Content Verses Technique

A bit philosophical, but I see a weird phenomena in the rating and critique of

pictures.

 

In my (non-academic) opinion, there are really 3 seperate creative modes to a

photograph, each affecting the aesthetics of a viewer.

(a) Content - the subject you choose.

(b) Technique - the capture of the image in camera

© Artistic Tweeks - the manipulation, cropping, and vison created.

 

My guess is that most pros and advanced amateurs know how to get a photo into

the camera, with an above average skill. So, subjective aesthetics are probably

mostly related to the other 2 areas.

 

I really think this is the big difference between an "artist" and most others.

There is a snobbery about art. For example, I'm one of those observers who

finds Picasso's earlier realist work amazing and his later work mundane (...

painting like someone on an LSD trip, simply doesn't appeal to me). So, I'm

assuming he didn't forget how to paint, he was choosing content and technique

that I personally don't respond to.

 

To the artistic set, I am a Neanderthal. I don't appreciate the finer things

like a woman painted blue with their nose on their forehead. To me, many

artists visions simply don't translate ... they are a naked Emperor who people

are telling is dressed beautifully. Who is right?

 

On this site, people are sometimes insulted by low ratings (which I agree are

annoying), and also critiques. Isn't it simply a fact that art is all about

opinion? I find certain women and matter unattractive, if you photopgrapgh them

(even with great in camera technique), you may never achieve a work that I find

worthy of more than a second of viewing.

 

Just wanted to see if this would become an interesting topic.

This brings a quandary. Is every picture art, simply with a smaller audience? For instance, is a picture of my daughter that I like art? You may not appreciate it because you don't know how incredible my daughter is. Or, you may appreciate my photographic style, think by daughter is cute, but still don't want the photo on your wall.

 

What makes ART .... ART?

Amateurs have one big advantage over pros, we don't have to shoot for others, we can shoot for ourselves. Study the great photographers of the 40's, 50's and 60's. People like Minor White and Aaron Siskind, they shot what moved them, and others just happened to appreciate it and come along for the ride.

 

I'm an amateur photographer and have fun trying new things and foraying into different styles of photography. I'm in no big rush to hang my work in meuseums, or to sell it for hundreds of dollars. Once I find something that uniquely mine, I'll work it to death, become as good as I can be with it, and then see what the public thinks of it.

 

I've got a cousin who's a pro studio photographer in the big city. Photography has lost it's interest to him, he's just going through the motions of giving the customers what they want, the same old same old...

Content trumps technique every time. Technique is only the means to express content. Having said that, one owes it to the subject and the medium to pursue the very best technique.

When I view something as art, I tend to view the subject or content both literally and

transcendently. In others words, of course the subject will have its own impact, but there

will be as much impact from the way the artist handles/presents/relates to/expresses him

or herself with that content. So that, often, the content will go beyond itself. The easiest

example I can come up with off hand is that, being gay, I'm not sexually attracted to

women, yet I am attracted to the sensuality of many nudes of women.

 

As for the question of who is right? Artistic snobbery is as bad as snobbery pointed toward

artists. The only one who's right is the one who doesn't characterize others' appreciation

of art. Your dislike of the later Picasso is a matter of taste and reasonable. Others' love for

the late Picasso may as likely mean that you are missing something as that they are

dressing the Emperor. I prefer to see it neutrally as differing esthetics rather than seeing it

either as others adding something that's not there or missing something that is.

I hope my comments didn't come across as bashing artists ... I meant to say that as someone who appreciates art, the artists that I disagree with I sometimes feel are a part of a mass delusion.

 

A more specific example comes to mind. The "paint splash" artists. A person who may or may not be able to draw anything, throws daubs of paint at a canvas ... "where they fall noone knows". At galleries, you'll hear how "inspired" the work is. To me, the end result (whether I'm attracted or repelled) is as much chance as inspiration.

 

Art, to me, has no boundaries ... which allows many to hide. If I defecate on a canvas, am I a genius ... or simply a crazy guy who defecated on a canvas? And, who's crazier, me or the guy who buys my work?

 

I frankly don't know the answer.

have you checked jpg magazine web site? you can only upload one photograph per theme,

and it gets voted by the community for publication in the bi-monthly magazine with either a

yes or a no. you can also make comments on each photograph, of course. i've visiting very

often and i think is a refreshing idea.

 

www.jpgmag.com

"The "paint splash" artists. A person who may or may not be able to draw anything, throws daubs of paint at a canvas ..."

 

Why would you juxtapose Abstract Expressionism with drawing and fault AE for not being drawing? You recognize the unreasonableness of "throws daubs of paint at a canvas", I think.

Thanks for the input. Not everyone who places a mess of color or objects in a picture or painting is creating abstract expressionism ... some are simply making a mess. And if someone were to say ... "hey, this looks like a bunch of paint daubs thrown randomly at a canvass" ... they would be considered naive.

