Is photojournalism art?

<p>Arthur, I wrote a memorable Philosophy paper years ago for an aesthetics class and I called it <em>Sports as Art</em>. It was well received. That's different from a sports photo being art but there is potential to see sports and photos of sports as art. And more than just the pretty surfing photos we commonly see. There are some great photos of Muhammed Ali and Sonny Liston right at the knockout, in the ring, that I think many would consider art.</p>

<p>I don't think one has to dismiss anything as having the potential to be art. But I certainly understand that most sports photos aren't art just as most PJ photos aren't and most architecture isn't. Though drawing is often art, courtroom drawing most often isn't.</p>

<p>Your statement about painting makes sense to me in a way. Most painting is not art. Just as most photos are not art. But we're talking about particular types and uses, particular genres within these mediums. And, I would agree with others that many types of painting, drawing, and photography that have another purpose, like photojournalism, are often not art. There are overlaps, and there's the fuzziness Luis alludes to.</p>

<p>I don't think not calling them art devalues them in any way. Art is not the only monicker that confers respect and admiration onto an endeavor. And some art is bad, so art may not always confer all things positive. Someone who is a great photojournalist or documentarian needs no other epithet to make him praiseworthy or worth looking at with a kind of awe.</p>

<p><<<<em>The definitions are not quantized, with distinct edges. They are cloudy, with fuzzy edges. This is not to say they are useless, just not as discreetly compartmentalized as some would like.</em>>>></p>

<p>Luis, very good point. You were recently talking about the context of the famous Winogrand quote ("I photograph to see what something looks like photographed") and how it was communicating a real shift from how photography had previously been seen and approached to how Winogrand and others were now beginning to relate to it and do it. Same with Weitz's quotes. They are shifting from what had previously been a very <em>essentialist</em> bent to philosophy in general and philosophy of art in particular. From Plato on, many believed that anything you called a chair, or good, or art, or love, or education had to have some essential characteristic. Weitz and others are suggesting just the kind of fuzziness and blurred lines and overlap that we're talking about in this thread. The metaphor often used as a counter to essentialism is <em>family resemblance</em>. Games, for example, share a family resemblance but not a particular trait that they all must have to be games. So, in a sense, because of how it was (mis)used, definition became a dirty word. But no one was claiming that loose definitions and discussions about such things as art, love, and beauty were hopeless and very few were claiming that those things are only up to each individual to determine.</p>

<p>The interesting thing to me about art is that it often produces something without a family resemblance at all, the unexpected orphan that seems not to belong. But that unexpectedness, over time, has become somewhat expected of art. So we don't know where it will turn, what it will look or feel like, what the challenge will be, and we could be caught totally off guard, but that's something that seems to repeat itself throughout the history of art. It often takes a look back to even recognize it. It can sometimes stare us in the face and an entire generation will miss it until a later generation becomes ready to see it, or accept it.</p>

<p>In addition to much painting and sculpting not being art or being at best minor examples of it, most photography has other characteristics than that of art, although that doesn't exclude photography from that aim and realisation. Few sports photographs and few ribbon cutting ceremonies are captured in a manner that makes art. Ruling out photojournalism as a source of, or as a potential for, some art, is not supported by history. Additionally, if you consider many of the greatest paintings over the centuries, you may observe that many adhere to a manner of communication that shares much with the best photojournalism, whether it be in examples like The Last Supper (in its present 19th retouching/repainting) on a monastery wall, Cezanne's bathers, Toulouse-Lautrec's French life scenes, Picasso's Guernica or his The Drowning, or Goya's various interpretations/imaginations of human strife, and on and on. The beauty and power of the brushwork, composition, lighting and symbolism is there, to convince some that it is art, but the elements of drama, communication of ideas, transcendence, human values, fantasy and enigma bring the paintings into an overlap of aesthetics with some of the best photojournalism.</p>

<p>While I have not been bowled over in an aesthetic sense by most of Winogrand's images I've viewed (remembering most recently a very uninspiring exhibition of some of his work with drug addiction at a gallery in Paris), some of Frank's photojournalism transcends better for me the gulf between documention and art, a notable example being his famous image of a black hearse on a London street, its back doors open, invading the confines of the rightmost frame, and the image of a young girl running away from it and into the monotonous gloom of a terraced city street. It is more than the sum of its parts and not simply simple symbolism, It is indeed much more interesting in an artistic and philosophical sense for me than Moonrise over Hernandez, monumental images of national park features, or much of Burtynsky's unnatural landscapes.</p>

