A spin-off thread: when is a photo a work of art?

<p>Before asking when a nude is a work of art I would like to ask when <em>any photo</em> can be defined as a work of art.</p>

<p>Everybody can produce a photo.</p>

<p>In an <a href="http://bit.ly/oa099L">presentation</a> on his contact sheets, Elliott Erwitt says "<em>even a trained orang-utan with a wide angle lens could not fail to make an acceptable picture of that situation</em>".</p>

<p>When is a photograph art?<br>

On this site it is very frequent to read self-definitions such as: "<em>I am an artist</em>"; "<em>I produce photographic art</em>"; and references to "<em>my art</em>".</p>

<p>What differentiates us from Erwitt's "<em>trained orang-utans</em>"?</p>

<p>Is a photo a piece of art when:</p>

<ul>

<li>it is particularly faithful in representing reality? (the recently discovered Vivian Maier; Magnum's Martin Parr)</li>

<li>when it succeeds in making reality surreal? (David LaChapelle)</li>

<li>when the author has particular skills in (post) processing images?</li>

<li>when the photographer is particularly imaginative in conceiving visual situations which s/he photographs?</li>

<li>when the photographer is particularly able to present the scenes s/he imagines? (the recently quoted Chan Chao)</li>

<li>when the author succeeds in producing particular effects in the phase of printing her/his works (e.g.: William Eggleston and the dye transfer)?</li>

<li>when the photographer is particularly able to perform well in critical situations? (Magnum's Steve McCurry and Paolo Pellegrin, or Karen Kasmauski)</li>

<li>???</li>

<li>???</li>

</ul>

<p>I presently feel overthrown by photographs. Are they all pieces of art? how much art do I miss because of visual overflow? How do I recognise art in photography? Do I need the mediation of an editor/a museum curator/a photographic critic/a historian of plastic arts?</p>

<p>We can very well reason starting from examples, <em>but nevertheless they are not enough</em>: there is the need to find a philosophical method (rooted in aesthetics), to understand if I am in front of a piece of art or not.</p>

<p>I think one can worry way too much about that moniker. Everyone is going to argue when something is art and it is a losing proposition in any and all cases. Reading wikipedia, a book on art or whatever will give definitions and most wont agree.</p>

<p>Concentrate on making your images and let them speak to whoever they need to speak to. Art or not shouldn't be our goal, creating compelling images that meet our vision is what is important.</p>

<p>On PN, art is often simply an excuse to say "everything is subjective." Art is mostly "the reason I don't have to listen to your critique." Art allows me not to think about photographs and not to think about how hard it is to make one and not to think about how much harder it is to develop a body of work. Art allows me to think that magic will get me where I want to be.</p>

<p>Deciding what's art and what's not art is classification. Classifying art is what curators do. They are the closest we have to agreed-upon experts, or at least they're the ones hired to do the classifying. Many of us disagree with curators' assessments fairly often. (Mind you, there are some theories of art, institutional theories, that give classifiers, curators, patrons, etc. a vital role. There's merit even in that theory, combined with others.)</p>

<p>[John posted while I was writing, so I see the following couple of ideas agrees with his sentiments as well.] Worrying too much about art is a good way to avoid thinking about photographs and what needs to go into them to produce what you want to produce.</p>

<p>Viewing or making photos with an eye toward the goal of art would be much like viewing or making photos with an eye toward their being good. They're distractions. Get into your subject, get into your process, get into your photos, and let others worry about whether or not they're art. The photographer just needs to do what's in front of him. He needs to <em>involve</em> himself in expression, light, texture, color, focus, understanding, symbols, signifiers, rhythm, grain, harmony, discord, intimacy, passion, and a host of other things.</p>

<p>At the end of the day, he should be so exhausted and exhilarated from all that that art is the last thing he'd be concerned about or have energy left for. Then, he might actually become an artist.</p>

