Jump to content

Photography vs Art


Recommended Posts

<p>This thread is designed to provide a more appropriate place than the POW thread to discuss issues relating to the nature of photography and its relationship to art. As I see it, there is a basic disagreement between John A and Stephen P and myself about the nature of photography and the role of digital manipulation in what seems to be (in my view) a fundamental change in what photographers are doing and whether this new way of doing things should be rightly called photography. Obviously, the three of us are not the only people that engage in this debate, but it has become evident that we are the ones that talk most about it on the POW thread. Hopefully, this thread will allow us and any other interested parties to bash out the issues without disturbing others that want to get on with talking about the POW itself.</p>

<p>Now, for lack of a better way to kick this off, allow me to paraphrase some of the things John has said that, in varying degrees, I find problematic (this is not personal John, it's just that you say it most clearly and effectively that you provide a good place to start). Here goes:</p>

<p>1) One is limited in some important way if: a) one does not consider all practices involving a camera to be photography and b) one has public/external criteria for judging/determining an image to be a photograph and/or a good photograph. This has been said in a number of ways but some examples are: a) an image must be evaluated on its own terms, b) judgement of an image must be based upon whether or not it works in the absolute. </p>

<p>2) There is good photography and there is bad photography. </p>

<p>3) Descriptive images are JUST descriptive. When an image does not involve some obvious/clear form of artistic interpretation on the part of the photographer it has, in some sense, less value/depth/interest/?. </p>

<p>Let me start then by giving an admittedly superficial critique of the 3 points above:</p>

<p>1) By analogy one might say that a scientist is limited if he/she rejects astrology as a scientific practice. Being limited has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is simply, what does the word science mean and is astrology encompassed by the word. This problem is related to the issue of external criteria in the judgement of an image. If one has no external criteria, then determining whether an image is a good one is no deeper than "I like it".<br>

2) The problem I have with this point is that it is inconsistent with point 1. To determine whether an image is good or bad one must have external criteria of assessment. This is simply because "I like it" (an internal assessment) is not the same thing as "it is good". There can only be good and bad photography in relation to a set of external criteria. <br>

3) I'm willing to accept point 3 with a proviso. As long as we don't cross-over into artistic snobbery, point 3 is reasonable. In some sense though, I do object to the high-horse the artist wants to ride upon. If there are no external criteria of assessment, great art can only be something lots of people like, something lots of people can be convinced to like or something some people can be convinced to pay a lot of money for. More people like Britney Spears than Mozart. Does this make Britney a better artist than Mozart? Of-course not. How do we know? Because there are external criteria of assessment for music. </p>

<p>In short, I think John represents a position in which it is desired to have things both ways. No limits AND good and bad photography. OK, let the debate begin. Cheers, JJ</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<blockquote>

<p>If there are no external criteria of assessment, great art can only be something lots of people like, something lots of people can be convinced to like or something some people can be convinced to pay a lot of money for.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, there's your problem, right there. That's a seriously flawed premise. And to the extent that you base any more of your thinking on the subject upon that foundation, of course it's going to make some conversations go completely sideways. Far more people like bad Angsty Vampire movies than like Shakespeare. But that doesn't mean that Shakespeare's greatness is such because some external measuring stick says it is. Shakespeare is great because there's a lot of meat on those bones, and most people who invest the time to dig in will come to their own <em>internally calibrated</em> conclusions as to his greatness.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If one has no external criteria, then determining whether an image is a good one is no deeper than "I like it".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I completely disagree. We are all capable of cultivating, refining, and putting to work our own standards. These aren't usually formed in a vacuum, since few of us live as solitary hermits - but if we don't actually have an <em>internal</em> reference for <em>why</em> something has value, then we are rudderless, or are intellectual slaves to someone else. Relying on externalities to measure the worth of something leaves one an empty person indeed. Of course we say, "I like it." But we can also ask ourselves, "Why do I like it?" And the answer needn't be "Because JJ said it's good." Certainly many people have no practice in articulating their internal <em>why,</em> but half a lifetime or so is usually enough for many people to at least warm up to the idea. In the meantime, they like what they like. <br /><br />This is not the same as wrestling with whether or not astrology is a subset of science. Those are words, used externally, in a way that the culture using them agrees upon and, over time, evolves. Those two words are labels. If we stopped using the <em>word</em> "science" but kept <em>doing</em> science, personally, that wouldn't make cheesy mysticism any more a part of that way of working. A rose by any other name, yes?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Just as deciding who is or who is not physically attractive to you, all artistic standards are internal to the individual. There may be various sets of rules that a group of people at different times may agree upon as standards for determining what they consider to be "Art",but those values do vary from group to group and from one era to another. There is no "Unified Theory of Art". The only rule that I can think of as invariable from group to group and era to era is the cynical version of the Golden Rule: "those with the gold make the rules."</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When an image does not involve some obvious/clear form of artistic interpretation on the part of the photographer it has, in some sense, less value/depth/interest/?.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On the most basic level of making a photgraph, the act of deciding where to point a camera's lens, deciding what to leave in and what to leave out, and when to make the exposure is an obvious/clear form of artistic interpretation of subject matter. It may not be a <em>good </em>(to your standards or mine) artistic interpretation of the subject but that takes us back to the reality that just as deciding who is or who is not physically attractive to you, all artistic standards are internal to the individual making that judgement.</p>

