Definitions of Art and Photography

Pico,would you like to be my divorce lawyer...???? please say yes!

 

 

david

<i> say why you think that Descartes (an undoubted seeker of knowledge) was the worst

thing that happened to philosophy, </i><p>

 

Let's begin within the context of this thread: the suggestion that logic will tell us about art.

<p>

Successful logic is necessarily tautology. It tells us nothing about anything but logic. It's a

categorization practice. Certainly, logic is helpful in navigating through daily existence,

and for clarification of certain arguments, however a philosophy which presumes logic to

be all that is necessary is incorrect on more than one level. Descartes' dualism separates

'the thinking thing' from all else - in other words, objectifies and admits to significance

only those things that can be measured. Logic cannot work otherwise. <p>

Cartesian logic ignores that which it cannot objectify. What is left out of objectification?

Well, creativity, innovation, curious ruminations outside of logic, the arts. And one must

look outside the strictly quantifiable to be human, and must be human to commit art.

<p>

 

Other objections to Descartes include his presumption that logic (and mathematics) is a

closed system susceptible to self proof. You know that is not true. It is not true that the

field of mathematics and logic (even the simplest) can be reduced to axioms that one can

apply as if the field were a machine to grind out more math and solutions. <p>

Thanks for you views, Pico. One should probably consider Descartes in light of his overall contriubution to human progress, not just where several hundred years of hindsight allow corrections. Imagine the trash knowledge he had to deal with in his time. Look at Galileo and his fight against accepted "philosophic thought" on the nature of our environment. Even Einstein, Freud and Spinosa will eventually be "corrected", if they have not already been.

 

 

Chip, you only got a piece (sic) of my meaning, in my asserton that "Art takes many forms, excluding no means of forming...". Perhaps it is imperfectly worded, but what I am saying here is that we cannot exclude any medium or means of elaborating (forming) a piece of art. All media, a priori, are acceptable (even photography, ....to get back to the intention of this posting).

<i>One should probably consider Descartes in light of his overall contriubution to human progress, not just where several hundred years of hindsight allow corrections. </i><p>

I am not trying to knock down someone's hero, and I also understand that we cannot criticize someone outside of their history (although I wonder if Descartes would disagree.) We were speaking to philosophy and my comments stand firm. The purpose was not to diminish Descartes, but to place his philosophy in time, to show how it is still applied today where re-evaluation is important.

"to show how it is still applied today where re-evaluation is important."

 

I can see that philosophy may head my reading list, as I await visitors this summer in the island art gallery....

"what I am saying here is that we cannot exclude any medium or means of elaborating (forming) a piece of art"

 

Yes, thanks for the clarification. I agree.

 

"Even Einstein, Freud and Spinosa will eventually be "corrected""

 

Freud most certainly has been, and in fact, outright rejected. And further study of nuclear physics has required revised mathmatical modeling since Einstein.

 

"Cartesian logic ignores that which it cannot objectify...certainly, logic is helpful in navigating through daily existence."

 

Any logic is going to have its limitations, which does not necessarily translate to its outright rejection.

 

"The purpose was not to diminish Descartes"

 

Um, lets go back to what you wrote just a few days ago-->

 

"Decartes was so very wrong."

 

Care to explain, Pico? Perhaps you would find a better home in a psychology forum, where among other things, you can rip Freud apart all you would like.

So, has anyone come to any conclusions here, or will we just keep arguing ourselves around in circles? At some point (when the point has been lost :) )we must just agree to disagree. Are we at an impasse?

<b>Chip R.</b><i> Any logic is going to have its limitations, which does not necessarily translate to its outright rejection. </i><p>

I did not introduce the idea of wholesale rejection of logic. Read what I wrote and quite trying to equivocate.

<p>

<i>"The purpose was not to diminish Descartes"

<br>

Um, lets go back to what you wrote just a few days ago-->

<br>

"Decartes was so very wrong."

<br>

Care to explain, Pico? </i><p>

I did explain it. Read it!

<p>

<i>Perhaps you would find a better home in a psychology forum, where among other things, you can rip Freud apart all you would like.</i><p>

More equivocation. How did Freud get into the subject? You really don't know better, do you?

"I did explain it. Read it!"

 

I did...and in the context of your other responses. You contradict yourself.

 

"How did Freud get into the subject? You really don't know better, do you?"

 

The same way decostructive poetry did...think about it. Furthermore, it elaborates on the viewpoint that older viewpoints are "corrected" upon in time.

