Content Verses Technique

[shots worth sharing]

I believe you are simply mistaken if you think that the determination of "what is art and what is good or bad art" is a literary exercise conducted by non-practitioners. Do you also believe that sportcasters and cheerleaders determined the outcome of the Super Bowl?

 

While their theories and critiques may be largely (but certainly not exclusively) expressed as art rather than text, artists nonetheless participate in, and heavily influence, these determinations.

[don_e]

"While their theories and critiques may be largely (but certainly not exclusively) expressed as art rather than text, artists nonetheless participate in, and heavily influence, these determinations."

 

Yes. There wouldn't be any art to theorize about unless artists make some.

[Norma Desmond]

Don--

 

I agree that art theory is a literary (or philosophical) activity. So, for example, Sontag didn't

need to be a photographer in order to be an effective theorist.

 

Still, as a theorist, I don't believe she was determinative of what is art (or photography) to

the exclusion of photographers who provided her a stimulus.

 

You accurately recognize that many photographers and artists don't have complete

theories of photography or art. The conclusion from that would be that artists don't

determine art theory, not that artists don't have a role in determining what is art.

 

It may be a chicken and egg thing. The artist influences the critic and the critic influences

the artist. The artist determines what in the world he will call his art, what tools he will

use, the manner of presentation, etc. The theorist will determine which of those people

and objects s/he will consider in order to develop the theory. Sontag's theories, for

example, were not developed in a vacuum. The theories referenced art that was presented

to the theorist.

[don_e]

"The artist influences the critic and the critic influences the artist."

 

I wonder about that. Anyway, we agree no artist, no art, no theory. Rather than attempting a tenuous reciprocal association between the artist (let's make the art photography) and the theorist or critic, it may be more interesting to work out why photographers are not theorists or critics -- at least during the working in photography phase of their lives.

 

Obviously, skill in photography doesn't imply skill in literature or philosophy. The photographer is bound up in the concrete activity of photography, a subject of little interest to the critic or theorist: the photographer cannot be simply a spectator, a viewer and analyzer of photographs, even his or her own. Last, Photographers (like any artist) are self-centered on their own work, which means they do not have the breadth of experience with the entire activity of photography, but are limited usually to just their own and similar work of others.

 

Another response to where I began...

 

"...if an artist creates a work that noone but he finds aesthetic, is it still art..."

 

The artist is unlikely to care.

[Norma Desmond]

I agree with most of what you said. The only quibble I'd have is that many serious (accent on

the serious) photographers I know do have a breadth of experience with other photography

than just what they are doing as well as with the history of photography. That doesn't

necessarily mean they choose to communicate about it or, if they do so choose, that they do

it well.

[inoneeye]

I am not sure if you were saying Szarkowski was not a photographer...?

But just to clarify, he was. Among his other notable contributions he was an accomplished

photographer.

[don_e]

Yes Szarkowski began as a photographer, but I think I am correct to say his influence on photography doesn't contradict: "why photographers are not theorists or critics -- at least during the working in photography phase of their lives."

 

By "working in photography" I mean as a photographer.

[jugenjury]

Art is in the eyes of the beholder, much like beauty. If you think it's art, then it's art. If you don't think it's art, then to you it isn't, but to others it just might be. I agree with you about the random blots or defecation on the canvas, but ultimately each person has to decide if it is art on a personal level. Some say that if it moves you, or causes any emotion at all, that's art. If so, then passing gas loudly in a quiet library is art. If you qualify that with "the person creating the piece is doing it to evoke an emotion from the viewers." The problem here is most of us I'm sure have come across those rare individuals who enjoy causing reactions using bodiy functions.

 

I think trying to define and qualify art is impossible. There are probably 6.5 billion answers to the question "What is art?"

[don_e]

"I think trying to define and qualify art is impossible."

 

The application of skill and imagination to produce objects or performances of aesthetic value.

[inoneeye]

"why photographers are not theorists or critics -- at least during the working in

photography phase of their lives."

<br>does this imply that you are not a photographer if you have other work? $?

<br><br>

"Consider the usual authorities on photography in these forums:"

<br>

such as; Szarkowski - yes, i recognize him a photographer and a powerhouse of influence

and a prolific writer & theorist and critic, <br>

Adams - imagine not having this man's input via text, <br>

Weston - his philosophy had a great impact on my many others - his diaries may be an

unconventional way to present theory..but i see it as applied theory and well written,

<br>Stieglitz - a supremely even omnipotent influential critic.

<br>

All are photographers. Their theories, words, and text all frequently quoted, referenced

on PN. <br><br>

'Nude Theory/Landscape Theory' are 2 books put out by Lustrum.... good reads of the

photographers own words. Kertesz, Newton, Callahan, etc. An example of using ones own

work to present a theory, including the written word.

<br>

Moholy-Nagy has written extensively on art in general and specifically photography.<br>

So much text is available by artists, photographers. Yes, much has a self serving agenda

but.....then, there are countless writings by other photographers, critical and theoretical.