<blockquote></blockquote>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Matt, we have been through this before. You don't know what I mean by internal. Perhaps it would be better for me to say private rather than internal. A private/internal criterion isn't really a criterion actually. It's a basis for judgement that can not be expressed. It is a simple avowal such as, "I like it". As soon as one says WHY they like it, for instance, the image tells a story, makes me feel something, etc, the criteria are no longer private. One is expressing their criteria PUBLICLY and so they are not INTERNAL or private any more. It is my understanding that John wants all criteria removed because they are limiting. That's what I find problematic. JJ</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I routinely, JJ, have internal dialogs about why I like or dislike something. These are reflective, self-contained examinations about the basis for and evolution of the values I use to - among other things - assign a like/dislike opinion. I still hold that opinion, and can examine its roots, without ever saying a <em>peep</em> to anyone else, or taking anyone else's input into consideration.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>OK good Matt. Then the process is:</p>

<p>1) I like it<br>

2) Post hoc rationalization about why...this may or may not have anything to do with why you ACTUALLY do, in fact, like it. I am a psychologist by training and trust me, we are often very wrong when we attribute a cause/reason to our feelings about something. For instance a person may say, "I like Coca-Cola because it is sweeter than Pepsi". We then do a blind taste test and the same person picks Pepsi and says they like it because it was sweeter than the other drinks. This happens a lot. Attribution theory is the experimental area of research.<br>

Now, if we accept that our attribution of reasons for liking something may or may not have factual grounds, then the basis for liking something, in this case, still comes down to the simplistic avowal "I like it". That bothers me simply because it allows anyone to say any old thing is good no matter what it is. This makes the statement, "I like it" or "it's good", very empty IMO.</p>

<p>BUT, as soon as we articulate our criteria/reasons for liking something and say something like....I will say images are good when they are in focus, aesthetically simple, tell a story, etc., then we make the criteria external/public. Now we have more than simply "I like it' and some post hoc rationalizations as to why.</p>

<p>If we put the criteria FIRST and then make a judgement based upon the criteria, then we are doing something more than saying "I like it". But if we say "I like it" first and then conjure up reasons why, we are doing something I think is problematic or at least vacuous.</p>

<p>But really, I'm not against the idea that liking something is important. Of-course it is important. But liking something and claiming it is great photography are two different things altogether. The question is, what does the claim "X is a great photograph" mean? Does it mean, for example, that I have spoken internally to myself for half an hour and decided I like it because it's yellow. I want to say no. I want to say that it must mean more than this. Otherwise, a great photograph is a decidedly trivial thing.</p>

<p>In any case, I don't really want to take this particular issue on. What I'm really opposed to are points 1 and 2 made by John and many other art types I have met.</p>

<p>Ellis, I think the analogy of beauty assessment you use is not exactly right. Certainly, the particular images we find beautiful will vary from one individual to the next, but the question is....is aesthetic beauty a criterion for a good photograph? If one says ahead of time, I will claim that an image is good if it is aesthetically pleasing to me, then one has established an external criterion. That is, IMO, a sound basis of assessment because it makes public the grounds for judging an image to be good or bad.</p>

<p>John and Stephen...where are you? Cheers, JJ</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>To oversimplify all this, there are a many different kinds of art, and they can generally be defined.<br>

1) Art that is generally not thought to be good, meaningful, or well produced, and it's also not artistically progressive or relevant. It's just not received well by any audience.<br>

2) Art that does or would appeal to masses of average folks to the extent that it is marketed well. It may involve a reasonably high grade of craftsmanship (or it may not) but it's conventionally attractive. It's actual thought provoking or artistically progressive merit may be virtually non-existent. Think Thomas Kinkade or, in photographic terms, Peter Lik or Michael Fatali.<br>

3) Art that is interesting and well made, but never develops an audience because the artist doesn't network with tastemakers or market the work well.<br>

4) Art that in both interesting and well made, and develops a successful market through good marketing and devoted schmoozing with commercial gallery curators, arts patrons, and tastemakers.<br>

5) Art that in both interesting and well made (or sometimes apparently not well made but with a strongly advocated concept) and develops a successful market, but it impresses a culturally significant but relatively small group of tastemakers because the work is considered artistically progressive. In other words, people who are seriously interested in art history and the fine art world start to follow and talk about this artist.<br>

6) The highest level is like #5 in terms of artistic qualities, but the work moved to the next level by also being embraced by noted arts academics and curators at influential institutions because it is thought to be artistically progressive in some important way that is judged to distinguish it in the context of the history of art.<br>

The "big-A" Art world makes a habit of being deliberately uninterested in work that are of a type they think has been done before. Ansel Adams is shown at MoMA, but if a present-day photographer produced an absolutely excellent but conceptually and aesthetically similar body of work, the academics and leading curators wouldn't touch it.<br>

You can probably think of other categories as well, but it's the last two categories that really interest me, since that is where the art really moves forward at the high end. The key element is that to the "big-A" Art world, the first priority is that the work be a contribution to the forward progress of art, in simple terms, something new (and typically somehow relevant to the present zeitgeist). From the point of view of an art historian, there is a defined progression and development in art over time. If an artist in 2010 produces work is considered to fall into a category that was recognized and established in the 1950s, it won't be taken seriously at the highest levels, thought it might sell better than those that do.<br>

