A spin-off thread: when is a photo a work of art?

jonathancharlesphoto · August 8, 2011

I think it's important to distinguish what is art by intention and what is art in the eye of the viewer.

Ideally you should aim to achieve both.

johne37179 · August 8, 2011

I remember having this discussion with a photographer friend whose wife was a painter -- in about 1968. We never settled it back then. I wonder if it might be settled now.

aplumpton · August 8, 2011

Art using different media (including photography) and differing subjects (nude, landscape, street, created subjects, etc.) is no different than other creative pursuits. Photography can be sometimes creative to the point of producing art, but not always of course.

I developed a process at pilot scale with Alcan colleagues for recycling waste aluminium electrolysis production cells into new products. The more than a dozen process elements were put together mainly from existing Alcan sub operations of other processes and my role was mainly one of simple coordination (critical peth analysis) so there was little or no creative work from my viewpoint (although some of the team offered quite creative specific solutions to the problems of innovating a hitherto unknown overall process).

Some years earlier, I coordinated a multidsciplinary team that sought to produce the most efficient and evolved bread mixer (a large kneading machine to produce dough for a million loaves per week scale). Despite my training in metals rather than in our daily bread and its chemistry and production, I was able to motivate the team and personally contribute some really neat creative elements of the new machine that had not previously been used in that part of the food industry. I have no qualms about describing my input and those of the team as art, although there are other engineering works that I cannot describe as being of the same nature as art (including the vision of creating new processes or products).

I offer these analogies in other creative fields of activity (to that of visual art) and which we often tend to overlook in human creative activity and which I think also defend the notion of what is a similar creative art in photography (which is composed I believe of exploration, discovery, creation of hitherto unapplied approaches or treatment of subject, fantasy, intrigue, tension, unexpected beauty).

I remember a few members of my former photo clubs saying "I have done everything, nothing else to do." When I hear the viewpoint that all has been done I am simply amused, and can only reply, when I wanted to show an opposing view, "yes, possibly, if you look at it in that way".

sjmurray · August 8, 2011

I think it is in the nature of human beings to express themselves creatively. Many people can do this exceptionally well, whether it is in painting or drawing, music or photography, etc. I regard these people as being artistic or even artists, and what they create at some level is art. Being artistic is fairly common, in other words. I also think there are some artistic people who are able to redefine the medium they work in by being unusually inventive and new in their expression. These are the Frank Lloyd Wrights, the Miles Davis’s, the Picasso’s of the world. We all seem to recognize the feat of these individuals as being profound in some way. What I am saying is that humans are artistic as a group, and as you would expect there are also exceptional individuals who are more creative than the general population, so what we call “art” falls on a proverbial bell curve perhaps. We can appreciate all levels of art for what it is, and we can be astounded by the really great ones. There will always be arguments about who is really in that upper bell curve category, but it is in the nature of human beings to disagree as well. Heh.

AJHingel · August 9, 2011

If we call it art, then it is art.

</blockquote>

I appreciate John's approach to his work, rendering photography into a very reflected process, that I can fully adhere to.

However by confirming, as he does, that all is art, if we call it art, he just empties the word of any meaning. This can be one way forward, but also just be a irrelevant sidestep.

Personally, as I have tried to outline in my tentative "definition of art", it has to be creative, original and causing transcendence, sublimation and spiritual enrichment for me to accept the use of the term, art.

If one accept such criteria, a second and immediate question is of course : creative for whom? The answer to that question can be anywhere between : for me personally, and for people in a community, and for shared history.

Landrum Kelly · August 9, 2011

it has to be creative, original and causing transcendence, sublimation and spiritual enrichment for me to accept the use of the term, art.

</blockquote>

Anders, perhap you have outlined the criteria for inspiring art (whatever that is), but I am not sure that you have not set the bar a bit high for "art" qua art.

--Lannie

'

</blockquote>

Landrum Kelly · August 9, 2011

I tried carefully to examine the merits of the picture but found none myself. I asked the customer, carefully, why he wanted to frame this particular picture, like maybe he and his wife had lunch there etc.

"No", he said. "This picture was taken with a Leica."

To this man the picture held some importance. When he picked up the picture of the picnic table he was very pleased. He obviously placed a value on it and may have considered it art.

</blockquote>

And he shot it with a Leica! Well, Paul, I guess the Leica settles it. If the overall undertaking (Leica, frame and all) was so expensive, it must have been art.