<p>I watched the photojournalist career of a friend of mine enough to convince me that photojournalism is art; performance art. The pictures that result are merely certificates that that the art, the performance, the ballet of subject, camera, and photographer, has been executed faithfully.</p>

<p>The intention of the performer/painter/etc. is irrelevant. </p>

<p>PJ is more likely to be interesting than most photographs taken deliberately to be art. To keep from being brutally bored by the repetition of it all, a PJ has to find ways to stay interested, and slipping in tricks of composition, of references to past art and photographs that he and a few friends notice is one way to do it. But they're not doing the "dote on me. I'm a rose" that the person deliberately setting out to do Art tends to do and which makes those photographs not things one goes back to. I judge art; art that tries to judge me or tries to make claims about me if I don't appreciate it is bombastic fakery most of the time. </p>

<p>The more you do something, and the easier you're bored, the more likely you'd do something interesting just to keep from being bored. Not all PJs take interesting photographs, but the odds are better with them than with people who struggled massively to create art.</p>

<p>Art is how humans entertain themselves, give themselves pleasures from crude to subtle. Anyone who tries to give it a larger more significant role has a terribly puritanical mind that craves beating itself up for no good purpose. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>If one accepts Leo Tolstoy’s assertion that art is a transfer of emotion it then follows that the viewer, not the creator, decides, assuming they are relatively sane. </p>

<p>I guess Leo hadn't heard that art was entertainment. He obviously had a puritanical mind that craved beating itself up for no good purpose. Sorry, I mean a <em>terribly</em> puritanical mind . . . :)</p>

<p>What follows from Leo's assertions is another matter about which I'm skeptical.</p>

<p><<<<em>But they're not doing the "dote on me. I'm a rose" that the person deliberately setting out to do Art tends to do</em>>>></p>

<p>Just what artists have you been following? Looks to me like that may be the problem and the cause of a great misunderstanding of art.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Luis wrote: "... From an interview with Alex Katz..."</p>

<p>LOL. Okay, it was an understandable slip (and it might have been an interesting interview).</p>

<p>Continuing Luis's quote Evans says: "A man operating under that definition could take a certain sly pleasure in the disguise." There's something to be said for enjoying ambiguity.</p>

<p><strong>Fred G. - </strong>"The interesting thing to me about art is that it often produces something without a family resemblance at all, the unexpected orphan that seems not to belong."</p>

<p>Art is good at pumping out those red-headed bastard stepchildren. I think of it as "extended family". </p>

<p><strong>Julie H. - "</strong>Luis wrote: "... From an interview with Alex Katz..."</p>

<p>Got me. I see the Evans quote(s) here referring to art's chameleon-like ability to appropriate, usurp, mimic, adapt the qualities of something else, qualities that would become ubiquitous a half-century later.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think that the important quality of art, in any form, is its ability to stand back from the art that preceded it, to refuse to be "controlled" by much of the former, to accept eccentricity and surprise, and to value renegade or independent approaches. This can no doubt be postulated in better language than I can, but it's the very independence of creative art that is for me one of its strongest qualities.</p>

<p>Footnote: <br>

Two unrelated events in Canada that come to mind in the sense of independence in art are the Total Refusal ("Refus Global", centering on art, but having social implications as well,) of Borduas, Pellan and Riopelle in 1948, and the actions of the art student at OCAD in Toronto, who was arrested for vomitting on traditional works in the Art Gallery of Ontario some ten years ago. </p>

<p>"The intention of the performer/painter/etc. is irrelevant."<br>

===================<br>

Nothing could be further from true. Intention is everything. Without intention, there is no art. The Encyclopædia Britannica Online defines <em>art</em> as "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others". It also follows that intention and creation alone are all that is necessary for art to exist. There is no further process - for instance an approval or acceptance by some third party - required in order for art to exist. Viewers do not make (establish) art, artists make art to be viewed. In the case of photojournalism, all that need be known is the intent of the photographer. </p>

<p>Very interesting, thank you Freg G. Aside from the fact that my one sentence comment began with the word IF, you MAY have made Mr. Tolstoy’s point by turning my comment into art with your obvious emotion. Likewise, your response may also quality as art because it was certainly entertaining to me. Speculation aside, I have no idea what Mr. Tolstoy may have heard, and I would not presume to judge his mind. PERHAPS he was insane. I follow any artist I please, or not, and I freely admit that I do not understand a great deal of art. Do you? Do you make up your own mind, or do you go along on a ‘name brand’ basis? </p>