Just some ramblings off the top of my head.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I just came across this thread and since I seem to be part of the basis for it, I do think I need to clarify some things. First, lifting statements and paraphrasing what I have said can be misleading because the context or, in the context, the way they were presented were purposely left open for further discussion. So, reading the above statements leaves things maybe a bit different than I intended or what I actually said--although I am not saying they are totally off the wall here.<br /><br />First of all, point number 1 has combined a lot of different ideas. Photography is more encompassing than even whether a camera has been used or not--it is purely the writing with light and so includes photograms for instance. (in some ways, I actually think we could make an argument that ink jet prints are not actually photographs but merely facsimiles thereof)<br /><br />My contention is more that we don't need to come up with distinctions between different ways one approaches photography--things like "photoshopography" or any other such limiting or exclusionary moniker. I think those that over process in our eyes and those that clone out things or change an image in some way are still doing photography. It might deserve its own category within the genre at some point, but I feel it can not be removed from photography's umbrella--are Jerry Uelsmann or John Clarence Laughlin not photographers or their work not photography? <br /><br />And certainly, photography is an art and photographs can be both art and a photograph, these are not mutually exclusive terms. Just like any art form, not everything done rises to the level of art, but may stay in the hobby or craftsman category.<br /><br />Images that have their origin in the processes of photography are simply photographs until possibly they lose all hint as to their photographic roots. (One might check out Kate Breaky's work and see that maybe that isn't even a true statement as she completely covers here work in paint--which in the final analysis is her work)<br /><br />The first b) in point 1 has me a bit baffled to be honest and I would be interested where those words came from if not just a mis-paraphrase or misinterpretation of what I said. The statement that follows "an image must be evaluated on its own terms" is really more contextual to the fact that to truly evaluate any piece of art, any medium, you have to try to understand it beyond your own biases and possibly knowledge--otherwise all you have is opinion and opinion is just a dead end in the absolute. The statement has to do with getting out of yourself and trying to learn and grow and also to objectively look at the form of the image and how it does affect the content--to move onto another playing field or at least attempt to do so. <br /><br />The idea of "judgement of an image must be based upon whether or not it works in the absolute" is really just part of the former statement in a way. The idea here is to suspend our gut reaction and to look at the image in terms of its structure--the principles of design and elements of art--and how these affect the piece, to combine this with how those things serve to support the concept or reading of the image. Because we don't like something or the way something is done or the subject or.........is not relevant to whether an image is successful or not--and if it is deemed successful by such means, it doesn't mean we have to like it. That is the beauty of understanding the difference between a successful image and our own sensibilities--resulting generally in an avenue to grow.<br /><br />Point 2 was really lifted out of a litany where I was trying to suggest that photography exists in many forms. But in the absolute, there is good and bad photography. It doesn't have to be a matter of opinion and I would dare say that on some level, most people could agree with that. There are newbies out there producing work with no structure, focus, technique and no underlying concept or idea to support the work--they are just failures and many post them anyway--at that level, most could agree that it is bad photography--nuff said?<br /><br />With Point 3, I think the statement is far too general and not what I think I said at all. I would particularly take issue with my having used the word "value", or even "interest", as it relates to one's own predilection towards the imagery. I think it can have high value and interest to those who enjoy it--a perfect example is much of the "train" photography enjoyed by "foamers". The movie "The Station Agent", which is a wonderful movie, depicts an example of what I mean at its beginning. But the issue is the difficulty in defining Descriptive out of context of a specific image. Documentary is descriptive and yet can be so much more and the examples can go on.<br /><br />So, my point is just that comments made are generally within a context when made and that there is danger in lifting words or concepts out of context and particularly rephrasing them.</p>

<p>I actually thought that this thread was going to be more about what is photography, not comments I might have made in some other context. I thought the idea was maybe 1) Is there a difference between Art and Photography and maybe more to the point 2) When does photography cease to be photography and become something else?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>So, the actual question is: "how do we judge photos / photography"? Are there yardsticks to which we all measure creative expressions?<br>

In short: no, no such external factors.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If one has no external criteria, then determining whether an image is a good one is no deeper than "I like it".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is underestimating people, and their ability to internalise experience, knowledge and insights into their judgements. No matter how you define personal/private, a judgement made by a single person without an external benchmark for measurement can have considerable more depth that just liking it.<br>

So. Ellis' comparison to judging people's beauty is, in my view, spot on. Matt's remarks make sense. Indeed maybe the first judgement might seem "by instinct" with a mental post-process to structure that reaction, but that does not make that first judgement an empty-headed remark. The instinct to judge and assess is constantly being sharpened up as we live and learn. It's not at all that random.</p>