<p>Here's something from Wikipedia about Tolstoy:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>According to Tolstoy, art must create a specific emotional link between artist and audience, one that "infects" the viewer. Thus, real art requires the capacity to unite people via communication (clearness and genuineness are therefore crucial values). This aesthetic conception led Tolstoy to widen the criteria of what exactly a work of art is. He believed that the concept of art embraces any human activity in which one emitter, by means of external signs, transmits previously experienced feelings. Tolstoy offers an example of this: a boy that has experienced fear after an encounter with a wolf later relates that experience, infecting the hearers and compelling them to feel the same fear that he had experienced—that is a perfect example of a work of art. As communication, this is good art, because it is clear, it is sincere, and it is singular (focused on one emotion).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It strikes me today as being beautifully expressed and having a great deal of truth, but not being True. It's a good addition to a collection of ideas of what art is. I think it covers a lot of significant territory, but also leaves a lot out. My gut would disagree a little with the idea that the boy would transmit <em>the same</em> fear to the audience. I think it could be more a matter of empathy than sameness. And some would be troubled by his emphasis on the link between artist and viewer. I'm not. I think it's an important perspective and why shouldn't Tolstoy go for it.</p>

<p>Thankfully, other great minds will differ and by reading all of them we will have a sense, though likely not a definition, of what art is.</p>

<p>Luca -- I can hardly wait to see the responses that your post elicits. ;-)</p>

<p>[and John and Fred posted while I wrote this -- good answers each, looking at different aspects of your question]</p>

<p>A short, but not very satisfying or illustrative answer is that "art" is in the eye of the beholder. The complexity comes in when you try to determine which "beholder" you're going to believe. Individual photographers may think of their images as "art". This could be someone on photo.net, or flickr, who posts heavily saturated and haloed HDR, or flowers or kittens or family. Or it could be someone who recently received a MFA and is being exhibited in galleries, or it could be someone with a decades long reputation and a known body of work.</p>

<p>If you, or I, look at the work of some unknown photographer and decide it is "art", is our opinion less valid because we are not established art critics, gallery owners, or museum curators? Conversely, if art critics, gallery owners, and museum curators bestow the "art" label upon a particular photograph, or photographer, and you or I think it is not "art", whose opinion prevails? To me, it gets even more complex because the very way in which I have framed my previous two questions implies a competition or a weight of validity to be bestowed by money, education, or reputation...or a grassroots, common man rejection of these things.</p>

<p>I suppose one could read through a history of aesthetic theories, concentrating on the works of more recent decades that deal specifically with photography. In the end I think it is a sort of personal aesthetic that needs to be applied, but one tempered by a familiarity with the theories/opinions/judgements of previous critics, historians, and photographers. There is sometimes a tendency to sneer at and reject the opinions of the amorphous "art world" as overly intellectual and snobbish. At times, they may well be, but I think an attempt needs to be made to understand them before one rejects something out of hand.</p>

<p>As to your specific questions, I think some, or all of that, might come into play, but it is the photograph itself that matters, not the process, effort, or photographer who created it.</p>

<p>People may tire of my posting examples, but I find it interesting to actually look at images in these kinds of discussions.</p>

<p>Among these, which are "art"?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.brucesilverstein.com/artist/156/Maria-Antonietta-Mameli">http://www.brucesilverstein.com/artist/156/Maria-Antonietta-Mameli</a></p>

<p><a href="http://d2f29brjr0xbt3.cloudfront.net/020_hdrroundup/2.jpg">http://d2f29brjr0xbt3.cloudfront.net/020_hdrroundup/2.jpg</a></p>

<p><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_OZaHvxTKRI4/TNd3wv-BnpI/AAAAAAAAAHM/hx7BjJfOVo0/s1600/rose400.JPG">http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_OZaHvxTKRI4/TNd3wv-BnpI/AAAAAAAAAHM/hx7BjJfOVo0/s1600/rose400.JPG</a></p>

<p><a href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2404/2181997458_0f2dbcc018.jpg">http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2404/2181997458_0f2dbcc018.jpg</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/images/h2/h2_2000.272.jpg">http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/images/h2/h2_2000.272.jpg</a></p>

<p><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_KcdrHS6288w/S9Tch3MqVBI/AAAAAAAAASE/iURK8Fu2Jvs/s1600/renee_cox_+HOTT-EN-TOT+1994.jpg">http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_KcdrHS6288w/S9Tch3MqVBI/AAAAAAAAASE/iURK8Fu2Jvs/s1600/renee_cox_+HOTT-EN-TOT+1994.jpg</a></p>

