Is Art A Photographer?

<p>Does anyone happen to know if Art Garfunkel is a photographer? Or does he just take pictures?</p>

<p>Subtext to the real topic, which is not really a question. All over these discussions is some rabid insistence on definition. It kidnaps and holds hostage every possible permutation of thought, insight, poetics, metaphor. All lie somewhere in a basement waiting to be released if only the exact definition can be found. And of all places. A craft, an art, a hobby, a ... on and on. A place where I had hoped to garner enlightening sidebars and humor. Instead time and again things becomes contentious. Or worse indifferent, and dismissive, with YMMV, or do what you love. Does anyone have to be told to do what they love? Don't answer that! Please. </p>

<p>So what gives? Is this all Socrates fault? Is this inbred into our culture, that no metaphor can go unchallenged?<br>

Doesn't this exacting habit do more to kill ideas than to foster them? As well as make us unnecessarily angry and defensive with each other?</p>

<p>I personally don't think Art or anything subjective can be defined, and I suspect thats what bugs people the most. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Does anyone happen to know if Art Garfunkel is a photographer? Or does he just take pictures?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What is the difference? Am I a guitarist or do I just play the guitar?</p>

<p>Maybe it depends on how many Pulitzer Prizes one has... or how many Grammy Awards.</p>

<p>No Art Garfunkel was not a photographer - although he surely did shoot photos!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I personally don't think Art or anything subjective can be defined</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Many subjective matters can surely be defined (your weight, your vision, your place of birth, your social status etc) but your vision on, or understanding of, "what is art" is clearly not among them.</p>

<p>The problem of all these mostly unhelpful ping pong exchanges on <strong>art</strong> is indeed that some believe that what ever "art" is, it is sure to be 100% subjective. Others, and I'm among them, believe that the category of <strong>art</strong> is used for something that of "social convention" is defined as art.</p>

<p>How social conventions on <strong>what is art</strong> are made is however rarely discussed in these forums although one mode of production of "social convention" is our rating system - but is it valid and can it be respected beyond its limit realm? Other modes of production of social conventions on what is art, are: the art-community, the art marked; the respected connoisseurs etc. What ever conventions on art are out there, they are there to be contested and challenged. This is the real discussion on what is art in my eyes.</p>

<p>If <strong>what is art</strong> is 100% subjective I would agree with those that rather would not use the term at all and leave it to be used by those that refer to <strong>art</strong> as a "social conventions". </p>

<p> </p>

<p>The discussions that start calling for definitions do so because someone is trying to make some point or another that depends on where something falls, relative to a defining line between two things. These are often false, or meaningless distinctions, making the definition irrelevent. But sometimes it matters, and then the definition matters.</p>

<p>Can you define "metaphor?"</p>

<p><a></a><br>

<a>

<p>Definition of <em>definition</em></p>

 

</a></p>

<p><strong>NOUN:</strong></p>

<ol>

<li><ol type="a">

<li>A statement conveying fundamental character.</li>

<li>A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry.</li>

</ol></li>

<li>The act or process of stating a precise meaning or significance; formulation of a meaning.</li>

<li><ol type="a">

<li>The act of making clear and distinct: <em>a definition of one's intentions.</em></li>

<li>The state of being closely outlined or determined: <em>"With the drizzle, the trees in the little clearing had lost definition"</em><em>(Anthony Hyde).</em></li>

<li>A determination of outline, extent, or limits: <em>the definition of a President's authority.</em></li>

</ol></li>

<li><ol type="a">

<li>The clarity of detail in an optically produced image, such as a photograph, effected by a combination of resolution and contrast.</li>

<li>The degree of clarity with which a televised image or broadcast signal is received.</li>

</ol></li>

</ol>

 