--Lannie

william_kelly3 · August 9, 2011

Art is by definition-"the quality, production, expression, or realm, according toaesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance."

To me this indicates a desire by the creator to rise above the mundane, and by the viewer to be raised to appreciation above the mundane as well.

aplumpton · August 9, 2011

John – I appreciate your avowed occasional independency of what is determined as art by the curators and art researchers of MOMA, Louvre, MET, Tate Modern or Pompidou Centre and with our (healthy) ability to apply other perceptions. The plethora of definitions are useful in reminding ourselves of different concepts and catalysts in art while undertaking that exercise ourselves, although I think we need to be particularly careful not to be overly guided by certain movements and not let them unduly affect our personal artistic approach.

Wouter – It is known that even the greatest known thinkers/creators of art creators do not always create from scratch. A good part of the music of many composers is rehashed (I don’t mean this in a pejorative sense) from former Works. I was impressed a few days ago by the similarity of the devil’s dance theme in "Histoire du Soldat" and Stravinsky’s "Ragtime" composition, as well as in other Stravinsky opera music heard that day. Beethoven and Mahler did the same and they are hardly unique in that sense. Many absorb ideas from artists of prior or contemporary times, many of who are not well known. I don’t think the absolute originality (from scratch) you mentioned is very important to the ultimate power of a work, in which the whole often exceeds that of its parts. And so it is in much fine photography, which you rightly describe as being partly created and partly recorded simply because it is there and is complementary to the overall approach.

Steve – The bell curve is no doubt appropriate, although the question of putting sometimes unlike things on the same bell curve is a problem and who establishes the bell curve is also questionable. A friend taking very tough undergrad exams in his final year obtained a 42 on a key exam, whereas his only co-student in that discipline registered a 28. The bell curve was necessary, not only to recognise his real contribution (he also went on that year to win a Guggenheim fellowship for study) and to differentiate his result from others (only one in that particular arduous course). So bell curves are useful, but some things just won’t fit on the same curve as others.

Anders – I sympathise with your criteria and observe that it is important here to highlight them in order to obtain comment from others. More later. I disagree with you that art has to be directed to a particular segment of society and would simply say that it should target (if it indeed targets anyone) the thinking and emotional or sensually sensitive being. When it focuses to a particular segment (as some academic circles art) it often misses the mark in regard to long-term power or effect. Mozart saw the light in his theatrical music and sought to produce operas for the popular theatre of his time, possibly in frustration for the reaction to much of the intelligentsia of his period. Today, his operas are appreciated less by the popular culture than by the older and perhaps more musically mature audiences (check out the percentage of young in attendance at the operas, despite attractive discounts often offered to the under 30s).

Causing transcendence, sublimation and spiritual enrichment are no doubt pertinent to a definition of art and are also very nice sounding artistic terms. You are no doubt aware that they mean different things to different persons and cannot therefore unequivocally frame art in a standard definition. Spiritual enrichment is today often equated with the holy, divine or other attributes proceeding from God, as opposed to the more general definition of spirit as opposed to matter. Causing transcendence is useful in that it suggests something that is beyond the range, domain or grasp of human experience, reason or belief, but that can be defined in different ways of course, particularly in relation to photographic art. Sublimation, in the sense of purifying or elevating is also worthy, but again interpretable in very different ways in photography.

I suggested that originality, intrigue, ability to enlighten, ability to inform, wrestle one with, and complement the desires of their audience to experience something enlightening that they have yet to experience, are perhaps fairly concrete and more easily applicable definitions of what is art, although they are not exclusive ones.

The important thing is to be inspired by what is art and especially o get out and practice it, recognising of course that our abilities to do so should be in constant evolution and often need further development to allow us to go as far as our cognitive, emotional and technical bagage permit us.

Wouter Willemse · August 9, 2011

Arthur, the "from scratch" was in quotes for exactly that reason. I know many works extend on existing other works. My point in that post was more about the level of control for the creator, not so much the starting point of creation.

aplumpton · August 9, 2011

Thanks, Wouter, I understand your context and re-read your post. I also benefitted from reading some other definitions you listed on August 8th. The question of taste and what defines art is important and I'm glad you brought it up. Someone used the word "compelling" as a definition, but it ostensibly also can refer to taste which I also recoil from as a universal definition. It is, as stated, equally subjective and non-quantitative/qualitative in describing what it is that motivates us to consider something as art.

john_mallery · August 9, 2011

All photos are works of art, just like all drawings.

