Photography: Is it Art?

Julie H · October 25, 2012

Art doesn't happen by accident. It requires an artist.

In order for m to make the art that you demand he present in order for you to allow him to call himself an artist, he must already *be* an artist. Or maybe you think a non-artist can make art; or a non-artist makes non-art that turns into art *pfft*! Whoopee!

One thing's for sure; if he doesn't believe he's an artist, he's not going to create art. ("Oh, look! Some art! I had no idea where *that* came from!")

john_bellenis · October 25, 2012

In order for m to make the art that you demand he present in order for you to allow him to call himself an artist, he must already *be* an artist.

</blockquote>

Yes.

And to clarify. anyone can call themselves an artist, an astronaut or a sea turtle for all I care... it just doesn't automatically make it so. Non artists create total crap all the time that they consider art - we all know that. If someone creates art then they aren't a non-artist, clearly.

I'm not sure what the confusion is here, it really couldn't be simpler.

Norma Desmond · October 25, 2012

<<<Art doesn't happen by accident. It requires an artist.>>>

I don't find this to be the case.

I've seen a lot of art that wasn't intended to be art, from ancient pottery to coliseums. I think we think of a lot of things as art, and indeed find many of them in museums, that weren't created by someone who thought of themselves as an artist. Yes! Non-artists can make non-art that *pfft* turns into art. Yes! Yes! Yes! There is art in recognition, not just in making.

The urinal might be a case, but we would say it was an artist who made it art by putting it in a museum. But it doesn't have to happen that way. It doesn't have to be an artist who recognizes it. The world might, a curator might.

So for me, a very different point of view. One thing's NOT for sure; if he doesn't believe he's an artist, he's not going to create art. Not at all. Art can be made by those who don't believe they are artists.

cyanatic · October 25, 2012

Steve J Murray : My overall impression is that currently photographs are certainly used in the making of art, especially in collages and multiple image creations, and that most of the images the average photographer takes of pretty scenes, portraits, even abstracts, etc. are not what museums are looking for.

</blockquote>

m stephens: You would need no external approval. It is a misunderstanding to assume that one has to gain confirmation from the outside priesthood.

</blockquote>

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=282122">Q.G. de Bakker</a>: Being a self-declared artist may tell something about the intent of the would-be artist. The results however, not a declaration of intent, will show whether the person really is an artist.

</blockquote>

Julie Heyward: What's the most widely consumed current sensory vector? *Hint.* It's not painting any more. What's the best vector for a sensory virus to use gain access? *Hint* It's not sculpture any more. So, go ahead insisting that photography's not art. We like the defenseless; we like to eat your brain.

</blockquote>

This thread is a nice microcosm of different cultural positions on photographic "art". The informed and the uninformed; the reactionary that thinks it is informed but actually is not; the avant garde that is not sure it is informed and may well be; the metaphysical and the zen like; the acceptance of the "priesthood", the rejection of the "priesthood”, the “artist”, the “art critic”, “the philosopher”, etc.

So many of us approach a photograph with certain expectations. They may be of the most simplistic type (composition, sharpness, definable subject, etc.) or they may be more aesthetically refined. But they are still expectations and therefore become limits, lines of demarcation. There are no lines of demarcation in art. Only those we currently believe in and think we understand.

"This photo is good because it has -- or meets the criteria of -- X, Y, and Z". "This photo fails because it lacks X, Y and Z". Some work has absolutely nothing to do with X, Y and Z and is actually predicated on an L, M, and P that the viewer may have no knowledge of. The viewer (lacking understanding, or consciously resistant to understanding) determines that the work is "pretentious" or "bogus" and moves on. This is why museum and gallery selections (and I am not talking about showings in a local coffee house because the photographer is friends with Joe the Barista) can befuddle and even outrage some viewers. People don't like to be told that the failure is in their vision, not in the work they are viewing. Some critical faculties have to be brought to bear or we’d be welcoming with open arms every photographic charlatan who waltzed down the pike. But that’s where an open mind, and the critical function of gatekeepers comes into play.

Whether any of us like it or not, critics, galleries, collectors, publishers, museums, universities, and collectives of like-minded artists do function as gatekeepers. They’re neither a conspiratorial cabal nor a priesthood, and they can often be at odds with one another. They are not infallible, either. But acceptance by any, or some, or all of them does confer a type of artistic status. None of them lay their money or reputations on the line for the heck of it. You can believe that there is an underlying aesthetic supporting their decision to bring this or that body of work to public attention.

