Photography and Art

<p>A theme that often appears in our various forum discussions is that there is a big difference between simply photographing things, and “creating art,” which is much more self-conscious, intentional, and involves taking into account the history of art and images, culture, etc. For example, I can simply take a picture of something because I, personally, thought it was interesting, or beautiful, or evoking a certain emotional response for me (I confess, this is basically my own approach). In contrast, there are artists who make photographs because they are following through with a well thought out idea relating to theories about art, the history of photography, and, they are trying to make an original personal statement in this context. The photographs that come out of this latter thought process are often pretty alien to the average viewer, who is not schooled in the history of art. Examples would be the photographs of William Eggleston, Sally Mann, or Andreas Gursky, to name a few. </p>

<p>I think it is safe to say that most of the photographers here in photo.net are in the former category, and simply take pictures of things in which that they are interested. There are others though, who are definitely in the artist category, who are working much more conceptually, and whose comments relate more to the concepts of the art world. </p>

<p>My observation and desire for comment is about this distinction, because often there is a lot of conflict in the forum discussions about the relative merit of certain images, or artists, which seems to come out of these basic differences in the approach to photography. Is there room for both points of view? Are the opinions of the “unwashed” simply too ignorant to be acknowledged by the cognoscenti? Conversely, are the opinions of the cognoscenti about photography just too specialized or intellectualized to have any meaning for the average viewer? What can we learn from each other? </p>

<p> </p>

<p>In many ways, this is the age old difference of a photograph being a "mirror" or a "window". Most photography falls in between these two extremes--window=pure documentary and mirror=pure personal expression(generally baffling anyone but the maker!).</p>

<p>Art photography does tend to include a bit more "mirror" in it although I think that today's art photography has injected a third item that is less buried than in earlier days--concept. Concept has come out of the shadows and is now demanding that it be recognized as an equal and individual factor.</p>

<p>Most of the issues I see between photographers on these pages has to do with individuals insisting that their way is the only way, that their way of thinking about photography is the only valid form of photography. Personally, I am just interested in the result and how it functions. Some very good images, in fact great images, are not really art but just really good photographs. They may elevate to art in some cases, but often they are just very good at what they were created to do which has nothing to do with "art". That is just as valid as a great piece of art photography, just different.</p>

<p>Just to add, I think the last part of the OP here is really about sophistication or learning. We like Chinese food maybe, like sweet and sour, but if we really learn about it and have a desire to explore it more, maybe in time we crave 1000 year eggs. Most never get there and that is ok, but it doesn't make those that love them cognoscenti, does it? (I have no interest in trying one...)</p>

<p>We have a tendency to denigrate what we don't understand and often have no interest in understanding--that is just ignorance, plain and simple. An opinion based on our knowledge is one thing and it is proper to acknowledge we don't get something. It is completely different to openly denigrate something we don't understand or haven't even tried to understand, which is what I see a lot in these sorts of situations.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is there room for both points of view?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is room for both these points of view and many more. There is room for both these ways of creating photographs and many more.</p>

<p>.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>In contrast, there are artists who make photographs because they are following through with a well thought out idea relating to theories about art, the history of photography, and, they are trying to make an original personal statement in this context.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Artists don't always proceed from well thought-out ideas and often don't necessarily consider art theories. Art theorists do that. For me, one of many things that helps define an artist is a level of transcendence they tap into. For instance when the subject is a subject and the photo is more than the subject or the subject becomes the photo itself. It's also about vision and voice.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>often there is a lot of conflict in the forum discussions about the relative merit of certain images, or artists, which seems to come out of these basic differences in the approach to photography</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think there's something else at play as well. Just as there are different skill and craft levels of photographers on PN and elsewhere (and I firmly believe skill and craft play a role, though certainly not the only one, in art) there are different levels of literacy in terms of viewers. Everyone is entitled to have opinions about art and everyone, including the most literate viewer, has their own taste. I love hearing articulate and serious/genuine statements from all kinds of viewers about my own photographs and the photographs of others, including the photographs of famous photographers. At the same time I recognize that viewing can be a honed activity. Education, attuneness, openness, experience . . . and a lot more . . . play a role in a viewer's level of viewing sensibility.</p>

