When the viewers are the only "artist" around

<p>I have been wondering, since some time, what happens with especially photography as an art (?), as a creative medium (?), when a greater and greater proportion of creative and artistic photos are made by photographers who have little understanding of the creative dimensions of their photos. </p>

<p>My questioning is not about what is <em>art</em> (a dead-end discussion, anyway, as we have seen), but more on what happens when the "only" people around seeing the artistic qualities of a photo are some few privileged viewers. More and more, being a "photographer", shooting photos, needs no, or little, artistic and creative skills and even fewer technical skills, but being able to see and appreciate the qualitative dimensions of photos (beyond the private sphere), does.<br>

In photography, the future seems to belong to those who can see and less and less to those who shoot.</p>

<p>The same questioning can of course be made in other fields of contemporary art.</p>

<p>Don't worry, Anders, most will skip over to video before too long. That said, I'm a bit confused of</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> In photography, the future seems to belong to those who can see and less and less to those who shoot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If one can't see well, he/she doesn't shoot all that well, right? I'm not sure how one shoots well, but can't see? Do you mean strictly by chance?<br>

</p>

<p>Probably I wrote it in general terms, I would think. Wouldn't you ?</p>

<p>It is little like <em>Ready made</em> without Marcel <em>Duchamp</em> around<em> !</em></p>

<p>I'm really interested to hear people's response to Anders's questions. My only comment right now is that it's not so much that the audience for art photography is less than it is that its <em>total</em> audience comprises much more than art (as opposed to other art mediums). In other words, if painting were somehow accessible to everybody, we wouldn't lose what's in museums. Rather we would gain a lot of stuff that is ... not in museums and not meant to be in museums.</p>

<p>It's not a new thing that most people who think they're producing [any] art are actually clueless generators of garbage. :-) The number of true artists AND the number of true appreciators has always been extremely low, the amount of static very high, and there's no reason that should change.<br>

<br>

However, what I have seen, looking around at portfolios on various sites, is that as rock music opened doors for people who had talent but weren't inclined to be classical music, the falling of the technological barrier has opened photography to many people who couldn't have considered it previously. I'm blown away by the number of people who probably think they're just having fun shooting pictures who are actually really talented, and I think there are more of them than ever before. </p>

<p>Anders,<br /> I don’t get what you are asking. You seem to be in some "is photography art?" mode in spite of not wanting to get lost in "what is art" space. (The answer is, as you know: No. It is only a medium like paint. We make art with them both.) <br /> Are you saying that without deliberation (understanding?) then, what are we making? Is it surprising or significant that people who paint consider themselves artists but those who make photographs don't?<br /> Are you saying vacation snaps -- for one example-- should be in the same discussion here as wherever the moving target is for art ? <br /> Art Museums are essentially about history from the POV of whomever writes it. Art galleries are about what <em>may</em> be significant somewhere down the line. Family vacation snaps are essentially anthropological documentation. Are you wondering how <em>naive</em> photographers fit into a discussion about Art?</p>

You're not giving photographers any credit. Who has to study to know if a woman is pretty?

<p>Except for some doc snaps....the cell 'tog is a new fad. IMO it's not worth speculating.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p>Alan Z., as I read Anders, he's wondering if it will even occur to naïve viewers of photographs that a photograph is or might be art. There can't be a discussion about artistic content if it hasn't occurred to people that art might be its motivation. Whether or not it is, it would be nice to feel that the it-might-be-art door was open in people's minds so that the possibility doesn't have to be argued into existence.</p>

<p>Alan K, I'm looking at my L.L. Bean catalogue and I see a pretty woman. I think I'll buy her shirt.</p>

<p>Julie, what art is "meant to be in museums"? I assume you mean <em>galleries. </em>Or, do we no longer make a distinction between historical and contemporary work?</p>

<p>The viewer has little interest in the <em>discussion</em> that goes on within a photograph. It is like writers expecting an interest in literature and poetry from people who can read. With that in mind, the topic question seems to me now to be how we distinguish who is <em>serious</em> from the indifferent?</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"The viewer has little interest in the discussion that goes on within a photograph. It is like writers expecting an interest in literature and poetry from people who can read."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Alan, I think the academic discussion or interpretation of a high caliber photograph has always been about <em>why</em> and<em> how</em>; others will simply embrace or reject it. </p>

<p>I say "high caliber" to differentiate quality in the same way that not everyone who writes is a writer or anyone who strums a few chords is a musician. </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"With that in mind, the topic question seems to me now to be how we distinguish who is serious from the indifferent?"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>One can approach a photograph, music, or art in general in any number of ways, and just because one is moved by it but unable to articulate the reasons doesn't mean they are indifferent. <br>

<br>

I think it's all about context in the case of photography; it will only have meaning to a viewer who can in some way relate to its content or its technical/aesthetic merit. </p>

<p>Anders, I don't think I can agree with your statement "a greater and greater proportion of creative and artistic photos are made by photographers who have little understanding of the creative dimensions of their photos."</p>

<p>What evidence do you have for that? Where are you seeing all that creative and artistic photography? What is your line in the sand for that?</p>