But their recognition of certain photographers does not negate the ability of someone unknown (or ignored) by them from conferring the label of “artist” upon themselves. There has been an ongoing dialogue in this thread as if the two are mutually exclusive. I just don’t see it that way. Gatekeepers do confer legitimacy, but that does not mean that all who labor unrecognized are not artists. De Bakker and stephens are both correct.

During the time that John Szarkowski championed work of photographers like Winogrand and Friedlander, Vivian Maier was actively working. Her work, at that time, was unknown. Today it is being offered for sale and appearing in some fairly prestigious galleries. We don’t know whether Vivian Maier considered herself to be an “artist”, but her work, today, is certainly being treated as if she was. Was she any less of an artist prior to the discovery of her work, simply because she was unknown? I would say, no. So “artists” can certainly be artists independent of recognition.

Along these same lines, I came across a relevant passage in the book “American Photography: A Critical History 1945 to the Present”, by Jonathan Green (“Present” being 1984, the year of publication.)

In a chapter on The New American Luminism (dealing with the rise of straight color photography in the 1970’s) Green talks about the FSA photographer Jack Delano. Apparently, Delano had taken a number of color slides which had languished for years in FSA archives. Green displays a Delano color photograph from 1940 alongside similar color work done in the 1970’s by Stephen Shore and Joel Meyerowitz. Why, Green asks, did Delano’s work (which compares favorably with Shore and Meyerowitz) go unrecognized? I found his answer very telling, and somewhat relevant to the turn this discussion has taken.

“The reasons for this neglect are many, but the most obvious is that there simply was no aesthetic that would legitimize these slides as art.” (pg 184, bold emphasis mine)

</blockquote>

Who knows what “virus” (I happen to like Julie Heyward’s use of that term in regard to ‘art” that we do not yet recognize) exists today for which an aesthetic does not yet exist to legitimize it?

As for the overall question as to whether photography is “art”, it strikes me as a bit silly to deny that it is, or that some of it is. If it is not, the world has certainly been treating it in books, collections, museums, and galleries as if it were.

q.g._de_bakker · October 25, 2012

Steve, You are mistaken if you think that my view is that there are no unrecognized artists. And that's not what the entire exchange between M and me is about. It is not about the possibility of art existing where it has yet to be (if ever) recognized as such. Gatekeepers and artists.. there is no one vs the other. Not in a here relevant sense. They all concern themselves with one and the same thing: art. What all this is about is that artists are not artists just because they say they are. Art and just being called art can indeed be mutually exclusive, simply because if something is not X, it is 'excluded' from being X. But not - and this is what this is all about - from being called X. Calling the Moon a giant cheese doesn't make it so. Art isn't different. And it's not a matter of different aspects, of different views that will be reconciled in verbose musings that in the end, probably everyone will be right. Photography (jumping way back to the beginning of this thread) is not (!) art. It is a medium, that can be used to create art. What's silly about that?

cyanatic · October 25, 2012

Photography (jumping way back to the beginning of this thread) is not (!) art. It is a medium, that can be used to create art. What's silly about that?

</blockquote>

Absolutely nothing. " Photography is not art." Okay, my mistake for not being more precise. Photography as a medium is not inherently "art". Some photographs can be art. Better? I think we are in agreement.

Sorry about misstating your position. Going back to Vivian Maier as an example -- Let us say she did, in fact, call herself an artist. Your position would be that her status as an artist lies in the evidence of what she actually produced, not in the mere act of her calling herself an artist. Would that be correct?

q.g._de_bakker · October 25, 2012

It would, Steve. With this understanding that i don't deny anyone the intent of being an artist (i.e. wanting and trying to produce art) just because the results of their trying can, in all fairness, not be called art. Nor would i deny anyone being an artist because they would not be the best artist (art, like anything, comes in a wide range of degrees of accomplishment, and it goes without saying that not just one end of that range would deserve to be called art. Saying "bad art" or "mediocre art" (or for completeness' sake "good art") does make sense).

m_stephens · October 25, 2012

Quite a lot of discussion has been added here, but not too much persuasion. Some more posts have been made which reject the idea of an artist making his own declaration of his art.

Some thoughts I have after reading all this:

Q.G., I don't think you answered whether you are an artist or not. That's a crucial question here that will help me understand your position.

