Nature and Art

[andrew_molitor]

<p>This seems to be a related question:</p>

<p>Does art exist without an observer? (for whatever definitions you choose to give each of the words in that question)</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Andrew, what's the point of your question? It seems like a variation of "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" And we all know how badly that one ends.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>I got a lot of squawk a while back when I declared that Nature is culturally defined. I'm sticking to that opinion. It is kind of an aesthetic, push-me, pull you proposition.</p>

[andrew_molitor]

<p>It's closely allied to the question of whether nature is, or can be, art. It is very much the analog of the 'if a tree falls' question, but it's about the nature of art (which is rather malleable and obscure) rather than the nature of sound (which is quite well inderstood).</p>

<p>The "tree falls" question is, taken literally, quite stupid. The point of THAT question is to open the mind to the question of what we mean by sound -- if it truly just the vibration of air, or does the word "sound" and the idea of sound have more going on?</p>

<p>My question parses apart some of the same ideas of "art". Is art about the interaction of a viewer with the piece, or does the piece stand alone? If a stone in the forest is to be "art" do we require a viewer? I have already asked the question of whether we require that the rock be selected, picked up, with artistic intent.</p>

<p>These questions are not really answerable. Thinking them through will help one refine one's ideas about what is, and is not, art.</p>

 

[dcstep]

<p>Fred, I like your point that Adams doesn't show you the Yosemite that you see when you go there. He has interpreted for us in a way that all of us don't accept or consider ideal. OTOH, someone might go there today and take Instagram pix and make them look like they were old and faded film pictures from the 1950s and some might think of that as "art." That's likely not your view of Yosemite.</p>

<p>My point is that nature is a subject and artists interpret their subjects differently. Even attempting to capture Yosemite in a very realistic manner is artistic, at least to some degree. Most of us here on Photo.net would chose a pleasing perspective and attempt skillful composition and exposure during "the golden hours." Another "artist" may purposefully break every rule of composition and take a picture in flat, midday light, with no shadows and emphasizing the haze. Strangely, the "unattractive" interpretation might be more "artistic", at least in some circles.</p>

<p>If we follow "rules of composition" (making an example of only one element of art) in a painting or a photographic image, it's "art", at least to a small degree. OTOH, purposefully breaking all the rules of composition is also "art." If my daughter holds up her cell phone and takes a poorly composed picture, without realizing that it's poorly composed, that may not be "art." The line between documentation and art is narrow, but not particularly bright, IMHO.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Thanks, David.</p>

<p>____________________________</p>

<p>Andrew, sorry, but I guess that question just doesn't help me much. If it helps you, that's great, though you haven't said how or what your thinking on the subject of observer-artwork is.</p>

<p>[Addition: Don't get me wrong, Andrew, I think the observer-artwork relationship is fascinating and there is much to consider regarding it. It just doesn't help me to consider whether something is or is not art in the absence of an observer. In general, I'm less interested in the question "What is art?" and even less so in the generic and unspecific question of what can be <em>classified</em> as art* than in questions about art that already is . . . or can be.]</p>

<p>* Those are questions more geared to curators than photographers or artists, IMO. I wonder about how different photos work, how aspects of them move us or are seen, stuff like that.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>"Does art exist without an observer?"</p>

<p>Perhaps as a wave function?</p>

<p>Reminds me of Garry WInogrand's quote:</p>

<p>"There are no photographs while I'm reloading".</p>

[AlanKlein]

<blockquote>

<p>Is nature and art the same thing?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>God created nature. Man creates art.</p>

[nozar_kishi]

<p>Alan - God is created by man; nature by itself.</p>

[richard_john_edwards]

<p>Interesting.<br>

Firsty, does something need to be viewed in order for it to be art? the idea posed by Andrew<br>

<em>If a stone in the forest is to be "art" do we require a viewer</em><br>

This is good, is it only art when someone discovers it tells the world and they agree and flock to see it? Can the same be said for a photograph, it is just a photograph untl someone see's it, tells the world and they all flock to see it? <em><br /></em><br>

I also like Nozar's point, that god is a creation of man? I would say GOD is an interpetation of man, just as art is an interpretation of man. neither are absolutes. <br>

Lets put aside the GOD aspect for a bit and replece that motion. <br>

The Kabalah and the tree of life talk about the negative veils of existance, something comes from noting, but it must first become concious. a thought, and from that nothingness things materialise, art is the same. 1,000,000 years ago the statue of David was not even a thought let alone its creators existance, but some how Leonardi hada thought and creation of the art then took place. that can be attributed to the creation of Nature as well.<br>

I am not saying all Nature is art, just as i am not saying all Photo's Paintings Sculptures are art. but some of those do shine through as art, as do some wonders of nature for me, whoever or whatever the creator of those spaces was. They are now there for us to interperet.</p>