 

There is an assumption that an "artist" meaningfully placed everything where it is supposed to be, and any inclusion/omission is clearly an expression of deeper meaning. I simply suggest that this assumption makes it easy for a deeply untalented individual to make a fantastic living at some art ... especially if he gets a folowing. Anyone who doesn't "get it" ... is obviously an uneducated boor.

I more wanted to see if as a group of artists and art enthusiasts, we could understand what makes up the aesthetics of a photographic work.

"...what makes up the aesthetics of a photographic work."

 

There's the aesthetic of the viewer and of the photographer. Are they the same? If this is about critique and rating, and if the photographer is concerned to do well in them (or in any competitive endevor in photography), then the viewer becomes involved in the photographer's aesthetic choices in all three modes.

 

In judging my own photographs, it is the ones that I linger over and return to, finding them deeper visually ("more interesting") than the others, that I judge as successful. That's the way I view others photographs. I'm not competitive about photography and do not consider viewers' possible opinion in the three modes. I'd hope that a few of my photographs cause others to linger over them if anyone views them.

 

Understanding what results in "lingering" and "returning" is likely not possible because, as your wrote, aesthetics are subjective. I can only go by my responsiveness and hope for the best.

I think art is manipulating the world around us in some way to express how we see the world. I can be with words, film, paint, fabric or food or thousands of other types of media. I think an artist is one who makes a point of working with a certain media enough to understand the properties of the media, and how it can be used to express their view.

 

I think perhaps every time someone does this manipulation of media, someone else around them will either "get it" or "not get it." One person says "Wow" while another person says "What?" If I take a picture and say "Wow," it's art to me. It's nice. I caught something. That doesn't mean I'm an artist. It might have been a happy accident.

 

If another person sees my photo and says "Wow" then it's art to them also, but it still doesn't make me an artist. If a lot of people see my photo and say "Wow" then I become well known because people talk about it. It means that a lot of people "get" what I'm doing, they understand my point of view, but it still doesn't mean that I'm an artist and that I "deserve" a following. My results aren't consistent and I don't have a grasp of my media.

 

I think a true and great artist understands, and maybe even inhabits in some way, the soul of their media. A great artistic photographer doesn't just set the camera with the right settings and take a picture. Anybody can paint by number. It doesn't even have to be a particularly great subject but by god, they know how to paint with light. They see what to frame. They feel what they want to capture. They know how to crop it. They know how to manipulate their media to express their vision, just like a basket weaver or a sculptor. And when people see that, they know it.

 

I think, dear PNers, that there are very few artists in the world, and they are not all hanging out at photo.net. Now, I can't wait to hear how many people come back at me and tell me "Well, I'm an artist...I love my work." Good for you. Most of us love our own work. It doesn't mean most of us are anything more than a 3 or a 4. Most of us are not artists, although there are a few around here...

Thomas--

 

No artist I know doesn't allow for happy accidents, which means they all realize that not

everything is placed meaningfully all the time. Meaning can happen by chance and it can

come into play after the fact. Good artists and experienced ones tend to have more

meaningful and more frequent accidents.

 

I still don't understand why you think some of those who have a different esthetic than

you are deluded.

 

How familiar are you with the intention behind someone like Jackson Pollock's work? I'm

not guessing, honestly, I'm just wondering. Because, sometimes, knowing the location of

an artist within the history of art does change one's perception of and relationship to his

art. There's reacting to art, an amazing experience. And there's understanding art. Also,

for me, an amazing experience.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_Pollock

 

Also, the movie, starring and directed by Ed Harris, is good.

 

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/7923/pollack.html

No we can't define aesthetics. And it is a good thing too. We already have to wade through too much fashion, passion, and dogma as it is.

i think i am an artist, the problem is that i am not a very good one, or even a good one...

My original intent was to try to grasp what makes one person like (aesthetically) something that another detests, from the artist or afficionato perspective.

 

When you capture a image you like, you frame it just the way you like, you post-proccess to perfection (yours of course). Then someone comes along and says ... man, that's aweful.

 

If I take pictures of beautiful women, using sound "technique" ... viewers will love my work more than not. Am I an artist, or simply blessed to have beautiful women letting me take their picture? If I use the same technique on a person less universally "beautiful" and my image is less "liked", am I less/more of an artist?

 

Can I see a mundane brick on the ground and take an "artistic" picture?

 

I guess my point is subject matter, technique, artisitic tweeks, and finally aspects of the observer are all complexly intertwined in the final view of a work.

 

Like the tree falling in the forrest, if an artist creates a work that noone but he finds aesthetic, is it still art?

Thomas--

 

Good points.

 

"If I take pictures of beautiful women, using sound "technique" ... viewers will love my

work more than not."

