Photography: Is it Art?

<blockquote>

<p>So in fact, an artist, (like anyone else) has only the rights he can defend. He may feel an <em>irresistible urge</em> for self-expression, but that is not a "right". Nor does he have "right" to "declare" anything, nor are his declarations binding on anyone else.<br>

I find that <strong>idea</strong> to be depressing, dehumanizing and oppressive. I do however recognize the historical authoritarianism from which this kind of idea arises, and I reject that whole enterprise upon Man, and hope for it's destruction in the very near future.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The idea is merely a reflection on reality. I don't like repression any better than anyone else here. However, this is the way the natural world works; one eats, or one is eaten. How much artistic freedom do you have while looking down the barrel of a loaded gun?</p>

<p>Despite high-minded but unenforceable (and therefore useless) statements such as the UN Declaration, much of the world continues to be governed by repressive or totalitarian regimes. Their citizens (or subjects) have no rights, only priveleges. If art depended exclusively on "artistic freedom" these peoples could produce no art. Yet they do - for them "art" is a tool of the state, like everything else. Granted such art is often not very original and highly clicheed, but it's still art. Or if not, by what authority do you deny that it is?</p>

<p><<<<br>

<em>This is my art!" is also a feeling. Every artist I know intimately experiences that feeling. Perhaps check with some artists you know? See what they say.</em><br>

<em>To make art without feeling? I suppose some do.</em>>>></p>

<p>What an insipid response. This is what you've done thhroughout the thread. Fabricate others' answers and congratulate yourself on being an artist while implying that others here aren't. </p>

<p>Well, I know lots of artists and none of them do that. They are more secure and they are way more open than your sorry self. And they have produced art that they aren't ashamed to show, if they have it at all.</p>

<p>When I say art is not the same thing as a feeling like sadness -- which you, yourself have already said since you wrongly said art needs an artifact and last I looked sadness and other feelings don't result in an artifact -- is not the same as saying I don't make art with feeling. See if you can wrap your thick self-important skull around that one. </p>

<p>Julie, even I'm surprised at your totally off base response to QG.</p>

<p>I shouldn't be.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The idea is merely a reflection on reality. I don't like repression any better than anyone else here. However, this is the way the natural world works; one eats, or one is eaten. How much artistic freedom do you have while looking down the barrel of a loaded gun?<br>

Despite high-minded but unenforceable (and therefore useless) statements such as the UN Declaration, much of the world continues to be governed by repressive or totalitarian regimes. Their citizens (or subjects) have no rights, only priveleges. If art depended exclusively on "artistic freedom" these peoples could produce no art. Yet they do - for them "art" is a tool of the state, like everything else. Granted such art is often not very original and highly clicheed, but it's still art. Or if not, by what authority do you deny that it is?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Reality is always short of our dreams. It doesn't mean we should stop dreaming. We set markers, we move toward them, often in jerky awkward steps. Progress isn't measured in single lifetimes, so we make markers that will outlive our individual lives. Often one's art is just such a marker. </p>

<p>Well, we kind of know nothing anyone says affects your position. That's sort of a given.Fred.</p>

<p>'smack'</p>

<p>Allen, nice to hear from you.</p>

<p>You too. Hope you are well and life is treating you kindly</p>

<p><<<<em>Sort of sad really.</em>>>></p>

<p>Sounds like a smack to me.</p>

<p>Just the reality, Fred</p>

<p>Look in the mirror, Allen. Who do you see?</p>

<p>My old Gran told me not to" look into the mirror too much as I might see the Devil".... I'm not too keen on looking at someone with horns and a red face, Fred.</p>

<p>Who have you been seeing in the mirror,Fred ;))</p>

<p>"what authority do you deny that it is?" Jim</p>

<p>Fred has written "war and peace on the subject" so, perhaps that makes him an authority.</p>

