any resources of photography that is actually art, and not just perfected craft?

[stephen_hipperson]

<p>I would look at this issue from different directions.<br>

For most part it's difficult to get any photograph past the technique elite if there is the slightest 'error' in composition, techinique (exposure/dof), etc.. Unfortunately most critiquing seems to be based on these criteria and adherance to such has a tendency to remove 'soul' as images tend to have the appearance of being contrived/formulaic. I wonder sometimes if photographers really look at other people's images other than with a 'does it conform' (I'm not excluding myself). Of course this is a slight exaggeration(?) but that's the path of righteousess preached by most of the photographic media.<br>

On the other hand, I would suggest that because you can't see 'soul' in a photo doesn't mean a photographer didn't try to put it in. Our perception of any image is significantly down to our own life experiences and perhaps on an individual level your (or my) particular 'baggage' doesn't support a deeper understanding of any particular image.<br>

Personally, I've come to the conclusion that 'art' is a somewhat useless contrivance which attempts to load images with a little whhooooo charisma to boost the ego or big up the capability of a particular photographer. The two most 'popular' debates I see are 'What is art?' or 'Is Photography Art?'.<br>

As an aside, I'm beginning to wonder if websites are particularly good at presenting photography for real engagement and the place to see it is in the flesh as a gallery presentation or similar.</p>

 

[luis_g]

<p>Pawel, I disagree with almost everything you've said, but I do not think you're trolling trying to foment one more go-round of craft vs. art or the legitimacy of art. For a more direct answer to your stated question:</p>

<p>Here's one place (of thousands) to go looking...</p>

<p>http://www.moma.org/explore/collection/photography</p>

<p> </p>

[adamhorga]

<p>Paulo,<br>

I think that nowadays for a photo to be art is not enaugh to have emotion. I think it has to have some contextuality as well. And I think that all the emotions, and all the craft, good technics it has got, that all has to come down from this concept. I say this because I think that because putting emotions and good craft into a photo, that nowadays is called advertising and fashion.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I think that because putting emotions and good craft into a photo, that nowadays is called advertising and fashion.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. Advertising and fashion are about selling a product, no matter how the photo is approached.</p>

<p>Trying to define art photography by a particular characteristic or quality just won't work. Any art photograph may operate in any number of ways. Some will be conceptual, some won't. There are plenty of wonderful art photographs that simply show us something, that don't stem from or convey a big idea or even a little idea. I'm not minimizing the importance of conceptual photographs, I'm simply saying that a photo doesn't have to be conceptual to be art or to be something besides an ad.</p>

<p>_______________________</p>

<p>Pawel, I sometimes like to think of the camera as the master. If I thought it always was, I'd immediately give up photography. If I thought photography was one-dimensional, which is what you're conveying (only THIS way), I'd have no use for it.</p>

<p>_______________________</p>

<p>Stephen, there are many anti-art and anti-artist sentiments expressed on PN. It's kind of vogue among a certain crowd, but I don't pay it much attention. Art has a long, important, and proud tradition throughout the centuries. That some are threatened by it is probably nothing new. But the the anti-art voice given on PN, I think, says more about the ranters than it does about artists. We don't seem to mind doctors calling themselves doctors and plumbers telling us they're plumbers. We don't seem to mind our CPAs displaying their diplomas on the wall of the their office and we don't mind knowing where our professors got their doctorates. But, for some strange reason an artist calling himself an artist is <em>verboten</em>. Utter nonsense. Mind you, not every artist is good. But an artist being proud to be an artist? Good for him.</p>

[stephen_hipperson]

<p>For me, from a fundamental level, there is only one thing I use to decide on whether something is 'Art' (aside from the commercial aspects) and that's whether it 'does something to my head' (soul?). Most of the photography I see is about craftsmanship, process or standards, these alone do not make 'Art' or give 'soul'. </p>

<p>As I've already said, it's the baggage I bring to the piece that differs from what others might bring to the same picture. That's why some photos I consider art where others don't and, presumably, vice versa. What I don't quite have a handle on yet is whether the more I see photographs the less they do something for me - ie familiarity breeds contempt - or my life experiences/learning is such that some things no longer move me - or I don't have the breadth of experience/understanding on a personal level to understand the point, so to speak. </p>

 

[je ne regrette rien]

<blockquote><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6779354">pawel baranski</a> , Jan 20, 2012; 09:53 a.m.