Art is the end result of a creative process.

But, some works of art are better than others.

maljo

AJHingel · August 9, 2011

Arthur, I'm aware that the various terms I used (spiritual, transcendence, sublimation) have different connotations for different people. I believe however, that it is a good principle of writing not to accept any monopoly of concepts of special groups, but to take the time and grasp the opportunities for explaining concepts in order to arrive at a common understanding among readers.

Therefor, "spiritual enrichment" is used by religions, but its basic meaning is something not tangible and or immaterial. Art enriches the mind, the spirit, in that meaning.

Therefor, also, sublimation in relationship to arts is concerned with our reaction, as viewers or artist, of challenges, provocations of works or art (replacement, repression, denial, intellectualization projection are some of the sublimation are some of the (re-)actions involved if we should refer to psychoanalytical categories).

When you propose concepts like : originality, intrigue, ability to enlighten, ability to inform, wrestle one with as well as something enlightening that they have yet to experience - I find it all too nice and committable. Art is not entertainment, in my understand, and, so to day, not a good friend to drink a beer with. Art is dangerous to comfort and challenges us to change our understanding of our selves and the world and question ourselves.

Concerning the question of directing art to specific segments of society, I think I did not make myself sufficiently clear.

I had no intention of suggesting that art by definition should address certain segments of society and not others, but acknowledge that art speaks to different communities in different ways: The art community (whoever that includes among those that make, art and "consume"/appreciate art invest and organize art and the art marked in specific cases and specific places); the general public is another; the world community, yet another.

What one could say is that if a understanding of art, as I suggest, is accepted, only certain people would be open and available (in "spiritual terms) for arts - say, to make art. I think this is very much in tune with reality anyway.

aplumpton · August 9, 2011

Anders, I think we are quite close in regard to the definitions we each privilege, and while you say that my few chosen ones (amongst several other parameters I would happily propose as well) are too nice and commitable I must heartily disagree. Wrestling with something is not an easy thing and it can require physical and metaphysical appreciations and struggle. Enlightenment is I think what many look for in visual art. or in a new book, or in a poem, in music, and, importantly, in one's job, and that enlightenment can take many profound and surprising forms. It is not just nice and commitable, as you say.

If art can do it, for me it defines what art is. It is in effect a definition that is independent of the type of viewer (As we can all be intrigued and enlightened in different ways, according to our specific spirits and antennae).

je ne regrette rien · August 9, 2011

What about the point on the artistic path along which creative evolution and experimentation can be observed?

Is the recognition as a visual artist precursory to the recognition of a work of visual art?

Who is entitled to qualify a photographer as an artist and a photograph as a work of art?

Except the photographer him/herself of course, who might be tempted to think that buying certain equipment necessarily leads to the production of work of art?

Norma Desmond · August 9, 2011

Is the recognition as a visual artist precursory to the recognition of a work of visual art? --Luca

</blockquote>

Luca, all the anonymous works of art should help answer your question.

.

Who is entitled to qualify a photographer as an artist and a photograph as a work of art? --Luca

</blockquote>

Who is "entitled" will be determined in a given context and milieu. But you're knocking on the door of expertise here, which is useful.

________________________________

There's an aspect of artifice which is significant to art (even when it's its most real). Artists may reach and move the soul but many of them do it by getting their hands dirty. It can be carnal.

AJHingel · August 9, 2011

Who is entitled

</blockquote>

Obviously, noone is "untitled" to decide what is art, apart from within a speciific historical or institutional context.

History of art is filled with institutional setups determining what was art and was not according to the doctrines in place. That was the basis for the two yearly "salons" of panting and sculptures in Louvre and later in the Grand Palais in Paris in the 17th to 19th century. The limits of such exclusive definition of what was art and was not, was clearly shown by the exposition of "<a title="Salon des refusés" href="http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salon_des_refus%C3%A9s">Salon des refusés</a> (those rejected) in 1863 - but even in those expositions, exclusions took of course place and strict criteria, doxtrines, of what was "modern" art were set in place and debated and disputed continiously.