<p><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_UtsPHpXoWm0/R_G-mOU94LI/AAAAAAAABLw/R1GfuQbH63E/s400/Old+age-2+(Dedicated+to+E.P.BENJUMEDA)+by+Mehmet+Akin%C2%A9.jpg">http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_UtsPHpXoWm0/R_G-mOU94LI/AAAAAAAABLw/R1GfuQbH63E/s400/Old+age-2+(Dedicated+to+E.P.BENJUMEDA)+by+Mehmet+Akin%C2%A9.jpg</a></p>

<p><a href="http://cdn2.lostateminor.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Paolo-Ventura2.jpg">http://cdn2.lostateminor.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Paolo-Ventura2.jpg</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.artinfo.com/media/image/139907/MartinMunoz_001.jpg">http://www.artinfo.com/media/image/139907/MartinMunoz_001.jpg</a></p>

<p>We just did this...Luca, my response to this can be found towards the end of the Lannie thread. There's no Sword of Solomon by which we divide art from non-art. Not even good from bad art. That ability is a type of intelligence, like that of an oneo- or audiophile, and takes years of time/money and experience to acquire it. It can't be handed over like a cell phone for someone else to use.</p>

<p>Very astute and tempting list, Steve. </p>

<p>Luca, a question I've got on my mind frequently too; I think it's rather unanswerable but very good to discuss since the different views will enrich my own ideas on it no doubt. My own very short answer is disappointing, though: I have no clue at all. <br />Many photos regarded as art just don't talk to me, don't impress me (technically, choice of subject, or as communication, so not in any way) nor make me want to look a second, third and fourth time to discover the story within. Other photos do. And some photos not regarded as art do shake me up and I can revisit them time and time again to find something in it.<br>

I agree with what Steve wrote. As a result, I cannot help but using my own judgement, and listening to others as they discuss their judgement to enrich my ability to judge. I refrain from calling work 'art', instead, try to learn to describe why it touches me or not. Ultimately, the label 'art' does not add a whole lot to that opinion... discussing with you might add a whole lot instead.</p>

<p>I do like what Fred brought up about curators. I do have a slight point to it, though: aren't they also trained to see what one could sell, or which work at least will represent a financial value being recognised at art? So, are their judgements purely driven by getting a grip on what is and is not art, or is there also a part judged on market demands? (<em>this would not invalidate their opinions, but it may help some criticism to be founded when a whole body of work "becomes art"</em>)</p>

<p>Steve, I agree bringing in examples does work. Given my answer so far, clearly I will declare none of them art :-). Just opinions on a few of them. This <a href="http://cdn2.lostateminor.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Paolo-Ventura2.jpg">one</a> grabs me, it's a photo that draws in and tickles my fantasy to make a story in it. <a href="http://www.brucesilverstein.com/artist/156/Maria-Antonietta-Mameli">These series</a>, I would like to see much much larger - I envision they are quite great then, but as small thumbnails, it's a bit too difficult to say. <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_OZaHvxTKRI4/TNd3wv-BnpI/AAAAAAAAAHM/hx7BjJfOVo0/s1600/rose400.JPG">This one</a> is a photo that I see called 'art' often, which manages to leave me completely cold. And sorry, can't resist but oh dear, how I dislike<a href="http://d2f29brjr0xbt3.cloudfront.net/020_hdrroundup/2.jpg"> HDR gone wrong</a>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I do like what Fred brought up about curators. I do have a slight point to it, though: aren't they also trained to see what one could sell,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That really isn't the job of a curator but more a part of what a gallery owner has to consider in their selection of work. Curators are generally within institutions that collect or put together shows for such institutions. Curators do rely on gallery owners quite a bit for the introduction to new work but do a lot of their own research.</p>

<p>John, thanks, I mistook their role then.</p>

<p>Curators in Museums aren't concerned with what the work can sell for, but the number of admission ticket sales the exhibit will generate. Remember, galleries sell works (among other services), museums sell admissions tickets to make money.</p>

 