 

<p>I have trouble finding pictures that i like. I think that sites like 500px.com have almost exclusively pictures that are perfected craft - but nowhere close art. These pictures does not contain any kind of emotional message from neither author or subject of photography. They are simpy uninteresting.<br /> Only place worth visiting online i know is americansuburbx.com. I'd like to know more of these, especially places with user-generated content.<br /> Do you know anything?</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>it is not an issue of art and craft.<br>

It is more your personal attitude towards photography together with the image overflow we are subject and responsible of nowadays. The internet is not necessarily the most suitable medium to view photographs because of the mix-up of genres and because of the basically unedited nature of user-generated content.<br>

What I have done:</p>

<ol>

<li>less internet</li>

<li>more photographic books</li>

<li>more books about photography, where I can learn better how to look at photos</li>

<li>more time. The web is much too fast.</li>

</ol>

<p>Another thing I have learnt is to be patient, to keep on looking, and to distinguish between</p>

<ul>

<li>the photos I like</li>

<li>the photos which are actually "good".</li>

</ul>

<p>I was given a book by Steve McCurry: most of them are good, but only about five struck me as having a strong visual message. But the advantage is that in some time I will be able to take the book again and maybe make many new discoveries.<br>

L.</p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>Pawel, it might be useful for you to look more at what is happening in the art world, what has happened there in the last 100 years or so and to interact with the view and communication provided by those artists. Visits to galleries and museums (photography and other art) can also be useful places for some personal inspiration for an approach to photography.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Stephen, why are you the center of the universe in terms of deciding what is art (even what is art <em>for you</em>)? I have no trouble going to a museum and assuming that what I am seeing is art and calling it such. If I don't like it, I just figure it's art I don't like or don't get. But it's not up to me to decide what's art. There's a vast network of reasons something is considered art. My taste is low on the list of those reasons. Plenty of art does nothing for me, but I recognize clearly why it's art, despite how I may react to it. Just as Luca above made the distinction between what he likes and what may be good, I think a distinction has to be made between what I like and what is art. Otherwise we lose any objectivity and the historical, social, and interpersonal aspects of art are lost. It would be weird to think that I might not like the Mona Lisa and that it might to nothing to my own soul or heart and that would make it not art, even just for me. I'd much rather see the Mona Lisa as established precedent, as a significant historical work of art, that just doesn't do anything for me.</p>

<p>[i don't dislike the Mona Lisa.]</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>While I think many contemporary photographers over-emphasize technical matters and may have a somewhat one-dimensional relationship to craft, I wouldn't want to diminish the role of craft, especially historically. Really fine craft has its own sort of soul, which can't be overlooked or discounted. The notion that the artist sets out to "express" himself is a relatively modern and contemporary view of art. When I saw Michelangelo's David for the first time, indeed all of his statues and work, I wasn't moved by what it expressed to me or what it communicated or anything resembling soul. I was moved by the beauty of the craft. I imagined him working to perfect his sculpting, not relay his feelings. We may imbue that with some sort of communicated soul these days, but I think what's at play there is really a craftsman who, through his craft, transcended it. It's so incredibly well wrought that it becomes more. </p>

<p>There may be many photographers that go awry because they are too concerned with craft, but I think there are likely as many that go awry because they aren't in touch with their craft and haven't honed the necessary technical skills to effectively use the medium to communicate or to show something of significance. </p>

<p>The two really can't be separated.</p>

[stephen_hipperson]

<p>Fred G. - "<em>Stephen, why are you the center of the universe in terms of deciding what is art (even what is art for you)?" </em>- ....er.. because I <strong>am</strong> the centre of my universe..... as you are of yours. Frankly, I'm fed up with being told what is art and what isn't, I now decide for myself. Whilst I may not accept a piece is art, I can, nevertheless, appreciate any craftsmanship that is evident (and I can accept that there may be a lack of craftsmanship in any piece that I consider art). This doesn't mean I am not open to persuasion or a change of mind. I will often read 'the notes' that come with a piece of art, thus enlightened I may review my assessment of a piece - but I will not be told 'This is art because I say so.' <br>

