Photography is not art

[PapaTango]

Trouble is, "art" requires an artist, and they are actually in small supply. The other problem is that art appreciation requires education and exposure, something rare among the general population.

 

Hogwash...

 

I really like how Wikipedia defined art: "Art is a diverse range of human activities involving the creation of visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), which express the creator's imagination, conceptual ideas, or technical skill, intended to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."

There is no shortage of artists. I will maintain that most remain in obscurity and their works ephemeral. There certainly is no shortage of ostentatious and bloviating elitists who style themselves as aficionados and critics of art. These critters likely outnumber the world's supply of artists.

 

I have a bit of trouble with the concept that the value of any production of art only has merit when it has been adjudicated as worthy by a group of wine-sipping cheese eaters at a gallery show--the same sort who decides what and who belongs in that sacred space. I would further posit that acceptance is much more about the personality of the creator and how well they fit in with that group than the intrinsic value of their expression...

[arthur_gottschalk]

OK, Papa, everyone's an artist, all they have to do is put in a little effort. Now that's Hogwash.

[samstevens]

the intrinsic value of their expression

Problem is “value” is a human judgment, not something intrinsic. That’s why so many works of art are not recognized in their own time. It’s not until audiences recognize the art that it’s given value. Nothing intrinsic about that. “Value” in art is about the meeting of art and the viewer, listener, reader ...

 

That dollar bill in your pocket has no intrinsic value. What it has is whatever value the government and commercial entities confer on it. Same with art.

 

As for the parties with wine-sipping cheese eaters, there are caricaturists who I’d consider artists, but they’re few and far between.

The other problem is that art appreciation requires education and exposure, something rare among the general population.

I think education and exposure can deepen one’s appreciation of art, but I don’t think it’s necessary for the general population’s appreciation of much art. An art critic needs both as does a theorist or teacher. I get as interesting comments from non-photographers on my work as I do from many photographers, and I sense no less appreciation from variously art-educated groups of people.

 

There are different levels of appreciation, from simply how a work moves a person and reaches them emotionally to how qualities such as historical references in the art can deepen that experience. The former can exist without the latter.

[samstevens]

“Value” in art is about the meeting of art and the viewer, listener, reader ...

That viewer, listener, reader will also be the artists themselves, who may value their own work as a separate matter from how audience members value it.

 

Nevertheless, value is not placed in a painting by God. It's conferred by the person or people looking at it or making it.

[PapaTango]

Sam, I believe that the internal spark of creativity and creation is intrinsic to the human existential experience of being. It is as Kant posited, a thing in itself that expresses in tangible, outward form. Indeed, history and place shape the output. Throughout history, most forms of art have been the backdrop to the interpretation and maintenance of humankind's sacred canopy (ala Peter Berger).

 

I agree with your statement about the poles of appreciation. I do find it sad that some who have been educated beyond their native intelligence hold the reins on where the engine of creativity and its worth are headed--and how far it will travel.

 

Arthur, there sure a lot of artists out there, large and small. Some are more gifted than others--many seemingly in the art of marketing than expression.

Edited January 26, 2021 by PapaTango

[samstevens]

Sam, I believe that the internal spark of creativity and creation is intrinsic to the human internal experience of being.

I don’t, but that’s not the point. You were not talking not about the spark of creativity being intrinsic to the creator. You were talking about the value of the expression, the work of art being viewed by the cheese eaters in your head. And that work of art’s value is what I was saying is not intrinsic to the work of art, but rather conferred on that art by the cheese eater ... or burger gorger ... or the big gulp slurper.

 

I agree with you that there are many factors that go into what makes a work of art other than the acceptance by an art world, no matter how we describe or caricature that art world. For me, the answer to what is art remains elusive, and I approach the answer to that question as a dialogue of artists and thinkers over the centuries, many of whom have offered what turn out to be incomplete or unsatisfactory answers that still help to build toward an understanding rather than a specific answer.

 

For every vacuous wine-sipping cheese eater there are sensitive and thoughtful curators, critics, book publishers, and art theorists immersing themselves in the world of art, creating mind-blowing exhibitions at places like The Met, MOMA, and The Tate, inspiring audiences to different perspectives on art and often to a deeper understanding of the work, which can alter even the most spontaneous and authentic initial reaction of the average viewer.

 

My take on the almost meme-like assails of critics and art world gatherings is that it’s the lazy way out. It makes for good fun in Internet forums but avoids the harder and more rewarding work of experiencing, studying, and talking about so much of the excellent criticism and curation that’s available and worth an investment of time to understand and appreciate. It’s not that there’s not a bunch of silliness out there among some phonies and kingmakers. It’s a matter of their becoming distracting emphases.