<p>If photographers have no, or little, artistic and creative skills, as you say, then you can say the same thing about the viewers who don't seem to have any more highly developed ways of seeing and feeling art.</p>

<p>To be a fine photographer the art of seeing and creating is more important in my mind than mere technical skills or an ability to copy established paradigms. Most photographers, like most viewers, have little sense of what makes art art and even less ability to create, even just in their mind, original images.</p>

<p>That is nothing new, of course as many fields like art require much more effort, knowledge, practice and inspiration than is simply assumed, and what is called art is often just some moderately successful approach to art and its special communication, or just reproduction of what others have done, call or dictate as art.</p>

 

<p>Ok, let me simplify to the extreme, what I tried, in vain, I admit, to formulate above.</p>

<p>It is a simple observable fact:</p>

<ul>

<li>that the number of photos shot in the world is exploding;</li>

<li>that the number of people shooting photos is exploding too;</li>

<li>that the proportion of all photos that have been shot as "snapshots" is rapidly growing;</li>

<li>that, among all those snapshots, an ever increasing number photos have creative and even artistic qualities, that the shooters in question are unaware of or uninterested in.</li>

<li>in this latter category of photos, the creative/artistic eye around, is that of the <strong>viewer</strong>.</li>

</ul>

<p>I admit that it is almost impossible to read these propositions without opening the poisonous question of "what is art?". And yet, my main questioning concerns the relative role of that of the "viewer" in the process of creativity in arts, what ever that is accepted to be. <br /> <br /> If your position is that everything is art and we are all creative artists, I agree that this questioning is, at best, irrelevant.</p>

 

<p>Considering zillions of snapshots which have not been taken with any intention to create fine art - I'd absolutely agree - in that large stream of vernacular shots there will be quite a number of 'nuggets' which when <strong>viewed</strong> by an art-understanding eye would qualify as fine art.<br>

And I can well imagine that, when filtered out by the right 'eyes' (or curators or some Marcel Duchamp around) and put on musuem walls (or simply some new context, e.g. re-arranged and collected to a website - probably certain themes would help not loosing a red thread) - they would make a great exhibition.</p>

<ul>

<li>that the number of [things being made of porcelain] in the world is exploding;</li>

<li>that the number of people [making things out of porcelain] is exploding too;</li>

<li>that the proportion of all [porcelain things] that have been [made for practical purposes] is rapidly growing;</li>

<li>that, among all those [porcelain things], an ever increasing number [of porcelain things] have creative and even artistic qualities, that the [makers] in question are unaware of or uninterested in. [Makers of urinals are not interested to find that they can also be seen as fountains.]</li>

<li>in this latter category of [porcelain things], the creative/artistic eye around, is that of the <strong>viewer</strong>. [urinal makers are not famous in the annals of art history; those who "see" (and present them as) <a href="/philosophy-of-photography-forum/•that%20the%20number%20of%20photos%20shot%20in%20the%20world%20is%20exploding;">upside-down-urinals-as-fountains</a> are.]</li>

</ul>

<p>Who made the fountain?</p>

<p>I remember a related discussion in art school so many years ago..<br>

What was the artist trying to do? (Can you even tell from what is presented?<br>

How well was it done?<br>

Was it worth doing?<br>

All can be applied to photography.</p>

<p>Julie, you seem to forget that the urinal or the bottle dryer presented by Duchamp during the First World War, within the context of the Dada movement in Paris (anti-war manifestation), were "art" in the context, it was shown and presented. As "ready made" it became "art" by the "simple choice of the artist:"<br>

“objet usuel promu à la dignité d’œuvre d’art par le simple choix de l’artiste” (Breton)<br>

Outside that context, urinals and bottle dryers are not by their own existence, "art" or anything near creative objects, beyond their utilitarian design.</p>

<p>As far as I see it it is not an example of the intervention of the "viewer", but a traditional revolutionary intervention of the "artist".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>that, among all those snapshots, an ever increasing number photos have creative and even artistic qualities, that the shooters in question are unaware of or uninterested in.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have a problem with this one...That may or may not be the case, we simply don't know. However, people might be following a trend, or a style. That trend maybe of the creative, or "artistic" type, some might consider...</p>

 

<p>The chance that a snapshot-is-a-snapshot, is-a-snapshot, is-a-snapshot... seems to me to be a reasonable presumption :)) ; taking the great numbers which we are talking about into account. Exceptions always prove the rule, as you would know. <br>

Take it from another angle, if you wish.<br>

The number of photographers shooting photos without ever imagining taking any contact with the world of art and the world of creative creations (galleries, collectors, market of art etc) is increasing with incredible speed - the number of artist or photographers who take a pride in creativity is not, or at least not to the same degree. The consequence is the same, as I have tried to formulate above, that the viewers of photos will take an ever increasing role discovering and seeing creativity and creative works of photography. The actively creative figure in the future belongs to the viewer, in such a world more than to people considering themselves as artist or creators.</p>

