a way of figuring out what is or isn't art-- for you.

[jordan2240]

I think some are applying a more general interpretation to Ellis's statement than intended. His "test" is not meant to define art, but to define art as it applies to your personal tastes. In that regard, I'd have to agree. Right now, I'm staring at a picture of a sloppily colored heart-shape pasted on another sheet of paper with the words "Dad, Love Seth" written on it. It was given to me by my youngest child several years ago. To my left is an Eagle cutout covered with various seeds and beans that another of my children made for me even longer ago. And behind me is an abstract of colorful shapes my oldest child gave to me many years ago as well. For you, these are meaningless school projects, but for me, they are art. Admittedly, the sentimentality associated with each contributes greatly to its value, but I believe the same can be said for much of what we personally consider art. Perhaps Ellis would have been more accurate in his statement if he had prefaced "art" with something like "pleasurable" or "intriguing," but I certainly get his point. As for a general definition of "art," I'd define it as anything created with some conscious thought. I wouldn't consider a work by an elephant that tromped through some paint then stepped on a canvas art, but only because the elephant was not consciously producing anything. Now had their been a chimp involved...

[daniel_ob]

"Kant made a separation between art and life. Meaning that the first is a interpretation of the second".

 

Gomes, you are on the way. The definition is very general, but also it is only one point in making the definition. Definition for 'art' is as simple as definition for engineering is. What is complicated sometimes is level of the work (red line). Art definition never say it is art it just predict it. The history is ultimate judge. So now is not so big question what is art but how we make that prediction. Hex if one wish real answerﾅ I do not like to say it it will be very rude. I just think that this is wrong place for any education. Why.

 

Lets make down to earth example, engineering. For any one to talk about HIGH QUALITY engineering he have to know: Thermodynamic, hydrodynamic, boundary layer theory, theory of elasticity, mechanic of fluids, theory of vibrations, metal forming,ﾅ., then comes computer software as unigraphics-NX, catia, nastran or abacus. I assume here that HIGH QUALITY engineering is work that will make GM to knock on your door, or at least that will really secure job in some good company. And it exists (that kind of people that practice high quality eng.), it is not just an imagination. So how many photographers even knows and meaning of all that terms like boundary layer theory and so on. So how he can make definition what is high quality engineering. Now they run around art, even and more unknown field, and more abstract than engineering, trying to define it (or even to redefine it), buying some expensive zoom lenses.

 

What is also interesting that this site is of high level when I think about photographers. Sometimes, when I find 10 minutes, I go to other site to see photogs there. Same but not level of photo-net. There one common thing among photogs that so hard try to (re)define art. They at first shoot and than think is it art, what it is I made. Hex, many make and a roll a day, 30 artworks a day. Some complains about battery life in Nikon F6, not enough for my artworks.

 

I always had interest to watch photographers to define 'art'. Everione has its own definition that say yes mom I am artist. And how photographer become artist is also interesting. Just go and buy a camera, that set. What more expensive one biger artist. When he looks more like a PRO he deserve it for PRO is an idol. There is some interesting psihology behind it which is pushed further with that image eating world. I think that people are not realy interesting to became an artist but more to become free and independent. So tell to someone you are not artist you will be in trouble.

 

A guy went to canadian tire (junk store) and got for $20 whole equipment for fishing. He went to Toronto island and fish and fish and fish and fish. Nothing. Soooo angry he approaching me with squize eyes and say I paid $20 for all this fishing stuf. I paid ticket for a boat to come here. I lost afternoon. I put whatever I could on the hook... And look that fish do not cooperate.

 

Same with photographers just instead of fish curators do not cooperate. It is nothing wrong to try but why why why. If I look all around all of these threats I am sure all them endup with the same question: what is art.

 

Already lost a lot of time. Enough and gone for now.

[billfoster]

Bill J: you are correct that Elis' definition relates to art as it applies to one's personal tastes." However, that definition still includes the word "art"; you can't have a definition that includes itself! :-) "Art as it relates to one's personal tastes" is just another way of saying he likes it or he doesn't and Elis' definition of art is just a definiton of whether or not he likes it.