Present days art fairs (counted in thousands around the world) play of course the same role of including, or excluding, works as art or not. Whether these events and selecting committees are "entitled" or not, they do, de facto, play a central role of defining what art is at a given moment. Go to the present Biennale of Venice and you will see what was art yesterday, and be sure that art of tomorrow will be different - and decided by a similar group and contested by another group.

"What is art" is never decided ones and for all by anyones specific, but by a long process of decisions, contestations and debate, that in some rare cases end up with a consensus - over time.

We can between ourselves decide that it all does not concerns us and that for us, art is something else and less exclusive - like so many artist, and others, do. Personally, I find much inspiration by following and attending as my art shows as I possible can, because they seem to be a better place of inspiration than for example the "top-rated photos" on Photonet.

Wouter Willemse · August 9, 2011

While Anders' description and Fred's "determined in a given context and milieu" sounds like very right answers to the question 'who is entitled to decide', it brings me none closer. The question would be more, why do they deem themselves entitled?

It instinctively made me think of something that bothered me endlessly during my history studies. A lot of people still believe the Enlightment vision that the Middle Ages were some dark, murky useless wasted 1000 years, and how we were better off revelling in awe at the ancient Greek society. The disrespect shows ignorance and self-glorification, while the extreme adoration goes through very filtered opiniated views. This expert-rewrite of history still has impact today.

What Anders described as "a long process of decisions, contestations and debate, that in some rare cases end up with a consensus - over time" at work, I think. But the decisions and debate are founded very much in their own time, and biassed by it. And at some point, things transcend the debate and become "facts". The wide audience will accept that Rembrandt, Brueghel, Monet and so on are art without any glitch. Picasso, things get hairy since many will admit to not getting it. Warhol... "they heard it's art but I think it's a can of soup". Let alone the less famous artists or more recent artists.

I doubt whether we can just dismiss the "general public opinion on art", even if we disagree or find it simplistic. A wider concensus, to me, seems part of the definition on what's art and what's not.

And even so; if we state that a certain elite (chosen on whatever merit) makes the decisions, debates and reaches full or partial concensus, after which the choice trickles down to the wide audience... the question remains unanswered. Why are they making their choices? What are their yardsticks, what the objectives and their motivations?

In short: what is the expertise? Why would "they" see more than me?

(even shorter: I'm clueless and only getting more confused!)

Luca,

What about the point on the artistic path along which creative evolution and experimentation can be observed?

</blockquote>

I had to think about Mozart here. To me, Mozart has this distinctively own sound. Something in phrasing that makes it Mozart. It's his blessing, and curse. Blessing, because I am awed by being able to have such a consistency without repeating too much. Curse, because Mozart bores me after a relatively short while for this reason. To me, his very last works show a creative evolution and experimentation. All before - well much seems pretty much the same. I cannot detect that strong a development, nor experiments.

Admit, this is a rather harsh judgement on Mozart, but all the same. I think evolution, experimentation are no necessities. Consistency of style and vision (uniting a body of work) can work just as well. With the risk of being more of a one-trick-pony, but true talent will overcome that.

aplumpton · August 9, 2011

To judge a piece of music of considerable complexity, it is almost essential to be in the position of being able to make or at the least skilfully interpret such music. The approaches differ and so will the judgements or preferences of different musicians. Debussy, Vaughan Wiliams, Elgar, Mahler and Bruckner all produced in very roughly the same time period, but their music is very different and the erudite and intellectual Mahler approached composition in a different manner (certainly with different results) than the paysan like, spiritually driven, and highly musically competent Bruckner. that Anders mentions

I think that the differing competing movements that Anders mentions are not due to the art intelligentsia of the period (who were slow in transiting from one movement to the next) but innovated by the artists themselves, as the Impressionists, who were forced to seek alternate venues for their work. As it was with the Fauvists and with Der Blaue Reiter movements, or the later Bauhaus artists. The artists determined the evolution and nature of the originality, and not the museum curators or others of the academic art circles, who would "catch up" only years later. The long process of recognition is often redundant to the original validation by the creators themselves.

So it is also the photographer who must make his own path, borrowing from contemporary or past tendancies. He is creating art if he is often going beyond current movements. Exploration and discovery, as it occurs also in other creative fields of human activity. Not often are the products of such E and D not visionary and not art.