<p>All things considered, I'll agree with you, Anders. But I tend to believe most, if not all, have some sort of creative insight, even if they are just momentary. Now, that stroke of momentary insight comes from who knows where:))) But everyone has the potential. Now each person takes thousands of pics, so sure, some will appear more "creative" than others. It has been always been like this imo, but the numbers of shooters just go exponential with the easy access, especially with the proliferation of smartphones...Art critics have always been more vocal of what art is, than the creators/artist. Most artists I know don't care that much either way... </p>

 

<p>The obscure musings of "high caliber academic thinkers" prop up art best left obscure to most. :-) The "discussion" as it pertains to self-referential photographs themselves is more what I'm referring to here. I don't know where to pin <em>art about art</em> historically. Duchamp seems to be the emblematic boy for the lasts century, but it goes further back than that.<br>

The on-going dialog within photography, and where I caught the virus, came out of academia. There is no cure, unfortunately. For me it is an adventure into the creative art world canon. I can go wherever whimsy leads. As far as viewers being totally clueless, -- if that is the OT here -- drawing them into the dialog as we optimistically do, makes pictures more enjoyable if not intellectually arousing. I used to keep separate my <em>serious</em> work from more tentative and playful work. I've given up on that conceit. All artists of any merit are punster's anyhow. <br>

The only relief for hard-core intellectualizing, is to try and find the work of <em>outsiders</em> and concoct a "new vision" to natter about. Artists get saddled with the duty of keeping things off-balance and anxious.<br>

Naïve or outsider art, if such things exist today, is characterized by a distinctive but irregular formal or other eccentric quality of style. Now days a trend starts and ends too fast for anything to gain traction. Who is left when there is no <em>outside</em> anymore? <br>

A naïve expression with photographs is less haphazard with modern tools. To be judged <em>truly</em> naïve today, choice of subject isn't a measure of deviance or outsider-ness either. <em>Anything</em> goes and there is unlimited competition for novelty. Looking for "choice" snapshots isn't fun anymore. The aggrigate or flow of trends IS to me.</p><div></div>

<p>There are many opinions of art, an artist and photography.<br>

What doesn't qualify is simply recording a scene. Anyone can create a view of something he/she wants to share, or to interpret in an interesting way. Contemporary software tools make it easier.<br>

A photographer who is in the fine art genre is also different again. He/she wants to create an image of significant beauty and get paid well to do it. And again, many will argue till the cows come home about what photographic "art" is.<br>

<br />Is a photographer who uses Photoshop to render an image artistically, an artist? I would put that person in the expert technician category. But that might be unfair.<br>

So one can't really put all these into fixed categories. Are beautiful images as created by Annie Leibovitz, Steve McCurry or Ansell Adams, Art? Maybe. There are hosts of images on Photo Net member galleries that inspire or are certainly beautiful. But are they Art? There are thousands of gallery-deserving images but will someone pay $60 to just look at them in a museum of contemporary art? Perhaps.<br>

Then there are the controversial fine art photographers like Bill Henson whose images fetch $30,000 each. In his case, he creates controversy. Do people like his images because of beauty or is the interest in them more to do with their subject matter. He says that his images are an attempt to show people how he sees the subject and he wants to recreate what he sees in his minds eye. So he is a communicator. But are his creations Art?<br>

I think all of us would aspire to fine art photography, but the sheer volume of images flooding the internet, Flikr etc make it very hard to earn a living doing it. The ones who are successful produce images that have an impact on the viewer. This "oh my God, look at that" category is very hard to emulate. Just as HCBs image of Isle de la Cite is wonderful, specially considering the basic tool he used, its probably not fine art.<br>

This how I see it all anyway.</p>

<p><em>""But I tend to believe most, if not all, have some sort of creative insight""</em><br>

I totally agree, Lesley. Creativity is a general human characteristic (not for "most" but for all), so all are creative in daily life in one way or another. Showing it in media that we here are talking about, like photography (or sculptures painting, drawings or why not music etc) is something else. Showing it in such a way that others can appreciate its creative dimensions, is yet something else. Showing it and having it accepted in "artistic circles" is only for the few.</p>

<p>Anders, I think you're trivializing creativity a little bit. There is a difference (subtle, maybe, but important nevertheless) between <em>creativity</em> and <em>experimentation</em>. A ton of amateur photos are wonderfully experimental simply because they aren't inhibited by artistic or technical constraints that they don't know or care about. And cameras invite experimentation (all those buttons and dials ... what might they do?). To me, creativity is at least one step beyond experimentation.</p>

<p>A second mild disagreement is with your closing sentence, "Showing it and having it accepted in "artistic circles" is only for the few." That's the classical 'top-down' conception of Art. What happens if 'bottom-up' art gains momentum and upturns the traditional means of gaining recognition?</p>

<p>Francisco, why does "emulate" lead to fine art?</p>

<p>I admit to having a very limited background in both art and aesthetic philosophy. However, to say ultimately that the current wholesale availability of camera technology, especially in cell phones, limits the realm of artists to viewers, is arrogant and unfair to the facts. One does not need to have sat at the feet of a master as an apprentice, or have taken an advanced degree in fine art, to create art. In the case of photography, sometimes all it takes to do so is a "good eye", intuition, being in the right place at the right time, pure dumb luck, or a combination of all or some of these. </p>