and reactive individual who would make such a comment. BTW-many people when they are uninterested don't respond. You did.

"If Descartes was here, he would laugh at our stupidity."

 

I would ask that you provide a reference for that, but I know none would offer any real support as it could be no more than pure speculation.

Well, Chip, on the long walk home you can think about the wisdom of Venn Diagrams, and if the daylight is there, you could also take some pictures as well. Gotta look at the positive side here.

<i> If anybody would start a conversation like this in my truck [...] </i><p>

I'd rather ride in the back with the dogs in the rain after a swamp hunt in August.

Yep, back to photography.