Jump to content

Can Art be a Goal or is Art what we call Work that Sustains our Interest?


Recommended Posts

<p>Some of this relates to my experiences as a science fiction writer in an English department. People declared that they were writing literature, but that to me seemed like writing with an intentionality toward a place in history rather than focusing on quality of the work at hand. Most of what the local academics were doing was not particularly original or interesting, but it had some of the surface features of more interesting writer's work.</p>

<p>Elsewhere, I've discussed whether art was a class marker, that what certain privileged people did was art; what the rest of us did was entertainment, illustration, snapshots.</p>

<p>Too often the intention of the self-declared artist is to be superior to some group of other people by being different, not by transcending the formalities of a genre. Ansel Adams even expressed reservations about photographers who focused too much on being artists and refused to actually work professionally as photographers (Adams's Autobiography.</p>

<p>Let's throw art forgeries and Gertrude Stein's comment that masterpieces exist for themselves, not for a purpose (perhaps that's my take on Stein's comments). If we're trying to do Art and aim the work at such an abstraction, will we always end up with a different set of cliches than the snapshooters?</p>

<p>Most of fiction and poetry written by professors who sneered at science fiction was more about looking like literature than being compelling reading for any audience. But lot of genre fiction is formalist in a not always convincing way, too.</p>

<p>Forgeries appear to convince only the generation of the forger because he's playing with the assumptions of his time about what the painters he's forging were doing and what great art is. When those assumptions change, his forgeries fall apart.</p>

<p>Is trying to write Literature or make Art over all other considerations useful? Why?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 200
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p><em><strong>"Is trying to write Literature or make Art over all other considerations useful? Why?"</strong></em><br>

<strong><em></em></strong><br>

RB, good question, good references (Stein, Adams).</p>

<p> I don't think you've stated an overall view from which I'd differ: you've asked real questions.</p>

<p>...however...either-or formulations, this-or-that, this-vs-that, which-is-better, are too primative even to relate to understanding or awareness. Usually self-congratulatory, as you've hinted, they are in line with, but not the same as the smaller case in your important Ansel Adams idea. </p>

<p>"Art" and "Literature" are words, not concepts. And yes, they are usually employed to puff oneself up, wanting to seem more perceptive than others about a work product (such as a photograph or written piece). Worse, if we're "trying" to create something to fit those labels we're employing an obvious, crude, self limiting mentality. </p>

<p>"Trying" is more than a word: it can be an obstruction to awareness, according to my tiny understanding of Buddhist thought. </p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I use the word "art" descriptively rather than to categorize.</p>

<p>I know many artists, particularly poets, with inferiority complexes. They use the word because it's what they do.</p>

<p>The artist may be <em>different</em>, which is not <em>better</em>. Accountants are different from lawyers who are different from graphic designers. Maybe nurses are better than all of us . . . I don't know. I figure we each contribute what we can and what we want to. The competitive side of this dialogue doesn't interest me that much.</p>

<p>I don't think artists have to transcend the formalities of a genre. Some just do what they do well. Not all are as transformational as Steichen or Picasso.</p>

<p>I admire difference (uniqueness). The goal of being different and the goal of being superior, to me, are not the same thing nor does one imply the other. There is a significant aspect of individuality that many artists aspire to. Art also has a social and historical aspect.</p>

<p>People sneer. Not just artists. Not just lawyers. Not just politicians. Not just photographic hacks with big mouths. That some sneer shouldn't taint others. Artists assert their egos. Some will read that as sneering. Others not.</p>

<p>No. If we're "trying" to do art, we will not always end up with a different set of clichés. We will often end up with art that expresses something significant and is received as such.</p>

<p>An experienced and admired photographer asked me early on what I was after with a particular photo. After some time, he said it sounded like I was just trying to make a good photo. He was right and I learned something. I try to concentrate on what's in front of me, learn my craft, express myself, or accomplish a certain goal. Trying to make a good photo each time would be distracting to me. But that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge to myself that I make art and set that as a more overarching goal.</p>