Of course, I do have a dilemma - as art is a market - so I have to accept that anything thing traded in that market must be art - otherwise what are these people buying?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>It's worth pushing a little, Stephen. Is there no work from all the centuries of art, from the Renaissance to religious paintings to Realism to Expressionism to Surrealism to Pointillism that you don't like and yet can still recognize as art, understand why it would be in a museum? If there isn't, I have to accept that's how you think, but it really does strike me as a unique and solipsistic way of thinking.</p>

<p>BTW, I don't think of myself as the center of the universe, not by a long shot.</p>

<p>Every time I go to the Met or any other museum I visit, there's a great painting, sometimes an entire wing, that I don't like, don't get, or doesn't reach me. I just can't draw the conclusion that because I don't like it, it isn't art.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> Frankly, I'm fed up with being told what is a universe and what isn't, I now decide for myself. I am not the center, or at the center. I <em>am</em> the universe. Or maybe just a Boltzmann Brat.</p>

[mikemorrell]

<blockquote>

<p>I have trouble finding pictures that i like.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> Huh? See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photographers">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photographers</a><br>

Only you can decide what you like.</p>

[stephen_hipperson]

<p>Fred - "<em>Is there no work from all the centuries of art, from the Renaissance to religious paintings to Realism to Expressionism to Surrealism to Pointillism that you don't like and yet can still recognize as art, understand why it would be in a museum?" -</em> I don't think I'm saying that if I dislike something it can't be art, it has after all 'done something to my head'. The pieces that I don't consider art tend to give me a feeling of complete indifference, I just shrug my shoulders. However, I may still admire craftsmanship, I have the utmost respect for good craftsmanship. I see no reason why museums shouldn't show works simply because of their superb craftsmanship. Museums are full of furniture, pottery, metalwork which shows craftsmanship.....<br>

I recently went to a museum dedicated to the work of Dame Barbara Hepworth, it included examples of work in progress and plaster models - development pieces. the question that occured to me was whether all the pieces were art, and if not, when did a piece cease being a model/work in progress and become 'art'. </p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Stephen, then let me rephrase. </p>

<p>Is there no work from all the centuries of art, from the Renaissance to religious paintings to Realism to Expressionism to Surrealism to Pointillism <em>that leave you indifferent</em> and yet you can still recognize as art. In other words, are there any cases where it's not up to you to determine what's art?</p>

[stephen_hipperson]

<p>Fred G - <em>"In other words, are there any cases where it's not up to you to determine what's art?" </em>- this going round and round. I can determine what is art or not - but that's in the context of me in my universe. If you determine that something is art, who am I to disagree with you in your universe? However, I refuse to accept somebody telling me I must accept something as art when my reaction to a work is complete indifference - e.g. many landscape photographs leave me as such, you know the thing, rock in the foreground, mountains in the background and a blue lake surrounded by trees in the middle - it's just a photograph, a technical exercise - the only thing at work is craftsmanship. </p>

<p>Otherwise, we would have a situation where if somebody decided something was art we would all have to agree with them wouldn't we - if not would some people have more authority than others to decide whether something is art or not and we would all have to accept this authoriative decision - oops, of course that's where things seem to be in the universe outside mine - after all if ol' matey said it's art it must be. (I'll leave that option to you, if you want it.) </p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Otherwise, we would have a situation where if somebody decided something was art we would all have to agree with them wouldn't we</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No we wouldn't. It's not up to any one person. That's my point. Not up to somebody and not up to Stephen.</p>

<p>__________________________</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I can determine what is art or not - but that's in the context of me in my universe.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Stephen, I don't see myself as existing in my own universe. This line of yours makes no sense to me. You don't live in your own universe. You live in a network of interweaving persons and things. You don't speak your own language, you speak a language spoken by others and that you've inherited.</p>