 

[AlanKlein]

<p>Whatever or whoever or however nature was created, it's not art by any definition I am aware. On the other hand, however you describe art, the definition includes it being created by humans.</p>

[lukas_werth4]

<p>What is nature?</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Lukas asks, "What is nature?" I'll answer to what I believe many people intuitively feel 'nature' to be. I think that it 'feels' like the ocean; they can see what's on the surface, but it grades into the ever-less-known and ultimately into the completely unfathomable unknown/unknowable.</p>

<p>To borrow from Blanchot (with a nod to Andrew Molitor's questions of yesterday), the unknown "does not belong to light, but rather to a region "foreign" to the disclosure that is accomplished in and through light. The unknown does not fail before a gaze, yet it is not hidden from it: neither visible nor invisible, or, more precisely, turning itself away from every visible and every invisible."</p>

<p>... and/but also, continuing from Blanchot, "<em>How can we live without the unknown before us?"</em>... there is something that summons us; a difficulty that, holding us in its sight, nonetheless steals away in a nearly reassuring form. It has to be sought." -- and -- "[T]o live 'authentically,' 'poetically,' is to have a relation with the unknown as such, and thus to put at the center of one's life <em>this-the-unknown</em> that does not allow one to live ahead of oneself ... "</p>

<p>In my opinion, art is inextricably entangled, rooted-in, continuous-with, a-consequence-of, cannot-be-without this originary "unknown" (that, by definition, as Blanchot points out, can't be known (duh!): "This relation will not consist in an unveiling. The unknown will not be revealed, but indicated.").</p>

<p>Asking whether or not art "is" nature seems to me to be like asking if the man "is" the seed or egg or embryo or infant, etc. of his origins.</p>

<p> </p>

[nozar_kishi]

<p> <br>

Western thought (originated from the Greek), and especially mixed with today's need of Capitalism (economy), tends to transfigure aspects into "things" in order to "have", wherein ownership is the cornerstone (of economy.) One is more inclined to say "I have an idea" instead of "I think". Eric Fromm (in his book “To Have or Not to Have) says we have forgotten that Love is a verb and not a noun (to love, rather than, to be in love). And Steichen says (in: ON PHOTOGRAPHY):"The use of the term art medium is, to say the least, misleading, for it is the artist that creates a work of art, not the medium." If we approach the topic of this forum as what the artist does (as opposed to what art is), then there is no need, any more, to try attributing it to humans; it already is. Same is to use religious versus religion that automatically reveals that it is God that was originated in human, not the other way around. </p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>I think that it 'feels' like the ocean; they can see what's on the surface, but it grades into the ever-less-known and ultimately into the completely unfathomable unknown/unknowable</em>.>>></p>

<p>I think this describes not only nature but just about every phenomenon we experience. Is there something beyond the surface? It's the old appearance/reality saw. What you see isn't what you get. You see another person. You see the outside and wonder what's "within." Remember all the discussions here about essence? You work on your computer every day. You marvel at how it does its thing yet all you seem to come in contact with is its results and the screen you look at.</p>

<p>Good segue to photography. (This is the Philosophy of Photography forum, right?)</p>

<p>Portrait. Does it show me the person? A likeness of the person? The essence of the person? Remember Avedon? [“My photographs don’t go below the surface. I have great faith in surfaces. A good one is full of clues.”]</p>

<p>Picture of a sunset. Is it limited to "representing" sunset? Is it like a xerox copy? Does it look just like the sunset I saw that day? Does it feel like it? Does the photo transcend the sunset? Transform it?</p>

<p>Is a photo always a photo OF something just because it appears to be a photo of that thing?</p>

<p>_______________________</p>

<p>Nozar, very nice addition: <em><strong>the artist</strong></em>.</p>

<p>Do we talk more like viewers here or photographers?<br /> <br /> Maybe all the world (nature? -- no one has said what is NOT nature) is a photographic stage? Not a thing to make photos OF but a platform on which to act, on which TO BE a photographer.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>Before humankind were there to admire it, was nature art then? Or does art need an appreciative audience? I believe we have almost got back to Bishop Berkeley.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Colin, it's more fun to do that question spatially than temporally. Take the Mona Lisa, put her (it) in a spaceship and send it away at warp speed. At what distance from its audience does it stop being art? 100 light years? 1000 light years? If we find the exact distance where it stops being art and wobble it back and forth, is it art/not-art/art/not-art forever?</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>There needs to be a "What is art?" clearinghouse. No matter what the OP, mention "art" and the same old comments (including my own) pop up. </p><div></div>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>If one or many are making the same old comments, it's their own fault (fault is probably too strong, habit might be better) and not the fault of the subject matter or the word art. Think more and differently and one's comments may start to vary and expand. Enter into a <em>discussion</em> with others instead of posting an occasional quick snippet or an overall assessment of the thread and one's thinking on the subject might move forward as it interacts with the thoughts of others, and becomes a construction rather than a debate or series of one-liners. There have been many good ideas and questions presented here by several posters, any one of which could be picked up on, mulled over, expanded and built upon . . . if one just puts in the time and energy.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>OK here's a divergent thought:<br>