To anyone who believes we are all not gods, I have some sympathy for you. Whether you accept your inferior position as a result of religion, or some internally generated view of the universe, it does short change your potential. And take note that by "gods" here, I am not referring to a cartoon "super-hero" with mythical powers. I am referring to the idea that we "are the universe looking back upon itself." That kind of god. For an artist, I can think of no greater source of truth, inspiration and justification.

Here's where Q.G. and I are locked in chains. I say the "artist makes art." That means he is independent and free as a consciousness, and art is a direct result of his own vision and justifications. I offered a long list of reasons why this is both beneficial and true. Q.G., you say that's impossible, and that external agency is a requirement before art can be said to exist. In your words, it first must be "recognized." And since you say the artist has no power to do that alone, it must be coming from the external. But, you haven't in any way supported that argument, aside from stronger and stronger assertions that it must be. What I'd like to hear is the persuasive argument for why that benefits humanity, or artists. It would be most helpful if you'd begin with declaring your status as an artist.

john_bellenis · October 25, 2012

To anyone who believes we are all not gods, I have some sympathy for you. Whether you accept your inferior position as a result of religion, or some internally generated view of the universe, it does short change your potential. And take note that by "gods" here, I am not referring to a cartoon "super-hero" with mythical powers. I am referring to the idea that we "are the universe looking back upon itself." That kind of god. For an artist, I can think of no greater source of truth, inspiration and justification.

</blockquote>

I rest my case.

Norma Desmond · October 25, 2012

<<<I rest my case.>>>

Mine, too.

<<<. . . inferior . . .>?

Hah!

<<<persuade>>>>

Why a matter of persuasion? How about an airing of different views . . . an exchange.

m_stephens · October 25, 2012

Steve Gubin,

I enjoyed the post just above. The following paragraph had special meaning to me.

Whether any of us like it or not, critics, galleries, collectors, publishers, museums, universities, and collectives of like-minded artists do function as gatekeepers. They’re neither a conspiratorial cabal nor a priesthood, and they can often be at odds with one another. They are not infallible, either. But acceptance by any, or some, or all of them does confer a type of artistic status. None of them lay their money or reputations on the line for the heck of it. You can believe that there is an underlying aesthetic supporting their decision to bring this or that body of work to public attention.

</blockquote>

That gave me a way to explain why I keep the artist's right of self-declaration apart from those external forces. As an artist, my art is a process that yields both a tangible result and an internal reward to my psyche. I can display the tangible part, but I can only cherish the internal reward. They may look separable, but they are not. When I art (verb) the rewards to my psyche are valuable in the same degree as the tangible artifact.

So, if an external agent says about the tangible artifact, "That is not art," they have only addressed one of the two variables resulting from the creative process. The first person to be enriched by art, is the artist. How can that be denied? So, I make the assertion that without this first enrichment of the artist by the act of making art, what you are left with is the sterile act of manufacture. And we then are looking directly at the difference between craft and art. No spark to the psyche - no art.

This external institution of critics, authorities, promoters, and marketeers is essential for only the tangible outcome of art - managing the artifacts. It's perfectly understandable that once you marketize any commodity, the very next step is efficiency of distribution. When you go to the grocery store, you will not see very many rotten apples. The marketization of fruits and produce knows how to weed out bad apples. But when an apple tree "apples" (verb) it doesn't feel inferior because the fruit didn't meet a human standard. The distribution and management of artifacts follows a similar pattern towards market efficiency, albeit with more grandiose algorithms. The making of art is a spiritual event, and only part of it can be commoditized.

I have no objection of any kind that the commodities of art are judged, and ranked and sorted by myriad gatekeepers and price makers and promoters. That's a necessary part of materialism. It can sometime seems as though materialism is the only fabric of life, but of course it is not.

If both Mary and Pete are artists in the sincerest sense I have described, but Mary's artifact brings $100,000 at auction for being real art with a known aesthetic which is popular today, and Pete's is cast off as an unpopular or unknown aesthetic, wouldn't we imagine they both had the same internal reward producing it? They each knew they were creating art. Did Mary experience something richer based on a future sale at a high price? Doesn't that seem absurd?

m_stephens · October 25, 2012

Why a matter of persuasion? How about an airing of different views . . . an exchange.

