WHERE IS THE BACK STORY

Photography is an Art but what is art? Art I should say is the representation or

the reconstruction of reality. If we accept this definition, then art teaches

because it opens our eyes and makes us understand what life is and where we are

going.. So, in the case of photography, a photo in order to be ART must have a

back story, or must give a message to the spectator, or must give an answer to a

problem of life. THIS IS ART and not the "how beautiful it is!" or "what bright

colours!" or "my God what synthesis is that!" and so on. Now we come to the

critical point. In order to find out the backstory of a photo, or the message it

contains, it needs a certain effort by the spectator which we are not prepared

to make, so we choose the easy way of "beautiful pictures". As a new comer to

PN, I made an experiment. I put 5 photos, telling a story about human behaviour

and how we can restore inner peace. Deep human story which interests everybody,

because it is our life and we have to do something about it. I was ready to

start a constructive discussion and exchange ideas on this major problem of

human behaviour, proposing solutions or finding ways to show these ideas in a

better way through photos, but the co-operation was very little. I am sorry to

say that the majority of the comments made on photos, are of the type and for

the sake of "give me (good ratings), in order to give you". But this in not

PHOTOGRAPHY AS AN ART which I am sure PN wants to promote. I should like very

much to have your ideas on all these, including the opinion of those who are in

charge of PN. Thank you.<div></div>

"Art I should say is the representation or the reconstruction of reality."

 

Bunk.

"Art I should say is the representation or the reconstruction of reality."

 

Ellis beat me to it.

Indeed, Jacob and Ellis.

<br><br>

As usual, the dictionary can be constructive in these conversations:

<br><Br>

<i><b>Art</b> (noun):

1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation [the art of making friends]

<br>

2 a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : LIBERAL ARTS b archaic : LEARNING, SCHOLARSHIP

<br>3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill [the art of organ building]

<br>4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1) : FINE ARTS (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art</i>

Since everyone seems intent on jumping on a guy who's only trying to provoke an

interesting discussion, I'll flesh this out a bit. He isn't suggesting that art has to be

"realistic," or literally reflecting in full detail what is tangile and physical. Strictly speaking,

the definition of art is broad and nebulous, which I think is what Ellis and Jacob meant to

say. HOWEVER, the art academy, curators, fine art critics, etc. would tend to agree with

Marios. In other words, from that point of view, true fine art is in some way intended to be

a reflection, representation, or comment on some aspect of the human condition. In this

case, the reality that Marios describes includes perceived realities, like spirituality and

metaphysics. From the "big-A" Art world point of view, every work is evaluated in the

context of what it says (or what the artist says it is intended to say) about some aspect of

human experience.

 

So, from that point of view Marios is absolutely on the money. A work of art is one

person's representation or reconstruction of some aspect of reality (or a way they have

chosen to express or comment on an aspect of reality) in one form or another.

If you cut through the pompous language isn't this just a moan that your photos didn't receive the positive comment and ratings you'd hoped for?

he may be interested in setting up an interesting discusssion, but that would require a reasonable premise to start from.

Steve: Perhaps Marios is frustrated that the level of discourse here tends to be lacking. The

number of thoughtful, insightful, and thought-provoking critiques or comments posted to

ANY image here is quite small, while many feel perfectly comfortable taking the time to

share dismissive, rude, and useless comments.

 

Ellis: It is a perfectly reasonable premise for discussion in this forum, and nobody cares

that Ellis Vener thinks the premise is bunk. Perhaps rather than taking the act of typing

"bunk" and clicking the submit button, you should consider that others might find the

topic worthwhile despite the fact that you do not. It's his premise, it's based on a point of

view, and it's a view that many knowledgeable people would tend to agree with. If you

disagree, at least take the time to explain why.

"In other words, from that point of view, true fine art is in some way intended to be a reflection, representation, or comment on some aspect of the human condition."

 

Double bunk - Not even close.