More than a few are quite good, insightful and thoroughly educationally beneficial. Many

(often the best) of these photographers are well versed in a diversity of others work.

[jautey]

"The application of skill and imagination to produce objects or performances of aesthetic value."

 

A very Webster definition, but not one that is in keeping with the spirit of the question.

 

I think we'd be better served by asking what art isn't than what art is. Subtacting from the stone what isn't art until we get to something that is, if you'll excuse the old sculpture analogy.

 

Although that'll probably lead us around in circles just as the more affirmative question does.

[jugenjury]

"The application of skill and imagination to produce objects or performances of aesthetic value."

 

I agree with Eric here. Love is defined in Webster's, but what is it really? Dictionary.com shows 12 definitions for the noun form of love. Is it an emotional thing? Chemical? Physical?

 

I would also argue that not all art displays skill or imagination. The "paint splash" artists that Thomas mentioned require no imagination and no skill. A 2 year old getting finger paint for the first time could do as well since it's purely random. What about the recent "art" fiasco where the maintenance guy's bathroom diagram was thought to be a great work of art? The artist who paints the entire canvas blue because he's depressed and can't come up with anything else?

 

I am starting to feel the same way about poetry....or any of the "creative vocations" anymore, really. This is why I say each person must determine for him/herself what constitutes art. You can't define it. Art to you may not be to me. I certainly won't argue with your point of view on it, but you won't change my mind either unless you give me a very compelling reason.

[Norma Desmond]

Mike (or Thomas)--

 

Can you refer me to a specific "paint splash" artist whose work is on the par of a two-

year-old with finger paints?

 

Thanks.

 

Leaving behind the "paint splashers" for the time being (or maybe not), I believe that some

works of art -- especially those considered modern art -- are meant more (or less) to be

thought about and to drive art and the art world and are less inclined to be solely objects

of visual wonder . . . or enjoyment.

 

Duchamp -- a great and provocative artist, in my opinion -- is as much a theorist and

philosopher as a creator of compelling visual works. Reading about Fountain, for me, is

almost as good as seeing it. To be honest, though, I still got a thrill when I did finally see

it within the context of a museum and other works of art. But it's not something I need to

see again, necessarily.

 

Monet's Rouen Cathedrals, on the other hand, I could live with and would be happy to see

every day.

 

Art and artists work in many different ways.

[jugenjury]

Mr Goldsmith,

 

You may not agree with me, but the following artists have at least one work that I feel is on par with what a 2 year old could do with finger paint:

 

Jackson Pollock

Helen Frankenthaler

Jack Jefferson

Philip Guston

Clyfford Still

Hans Hofmann

Franz Kline

 

Do I consider their works to be art? Sure I do. Do I enjoy looking at their works? Definitely. I also consider it art when a 2 year old finger paints on a piece of construction paper and I enjoy looking at that, also.

 

I'm not in any way disagreeing with what you say. I'm merely giving my opinion of what constitutes art. My opinion is and always will be that art is in the eye of the person experiencing it. I also feel that art can not be boxed up into a neat, tidy little definition nor can it be qualified into a specific idea.

[Norma Desmond]

Thanks for the reply, Mike.

 

My sense is that the difference between the 2-year-old child and Pollock and

Frankenthaler is that the latter two had a particular (and meaningful) intention behind

their works. So, they were not only expressing feelings but they were doing it with

deliberation and deliberateness. They were also furthering ideas relative to the history of

art.

 

For me, art is not just about a finished product. It's about a process (both of the artist and

the viewer) and a moment or moments in history.

 

That's why there's a difference between what I would lovingly hang on my walls or

refrigerator and what I would expect to see in a museum.

 

I don't always enjoy experiencing art. Sometimes, I am saddened, sometimes shocked,

sometimes made afraid.

 

I agree that art eludes a tidy definition. But, loose ones have been attempted, all of which

confer upon it some meaning. We speak about art intelligibly. If it were whatever we

wanted it to be, it would be much less intelligible.

 

There's a difference between knowing, for example, pornography when you see it and

pornography being difficult to define and saying that pornography is anything that any

person may say it is. What occurs to me is that, if we don't differentiate art from other

things (child's play, decoration, natural wonders) then we render it meaningless.

 

But, if some don't see a difference between Pollock and the 2-year-old, far be it from me

to change those minds. I'm happy to see things the way I do.

[jugenjury]

Thank you, Fred. This discussion is rather interesting. I'll admit that I'm not into art as much as you seem to be. I do enjoy art in its many forms, though.

 

I would think that to the 2 year old, the process of building the piece is every bit as intense as it was for Pollock. I'm sure Pollock didn't get each drop of paint into an exact spot, but rather in a general pattern. I would also think that the 2 year old can also have a particular intent behind his/her work, though maybe not as mature of an intent as Pollock.

 

The process, I feel, is really the same when you break it down. They both look at a blank canvas and see what they want to express, then work on getting that idea onto the canvas. The history part can never be determined until after the fact. An artist should never expect that his/her work will become a piece of history.