<p>Some assume that because one refers to oneself as an artist, that label is the primary focus. But it can be descriptive rather than prescriptive. I may take photos because I like doing that, because it fulfills a desire/need, because I can express myself well by doing it, and because I think I do it well. And then I can describe that process as art. Lawyers write briefs, get clients out of jail, convince juries of stuff. Are they doing that because they want to be known as "a lawyer"? I don't know and don't much care. I'm interested in the job they do, how they go about it, and the results they get. Pretty much the same with artists.</p>

<p>Many artists I know are not privileged. They are struggling to make ends meet.</p>

<p>Adams's thoughts on professionalism say something about Adams. I don't find it a particularly compelling notion. I know many artists who don't work professionally at their art. Like any other word, "artist" can be used superficially or not.</p>

<p>Art has a non-utilitarian aspect, which would seem to go along with your interpretation of Stein. Aesthetics can be about contemplation/appreciation. Contemplation and appreciation might even have a purpose. I think much, but not all, art does serve a purpose. There is aesthetic purpose . . . there is social and political advocacy . . . it can be used to propagandize. Or it can just be.</p>

<p>I try to make art because it keeps me challenged, it frees me, and it makes me continue to reach beyond myself. That's how I think about it, but it's not necessarily how I do it. To do it, I stay in touch with myself, I learn my craft, I relate to my subjects, I talk to people about looking and seeing, I try new things, I learn from others and from history, I allow myself to be influenced and seek to mingle that influence with a personal vision.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Fred, I have a brother who is a painter. He's definitely struggling, but prefers it to the kind of life he'd have to lead in the business world. I used to write poetry as my main activity, and, years later ran into someone in academia who was too invested in reverse snobbery about s.f. to allow that I was a poet. I wrote poetry, but I was really an s.f. writer in her eyes. For me, s.f. is a form, not an identity.</p>

<p>What does someone mean that I wrote poetry at one time but am not/was not a poet? What is it about this culture, or perhaps this species, that wants people to become nouns rather than do verbs.</p>

<p>Does this help improve what we're doing?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>...some photographs are described as "poetic."</p>

<p>I think that means there is a sense of something extra, something ephemeral, perhaps resonance or grace. To describe something using a term that's relatively easily defined (poetic) communicates for me. To say instead that a photograph is "art" is a way of saying nothing in particular, it does not communicate. One word has substance, the other seems devoid.</p>

<p>Perhaps Rebecca Brown's writing abilities will bring meaning to the routinely abused word.</p>

<p>For me "art" refers to something nearly magic, something evoked by fey skills. Not merely "pretty" or "graphic." Mine's not commonly accepted useage, which is the reason I don't bother using the term.</p>

<p>Some use the term constantly, like soldiers swearing the F-word, carefully avoiding risk of actual expression of meaning , which seems to mean it means nothing...even to them. :-)</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Yes. A personal development. Progression of life and culture. Record of emotional experience. Way of assumption of responsibility.</p>

<p>Art can be a goal.</p>

<p>The existence of the mediocre, forgery, fake and such should not be taken as excuse for not doing your thing.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>"What does someone mean that I wrote poetry at one time but am not/was not a poet?" <strong>--Rebecca</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Did you ask the person that said this to you?</p>

<p>If I said about someone that I thought they wrote poetry but were not a poet, I'd mean something along the lines of, "they write it but aren't immersed in it."</p>

<p>I think some people will say "he's not an artist" or "she's not a poet" if they simply don't like your stuff. I think there are good and bad artists, so I don't limit calling something "art" only to stuff I like.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"What is it about this culture, or perhaps this species, that wants people to become nouns rather than do verbs." <strong>--Rebecca</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I haven't experienced that. I use and I mostly find that others use various labels to describe me (i.e., son, cousin, photographer, student, gay, philosopher, artist, typesetter, waiter, Jew, man, guy, "girlfriend," dude, sweetie, friend) as a shorthand. People who know me know more than what these labels each convey. The nouns don't limit me and don't objectify me. It's just how language works. These words are conveniences and hints. When I want more understanding, I discuss it further, like we do here.</p>