[Allen Herbert]

"Sam, I believe that the internal spark of creativity and creation is intrinsic to the human internal experience of being" PapaTango.

 

Absolutely, regardless of the medium used. Why would anyone think that Art is the sole province of the brush stroke; how naïve can you get. Really, it is about creativity, take for example the design of the Spitfire, is there not a Art in that design? Just one of very many examples of creativity becoming Art regardless of the medium.

 

Then again what is Art? Is it just a perception, of the Art, which is the creation all around us?

 

"My take on the almost meme-like assails of critics and art world gatherings is that it’s the lazy way out. It makes for good fun in Internet forums but avoids the harder and more rewarding work of experiencing, studying, and talking about so much of the excellent criticism and curation that’s available and worth an investment of time to understand and appreciate." Sam.

 

Something, whatever, draws the viewer, and has a immediate impact on the consciousness. Nothing wrong with someone writing 10,000 words about it, and how it works for them. However, in the real world, Art is created from wordsmithing ,where no Art exists. A can of soup comes to mind;) And err, lots of vested interests in that can of soup;)

 

But great Art, or even lesser Art, can stand alone, it does not need the other Art of wordsmithing.

 

"The frescoes on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel (1508–12) in the Vatican, which include the iconic depiction of the creation of Adam "

 

And we can go on endlessly.

[Allen Herbert]

"Give a man a fish and he will eat it. Teach a man to fish and he will spend lots of money on tackle .." PT

 

;))

[samstevens]

But great Art, or even lesser Art, can stand alone, it does not need the other Art of wordsmithing.

Very true.

 

Unfortunately, you consistently use the word need as a straw man. I've never heard anyone claim, reasonably, that good works of art need 10,000 words to be experienced as art. What I would say is that, often, a well-written and well thought out essay of 10,000 words might be a great accompaniment to a work of art even if that art is able to stand on its own. Art that stands on its own still stands in history. An understanding of how it fits into that history can give insights into what's happening in the work of art that can deepen the experience of it.

 

It's not a competition between art that has to stand alone and art that needs explanatory words. A thinking human being ought to be able to experience art both ways without insisting that one makes the other moot, silly, or worthy of condemnation.

 

That being said, art never truly stands alone. The art of the Sistine Chapel has stood in different kinds of lighting over the centuries. It stands however it's lit, not alone. For many people, it has stood only in a book and never in person. For someone whose neck hurts, it stands alongside their pain. For someone who's an atheist, it stands alongside their disbelief, which doesn't necessary lessen it but certainly may affect them differently from someone who is a believer. When I finally got to see it in person about 20 years ago, it stood alongside all I'd already read and heard about it. Sure, I came to it with open eyes and the experience of seeing it in person was awesome, but I can't claim that I was able to wipe my human slate clean while standing under it. While what I'd read was certainly not uppermost in my mind when I was looking at it in person for the first time, I'm quite sure all that I'd already read still had an influence.

 

Nothing exists in a vacuum. While recognizing that, when I listen to great music or view great art or dance, I am often able to go into a kind of zone where I feel in a very intimate personal relationship to the art and am able to shut out the outside world to a great extent. But when I step back and think about it, I know there were all kinds of factors outside the art itself helping to create that experience. It did not truly stand alone ... and that's ok.

[Allen Herbert]

Really, does Art have to be so entwined in deep thought?

 

Or, when you see it, you know it.

 

 

 

[AlanKlein]

Alan, I really appreciate what you've shared. Of course, only you can answer why you're doing this.

...

 

Were you fulfilled by and content with what you're doing, I'd applaud that. I just don't know what to say when you express such regret about your photography compared to others. The slideshows you share seem so lovingly made and authentic and I don't get how what someone else produces takes away satisfaction from your own photography.

I don't have too many regrets and love what I've done. I;m always looking at my photos on Flickr and watching and appreciating my slide shows on my 75" 4K TV all the time. But even at 75, there's still a touch of competition in me that challenges me to do better and think I'm not doing better than I should. I think if we didn't get those feeling at times, we would sit on our butts and rot away. There's nothing wrong with that as long as I remember to stay humble and keep it within reason.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Really, does Art have to be so entwined in deep thought?

 

Or, when you see it, you know it.

 

 

 

[ATTACH=full]1373709[/ATTACH]

Art is communication. What you communicate, in whatever way, can be anything. Just like the spoken word, the communication can be trivial. Or it can be of great significance. That depends a lot on the context, as well as the actual message.