<p>Julie, even I'm surprised at your totally off base response to QG Fred.<br /> <br /> "Off with her head! then" said the Queen....Alice in Wonderland.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>How difficult is this...?<br /><br />Your inalienable right to say that what you have produced is art does not infer the power to make something art by using your inalienable right to say anything you like, such as that what you have produced is art.<br />You have an inalienable right to declare Fred a table.<br /><br />I have an inalienable right to call you a lost case, beyond any hope.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Q.G.,<br>

Your first sentence contradicts itself. As to Fred and the Table - -I have no relation with Fred. Fred's existence wasn't by my hand, and Fred is not within my sovereignty. How does that compare to this paper I just drew on and called art? When I say "right" you keep hearing "magic supernatural power." You need to stop inserting your own consistently wrong understanding. </p>

<p><em>Art</em> is nothing but a description of intentions about the matter. When I draw on a piece of paper it sits there unnamed until what? Think this through - - until WHAT? Until I name it. If I choose to name it "napkin" that has one set of intentions, if I choose to name it "art" that has another. But notice that nothing magic occurred. There was no puff of smoke, no thunder and lightening. The paper did not change on iota, only the label changed. That label being supplied by my right to assign a label. My choice of label is based on my intentions, my feelings, my purposes and so on down the long list of phenomena which are part and parcel of my individual free humanity. No try substituting "Fred is a table" in that description. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Wow! Might this awful, snarky, pretentious thread actually reach 200 posts?! I'm so glad I bowed out when I did - I've heard this all before many times.</p>

<p>It would seem to me that this whole "discussion" could have been averted had people just been willing to accept that they might have different personal opinions, definitions and interpretations of the words Artist, Art and Soul.</p>

<p>If m wants to believe that merely proclaiming yourself to be an artist makes you an artist, then that's fine for him - as long as he accepts that it's merely his personal interpretation and that others may have their own, distinctly different definitions. Stating personal interpretations as absolutes and then trying to twist everything others say to prove that, is the essence of arrogance. It's really not that hard - we all have different definitions of those words apparently and trying to bully others conform to your personal interpretation is hardly free thinking or liberated. It's anti artistic in MY opinion.</p>

<p>Personally I believe an artist has to have talent, and that artwork needs to display a combination of passion, creativity, originality, craft and technique - I should be inspired by it and have it affect me emotionally - for me there is no age limit and no outside authority or accolades required. There's no point arguing with this - I don't care if you disagree - you have your interpretations and they are as valid to you as mine are to me... it's all OPINION and all the pretentious BS in the world isn't going to change that.</p>

<p><<<<em>Art</em> is nothing but a description of intentions about the matter.>>></p>

<p>M, you should try remembering what you've said in previous posts before so blatantly contradicting yourself because of an addiction to hyperbole. </p>

<p>You've said adamantly that art needs and must produce an artifact (which happens to be wrong, but you've declared that's your view). Now you say it is nothing but a description of intentions. Screwy.</p>

<p>"If m wants to believe that merely proclaiming yourself to be an artist makes you an artist, then that's fine for him - as long as he accepts that it's merely his personal interpretation and that others may have their own"</p>

<p>Of course its all very personnel I would think most folk understand that.However, if someone feels they see something in their work that gives them the feeling they are a Artist (whatever a Artist is) well great! that actually might inspire their creativity.</p>

<p>Why would that be a bother to anyone else.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>This is my art!" is also a feeling. Every artist I know intimately experiences that feeling. Perhaps check with some artists you know? See what they say.</em><br /><em>To make art without feeling? I suppose some do.</em>>>><br>

What an insipid response. This is what you've done thhroughout the thread. Fabricate others' answers and congratulate yourself on being an artist while implying that others here aren't.<br>

Well, I know lots of artists and none of them do that. They are more secure and they are way more open than your sorry self. And they have produced art that they aren't ashamed to show, if they have it at all.<br>