<p>If I refer to myself as an artist, I'm providing a picture of myself creating things, using my imagination along with a skill, and probably producing something that will stir people's emotions and tastes . . . among other things.</p>

<p>The other day I was talking about photographs I'm doing for a special needs community where my nephew lives. Out of convenience, when I switched gears to talk about a photo I made for myself and different considerations regarding it, I called this non-documentary photo an art photo. There's nothing more elevating about the art photo than the photos I'm doing with and for my nephew's community, which has been one of the more uplifting experiences I've ever had. So talking about art was not meant to elevate the photo or me by any means. I was describing a different mindset. At some other time, I might refer to the artistic aspects of the work with my nephew's community. I could explain that as well.</p>

<p>"Artist" and "photographer" are usually the beginnings of conversations, not the end.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'm curious about how we visually perceive, what timing does a photograph have compared to our sight, what are the things in a photograph that make it vivid. The label art, to me seems somewhat problematic if it's in opposition to other uses of photography.</p>

<p>The whole science fiction is/isn't literature issue seems (or at least seems to me) to be relevant. I think perhaps you're defining art more functionally, but the people in academia tended to see s.f. as in opposition to literature, which is what they claimed were doing, though not all that interestingly in all cases.</p>

<p>If you were doing documentary photographs, would you do the work differently? Isn't part of your practice documentation of various sorts, actually?</p>

<p>There's a side of me that wants to say, just do. Let other people put on the labels.</p>

<p>Some of this is not wanting to be caught between the contradictions I got caught between in writing and seeing them lurking in photography, though not as much the binary opposition that genre vs. literature is. </p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For the artist, art is not a goal, it's what s/he makes, and a way of life. A lot of art doesn't sustain anyone's interests, and it may be either dull/boring/cliche'd/etc. mediocre, okay, or truly excellent and ahead of its time. It's not just Van Gogh, either. It happens with photographers, too.</p>

<p><strong>[RB] "</strong> People declared that they were writing literature, but that to me seemed like writing with an intentionality toward a place in history rather than focusing on quality of the work at hand."</p>

<p> People obsessing on <em>themselves?</em> Imagine that. Thank God that never happens in other human endeavors.</p>

<p><strong>[RB] "</strong> Elsewhere, I've discussed whether art was a class marker, that what certain privileged people did was art; what the rest of us did was entertainment, illustration, snapshots."</p>

<p> Privileged? Being an artist is for most, a one-way ticket to instant poverty and obscurity. A poll in the late 70's showed that the number of people who knew of who Ansel Adams was a tiny fraction of those who knew who Gilligan was. So much for fame. The above notion happens, as it does in all human endeavors, but here it is being used in reverse to accuse and label a huge number of people as snooty and biased, when, it appears that it's the OP who's doing the very thing she's fingerpointing at.</p>

<p> Ansel said a lot of things....he also said: "Photography is more than a medium for factual communication of ideas. It is a creative <strong>art</strong> . "</p>

<p>[A sideboard, still obliquely related to this thread] His contretemps with the incomparable Imogen Cunningham over commercial work, for those that know the story, is one of the funniest and good-natured head-buttings between two greats who admired and platonically loved each other in the history of the medium. Here's Ansel's version...[brackets are mine]</p>

<p>

<p>"Imogen used to give me a hard time about what she considered my "too-commercial" side. That was probably another legacy of her being around painters so much. She felt I wasn't enough the artist, wasn't following the studio tradition. Art with a capital A. She had had some commercial jobs, and I think she didn't trust advertising. So she didn't do commercial work to speak of, just a few portraits. [For Vanity Fair] She did make photographs of artists' works, and Albert Bender got her some jobs. In fact he bought photographs from her. He gave me a print of the <em>Magnolia Blossom</em> , one of the most beautiful photographs I've ever owned. [Highest praise coming from Adams]<br>

