a way of figuring out what is or isn't art-- for you.

Here is what might be a good test for whether or not a photograph (painting, watercolor,

sculpture, etc.) is or is not art : make a print and put it up on your wall. How many days or

weeks can you look at it before you lose interest in looking at it? For some people the

answer might be five seconds , for others it might be thirty years, for others it will be five

seconds now and later maybe more. At any rate, the point is that a photograph becomes

art for as long as it intrigues you.

So, if you lose interest in five seconds, then it was art for five seconds. Kind of like Andy Warhol's "fifteen minutes of fame". I like it....

Picasso:

 

"Art is a beautiful lie that helps us to see te truth"

I agree. This is mainly how I judge my work--by how long it sits in my portfolio or printed and framed on my wall.

 

It also helps when people stop in my office and say "great photo", or I like this one better over here. Of course that would assume that I liked it long enough to keep it on the wall for more than 5 seconds. Their opinions have some impact, but mostly what I think is what counts in the long run.

I'm pleased to know that the sunset on my wall is now "art". I was afraid it was just a pretty picture.

I don't think the person who took the picture is the best one to judge whether it is 'art'. There can be a lot of 'ego' and 'Ain't I great!' tied up in admiring your own work. We are all biased towards our own work.

 

For example, if I want somebody to say how wonderful and talented I am... I'll just show my pictures to my mother... she likes everything I do! But, I guess she is biased too!

I like that quote above from Picasso, the communication between viewer and artist being the important part of the process.

I take a broad view of art, and consider it anything that suggests that there are things in life that have value beyond the functional, practical and literal. It's not some ivory-tower thing. I consider this nice handmade coffee mug I'm drinking out of to be art. It doesn't do a better job of holding coffee than a plain one, but it's nicer nonetheless.

 

I can't agree with your test, because some of the most interesting art I wouldn't necessarily want hanging on my wall at all. Some of it can be difficult to look at.

I'll back Ocean Physics. A while back I did one of my AP columns on public vs. private art. Public art can be interesting, challenging, original, but still not something you want to live with. Private art on the other hand may be pure 'wallpaper', undemanding but easy on the eye.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

To me art is any physical manifestation of human creativity. It doesn't have to be beautiful but we generally like it better if it is. What constitutes "beauty" is another question.

One can hold his attention for 2 days on the pic and on the second 7 days. So which is "art" and which is not. There is some sugested tests around that point that say at least 30 days. But it is for students of art at very bigining. With time, for students, that period on wall gets shorter and eventualy disappear when students become avare of many other aspects of art.

 

How many day builders of piramides watched at their work before Ramses lifted a flag. As I said before in some other thread THERE IS a red line for art works. Some work are far below some are less, some are far above and so on. In that way just anything can be called "art" and why not. Call it however you want, trmr or art what is difference. It is still there. But to get above the red line is another (long) story. Just to make a book in one word: the red line is a history (no dictionary please). Artwork (above red line) usually survive 400 years and up.

Whose red line do we use, yours or mine?

... when you ask such question I am sure yours

If we can ever decide what art is, should we venture further into a consideration of what constitutes Fine Art? Can it be a photograph, or must it be created with some hair on a stick?

Oh no, art doesn't require a brush. Dance can be art, as can music, sculpture, poetry, literature...and photography.

"I don't think the person who took the picture is the best one to judge whether it is 'art'."

 

Generally speaking this may be true in the short run or for the majority of people, but it would be difficult to judge and I don't think it is true. Personally, I disagree with this because I am my harshest critic and in the long run I will reject lower quality, less meaningful work. A mature person should be able to set aside pride and be objective. Over time, attachment to individual pieces fades. Robert Adams, in Beauty in Photography, states that "A good picture powerfully vindicates itself in time" and quotes from Matisse "A painter has no real enemy but his own bad paintings." Personally, I see many faults in even my best work and that motivates me to work even harder.

My my, art is a word with three letters - nothing else. Only the emotions , information and associations are significant when looking at ta photo. Sport, what is sport? Another word to which anyone can give its own content, meaning. Art is similar, just a word. A photo does not get any worse or better regardless of whether it is labelled art or not. Just a futile word.

Back in the early eighties I purchased a large format photography magazine (ZOOM) which is still alive today. In the magazine were a series of great color photographs of some Nigerian fellow and his wives, all of which appeared to be a bit wild, and quite happy. One of them struck my fancy and I cut her image out with a pair of scissors, put it in a picture frame that formerly held a diploma and I stuck it on the wall. I labeled her the "positive mental attitude lady". Many moves and girlsfriends later the wrinkled picture in its tacky frame STILL hangs on my wall....23 years now.

"At any rate, the point is that a photograph becomes art for as long as it intrigues you."

 

----------------------------------

 

Huh? And it somehow loses it's artistic "intriques" with disinterest?

 

So the Mona Lisa is no longer art because I'm no longer interested?

 

Is it art if it was created in the dark, all observers are presented with the image...(all one experiences is the dark, the sound of a curtain opening, fifteen seconds of silence and then the sound of the curtain closing again)..in complete darkness? :) (conceptual art)

 

What is art? Interest or lack of disinterest? :) I don't think so:)

The problem with this theory is that it assumes that "art" is an adjective ... menaing it's interesting, emotional, pretty, whatever art is for you. But, art is a noun. Art simply is. If someone creates something, it's art. Now, we can then debate whether it is interesting or menaingful but even if it isn't, it's till art. I hate to admit that the Hallmark greeting card type crap my Mom collects is art like I hate to admit that Toby Keith makes music ... but, these are descriptive words and they fit. This argument reminds me of music arguments over what is and isn't "jazz." It's all art just like anything from Kenny G to Coltrane is jazz. It's just not all good.

Kant made a separation between art and life. Meaning that the first is a representation of the

second.

 

In Spain, at Madrid there is a big photo exhibition called "Photoespa�a". At there you can see

two categories: artistic photo and journalist photo.

 

This can be a good definition.

 

Cheers.

A interpretation, not a representation.

 

Excuses.

Bill Foster got the correct answer spot on.<p>

When it comes to the sbjective value of what is art <i>for you</i>, that is concerned with other qualities than whether it actually is art or not: relative dimensions of interest, beauty, intrigue, repulsion even - any stirring of emotion or thought that makes you contemplate a work of art and not just respond indifferently to it.<p>

Most artwork exist without us considering them artwork, but ever since Duchamps' urinal, at least we should know that art is all around and that it's our way of experiencing it that makes the difference.

Wrong. Not even close to good reasoning. For example, I have a friend who has 6 or 7 prints of Joel Witkin's - he chooses NOT to display them.

 

Then I guess, according to your test criteria - they're not art. Is this world-wide that they're not art because he doesn't display them, or are they only not art in his house?

 

I have two prints of Ansel Adam's. I haven't had them up on my walls for nearly 25 years. Did "Clearing Winter Storm" become non-art when I decided I didn't need to look at the image every day?

 

You don't REALLY believe this do you Ellis?

do I believe what?

 

I believe that you or I will still think it is art as long as it reamins intriguing to the viewer.

Whether or not you choose to dispaly it in a public setting (like over your sofa) is really a

different matter.

 

I also believe I could have done a better job of writing my question.