</blockquote>

Fred,

I compare a persuasive argument to an ever persistent assertion. Adding exclamation points to the same assertion repeatedly gets old. Adding persuasive elements and reasoning is much more interesting to me.

Norma Desmond · October 25, 2012

Yeah, whatever. Prolly time to move on.

m_stephens · October 25, 2012

After four years of art school in London and a twenty five year career as a commercial photographer, I have my own definition of what makes an artist and what elements of his or her work serve to deserve that label. I don't think that merely calling yourself an artist necessarily makes you one (the eagerness and self congratulation of that alone, would serve to dismiss many), I hardly think artists are "Gods" - again the level of ego required for this claim is stunning! Look at nurses, doctors without borders, firemen risking their lives for strangers, etc. if you are looking for Gods among men. This is the pretentious twaddle that I heard discussed in art school many years ago by self obsessed, immature students - I'm amazed to see this stuff resurface and expect to be taken seriously.

</blockquote>

John,

The above represents the idea that artist is a title which must be earned and or conferred, after amassing enough credits, points, degrees, awards, and certificates of merit. But in fact, a man might first pick up a brush in his life at age 65, and with a few gifted, inspired swipes create a breathtaking artwork having never before practiced such a thing. This happens metaphorically every day. Being an artist is not akin to becoming a plumber or a doctor. This is why you very well can have a 5-year old artist, but not a 5-year old plumber.

We love this idea of the meritocracy so much, we want to apply it to every phenomenon we see. People can be convinced that if they go to music lessons religiously, they too can play the "Star Spangled Banner" like Jimi at Woodstock. Yes, maybe.....but more likely not.

Most people I know would be far more comfortable if artists, like plumbers, had rank and status markers like Apprentice, Journeyman and Master. The reason is the obvious trust they could apply to make up for their lack of knowledge. I do think this works nice for earthly commerce like carpentry, and brain surgery. I don't think it applies well to matters of the spirit, like art. Although any Master Artist can surely create fine artifacts too.

Your view of gods is similarly tinged with a hierarchy of merit and virtue. That arises from the view of a single creator god setting some impossibly high standard for an inferior Man. It's just one possible cosmology. In others the creative force is simply is the universe itself, of which all humanity is connected as the fabric of that universe, and thus all qualify as god-creators.

Norma Desmond · October 25, 2012

Couldn't stay away.

What the . . . ?

Why must you turn others' words into the most extreme position possible, and one never uttered by the person you're mischaracterizing. It's a bit like a politician who knows he has no good arguments on their own merits, so he just puts any old words he wants into the other guy's mouth. It's intellectually dishonest and makes it hard to have a reasonable conversation.

<<<The above represents the idea that artist is a title which must be earned and or conferred, after amassing enough credits, points, degrees, awards, and certificates of merit.>>>

It does not. Read what John said again. Carefully and without prejudice. And without looking to rebut it but instead trying to understand it. You might, dare I say, learn something. That something, at the very least, would be that people hold different views from yours that aren't akin to being artist-Nazis. [uh Oh, I hope I haven't invoked Godwin's law.]

And, oh, by the way, when you use the word God, you shouldn't be surprised that you get religiously tinged takes on the matter. If you don't mean God, use another word.

cyanatic · October 25, 2012

<a name="00axlU"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2361079">Fred G.</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /><img title="Current POW Recipient" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/trophy.gif" alt="" /></a>, Oct 25, 2012; 05:50 p.m.

Fred G.: Yeah, whatever. Prolly time to move on.

</blockquote>

Oh, very nice Fred! I just arrived and now the party's over? Thanks a lot! ;-)

m stephens: I am referring to the idea that we "are the universe looking back upon itself." That kind of god. For an artist, I can think of no greater source of truth, inspiration and justification.

</blockquote>

Yes, this makes sense to me. (Whether or not I grasp or internalize it exactly in the same way as you do.) But I still struggle a bit with the idea that declaring oneself an artist makes one an artist. Doesn't that really come down to a matter of definition?

"The first person to be enriched by art is the artist." Yes.

"When I art (verb) the rewards to my psyche are valuable in the same degree as the tangible artifact." Hmm. I "art" (if what I sometimes do is, in fact, "arting") because I feel driven to do so. I did not wake up one day and say, "I want to be a photographer". I don't spend hours behind the camera or at the computer because I am reaping huge monetary rewards from doing so. It is enjoyable, but not in the sense that a bike ride, or a swim, or a good meal is enjoyable. It is also a need to create and to create in a particular way. But isn't that the same for all who have participated in this thread? I don't think of myself as unique in that regard.