<p>Personally speaking, one of the things I've tried to do for a very long time is to challenge my own taste.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A theme that often appears in our various forum discussions is that there is a big difference between simply photographing things, and “creating art,” which is much more self-conscious, intentional, and involves taking into account the history of art and images, culture, etc. For example, I can simply take a picture of something because I, personally, thought it was interesting, or beautiful, or evoking a certain emotional response for me (I confess, this is basically my own approach). In contrast, there are artists who make photographs because they are following through with a well thought out idea relating to theories about art, the history of photography, and, they are trying to make an original personal statement in this context.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Steve: I don't think you give yourself enough credit. If what you photograph has aesthetic value and gives pleasure to you and others, it <em>is</em> art. What other value does it have? What else would you call it? So go out there and continue to shoot your art. Alan.</p>

<p>I think that what both sides of this divide aren't offering and aren't getting is <em>proof</em>.</p>

<p>Proof of what? To whom?</p>

<p>Newcomers in all valued or recognized or powerful kinds of activity have always had to "prove" themselves in some way or other. The elders or the establishment versus those who would displace or join them.</p>

<p>For example, way back when, there used to be guilds for just about every kind of craft. For example cobblers -- shoemakers. You were not a shoemaker until and unless you met the training and test requirements set and administered by the existing elite/establishment of shoemakers. But then guilds were gotten rid of and the market determined when and if you were a shoemaker. If you made good shoes, people liked your shoes, bought your shoes, and you made more shoes. You were a shoemaker.</p>

<p>In the one case, the elite establishment determined/controlled, was the source of the necessary proof; in the other case, the market, the public, the user was/is the source of the necessary proof.</p>

<p>I'm not claiming that either system is without merit or advantages; I'm just saying that in any case, there is a need for proof before a claim is going to be accepted.</p>

<p>Daddy doesn't believe in Junior until Junior shows what he's got. And/or Junior doesn't listen to Daddy until he's gotten his ass whupped by ignoring the sage advice of the elder.</p>

<p>However, how would one "prove" claims about the art-ness of photography? It's probably the nature of the subject (art) to be ever elusive. To paraphrase Valéry, the trouble with the future is that it isn't what it used to be -- and art comes out of the future.</p>

<p>Look at the pictures that people send to local news shows, or post to Flickr and similar. Pictures of things people see and think would make a good picture are very popular. More artistic pictures tend to leave most people wondering why the photographer even took the picture. Should their opinion or lack of matter to the photographer?</p>

 

<p>Good craft, an idea, expressed in context of art present and past, original, an appreciative audience, experienced gate keepers. And a few keepers among many qualified competitors. And there are many audiences outside that art world with their own costs of admission where the photographer doesn't have to be able to do all that would qualifiy work for the art audience. It is as it should be.</p>

<p>Julie, there are still a lot of areas where this system is still in place. Contractors, Doctors and nurses, barbers and hair stylists etc.--it all has to do with how powerful your union/trade organization is--well and maybe public safety in many cases. I believe there are countries, Germany maybe(?), where you can't be a professional photographer without having been an apprentice. This kind of system has absolutely no place in creative fields.</p>

<p>Proof is really an individual thing but maybe it is more about insight than proof.</p>

<p>I don't think this has anything to do with newcomers. I think Steve, for example, has been photographing for a long time and considers himself a certain type of photographer as compared to other photographers. Plenty of very experienced old-timers have a very different sensibility than do plenty of other experienced old timers. Experience and age does not make an artist. To me, the OP wasn't about anyone having to prove themselves. It was about how we see our work and the work of others.</p>

<p>Reducing expertise in terms of craft to the "elite establishment" is just plain silly and intellectually dishonest. Sounds Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich-like.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>John A stated:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>An opinion based on our knowledge is one thing and it is proper to acknowledge we don't get something. It is completely different to openly denigrate something we don't understand or haven't even tried to understand, which is what I see a lot in these sorts of situations.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do get this. I think maybe just one (of many) aspect that makes this topic more confusing is that we are talking about "photography," which does not take years of training to do, like painting, for instance. Because of that, anyone can press a shutter and, viola, becomes a "photographer." Many people see highly praised art photographs and recognize at once that "I can take those kind of photos," which is different from seeing a painting and realizing that painting is a highly trained skill that you can't just pick up a brush and do well. Perhaps this is what leads us to Pierre's observation:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>More artistic pictures tend to leave most people wondering why the photographer even took the picture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What I'm getting from you, Fred, is that "its all good," in a sense, with all the different levels of craft and literacy there are going to be a lot of different opinions about any photograph. But you still acknowledge that "viewing can be a honed activity. Education, attuneness, openness, experience . . . and a lot more . . . play a role in a viewer's level of viewing sensibility." Meaning that there is a learned sophistication that can be achieved in understanding photographs. I agree with this too, that we do become more sophisticated the more we study something. </p>