 

BTW: if the elephant somehow randomly wlked through a paint factory, maybe it wouldn't be art but if someone (perhaps ... an artist) laid out a REALLY big canvas and put the paint there and convinced the elephant to walk through it, wouldn't it then be art and the elephant just be a particularly smelly and and ill-tempered brush?

[jordan2240]

Bill F.,

 

Perhaps "define" or any variation was the wrong word to use. Ellis doesn't use it in his post, so obviously he wasn't attempting to define art. I'm also sure he isn't suggesting that only that which we like personally could be considered "art." You can apply a similar philosophy to "food." I know, for example, that Vegemite is a food, but I tried it, and it sure as heck isn't a food to me (well, maybe if I was starving - and no offense meant to our Aussie pals).

 

And I agree that yes, if the elephant was consciously guided by someone, then the elephant is merely a tool being used in the creation of art, but I was thinking of the elephant walking through a paint factory when I wrote the original response.

[beeman458]

"I also believe I could have done a better job of writing my question."

 

And your reason, based upon your above, for not giving it another try is?

[billfoster]

Again though, isn't a test a search for a definition? Isn't that what a test is for: a way to find out what something is and define it's parameters? And, Jim's test seems to me to say "If you like it, it's art." A photgraph is art whether it intrigues you or not. The level of intigue is merely a level of like.

 

The problem with his test is that if applied publically, then artists who aren't "liked" don't get funding or shown or whatever.

[jordan2240]

Bill F.,

 

I should have chosen my words more wisely, as nothing in Ellis's post indicates he was attempting to "define" art. And I'm sure he wasn't implying that something is not art simply because you don't like it. With no disrespect to our Aussie friends, I know vegemite is a food, but it sure as hell isn't a food to me (unless I was starving perhaps). So, I think Ellis was simply trying to generate discussion on how one could determine what his/her taste is in art, but I could be wrong.

 

And I agree that the elephant guided to create a painting is merely a tool in the creation of art, but I was thinking more of the elephant walking through the paint factory in my original post.

[jordan2240]

Oops, Ignore the above. I thought I'd lost the other response.

[chris_waller]

I don't think art can be defined, no more than a cat can be defined, but you know one when you see it. I think art addresses the eternal questions, hence the durability of true art. For me the picture by W. Eugene Smith, from his Minamata series, "Tomoko and Her Mother" is perhaps the greatest photograph ever taken and qualifies as art because it treats of the nature of tragedy, an eternal aspect of the human condition.

[michael_bach2]

A photo can be wery good, but not art , and a photo can be wery bad and art,

it all depend on the concept and the frame of reference.

 

www.micbach.dk "Art Photography Workshops in Spain"

[ben conover]

I agree with Chris as above about the photos by Eugene Smith.

Recently asked a friend called Art what his favorite photo was, that was his answer too. I think Art gets better with time.

 

Ben.

[daniel_ob]

"Tomoko and Her Mother" is perhaps the greatest photograph ever taken...

 

Yes the photo is good but so far not the greatest ever taken. There is also missed part in the story behind that photo, and shortly it is father of the kid. Eugen never had intention to get that photo done so it is left as is, just one not finished chapter in story about minamata. However it is an example of price of photography, and the photo IS so far good and is accepted by art historians.

[sprouty]

OT for a minute: but <a href="http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:k0prRl3aIG4J:www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0007/hughes.htm+Tomoko+and+Her+Mother&hl=en&client=firefox-a">here</a> is a little background on the Tomoko image.

<P>

Back on topic: I like to think that the characteristic that helps define a piece of work is it's intention, or it's context if you will. And as mentioned above, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/4059997.stm">Duchamp's Urinal</a> is the perfect example.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>And your reason, based upon your above, for not giving it another try is?</I><P>the

subject stopped being interestign or intriguing for me to spend more time on it. ergo, the

question or definition is no longer art.

[daniel_ob]

ﾓa way of figuring out what is or isn't art-- for youﾔ.

 

Ah Ellis I missed this part as your main question. I think also it is not about ﾓmyﾔ work but just any work.

 

In any art field there is a specific process in leveling the work but lets see the photography only.