Sometimes it is something beyond words, something which perhaps approaches what you mean by "an internal reward to my psyche". I relate it also to your "god within", an apprehension of the Divine (or divine) that is both within and without. (Who is that in the back, making a face of disgust at all of this? I see you...) A driven act of embracing mystery and expressing it through the medium of photography. When it devolves to a state of simple manufacture it loses both its joy and its drive. Again, though, I doubt that this is unique. If any of that makes one an artist...well, then so be it. To me it just is. I don't like to put a label on it, particularly one which is so subject to misinterpretation and accusations of grandiosity and pretension.

So, yes, that moment exists for itself and needs no external validation. External validation, and the needs that that fulfills (not simply material ones for most, I'd wager), well, that's a whole other thread.

Maybe Fred is right, maybe it is time to move on.

john_bellenis · October 25, 2012

I'm sorry "m" - you have made a series of assumptions that are based on absolutely nothing I have said.

I have stated that I went to art school for four years and that I do not consider myself an artist - did you miss that? Clearly I am unimpressed by mere schooling and degrees.

I have stated NOTHING whatsoever about an artist needing "credits, points, degrees, awards, and certificates of merit". Where do you see that written or even implied? I believe that an artist needs talent and there is no age limit or education needed for that - of course a 5 year old or a 65 year old can have talent. I made no mention of believing in a hierarchy for either artists or Gods - I'm an atheist so that could hardly be the case! Basically your reading comprehension is appalling.

Let me make myself perfectly clear, when I forum (verb) I like to avoid confusion. One thing I did learn from art school is to recognize pretentious, immature, self indulgent, pompous BS masquerading as intelligent discourse. I gracefully bow out of this "discussion" leaving it to others to have their thoughts twisted and misunderstood by you.

m_stephens · October 25, 2012

It does not. Read what John said again. Carefully and without prejudice. And without looking to rebut it but instead trying to understand it.

</blockquote>

Fred,

I don't think his comment is hard to understand. He suggests that it is egoistic for an artist to claim to be a god, because people like nurses and firefighters who risk their lives are better candidates, and would be far higher up the stairway to heaven. He is saying directly that it is a measure of earned virtue. He even gives examples. My reading of it then was spot on.

Now, as to being lectured about accepting the views of others. He contends my 'artist is god' view was "pretentious twaddle." Not particular accepting or tolerant (or adult.) When I rebutted that remark, I made plenty of room that the god-creator of the universe was "but one possible cosmology of many," and then offered the alternative explanation of godship that I had referenced earlier. I think you will find I was quite tolerant compared to "pretentious twaddle." I made my rebuttal with not an ounce of intolerance or disrespect for the views of others.

"God" is one of the most universal ideas in art. It is nearly impossible to discuss art or artists and cleanse the discussion of "gods." Well, among artists anyway.

m_stephens · October 25, 2012

If any of that makes one an artist...well, then so be it. To me it just is. I don't like to put a label on it, particularly one which is so subject to misinterpretation and accusations of grandiosity and pretension.

</blockquote>

Steve,

To which I say, no one ought to let their fear of this "pretension" stop them from saying what is obvious - - the act of creating art makes you an artist. If there is a feeling of pretense, it is one that is inherited from the art establishment's usurping of these rights of self-declaration.

The level of introspection is different for all people - granted. I have no trouble at all getting up in the morning and making art as an artist. I am not burdened by guilt or shame or low self esteem, or who knows what other kinds of illnesses of the soul sometimes affect people. I know of some people who are self-conscious about saying they are artists. Usually because they think they can only say it if they are a great or recognized artist. I believe that is a misunderstanding on their part.

I also don't think there is any real importance in the label. It came about here because it was a part of making my case that the artist declares art by his own justification with no externalities required. It's simply the noun that describes who made the art.

m_stephens · October 25, 2012

Let me make myself perfectly clear, when I forum (verb) I like to avoid confusion. One thing I did learn from art school is to recognize pretentious, immature, self indulgent, pompous BS masquerading as intelligent discourse. I gracefully bow out of this "discussion" leaving it to others to have their thoughts twisted and misunderstood by you.