<p>Julie, I get your idea that there is a certain "gate keeping" involved with determining what is "art" which is very different from what sells in the marketplace. I see your point here. There is a much larger market for "sunset on the ocean" photos than an Eggleston photo of a dog drinking out of a puddle, for instance. Of course, the people who appreciate Eggleston will pay a lot more for that photo than the person buying a calendar with 12 ocean sunset photos. </p>

<p>My own thoughts on this so far (and I may be very primitive in my understanding, so feel free to educate me!) are something like this: Some photography is intended to be, or just is, visually appreciated for its own sake, due to the various elements of composition, color, texture, expression (in a person), documentary significance, etc. These photos are immediately "understood" by the visual brain. Little verbal explanation, or thinking about, is required to be stimulated. Art (photography) seems to often require that other areas of the brain be activated to understand the concept, or meaning, or context in the larger scheme of art (historical and so forth) in order for the intended (by the artist) brain stimulation. In other words, one has to learn how to appreciate the work, which requires, like I said, other parts of the brain. It takes more work! Furthermore, some people are naturally more predisposed to do this type of analysis, and other people are more comfortable sticking in the more visual mode. It may well be more like a difference in personality type, or aptitude, which is genetic. I agree that learning is important, but at the same time, some people have a more genuine desire to do that. I do believe that certainly, some photographic artists are working in the more visual mode, but I can see that these artists often become very esoteric in their own vision, usually requiring the average viewer to ponder what is going on because they don't really understand it. Again, here, it begins to require verbal areas of the brain to "think" about what is being viewed. Am I making sense?</p>

<p>Maybe what we can "learn from each other" is simply to accept that there are differences in our understandings and aptitudes, and to be OK with that. </p>

<p>I do appreciate all the opinions expressed here and I thank everyone for taking a "stab" at it. I feel it is a rather difficult topic and I am personally trying to better understand this idea of "art" as it applies to photography.</p>

<p>I have been a student of Minor White for maybe 30 years now, I have been able to appreciate his work visually as well as in a more studious way. I have read a lot of the material that influenced him. But recently, I read a piece written by Peter Bunnell in the book "Inside the Photograph". Bunnell is a photographic scholar and not only studies the photographer but also more deeply into it than most of, as photographers, generally do. In that piece, he analyzed one of the "sequences" of Minor's. I know those photos and love some and see others as pretty simplistic visually and maybe not too impressed by them. As Bunnell went through the work, with his own knowledge and research on what Minor's concerns and influences were at the time he made them, and came up with an analysis that took my own understanding of that work to another level. It brought a new awareness of what the work was about, even if it was just his conjecture, it made a lot of sense--and a sense that was beyond my awareness.</p>

<p>My point is that we, as photographers, can't ever really spend the time to know as much as someone who studies the work of a particular artist, or art in general, for a living. Then, today, we see so much work that is so personal to the artist creating it. We see work that does have connections to art history and even if we do study it as a photographer, it is hard to get a grasp on all the work that is being created as those who study it as part of their living. We are going to miss things. It is easy to see what is before us but difficult to really "see" it because even if you are a diligent student of the medium, you just can't spend the time learning all of what others are doing and what has come before. We do our best and yet we have to also pay attention to what we are doing. Even Peter Galassi, the head curator at MOMA, admitted incomplete knowledge, at the time, of Jeff Wall's work when writing the critical essay for Wall's retrospective at the Museum (as presented in the catalog). Wall is much more complex than the average photographer, to say the least, and a scholar himself in art history.</p>

<p>The rub, IMO, is that many more casual photographers don't understand the idea that they shouldn't be able to understand all that they see, that somehow just being able to see with our current knowledge is all that should be important. On some level, that is fine, but "I know what I like" isn't the end of it nor is it definitive beyond that person who ascribes to that point of view.</p>