<p><<<<em>Do you make up your own mind, or do you go along on a ‘name brand’ basis?</em>>>></p>

<p>Probably some of each. Though I like to think of myself as a somewhat independent thinker, I am well aware of the various influences on me. The only reason I've heard of many artists I like or follow is because they've been published or shown. I do know that curators have great sway in what I even get exposed to. At the same time, I seek out artists locally and on line who are not as well known. But I know how much the prevailing culture and visual languages influence me and I know that to some extent we exist as part of a social network. Our minds are in many ways not our own. They are not possessions like suitcases. </p>

<p><<<<em>Speculation aside, I have no idea what Mr. Tolstoy may have heard, and I would not presume to judge his mind. PERHAPS he was insane.</em>>>></p>

<p>Erb, in answering you, I was mainly riffing off what I considered the over-the-top comments of Rebecca. I should have put quotation marks around what I lifted directly from Rebecca: "a puritanical mind that craved beating itself up for no good purpose." I agree with your hypothesis that Tolstoy knew that emotion was part of art and was goofing on Rebecca's claim that art was entertainment. I don't think it is. In other words, according to Rebecca, where anyone who thinks art is something deeper than entertainment has "a puritanical . . . etc. etc. etc.", Tolstoy would be among those puritanical whatchamacallits. Hope this clears it up.</p>

<p>The only claim of yours that I was skeptical about is that Tolstoy's premise about the transfer of emotion leads to any notion that the viewer and neither the creator nor the public as a whole nor experts nor some combination of all, or even some quality, determines what art is. I don't know how you got from A to B.</p>

<p>I happen to like John Keats quite a lot, even when he was being very earnest. The "dote on me, I am a rose" comes from Keats's very sane mistrust of Shelley, and probably a misreading of Wordsworth. </p>

<p>Entertainment is the highest thing we can know in this life and all we need to know -- and attempts to force tastes tend to lead to people who kid themselves about what they like. Nothing is deeper than entertainment. Some people are easily amused; some people like more complex amusement, twisted delights of the mind, but it's all entertaining or we wouldn't bother to look at it or read it. Pleasure, if you will. </p>

<p>Tolstoy was a prat. He tried to explain to Chekhov, whose grandfather was a serf, that Chekhov didn't understand serfs. </p>

<p>See also Frank O'Hara: http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/20421</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Oh, I see Fred, Mr. Tolstoy and I got spanked for Rebecca’s remarks. That turn of attention prompted me to read her June 7 comment and…well…I agree with her second sentence and enjoyed the “bombastic fakery” bit. Then earlier today Rebecca slapped him around a bit also. But Rebecca, if you truly believe that “Entertainment is the highest thing we can know in this life and all we need to know...” then, truly, I fear for you. I sincerely hope you were just having us on. </p>

<p>But bringing this back to Mr. Jones’ question: Is photojournalism art?, this discussion with all its ramifications has heightened my appreciation for the refreshingly simple, unassailable legitimacy of Mr. Tolstoy’s statement. Fred, I don’t see any A&B. So my answer is Yes! Now, as Forrest Gump said so appropriately, “That’s all I have to say about that.”</p>

 

<p>Erb,<br>

it's OK you agree with the Tolstoy statement; nobody has a problem with that. But we can question that statement, disagree with it and at least wonder about its validity - and that should give no problem either. It's not a personal attack, it's wondering about the words spoken and discuss it - learn from one another. Your reaction seems you're not willing to. Adding insult to injury, to call it 'unassailable legitimate' is simply saying whoever disagrees is wrong, and this quote is the one and only truth. Now that's even more simplistic the quote itself already was. I hope you do understand the prime role of philosophy (any studies, really) is to ask questions, to test statements for their validity and to never accept some convenient truth blindly. </p>

<p>Rebecca,<br>

I think I get your point, but entertainment just would not be more choice of word. Though I wonder I can come up with a more proper word (let alone "the proper" one), 'entertainment' also sounds a bit too light and single-sided to me (for sure, not as profound as I think it is). Gratification would be a closer match, maybe.</p>

<p><strong>Arthur Plumpton - "</strong>I like (find amusing) the way some of the arguments go, firstly as near categoric dismissals of the possibility of PJ as being compatible with art creation (invoking some sort of qualifier like the "moment"; well, hell, guys, that is what photography is known to capture"</p>