 

"We concluded that the Venn diagram idea was just downright wrongheaded"

 

You concluded that, not "we". Again, you contradict yourself with that statement, which ignores and exhibits "profound insensitivity" towards "certainly, logic is helpful in navigating through daily existence." And to ensure against your false charge of equivocation, if my Venn diagram or anyone elses allows ANYBODY to think about art, photography or anything else in a constructive way, then it is not "wrongheaded." And you, who over time has clearly displayed a lack of respect or sensitivity towards the perspective of others is in no position to come to such a conclusion.

"We concluded that the Venn diagram idea was just downright wrongheaded, and that it represents the simple statement: "Photography is either within Art or it is not" which, by the way, is perfect logic, the perfect tautology, and perfectly impotent and impertinent."

 

So you admit my diagram represents perfect logic. But what you clearly seem incapable of understanding (or admitting) is the value of communicating the idea visually rather than verbally.

 

Oh and one more thing Pico, before I forward this matter to the moderator, read the forum rules-->

 

"Community Standards: Please take a moment to ask yourself if what you're about to post is going to be useful to the person who asked the question."

 

I started this discussion and therefore I alone am qualified to state that your responses to this issue are no longer considered useful by the OP.

Honestly whether or not photography is or isn't art depends on your definition of photography. I looked it up in Websters, and there's a slew of definitions for that tiny three-letter word, two of which apply here:

 

1. Human creativity.

 

5. A making of things that have form and beauty.

 

Most of the other definitions are just variations on a theme. Basically, it comes down to whether you define art in the broader sense of anything that is created, especially that which requires application of human imagination to be created (essentially definition 1), or if you go with the more narrow definition whereas art requires artistic merit, i.e., "form and beauty" (definition 5).

 

Under the broader sense, photography is definitely an art form. It is indeed a tool to create and express ones imagination, not unlike painting, sculpting or music. But just as there are sculptures, paintings and music that don't have artistic merit and thus don't qualify as art under the more narrow definition, so is the same for photography.

David, thanks, that is a nice summary.

I do not see any objective necessity in definitions in question because they cannot be used rationaly in any practis I am aware of.

Ilia, well, interestingly, I agree...such as is with most philosophy. Kary Mullis put it the best: we thought the philosophers were the smartest until we realized they don't know much of anything at all.

Chip, that is also how you know you are cured in therapy. When we realise the therapist is

just as crazy as we thought we were.

So, Chip, since you started this thread, have you come to any conclusions or are you still in the dark?

Elin, LOL.

 

Nicole, your single question is not an either/or but rather, better stated as two separate questions...so here are 2 answers:

 

1) I, along with the others (including you), have come to many valid conclusions, all of which are dependent on the definitions of "art" and "photography". For example, your seeming position that art and a tool are be mutually exclusive may be true but is not necessarily. If an artist must create his or her own tools to accomplish something, then the tools themselves become a work of art in a sense. I like the idea that I get to make the decision.

 

2) Out of the dark? Well in the intended sense, yes. The response to the post I referred to originally (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00KcNL 12 responses down) was interpreted as this: someone had fallaciously written IMI to make it sound that artists were somehow? (something, I?m not sure what, but perhaps inferior, I mean what the heck is ?AAAART????)? to photographers, when the individual himself was, by many of the definitions provided above by some of the others, engaged in art (display for aesthetic purposes) himself! I have also read another prefer to be considered as a ?cameraman? than an ?artist.?

 

My overall practical takeaway here is this: it can take a lot of time, effort, independence, courage, mental strength, perseverance, patience, intelligence, talent, and passion to be creative and to realize your vision. To be artistic is a great feat. It doesn?t take as much of the above listed virtues to just cut the cookies, and yet the cookie cutters often ignore and sometimes put down the artists. History (art and otherwise) has demonstrated that--even here on PN.

I'm sorry that my question left so much room for interpretation! ;)

All I meant was that you asked the question "is there any photography which is not art?" and I was just wondering if you have conluded whether there is or is not based on the opinions/information/whatever above.

Nicole, to my mind there is certainly photography which is not art. Perhaps 99%+, in my humble opinion. Similarly, there is much painting (oils, aquarelles, etc.) that is not art.

 

Art is not uniquely the product of the use of one's imagination or technique, it is something which, although produced with these inputs and others, rises above the ordinary, and can move, empower or enlighten the spirit of most "receivers".