 

The entire abstract art movement lays waste to that statement. Yeah, Mark Rothko - there's an artist who's work is an example of portraying the human condition. Let's not forget the human condition portrayed by Piet Mondrian or Jackson Pollock.

 

Sometimes art is just done to examine the interplay of forms, shapes, and colors - regardless of yours or any other human's condition.

Justin, when you say " true fine art is in some way intended to be a reflection, representation, or comment on some aspect of the human condition," do you feel that images that enable us to expand our understanding and perception of the natural world (ex: humanity) are to be excluded from the definition?

Context, people! When you post an image here for ratings/comments, it requires WORK on the part of the passer-by to be aware of that image's setting with a series of images. The reviewer must dig even deeper to see the image in anything LIKE the context that Marios is suggesting. Unless the image itself can communicate its context to the viewer, it's completely unreasonable to complain that people don't "get" your art, or your commentary on the human condition when that image is seen on its own.

 

There's a REASON some works do better in a themed exhibit, or on the wall next to two paragraphs of explanatory text by the artist or a curator. Otherwise, some images (see the above citations of Jackson Pollock or Mark Rothko) simply cannot, by their very nature, tell you ANYTHING about the artist's intent, circumstance, or purpose. A Rothko cannot function - in and of itself - as a commentary on any aspect of spirituality, the human condition, the quality of the sushi you had for lunch, or anything else. There's no THERE there, unless you bring it with you by having read up on Rothko's thinking, or have such thinking foisted upon you by a critic/scholar/curator. There simply isn't enough information communicated directly BY that form of communication to tell you anything that doesn't include much guess work about the artist's frame of mind or purpose. Many photographs are exactly the same, and the Big-A Art-ier the photographer tries to get, the more often the work tends to require artist-statement hand holding.

 

This is all fine. BUT: one cannot reasonably complain about poor or out-of-context ratings on images posted here (or most anywhere else), or roll one's eyes at the "unsophisticated" comments one receives when there IS NO CONTEXT. How can you tell, as you skip along through the thousands of random shots in an environment such as this, that my brilliant posting of a Rothko-like bring-your-own-meaning image isn't actually me just showing someone an example of Bokeh, using a lawn chair and some azaelias? You CAN'T. This thread is Marios' lament that his images didn't start this conversation (in the form he was hoping for) on their own... but the ratings/comment engine on this site is NOT the venue for that, since there is no way to filter for mind reading abilities.

 

Gee, do you think I've ever been annoyed by a witlessly curated Rothko exhibit? You're right! I have!

By witlessly curated, I assume you mean that the large paintings were not presented in a way that was consistent with what Roth intended. If they had been, then you wouldn't need any kind of critic's discourse to experience what they're all about . . . unless you have your defenses up trying to reinforce your dislike for abstracts or maybe trying too hard to figure it out instead of simply experiencing it.

 

Same with Pollock. Don't fight it; feel it.

 

Too much gray matter happening.

I'm just a bit baffled by the statements made, apparently in a vacuum, with little or no apparent knowledge of the history of art, or the history of photography. Anyone who has ever seen a photograph by Aaron Siskind would not make a statement about art reflecting the human condition as if it is a given that can be applied ubiquitously to art in general. Let's not even begin to work comments into a real context by referencing Dada artists and the photographic works by Man Ray or Laszlo Moholy-Nagy.

 

Context?? How about just a passing familiarity with what's gone on in art and photography during the 20th century alone prior to making all encompassing statements that aren't even close to being accurate, never mind prescient.

I didn't say that the topic isn't worthy of discussion. I said that his starting point -- " Art I should say is the representation or the reconstruction of reality." -- is bunk. Meaning it is a provably false hypothesis. the connection between "Art" and reality is tenuous at worse and mostly happens between your ears, in your imagination. A separate issue is the reality of the"art" object, but what that art object (print, painting, drawing ,engraving , music, literature, story, painting, motion picture,dance, sculpture, mechanical object, or photograph) is doesn't necessarily have to have any depictive or descriptive connection to anything else beyond the artist's imagination. Likewise there is the art of making an object -- which again is seperate from both the act of imagination where the art is created or the finished object.

