Does "fine art" have an expiration?

[valjalbertphotography]

<p>I'm talking specifically about the reuse of a concept that was already deemed to have been considered as fine art.</p>

<p>For instance, if I make a photograph that is based upon the same or similar concept as a previous photograph that was considered fine art, is the new photograph still considered fine art? Or does that fact that the concept was already used once invalidate the attempt and remove the new work from contention as fine art because the idea has now expired and should never be utilized again?</p>

<p> </p>

[starvy]

<p>it depends on who you are. if you are part of the artworld, a recognised artist or an aspiring artist who is creating works of art, then using older themes could well be deemed as your homage to that artist, as long as you acknowledge it.</p>

[josephbraun]

<p>I think people get too caught up with labels. Shoot what makes you happy and then call it tuna fish photography. Man, i'm hungry :)</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Fine art, like philosophy, is one of those subjects in which a professor can give exactly the same exam, year after year, but each time it's given, the answers will be different.</p>

<p>"I'm not kidding, this is my job" as the professor in <em>Animal House</em> says.</p>

<p>There are, however, cycles, too. For example, Modern (technically so defined, <em>not</em> "contemporary") furniture from the great Modernists was really big in the 30s to 60s. Then styles changed to Post-Modern. Now Modernism is back and great prices are being paid for classic Modern pieces.</p>

<p>So I'm thinking that Pictorialism in photography will be back, indeed, some portfolios on this site suggest that already. Although when things come back into fashion, there is always a little difference from the earlier expression.</p>

<p>As Karl Marx said in the introduction to the <em>18th</em> <em>Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, </em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>All history repeats itself,<br>

the first time as tragedy,<br>

the second time as farce.<em><br /> </em></p>

</blockquote>

[silverpixel]

<p>What may be "considered fine art" is rather impossible to anticipate as it depends on aesthetics, a dynamic cultural construct that varies with place, time, and even individual interpretation. As the language of visual art evolves, repeating the use of a concept may seem to make it trite or abused, but the introduction of some other element, whether tangible or merely perceived, may cause it to again be hailed as "original". The fickle finger of fashion has next to nothing to do with science and verifiable facts, being completely subjective in the end, regardless of the highly entertaining rationalizations and justifications one may postulate.</p>

<p>The perception of originality is key for market purposes, but for the creative person, I have to side with Joseph Braun's advice above. Pursuing originality (which in my opinion is overrated) as an end in itself almost invariably results in a contrived or gimmicky appearance in the work, which may capture the attention of some for a while, but will probably not endure the test of time. If the product of your honest expression seems derivative or influenced by someone else's prior work, accept it and use it. No one creates in a vacuum. As long as you don't violate property rights, I say go for it, and deal with the audience's reaction last.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> No, there is no expiration date. Besides, you can only make the art you're ready to make, so do whatever you want.</p>

[beepy]

<p>I'm sorry, I can't resist:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Well, Art is Art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water. And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now you tell me what you know. - Groucho Marx</p>

</blockquote>

[beepy]

<p>On a more profound note.<br>

Somewhere in here is the dilemma of something having already been shot many times before - an idea, image or concept. Blissful ignorance at the start of my endeavors, feeling my way mostly on my own, I started playing with silk and figures because of an image I saw by Maureen Gallagher.<br>

Showing my work at a workshop in Rockport, Maine someone said "That reminds me of Ruth Bernhard." I replied "Who?" How thoroughly embarrassing (I got to meet her when she was somewhere north of 100, bopping around Photo SF).<br>

The problem here arises when in order to make a new image, you start getting ... clever for lack of a better word. Clever is not always a compliment. Such as appropriating images and transforming them into art. Incorporating them whole cloth to make a statement. It's perhaps interesting the first time, or not. But I think it's hard to pull off successfully.<br>

Moving out of photography, I must admit I find Warhol's soup cans and Brillo boxes oddly compelling. While not "photographs" they are reproductions of common objects presented in a different context. In the end, whether an original image or a departure from an original, the artist is left with the need to make an impression - and more difficult, a lasting one beyond the initial reaction of "That's clever."<br>

I'm not sure I'm helping here.</p>

[pnital]

<p>Val, In the 90's there was a trend among artists( painting). It was creating with a citation of other well known artists of the past, but the idea was adding something of your own and create a new saying. I think that photography is not different as a way of creating. You still have your own world, way of observing, thoughts and taste. With individual skills, you can do something that will be looked at as a fresh point of view.</p>

[tomwatt]

<p>"Fine Art" - the overpriced pieces of paper the cheesy commercial galleries sell to tourists in popular tourist spots or the stuff that hangs in The Louvre?<br>

As someone cited earlier, it's a question with many answers. There was/is a school of thought in photography called re-photographing... going back to a site and shooting it duplicating a historical photograph, but in its modern state. Not as easy as it sounds, as I've tried tackling that with some historical Boston-area scenes.<br>