<p>Is there any significance to this elaborate musing?<br>

<br />john<br>

<br />John (Crosley)</p>

<p>Kenneth, Have you read Harry Frankfurt's "On Bullshit?" Do a web search and you can find the text on web sites, or order the printed book. I recommend it to anyone who tries to discuss philosophy, but doesn't want to "get all hung up on definitions and crap like that". There is a point to trying to define terms, and to finding the limits of those definitions, and to distinguish the concept from similar, yet different concepts. "On Bullshit" is a great study of how to approach a topic and how to examine it fully. </p>

<p>As for art not being able to be defined, yes and no. There are numerous definitions which work quite well, but no comprehensive definition which fits every example and situation. Hence, knowing the working definitions and their limits is helpful to the discussion. Just because something can't be comprehensively defined doesn't mean it can't be discussed, but it helps if those in the discussion are using the terms in the same way. Otherwise, we might as well be in Wonderland where words mean only what I intend them to mean, regardless of your understanding. </p>

<p>If you are actually interested in the definitions of art and the limits of those definitions, read "The Art Question" by Nigel Warburton. </p>

<p>Allen, as far as I see it, most of us are beyond the reading phase and try now the writing and formulation phase in order to discuss our various understanding of what we read or heard from others that have read that made meaning to us. It would be so easy and especially quite to send us all back to our beloved books.</p>

<p>Peoccupation with variable definitions of "what is art", or of any other creative human activity, are of limited value and I think infinitely subordinate to actally "just doing it." On the other hand, I think more purpose comes out of philosophical discussions pertaining not to definitions but instead to the aesthetic, moral, intellectual, political (societal if you prefer) aspects, problems and challenges in art.</p>

<p>Anders,</p>

<p>I will never think I am beyond my reading phase. What's the old saying, "The more you learn..." </p>

<p>I agree Allen, but it takes a certain "reading phase" before to take up subsequent phases of expression, I would think. I'm all for lifelong learning.</p>

<p>If one goes to Salt Lake City or Rome and nicely photographs something generally understood to be a work of art...such as part of a beautiful cathedral...can one claim to have engaged in artistry? Or is one doing little more than they would by buying a beautiful postcard of it?</p>

<p>That is a question about use of a word (and the word is "artistry," not "art"), it is not a question about a word's definition. We don't need to define words to use them meaningfully. When prettiness is identified as artistry a question arises for some of us, but others find it sufficient. </p>

 

<p>Wasn't it his buddy Simon that wrote that song - Mama Dont Take My Kodachrome Away?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Is there any significance to this elaborate musing?<br /><br />john<br /><br />John (Crosley)</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>no, but at least it's posted in the appropriate category, John ;)</p>

<p>It's always interesting to learn who spends their time reading the Philosophy forum and not commenting. Reminds me of those street photographers who lurk behind trees, around corners, and in the shadows.</p>

<p>I hope the Philosophy forum can bring things into the light. Ideas.</p>

<p>Philosophy is not photography. They don't work the same way or accomplish the same things.</p>

<p>Philosophy is not metaphor. They don't work the same way or accomplish the same things.</p>

<p>I appreciate photography and I appreciate metaphors. Both can be an adjunct to Philosophy. Philosophy can be an adjunct to both.</p>

<p>Philosophy uses words differently from metaphors. Sometimes agreeing on a definition can be helpful, sometimes a distraction. How a word is used is often more important than how a dictionary defines it. Nuancing definitions can often lead to nuancing of ideas. That can be good.</p>

<p>This is a Philosophy of Photography forum. Many look down on Philosophy and many don't understand it. Some who look down on it and others who don't understand it still are drawn to the forum. It's the Internet. It's public. Take what you want and leave the rest.</p>

<p>Welcome!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>This is a Philosophy of Photography forum. Many look down on Philosophy and many don't understand it. Some who look down on it and others who don't understand it still are drawn to the forum.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And some do understand it and that's why they look down on it.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If one goes to Salt Lake City or Rome and nicely photographs something generally understood to be a work of art...such as part of a beautiful cathedral...can one claim to have engaged in artistry? </p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>John</strong> you are clearly right as you would expect: the answer is No! if the result is not artistic !</p>