<p>On the other points raised, only want to say I would strongly disagree on saying there is good and bad photography, without much further elaboration. It's, as above, a personal judgement, and in both topic start and John A's reply above, it's made sound (too) absolute. Good and bad are silly descriptions anyway, it's the argumenation behind the good or bad that matters.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There are newbies out there producing work with no structure, focus, technique and no underlying concept or idea to support the work--they are just failures and many post them anyway</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Only quote this because I find this just a horrible simplified generalisation that shows more arrogance than much else. Some people post their photos hoping for sincere feedback. Should they be forbidden because it does not adhere to the standard of any of us? Or should we be happy people are looking to learn? Should we all encourage people to improve, or shall we all stay guessing till we can hop over the magical bar that allows us to publicly show what we were trying?</p>

<p>Kind of funny, a judgemental thread on being judgemental. I'd say, try a bit more live and let live instead.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>There is good photography and there is bad photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would rather categorize a piece of art as being interesting or boring, as interesting versus boring has so many more different levels.</p>

<p><br />I can find someone's work highly successful and not personally like it. For example, I have no desire to have a piece of work by Joel Witkin hanging on my wall, but I recognize that his work is art, and I admire Joel and his work for a number of different reasons. But, to start with, Joel's work is never boring.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If one has no external criteria...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can you better define "external criteria"? I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Wouter, I think I did elaborate. I essentially suggested that if an image was technically poor and had no redeeming idea or concept to it, that we could determine its quality in the absolute--as being bad. Nothing there precludes anyone from encouraging the creator of the image to get better or to continue to learn. We were all in that boat at one time (the newbie reference which might be offensive or the generalization here), making what we clearly see as bad photographs and yet we gleefully bored our friends with them--I know I did it.</p>

<p>It might be PC not to say something is bad, but that doesn't mean that the condition does not exist nor that it can be objectively determine to exist. Of course, as more factors come into play, things like intent and concept and idea, then it can become more difficult to make a completely objective statement as to the quality of the image. But to suggest that in proper context one can not determine "bad" is to be a bit naive.</p>

<p>But again, the whole statement was taken out of different context and seems a diversion from the issue. A bad photograph is still a photograph and I think the idea was when does something move out of the genre. But these discussions always sink to the LCD, it seems....</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>If we put the criteria FIRST and then make a judgement based upon the criteria, then we are doing something more than saying "I like it". But if we say "I like it" first and then conjure up reasons why, we are doing something I think is problematic or at least vacuous.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The idea that liking something equates to vacuous is fairly shallow thinking in and of itself. Saying "I like that" takes as much evaluation as saying "I don't like that." If you are going to make the statement out loud you made the opinion in you mind to begin with and either statement generally takes an evaluative process in order to render the opinion.</p>

<p>However, I don't have to like something in order to appreciate it on a number of different levels. I also don't have to externalize or make public my appreciation of something in order to make my decision about a piece of art valid. Isn't all of this just a personal value judgement on your part? </p>

<p>In order to externalize your thoughts on something you have to form the ideas in your mind to begin with, and at that point why do the thoughts need to be verbalized to someone else to make them valid? You either trust your own personal aesthetics when it comes to evaluating art work - or you don't. </p>

<p>You have to work through a process of evaluation every time you make a photograph. You make internal judgements, and evaluations, and thoughts about what you're attempting to do long before actuating the shutter. Likewise, post exposure processing requires more thought, more personal judgements and evaluations - why is this internal dialog less valid than something externalized? </p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"It is my understanding that John wants all criteria removed because they are limiting."<br /><br />As we seem to be getting into more the interpretation of photos, let me first say that the quote above is a misinterpretation of what or how I feel about the evaluation of an image. I think there are a lot of criteria and the least important is my gut reaction to a work of art. That is the most limiting and what I want to do is to back off and be more objective. I want to approach each image on its own merits and within those things that apply to it. Suspending personal bias is not removing criteria, in fact, it is paying attention to criteria more intently.<br /><br />This discussion about internal and external is a bit complicated as I doubt most of us know enough to really be experts, so what we need to do is step back and look a bit more at what this all means. The problem is that on most photo sharing sites there aren't many who are working beyond a fairly rudimentary basis--yes, call me arrogant for saying this. But the point is that we are rarely challenged beyond more simplistic criteria for evaluating images and maybe get a false sense of knowing. Still, I think that the suspension of personal biases will allow more insight into work than just relying on what we feel or know on a superficial basis--or writing off an image because it doesn't meet "our" standards or definitions of photography.<br /><br />There are a lot of levels to reviewing art/photography and many criteria go into the analysis. All are important but none are absolute as each is there to serve the image, not the image serve them.<br /><br />I. Technical criteria: There are certain technical criteria that we all learn with regards to making a photograph. Not unlike how paint is applied by a painter, there are techniques and technical criteria we look at and evaluate how the image fares compared to certain standards. If we are open, then we evaluate this in terms of the image and the intent and effect they have and not just in the absolute. Again, on sites like this they may generally play a bit more of an important role because it is a learning site. The trick is to know when the image you are looking at, and its creator, have moved past this being a rigid standard and one that can be violated in the service of the image.<br /><br />2. The principles of Design and Elements of art: These are issues like line, texture emphasis, rhythm, color, space, movement, shape, proportion, unity etc etc. Some know the "rule of thirds" or something of the nature of the Golden mean, but all of these are there to serve the image. Using these or abusing these create an end result that either works for the image or doesn't. None are superior to any other and violations of "rules" are important in creating original work, just as using these things is. Sometimes something is sacrificed for the overall good.<br /><br />3. Contextual Inferences: In this case, what we know might need to be thrown out the window. Maybe this person whose work we are looking at is beyond our own world or culture. The work we are looking at might be exploring conceptual ideas, working in complex philosophical contexts or concepts in art history. This is one of the most difficult areas to get a handle on, but the one where we can learn to grow the most. Even taking the time to look at a persons body of work in their photo stream can help us decide what we are dealing with. And, on a site like this, where there are many cultures involved, it can be an important point in even simple images and what they are "really" about and then, probably not a whole lot of work that is extremely esoteric in nature.<br /><br />In his essay that opened the exhibition catalog for Jeff Wall's retrospective at MOMA, Peter Galassi opens with a disclaimer of significant note. That any "serious student of Wall faces a considerable stack of homework" and that although he enjoyed struggling to deal with the challenge............his essay "is frankly provisional". Wall is not only an intellectual as most artists are but also a true intellectual who incorporates vast knowledge about art history and philosophical thinking into his work. This is the reason that true understanding of art is not easy for the ordinary person who goes about a more "normal" life, concerned with their family, daily life and immediate job related concerns. As photographers, we are sometimes pretty caught up in what we do and haven't or don't spend time to get a broader view than that which coincides with our own view of things. We end up knowing maybe something here or there, but it is difficult to understand everything that is bally-hooed in the rafters of the art world, and justifiably so.<br /><br />But what this means to us on a site like this is just that we need to let go of the idea that we "know what is" because we see and make photographs. Instead, we investigate and maybe at some point instead of saying something is bad or good, we admit that we just don't get it--which is neither a bad thing nor a defeat, we just have other fish to fry, as it were.<br /><br />At the same time, that doesn't mean that just because we don't like something or do, that it isn't good or bad, it just means that over time we need to be sure we aren't trying to fit everything into our own little box instead of "meeting things where they are"--knowing the difference is where the challenge lies.<br /><br /></p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks John, I think we agree more than I thought at first. First let me deal with this internal/external criterion thing.</p>

