Is Art - and thus Photography - an instinct?

ceesmaas · September 11, 2009

I wouldn't place Morris, Ardrey and Jared Diamond on the same evolutionary level as Dutton.

And by the way: it is my strong opinion that puppies are never off-topic!

JDMvW · September 11, 2009

I said "a little more", but we're always together on puppies!

ceesmaas · September 11, 2009

We are.

mrraz · September 11, 2009

About 5000 generations ago our ancestors left Africa, and now we sit here at our computers arguing over terms, sexual selection and art, of which little is known based on what has been written so far in this thread. Sexual selection is not always based on which bird has the largest tail feathers. There are mating rituals that enter into the mix that allows for a greater degree of choice for females.

As far as Rolexes, Ferraris and puppies go, they will not actually improve one's reproductive success. However, they will go a long way to getting one's nose open, hooked up or laid depending on your vernacular which appears to be the goal of many addressing this thread.

When I go to a gallery, I don't go to buy art(ort if your from Texas). I go to buy a photograph, painting, drawing, sculpture, glass or ceramics. When I do my photographer thing, I'm not producing art, I'm producing photographs. Now there are those who feel their work deserves to be recognized as "art," but aren't they after all just inflating their egos to some personal end?

JDMvW · September 11, 2009

Huh? Glenn, there're some vast jumps in your argument, but the one that I especially don't get is your saying that getting laid and such is not an improvement in reproductive success. Man, that IS reproductive success, at least in biological terms (Mother Nature doesn't know anything about contraception). As for tail feathers not being all, that was my point, you know.

ted_fisher · September 11, 2009

Glenn asked,

"Now there are those who feel their work deserves to be recognized as "art," but aren't they after all just inflating their egos to some personal end?"

I don't think the term art is used in that case to indicate quality, but to indicate intent.

william l. palminteri · September 11, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4099441">Glenn Rasmussen</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub2.gif" alt="" /></a>, Sep 11, 2009; 04:58 p.m. When I do my photographer thing, I'm not producing art, I'm producing photographs. Now there are those who feel their work deserves to be recognized as "art," but aren't they after all just inflating their egos to some personal end?

</blockquote>

Glenn, I'm an artist/designer who uses the camera as the fastest way to create my art. I couldn't care less about getting my work 'recognised'.

My ego is not connected to anyone's opinions about my craft.

I shoot instinctively, by the way.

Bill P.

mrraz · September 11, 2009

JDM, Reproductive success involves creating offspring. If there is no offspring to continue the species, then there is no reproductive success. Mother Nature might be ignorant of contraception, but in the civilized world of today contraception controls reproductive success. If a male hasn't produced offspring, then that individual has not achieved reproductive success. It doesn't matter how many times he's had intercourse.

Ted, I feel intent has little to do with art. Intent creates a photograph, painting, etc. It takes an outside agency or individual to define a work such as a photograph as art. The photographer doesn't get to make that call.

william l. palminteri · September 11, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4099441">Glenn Rasmussen</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub2.gif" alt="" /></a>, Sep 11, 2009; 08:50 p.m.

It takes an outside agency or individual to define a work such as a photograph as art. The photographer doesn't get to make that call.

</blockquote>

The artist most definitely makes that call.

"Art is anything done well......"

Andy Warhol

Bill P.

ted_fisher · September 11, 2009

Glenn said,

"Ted, I feel intent has little to do with art. Intent creates a photograph, painting, etc. It takes an outside agency or individual to define a work such as a photograph as art. The photographer doesn't get to make that call."

Hi Glenn,

I wish I had used a more accurate word than "intent" there -- after all, when we look and think about someone's art "intent" no longer matters. (I know many will disagree with me there, but Wimsatt and Beardsley will back me up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_fallacy for details.) What I was getting at, though, is that when we work as a photograph-maker, we're probably concerned with all the technical characteristics of the field, and the standard practices and concepts we already know about what makes a "quality" photograph. That's fine: yesterday I did a gig shooting for a plastic surgeon -- the measure of success being a photo that seemed beautiful and flattering to the client but that accurately depicted the face. In another mode, one could certainly make a portrait and work within the concerns / standards / aesthetic of portrait photography.

But if someone decides to work in art mode, all constraints are gone. They can do whatever they want, then evaluate it any way they want. Others might not agree. I was a museum curator for five years -- I generally disagreed with how artists self-evaluated. But that didn't mean they weren't free to be artists even if when I thought the work wasn't great.

