Definitions of Art and Photography

A recent response to a post made me think about the definitions of photography

and art and to consider how these 2 entities should be defined with respect to

each other. I have proposed 2 separate Venn Diagrams as possibilities (see

Figures 1 and 2 attached). Both possibilities consider that there is art which

is not photography and photography which is also art. By no reasonable

definition could it be considered otherwise. To be specific, it is entirely

unreasonable to consider photography and art as mutually exclusive subsets.

 

The question remains, however, whether there is any photography which is not

art. If a broad definition of art is used (art is the product of creativity

and/or imagination), then all photography is art (Figure 2). Even if the

photograph is taken by a computer, a human designed the algorithm and the

photograph is indirectly a product of human creativity. By more restrictive

definitions of art, however, it may be reasonable to argue that there is

photography which is not art. I can't seem to find any definitions which would

apply to such a permutation, so if you have one, please elaborate.

The definition of art is highly elusive. If all photography is art, then pretty much anything

made by a human being could be considered art. Any stick drawing, any amount of paint

on a piece of paper, etc. For me, that would water down the idea of art tremendously. I

think it's worth considering that not everything is art, but therein lies the rub. Because

then we have to define what art is and that's proven to be nearly impossible over the

years. I tend to use a broad brush (no pun intended) and include lots of things as art,

assuming that my opinion will be that some is good art and some is bad art. I tend to

define art in a multi-faceted way, using a lot of definitions suggested by philosophers and

historians over the years and a lot of parts of those definitions. I, personally, think

allowing everything (all photography) to be art is a bad idea.

"I, personally, think allowing everything (all photography) to be art is a bad idea."

 

In a certain sense I agree with you. I am a medical writer, and often times must prepare clinical images for publications in medical journals. From a medical publishing standpoint, these images are considered to be art. As one who does photography for purely creative purposes rather than to document events for publication, however, I might on another level consider the medical images, if art, to be in a substantially different classification of art then say, landscape photography.

 

I guess what I am really fishing for is for definitions to define the border between photography which is art and photography which is not art as depicted in Figure 1 of this post.

When 2 customers are at the counter; each considers his own work to be art; the other chaps stuff just photography, or even total junk.

Ultimately, I think that might have to be answered differently by each of us, and strict criteria

would be difficult to give. It might boil down to "what would I go to a museum or gallery to

see and what wouldn't I?" But then, of course, I recognize that there's plenty of art that I

might choose just not to go see out of lack of interest or liking. For me, intent is important. If

someone intends it as art, that goes a long way into making it art. Many people who intend to

make art do make art, but in many cases I might consider it bad art. There are many more

criteria for judging something to be art, but "intent" is the first thing that comes to mind for

me.

Chip, to spend your time drawing little circles to determine what art and photography is means that you have far too much free time on your hands.

 

Art is defined by the artist. If I want to my photography art, then it is art. If you want to call your little circles art, then someone in New York or San Francisco might give you a few hundred thousand for it.

 

Quit drawing little circles and get back outside with your camera and stop fretting over such picayune trivia.

Better to spend your time scolding people you don't know on a web site forum for doing what

they want and deem useful.

Andre,

 

If you consider Venn diagrams picayune I suppose you are free to do that. But they don't take me very long at all and so the argument that I have "far too much free time on your hands" is without merit. You, however, might find the time to try to sell my Venn diagrams to someone and I'll give you 10% commission and you'll have a few 10's of thousands. Worth your time? BTW if you read my post, you would realize that in a sense I don't consider Venn diagrams to be art, but rather an educational/informational tool. After all, that is what PN is all about.

 

As far as getting outside with my camera, well, there's a time for everything.

Wow! What a lot of good answers. My position is that if photos are made by an artist they may be art. If made by a fashion or sports photographer (etc.) they are not. The same goes for all the other art mediums. Because something is a painted picture does not automatically make it art. I agree with Andre, Fred and Chip. Liked the comments about little circles and about selling it for a few hundred thou in NY. The fact is that the NY Art World does not know or care what is art. It has turned into a machine for hustling money out of the gullible and wealthy. Many business people want to show that they are cultured, so they collect what they are told is art. To succeed in that world depends on connections more than quality. A degree from the Yale art dept. helps too.

There is no art in nature. Art is a human concept and needs the active presence of a human mind (at least) to come into existence.

 

Photographs can be generated by unattended cameras operating automatically. The opportunities for art in this system are very limited.