As for the entitlement question, history has shown that it is the artists that are most entitled to designate work as art and not the PhD thesis of an efficient information gathering but wet behind the ears MFA student who years later analyses the significance of some painting approach, style or specific artist's life, and but so rarely the gallerist's notes about his in-house exhibition of another's work.

Norma Desmond · August 9, 2011

Wouter, why should the general public decide what's art any more than they should decide things about plumbing or who a doctor is? The general public will decide, based on various methods, which doctor to go to and which ones they like or think are good, but they don't and shouldn't decide who's a doctor.

I don't think experts deem themselves entitled to decide. I think it is often the public that deems the experts entitled, except for those who think they know what art is, and are often simply mistaking art for stuff they like. The public tends to listen to art critics and curators and other artists, as well they should. They are also often skeptical, as well they should be as well. (And I don't mean to say that what determines art is ONLY a matter of experts. I think it's part of it, though, that can't and shouldn't be ignored. If a photographer I respect who I know is good at his craft and I consider is accomplished, tells me that a certain photograph is art, even if I don't like it and even when I didn't know much about photography, I would take notice and give that statement quite a bit of weight. That kind of insight has often guided changes in my taste over the years.)

Your harsh judgment of Mozart could say a lot about your taste and could also say a lot about his work. But it doesn't make it art or not. We are allowed to dismiss artists and their art and we are allowed to think some art is better than others and we are allowed to hate some art. If some didn't hate some art, it probably wouldn't be art. Think about that in terms of your photos (and I understand you may or may not consider them art). If everyone liked them, they probably wouldn't be speaking very personally or passionately. Because if they were, they would turn some people off. Art will often NOT be universally appealing. And it may revile some viewers, to various extents and in various situations. That may be just when you know it's working.

When I said art is determined in a given context and milieu, I didn't mean that statically. In other words, what is determined to be art in one context can change in another, and has throughout history, though many works stand the test of time, which I don't think is a requirement for art. Much art is local and temporal and isn't made to last. It's why defining art is impossible. It's a fluid notion.

Norma Desmond · August 9, 2011

Why would they see more than me? --Wouter

</blockquote>

Because they've studied it and worked hard at it, much like any other discipline.

AJHingel · August 9, 2011

Why are they making their choices? What are their yardsticks, what the objectives and their motivations?

</blockquote>

One of the reasons why certain people and certain institutions get away with making decisions on "what is art?" is that they make the effort of convincing others of the reasons why they consider some work as art and some people as artist, and maybe even others, not. We cannot consider the question on what is art as a black and white question, a yes or no. There is always basket full of maybes and maybe nots.

To take an example like the Warhol's four <a href="http://www.art.collegefaubert.fr/picture.php?/335/category/9">Campbell condensed tomato soup</a> tins, it is surely painted tins, but is is also art because of its creative quality at the time in history it was made (1962) just like Duchamp's <a href="http://biboups.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/marcel-duchamp.jpg">ready made</a>. Nothing is art in the emptiness. It is art in a context, just like it is creative in a context, that cannot be left out. Admiration (of art) should never be a lazy admiration (ref Andre Gide) - it needs personal engagement, mental efforts, guts and knowledge to answer the question : what is art? This is one of the reasons why I express my disapprouvement of a definition of art that I consider as mainly comfortable admiration.

AJHingel · August 9, 2011

I agree much with Fred's underlining of the hard work and professionalism when discussing (and understanding) what is art.

aplumpton · August 9, 2011

If the artists of the last few centuries had not stuck it out and defended their work (by persuing its exposure independently, or in groups, over extended periods) we would not have had the art of several movements from the time that art was no longer in the hands of patrons, as it had been prior to 1848. The experts are simply the groups of artists themselves; they advance or fall by their efforts of getting public viewings and selling their works to influential and intelligent buyers (example of Barnes, Max Aitkin, etc.). Their worth thereby gets recognised somewhat later (absence of patrons and an effectively immediate acceptance) and it is often necessary for it to be "taught" to the public before it is accepted, something not considered inescapable in the nobility or influential bourgeois patron period.

The entitled to describe something as art still remain I believe the artists and their colleagues. The public gets it later, after their perceptionss and insight have been catalysed by the buyers-promoters and some academe or intersted parties (witness Bruno Walter, or was it Bernstein, rediscovery of Mahler and their presentation of it (him) to the larger public?). Delius has had few effective promoters, but his work is quite original. Britten faired somewhat better, as did Copeland.