I have to confess the Groucho quote may say it best. But then I've always been fond of Groucho.<br>

"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." - Groucho Marx</p>

[silverpixel]

<p>Art went down Duchamp´s urinal nearly a century ago. Expression and the human soul, on the other hand, are still here, as Groucho demonstrated.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Thanks, Beepy, we needed that. (<em>That</em> being the Groucho quote)</p>

[valjalbertphotography]

<p>VERY interesting thoughts, everyone. Keep them coming. I'm enjoying reading all the different viewpoints.</p>

[cooltpmd]

<p><strong>There is nothing new under the sun!!!</strong></p>

<p>You can paint a beautiful woman as a realist ... or, you can paint her blue ... in the end there are a finite number of subjects (people, animals, flowers, trees) and a finite number of ways to distort or display reality.</p>

<p>In the end, shoot things you enjoy ... modify as you see fit ... and learn to accept YOUR art ... not something that seeks to be different for different sake.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>I am not sure this helps but in 1997 the Turner Prize (UK - Tate Gallery) was awarded to Steve McQueen (no relation) for Deadpan 1997.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibitions/turnerprizeretrospective/exhibitionguide/98-00.shtm">http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibitions/turnerprizeretrospective/exhibitionguide/98-00.shtm</a></p>

<p>The operative words from the description go like this :</p>

<p><em>'Here, the original slapstick moment becomes deadpan and tense as McQueen himself becomes the solemn protagonist, barely flinching as the timber structure falls around him. '</em><br>

<em></em><br>

So Buster Keaton's comic moment has been turned into a moment of fear. This seems to be a recurring theme in a lot of modern art ( I use the term loosely) where an original is <strong>subverted</strong> (another recurring theme) by adding a new meaning to it.</p>

<p>Another recent winner (2005) was Simon Starling's <em>Shedboatshed</em> which started out as a shed, had been turned into a boat and sailed down the Rhine, then turned back into a shed again.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibitions/turnerprizeretrospective/exhibitionguide/02-05.shtm">http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibitions/turnerprizeretrospective/exhibitionguide/02-05.shtm</a></p>

<p>I should say that the Turner Prize is both prestigious in the Art World and also widely derided elsewhere.</p>

<p>So - subvert it and it is Art.</p>

 

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Another example in art is the re - use / manipulation of original Goya etchings by the Chapman brothers. It's not that the originals weren't relevant anymore, but something of relevance, other than what the etchings where about, was seen and literally put into them, be that good or bad, but the original context was expanded.</p>

[sobeystudio]

<p>Mike- "Art went down Duchamp´s urinal nearly a century ago"<br>

Care to cite some specific examples or continue using pithy puns (pissy puns?)</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>Both Michelangelo and Donatello sculpted a 'David'. Both are considerd fine art. There have been many paintings of the Crucifixion and the Deposition from the Cross - all are considered fine art. I think that the essence of fine art is that it addresses, as George Steiner said, "the exploration and communication of great and final things', which by definition are eternal.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I believe in fine art and in neither eternity or final things.</p>

<p>Fine art is in the way something is explored, not in what is being explored.</p>

<p>Exploring the same subject matter is not creating the same work of art.</p>

<p>A friend of mine likes to quote Picasso: "Good artists copy, great artists steal."</p>

<p>Copying is one thing. Making it your own is quite another.</p>

[inoneeye]

<p>... and make it their own. That's what makes it unique and notable.</p>

[inoneeye]

<p>Fred, "Fine art is in the way something is explored, not in what is being explored."<br>

Nicely put. Stolen, borrowed or one of your making?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Just thought it up as I was writing, though I imagine others have expressed similar ideas previously.</p>

[mcpoljak2003]

<p>I just turned mine over and it says, "Best Before May, 1977". I guess I'm out of luck.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Many worth while endeavors build upon that which came before them. Very little is new. Somebody comes up with a concept and someone else say nice idea but maybe it can be done better.</p>

[silverpixel]

<p><em>Mike- "Art went down Duchamp´s urinal nearly a century ago"<br /> Care to cite some specific examples or continue using pithy puns (pissy puns?)</em><br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

Nicely put, Martin. No specific example of course - merely an attempt to emphasize Duchamp's own recollection of his intention when submitting the piece. An aesthetic concept regarding originality is more valuable to art-talk than to art-making, where the limits imposed can easily become a hindrance. I believe this to be an example of semantics and syntax tripping over one another, first in verbal language, and then in visual, as your post seems to point out. In my opinion it wasn't art that got flushed, but the idea that it ought to be clearly defined. Rebellion against prevailing aesthetics is a permanent theme in great art, often confused with the pursuit of originality for its own sake.</p>