Carl: You're exactly right. Rothko's stuff can only be "felt." They cannot convey any particular take on the world, on the human condition, or on anything else. What most grates, I suppose, are the clutches of people who will stand in front of one of his paintings, with the Alpha Liberal Arts Major in the pack leaning over and saying to his rapt dinner companions, "See the transition from the smooth application of that dark olive color into the harsher brush strokes in the more charcoal-colored zone? What Rothko is trying to say with that counter-intuitive juxtaposition of softening tone against aggressive texture in an area of the canvas clearly meant to represent the decent of the psyche into darkness is that ..." and, of course, you wouldn't hear any more because hopefully one of the exhibit guards would have used a Tazer on him at that point.

 

Steve: So, you're saying that the people rating an image that pops up in the queue on Photo.Net should be mindful of the evolution of art in the 20th century, and shrewdly put the mirror image of a rocking chair superimposed over a darkened face into a specific context, and thus engage in a just the sort of conversation that Marios had in mind? My point is that you're leaping, on this site, from people posting images that are all about lighting on furniture product shots, to examples of fantastic luck/timing/patience with wildlife, to barrages exchanged in lens-quality-smackdown-pissing-contests, to "please rate the attractiveness of my dog/child/car/bird feeder." Art jumps out at you when you trip across it, but the artist's purpose in posting the image here - without an investment of time on the part of the audience - cannot be divined, and just-the-right-conversation will thus not ensue. Expressing frustration over that just strikes me as misunderstanding the nature and prospects of inhabiting this space as a venue.

Commenting on the human condition, experience and realities does not require depicting

humans, or "reality," or telling a story. The most abstract painting or photograph about pure

line, form, and tone can still be considered in the context of how it relates to "reality" or the

human experience. So can a straight landscape photo of the most pristine wilderness on

Earth. My point is that the art world considers the intentions of the artist and the message

behind the work to be part and parcel of how the work is considered.

Justin: Exactly. But when you encounter an artist's work (say, as image #20 in the rating bucket), you CANNOT consider the intentions of the artist or the message behind the work, because those "parts of the parcel" are absent from the scene. That drives the contextually-ambivalent ratings/comments into exactly the place that Marios seems to be regretting. His experiment - of posting such images without any context, and then not being pleased at the lack of context in the inevitable feedback - went pretty much exactly as I would expect, and doesn't seem like a worthy catalyst for any gnashing of teeth or reflecting on the corsening of our culture, blahditty blah blah. Much better, I think, to assemble a presentation (which you CAN do here), and then post a thread launching the conversation and pointing to the presentation as some sauce for what's being cooked. Comments applied directly to those image records will then be IN context, and more meaningful to all who might later encounter them.

"The most abstract painting or photograph about pure line, form, and tone can still be considered in the context of how it relates to "reality" or the human experience."

 

Or not. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar to paraphrase an Austrian of some fame.

 

The work can also be considered strictly for its inherent design qualities and pure entertainment value - and, there's nothing wrong with that.

 

You can certainly extrapolate whatever you want into a piece of art depending upon your personal experiences, but my point is - human experience / reality is not an omnipresent "truth" that is intrinsic to every single art work without question.

 

Doesn't work that way for me and many other people that I know. So, it can't, by definition, be a universal truth.

 

You might find nothing but references to death, destruction, human suffering, and whatever else you might find in an Aaron Siskind abstract photograph - that's up to you and how you relate to it.

 

But, I would also contend that if you find that within the work, it's not an inherent part of the work itself but part of YOU. And that you have used your past experiences and feelings to create your reaction to the work and make it personally meaningful.

 

Me on the other hand - I might look at the same work and be taken by the bold graphic nature, tonalities, and how all of it relates to a unified whole composition - and nothing more. I might find that personally meaningful just because it's fun to look at.