<p>As I said earlier, today concept is playing a much heavier role in work being done in all mediums. Pure visual aesthetics has been done to death, as it were, and I think the "art world" is looking for more than that and more so than ever before. There is always a hunger for something new and different, as it should be. What happens is that once you start to study this more "conceptual" work, it does become more aesthetically pleasing and challenging. Creating a body of work of images that "anyone could do that" is different than making an image that is similar here or there. The difference is intent and thought behind the work, what it represents and what it is about. Some of the new work is innovative and some becomes something more because of what went into creating it. Anyone can copy something but not everyone can put together a cohesive body of work that becomes something more than just a random image. That is where things break down and the "denigration" I mentioned above seems to emanate from-the lack of perspective as to what the work was about.</p>

<p>Ansel Adams wasn't the greatest photographer but he was important not just because of his work, but because he introduced in a major way something that was different and new at the time he did it and it just happens to be fairly easy to embrace for the novice photographer. Replicating that work isn't really all that hard for a technically competent photographer but it doesn't make that photographer as important in the history of photography as Ansel is. In fact, it really doesn't mean too much, there are more than enough people with that skill level today to make it a rather cheap commodity. That isn't what art is about, but it often will sell well.</p>

<p>The important thing, IMO, isn't that we get everything or that we understand everything, but that we do push ourselves to move beyond where we are. That we don't close off growth by boxing out what we don't understand but acknowledge that we don't understand it and may never do so. That doesn't make it bad or ivory tower, it just means we are more interested in something else, which is natural and appropriate. If we are interested, then we pursue further understanding.</p>

<p>Steve, quoting your last post, you say, " Art (photography) seems to often require that other areas of the brain be activated to understand the concept, or meaning, or context in the larger scheme of art (historical and so forth) in order for the intended (by the artist) brain stimulation. "</p>

<p>Both you and John A a starting from a point beyond where the novice user will start; you assume a known photographer. One who has already been validated; one who has a history, etc. You're assuming -- conceding -- proof to someone else. Therefore, the person (whether novice and/or skeptic) who doesn't make this concession; who arrives at a viewing with the option to doubt -- is in a different place from where Steve's quoted segment puts a viewer. They must/will first deal with their doubt, then they'll get to what Steve and John A are talking about. Why don't Steven and John A have (or have more of) these initial, founding doubts? Is the lack of doubt more reasonable, more learned than having doubt?</p>

<p>As to how one should deal with such doubts, in a T.S. Eliot essay, 'The Modern Mind' he quotes this segment from a book by the critic I.A. Richards (this is Richards's text, first):</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"... When our response to a poem after our best efforts remains uncertain, when we are unsure whether the feelings it excites come from a deep source in our experience, whether our liking or disliking is genuine, is <em>ours</em>, or an accident of fashion, a response to surface details or the essentials, we may perhaps help ourselves by considering it in a frame of feelings whose sincerity is beyond our questioning. Sit by the fire (with eyes shut and fingers pressed firmly upon the eyeballs) and consider with as full "realisation" as possible -- "</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eliot then describes -- and thoroughly ridicules -- Richards's five points for achieving "realisation."</p>

<p>After which he (Eliot) writes:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I am willing to admit that such an approach to poetry may help some people: my point is that Mr. Richards speaks as though it were good for everybody. I am perfectly ready to concede the existence of people who feel, think and believe as Mr. Richards does in these matters, if he will concede that there are some people who do not." </p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>Julie, I am not sure how the novice viewer relates here. I think the process I have tried to suggest, and one we see occurring in many cases, is one of being more rational. At its most elemental, the novice looks at something and they respond to it or they don't. Often that can be an "I like it" or the converse or maybe an "I don't get it"--and certainly there are some other similar response. None of these reactions is any sort of problem and some will walk away and not think about it while others will be curious as to what makes the latter work interesting to others.</p>

<p>But that is the rational person and often when people start to get more caught up or invested in things visual, the latter reaction turns a bit more nasty--the rational is slightly or radically compromised. Actually, it is probably more common with those things in our lives that rely on our basic senses where we somehow take on an ownership that what I like is good, what I don't like is crap--music, food, visual art etc.. For some reason, there are a lot of people who wont admit that they might not understand something that is visual, "I see therefore I know", and instead attack it. We see this in many areas of society where "differences" exist in other core properties of the human condition. The rational person either lets it go, accept it for what it is or decides to get more information and continues that process of decision making as they gain more information--determining how much they need or want to know to be satisfied.</p>