<p>I hope I was understood to be saying that curators have to do with the "classification" aspect of art. As I have said, classifying what's art is not a good way to go about understanding or relating to art. I think it's important to recognize the institutional role played with regard to art, whether it be for reasons of money, popularity, networking, knowing who's who, etc. But I wasn't suggesting it could be used effectively to understand what art is or how it works. I was suggesting that curators and institutions are a major factor in the classification and selection of pieces of art. I don't think the art world can be easily separated from art. They influence each other and are intertwined. But there's a lot more to art than museums, as evidenced by the quote I also included by Tolstoy.</p>

<p>Luca, the following is a theory that I've been thinking about since that "other" thread. Joseph Kusuth says, "... a work of art is a kind of <em>proposition</em> presented within the context of art as a comment on art."</p>

<p>Obviously, that's not a definition of art; it's circular. But I like it for just that reason (Kosuth also says that "Art is the defnition of art"). Because it seems to me that it describes the way "art" works for a lot of people. If you go to make a snowman, you have to start by grabbing a bunch of snow and mashing it into a snowball. Then you can start rolling your big snowman snowballs. Likewise, if you want to make a ball out of some string, you start by sort of wadding up a little core kernel of string -- upon which you then build your ball of string.</p>

<p>I think everybody comes to the question of "what is art" with a starter ball already in their mind. They already have something going on that they think of as or treat as or act as if it is -- art. Therefore, I think we can elude that dreaded initial question of "what is ...?" and skip to Kosuth's "art is the definition of art" and further, that "art is a comment on art." By that I mean that when you encounter all those examples you gave in your OP, they "comment" back on the art you already have experienced. (And if they don't "comment" on it, then they aren't art. Maybe they will be later, as you develop, but maybe never.) Further, these "comments" are reflexive as well as expansive.</p>

<p>I don't think this is the same as saying "art is whatever you say it is" but I do think that it puts you, the individual viewer, in charge of a developing conception of art.</p>

<p>Fred, that aspect was (to me at least) clear, I only had a doubt on the role of monetary value - since that would kind of undermine the "l'art pour l'art" idea. But well, better that let that part topic go, since it will only deviate from the actual discussion here.</p>

<p>Luca, if you put the question directly: "When is a photo a work of art", I would repeat what I tried to formulate in the previous thread:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em><strong>Art </strong>is creation, involving thoughts and imagination of an original idea with aesthetic or non-easthetic content. It courses transcendence, sublimation and spiritual enrichment</em><em> through our sensitivity and intellect, often exceeding the intentions of the creator</em> .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Art much always include a creative dimension and can never just be reproduction of already seen, heard or known ideas. Something new and unexpected which provokes enrichment for those that by intellectual and spiritual readiness are able to appreciate its transcend and sublimating messages.<br>

Art can never just be grounded on admiration. Art is life changing for those that make and experience it. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Luca, a substantial discussion of art should at least make reference to <strong>craft</strong>.</p>

<p>The honing of and delight in craft is often what allows for the <em>emergence</em> of art. This emergence can be actively intended or more passively just come to be. In other words, a photo doesn't have to be intended to be art in order to become art. Craft, by itself, is likely not enough, though I'd maintain it would be quite difficult to tell the difference between true excellence in craft, on the one hand and art, on the other, even though I think there IS a difference.</p>

<p>I'm not suggesting that art comes only to those who are techno-geeks or who have studied the zone system until they're blue in the face. But some very intimate connection to some aspects of the craft of taking photos, whatever that be for each individual, is likely going to help one's photos achieve the status of "art." The integration of craft/technique/medium with communication/message/creativity/contemplation/proposition/transmission of feelings/beauty/spirituality/sublimation/transcendendence/empathy is where I might begin my search.</p>

<p>Even in Tolstoy's example, whether that boy is aware of it or not, it will be his "craftiness" with words, facial expressions, gestures in addition to his genuineness and sincerity in telling the story that will allow his listeners to feel that fear he was feeling. The fear itself, as originally experienced, is NOT ENOUGH. It has to be re-created for the audience. Passion for what you've seen or for what you're doing is NOT ENOUGH. It has to be evident in the photo itself. It has to be fashioned (crafted) into the photo, consciously or not.</p>

<p>In any case, I like what Julie has offered because it's non-specific enough to be thought-provoking without being restrictive. There is also, as she recognizes, a meaningful sort of circularity to it.</p>