<p>Saying "I like that" is vacuous in and of itself. As soon as one articulates reasons why, one is beginning the process of developing criteria that may become external. I admit now, I have used unclear terminology to express what I mean by internal and external. So let me just say this....any feature of an image or the process of making an image that have been be clearly articulated, codified (written down somewhere) in a public forum (dictionary, text, art book) and are NOT discovered is an external criterion. The discovery thing is important. This just means that we can not establish a criterion for a good image by doing a survey of artists, for instance. The fact that 90% of people are moved by Lady GaGa can not be used as a criterion for good music.</p>

<p>Post hoc justifications and rationalizations are not external criteria because they have not been codified. They are just stuff one comes up with when one indulges oneself in rationalizing why one likes something. If you can't say what you think is good now...before looking at an image, then you don't have external criteria. If you don't have external criteria, then you should not be called a serious art critic or photography judge.</p>

<p>So, for example, John has just listed as a series of external criteria for determining whether or not an image is a good one. He is saying....images are good if they meet some combination of the following X criteria. This makes the criteria external to him in the sense that they are now public. This is important because it allows us to hold John and the community of photography judges accountable. To be doing sound image assessment judges must first know the criteria (they must have some provable expertise) and then they must be bound by them - they can't just indulge themselves and call any old thing good if they happen to like it. This also enables artists to engage in a coherent attempt to produce good images. They now know what it is they are supposed to be doing. Of-course, these criteria are not limiting, they simply define what good is. An artist can do things that are new, creative, insightful, etc., and still be doing good photography. The criteria John has given do not disallow such new and creative forms of expression.</p>

<p>Exactly the same thing is true of judging whether or not something is photography. For the word to have any meaning at all, it's meaning must be given by external criteria. John gave one...it was:</p>

<p>"Photography is more encompassing than even whether a camera has been used or not--it is purely the writing with light and so includes photograms for instance." </p>

<p>John has given a definition here. This definition serves as a public rule for the use of the word photography. If we were to have a debate about whether John is right about what photography is, all we would have to do is compare this definition to what it says in the Oxford Dictionary. If the two correspond, John is right. If not, he is wrong.</p>

<p>And, sadly, he is wrong. And I know this without even looking in the dictionary. I know this must be a wrong definition because it contains a metaphor. And the Oxford Dictionary would never define with metaphor. The phrase "writing with light" is a metaphor. It is not what photography actually is but rather a figure of speech used for illustrative purposes.</p>

<p>So what is photography then? It is the taking and processing of photographs. The question is, what does processing mean? Does this word mean, the digital alteration and addition/removal of subject matter within an image?</p>

<p>Now here is where we have a problem with dictionary definitions from time to time. Whenever a practice changes dramatically and quickly, or whenever new discoveries are made that make old definitions ambiguous, the dictionary often lags behind (this is a common occurrence in science because science is in the business of making new discoveries). I contend that we have just this state of affairs in photography. I suggest that processing was originally intended to denote the kind of processing done in a darkroom. Now that we have digital tools of image manipulation, I think this definition needs attention.</p>