"In any case, I know she disapproved of that Hills Brothers coffee can that came out about 1968 - the one with one of my Yosemite snow scenes on it. She made that very clear. She sent me one of the cans with a marijuana plant growing in it! And then there was the television commercial I did for Datsun. For every test-drive a potential customer took, Datsun would have a seedling planted by the U.S. Forest Service. I thought it was a pretty good idea to get some trees planted, and if you have to have cars, at least Datsuns get good mileage. But Imogen didn't see it that way. I heard about the takeoff she did of it in Ann Hersheys movie, selling grave plots. I can just imagine her chuckling over the idea.<br>

"I used to say that Imogen's blood was three percent acetic acid. She seemed to have an acid reaction to so many things, and she could be very abrupt. But she had another side too. I remember the evening that Dorothea Lange told us that her marriage to Maynard Dixon was breaking up. Dorothea came in, took a deep breath, and said, "I'm leaving Maynard." Well, it was a harrowing moment. We were all close friends of both Maynard and Dorothea; no one knew what to say. And Imogen just burst into tears! I would have expected her to be very stoic, to make some pointed remark. But she cried. I think a lot of that "acidity" was put on, and deep down she was really very soft, very emotional."</p>

<br /> <br>

http://www.photoliaison.com/Imogen_Cunningham_Published/index.htm</p>

<p> An artist knows they're making art. As Fred said, it's what they do. Only a naif or someone with an axe to grind equates that with claiming to <strong>make a masterpiece or something inherently</strong> <strong>superior.</strong></p>

<p>Now, onto thin ice. Bear with me here, until the end, please. I've witnessed firsthand at least one black person who shuffled their feet and were lazy; a greedy jew; beautiful women who were indeed metal detectors; loud Hispanics; wooden people of Germanic descent; etc. But I don't think they <em>are all the same, not a majority, either. </em> I believe this is what Rebecca and John are doing with art/artists: <em><strong>Stereotyping</strong> </em> .</p>

<p> Why the resentment against artists? What does it matter to me what <em>you </em> label yourself? What does it matter to you what others label themselves? Or their work? Do you really think they're all frauds, but <em>you are genuine? <br /> </em></p>

<p><em> </em> What is it about PN that every month or so, someone adopts arts-bashing as a personal crusade and launches forth in a McCarthy-esque rant? Whatever happened to live and let live?</p>

<p>Because this, IMO, doesn't help improve what anyone here is doing.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>"If you were doing documentary photographs, would you do the work differently?" <strong>--Rebecca</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Rebecca, I am not saying this about <em>all</em> documentary work, but I will say it about this particular documentary work I'm now doing:</p>

<p>Yes, I approach it very differently. My goal with this series is to provide clarity about and understanding of the community. Often, when I'm doing my own art, I'm happy to be ambiguous and leave much more to a viewer's imagination. I may be relentlessly oblique and mysterious, if that's how I'm feeling with my more artistic art photos. With this documentary, I may still want to stimulate the viewer's imagination to an extent, but will no doubt stay intentionally more grounded.</p>

<p>The post processing I do on most of these documentary photos is to correct for mistakes I, as a relative newbie, still make at the shooting stage . . . correcting for less than desirable exposures, heavy crops to eliminate some confusing or distracting perspectives or angles. (What I will consider a distraction in these documentary photos, might very well be an enhancement and gift in an art photo.) The post processing I do to my art photos tends to be looser, less tied to understanding, more likely to challenge my own vision and therefore others' visions. With the documentary work, I may want to challenge others' thinking but I'm not necessarily after seeing creatively as much as seeing with understanding, even solidarity.</p>