<p>When the artist says it is.</p>

<p>I think of photography as a craft rather than an art. A craft which can sometimes produce art.</p>

<p>"Elliott Erwitt says "<em>even a trained orang-utan with a wide angle lens could not fail to make an acceptable picture of that situation</em>"."</p>

<p>Does Elliott Erwitt admit he knows how to train the orangutan? Or how to communicate with the critter?<br>

That said, how does he propose to get the orangutan to know the instant the shutter must go off to capture the "less than art" image with the wide-angle lens?</p>

<p>Art is dependent on the viewer. If one likes a photo of a flower or a sunset, that makes it art....</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I let the artsy-fartsy crowd figure out whether or not it's art, and I could care less about their conclusions. I like to take pictures.</p>

 

<p>Luca, you asked a question about something that has been under discussion time and time again without a final consensus answer. And, as the definition of Art itself, I suspect we'll continue the same way.<br>

Just as a coincidence, this afternoon I read the chapter of an interesting book (Photography, by Stephen Bull), with the title of "Photography as Art", that refers "the fist exhibition entirely dedicated to photography took place in December 1853, at the Society of Arts, London.<br>

Nevertheless, photography still had a long way to go before being recognized as "an Art", status that nowadays is not discussed anymore and you can see it in museums, galleries and private collections, as well in auctions where prices can be quite high.<br>

But, during all the process we can see the discussions around authorship of photographic art (the artist or the photographer) and the different photo art movements (pictorialism, modernism, conceptualism, postmodernism, contemporary art) as well as some other movements within or aside this major ones), and for each one the elements that define a photography as art are not necessarily the same.<br>

On the other hand, you have photographers that did not consider them as artists, like the french E. Atget, that was considered as a reference in photographic art by the MoMa, NY, and linked to Surrealism or as an influence to well known photographers.<br>

This brings us to the influence of museums, curators, galleries, critics and the media to the attribution of the "Art stamp" to a photograph or the work of a photographer, and to give it a market value.<br>

Obviously, this leaves out of Art the vast majority of produced photographs and at a more individual or "local" levels (forums, photo clubs, etc.) some people can consider themselves or be considered among theirs peers as "artists" and producers of "Art", even receiving tributes and honors for their "master pieces", but that will never reach recognition at the level of the elites of the so called Fine Art.<br>

All this makes the definition you're asking for a very difficult one.</p>

<p>It strikes me that the default wording in the information for posted photographs on photo.net is "artist." For me personally, it's more accurate, I believe, and more satisfying to replace that word with "photographer." It has struck me as slightly pretentious to be designating myself as an "artist." Some would probably say the same thing when I call myself a "photographer." "Person who took/made the photograph" is too long, unfortunately.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>On PN, art is often simply an excuse to say "everything is subjective." --Fred G.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that you are right, Fred, On the other hand, if anyone comes up with an objective criterion, or objective criteria, please notify the rest of us. This issue hardly comes just from the last thread. This issue has come up over and over, and I see no end in sight to the discussion.</p>

<p>Nor is that necessarily a bad thing. The conversation is worthwhile, in my opinion, even if no firm conclusions are ever reached. The best thing that tends to come from such discussions is the opportunity to explain why some works either "speak" to us or do not do so.</p>

<p>Steve has given us another start.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I was just on the "ratings" link under "Gallery," and this came up under the category of "Fine Art." In other words, the claim was not merely being made that this was art, but "fine art." I had to laugh out loud--but perhaps someone can see "fine art" here:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/13931512</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Maybe "art" is different for each of us--what excites us, draws us in or makes us think, etc. That is certainly going to be different for each person. We can all look at the same thing and have completely different reactions. Art scholars have their own definitions, which are a lot different from the person who likes velvet Elvis paintings.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I let the artsy-fartsy crowd figure out whether or not it's art, and I could care less about their conclusions. I like to take pictures.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sounds more like you <em><strong>couldn't</strong> care less</em>.</p>

<p>First, I'll do a 'Professor Joad' and say, "It all depends on what you mean by 'art'." That said, I consider something to be art if it concerns the 'exploration and communication of great and final things', a quote I have taken from Professor George Steiner, though he used it in a different context.</p>