 

The photograph is analyzed through details by art historians and artists. Might be looks paradoxaly to you but and photographers commitment to photography is considered, so any detail is in play, not just photograph itself. It is absurd to talk here about all of that details, but enough should be: every single detail. Every single detail historians can get is considered. And history of art is here to trace any ﾓartisticﾔ problem. All details are classified into seven different groups to make the work organized. Is a work ﾓartﾔ or not they never say and cannot. They actually propose it is artwork and after that discussions go on, sometimes shortly after initial propose work is dead. As this a shotr story I can say that for the photos to survive is answer on question: how it reflects life in the time it is created and how it represents the same. But it is still only one point... Work that shows rich in poor community, where there are only two rich normally will not survive. Uhﾅ. Beauty as we talk here (on this site) about, is out of discusion and it do not exists. It can get long and complicated to explain REAL beauty. Take Abel big game fly fishing reel in hand, or Winston trout fly fishing rod. You will say how beautiful it is even not thinking how it looks like. Many real beauty and blind can see (or better to say feel). So that is beauty that counts, but not necessary nice colors. It is possible to describe it, or to define it, but hex who can make that long time typing. I hope you got it. Just work and do not worry, you are not the one to say is your work art. When photographer is artist, all he make and not just photography looks fine and above normality. He always wonders what is it that people see special in my work. He do not know it for all he do is normal for him (artist). My coffee gone. Just to wash my hands for not giving 2 plus 2 equal four. Watch football game and see where he runs. Did he take a calculator to figure out the best path. Millions things passes through head in split of second when historian or artist judge. I can just tell for forger master photo. R. Frank was on edge to create a master photo or not (for Americans), and it could bury him. To hang a photo on a wall for you to like or dislike means really nothing for art. You can like it because it connects you with some positive experience or emotions, but it still does nothing with art. You can make very nice shaft but it do not means GM will buy it. Might be complicated but it is if you wish it in short.

[rich_ullsmith1]

I don't know, O.B. But here's one for ya:

 

Art is that which is framed.

 

IMO, it is the frame that dictates what is and what is not, and not the thing

itself.

[j.w.]

Ellis, I like the premise of your test, as it gets down to the bare essentials of "do I like it?".

 

The more I ponder "what is art?", the more I'm inclined to believe that art, if it exists at all, is a verb, not a noun.

 

I'm more inclined to believe that the works I've really appreciated - whether painting, photography, printing, sculpture, etc - work at the level of really successful craft.

 

So, if there is such a thing as "art" - which I'm tending more to doubt - its that there's the art of really, really fine craftsmanship, practiced consistently, over a long period of time, by a skilled practitioner of the craft. That, in my opinion, approaches "art".

 

Outside of craftsmanship, there is no art.

[beeman458]

"Outside of craftsmanship, there is no art."

 

Sans a definition, everything is art:)

 

What about the critic who proclaims a child's ignorant, unskilled effort, art? How about a chimp's efforts and the high acclaim given?

 

Sans an accepted, by the art world, definition, anything, when presented as such, is art.

 

"Here's my effort." So presented, so goes art. :)

[beeman458]

One must consider that when you have snaps being presented as art, then all's lost as far as any reality of the term is concerned.

 

Does your cell phone have a camera in it? Then it's art.

 

Did a blind person, who doesn't have a clue what they're pointing at, trip the shutter? Then it's art.

 

Does a drunk or doped up dude with a camera start blindly firing away? Then it's art.

 

Is it a child, who doesn't have a clue, tripping the shutter? Then it's art.

 

Did you throw an instamatic in a Chimp's cage? Then it's art.

 

Is it a picture of a steaming pile of what ever? Then it's art.

 

Is it gross, grotesque, shocking, disgusting or banal? Then it's art.

 

The point? Ya get's what-cha's encourage.

[daniel_ob]

"Art is that which is framed.

 

IMO, it is the frame that dictates what is and what is not, and not the thing itself".

 

Are you serious or you just joke.

[h._p.]

One may be perfectly serious while jesting and, to a lot of people, if it's framed, it's art.<div></div>

[beeman458]

An interesting link; photography-guide.com.

 

http://photography-guide.com/c_eye_frame.html

 

I picked this little printed publication up for five bucks (US) when checking out some of the overpriced San Francisco galleries last year.

 

A very nice little pub I must say as they do a great job highlighting, galleries, artists and their shows. This is a good thing, promotion.

