Definitions of Art and Photography

[aplumpton]

Some people have trouble accepting photography as a medium for art expression. So be it. Some people also have trouble accepting Cristo and his bridge wrapping art, or Andy Warhol. So be it. A Russian artist in his landlocked submarine in a pool near the Louvre last autumn may not have convinced many that his creation was art, but it was certainly human inspired and a jolly carricature of his homeland navy.

 

 

One can discriminate, but I for one see absolutely no point in that. If a robot creates art via oils and a brush, is that art? I think not. Not at least in a human definition of the term. Moral. Do what you like in art. Have fun (and meaning), as long as it respects others. If nobody ever considers what you do as art, what should that matter? The pleasure is in the act of creation (even in hero-worshipping North America). Period. If someone else can enjoy it, fine. Art as such does not make a distinction betweeen degree-laden art professionals and an innocent (but highly inspired) amateur. Photographer or other.

[see_r]

Arthur, lol, excellent, thanks!

[iliafarniev]

Gentlemen. Let us not plow wider then we actually need.

 

Have never stated that photography does not belong to art, merely offerd one way to look at definition making in this matters.

 

Chip. Can you bring up an example of ".. develop some really interesting method to expose photographic paper with absolutely stunning results?" ?

 

Talking of emotional responce as a token of art. Much more people enjoy viewing the beautyful sunsets then a beautyful photographs of sunsets.

 

Now. Would you agree that a sunset as such is more like a natural phenomene then a work of art?

 

Talking of creativity. There are not a single piece or fragment of human behavior wich does not inhold at list some creativity. Most of that we do is just pure creativity. Most inspiring examples of human behavior of any kind are astonishing acts of cteativity. We all are naturaly creative in the first place but IMO it does not mean that we all are artists.

 

Or does it?

 

I even know a horse who is creative.

 

If we want functional definition for the thing IMO we'll have to put aside the criteria of beauty and positive emotional responce as not definitive ones.

 

Consider the fact that there are loads of so called modern art in existance, also photographic, which is intentionaly not beautyful and designet not to evoke the positive emotional responce or joy, rathet on the contrary.

[see_r]

All good. Yes, creativity can be outside of art, as our little dog exhibits on the carpet every so often.

 

I don't have an example of what I had mentioned regarding painting with light. Only speaking hypothetically to illustrate the breadth of what rightfully could be considered "recording light".

 

Good point about those works of art that are other than aesthetically pleasing or otherwise envoking of positive emotion. That causes me to distinguish still art or photography from motion forms. It is only with motion forms of art or photography that I personally take a taste for those works that produce negative emotions. One example that comes to mind is the movie, "Kids" (1995). Harmony Korine has truely exhibited an ability to artistically put together some of the ugliest shit and just make it amazing! Again, that's just my personal taste.

[iliafarniev]

So, where are we in this discurtion then.

 

Are we all agree that creativity is not a token of art?

 

An imagination was not mentioned lately, but we probably can say that it does not make thing an art either.

 

Aestetic value or beauty or harmoniousness does not necessarily make thing an artwork.

 

Let us try to pinpoint that is common and unic to the artwork then.