 

You do see that two people can approach the same piece and have totally different reactions, with neither being "better," "more noble," or "right" - but, only different?

 

 

"Steve: So, you're saying that the people rating an image that pops up in the queue on Photo.Net should be mindful of the evolution of art in the 20th century, and shrewdly put the mirror image of a rocking chair superimposed over a darkened face into a specific context, and thus engage in a just the sort of conversation that Marios had in mind?"

 

Only if they find that either interesting or meaningful for themselves. My point is only that you cannot make all encompassing statements about art in general and how it reflects a very specific point-of-view with any certainty - unless you can place the statement within the overall context of the history of art.

 

"Art jumps out at you when you trip across it, but the artist's purpose in posting the image here - without an investment of time on the part of the audience - cannot be divined, and just-the-right-conversation will thus not ensue. Expressing frustration over that just strikes me as misunderstanding the nature and prospects of inhabiting this space as a venue."

 

 

Yep.

Thanks all of you, including Ellis and Jacob, for your comments on my text, but let us simplify things.

1. What is Art.

I posed a definition and then I said "If we accept this definition..". This means that I believe that there are many definitions of Art, but if you insist, I shall tell you what my personal opinion is about art. For me Art is everything which is useful for our soul and helps us understand this world we are living in and especially what the nature of human being is..

2. Is photography an Art?

This is my main question. Having in consideration the definition of Art (what ever it may be), do we accept that photography is Art?

Because if we do then, photos need a back story in order to make the spectator think, observe and analyse (let him find the time to do it. If he has not time, art is not for him!) Thanks

"I posed a definition and then I said "If we accept this definition..""

 

And I don't. It's not true. Therefore, all resulting speculation is tainted.

O.K. Jacob

Stick on YOUR definition of Art (I said that, remember "what ever it may be"), and go on to state your opinion on the questions I have asked (I have set so many things and you have not touch them), otherwise please don't waste your time.

I can accept the "reconstruction of reality" part. Imagine a regular, everyday photo of something ordinary, then cut all the pieces into identical jigsaw puzzle shapes, and reassemble any way you want. Or how about using dozens to thousands of photos pasted together to make a huge image you have to stand far away from to see. In that sense, the definition is VERY broad and VERY true. You can really take it any way you want. Just like all art.

 

Personally, I think art ought to be a thing of beauty (which will be different for different beholders), or something that is emotionally stirring. That reaction will be different for different people, ranging perhaps from disgust to elation.

 

I don't think of DaVinci's 'Mona Lisa' as anything deeper than a sublime portrait, or Michaelangelo's 'David' as anything but a very large, exacting reconstruction of reality in the most literal sense. Few would debate that both are art. On the other hand, something that stirs me may not stir you at all.

 

Some folks like discussing the 'emotionally stirring' part. Call me pedestrian, but after a point, I agree with the earlier taser comment. I think a work of art stands of fails on it's own merit. If I want a placard with an explaination, I'll go to the zoo.

 

While there's nothing wrong with having an education or refined taste, I shouldn't have to spend 4-6 years or more at university just so I 'get it', either. I also realize not everyone feels as I do, nor should they. I think, though, that some folks like to think they create art, or that others need to 'get it' or they're morons. I find that pathetic.

 

In my opinion, artists create because they love or need to (or both), and try to make money at it (or not) if they have to, or want to. In my experience, "real" artists have a need to express their emotions through their art, because they're dysfunctional enough not to be able to do it another way. For the ones I like, I thank God for it, whatever is at the root of their need to emote through physical objects. I think this varies by degrees, of course, from weekend clay potters to pastels on the sidewalk that melt in the rain to Van Gogh slicing off his ear and sending it as a love offering...pick your poison.

 

As my life goes on, my taste changes. If one studies artists' tastes, so does/did theirs, usually. I do think art ought to be uplifting, and not some wealthy poseur's closet perversion pet pissing or crapping on a canvas, gluing some leaves and floor sweepings to it, and foisting it off as art.