Intelligent analysis and criticism has always fallen to those who more profoundly understand the medium and can understand the particular artist's method and creation.

How many of us can understand Rutherford or Heidelberg or Einstein or Stephen Hawking or the original works of other creative mathematical physicists. My courses in quantium mechanics allowed me a little bit of insight into the theories and their significance, but an admittedly very limited and not a cutting-edge one. Without any false modesty, I would think that my many years of reading and looking at art and architecture, often to the detriment of my main vocation, have given me more expertise in understanding art than an advanced course in quantum mechanics allowed my only limited understanding of atomic and sub particle physics.

So I would dsay that it is mainly people who love and seriously study art, and accordingly understand the nature of its creations, or those who have done that and who seriously practiced it, are those who understand in some part what is art. For those of us who seek that knowledge and insight, and have climbed some rungs of that vertical ladder of understanding, the definitions of art developed they have developed =here and elsewhere, are probably sufficient to allow some recognition of what is art in photography, if at least only a part of the time, and in a personal and combined subjective-objective manner.

What else do I, do we, need to aspire to in critically recognising and placing value on art when we happen to see it in the photography medium? The added education and experience at one point become simply an assurance in viewing and appraising as limited as that of "gilding the lily".

Wouter Willemse · August 10, 2011

Arthur, Fred, Anders,

Please note that my post was one of searching and a bit shaking up, so sure it figures one would disagree with what I am posting. Your answers, however, to me, make the discussion go a step ahead (maybe only in my head):

Arthur,

I think that the differing competing movements that Anders mentions are not due to the art intelligentsia of the period (who were slow in transiting from one movement to the next) but innovated by the artists themselves

</blockquote>

Maybe I misread it: the artist defining the art seems very logical; at the same time it seems to imply art for the sake of itself. But for a long long time, it was just a way to make a living. Now, maybe in the times of Bach, Rembrandt, Michelangelo, nobody was really occupied with things being art or not. This seems a more recent notion to me. Could it be based on the romantic ideal of the "suffering artist", that has put the artist in a somewhat unique position in society?

Fred,

I don't think experts deem themselves entitled to decide. I think it is often the public that deems the experts entitled, except for those who think they know what art is, and are often simply mistaking art for stuff they like.

--------

... many works stand the test of time, which I don't think is a requirement for art. Much art is local and temporal and isn't made to last. It's why defining art is impossible. It's a fluid notion.

--------

Because they've studied it and worked hard at it, much like any other discipline.

</blockquote>

I'm certainly not arguing with the last, and I did not mean to imply that experts are empty vessels of opinion. I know I am no expert, I just have my opinion which is largely based on my taste. As I said before, I agree that art is independent of individual taste. No arguments there either. The notion on fluidity is interesting. I agree, if only for the fact that I live in and near a lot of Baroque cities - and nowadays Baroque isn't all that loved, while back then they clearly must have liked it! But, then, does the fluidity make it impossible to define what art is, or could it mean there is some 'shared' characteristic that is not time-bound?

Anders,

Nothing is art in the emptiness. It is art in a context, just like it is creative in a context, that cannot be left out.

---------

it needs personal engagement, mental efforts, guts and knowledge to answer the question : what is art?

</blockquote>

The second quote: agreed, as said above; it was not my intent to nullify the expertise one can build up. I think the first quote continues a bit where I left my thoughts responding to Fred.

The notion of time, context and how it changes over time with regards to the expertise is one that fascinates me. How does this work with avant garde? How can one see a fraction ahead to understand what will become of significance (for a period of time at least), and what not? Arguably, one could say that there are hypes which last very short, so where arguably the lasting power was minimal, but still somebody starts the motion and foresees how the time is right for this specific artist or movement. So, it seems there is also a significant understanding of the reaction of the audience.

I hope my questions do not seem overly simplistic or silly, but well, this is an area where I can only claim interest, but hardly any knowledge. I much appreciate the answers, as they help me get a better grip on understanding the "process of things becoming art" a bit better, at the least bring more nuance and subtlety to my opinion about it.

___________________

P.S., Arthur, it was mainly Bernstein who brought Mahler to a large audience; but personally, I take a Bruno Walter recording over Bernstein any day, I think his recordings show one much more insight in the inner world of Mahler.

Sign In

A spin-off thread: when is a photo a work of art?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

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