Instinctive awareness of species-relevant "signs" is fundamental to all living things. The curious thing is that a type of sophistication and subtlety that requires close observance and training that we call "art", is evident in the earliest humans. Some here have speculated that these expressive skills and sensibilities evolved by natural selection. It is interesting to wonder where "art appreciation" might plausibly lie on the evolutionary record.</p>

[inoneeye]

<p>FG "Maybe all the world (nature? -- no one has said what is NOT nature) is a photographic stage? Not a thing to make photos OF but a platform on which to act, on which TO BE a photographer."<br /> What is not nature for me is culture. Art is culture. Photographing objects found in nature, (created by nature) is culture. Creating art is mankind's cultural nature. Finding/labeling art in nature is a human response. Art exists by and for humans. Did nature have a hand in bringing us to this motivation ... maybe but right now i think not. Will it become significant for nature? Is it significant for nature...? maybe via resources and environmental impact yada.</p>

<p>Art is significant to human beings.<br /> Nature does not make art, we do with are intent and labels. Art and nature may be often weaved together in human terms but is art and nature the same thing. Not for me. imo. God and art and love have more in common than art and nature.</p>

<p>I do find an interesting 'comparison' when i ponder the way i create art and the way nature creates. but that is my projection.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<blockquote>

<p>God and art and love have more in common than art and nature.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course. Art comes from the heart, the soul. Although art like nature has form, it transcends the physical. It's spiritual and mysterious which is why we have trouble defining it. It has no aesthetic value unless man witnesses it.</p>

[warren_wilson]

<p>Here's a throwback thought (well throwback to the neoclassicism of the 18th century).</p>

<p>Alexander Pope's Essay on Criticism actually addressed poetry as a specific art form -- and even more specifically, Wit, as an aspect of poetry, but his comment has resonated for me over the decades: he sees art as nature presented with her best face forward.</p>

<p>And I will bet many of us nature photographers do this regularly!</p>

<p><strong>True Wit is Nature to advantage dress'd,</strong><br>

<strong>What oft was thought, but ne'er so well express'd;</strong></p>

<p>Of course the romantic movement put an end to that notion!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>(From the same Essay on Criticism comes one of my very favorite Pope quotes: <br>

<strong>A little learning is a dangerous thing;</strong><br>

<strong>Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:</strong><br>

<strong>There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,</strong><br>

<strong>And drinking largely sobers us again.</strong></p>

<strong> </strong>

[aplumpton]

<p>Art created by animals or plants or even non-living physical nature (lava flows, erupting mountain ranges, cloud formations, etc.) can only be art in the mind of humans (independent of "soul" or "heart" which are only metaphors for mind), until of course we can eventually find conclusive evidence that the contributing elements of art are understood by and appreciated by one or two species of animals.</p>

<p>If nature therefore somehow "creates" physical things we consider as art, then it is simply we who are creating art from the nature's subject matter.</p>

<p>I disagree with the argument that art is sometimes not being motivated/created by the human. Yes, it can be the result of accidents, as has been mentioned, but the recognition of the happy accident and the desire to present it as art, is uniquely human motivated. </p>

<p>Nature is nature, but it's also an incredible source of subject matter and inspiration for art by the human observer and artist.</p>

<p>Art is a a human activity and product, even if the human does little but detect and interpret something in nature that then becomes art in the mind of the human.</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>J.D., I think talking about art as cultural is extremely important. You actually take the notion of the importance of the artist and expand it beyond the individual. Culture is a communal affair as is, IMO, art. Yes, of course, art is very personal, but part of its power and its nature (pun intended) is to be shared and to draw on signs and symbols that are often culturally based and understood, culture extending from much smaller communities to much more global communities.</p>

<p>Yes, neither art nor culture are nature. Neither is plastic or styrofoam by the way. </p>

<p>The question "What is art?" can be taken more than one way. Two of them that seem relevant are 1) What things do we classify as art, and 2) What do we mean when we say "art"?</p>

<p>The first is about which individuals get to be part of the group. The second, which seems more significant, is about understanding the group and experiencing the whole as something greater than the sum of the parts. Culture is a whole whose sum, too, is greater than the number of individuals that make up the community. And it is very much man-made. It is also fluid rather than fixed.</p>