When I say art is not the same thing as a feeling like sadness -- which you, yourself have already said since you wrongly said art needs an artifact and last I looked sadness and other feelings don't result in an artifact -- is not the same as saying I don't make art with feeling. See if you can wrap your thick self-important skull around that one.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've noticed you hate taking responsibility for your comments. You throw them out obviously without much thought, and then regret it when they turn out not to be to your advantage. Once you see that lack of advantage, your next predictable comment is some venomous retort laden with ridicule which you wrongly assume covers the stench of your original remark by creating an even greater smoke screen. I'll diagram it here, so that others may not think I am making this up. And there's always the odd chance you might see how ineffective it is and adopt a more mature strategy.</p>

<p><strong>How the Play Develops With Fred</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>M:</strong> The right to claim art is similar to the right to declares one's feelings. I am sad. Others don't have the right to deny feelings of others.<br>

<strong>FRED:</strong> Sad is a feeling. I can't access your feelings.<br>

You've made an art object and it's in the world. I have access to it. And I can deny it's art and YOU cannot take my right to deny it's art away, you oppressive censor you.<br>

<strong>M:</strong> "This is my art!" is also a feeling. Every artist I know intimately experiences that feeling. Perhaps check with some artists you know? See what they say.</p>

<p>To make art without feeling? I suppose some do.</p>

<p>(and then watch out - here will come the venomous tantrum like clockwork)</p>

<p><strong>FRED</strong>: What an insipid response......Etc, Etc. into a long tirade of what a horrible person I must be.</p>

Fred has an almost sacred obligation to play the "terrible child" and martyr all at once, while making everyone else such a lesser being than himself. Predictable because it is one of the oldest internet archetypes in the short history of the internet. It was developed in those infamous AOL Chat Rooms circa 1992.

My apologies for lapsing here into a moment of pure ad hominem argument, but there is only so much pretentious BS any human can put up with, and Fred, you really have made too much of a stink to ignore the crap in your pants. Keep going though - keep up the same predictable path. It's amusing, and so much easier to rebut than carefully reasoned arguments.

<blockquote>

<p><<<<em>Art</em> is nothing but a description of intentions about the matter.>>><br>

M, you should try remembering what you've said in previous posts before so blatantly contradicting yourself because of an addiction to hyperbole.<br>

You've said adamantly that art needs and must produce an artifact (which happens to be wrong, but you've declared that's your view). Now you say it is nothing but a description of intentions. Screwy.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Read the whole post that includes your quote above. Pay attention to the example and how it develops. It began with a drawing on a paper, and a decision whether to label it a napkin or art, depending on my feelings of intention. </p>

<p>I find that if you read the whole post, your odds of understanding the point being made rise dramatically. What's your experience? </p>

<p>Hyperbole. I like it a lot, but I would not say I was addicted. Here's what I have found. When a discussion is dominated by immature hot-heads who focus every one of their posts on denigrating the personal character of the others, hyperbole can be a safe and effective rhetorical countermeasure, instead of diving into the sewer with them. I'd rather have clean hands and be accused of a few exaggerations than to smell like foul feces all day. Just a style thing, Fred.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Personally I believe an artist has to have talent, and that artwork needs to display a combination of passion, creativity, originality, craft and technique - I should be inspired by it and have it affect me emotionally - for me there is no age limit and no outside authority or accolades required.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am glad to see one person who <em>largely</em> agrees with me. The difference would only be that I would place no particular limits on the list of words of what a work of art "needs to display." To say it "needs to display technique or craft" requires that technique and craft be defined, for instance. And other words like humor, or compassion might be needed for some work of art and so on. A <em>specific numbered list of ingredients</em> is always going to impinge on creativity. I'd resist the idea.</p>

<p>I think in reviewing the objections to my position that the artist knows when he has created art and can declare it so, the underlying concern of the protestors is that great fear that some person might create something to a standard that they don't like or approve of. This is the idea of "exclusivity" it is why we form clubs, associations, and societies - to keep the riff-raff OUT! It's as old as Man.</p>

<p>Can't you just hear them all at the "Royal Society of the Arts" moaning and droning about the new wave of wannabees? Fortunately, there is a dynamic real world out here where those authorities have not one single thing to do with how art is actually progressing with artists, where not one single thing happens until that rising power of liberty and free self expression breaks out through some artist and art is birthed.</p>

Sure a lot of primping-n-preening going on. A shame since it's probably at the expense of some

genuine art-making happening. Extremely fascinating, though, to everyone else here secure with the

label photographer.