<p>Frankly, I think the art and technique of photography is devalued by allowing in all sorts of drastic digital manipulations of images. I think it is disrespectful of photography to call digital painting in photoshop photography, for instance. The solution to this problem is simple. Leave the defintion of photography as it is with processing having its original meaning (whatever we did with light and color in the darkroom) and create a new concept for all those drastic things people are doing in Photoshop. This way, the art and technique of photography is retained and a whole new art form is born.</p>

<p>Thanks John for your careful responses. I apologize if I have misrepresented your position. I'm trying to understand. Best, JJ</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>John A, sorry, yes, you did eloborate, but I think what you read as 'political correctness' from my side is actually something I wholeheartedly mean. We're talking personal opinions. Some photos that according to you are complete failures, for technical, aesthetic, subject-choice reasons may have enormous meaning and impact to others. It's beyond political correct to label your own opinion as just one among many. That was more what I tried to raise.<br>

And your second posting basically gives me plenty reason to assume we agree :-)</p>

<p>Jeremy,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The fact that 90% of people are moved by Lady GaGa can not be used as a criterion for good music.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Really? Let me rephrase Lady Gaga for you: she is an excellent performer and entertainer. (Note: I dislike her music, and her shows). So, maybe you're judging by the wrong criteria?</p>

<p>You seek definitions. Definitions are stiffling, and add nothing and change nothing. They are labels. Just as much as the external versus internal criterion is just labelling. It does not change what people say, think, do or create.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This way, the art and technique of photography is retained and a whole new art form is born.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And this is the result of labelling. The art and technique were never lost in the first place, nor about to get lost, and your new art form already exists for several decades.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Just for kicks, the Oxford dictionary definition of photography:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the art or practice of taking and processing photographs.<br>

Modern photography is based on the property of silver compounds decomposing to metallic silver when exposed to light. The light-sensitive salts are held in an emulsion (in color film, layers of emulsion) usually mounted on transparent roll film</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or shall we use Webster instead?</p>

<blockquote>

Pho`tog´ra`phy

1. The science which relates to the action of light on sensitive bodies in the production of pictures, the fixation of images, and the like.

2. The art or process of producing pictures by this action of light.

</blockquote>

Or wikipedia?

<blockquote>

Photography is the process, activity and art of creating still or moving pictures by recording radiation on a sensitive medium, such as a photographic film, or an electronic sensor.

</blockquote>

So, Jeremy, which definition do you want to use? And in choosing one, please state why you choose that particular one over another.

<table>

<tbody>

<tr>

<td valign="top"></td>

<td valign="top"></td>

<td></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td valign="top"></td>

<td valign="top"></td>

<td></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Ooops, I missed that the Oxford definition needs more clarification:<br /> photograph:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>a picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused onto film or other light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment, or stored digitally</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Taking the two together, we now know that "modern photography" is limited to film whereas a photograph can be stored digitally but apparently can not be produced by photography. How helpful!</p>

<p>And please show me the rule book I have to follow to produce both good photographs and good art. I am certain I am not the only one to appreciate such a treatise. But then, isn't art</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power...?</p>

</blockquote>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>On the definition of photography, one must consider the origin of the word, which is literally in Greek "light drawing". The biggest issue I have with the Oxford dictionary is in its inclusion that a camera needs to be involved as that in and of itself indicates a pretty parochial, and suspect, view of the subject IMO.</p>

<p>But if we are going to go and look at what the "experts" define as photography, then let's not stop at a dictionary, lets look at what the experts in the field consider photography.</p>