<p>I mean, I could claim that in my own universe that thing the guy is sitting in over there with four legs and a cushioned back and cushioned seats is a table. But that wouldn't get me very far. Because, in fact, it's not a table (though a chair could be used as a table). It's a chair.</p>

<p>Anyone can claim anything they want "in their own universe." But that doesn't mean they've communicated or made any sense. </p>

<p>__________________________</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>if not would some people have more authority than others to decide whether something is art or not </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, there are experts. But they alone don't determine what is art. Art is determined by a complex maze of factors, including experts, artists, historians, critics, curators, and more importantly history and culture. It is way beyond any one person's individual taste or mandate, whether that one person is you or a sole critic. You, alone, are in charge of what you like but not what is art.</p>

<p>In a solipsistic world, sure, you declare what's art and are done with the matter. To me, that's useless in a discussion and in a world where we share ideas and relate to one another. You can create your own language and no one will understand you but it will be YOURS. So what? That gets you nowhere. Consensus over time is too important a consideration to be dismissed. Allowing one person, such as either one critic or one curator or yourself, to declare what is art renders art absolutely meaningless. Anything that only I can define, by definition, has no meaning. Meaning has to be communicated and shared for it to be meaning. If there is no shared sense of what art is, it is a useless and bogus concept.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>It's solipsistic to expect the work to stand or fall on its own merits?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>It's solipsistic to expect the work to stand or fall on its own merits?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. It's solipsistic to claim that you alone determine what is art.</p>

<p>There have been many good attempts by philosophers and artists throughout the centuries to define art on characteristics of the work alone, such as beauty, representation, symbolic form, etc. These definitions don't address the consensus notion. They pin art on a characteristic of the work. But they don't make the determiner of art each individual.</p>

<p>The solipsism came in when Stephen claimed that there's a context of <em>him in his own universe</em> in which he alone can determine what is art.</p>

[stephen_hipperson]

<p><em>"No we wouldn't. It's not up to any one person. That's my point. Not up to somebody and not up to Stephen"</em> - yes it is, whether anyone wants to agree with me is up to them as individuals. If not, at the very least, individuals would not be able to determine whether their own work is art or not.</p>

<p>Of course, to some extent there is some truth in your point. Take a work, you determine it has a value measured in 'art', I think it's just another photograph of a flower in a vase, the 'art' has no value - you can purchase it for next to nothing. A second work, a man sitting on a sofa, the title "Man on Table" - we both think the work has 'art' value - we both want it - the price goes up and the value of the 'art' is then reflected in the price - we have created a market. To this extent I would agree it takes more than one person before a market in art is formed (we both agree there is 'art' in the work), and this is reflected in the higher price. You're happy that the first piece had value you, and I'm happy the first piece makes me happy and I don't own it.<br>

Although I consider myself in my own universe, I think of it more in the sense of a venn diagram type situation. In some instances we might occupy the same space (perhaps slightly out of phase), in others we do not. At this moment in time this discussion occupies space in my universe and yours, but I don't know your neighbour any more than you know mine. You may be better read than me and in your argument you may put forward a point that I may have to consider and following reflection I may or may need to adjust my universe to acknowledge it, either way my universe will be affected by the interaction.<br>

I appreciate your point regarding language, but I'm not sure it's really valid - one of the reasons dicussion on subjective meaning continues as it does. Some words and/or phrases will have slightly different understanding between us. Words are dynamic. "Bad" e.g. seems to have two opposite meanings in youth culture, "gay" - a great word for description of mood - has been usurped by the homosexual community (where the word homosexual seemed to be perfectly adequate to me), 'pussy' (can I use that word here?), "sublime" - one I will have to research further - Edmund Burke seemed to suggest that source of the sublime is the opposite to what we generally take the sublime to be today. (Will the act of putting cushions on a coffee table make it a bench?). <br>

Communication/discussion is what it's about, comparing notes, coming to agreement/disagreement - without it we become automotons, devoid of independant thought, believing what we are fed. <br>

Experts in subjectivity...mmm...not really given any thought to the concept before..... whatever happens, I will prefer not to like something because somebody else says I should. I'm certainly willing to listen to rationale behind somebody's view, I'm often swayed to change my mind, but ultimately I will not blindly accept group definition. <br>

