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

[john_macpherson]

<p>Artists have to solve practical problems every time they work, and if they did not do so, not much art would be created.</p>

<p> </p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>Jumping right in to the perennial "what is art" jamboree - there are no essential qualities that make art art. Period. Aesthetics is the ultimate philosophical tail chase. There are no "definitions" and I wish people would stop asking for them. They have missed the point altogether. Photography is NOT art it is a medium. Get over it! <br>

The properties of art have to do completely with current understanding of specific works-at-hand based on informed discussion among scholars, collectors and other biased gate-keepers. What is the work's authority, influence, take-home effect on the viewer? Things like that. Art is an additive experience. <br>

Footnote:<br>

The widely popular Chihuly show just closed here in Boston. Now the MFA is raising funds to purchase the Huge Green Glass Thing (not really called that). There are a lot of rotten things I could say to lampoon this type of art. If it makes people happy and garners huge bucks for the arts I'm all for it. Museum directors have always modeled themselves after P.T. Barnum.<br>

<br /><br /></p>

<div></div>

[Julie H]

<p>John and John, you're confusing grammar with meaning. And if the theoretical physicist can find a way to share the experience of his conception, then he's in danger of making art (the experience of the origins of the Universe; I'd buy a ticket to that show).</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Photography is NOT art it is a medium.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The most sensible statement in this thread.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>"If the theoretical physicist can find a way to share the experience of his conception, then he's in danger of making art"</p>

<p>In this context, is not the conception itself the experience and potentially art, and like any other expressive form, it is there to be appreciated as art or not by the witness (viewer, reader, analyst). Practical ends drive many artists, as well as engineers and physicists (all are dealing with things or concepts that may have no immediate utility). The creation speaks for itself. Some creative engineeering surprises the witness and some painted, sculpted or written art does not at all. I see few boundaries within disciplines or media and human expression. If art is the unexpected and the moving, then it itself has few limits on the different vehiciles of human expression.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6412124">John Rowsell</a><a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub1.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 13, 2011; 04:40 p.m. Thanx for this thread, Luca.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>John</strong>,<br>

Honestly, I don't know. My main focus was photography, and my ideas on that are confused enough.</p>

[john_macpherson]

<p><br />Duchamp was happy to allow the 'engineers' to 'create' then misappropriate their work for his own portfolio, so even less evidence of creativity in his case I'd say. But I like what he said:<br /><br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p> "The creative act is not performed by the artist alone; the spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by deciphering and interpreting its inner qualifications and thus adds his contribution to the creative act."<br /><br />Marcel Duchamp, from Session on the Creative Act, Convention of the American Federation of Arts, Houston, Texas, April 1957.<br /><br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p><strong>Steve</strong>,</p>

<p>I do not think that only the artistic expression is creative. Every activity has or can have a creative content or purpose.</p>

<p>Of course I cannot prevent the viewer to consider my output as art. And of course I see your point.</p>

<p>Btw, this thread is not about what I do, but to reason in general on art and photography.</p>

 

[je ne regrette rien]

<p>John MacPherson,</p>

<ul>

<li>as mentioned, creativity is not only related to art;</li>

<li>I qualified the process as <em><strong>artistic </strong></em>simply because it's art we are (trying) to talk about here.</li>

</ul>

<p>With the term "process" I think of a set of steps which make the evolution of the creative path of an artist. Joseph Beuys assembled fat, nails, debris, wood to produce art (and it is said that a museum cleaner threw it away as garbage). Can we follow the path of the different creative steps of Beuys, until he produced those assemblies to demonstrate that there is an artistic creative path, using fat, nails, debris, wood?<br>

There are other artists exhibiting melted plastic of cut canvas in museums.<br>

How important is the path these artists have walked to conceive these works to qualify them as artists?<br>

And what about photography? How, if at all, does this apply to images?<br>

Is there such a process producing images?</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=977570">Luis G</a> , Aug 14, 2011; 09:07 a.m.</p>

<blockquote>Luca, a dead-serious question: How do you know your pictures are documentary?</blockquote>