It also meant, in my opinion, that the standards we know from technical photography, from the various crafts within photography, and from the photography world might go right out the window in the pursuit of art. Which is why I said "intent" -- it is easy to find many works where if we evaluated the photos based on the tradition of photography, it would be weak photography but when we shift and evaluate what showing the work in a certain context does it could very well be great art.

tonmestrom · September 12, 2009

When I do my photographer thing, I'm not producing art, I'm producing photographs. Now there are those who feel their work deserves to be recognized as "art," but aren't they after all just inflating their egos to some personal end?

</blockquote>

Exactly, there is a lot of pretense and make-believe going around. Nothing new really. More than anything else it's a craft where we apply technique, experience and if we're any good something that is commonly referred to as "vision". It might well amount to art on some level and in some instances it does but those are few and far between. Art is often considered art well after the fact or simply because a certain name is attached to it. Personally I couldn't care less, I've never picked up my camera in order to create art. Sure one can call oneself an artist but it doesn't mean that one is an artist.

As for the OP's premise the understanding of art is indeed culturally (or even environmentally) defined. The landscape reference may indeed be rather romantic but aren't Shelley, Keats and Byron also part of our heritage? Meaning that if you want to find any reference it's there and perceiving it as romantic is as much culturally defined as are the works of these poets.

The funny thing about the Warhole quotation is that it's rather down to earth. It's a nuance that is often overlooked. After all, in that context a good bricklayer who builds a wall can also be considered an artist. And yes Glenn, you're right. The photographer doesn't get to make that call.

ceesmaas · September 12, 2009

Maybe: as art is an instinct, there is nothing holy about it.

Then: art is an all-day cheese sandwich.

Art is a dog.

Art is a puppy (mines BTW - a Gordon Setter - is called The Beagle) hunting a yellow butterfly in my backyard.

Then: Art it's a very, very common thing. Nothing to do peacock-ish about. Or to inflate your own personal ego on it. How would you inflate your ego on a cheese sandwich?

It depends on your own definition of the term art - the way you see it, how holy you think it is, but you can also accept it as a normal thing of life. Produced by accidentally talented people. Or: as Ted says "I don't think the term art is used in that case to indicate quality, but to indicate intent".

Or, in the field of photography, where Erwitt states: "To me, photography is an art of observation. It's about finding something interesting in an ordinary place. I've found it has little to do with the things you see and everything to do with the way you see them."

Here on PN it is easy to see the examples. An image in backlight of the Temple of Warriors, the great silence of the Swannee River, or a landscape in fog upon the Potomac River.

Maybe it's all that simple. And still wonderful, though. That is: as art is an instinct.

iliafarniev · September 12, 2009

Maybe art then is the way of avoiding reproductive activities. Or state of personal delusion with intertaining potential.

Well. I propose we unite our inteligence at one and make a list of universal and distinctive characteristics that only the art objects posess.

The logic behind this prop is the arguments here on this page hit everythere between "everything is art" and "nothing is art" thus are talking different random things on assumption talking same thing.

jtk · September 12, 2009

Ilia's right as usual. And the OT is invalid on its face.

<a href="00URvN">Is Art - and thus Photography - an instinct?</a>

1) It carelessly assumes agreement that "Art" is a meaningful term.

2) It illogically ("thus") makes a totally invalid assertion that "Photography" is an "instinct" because it's "Art"

3) The assertion that "instinct" relates to beauty, meaning, "Art", or "Photography" implies that the "artist" was born with an aptitude. That kind of gross falsehood drives the self-aggrandizing assertions of fascists, the top tiers of British and Indian caste systems, and the racism that characterises some in America.

To the extent that "Art" exists (it does, but it's rare), it is the result mostly of education and work.

One is not born as a Picasso or a Van Gogh. If you've not seen a few hundred Van Goghs or Picassos, ideally together in their respective museums and rare traveling exhibitions, you miss the way their Art developed over time, before their fame, through literally thousands of pieces. In ignorance, one buys what one's told by one's superiors (eg "Art Critics"). See 3) above.

"Photography" may sometimes be part of a process that leads to "Art," but that's rare. Photographic "Artists" (eg Weston, Avedon) use cameras, but that's not a validation of photography as an art medium any more than Arthur Miller's use of a typewriter is a validation of typewriting (or word processing) as "Art" (nearly identical to the OT's illogic.)

ceesmaas · September 12, 2009

John - Can a question be 'invalid on its face'?

And how many 'assertions' can one read in an invalid question?

And is it possible to answer an invalid question?