 

I'd like to bring your attention to the artist index and the number of galleries, exhibitions and artists they list. Wowser!

 

"...what is or isn't art--" isn't decided by a "simple" question in regard to "... what is or isn't art--for you." and it's not decided by the casual observer's thoughts. Art's very much about "promotion," "business/money" as oposed to being about "art" and what the observer thinks or feels in regard to what they see.

 

Until folks come to grips that "valued art" is about "promotion" formost and has little to do with "art" in of itself, then the question "...what is or isn't art..." can't be answered in any meaningful way. Without money as it's driving force, what's photographic art?

 

It seems that photographic art, sans monetary notoriety or the meeting of any accepted definition, is just another print on the wall waiting to be replaced by something else that can hold one's attention for more than five minutes?

 

If you want to discuss the question "What's phtographic art?", then also be prepared to discuss the monetary corruption and the influence money plays in the notorization process. Here's to me a real question; "How much does money play into the process of deciding what is or isn't art and how much does money influence your decision as to who's a "valid" artist or not.

 

I got nothing against some person paying their bills by selling their artistic wares (artisan) but the connection between photographic art, money and the influence this plays on what's chosen to be held in high esteem needs to be openly discussed in the process of vetting the question.

[billfoster]

Exactly, Thomas!

 

Elis, you say that when something stops being intriguing or interesting for you, it stops being art. That's all well and good, but as soon as a new person walks in your house and sees the photo that's no longer art for you (but you were too lazy to take down), it's art for him. So, we run into a situation where we have a descriptive word, a noun, that is one person says it fits and another says it doesn't. We can't disdain projects or work that we find banal or over-the-top or beyond our own imaginations by saying they are not art. We can call them bad art or unworthy art or just plain crap art ... but they are still art. Michael says a photo can be very good but not be art ... how? Someone will like it and if it is art to someone, then it is art to everyone.

 

The problem is that we are all still using the word "art" as if it carried positive connotations in and of itself and we use it that way in everyday language. When we see beautful car or girl or fishing pole, we can say, "Man, that's a work of art." Over the years, the word has evolved into a term that carries praise. But, it cannot be that way for artists. We (to the limited degree that I am an artist) have to acknowledge that art is simply a descriptive word that describes some kind of creative endeavour with intent and purpose behind it. All of the definitions above are definitions not of art, but of good art. For example, Chris says "Art addressess the eternal questions." No. But ... how 'bout "Good art addresses the eternal questions." Figuring out what is or isn't art for you, our subject, means figuring out what is or isn't good art for you.

 

BTW, love the comment about the frame and there is real validity there, I think. I read a post on a picture here - don't remember which one - where the poster talked about how a frame defines the image and the power of this. Not just the frame around the photograph, but the frame that you create when you take a photo by isolating a particular object. For example, the above mentioned urinal is, in a way, framed by the act of taking it out of it's normal context and making you look at it in a different way. Photography is about framing and that is art.

 

Whether it's good art is another story ....

[ben conover]

A previous poster on this forum attempted to ask whether his photos were porn or art. Personally I think his photos were not the issue. His posts were removed, obviously his questions never mind his opinions are not of any importance, so why should yours be?

 

You give your idea of a diagnostic matrix weherby someone can value art, good or bad etc. However you fail to see the bigger picture.

This site is obviously run for certian purposes and run by certain people. it is a private enterprise to which WE contribute.

 

If you want feedback, look in the feedback forum, I am merely answering your 'question'. The suedo framework of the 'arty theme' is weak. Really this is about what you like and what you will allow.

All we like sheep, merely have to ba and follow the herd.

 

Bottom line is that art is something you can't define because you are setting your own daignostic matrix whereby you will limit yourselves, and where others will be frustrated by your limitaions.

 

Hence the deletion of previos posts on this forum. (That is of relevance to this thread.)

 

Cheers.

[rich_ullsmith1]

Folks, if "Piss Christ" was in my front yard, it would be referred to as a "zoning violation." If "Piss Christ" was exactly 2.3 miles away in the county museum, they would charge admission.

 

The soup cans in my cupboard are worth about a buck apiece. Nobody wants a photograph or painting of them. Put them in a frame and have it signed Andy Warhol, now you have something.

 

The list could go on forever.