<p>I have many more restrictions in my documentary work than in my art work. For example, because some of the residents have regular seizures, I can't use flash. In my art work, I can use whatever lighting I like, at least if I can come up with it. There's a woman in residence whose parents will not allow pictures of her. I have to avoid her in group shots and activities. I generally do not want to ask her to leave a situation or place I may be photographing, so I work with it the best I can. I rarely have that specific a limitation in my art endeavors.</p>

<p>Many times, when I'm shooting someone in the foreground while there is activity in the background, I may be more likely (depending on the shot, of course, and what I want to convey) to keep more focal depth even where an "artistic" sensibility might be telling me the shot will "look" better if the background is less focused. That may be because, again, clarity, is more a concern at the time than aesthetics. Of course, sometimes blur can work in the documentary venue, but I take less liberty with blur and other "effects."</p>

<p>None of this is to say that I throw aesthetics out the window when doing the documentary work. I don't, of course. But descriptiveness, accurate storytelling rather than flights of fancy, and distinctness may often trump challenge, beauty, ambiguity, and the kind of imagination I feel freer with when I'm creating art.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Some of the thinking I've done over the years on this comes from reading <em>The Unknown Japanese Craftsman </em>by Soetsu Yanagi. What I think Yanagi was saying is that we do things -- art isn't always the result of striving to be art. I've come away from that position in recent years, but the Japanese tended to see art as something discovered in the works of craftsmen and craftswomen, didn't draw the distinction between the two that I think we tend to draw (they have had a National Living Treasure who's an indigo dyer and weaver, at least one paper-maker).</p>

<p>We may be dealing with the issue of uncalibrated minds here, too. I don't see this as an attack on art as much as a question about what art is, why certain genres of work are generally excluded from being considered as art, literature, etc. per se, rather than per accomplishment. </p>

<p>Looking at the Jane Bown portraits -- is the intention art? I'm finding her work quite worth looking at. </p>

<p>Flip side of this may be a question about what makes a photograph bad art vs. what makes a photograph a bad photograph. </p>

<p>I'm really exploring this, trying to not have fixed ideas. I used to think the only purpose of humanity was to make art or create a culture that supported the making of art, no so sure not that I'm 61 instead of 21.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I happen to have known Imogene Cunningham. A portrait of her (by Judy Dater) sits on my dining room photo bookshelf. Last time I saw her we were hanging around outside an Ali Akbar Kahn performance at San Francisco's downtown library. Many photographers in SF in the 60s knew her, and few were into Mr. Adams' work more than hers. My hunch is that he sold her short specifically because she was a woman. Time sometimes simply doesn't move: two or three other women who post on this Forum are rarely taken seriously by the name-callers among us...for the same sort of sexist reasons. </p>

<p>Imogene was very political, hated easy answers and uninvestigated assumptions. As an ancient she campaigned aggressively and loudly to get us the hell out of Vietnam, for example...she knew long before, as anybody who cared did, what would be revealed in the Pentagon Papers. She didn't suffer fools, didn't hide her light under a basket. Somebody here would have called her a name specifically because she was a woman who dared to question received answers. :-)</p>

<p>As for Dorothea Lang, she respected professional photographers as much as "artists." In fact, almost everything she did photographically was professional, literal government photography (Farm Security Administration). A dear friend met with her to talk about his unhappiness with his photographic career...did school photos, did elaborate painting-like photographics on the side. Dorothea asked to see his work..he opened a camera case that was lined with kid pics. She virtually blessed him for that professional work, turned his attitude around. </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>One of the things about here is that there are so few women. And I tend to be cynical about the women that men really praise -- too often women get praised for works that are focused on either mothers and children or flowers and other erotica, and then slagged for being so sentimental. Julie's work and some of the comments she's made her seems to me to be almost bristly against sentiment, taking nature to the Uncanny Valley effect, and her blog has been intelligent.</p>

<p>Didn't get the impression Adams was selling Cunningham short in what was quoted, though, other than the comment about her being a softy at heart, which was a tad weird. </p>