<p>Luis, I don't know.<br /> The only thing I know is that my intent is to document, influencing the scene as little as possible. I am aware that I may completely fail and influence what I try to document, just by the mere fact that I'm there and I photograph it.<br /> As Lannie puts it, "<em>I could document what I decide to see</em>" and as well "<em>I try to document what I manage to see</em>".<br /> Whether I succeed is open to questioning.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p><strong>Ilkka, John Rowsell, John MacPherson,</strong></p>

<p>There are cases where artists solve major engineering problems. And they need profound engineering skills: for example Bliss Dance by Marco Cochrane.<br>

We won't solve the issue relating or unrelating the reasoning to practical output.<br>

Also creativity, as said, can be practical, theoretical, artistic.</p>

<p><strong>Alan Zinn,</strong></p>

<blockquote>Photography is NOT art it is a medium.</blockquote>

<p>Is a very important statement.<br>

Also "<em>Aesthetics is the ultimate philosophical tail chase.</em>" is an important statement. Can we agree that it is impossible to identify distinctive features of art in photography?<br>

Perfectly all-right for me.</p>

[DawsonPointers]

<p>If I may, this is my perspective.<br>

A police officer may take photographs of a car crash that are presented as forensic evidence. The same images may surface as 'art'. God forbid, the shots of your mouth taken by your dentist may appear somewhere as art.<br>

IMHO an image is art if it is presented <em><strong>for </strong></em>artistic values <em><strong>or</strong></em> is interpreted for artistic values. So what are the artistic values? To me these are aesthetics <strong><em>and</em> </strong>emotion. Take emotion out as an intent or result.....it's not art to me.<br>

If I take a photo of Harry (my dog) and it doesn't make you either aspire to his form or make you love him (which you will), it is not art. Is it advertising? What says that art and advertising are mutually exclusive? Have you seen the Mona Lisa lately? Where?<br>

Regards, John</p>

[luis_g]

<p> What's wrong with the dictionary definitions? Why are they rejected for art and accepted for other things? I asked the question that if there was a litmus test via which one could say something was art/not art, and how good it was, <em>how would it change your work? </em></p>

<p>No one responded. It wasn't a joke, it was a simple question about if we achieved the (non-existent) answer to Lucas' question, what difference would it make? Apparently none.<em> </em><br>

<em>________________________________________________</em></p>

<p>Luca, I asked about your pictures and how you knew they were documentary, and I think your answer points in the direction of many when asked how do they know theirs are art.<br>

_______________________________________________</p>

<p>John Mac Pherson you are wrong if you think Julie or I think mechanics and engineers are somehow lacking or inferior to anyone. I simply gave you back a good taste of your own ridicule, which I see you're still engaged in -- all in good humor, of course. Who decides? Very simple: Those with education and experience. Those who know, as in mechanics, engineering, art, and every other field of human endeavor.</p>

<p>The antagonistic keyword in your mention of Du Champ is "misappropriation". The thinly disguised bit of contempt clarifies your position on the subject.<br>

_______________________________________________<br>

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

[john_macpherson]

<blockquote>

<p>John Mac Pherson you are wrong if you think Julie or I think mechanics and engineers are somehow lacking or inferior to anyone.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Now thats really creative sir! I've not in any post suggested that either of you held mechanics or engineers as being inferior. Nice try at bear baiting though, but it's not working. If I actually thought either of you held that belief I'd be ignoring you. What I did question was your apparent suggestion that mechanics or engineering were not creative, which is a wholly different thing altogether and perfectly acceptable to do in a thread of this nature.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The antagonistic keyword in your mention of Du Champ is "misappropriation". The thinly disguised bit of contempt clarifies your position on the subject.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And does your use of the word 'antagonistic' clarify your position on the subject? Probably not - your position is likely far more complex. As is mine.</p>

<p>In the context that I've used 'misappropriation' - to describe the 'work' of people who 'take' the work of others and label it 'art' - I think its a perfectly valid word. Duchamp did it with a urinal, Richard Prince does it with others people's photographs. </p>