 

Unrelatedly, I don't care how great someone says Warhol was, his work doesn't "do it" for me, and never did, but someone thought enough of his Campbell's Soup can painting to pay a truckload of money for it. I doubt I'm missing the deeper meaning with that particular work. So who's right? Both of us - we got what we liked and wanted - what meant something to us from Andy.

 

If you like my photography, hey, sure, it's an ego boost. My ratings tell me either I have poor taste, or I'm not that good. If you don't like my taste, I'm ok with that. And I know I'm not that good, but I'm working on it. Maybe you'll never like it, but I don't care, because I do it because I love it.

 

It would, however, be unreasonable for me to expect every viewer to take the time to think about my photos, and what they mean, and is that valid and/or good - if it doesn't really do anything for them in the first place. If I hide a meaning in a photo, I can't reasonably expect any viewers to read my mind, especially on a site where so many categories of photos are presented. To me, that'd be the height of egocentricity, if not outright narcissism.

 

You might disagree with everything I've just written, another might think "right on!". Art is all in what you like, and what moves you. Like my dad said, it takes all kinds to fill the freeways.

 

I do enjoy enlightening discussions, and read way more than I post. We ought to know how to agree to disagree, but then artists, by definition, are passionate people in the first place, eh?

Marios, I agree with you in that there isn't as much real discussion here as there could be, never mind hoping for astute, helpful critiques of posted photos. That's my $.02

It has nothing to do with "my" definition of art. It's that yours is demonstrably and irrefutably mistaken.

"Sometimes art is just done to examine the interplay of forms, shapes, and colors -

regardless of yours or any other human's condition."

 

In other words, sometimes art examines the nature of human visual cognition and

aesthetic perception? That is very much in the vein of examining the human experience.

 

"Justin, when you say " true fine art is in some way intended to be a reflection,

representation, or comment on some aspect of the human condition," do you feel that

images that enable us to expand our understanding and perception of the natural world

(ex: humanity) are to be excluded from the definition?"

 

Of course not. I am a nature and landscape photographer, and I think that even a

photograph of the most pristine wilderness on Earth says a great deal about human

nature.

 

Jacob: You're being difficult and rude for the sake of it (there's a name for people like that,

but I can't remember what it is right now). You're also outright wrong about the validity of

Marios' definition of art. His is a perfectly valid definition, though there are obviously

others.

 

D.B.: In the context of history, Michelangelo's "David" and the Mona Lisa are spectacular

achievements. We may not be as impressed now because they are icons regularly

reproduced in a culture overloaded with images. To view them in person while considering

the times that produced them is a powerful experience. Also, you should check out

Warhol's freehand drawings. I didn't think that much of his work until I did, but fact is that

the guy was a virtuoso artist, pure and simple.

A photo is consisting of two parts: the image and its title. If these two parts are not enough clues for the spectator to make him or her think, then it is right to say that we can not expect for him or her to explore the artist's mind about the meaning of the photo, if there is one. But in the case of my 5 photos the titles of them are: "Lonely..", "Alone!!", "Hell!!", "Help!!", "Metamorphosis". Further more, for the first three, there is a section title "Trilogy of human behaviour" and for the rest "Restore internal peace". Now, is there anyone of you who can say that these clues are not enough for the spectator to make him think and put himself in the processing of analysing these photos, finding a part of himself or herself inside them and so on ? Besides, don't forget that nobody obliges us to inspect and make comments and ratings on a certain number of photos ...unless we have a "special interest" for that (you know give me in order to give you). So why do we not accept clues and messages from photos and why don't we pay a minimum attention to them ? I shall tell you: Because that's the way we are living our life, we are closed inside our castles, we love our chains, WE DON'T CARE ABOUT OTHERS!! and that's the world we have made : pure egoistic and therefore self-destructive.. If these intense words and meanings have touched you, let's go further because IT IS OUR LIFE AND WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!! otherwise forget it.. Take care.