<p>Considered by most critics one of the most important photographers working today, Andreas Gursky's image <a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://artblart.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/gursky-rhein-1996.jpg%3Fw%3D400%26h%3D283&imgrefurl=http://artblart.wordpress.com/category/andreas-gursky/&usg=__LZNvJrnk0lIPhqeSlZ-glHdQV00=&h=283&w=400&sz=17&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=iNjP_k7Eazpj2M:&tbnh=136&tbnw=231&prev=/images%3Fq%3DAndreas%2BGursky%2Bimages%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1788%26bih%3D1033%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=781&vpy=558&dur=1814&hovh=189&hovw=267&tx=146&ty=131&ei=oRYOTdO7DYep8AaX_pnWDQ&oei=oRYOTdO7DYep8AaX_pnWDQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=60&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0">"Rhein"</a> is an example of marrying concept and modern digital techniques. As you look at this consider that an entire power plant resides on that far shore before this was worked. In another, he visited several mines to photograph and made the image <a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://img0.oneartworld.com/images/uploaded/large/22728-Andreas%2BGursky.jpg&imgrefurl=http://oneartworld.com/artists/A/Andreas%2BGursky.html%3Fatab%3Dworks&usg=__JHvFCqb6ZU2KqdY_rjtV6sjadUY=&h=300&w=212&sz=102&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=vKTEgrRBQ96OuM:&tbnh=141&tbnw=110&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dandreas%2Bgursky%2Bart%2Bimages%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3D2W0%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1788%26bih%3D1033%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C352&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=1258&vpy=335&dur=2777&hovh=240&hovw=169&tx=108&ty=111&ei=BhkOTcfrKMO88gad08HfBw&oei=BhkOTcfrKMO88gad08HfBw&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=60&ved=1t:429,r:19,s:0&biw=1788&bih=1033">Hamm, Bergwerk Ost</a>. It appears to be a document of the dressing rooms but in fact many of the clothes have been added in post and all of the human figures at the bottom were shot in his studio and later added. Then in <a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3037/2371656874_b550236d3d_z.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.flickr.com/photos/wallyg/2371656874/&usg=__Pyoi1rlmLcTj7ppaGsnLwopvWBg=&h=640&w=427&sz=118&hl=en&start=60&zoom=1&tbnid=3uurdxAwBzRjmM:&tbnh=134&tbnw=91&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dandreas%2Bgursky%2Bart%2Bimages%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1788%26bih%3D1033%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C720&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=1566&vpy=567&dur=5458&hovh=275&hovw=183&tx=136&ty=178&ei=JhoOTdbhJM2hnweesZCtDg&oei=BhkOTcfrKMO88gad08HfBw&esq=2&page=2&ndsp=57&ved=1t:429,r:27,s:60&biw=1788&bih=1033">Bahrain I,</a> not liking the design as photographed, he added a turn--may have moved another or rearranged one--to create a more balanced and pleasing image--I have seen this image several times in Museums.<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>I mentioned Jeff Wall above, a photographer also consider of great import in the development of photography in modern times. His image, <a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.sauer-thompson.com/junkforcode/archives/2010/02/02/WallJMorningCleaning.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.sauer-thompson.com/junkforcode/archives/2010/02/michael-fried-o.html&usg=__5SmHEVIQAK9veywtZGdQfmbHSKQ=&h=295&w=496&sz=52&hl=en&start=42&zoom=1&tbnid=WBY2BYHQ_MESAM:&tbnh=106&tbnw=179&prev=/images%3Fq%3DJeff%2BWall%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1788%26bih%3D1033%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C704&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=120&vpy=656&dur=470&hovh=173&hovw=290&tx=160&ty=100&ei=HBgOTYWkN-CZnAfJzpCoDg&oei=BxgOTZLyJo-u8Aa-udzIDQ&esq=2&page=2&ndsp=54&ved=1t:429,r:18,s:42&biw=1788&bih=1033">Morning Cleaning</a>, looks simple but was apparently made over a month of shooting every morning and the resultant image is a composite of many days work.</p>

<p>I could keep on going here, but my point is just that, again, I don't see an effort or reason to limit what photography is in the sort of terms or ways I see it brought up in the POW. Certainly, I am not a fan of push button actions that change a photographic structure into an emulation of a painting, but for the most part that is not what we see on these pages. Rather, what we see are cloned images--removal, adds, changes and processing of the basic image that to some "goes too far", like HDR, over saturated, over sharpened, color changes etc etc. Whether these process are successful or not is something that we have to determine for ourselves--hopefully considering not just our basic gut/bias-- but I think it is unreasonable to suggest that they are not photographs or shouldn't be included under the term photography.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Just to add something else to ponder in this world of "photography". One of the most important landscape photographers for the last several decades has been John Pfahl. I have followed his work for years and he may have been the first landscape photographer I noted doing more conceptual work--his Altered Landscapes. Jeremy, you might like to look at his newest set of photographs, <a href="http://johnpfahl.com/pages/metamorphosespages/01kilauea.html">Metamorphoses de le Terre.</a> It might give some reason to consider.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>One thing I believe to hold that often distinguishes when photography is art is when the photographer, in the mental spirit of an artist, has used the instrument (camera, lens) and especially the subject matter in a manner to purposely control the result. If I photograph, say, two chess players in a room in daylight, that may be one thing, a representation of what is happening and a momentary slice of that as what I have seen. It may or may not be art, depending upon the context of the making of the photograph and what it communicates. If I take that scene and decide to place all the windows with their shades closed, maintain the apparent claustrophoby effect by a simple light source, have the players wear worried or enigmatic expressions (either common or uncommon to chess-playing), and introduce some other subject elements that might reflect on the ambiance in which the game is being played (half-eaten sandwiches, empty bottles or cans, scattered elements), I might be creating an image that may qualify as art. It is a created work, not just the "reporting" of something seen.</p>

<p>Are the landscapes quoted above by Pfahl or Penfield (or perhaps even Butynsky) created works? To some degree or in some cases, yes, but I believe their very commonality or "nature created" (or, in the case of Burtynsky "man- created") essence can sometimes work against their being perceived as art. The response can be "yes, nature is impressive", or "nature communicates its beauty" (and aptly so rendered, realistically as possible, by the photographer). They are well perceived and reported scenes. Such works are often somewhat more difficult to qualify as art, as they are made often by the subject matter itself (with the photographer's knowledge of and handling of light and compositional framing), without extensive creative input by the photographer. Fine photography, but (generally) art? Its when the photographer has an intention to use the originally perceived subject matter (often together with other "value-added" subject matter) in a manner to evoke something new or different that it transcends into the field of art. Pfahl's views of nature are perceptive, out of the ordinary, but is he communicating his artistic approach or simply that of nature?</p>