 

I would say that had someone from the 18th or 19th century tried to differentiate art from other things, people like Pollock and Frankenthaler would not be considered artists today. It's similar to music in a way. It seems to be splitting off into different genres. The more you try to limit what art CAN be, the more you limit the way artists are able to express themselves.

 

One last artist I want to bring up for your opinion: Marla Olmstead.

[Norma Desmond]

"An artist should never expect that his/her work will become a piece of history."

 

I honestly don't know whether Pollock, for example, expected that his work would become a

piece of history. But he was, regardless, intentionally commenting (with paint) on art history.

That's a crucial difference I see between Pollock and the 2-year-old. Not that all artists must

comment on art history, by any means. It's just one factor.

 

I will read about Marla Olmstead, with whom I am unfamiliar, and comment later. Thanks.

[don_e]

""why photographers are not theorists or critics -- at least during the working in photography phase of their lives."

 

"does this imply that you are not a photographer if you have other work?"

 

I hoped to imply that photography can be time and energy consuming if it is your main (a)vocation. The skills needed for photography are not in the same skillset as those needed for literature (theory and criticism), that interest in photography doesn't automatically translate into an interest in theory or criticism.

 

But I can't imagine a photographer who would not work out an aesthetic or who would not give time and energy to the matters addressed by theory and criticism.

 

So, art theory and criticism -- consider it a job description. Everyone has a theory and everyone has a critique -- and everyone has a car, but not everyone is a professional driver.

 

For me, at least, it is not easy moving between the concrete activity of photography, and the abstractions of philosophy and language. I admire photographers who can do it. But I find the photographers who have influenced me either can't or do not bother to (HCB, for example).

 

Times change, and photographers in general may have become more academic and critical than in the past.

[Norma Desmond]

"There's no discussions here about the art theories of (not *about*) significant

photographers, mostly because they either didn't have any or all we know are quotations

from correspondence and interviews. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I'd guess their

theorizing was published after they'd gotten a 'chair'."

 

Simple. Wrong.

[don_e]

Thanks for that datapoint, Fred.

[Norma Desmond]

I call 'em as I see 'em. And I'm making a greater point. It has to do with black and white

thinking, all 'er nothin'.

[don_e]

How is "I'm sure there are exceptions..." "black and white thinking, all'er nothin'"?

 

I've irritated you again, so nevermind.

[don_e]

""The application of skill and imagination to produce objects or performances of aesthetic value."

 

A very Webster definition, but not one that is in keeping with the spirit of the question."

 

There was no question. There was a statement: ""I think trying to define and qualify art is impossible.""

 

As you see, it is not impossible. I don't know what the "spirit" is you refer to. To disagree with that definition might go something like this: 'Neither intelligence nor skill is required to produce art, and here's why...'

 

If you mean we may disagree whether something is art or whether it is good, bad, or indifferent art, that goes without saying. Before we could disagree, and perhaps come to a resolution of our disagreement, we first need to agree on our terms of discussion. If that is not possible, if it is all 'subjective' and 'for me', then we might as well be sophomores having deep thoughts in the dorm.

 

Some people grow up still confused by language, that a word can have more than one, fixed, definite meaning -- something that leads them to conclude meaning is meaningless -- except, of course, 'subjectively'.

[Norma Desmond]

"How is "I'm sure there are exceptions..." "black and white thinking, all'er nothin'"?"

 

Because it's qualified by "but I'd guess their theorizing was published after they'd gotten a

'chair'," which serves to neutralize the exceptions in the argument, meaning you don't

really take those exceptions seriously when addressing the point. Josh's comments show

that photographer theorists are not a matter of exceptions, but a pretty darn important

part of the historical mix.

 

While you irritate me on the one hand, you continue to stimulate me on the other, and the

way you've consolidated thoughts on "meaning" above makes me all warm and fuzzy. :)

 

As I've said again and again, making a word like "art" purely subjective renders it

meaningless.

[jugenjury]

There is truth in that. I think what Pollock was trying to do was stop, reevaluate his direction as an artist, and continue. I can picture him standing there one day and thinking to himself "Hey, I'm tired of the same ol' same ol'. I want to try something different that more expresses what I truly feel whether it fits the mold of what people perceive as art or not." I would say that could be a comment on art history so you do make a valid point there. However, as I said before, if people had already decided what should and should not be considered art he would not have been considered an artist. We may have something completely different in the next 10 years within the art world. Perhaps a new medium of, say, LCD screens that show subtly changing mosaics completely generated by a computer program. It could be sheer random fractals, or set into boundaries by the program creator. It may change as the environment around it changes through a camera/microphone input. Is that art, or randomly generated pixels on a screen? I would say art because someone took the time to craft the program that would display the imagery. So this would open up the idea of a computer program itself being considered art.

 

The only difference between what hangs on my wall and what goes into a museum is a general consensus among the art community to designate one artist as notable. I would be willing to step out on a limb and say that within the past century or two this has been driven by money as much as, if not more than, the art itself.