 

That's because they're horny, not because they are looking at your work from the

standpoint of art. In the art world, as everywhere else, there is a certain amount of

disingenuousness. Many of those who look only through the nudes category on PN

convince themselves it's for the art just like many people who look at Playboy and Playgirl

do it for the interesting articles. I like looking through the Abercrombie and Fitch

catalogue. It's not because I'm appreciating photography.

 

The more I get into my own photography, the more I actually relish the fact that some

people consider it awful. That coincides with my having more confidence and my

photographs getting more personal. I am not expressing things that I think everyone will

respond to positively and neither is it for the benefit of everyone. I'm doing it for myself

and for those who can relate to what I'm doing. In the process, I may influence some as

well to see the world in a way they might not have before. Some are more open to that

kind of experience than others. I find that the kind of art I respond to is often controversial

(not in subject matter necessarily but meaning that it elicits strong reactions, whether

positive or negative). I fully expect some of my images to garner "man, that's awful" from

some people. There would be a variety of understandable reasons why they might react

that way. They may simply not like it. They might be turned off either to my technique or

my subject matter. They may lack a cultural perspective that enables them to get into what

I'm doing. Some people like photographs to capture beauty. Many people wouldn't like

German Expressionism because they don't like art that confronts them with a darker side

of life. Many people don't like photos of pretty flowers and sunsets because they think it's

been overdone. Whatever. We could all probably come up with a long list of why people

like or don't like different things. This difference in taste is not unique to the world of art.

There's vanilla and chocolate, too.

Like the tree falling in the forrest, if an artist creates a work that noone but he finds aesthetic, is it still art...

 

I would have to say no, Thomas. Is green blue because I think it is? Green is green because we all agree that it's green.

 

If no one else finds your work aestheticly pleasing, you can be pretty sure it's not. The word art implies some kind of aesthetic value. I'd say if an "artist" consistently creates works that please no one but him or herself, they should probably stop using that label and call their endeavors a hobby.

Like the tree falling in the forrest, if an artist creates a work that noone but he finds aesthetic, is it still art...

 

I would have to say no, Thomas. Is green blue because I think it is? Green is green because we all agree that it's green."

 

No one found Van Gogh's paintings very appealing in his lifetime.

Try to buy one now.

 

We may try to define what art is, but it is ultimately a futile endeavor. Just when you think you've got it figured out, along comes something that will turn your definition to dust.

 

Time changes aesthetics. Today's crap just maybe tomorrow's treasure.

"...if an artist creates a work that noone but he finds aesthetic, is it still art..."

 

Artists do not determine what is art and what is good or bad art. Buyers do, critics do, collectors do -- the godlike all ecompassing omnipresent eye of the frickin' "viewer" does.

 

But not the artists. It's not their domain.

"Artists do not determine what is art. . . . It's not their domain."

 

A theory of what art is that leaves out the artist is almost by definition a flawed theory.

 

Buyers, critics, and collectors determine what sells.

 

Buyers, critics, and collectors are the artworld referred to by Danto and Dickie in their

institutional and historicized esthetic theories.

 

Such theories neglect individual esthetic experiences. So, for instance, individual visual

experience is discounted in favor of seeing the individual as somehow brainwashed by the

art world. It seems a cynical view of art.

 

I prefer even Hegel's theory, which really modernized art theory in its move away from the

pleasurable and toward what's expressive. Also appealing is Suzanne Langer's theory of

significance, talking about how art taps into and conveys emotions through a symbolic

language. These theories don't reduce art to consumerism.

 

I think Eric says it well above. Just when you think you've got art figured out, . . .

"A theory of what art is that leaves out the artist is almost by definition a flawed theory."

 

I don't leave out the artist. I wrote that artists don't get to determine what is art, good or bad. Others do.

 

Add art historians and academics to the list.

I think artists determine what art is inasmuch as they create it.

 

Determination of art cannot be left up to the viewer alone.

 

The artistic stance of the artist affects the viewer.

Don, I'd concede that artists *alone* don't make these determinations but they certainly do participate--partly because the boundaries of these categories are very flexible but also through their work (it seems to me that every artist is, almost by definition, an art critic).

"I think artists determine what art is inasmuch as they create it."

 

I'll agree creation is the artist's domain. But look: are Danto or Dickie photographers (I don't know, never heard of them)? I know Hegel and Langer weren't. Consider the usual authorities on photography in these forums: Sontag and Szarkowski, or less referred to: Flusser and and Barthes and Greenberg. Were they photographers? They were not.

 

There's no discussions here about the art theories of (not *about*) significant photographers, mostly because they either didn't have any or all we know are quotations from correspondence and interviews. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I'd guess their theorizing was published after they'd gotten a 'chair'.

 

Art theory is a literary activity. It is not in the domain of photographers, or painters, or musicians, or composers. If there are exceptions, they are...well, exceptions.