<p>Doing something professionally for a while pushed my boundaries farther than I might have pushed them without that. I think the trick is to do the forms with thought, to learn from them.</p>

<p>Perhaps Fred is thinking something similar about working with cliches?</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p> Rebecca, do you really think there's that much "striving" towards art? I am in close contact with several dozen artists locally. I probably see/meet/party/work with all of them at least once a month. A huge range of topics come up in conversation, and that of striving towards art never has. Nor has it where I've lectured, visited studios, worked with collectors, specially in other cities, etc.</p>

<p>It's a non-issue, at least in the general sense in which it has been framed. I'm sure for some people, it's a core issue</p>

<p> Definitions of art have and continue to evolve across time (like everything else), and vary across cultures. The Japanese ideas you mention are classic to previous centuries, and have carried on there unlike most of the West.</p>

 

<p> Where I see an attack on art is with the denigrating assumptions. For example: "...a question about what art is, why certain genres of work are generally excluded from being considered as art, literature, etc. per se, rather than per accomplishment."</p>

<p> Many total outsiders have produced accomplished work that has been exhibited widely in art contexts. Again, you see a monumental partition, but there's no real barrier.</p>

<p> I'm glad you liked Bown's work. It was shown in a one-woman show in The National Portrait Gallery, back in 1980, and is in their collection. A woman journalist's accomplished portraiture has no obstacle to being exhibited in the most prestigious portrait art venue in her country. As it should be.</p>

<p> Minds <em>are </em> calibrated, and this serves as yet another example that there is no barrier.</p>

<p><strong>[RB]- "</strong> Flip side of this may be a question about what makes a photograph bad art vs. what makes a photograph a bad photograph."</p>

<p> Easy. The former is a "bad" pic done by an artist, therefore "bad art" the latter is the same pic done by someone not claiming to be an artist, therefor a "dull snap". Both can end up hung at a small, local non-juried show. :-)</p>

<p> Do I think there's a handful of people on Photo.Net derailed by the "is is art?" thing? There must be a dozen or two, and I hope they're reading this. No matter what you call yourself, on any given day you can only photograph what you're prepared to see (and yes, you may be prepared to see something you've not seen to date), and nothing more. This is at your very best. Give it 110% and feel free to call it art, craft, a J-O-B, hobby, snapshot, addiction, compulsion, generosity, etc. It doesn't really matter.</p>

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I got to hear quite a lot about literary values in academia vs. the horrible money-making genre writers who did escapist adventure stories. Nice if there's nothing like this in photography. My grad. director slagged s.f. when I first started writing it.</p>

<p>The best writers in academia tend to be more open to s.f. -- like Fred Chappell at the University of NC at Greensboro -- but at UNCG, Chappell's s.f. course didn't count as an English major course, and the English Department didn't tell Fred this (I was visiting his classroom when one of the students told him).</p>

<p>Your last paragraph more supports what I'm thinking is the case -- that art as a goal isn't as important as the intensity with which one works, what real things are in the photograph. I don't think people have to claim to be artists to do art. And I don't think claiming to be an artist always leads to anything other than imitations of more famous art, stuff photographed to look like art in surface ways. Intentions can trip people up.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think people have to claim to be artists to do art.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I disagree with that.</p>

<p>I think that it's entirely normal, healthy -- <em>necessary</em> -- to doubt or at least question the truth of that for which we have no evidence.</p>

<p>The first part of being an artist or at least claiming to be an artist of any kind is a process of discovery or awareness; of mental finding and forming which an person claiming to be an artist knows of inside of him or herself -- which can't be proven, but which is absolutely necessary to the artistic process.</p>

<p>The production of an art-like object is not sufficient to prove that its maker is an artist (in the absence of that claim being made). Take <a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/birdsnest.jpg">this bird's nest</a>, for example. It is a beautiful thing, made with extraordinary craftsmanship. However, its maker (the bird) makes no claim to artistry, so the construction of it does not cause the bird to be an artist, retrospectively.</p>