 

Nevertheless it possible, if one rakes through the debris of such an unattended "shoot", to find fetching or appealing images. If one buys the premise that an item becomes art because it was selected by an artist, an tick of approval in effect, then art can be found even here. I suspect that many high shooting photo-journalists or sports specialists sail very close to this standard. Even the "artist photographer" who just does the camera clicking and then waits for the 'phone call from the lab to say that the prints (sic) are ready for signing (subject to approval, of course) is on artistic swampy ground.

 

A more secure standard, I propose, is that a work be considered art if it is a "mind map" of the artist. The work has to be the result of conscious mental activity on the part of the artist at the fabrication stage. Mere selection from debris is no more art than picking up pretty seashells from a beach.

 

An additional advantage of this second approach is delivered in the audience appreciation phase. It feels much more rewarding to take the trouble to put a photograph through ones own mind knowing the artist bothered putting it through theirs.

Maris: Though I would like to agree with you, I can't because a lot of good and great photographers use labs or assistants to print.

Venn diagrams are just so wrong. I will post a lot about this later. I worked far too late

this evening to give the OP's sad posit the attention necessary.

 

Except for this, as a precursor, what you can expect - pure logic is a different universe

than our work. Anything regarding our effort, or work, portrayed in a Venn diagram is

absolutely wrong headed.

 

Let me get some sleep - or cancel this thread before I wake up. (Fat chance :))

 

Decartes was so very wrong. There is not clarified separation of such.

 

Pico (so tired, but I got one hell of a Grant today. Doncha hate it?)

One more before I snooze: DECARTES WAS THE WORST THING TO HAPPEN TO PHILOSOPHY!

That separation thing, the Venn diagrams and all that bullshit are from his paradigm and it's

been going downhill since. <P>

Honest, that wasn't as loud as you think. Ya had to be here. :)

Congratulations Pico

C'mon Chip.."You, however, might find the time to try to sell my Venn diagrams to someone and I'll give you 10% commission and you'll have a few 10's of thousands."

 

40% and it's a deal! You get the forty. You only get ninety after you convince everyone it's art....then my part would be easy.

 

p.s. is there a colour version? I could probably sell more if there were. And please remember to keep the horizon straight!

Art is anything I create to satisfy an aesthetic desire. The question is whether or not it is good art. I can't answer the latter.

 

"There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya

'Bout the raising of the wrist." - The Philosopher's Song, Monty Python.

Hey Pico...you'd probably like to know that this post was actually moved INTO this forum from casual conversations...ironic huh? So it will probably be here in the morning for you. So if you do retort, please do provide your own definitions of "photography" and "art" so that your response may have its rightful basis for a counter response. And then having done so explain why you think a Venn diagram is not appropriate here.

 

Anthony...n'yeah, I'm gonna hold to my 90% for the Venn diagrams...if I do an aesthetically pleasing version I want 95%.

I think an approach to dealing with questions like this one is to consider for a moment what artists do. Artists skillfully construct things many of which exist only to be appreciated by others. A person who calls himself an artist, but produces nothing, will eventually be known as an eccentric, a victim of some sort of self-deception, or in the worst case an outright fraud. The same sort of thinking applies to photographers also IMO. Do photographers take pictures or do they make them? A photographic artist makes images that employ a camera in some way.

 

Patrons and viewers attribute skill to the creator of works they appreciate. It has to with a perception of mastery of technique and recogniable habits in construction and purpose of vision one might call style.

 

The Venn diagrams are great, but the drawings only show a cross section of intersecting cones viewed straight down from the top. The points at the top would be the number of people widely known to possess the mixture of skill and mastery others call genius. The wide bases of these cones encircle the vast number of practitioners who do not possess skills enough to be considered more than apprentices in the craft.

 

Whether or not photography is art depends on who's making the pictures. And who likes the result.

 

Pico -- Give it a rest, man! Attacking a man for creating devices to help organize his thinking is like attacking a mechanic for using tools.

"...the definitions of photography and art..."

 

Art is short for artisan, which represents the product of a "skilled" artisan. It's a pedestrian term which has been aggrandized to the point of hero worship; everything being "art." Pizza making is as much art as is "David" for they're both a product of a "skilled" artisan. Only denial prevents one from seeing the reality of the issue.

 

"I can't seem to find any definitions which would apply to such a permutation, so if you have one, please elaborate."

