I have a question?

<p>Misere, don't worry about picking on me, I'm a big boy, and this thread/debate is fascinating....</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I once attended an exhibit featuring a collection of Michaelangelo's sketches and drawings depicting ideas he would later paint and sculpt.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Once you become a famous artist, anything and everything you did and do is Art. You just can't help it. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Allow me to introduce you to <a rel="nofollow" href="http://enticingthelight.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/the-cat-that-fought-back/" target="_blank">Cooper.</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have a dog called Cooper, and he is no more an artist than Cooper the cat. And no, the cat did not take the photographs, or even point the camera. All the cat did was be a cat. Humans did the rest, including exhibiting the results and buying them. More fool them. Unless of course, this is Art because of how it is a satirical comment on the idea of Art.</p>

<p>Now I have to go an think about Laurentieu's fine 'what if' question.</p>

<p>Now I have had a look at more of Cooper the Cat's work, I realise that it is a very clever poke, by a professional photographer who knows how much skill it takes to get a photograph to look just as intended, at the crap that is often marketed as 'art photography', much of it looking like random snaps worse than the cat's.</p>

<p>As I was driving around today, running errands, my thoughts returned to this thread and this question. </p>

<p>I, too, was troubled by Miserere's comment that any photography qualified as art, simply because it is a photograph. It reminded me of trying to come up with a definition for "Music". The only definition that can apply to all forms of music is: Organized Sounds. But, by this definition, my alarm clock and the sound of my car engine, on their own merits, would qualify as music. </p>

<p>There has also been a fair amount of discussion about emotion - being moved by [art] or [art] conveying some kind and/or amount of emotion. This can't be the only measure of art, as, often, the function of art within society is to challenge people to think, to take a second look at one's own society from another perspective. Or, maybe, simply to present a different view. </p>

<p>There has also been some discussion about the intentions of the author of, in this case, the photograph (though it has branched into other arenas). The problem with this is the assumption that one can perceive the intentions of another. Especially in non-verbal forms of art, this is a big assumption. As was pointed out, the author's intention for the photograph (or sketch) may be simply to document, but may later be considered art. Even more challenging is the fact that there is no way to prove we all agree on what the color red actually is. Perception from one person to another largely cannot be measured. </p>

<p>All of this gets even more confusing in the face of Dadaism, Pop Art, and the work of Cooper the Cat. At least in the case of the afore mentioned art movements, the point was to dismantle "Art", to poke fun at it, to be anti-art. There are similar movements in other forms, as well, often embracing the surreal, or, at least challenging what was traditionally the limits. Steve Martin and Andy Kaufman were both pioneers of what was often described as the "anti-comedy" movement. </p>

<p>Clearly, art requires communication; art <strong>IS</strong> communication. How do we know what the artist means to communicate to us? How do we, as "artists", know that what we intend to say will be heard and understood by our intended audience? Why is it that my favorite of my photos are often not among the favorites of my friends? I often don't see what they find so moving in some of my images. </p>

<p>Art is subjective. Any attempt to give anything more than the most broad stoke definition will be met with protest, and many fine examples that fall outside of that rule. As the observer of art, I look to be moved and/or challenged. I can accept that there is a great deal of art that falls outside of that rule, so I don't mean this to exclude. Perhaps that's my definition of "good art". Back to trying to communicate through art, I stand by my earlier statement. The details within his/her work are the tools the artist uses to communicate, thus the use and control (or not) of those details are his/her best chance of getting the point across.</p>

<p>Perhaps, the problem here, or at least part of it, is the perceived arrogance of calling one's self an "artist". If you create art, you must be an artist, right? I choke on this, too. I would never describe myself as an "artist", though I am a working professional musician, composer and arranger, and an avid photographer. I would, and do, say that I use all of these avenues, and a few others, to relate to, and communicate with the world around me. I am happy when something I produce finds meaning in and for someone else. </p>

<p>Well... that's my brilliantly articulate, glowing masterpiece tome (so well crafted, I might add, that it should be considered art in and of itself) about the definition of art. I hope you all feel smarter now. (just kidding... take it or leave it as you will)</p>

<p>Sean</p>

<p>It's not really a matter of Adobe or software, because photographers / artists have always used what is available to them. Manipulation has always been an option but it certainly doesn't negate art or impact automatically. Have a look at this example, still powerful despite having been manipulated: </p>