<p>I think that a Photograph should have a strong visual impact...it should be talking to us on many many levels. If we have to write a story about it; have our hand grasped to be taken to a light of understanding...do we really need the Photograph in the first place? why not just create one out of words.</p>

<p>Perhaps, and only, perhaps to study the history of Art, and sit by the feet of masters will we acheive a greater appreciation and let us see further. To a good degree that is true.</p>

<p>But, and a big but, the Photograph needs to to working too. A Photograph of a wall is just a Photograph of a wall... boring.</p>

<p>I don't really want to use one of my photos, there are better, but there are too few photos on this forum illustrating the posters thoughts.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>there are too few photos on this forum illustrating the posters thoughts.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are other forums, for example the Street and Documentary forum, where you can find a myriad of photos, if you prefer that type of forum. This is a Philosophy of Photography forum. It's set up to be a little different. Too many posted photos are frowned upon by the moderators. You would know that if you frequented this forum. I respectfully suggest that in Philosophy, words are important and this is a Philosophy forum. If words aren't important to you, well, there's an obvious solution.</p>

<p>I suspect Allen Herbert understood Joyce and Shakespeare with no footnotes and no explanations, gets what Impressionism and Expressionism are about with no study of art history. He's the exception that proves the rule for everyone else in the world who's not Allen Herbert. </p>

<p>Some of us want to explore deeper than the surface visual. Leave us be.</p>

<p>Allen, I think your point of view is a bit limited when you suggest "A Photograph of a wall is just a Photograph of a wall... boring." You might want to look at my Main Street series. The odd thing about that work, which I was skeptical myself as to how it might be received although I thought it was important to do, is that I have had people from all over the country--and out of it-- contact me to talk about those shots, to tell me great stories of how they represent so many complex ideas for them. I have learned more about my own work listening to them. Everyone has different ideas of what is aesthetically pleasing and everyone has a different background and experience cache they bring to looking at images and that is what determines the impact of a visual, not a tight set of criteria overlaid on all work.</p>

<p>Understanding visual media is far more complex than just looking. Sorry, I see you are getting dumped on a bit here and that isn't my intent, it is just that what you suggest is way too limited a view but certainly you are entitled to your own thoughts.</p>

<p>I am a novice at both photography and art. In fact I am very analytical as opposed to arty. I think of art in two ways; first more like artisan and second more like creative. When I look at a piece of fine furniture I can appreciate the fine artisan look and technique applied. I see the overall structure for its shape and composition of all the individual elements. I see how well the joints are made or hidden. When I look at a pic, I see what elements the photographer chose to include and exclude and how each element is placed and each relates to the others. There is a craft to composing a photograph whether made in a studio or seen in nature and captured.</p>

<p>There is also craft in using light, focus, DOF etc to create a feel or lead a viewer to the intended subject. The craft of photography has been captured in “rules” of what works – where you place a horizon, how to use lines etc. A photographer can analytically apply all these rules to help make some very interesting and pleasing photos. But it takes more than that for viewers to want to look at a pic. There is a human response to a photo that has been studied but I doubt ever fully understood. And in that sense creating such a photo is still an art. So to create a photo others want to view takes craft as well as applying something we can not yet fully analyze which we call art.</p>

<p>When someone produces a photo that is unique – never seen before, there is some level of creative artistry being applied. That is another level of art. Seeing something in your mind that you have never seen before is a form of art. Or seeing an aspect in nature you have not seen others capture is likewise artful.</p>

<p>There is still another level of art that is way out of my league. Creating that something that evokes a desired, strong, human response. To make another angry, or to make another rethink a position, or to make another see an idea for the first time is also art. Exploring the human condition via photography is a form of art which IMO fits this category. We all know a photo can just document some aspect of life. We also know there are photos that impact us with such strength that we change our thinking. I think we think of the latter as art and former as just another well crafted photo.</p>

<p>As I said, I am a beginner in photography and a neophyte when it comes to understanding art. I just thought you may be interested in the perspective of someone at this level. Take it for what it is worth. I will close just by saying I really enjoy these discussions and enjoy seeing both the photographic craft and art on PN.</p>

<p>[David, thank you for your self-description; I enjoyed it and it adds dimension to this thread.]</p>