 

Personally, that is the only criteria I apply when accepting art or not for my seasonal gallery. I couldn't give two hoots about who painted, sculpted or photographed in order to produce it.

Arthur, your criteria for (acceptable) art are certainly laudable, ie. the requirement that the qualifying work is sufficient to ?move, empower or enlighten the spirit of most "receivers?. This is an interesting subject. How do you go about determining whether the works in question, photographic or otherwise, sufficiently meet these criteria? Do you employ a particular approach, such as a review by a committee that might be representative of those who would receive such works?

Chip,

 

Thanks for your interest and your post. As you know, many full time galleries of good reputation, will, like many museums, have a panel of art lovers or art experts ("experts"; I don't want to go there...) who they can rely on to make judgements of the work submitted. Thet probably also have score cards.

 

 

In our case, as a very humble seasonal contemporary art gallery (in a terrific medieval-style French colonial wood farm building), the process is rather informal. About 30 to 70% (variable) of the judgement is my own, the rest comes via an ad-hoc group of art-minded friends who share my desire to promote serious local and national artists (not necessarily "commercial" or "popular"), but bring oftimes different opinions on what makes an image or sculpture worthy. To this is added the occasional friendly collaboration of two art critics of nearby dailies and art magazines, who visit and advise us on up and coming artists or, in some cases, more established artists. Sometimes we interpret our clients (about 2000 in number, each tourist season) badly and sell little, even though the artists may have great professional credentials and have been recommended by one of the art critics or members of our ad-hoc group.

 

 

Judging is quite subjective, of course. We consider that it is not always important, for art's sake, to ride on the waves of current "popular" or "commercial" contemporary art. We often end up with interesting but not very profitable exhibitions, but then at least the (worthy) artist gets a bit of a push in his or her career and we manage to pay our bills.

"..that is also how you know you are cured in therapy"

 

But if you were dead on it you probably don't know no nothing..

 

Let me kick even bigger ball at you, people. What if we stop consider ANY photography as art? Interested?

"What if we stop consider ANY photography as art?"

 

Originally I stated that this would be unreasonable. But I suppose that depends on what art and photography are, or would be, to you. Please elaborate on your thought.

 

But generally, the more one expands the definition of photography, the harder it becomes to entertain your proposal as valid.

Why unreasonable?

 

The way I look at it, if one want to see the photography as an art, fully or partly, can only go on making loose definitions of what art is and try to adjust all or certain photography to that definition or make the definition that is sutable for proving the given photography as an art. Which IMO is basically useless retorical process, cannot bring one to any true or resolution of practical value.

 

There are of couse people like critics, gallery owners or such who need a tools to prise or dismiss some photographic work as real art or no art at all.

 

Let us not forget a sellsmen who might try to sell a camera or two as an instruments of easy modern art making. Which is all right of couse.

 

Seen from the point of view of creative photographer, art director or illustrator the definitions are useless because the photographer is satisfied by selling the image and not by naming it art or othewise. Director only want it to work good and illustrators who do layout pages do call art anything as long as it is not a text.

 

Outside of this we only have so called amateurs and snapshoters who basically do that they want no matter how you define it, having no big ideas of art or knowing any. They like to hold a camera to their face, strain the eye and press the button, if picture jumps out it seems unlogical to them not to look at it with egotistic fascination being proud of having it. If it doesn't jump, they sure will try again. No definitions required.

 

Technical pro photographers do not boffer either.

 

Seen from the point of real artist, say a classic portrette painter, cultured and cultivated persone with certain mindset, the effort to call photography an art may seem rediculous.

 

Now. Seen from the point of creative and intelligent persone who practice it for some private ends it is IMO much more advantageous to consider photography as PHOTOGRAPHY and nothing else. A unic technique of image making of value on its own. It simply does not need to be called or defined as something else objectively.

 

Well. How about that now..

Well, alright then :)

 

Unreasonable only in general because there is a well accepted type of photography known as "fine art photography". This photography is considered art, but if that is not reasonable for you then that is ok. I suppose, however, that you are entitled to a more stringent definition of art that would exclude photography if you so choose. But what if somebody wants to develop some really interesting method to expose photographic paper with absolutely stunning results? Not that I've tried, but it might be interesting for someone to try...the results might be quite artistic and because in the true etymological sense you would be "recording light" a definition of photography would be entirely reasonable in addition to a most unique art form.

 

Just a thought.