<p>http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2009/05/21/shellshocked-reindeermurmansk/</p>

<p>Good thoughts Sean. Well presented.</p>

<p>Good example George.</p>

<p>"Drawing is the honesty of the art. There is no possibility of cheating. It is either good or bad."</p>

<p>Pfft, well that Dali bloke must have been some kind of Luddite or something... Welcome to 2009, dead dude...!!! I say screw all that learning to draw crap and just keep snapping... After taking a few thousand shots a week you're bound to get one or two worth posting on the net, right...? :) Who needs skill and talent when we have 32GB SD cards...???!!! :)</p>

<p>This is photography, dude... Where optical recordings - sorry, "art" :) - can be made in substantially less than one second and for only a few mAh per pic...!!! BARGAIN... :) And then endless copies - sorry, "limited edition art prints" - can be made on an inkjet - sorry, "giclee" - printer...!!! No stupid pencils required... Just plug it in and click the Print button...!!!</p>

<p>:)</p>

<p>Good stuff, Sean.<br /> <br /> I just have some comments:<br /> <br /> I'd argue that it's more likely to reach an agreement on what is music than on what is art. Music would require an interpret, which would exclude the alarm clock and the car engine, unless somebody would try to compose for alarm clocks and car engines, with interprets triggering the clocks and revving the engines. It would probably make for bad music, but it would be music.<br /> <br /> Regarding author intentions, I'd add as an example numerology in the idea that if you stare enough at something you can find meaning that isn't really there. I think humans are used to look hard for meanings, so if you just give them a decent pretext, they'll find something. Or another interesting example are Rorschach images.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Perhaps, the problem here, or at least part of it, is the perceived arrogance of calling one's self an "artist". If you create art, you must be an artist, right? I choke on this, too. I would never describe myself as an "artist", though I am a working professional musician, composer and arranger, and an avid photographer. I would, and do, say that I use all of these avenues, and a few others, to relate to, and communicate with the world around me. I am happy when something I produce finds meaning in and for someone else.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, it's a bit like talking about genius, isn't it? Some labels should never be self applied.</p>

<p>Late to the game and I'm too ADD to read all the comments so hopefully I'm not being too redundant. Art is in the eye of the beholder and is totally subjective. Manipulation went on with chemicals and exposure times back in the early film days just as it goes on today via PS or other graphic editing apps. Everyone has a slightly different feel for what can be called a photo after manipulation and maybe what should be called digital image and gets pretty far from what was photographed. My advice is just be true to your leading on how you process and just be open and not too judgmental on how others do the same.<br>

There is a market for every product and material. Some things are appreciated by many-hence pop art, some by very few-more edgy or extreme art. Hope my 2 cents a adds some fresh perspective. Now I need to HDR that picture of Obama and add a polar bear in... :P</p>

<blockquote>

<p>just be open and not too judgmental</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed!</p>

<p>I have enjoyed this conversation. I come from a family of artists. Mother, Uncle, Sister, Son I have minor + in Art. Whatever that means.... I like to keep it simple.</p>

<p>What is Art....... If you call it Art.. It is Art... Now is it good Art That is up to interpretation.</p>

<p>What to me is more important. What is an Artist. A mover of paint on canvas ? a carver of stone ? A taker of pictures ? All of these and more. There are people that don't consider themselves as Artists but do the same as those who call themselves Artists.<br>

The minute you push the button on the tool you call a camera. You are creating for better or worst. You can use more tools or less. The result is what counts. Is it high Art..... Who cares... leave that to the Art historians. If some thing moves or touches you that's what counts.</p>

<p>Interesting discussion here, but all vain attempts to define art aside, I think the first photo is one of the best I've seen in this vein, and all the changes made and suggested serve only to detract from the very qualities which make it great in the first place. To wit: geometry - absolutely fascinating interplay of curves, straight lines, diagonal balance; tone - not poorly exposed in my book, enough colour to be interesting but not too strong, wonderful contrast range yet good detail in the background; story - captivating, especially within the larger setting; great balance between light, dark, major and minor ideas. Whether this was just a grab shot or not is irrelevant - it is a wonderful photo and obviously the product of perseverance, dedication to the task, good judgment and timing. I commend it highly. Do not underestimate it just as it is.</p>