<p>On the other hand, my photograph (if you give me some leeway; it is actually a quickie taken for my blog), could be the beginnings of art. I saw beautiful form and traces of meaning (it's the bones of a nest, blown down in a summer wind-storm).</p>

<p>The claim has to be made. The bird makes no claim, so its nest is not art. I make a claim, so my picture might be art. If I made no claim and nobody else makes a claim, then it also would not be art. This "claiming" is risky -- and costly. If, in the end, I fail to produce the evidence, I will be ridiculed as a fake. Most claimants fail.</p>

<p>Necessarily, there is a gap between a person's mental realization of what might be, and finding a way to bring forth evidence of what is happening in the mind. I am willing to credit people for their aspirations and intent before I get the evidence. Many people are not. As I said at the top of this post, doubters are fully justified in their skepticism.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p> I don't disagree entirely with what Rebecca is saying, only the part that deems it is a problem specific to art. In our culture, until people make peace with who they are and become comfortable in their own skins, they're living vicariously. People in general, not just photographers and the shady, bad hair, arrogant types who dare call themselves artists :-). This is by no means endemic to people who call themselves artists. It's not even a problem per se, but part and parcel of the <em>process</em> of individuation.</p>

<p>_____________________</p>

<p> If a work is strong enough, has potential to draw crowds, sell well, and/or is historically significant, the art world will happily drag it into its realm.</p>

<p>The commercial side in photography hasn't had the stigma it has in other fields. The problem in photography hasn't been about the ethics of selling your soul as much as finding buyers. If you take the graphic artists and commercial photographers out of the equation, the average earnings for visual artists is quite low. "Starving artist" is a redundant term.</p>

<p> The last gasp of idealism in the medium (of widespread significance) died the day the FBI stormed the Photo League.</p>

<p> Everything else being equal, having no provenance, and emerging from the mists of obscurity with something truly strong can sometimes even be an asset. A great, recent example of this is Gary Stochl:</p>

<p>http://www.photoeye.com/Bookstore/citation.cfm?catalog=ZC470</p>

<p>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/19/arts/design/19stoc.html</p>

<p>A total outsider works solo (and a day job), without any recognition, for the better part of a lifetime with the intensity and commitment of a kamikaze, then walks into the right office at Columbia in Chicago with a bagful of prints, and is accepted on the strength of his work.</p>

<p>"People will forget what you said. People will forget what you did. But people will never forget how you made them feel." –Maya Angelou</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Julie Heyward: "</strong> The claim has to be made. The bird makes no claim, so its nest is not art. I make a claim, so my picture might be art. If I made no claim and nobody else makes a claim, then it also would not be art. This "claiming" is risky -- and costly. If, in the end, I fail to produce the evidence, I will be ridiculed as a fake. Most claimants fail."</p>

<p> I agree with Julie that the claim (or just as important, if not more so, context) is required.</p>

<p> Rebecca's notion of art seems as automatically being of a certain quality, and so is Julie, though from a different angle. Someone who hasn't declared themselves an artist <em>can </em> make what isn't, but will later become art when it is contextualized as such, either by its maker claiming to be an artist, and/or a gallery, buyer, museum, art show, etc. </p>

<p> Julie's evidentiary notion, like Rebecca, also is wrapped around the idea that "art" is some form of quality assurance, and furthermore <em>becomes proof that she is an artist. </em> This heavily implies that the term guarantees some special level of proficiency. It does no such thing. Crappy/boring art abounds. It's easily over 99% of all work produced, but it does not make the artists who make it (all of us at one time or another) ridiculous or fake.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Does the claim have to be made by the artist? In the Japanese example, the claim was made by the patron.</p>

<p>The photography world doesn't appear to have the branding that the literary world has, at least from what I've seen so far. Cool.</p>

<p>I think for women in my culture (Southern US/border state Ohio Valley) what women did was dismissed as sentimental and a hobby, decorative arts. Charles Olson in poetry refused to have women in his classes (I know a woman poet who said reading Olson was life giving to her as a but studying with him would have killed her). So saying something was artistic was a dismissal.</p>