As usual, wise words from Allen, cutting through the fog...

<blockquote>

<p>I am glad to see one person who <em>largely</em> agrees with me. The difference would only be that I would place no particular limits on the list of words of what a work of art "needs to display." To say it "needs to display technique or craft" requires that technique and craft be defined, for instance. And other words like humor, or compassion might be needed for some work of art and so on. A <em>specific numbered list of ingredients</em> is always going to impinge on creativity. I'd resist the idea.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>M - stop trying to seek some kind of consensus where people agree with YOU! You can resist any ideas you want and put forward any ideas you want. Have your own opinion and be comfortable with that - this is subjective stuff.</p>

<p>We aren't going to agree, that's fine with me and should be fine with you. We define the essential terms differently - so what? If I produce something I term "Art" I couldn't care less if anyone else thinks it is or isn't - the same should be true for anyone else. Therefore, if I define their work as not art, that should be irrelevant to them, and to you. Only the truly insecure stamp their feet and declare to ANYONE ELSE "This is art and I'm an artist and I insist that you agree with me".</p>

>>> Just what this thread needed.

Have a hunch many here might agree on that.

<p><<<<em>Have a hunch many here might agree.</em>>>></p>

<p>Like M, another sad sack who needs backup for validation . . . and obviously thought Allen needed it as well.</p>

No validation for me Fred.

I was suggesting that many here would agree with *your* comment - not mine. Nice try, but Allen doesn't

need anything from me.

<p>"Like M, another sad sack ....Fred.</p>

<p>Chill out Fred. No need to name call folk. It is just a chat no need for folks to get upset particulary when we are talking about such a subjective subject. If I have upset you in anyway then I'm sorry. But I admit to a bit of leg pulling.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>M - stop trying to seek some kind of consensus where people agree with YOU! You can resist any ideas you want and put forward any ideas you want. Have your own opinion and be comfortable with that - this is subjective stuff.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why are you insisting to dominate what I write or how or to whom? Let me share with you your words of just a few hours ago. Here they are:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If <strong>m</strong> wants to believe that merely proclaiming yourself to be an artist makes you an artist, then that's fine for him - as long as he accepts that it's merely his personal interpretation....etc. etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In that quote you are addressing me. You are imperiously demanding what I must accept as a condition of my opinion. Now, accepting that you have just demanded a set of conditions under which I can have a belief, do you not imagine that I might not have the right to rebuttal in these matters at least equal to your demands upon me? How so?</p>

<p>You left once exclaiming you could not ever waste time on such twaddle (At least I think that was you. There have been so many people leaving in a huff, only to come back and huff some more, that it is hard to track the revolving door.) Now you are back with more imperious demands than even before! School teachers often have this kind of control over the conditions of discussion, or just classroom behavior. But this is not that model. (I assume that's why you left in the first instance)</p>

<p>Not only do you have no authority over conditions of my chosen beliefs, but you also have no authority over my rebuttals - and that is especially true when you are arguing directly to my person. Now I have to ask - is that hard for you to understand? Do you need more in depth information about how these discussion work? Your agreement is not necessary for me to carry on as I normally would, but it might be of some benefit to you.</p>

<p>Your authoritative, command like structure of posting - "he must accept thus!" is fun to read. Amusing would be a better word. But, don't believe your own press. It doesn't mean others accept your attempt at controlling their beliefs, their comments, their posts and their expressions. Post what you like of course, in a style you like, but really, don't expect you can demand anything of me.</p>