Whether it is art or not does too.

 

That attached image, to me, is not art. I can think of no reason why i should have seen it at all. Not relevant. Just another of too many of such images.

I just have to see it, indeed, to know that.

[AlanKlein]

I understand and agree completely. But I'm not referring to those who want to see, experience, and learn. I'm talking about those who would rather criticize something than admit they know nothing about it and fear being swindled because they don't trust their own senses and judgment. I respect the taste of anyone who's put any effort at all into forming it, even if it's diametrically opposed to mine. There's room in the world for us all.

 

What burns my bottom is the sad mass of people who, lacking intellectual curiosity and any interest in knowledge beyond the superficial, reject so many opportunities because they're convinced someone is out to deceive or swindle them. It's those who won't tell a sommelier how much they want to spend and let him or her choose the best choice for their budget and meal because they're convinced the restaurant is trying to cheat them. Yet they lack both the ability to choose on their own and the willingness to trust a stranger's recommendation to try something unknown. It's those who, lacking the ability to judge for themselves, won't buy artwork or crafts simply because they like the work. They won't buy without the unverified and often groundless imprimatur of a name they know or a foolish cliché (like "photographs aren't art") to support their decisions.

 

These are the people who criticize from insecurity and fear, rejecting things that are of high quality and deserving of respect whether or not you like them. You don't usually have to get more than a few words into their reasoning to separate the thoughtful from the fearful.

You object when people show distaste for certain art as being judgemental. But then you reject those very same people for their judgements. There's a conflict there. Shouldn't you accept other people how they are just as you accept other's art?

[Allen Herbert]

" you consistently use the word need as a straw man. I've never heard anyone claim, reasonably, that good works of art need 10,000 words to be experienced as art" Sam.

 

:) I've been called a few things but straw man is a newbie;) Cannot remember saying Art needs 10,000 words, but some folks feel that it does, especially if it is a can of soup;) Methinks you are trying to put words in my mouth, or, skimming over my thoughts to further your discourse.

 

"It's not a competition between art that has to stand alone and art that needs explanatory words. A thinking human being ought to be able to experience art both ways without insisting that one makes the other moot, silly, or worthy of condemnation" Sam.

 

Again, you are putting words into my mouth.

 

Nothing wrong with someone writing 10,000 words about it, and how it works for them.. Allen.

 

But, always a but, some Art is really just made up Art,; the Art of it, was the Art of wordsmithing.

 

Hope you are in good health, Sam. Always enjoy chatting with you.

[AlanKlein]

It's no different for me with my digital cameras. I absolutely obsess about light, composition, focus, and exposure. Nonetheless, for me what I get from all of that is a shot, a starting point, and more is required to make it into a photograph -- indeed, as I showed above, you can take control of that or you can just let the camera do it for you; but regardless, there's a lot that has to be done after the shutter button is pressed.

 

 

More power to you Alan. I would just say here that "computer art" isn't actually photography, though it might use photography as a starting point. One isn't inherently better than the other, and either or both or neither may be the best way to convey one's artistry.

I've made the point that computer art isn't photography. So we agree. That's what causes the confusion. The viewer isn't sure where photography ends and computer art starts.

[AlanKlein]

I have a definition of what I call art. I think if an artist or anyone who paints, draws, writes, builds, crafts, sculpts, photographs, etc. can intellectualize about what they've done or created: it's Art.

Only a photograph starts with a recording of a moment in natural time.

[Allen Herbert]

"that attached image, to me, is not art" q.g-baker

 

It was never meant to be. It was a expression of thought.

 

This is a photographic site and we do the photo thing. The problem with some folks is the perception of Art ,is just about reading wordsmithing, and not thinking how it works for themselves. If you would have put the photo in context, to the discussion, you would understand it was not put up as a example of Art.

[AlanKlein]

...

 

While I think it’s great to celebrate the similarities among many of the arts and certainly to recognize the art of photography and what it may have in common with painting, it’s also great to both recognize and celebrate the differences and some of the factors that make painting, dance, opera, sculpture, photography each unique.

 

Historically, many artists and many photographers have been inspired to work with and draw attention to their medium’s unique qualities, as Alan seems to like to do with photos, while others preferred to move beyond or even attempt to elide those differences.

 

I have my own way of working, and it involves consciousness of both what binds photography and the other arts and what separates them. That counterpoint is often in the background of my picture-taking/picture-making, sometimes weighted one way, sometimes the other. I have no generic judgments on which way photography should lean even though I may have strong aesthetic judgments on how the relationship between a photographic depiction/expression and the scene the photo depicts/expresses plays out in specific photos.