<p>John A -- I'm cherry-picking your post for just the part I'm interested in, which is this: " ... there are a lot of people who wont admit that they might not understand something that is visual, "I see therefore I know", and instead attack it."</p>

<p>What I'm trying to get at is that, for me, art is like a drop of ink fallen into the water of my mind. It spreads, it stains, it coagulates, it's ... wonderful, horrible, insidious ... and the classic demonstration of chaos. Unpredictable but not indeterminate. What it does, how it works, how I experience it, is, for me, not "in common." It's that drop of ink into my liquid mind. Mine, not yours.</p>

<p>The philosophising, the elaboration, the ability to learn about such inkiness refers (in my opinion) to everything that goes to that ink droplet before it's loosed. How it's prepared, how it's aimed, how it's flavored, colored, made, done, etc. etc. But the actual encounter is both *only* mine and is chaotic. It is not a billiard ball; it's not an arrow to a target; it's a small, silent explosion that is made out of what my mind and that ink droplet do to each other.</p>

<p>Getting people to let their mind be exploded -- or admit, notice, realize, *feel* that this *is* what is happening, not indigestion or chiggers -- is a separate issue from theory and history. In the absence of the first, the second is just hand waving. The first is the "doubt" that I keep talking about. And I think it's quite reasonable for people to question whether mental ink stains are happy occasions or infections in need of sterilizing. Germs will grow.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What it does, how it works, how I experience it, is, for me, not "in common." It's that drop of ink into my liquid mind. Mine, not yours. The philosophising, the elaboration, the ability to learn about such inkiness refers (in my opinion) to everything that goes to that ink droplet before it's loosed. How it's prepared, how it's aimed, how it's flavored, colored, made, done, etc. etc. But the actual encounter is both *only* mine and is chaotic.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Julie, I think this is the same thing I was saying except for one part that I think is key that isn't addressed here but is critical, that as a viewer, to get to your unique state of mind--yours not mine--you also have gone through a lifetime of "philosphising", etc and when the ink droplet hits, it isn't total chaos--although it can seem so--but channels into all of those things you prepared for it, your unique water as it were. Your experience of art is a mixture of what was put into the ink by the artist and what your receptor can interpret from what it receives based on how it was prepared by you over the years as well as, certainly, how your mind accepts and processes things it doesn't understand or can't identify-the chaos you describe. That, and the individual's disposition, yields what reaction comes out the other end of the process.</p>

<p>John, I agree with you completely, but do you see the Catch-22?</p>

<p>As I see it, experience is not like an Etch-A-Sketch. We don't consistently get to completely erase and draw anew with each artistic experience. My experiences are more like a river than a series of explosions, a continuum of overlapping and interwoven stuff, not one spontaneous generation after another. The occasional welcome explosion still has roots.</p>

<p>Thanks again everybody for contributing to this discussion. I am doing a lot of thinking as a result. <br>

Julie, even your metaphors are much more "conceptual" than my simple ones, which makes my point that we definitely have different brains! <br>

I now have a slight refinement on my original idea about different areas of the brain required in how art photographs are understood. The conceptual photograph (John A's Main Street series is a great example) is a more of a visual "cue" or even "clue" for the intellectual mind to work on than a direct visual statement such as found in a purely graphic type photo. Some people love this and eagerly snatch up the clue and begin their search for the gold. Other folks simply say, "oh crap, another scavenger hunt, I hate scavenger hunts" and pack up and leave.</p>

<p>Another metaphor for this is seeing the individual work of conceptual art as one piece of a much larger puzzle. Any individual piece might seem pretty dull or mysterious, but the more pieces you can put together you can begin to see the larger picture forming, the more you understand and appreciate the larger work of the artist, and you can better appreciate each individual piece as well. </p>

<p>Again, I do believe there are different types of brains and this is why we see a division in reactions to conceptual art. Some of us are just not “wired” as strongly for the enjoyment of the “scavenger hunt,” or trying to understand the larger “puzzle.” As John A states, it seems the art world is much more focused on the conceptual, so people whose brains are wired to seek out the larger picture are more predisposed to enjoy conceptual art. For this reason, I believe we can’t really be judgmental and say one view is better than the other. I think it is important to understand and appreciate all points of view. As of today, when I see a photograph that seems to be more conceptual, I’m not going to denigrate it for lacking visual content or stimulation or whatever, and I now have a much better understanding of why other people do get excited about it. So, thanks again, everybody!</p>