<p>The subject matter cannot be part of the understanding of what is "art" - or "artistry", if you wish. I'm less worryied about people going to beautiful Rome to exercise their "artistry". I'm more inclined to worry about the trend of going down the street to shoot documentary series of distress and marginality and believing they are showing something beyond the ordinary. Artistry is indeed a difficult thing to understand - just like "art".</p>

<p>In my mind, but I might without doubt be wrong, I think we are getting nearer to something interesting around "art" and "artistry" (does the term exist with meaning that goes beyond "craft"?) when we discuss terms like "beauty", "ugliness" or "like", "agreeable, disturbing or challenging to watch".<br>

For me "artistry" or "art" comes to the fore if a "work of ..." does something to tradition, to society, to art etc. for people that are putting them in a position of appreciating it.</p>

<p>A definition, among others, that makes sense to me, before the "death of art" became the mantra of so many.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>L'art est la création-invention,<br /> au niveau du mécanisme de la pensée et de l'imagination,<br /> d'une idée originale à contenu esthétique<br /> traduisible en effets perceptibles par nos sens.<br>

<br /><br>

"Art is creation-discovery, on the level of .... thoughts or imagination of an original idea with esthetic content that can be translated into effects that are perceptible by our senses".</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>As you can see, I firmly believe that we do need "definitions" of terms (common understanding) to communicate meaningfully with each-other unless we are participating in some sort of party-game that I'm not aware of yet.</p>

<p>" L'art est une abstraction." ("Art is an abstraction")<br /> (Paul Gauguin)</p>

<p>Arthur, and yet, Gauguin made <strong>art </strong>throughout the greater part of his life - or am I mistaken?</p>

<p>Gaugan made paintings that we can easily appreciate today. The paintings don't exist in the past tense, despite the efforts "art history" enthusiasts. Arthur's on the right track IMO.</p>

<p>I may be wrong but I think that what Gaugin was referring to was simply how he viewed art (in a positive manner) and not a reflection on the lack of art in his work. </p>

<p>John, for you, end of history happened when, then ? Or has history in your understanding never happened and has no importance for the present.</p>

<p>If as Fukuyama proclaimed "end of history happened in 1989, what happened after then ?</p>

<p>For me this is non-sensique especially if we take Fukuyame on the word and impose it on a logic of what you call artistry.</p>

<p>For me art, or artistry, is always historically rooted and can only be appreciated as a witness of the period of its creation that tells us something about human history and in some cases continue to challenge our way of thinking and understanding the world. One can of course as you seem to advocate so persistently for, defend an extreme case of ahistoricism but in my eyes it is unhelpful or at least a very restrictive approach of appreciating art or artistry.</p>

<p>Okay, John,</p>

<p>This is the second thread in which you have brought up this notion. </p>

<p>How about this: His paintings and Van Goghs existed in the past, some of them remain today, some have been lost. Yes, one can experience the surviving paintings today, but not in exactly the same way they were viewed or appreciated--or not appreciated--in the past. One cannot see Van Gogh's paintings in his private cottage or on the walls of his brother's gallery in Paris in 1885. You cannot touch them--unless you want to get arrested. Have they faded? Paint is not 100% stable and immune to the ravages of time. The lighting at the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam is muted, no one can take the painting outside into the sun or over to a window to examine it. If you want to see them, you have to visit a museum, which is a different experience from visiting a commercial gallery. (And yes, I have been to the Orsay and Van Gogh Museum many times). </p>

<p>Also, most viewers--and I would put you in this group--cannot view the works with the same mind set that viewers in the past had. Van Gogh painted before Picasso and abstract expressionism and most of the art "isms" we except as standard today. Most viewers will never look at a Van Gogh and realize or appreciate how revolutionary his work was because something else has come along. Van Gogh is now accepted as one of the greats--this was certainly not the case in his life time. </p>

<p>You seem to think only art historians are interested in what happened in the past. I feel sorry for you in that thinking. By understanding what happened in the past, understanding how the work was received and how that perception has changed, one develops a deeper appreciation of the work as it exists today. </p>