<p>I have a cultural relationship to the Blue Ridge -- it was in the skyline where I grew up, it was forty miles west from where my grandparents lived. The tourists are part of the landscape; they kill deer and injure bicyclists. I wonder if I can I do something different in the mountains that isn't just documentation.</p>

<p>I have to get out at least once a week and photograph something.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Julie, your bird's nest doesn't work as a nest. I think for critters that aren't human, we simply don't know. Raven and some of the other corvids do appear to have an appreciation of things that are not food, shelter, or protection from predators, and perhaps in their cultures, the collections of shiny things that they hide from each other (I watched this in the Bronx Zoo) serve the same function that art serves for us. I don't know what your bird was thinking if she stopped at that point with the nest (more likely you discovered a weathered or incomplete nest that she did a sketch of a nest, but can we be sure?)</p>

<p>One of the cultural bindings I've been trying to unwrap from my own head is a sense that art is a delusion if it isn't good -- and this culture tends to reinforce be great or get out.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>You make a good point, Steve. A respectable way to be, for sure.</p>

<p>As to your question . . . </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"How about if you don't care one whit about the terms 'art' or 'artist'?" <strong>--Steve</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>If I didn't care one whit about these things, I'd avoid like the plague a philosophy forum discussing them.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>The first part of being an artist or at least claiming to be an artist of any kind is a process of discovery or awareness; of mental finding and forming which an person claiming to be an artist knows of inside of him or herself -- which can't be proven, but which is absolutely necessary to the artistic process. <strong>--Julie</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Many total outsiders have produced accomplished work that has been exhibited widely in art contexts. Again, you see a monumental partition, but there's no real barrier. <strong>--Luis</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Luis and I are in agreement that art doesn't elevate anything. There's bad art. And there's good art that's no better than good doctoring or good lawyering. Some art is transformational. That's special.</p>

<p>Julie, you've struck a chord with me with this . . . "a person claiming to be an artist knows inside him or herself -- which can't be proven . . ." It also relates to Luis's consideration of the lack of a real barrier between insiders and outsiders. From my vantage point, it's usually the one who sees him or herself as an "outsider" that is invested in creating the barrier. He or she express the feeling that the artist is doing or claiming to do art out of a sense of superiority, but that often seems to me a projection of their own feelings of inferiority. I think a case in point is Rebecca's experience with academia. Clearly some of the people Rebecca encountered needed to put up a barrier between themselves and her in order to puff themselves up. It's the construction of a barrier that's problematic, not the term "art."</p>

<p>What strikes me is that, though it's not all so easy and never completely agreed upon or clear, some very practical applications and definitions of "art" have been given in this thread. It takes more than a sound bite and often takes a discussion rather than opening to a page in a dictionary.</p>

<p>Why would we, indeed, denigrate the person who makes the photograph in order to create art? If I say I'm making my documentary because I want to bridge some gaps between people with special needs and the rest of society. If I say I'm moved by the lack of self-consciousness when I'm photographing, the genuineness of expression I feel. If I aim to convey that a community of people with all skill levels and a variety of abilities and disabilities can work in harmony, be self-sustaining, and also give back to the community at large is that extolling myself less or more than if I say the photo I made yesterday of two solitary boaters on Mission Creek was done to make art? Now, of course, someone may not know what I mean when I say the latter, so his or her panties may get all twisted up about it. But I view that as the other guy's problem, not mine. Because I know what I mean, even if it might take me a few discussions to communicate that. And, from what most people participating here have said, they'd know what I mean when I say I took the photo yesterday to make art and they know what they mean when they say it about themselves. There is certainly less specific goal orientation in the art than in the documentary. And I am generally more inclined, when asked about motivation and interpretation, even background, to let the art photo speak for itself but to fill in whatever blanks I can with words about the documentary.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...