<p>P.S. I don't care what Brad thinks - - the degree of laughter I am getting out of this thread is at least as valuable to my soul at this moment as creating art. A few minutes ago when reading <em>that</em> post I thought my wing was going to crack!</p>

<p>m - read again the two quotes of mine that you you cited! I say that you can resist any ideas you want, put forward any ideas you want, have your own opinion and be comfortable with that, and if you want to say that declaring yourself an artist makes you an artist then that's fine - as long as you accept it's merely your personal interpretation!</p>

<p>How you see this as making an 'imperious demand" I have no idea! I am giving you carte blanche to your opinions, ideas and criticisms - as we all have. Seriously, how thin skinned must you be to find anything objectionable in that at all!</p>

<p>I did ask you stop saying that we in some sort of agreement because it's simply not true - we don't agree - at all, That too is fine though, this is - as I said - subjective stuff. If asking you to stop saying things that are untrue (we don't agree) upsets you, then there is no point discussing anything, because asking that is not imperious, it's just asking you to not misrepresent my position.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Only the truly insecure stamp their feet and declare to ANYONE ELSE "This is art and I'm an artist <strong>and I insist that you agree with me</strong>".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tsk, tsk. You really do have to read more carefully before attempting insults. This is Fred's fatal flaw in discussions - he is more concerned with forming an insult, than he is in forming an argument, so he reads too quickly, and writes logically flawed arguments. You'd think someone writing with so much authority would be more careful?</p>

<p>Here's your flaw. Notice carefully what you put in quotes. That includes an extra clause which was never a part of my argument. My argument was that the artist has the right to say, "This is my art!" Notice where I have place my quotes? It ends with his simple, personal declaration. Now read yours. You have added the clause, "<strong>and I insist that you agree with me</strong>." Big error. I have no intention in my argument of having the artist demand anything of others. None. You have made a serious miscalculation here which demonstrates the principle of looking for the insult before the logic.</p>

<p>There's no need to apologize for attempting to skew my argument in that superficially obvious way. I'm betting it often works for you when coupled with that authoritative style. I am seeing so many people who do this that I just generally excuse it as carelessness.</p>

<p>m - seriously? Is this some puerile game of "gotcha" on semantics or minor points?</p>

<p>If you don't insist that anyone agree with the guy who declares himself an artist then where's the problem? Of course he has the right to state that (personal interpretation, definitions and subjective - remember) - as he has the right to declare himself an astronaut or a tree frog. If that makes him happy and he believes it to be the case, who on earth cares? I have the right to think he's creating total crap and no-one but me should care about that either.</p>

<p>You seem much more interested in trying to score points, looking for gotchas and finding ways to misinterpret what people are saying than reading what was actually said and thinking about it with an open mind.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>How you see this as making an 'imperious demand" I have no idea!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John,<br>

Ok, if you have no idea what an imperious demand is, I will help you.<br>

What's the meaning of imperious: <em>Assuming authority without justification; arrogant; domineering.</em><br>

What's the demand being made? Here it is again: "If <strong>m</strong> wants to believe that merely proclaiming yourself to be an artist makes you an artist, then that's fine for him - as long as he accepts that it's merely his personal interpretation."</p>

<p>Let me reduce it to its logic for you: <strong>If M wants to believe X, he must accept Y.</strong><br>

Pretty straightforward there. It's a demand relating to my beliefs. You have made my belief in X conditional upon your demand that I "must accept" Y. It's an <em>imperious</em> demand because you have assumed an authority to place conditions on my beliefs that you don't have.</p>

<p>In fact, I can possess my beliefs without any conditions from you or anyone else. For a more in depth understand I refer you to the concepts of free expression. Many people, especially those who embrace authoritarian perspectives, are confounded by the ideas of freedom and free expression. Their writings are always peppered with conditional terminology from end to end. Usually it is not so blatant (e.g. imperious) as the post above, but the demand for conditions is anathema to free expression.</p>

<p> </p>