Yes, you do. Thanks.

thomas_sullivan · September 12, 2009

it's a gift....don't question it, just enjoy it

jtk · September 12, 2009

Cees, here's what you "asked" , making several odd assertions in one short sentence:

<a rel="nofollow" href="00URvN">Is Art - and thus Photography - an instinct?</a>

1) If by "Art" you mean something, please say what that is. I don't think you are referring to anything that you can even approximately define..you are treating a formerly significant word as intellectual fluff. But since you think art is some kind of phenomenon: please tell us more about what it is. I think you have no idea what "art" means beyond "beauty". And I think few of us believe art=beauty or even necessarily involves beauty.

A traditionalist, I think "Art" implies something powerful, though most of us use it carelessly, as if it has to do with "pretty" or "well composed" and can, as you suggest, be accomplished by clicking a shutter .

2) By equating "Art" and "Photography," as you did, one ephemeral and the other an activity or category (eg activity, photographic results such as prints, slides, or files) you've muddled whatever idea you think you're puzzling over. Sloppy word useage was used to pose several non-ideas.

3) "Is Art - and thus Photography -.." You're saying that Photography is inherently Art. Based only on that premise (most of Photography is not "Art") your use of "thus" is inherently self-negating.

Further: "thus - an instinct" is a new, entirely separate idea that doesn't follow. You're saying that "x", which you construe oddly as identical to("thus" "y" ) means that something entirely unrelated and previously unmentioned ("r") follows. Your "x" does NOT equal your "y" and it's silly to connect them to a previously unmentioned "r".

By relying on "Dutton," a seemingly irrelevant "authority" rather than stating a rational thesis, you've gotten away from whatever idea you have. Why not tell us what your idea is, rather than dragging in someone whose relevance you've not established and whose work you've not linked?

"Beauty", an entirely separat idea than "Art," is no closer to "Art" than is "up" or "chartreuse" or "the sea."

You mentioned the Paleolithic as if you were familiar with it: I don't think the "artists" of Lascaux (whose work demonstrates that they, or many of them, actually were definitively "artists") were dealing with "beauty"...I think they were dealing with a world they experienced profoundly.

I think they were dealing with "power" they experienced in the world, and the "mystery" in which we all would live if we weren't so crippled by bad logic, complex languages, and authoritarian religions.

The paleolithic cave painters of Lascaux came as close as anyone has ever come to evoking big ideas, big experiences. The sweep of their cave work is comparable to Picasso's Guernica project (many paintings, not just the big one), or any cathedral in its significance to humanity. Reducing that to "beauty" seems odd.

Ruspoli's book and parallel (different, great narration and writing) film are extremely moving, and technically amazing as photographic illustrations and as film... you may be able to get them from a library. Maybe the book, photographs, and film are "art," maybe they're not. They're infinitely more significant than, BETTER THAN, most of what gets carelessly labeled as "Art."

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Cave-Lascaux-Mario-Ruspoli/dp/0810912678">http://www.amazon.com/Cave-Lascaux-Mario-Ruspoli/dp/0810912678</a>

ceesmaas · September 13, 2009

OK John, since you asked I give you my own opinion in this, for what it's worth. You understand that this opinion isn't finished yet - it may never be - that's why, among other things, I posted this question in this forum. I am a kind of serious guy. So when I mention photography, I mean serious photography. Doesn't matter if it is done by amateurs or pro's, as long as it is serious. Made with love for the medium. I know many pro's who doesn't care if what they produce is art, as long as they are satisfied with the quality and as long as it pays the bills. On the contrary, I know amateurs who produce high art.

I am not really sure what I mean with 'art'. How older I grow, the more questions I have and the less answers. The definition of new art or old art is controversial in contemporary philosophy. Some of these definitions are culture-specific, and others are more universal. Art reflects history and is an indispensable part of peoples' culture. What I do know, of course, is my personal experience and my personal definition. Art hits me. Whenever I see a photograph or an other visual representation, or read a good book, listen to special music, it can happen that what I see or hear gives me at instant a brand new view on reality. Or gives me a strong feeling of communication with the maker. Art to me is an expression which is beyond appearances – inner feelings, eternal truths, or the essence of the age. But that's only me. I like fiction, in visual arts and in literature. Photography, in my opinion, is a craft and an art. It doesn't have to be both. But most of the artist need good skills to express themselves properly. Not all, but most.