As to solipsistic - I had to look that up when you first used it, not a word I'd seen - to be honest, in the strictest sense, I don't think I am, as I acknowledge other universes of other people, I willing bump into them, in the hope enrichment/learning. I willing accept others have their own point of view and encourage everyone to establish their own judgements of whats what.<br>

That's why I can empathise with the OP. So many sites claiming so much 'art' which simply doesn't move one - but because everyone posting on these sites plays the same game, i.e. this is art - of course it must be.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>So many sites claiming so much 'art' which simply doesn't move one - but because everyone posting on these sites plays the same game, i.e. this is art - of course it must be.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But, Stephen, you're the one giving all these people on the Internet permission to misuse the word art to characterize their work. YOU are precisely what bothers you, because you claim the right to determine art, which means every Tom, Dick, and Harry also has that right. That's an abuse of art and that's why people throw around the term willy nilly. </p>

<p>______________________</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Experts in subjectivity...mmm...not really given any thought to the concept before..... whatever happens, I will prefer not to like something because somebody else says I should.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You misunderstood something I said. I talked about experts in ART, not experts in subjectivity. And I'm not telling you what to like, nor can anyone tell you what to like. I'm telling you you alone don't determine what's art, whether for yourself or for the world. You do determine what you like. What you like is very different from what's art.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>the word homosexual seemed to be perfectly adequate to me</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's scientific, sterile, categorical, and physical. "Gay" incorporates the sense of personhood and culture that is significant. It puts a positive spin on something that's been historically maligned. It would be odd to go around referring to ourselves as homo sapiens in the course of casual conversation. We say "people" instead. Gay folks wanted to overcome the clinical nature of "homosexual."</p>

<p>If you feel usurped by gays having appropriated the word "gay" to describe themselves, imagine for a moment or two how gay people feel at having been forced to hide in closets, drummed out of the military, beaten in schoolyards, and even executed in other countries. </p>

[charles_h2]

<p>Fred:<br />Why do you have to turn everything into a personal crusade? People have been crapping on each other since men (people) have walked upright, not just gays...</p>

<p>As far as ART is concerned. The only thing that most artist and "experts" agree on is that Art has form and content. After that, the argument of objectivity and subjectivity has raged on, for over a millennium. For me, the thing that neutralizes these two extremes is consciousness. The more we raise it, ( through education, contact with others, and self reflection) the more we become aware of a collective consciousness. Then I know that " like" and "dislike" are subject to change, and I have to find something deeper to base my judgements on.</p>

<p>I agree with many of Stephens points. I believe "You" get to judge what is good art and bad art. It is subjective. You can trust "authorities" to make these judgements for you, but it's much more fun to make them yourself......the value of art seems to be determined by the art dealers and collectors</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>People have been crapping on each other since men (people) have walked upright, not just gays... --Phil</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Phil, very true. And if someone crapped on one of those groups of people I would have responded as well, as I have done in other instances. I responded to this comment because it was made. (I didn't necessarily think Stephen was crapping all over gays. I just thought I'd give him some food for thought on why gays prefer it to homosexual. Too bad that disturbs you.) I didn't think I needed to add the disclaimer that I know other groups besides gays have been maligned.</p>

<p>_________________________</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I believe "You" get to judge what is good art and bad art.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I completely agree. You may have misread me. I have said repeatedly that one's taste is self-determined. So, yes, what's good art and bad art is determined by each of us according to our tastes. Stephen wasn't claiming that. He was claiming that we each determine what is art. I don't agree with that.</p>

[charles_h2]

<p>Fred<br>

If I were there right now, you'd get a hug. What disturbs me ( since you used the word) is YOU speaking for gays. There are plenty of black people who don't like being called African Americans. No one person of color can speak for all. That's why we should be out making art.....less conflict, except on Photo.net<br>

I'm still trying to get my head around your disagreement. If he doesn't, then who does, and who are these "experts" you were referring to, since they don't agree? I know that a grain of sand doesn't constitute a beach, but the beach is made of grains. Maybe it's time I raise my consciousness.<br>

If the collective determines what art is, and they don't agree....then what are we left with?</p>