 

One, to get an answer, has to come to grips with the pedestrian nature of the word "art" and acknowledge that the act of creating is a "skilled" process as opposed to simply a boorish random act of chance; a monkey with disposable or an elephant with finger paint and canvas.

 

Sans skill, there is no artisan and sans artisan, there is no product; art.

From the Western cultural perspective, Art is what has become so through the concensus

of historians, critics, curators, for better or worse. But that is obvious. I don't think Mr.

Ruben was looking for such a view. Let's move on.

<i>Pico -- Give it a rest, man! Attacking a man for creating devices to help organize his

thinking is like attacking a mechanic for using tools.</i><p>

No. It's more like criticizing a plastic surgeon for using a chainsaw for an unnecessary

cosmetic operation. Two issues there. <P>

What Mr. Reuben apears to be doing is attempting to categorize, and then to show the

intersections of art and photography using Venn diagrams. It is a noble effort. Your view of

the diagrams as cross-sections of aerial views of cones is a helpfull addition. <P>

Here is the rub - such categorization presumes a logical separateness, a Cartesian logic

which is a thoroughly modern invention. While it is true that the whole idea of "art" is a

modern invention, philosophy is ancient and through philosophy we have the opportunity

to transcend moderninity to get to the spirit of that which is human expression,

sometimes called art.<p>

My complaint, exacerbated by exhaustion, was strongly worded, but refreshed and alert

this morning the angst prevails.

You need more diagrams. There are sub-categories such as "fine art" and "commercial art." Both photography - and everything "art like" that's not photography - can be in either category depending upon its purpose.

 

The entire question is really about intent. Did I make the thingy to be my personal expression or idea? Or, did I make the thingy to sell a product, as a technical illustration, documentation, etc.?

 

For example, just recently I sold a shadow graph of a bullet to a publishing company for use in a text book. That's a photograph used as a technical illustration - or, "commercial art."

 

I think you need to refine your suppositions a bit further.

I just read a the book __On Photography__ by Susan Sontag. It doesn't exactly discuss the question you pose but it does discuss in great detail painting v. photography, how painting is considered truly "fine art" and how photography has entered that realm. Photography, as Sontag writes, was accepted as an art form when it enetered museums and galleries, something once reserved exclusively for painting.

 

There are many more fine points in the essays she writes. I read it in a day and a half (sleep for 5 hours) I suggest you read it--you will be enlightened.

I must first confess my laziness in not further refining the 2-dimensional Venn diagram or searching further for accepted, current or otherwise, definitions of "art". The 2 Venn diagrams, admittedly oversimplified, still, I believe represent the in a general way the entire range of what has been discussed thus far. The point about cones is good but philosophically speaking is still confined, with only one more dimension added. You could add many more conceptual definitions and still my original 2 figures would be representative, on a conceptual level, of the relative continuum, recognizing however that whether circles or cones, we are not trying to be quantitative about a qualitative subject.

 

"No. It's more like criticizing a plastic surgeon for using a chainsaw for an unnecessary cosmetic operation.

 

Incorrect. That idea is highly analagous and similarly fallacious to Andre's idea that I would try to sell my Venn diagrams in NY or SF for six figures. It is, rather, exactly as Albert stated, a tool to organize my thinking during a developmental process. The end result will have nothing to do with a Venn diagram just as much as many tools used during the manufacturing of surgical instruments never enter an elective surgi center. A chainsaw is used, after all, to cut the tree that is used to make applicators, for example.

 

With that said, thank you everyone for your definitions of "art".

I have posted this before but Chip must have missed it. <P>"The problem is not

whether photography can be art, but in confusing art with finished product or the

technique employed. It is the artist's psychological attitude toward the process of creation

alone that signifies the artistic validity of the act that produces the "work of art."<P>"Art is

nothing tangible. We cannot call a painting "art". As the words "artifact" and "artificial"

imply, the thing made is a work of art, made by art, but not itself art; the art remains in

the artist and is the knowledge by which things are made. What is made according to the

art is correct; what one makes as one likes may very well be awkward. We must not

confuse taste with judgement, or loveliness with beauty, for as Augustine says, some

people like deformities.

</P>Seems to me that Augustine is saying it is OK to shoot digital.

<i>It is, rather, exactly as Albert stated, a tool to organize my thinking during a developmental process. </i><p>

The words beside the charts suffice. The diagram adds nothing to the definition.<p>

Back to square one. No picture needed for that, either.

<p>