<p>But there is a difference. Duchamp used the work of the (apparently uncreative) toilet engineer, whereas Prince does at least do some 'added value' stuff before claiming it as his art.</p>

<p>(<strong>Misappropriation</strong> 'dictionary definition': the appropriation (of ideas or words etc) from another source; misuse, plagiarism, (as well as a lot of other stuff)).</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>"In the context that I've used 'misappropriation' - to describe the 'work' of people who 'take' the work of others and label it 'art' - I think its a perfectly valid word. Duchamp did it with a urinal."</p>

<p>Wrong. Art is I think a way of seeing and interpreting or re-interpreting matter and thoughts. If Edison (an engineer in the real sense of the term) had not used his imagination, we might be without his many creations. Duchamp too was a person of imagimation. If we insist only on the expected, we have less chance to witness art.</p>

<p> </p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Luca, you began by stating: </p>

<blockquote>

<p>When is a photograph art? and: there is the need to find a philosophical method (rooted in aesthetics), to understand if I am in front of a piece of art or not.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A lot of interesting discussion has resulted from your query. Many of us are offering our own answer to these questions. I can simplify my own answers to single primary concept: <em>anytime a person acts to express him or herself creatively is art in the broadest sense. </em>I think we do it because there is a sense of satisfaction in the act. It is an expression of our uniqueness, perhaps. When I look at the photographs posted by all the people here on pnet, I see art. Period. That is why we are posting our photos, to share a bit of ourselves and our creations. I don't believe it is "rooted in aesthetics" but instead rooted in our need to be expressive. Aesthetics, value, cultural importance, etc. all come after the act. </p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p>Let me try a synthesis of the statements I would like to take away from this thread:</p>

<ul>

<li>Julie's concept of not-things: I like the idea that art is the representation of such objects;</li>

<li>The creative component, which is not exclusive of art, but is part of it</li>

<li>Arthur's "seeing and interpreting or re-interpreting matter and thoughts"</li>

<li>Photography is only a medium, from Alan.</li>

</ul>

<p>I'm struck by Steve's statement:</p>

<blockquote><em>It is an expression of our uniqueness, perhaps. When I look at the photographs posted by all the people here on pnet, I see art. Period. That is why we are posting our photos, to share a bit of ourselves and our creations. I don't believe it is "rooted in aesthetics" but instead rooted in our need to be expressive. Aesthetics, value, cultural importance, etc. all come after the act.</em></blockquote>

<p>Which can be paired with mine (sorry for the self quote)</p>

<blockquote><em>The only thing I know is that my intent is to document, influencing the scene as little as possible. I am aware that I may completely fail and influence what I try to document, just by the mere fact that I'm there and I photograph it.</em><br /><em> As Lannie puts it, "I could document what I decide to see" and as well "I try to document what I manage to see".</em><br /><em> Whether I succeed is open to questioning.</em></blockquote>

<p>This can be very well the response.<em></em><br /> Art is in the intention, as creation is in the intention. When the creation is shown, other people can say whether they agree.<br /> Any further consideration may not relate to the essence of art but rather to the success of marketing.<em></em><br>

And then I "found" Jonathan's post again, which in my opinion fits:</p>

<blockquote><em><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=392265">Jonathan Charles</a> , Aug 08, 2011; 04:26 p.m. </em>

 

<p><em>I think it's important to distinguish what is art by intention and what is art in the eye of the viewer.</em><br>

<em>Ideally you should aim to achieve both.</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

[Julie H]

<p>"The sun never knew how great it was till it struck the side of a building." -- Lou Kahn</p>

<p>[Luca, your thoughtful summations, and particularly your comfortable willingness to say, where necessary, "I don't know," is exemplary (I would say "delightful" but I think maybe guys don't like that -- but I *am* delighted by it).]</p>

[alan_zinn]

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

Luca, your topic is inspiring insightful comments. Thanks. Among them from Steve (I hope!):</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>anytime a person acts to express him or herself creatively is<br />art in the broadest sense. </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Isn't this too easy? But then the word "parsimony" comes to mind. <br>