I like that. What I see happening is photography morphing into computer art. They're different, I believe. Edited January 26, 2021 by AlanKlein

[samstevens]

A can of soup comes to mind;) And err, lots of vested interests in that can of soup;)

Not only does a can of soup come to mind. A picture of a can of soup comes to mind as well. Agreed, lots of vested interests in that can of soup! Which is one of the many reasons Andy Warhol decided to paint 32 of them and arrange them in a way that mimicked their being displayed on supermarket shelves everywhere. That vested interests would take up his cause as an artist was built into his art and the creation of it. He knew that he was commenting on, taking advantage of, and feeding the notion of consumerism. In that sense, there was a kind of holism to his art and I suspect he knew his pics of soup would, among other things, become a self-fulfilling prophecy about how the art world worked and how vested interests worked, even as he so deftly worked those vested interests himself.

[Allen Herbert]

"I've made the point that computer art isn't photography" Alan

 

Oh wow.

 

Obviously creativity does not extend to the Computer as regards Photography. If you can create Photography in a smelly darkroom ,why not on a Computer? Is it not about the creativity imagination?

 

 

"Definition of Luddite. : one of a group of early 19th century English workmen destroying laborsaving machinery as a protest broadly : one who is opposed to especially technological change The Luddite argued that automation destroys"

[Allen Herbert]

"Andy Warhol decided to paint 32 of them and arrange them in a way that mimicked their being displayed on supermarket shelves everywhere. Sam.

 

He could have moved on to shoe/boot laces, and the different types of laces/shoes, and the tying of them. I'm sure another great work of Art would have been created;)

 

Sorry be facetious. Hey ho everyone needs to make a few bucks.

[samstevens]

I don't have too many regrets and love what I've done.

I'm glad to hear that. I invite you to reread that post of yours I quoted and see why it seemed to me you did have many regrets. I don't think the conclusion I drew was hard to understand.

But even at 75, there's still a touch of competition in me that challenges me to do better and think I'm not doing better than I should. I think if we didn't get those feeling at times, we would sit on our butts and rot away. There's nothing wrong with that as long as I remember to stay humble and keep it within reason.

Great insight. It's up to you who and what you want to compete with and what getting better means to you. Again, you focused on folks who do things simply with Photoshop. There are many other places to focus your competitiveness on and many other sources of inspiration to improve your work besides those you think are taking the easy way out. Is it the technical quality of what they're able to create with Photoshop you're competing with or the genuine expressiveness of the imagery they're working with? Mimicking good lighting in Photoshop is one thing. How that lighting works with the subject and what it makes you feel is another. There may be millions of technically adequate photos out there by people who use software to make it easy. A very, very small percentage of those photos have much emotional appeal. That's usually less a matter of the process used to create it than it is a matter of the vision of the photographer creating it. How personal are their photos? How personal are yours?

[samstevens]

He could have moved on to shoe/boot laces

Haha. He didn't, but I did ...

 

[AlanKlein]

I have found that most wall labels are written by curators, critics, or authors, not the artists.

 

....

I belong to a Photo Club in my 55+ senior community. None of us are pros. But we do have photo contests with other senior communities nearby. Once a year we have an intracommunity competition with a judge, So everyone submits and titles their entries. The judge advances through the pictures in the projector one at a time giving the titles selected by the takers. "Exciting Sunrise in Fall". "Dangerous Lion in his Lair". "Cute Kid on a Bike"

 

I'm not sure the captions influence the judge any in his scoring. :)

[AlanKlein]

Art critics, the good ones, interpret the art and give a critique, an answer.

You do not expect (that is: usually you do not) to say something in an ongoing coversation and not have anyone respond. In art, it is not different: the art gets a response. Part of that is indeed to interpret the art, translate it into a vernacular most people do understand. And part of the interpretation is telling anyone reading or hearing the critique, including the artist, how the critic understands the art, i.e. what the critic is responding to. All good. The rest of it is to relate the art to what is relevant in both society and art, to show its context in which it should be seen and understood, and what the critic thinks of it. All good too.

Art needs to be interpreted and given the appropriate response. Without that, it is not much more than a pass time of a narcissist. Yes, you can leave that (understanding and responding) up to the viewer. If she or he is able to do so without missing something. Else, we really do need those art critics.

 

Bad art critcs talk about celebrity status and money, money, money. As Fran Lebowitz remaked in an episode of Pretend it's a city, they (the crowd bad art critics cater for and those critics as well) applaud not the work of art, but the price it fetches at an auction.

Art doesn't have to be interpreted. It can just sit there and be enjoyed.