<p>None of what I am proposing here has anything to do with Photoshop, but doesn't exclude that or darkroom work as additional artistic approaches. The artistic approach is more basic than that.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Alas, this problem getting the same old treatment. Ask, 'what is art?' and get a litany of definitions. Wittgenstein warns

against this:</p><p><i> The idea that in order to get clear about the meaning of a general term one had to find the common element in all its

applications has shackled philosophical investigation.</i><br />

—The Blue Book, Ludwig Wittgenstein

</p><p>Here's a better way. Get past Aristotle and stop looking for definitions. Instead start understanding the problem in terms of categories

and a lot of the 'problems' go away. Here are some entry points:

<ul>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_resemblance">Family Resemblance</a></li>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_theory">Prototype Theory</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.jstor.org/pss/3700527">On Prototype Theory of Concepts and the Definition of Art</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Women-Dangerous-Things-George-Lakoff/dp/0226468046"> Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things by

George Lakoff</a></li>

</ul>

 

<p>Here's an <a href="http://www.photo-mark.com/notes/2010/feb/11/ctein-it-art/">old blog post</a> with an introduction.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Mark, Einstein tried to find that common element in a postulated unified field theory of physics but apparently couldn't. Nor have others. It doesn't mean that all that has been theorised by scientists and has been found to hold up to investigation and analysis is not science. It's not what is science that is important, but what is creative science theory, albeit only an approach to scientific truth. As with art. We needn't require some absolute definition of what is art to distinguish between different levels of creativity in art and what is artistic communication rather than some photographic reportage of the visual world without artistic creation.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Fred, the definition of thin is not disrespectful to fat people. We disrespect something when we use a wrong word to describe it. Call a thin person fat, for example.</p>

<p>Others.... definitions are not categories. The two words mean different things. Definitions are also not stifling. Definitions allow us to communicate. Without them, what we say means nothing. The existence of a definition for photography does not limit one's creativity. One can do all sorts of things that may or may not be photography and the definition still exists.</p>

<p>Different dictionaries do contain slightly different definitions of words. Like all things, there are good dictionaries and bad ones. The reason I cite the Oxford dictionary is that it is a good one. It is a dictionary written by people that understand how language works. Some dictionaries are now sadly written by people with a misconceived idea about the nature and role of language. It is now so bad that some dictionaries actually contain theories and descriptions, not definitions. By the way, this state of affairs exists now because of the awesome influence of social science in the everyday thinking of language users. Social scientists, like philosophers, have a miss-conceived idea about how language works. They think that definitions are idiosyncratic, private, discoverable, etc. All things that Wittgenstein showed to be false. Physical scientists, interestingly, do understand how language works.</p>

<p>As Mark seems to be indicating, Wittgenstein did not claim that a dictionary gives the full meaning of a word. It doesn't. But this still does not make it meaningful to claim that dictionaries do not contain rules for the use of words. They do. It's just that the rules are usually more complicated than can be stated in a single-sentence definition. I think though that Mark may have the same problem that many interpreters of Wittgenstein have had. My guess is that he does not understand what Wittgenstein was actually saying. Wittgenstein was not advocating prototype theory and he did not think philosophical problems can be solved by thinking in terms of categories. I would suggest one read Baker and Hacker (1982) in "Language and Communication" for a correct introduction to Wittgenstein's thoughts as expressed in the "Philosophical Investigations". The blog post Mark cites contains a number of misunderstandings about how language works that were actually pointed out by Wittgenstein. Interestingly, Mark seems to think that I might be "looking for" a definition. This would imply some form of empirical investigation to determine the meaning of the word photography. But Wittgenstein showed that the meaning of a word is not discoverable. One can not look for and discover a definition. Definitions are laid down, made-up, not discovered. This was precisely Aristotle's problem. He thought that it was possible to theorize about and discover the meanings of words. This error is one that now exists widely throughout philosophy, social science and art.</p>

<p>John, I'm trying to say that our language is not sufficiently evolved to speak coherently about the work of the artists you mention. Suppose I use a hammer to bash a print I have made full of holes. Is this photography or is this construction or is it something else? Construction workers would rightly be upset if we were to call this a construction project. Why? Because it implies that the individual that did it has construction working skills or is, at least, a construction worker. This is why so many photography competitions ask for the RAW file. The people that run the competition want to identify photographic skill, not digital art skills.</p>

<p>Thanks John for the references to the artists you cite - interesting. Let's consider John Pfahl. He may be important and the art community may have rallied round him, but this says nothing about whether or not he is a good landscape photographer. It just says that the art community likes his work. To suggest that his work is special because the art community respects it would be art snobbery in the highest degree. What I see is a person that takes pretty ordinary, mundane images and then employees a fairly rudimentary set of post-production procedures to create something unusual. So I see a pretty ordinary photographer that is also an artist. Is he a good artist? What are the criteria? Give them and we can easily say whether he is good or not. I suppose this is the upside to having no criteria. Even a very poorly made and processed image can be called great art.</p>

<p>I'm not objecting in any way to using a camera in new, unusual and creative ways to create art. What I would like to see is the photography community calling a "spade a spade" so to speak. Just call it what it is, and everyone is happy. You don't see people running around upset at the limiting nature of Thursday. And this is simply because no-one is trying to call Wednesday, Thursday, for instance.</p>

<p>I wonder, why do people want to call a digital art project photography? What's the benefit? What's the upside here? Just call it digital art. What's the problem? Could it be that it's easier to sell photography than digital art? Hmmmm, I wonder. Best, JJ</p>

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...