Wiki <a title="Occam's Razor" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor">Occam's Razor</a>. "One important contribution that he (Occam) made to modern science and modern intellectual culture was through the principle of parsimony… . …one should always opt for an explanation in terms of the fewest possible number of causes, factors, or variables. "</p><div></div>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>This has definitely been one of the best threads that I have seen in a very long time.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5767925">Alan Zinn</a> , Aug 15, 2011; 10:31 a.m.</p>

<blockquote><em>But then the word "parsimony" comes to mind.</em></blockquote>

<p>This is extremely important. What would be our reaction to hundreds of copies, or even versions of works, or repetitions of the same?<br>

We have to bring this in somehow. I will give it a thought.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>In art we call that an edition. It is widely accepted, and as they sell out they get more expensive. The idea of multiples in photography is at its core. Some prints, like Ansel Adams' "Moonrise over Hernandez" are quite numerous.</p>

[iwao_sakurai]

<p>There is two kinds of Art in my opinion. Short term & long term!<br>

Most of us are involved in short term Art during our lives.<br>

HOwever we all contribute to long-term "Art" (I'm sure the word itself had quite different meanings 100 years ago, more-so 1000 years ago...like the concept of "culture" which is a Western idea/word from the 17th~18th century onwards..) in some form more or less. <br>

In the end though time is the judge and the only artist that remain ackknowledge after 100 years are the ones that have transcended human emotion, vision, memory for permanence in this world through their crafting skills.</p>

<p>Hence a photo to be a work of true "Art" it must endure through decades of either criticism, awe, hatred, banality, trend, etc... without being forgotten by a MAJORITY of human beings.<br>

Something extremely difficult to achieve for the medium of photography I would imagine due to it's recent beginnings. Maybe I'm wrong there.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p>Parsimony seems to me, is also about differentiation.</p>

<p>As Luis says, we can have multiple copies of the same work (photo).</p>

<p>But we also can have a multiplicity of similar works (photos).</p>

<p>A brief look at Ansel Adam's website clearly related types of prints and quantities of prints to their price.</p>

<p>A single photo of a beautiful flower can definitely be art. What happens when tens, hundreds or maybe thousands of images of the same flower are proposed?<br>

<br /><br /><br>

In this respect Iwao's idea is interesting, introducing the concept of passing time as an element of "distillation" of art.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>My problems with Iwao's idea of "true art" (and therefore untrue art as well), based on time is this: First, permanence. Leonardo appears to have deliberately designed his frescoes to degrade over time. Using Iawo's criteria, they'd not be "true art". Second, take the Jewish art that the Nazis labeled "Degenerate Art". Historically, it was saved to be shown as a lesser form of art. Imagine that the cave it was stored in towards the end of WWII had been hit directly by a bomb and the art destroyed forever and lost. Would that make it untrue art? Not to me. Are doodles on the underside of a rock face that have lasted thousands of years "true art" because of the duration involved? Not to me. If a crazy woman attacks a Matisse in a museum and were to destroy it, would it make it a lesser artwork?</p>

<p>_______________________________________________</p>

<p><strong>Luca - "</strong>A brief look at Ansel Adam's website clearly related types of prints and quantities of prints to their price."</p>

<p>True, but remember that Moonrise holds its price well, and it is in an unlimited edition.</p>

<p><strong>Luca - "</strong>A single photo of a beautiful flower can definitely be art. What happens when tens, hundreds or maybe thousands of images of the same flower are proposed?"</p>

<p>It depends. Forget the flower, and let's take something like....Havana, Cuba (or Paris, or Daytona Bike Week, or...). <em>Everyone, </em>even most of Photonet has been there. As a photo-destination it is one of the greatest cliche's of our day. Does that make all the photographs of it (which largely look the same) the same price? No. Does it debase the price of every picture taken there because there's so many of them? Hardly. The cold, hard truth is that all artists are not equal. So even though there are innumerable photos of Havana, Cuba, and the huge majority are the same visual/conceptual generic & boring cliche's seen in the same way.</p>

<p> </p>