<p>Arthur, the moment in this case has nothing to do with the release of the shutter, but with the connection between the time the 2nd curtain closes and the picture is published. More about the immediacy of the process.</p>

<p><strong>Erb - "</strong>If one accepts Leo Tolstoy’s assertion that art is a transfer of emotion it then follows that the viewer, not the creator, decides, assuming they are relatively sane."</p>

<p>Leaving sanity aside, and assuming Tolstoy is correct, by halving the process you would exclude anything for the viewer to behold.</p>

<p><strong>Rebecca - </strong>"Entertainment is the highest thing we can know in this life and all we need to know"</p>

<p>Well, we can now close the tent and call it a day. Nothing to see here, move along.</p>

<p><<<<em>If one accepts Leo Tolstoy’s assertion that art is a transfer of emotion <strong>it then follows</strong> that the viewer, not the creator, decides, assuming they are relatively sane.</em>>>></p>

<p>Erb, A is what's before the "it then follows" in the above claim and B is what follows "it then follows" in the claim.</p>

<p>In other words, how would you get from the premise that <em>if</em> art is a transfer of emotion (and I agree it can be but that that's only part of what art is) to the conclusion that <em>then</em> the viewer decides what art is (which I would maintain is not the case)?</p>

<p>No, you didn't get spanked for Rebecca's remarks. You got asked to show how you drew the conclusion you drew about the viewer from the premise you used, Tolstoy's claim about transfer of emotion.</p>

<p>Among the many alternatives to entertainment and pleasure are sacrifice and obligation.</p>

<p>erb Pix -- let's say that people don't willingly do things they don't like unless coerced. Art is an escape from coersion, from the necessities of having to get food, get shelter. Also, saying something is an "art" (form) is a moving target. The division between arts and crafts was not crisp until relatively recently. Art can also be conspicuous consumption, proof that someone is removed enough from the necessities of getting food, shelter, and such directly that they have time to devote to play (one of my anthro professors said art is play).</p>

<p>We like transferring emotions between people -- that's what drives us to primary contact with other human beings.</p>

<p>Most of us here are removed enough from the hard scrabble lives of most humans that we tend to forget that most people want what Samuel Johnson said people wanted from art -- either an escape or a consolation -- to imagine ourselves out of what and where we are or to attempt to reconcile us with our lots in life.</p>

<p>Most political art is second rate. Most art that attempts to teach us something is second rate ("Out of my quarrels with others, I make rhetoric; out of my quarrels with myself, I make poetry" -- William Butler Yeats.).</p>

<p>The photographs that aren't trying to teach us something can be art. When photojournalism is out of the quarrel with self, when the photographer learns something from the looking, then maybe it's art.</p>

<p>Propaganda is rarely first rate art. John Ashbery didn't write anti-war poems, didn't get engaged in that whole mess, but is a better poet than most of those who did. Propaganda is didactic first and not about the artist's quarrels with himself/herself that make him or her humans being intensely human. The artist who tries to judge the audience by its response or not is self-deceiving more often that not.</p>

<p>Humans are always entertaining. Substitute fascinating. When they're lecturing, they're rarely as fascinating as when they're honestly working something out for themselves out of their internal quarrels. It's why the best science education is in the lab, not the classroom.</p>

<p>Sacrifice is all too often what people with power want of people without it. It has nothing to do with art.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Meh. Never mind.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Aurthur P sez "…photojournalism as a theme is no less blessed or disadvantaged than any other form of photography…"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And might I add that many things in art museums didn't start life as art. It's a long list of stuff starting about 30,000 BC. What we call art today was a means of teaching for most of history. One might say that PJ is rooted in art.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Out of my quarrels with others, I make rhetoric; out of my quarrels with myself, I make poetry" -- William Butler Yeats.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Very much agree with this. The internal dialog - self entertainment - is where art originates with the artist.</p>

<p>Alan, I love your quotation from Yeats. Humorous on one side of the semi-colon, profound on the other.</p>

<p>Arthur, that's my quotation from Yeats.</p>

<p>It was Rebecca's quote from Yeats, and while I agree that poetry has and can come of the internal dialogue, it's not the only wellspring of art. The suspension of the inner dialogue has also been a source of art, and I suspect a lot has also happened in-between. What works best for one (or many) may not be the only way.</p>