Then the question: is art an instinct? I posted it with pure honest meanings. I am curious for the history of art, its base, and for the opinions in this of serious people who make on a regular base visual representations and have fun with it, or consider it otherwise worthwhile.

fate_faith_change_chains · September 13, 2009

I think the drive for thruth and meaning is more about instinct while the expression and acknowledgement of that meaning through art touches more on intuition. The two aren't necessarily the strict opposite of each other but instinct suggests an unconscious action through plain hard awareness. Intuition suggests more a deliberate consciousness in that awareness and driven by individual choice, a choice through which the individual completes the " self " and which can translate into the perception and creation of a " heightened awereness ", of art. Photography can be an instinct but not because it's art but because it has a stronger correlation, by its very nature, to " plain hard awareness ". Perhaps the paradox ( and power ) of photography is such that it can be both about instinct and intuition, while for the latter it doesn't need to be art at all since photography can stand completely on its own.

william l. palminteri · September 13, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=215867">Thomas Sullivan</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Sep 12, 2009; 12:39 p.m.

it's a gift....don't question it, just enjoy it

</blockquote>

My original post, excerpted.....

"That's as deep as I get on the topic. No philosophy, no "what was the artist thinkig" stuff, etc. That's it, nothing more."

Thomas nailed it, I agree.

Bill P.

jtk · September 13, 2009

" I posted it with pure honest meanings." - Cees

Cees: I don't doubt your honesty. Your"meanings" are exclusive, personal, unique to you...everybodys' "meanings" are that way... therefore they are of limited use in communication unless they are explained a bit...as you just did.

You've proved yourself more intelligent and honest than most who use the word "Art" by explaining what you personally mean by it. Thanks.

"You understand that this opinion isn't finished yet - it may never be" - Cees

Yes, very important.

""That's as deep as I get on the topic. No philosophy, no "what was the artist thinkig" stuff, etc. That's it, nothing more." - Thomas Sullivan

Thats' an admission that one doesn't want to think.

JK

william l. palminteri · September 13, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1154645">John Kelly</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Sep 13, 2009; 02:22 p.m. ""That's as deep as I get on the topic. No philosophy, no "what was the artist thinkig" stuff, etc. That's it, nothing more." - Thomas Sullivan Thats' an admission that one doesn't want to think. JK

</blockquote>

To begin with, Thomas Sullivan didn't say that, I did. If you took the time to actually READ these threads instead of simply misquoting people and making ridiculous remarks about who doesn't want to think, you'd have seen that I also quoted a similar statement by Andy Warhol in my original post on this subject. Where do come off with such an irresponsible statement as the implication that I (or Thomas Sullivan, for that matter) don't want to think ? You don't kow me, you have no idea who I am or what I'm about.

What Thomas Sullivan DID say was..... it's a gift....don't question it, just enjoy it

I remain in complete agreement with him, it really is that simple.

William L. Palminteri

mariano1 · September 14, 2009

Nice debate in general...

I learnt about the importance of puppies in evolutionary terms to add to Darwin discoveries...

What many people think about art, and what many others wrote about art, and I have to say that most of this quotes and comments left me the impression that they made with an underlying need of approval and I accept that that need can be in different levels something that comes with our DNA make up...

But the beautiful thing of living in the modern world is to know that everybody not only is entitle to an opinion goes even further, everyone is right.

The reason why is beautiful is because it give us freedom to speak about what we think, about ourselves, to get to know oneself so deeply that we can speak and share this knowledge, and in doing so we will get to know many artists or even better beautiful people (and not so nice too) and what they think.

I like Michael Axel debate proposition, anything that relate to self exploration I believe would be a fruitful debate.

thomas_sullivan · September 14, 2009

"...Thats' an admission that one doesn't want to think. JK..."...Oh John Kelly....if you only knew how wrong you were. I am probably the most thinkingest person you'll ever know. I have driven people nuts with all the questions I ask. Some of my bosses over the years have been put off by the amount of questions I ask. women wonder why the heck i'm asking them that question....some think i have some dark reason....when actually, i just want to know because it intrigues me to understand things. It's like I have this mission in life to know as much as I possible can. My statement about not questioning it, is more akin to "it's a mystery of life" that I just can't explain yet.....still searching....but meanwhile, I'm just gonna enjoy it

jtk · September 14, 2009

" My statement about not questioning it, is more akin to "it's a mystery of life" that I just can't explain yet.....still searching....but meanwhile, I'm just gonna enjoy it."

That makes sense, pretty much.

The earlier iteration directly expressed aversion to questions...odd in a "philosophy" context. It's not a question of what we "mean," it's a matter of what we say.

IMO this Forum is inherently about questioning. Perhaps we should have a zen Forum for "gonna enjoy" :-)

Personally I'm torn between slacker-pseudo-zen and philosophy. If it ain't one thing it's another.

Sign In

Is Art - and thus Photography - an instinct?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in