</blockquote>

A kind of "hit and run," eh? People who can't make a rational argument generally load up on these insult laden ad hominems as they run for the exits. It always looks like it has such flair! (And, it takes you off the hook!)

But, I don't mind. It's still worth a short rebuttal. Here's what you said first:

After four years of art school in London and a twenty five year career as a commercial photographer, I have my own definition of what makes an artist and what elements of his or her work serve to deserve that label. I don't think that merely calling yourself an artist necessarily makes you one..

</blockquote>

My interpretation was that you are saying the artist needs "something" before being "deserving" of the label artist. I used the phrase "credits, points, degrees, awards, and certificates of merit" to describe that something, because you didn't specify what it was they would need. I simply filled in the blanks you left.

Obviously now if: A) the artist can't claim it on his own; B) and you say you have your own definition of what it takes; IT MUST THEN TAKE SOMETHING. Right? What is it then, if it is not credits, points, degrees, awards and merit? What can the word "deserving" possibly mean if "merit" is not on the other end? Well, you have left in a nice dramatic (and I bet well-practiced) huff, so of course you can't answer, but I think my logic was impeccable. If the artist can't do it on his own, he must need something that has to be supplied externally.

absent · October 25, 2012

From Briot's essay "The Many Faces of Criticism":

Some people critical of artwork are disappointed with what life offered them and skeptical about other people’s endeavors. Skepticism and cynicism have nothing to do with us or our work. It has everything to do with the person who is commenting on our work. In fact, they are not really commenting on our work. They are commenting on themselves and of their view of the world.

Skeptics and cynics often come with personal convictions about what you do even though you have never met them and they have not seen your work before....no amount of explanation will change their mind. Their mind is made up and they do not want to be bothered by the facts. At first I took these remarks personally, but I soon learned to not pay attention to them. These are opinions, not facts. Most importantly, these remarks are not generated by what I do. They are generated by skepticim (sic) and cynicism.

</blockquote>

Norma Desmond · October 25, 2012

<<<They are generated by skepticim (sic) and cynicism.>>>

Of course, some are. Most good critiques are not.

Good critiques are generated by caring and understanding, empathy and a desire to be constructive. Often felllow artists can be each others' harshest -- and best -- critics. Have you ever sat in on an initial play reading? That is an open forum where the playwright is helped enormously by feedback from people hearing his play for the first time. It allows him perspective, objectivity, and an AUDIENCE who, after all he is often writing for. Yes, imagine that, writing for an audience. Heresy. Not!

Ever gone to a writing group? Ever heard of the Algonquin Round Table? Imagine artists and critics collaborating and feeding off each other. How about

Critique is best done in the name of making better artists. A good artist doesn't make himself immune to opinions and criticism. A good artist knows in his gut which to listen to and which not to, which strike him in a way as to make him a better artist, and which he doesn't do anything with. The artist who listens to no one, ever, is a mythological creature born of unrealistic and hyper-romanticized idealizations about artists.

Much about art is taste, which you have referred to as opinion (a reasonable word to use). Of course they're not facts. So what? One doesn't dismiss what others say simply because they're not facts. Artists mostly aren't dealing with facts and critics know they're not either. If you're an artist and you've never had an epiphany because someone says something about your work, then you're missing out. Try listening better.

Funny thing is, some of these notions of "artist" are as simple-minded as the simplistic notions of God M presumed others to have.

q.g._de_bakker · October 26, 2012

m, What i'm going to say is that it appears that the impossible thing here is to get through to you. Your god-like what-i-say-should-be-is nature gets in the way Big Time. Your god-like nature even extends to determining what i said by your divine decree that it be so, whether i said it or not. Must be art, that. Is the artist the one who decides what he or she does, the one who makes his or her own art? Why on earth do you believe that i think that to be impossible? (And that's a rethorical question, m. We, the "external fores", know the answer. So do you, but you dislike it too much.) What is impossible, m, is both turning that earlier mentioned fart into art by the power of your god-like "it be so" alone, and have you understand that. There is no "exteral agent" required, m, for your farts to be farts. Nor for your art to be art. But you don't transform one into he other by power of your divine will. You can't will your rather intangible farts into something you can use to prop up a wobbly chair. Do you understand that? Do you understand that thngs don't change their nature just because you want them to and say they must? Or else offer an explanation of how you perform that feat? I guess not. Your apparent, and great, fear for "external forces" gets in the way. A self-fullfilling exercise you have going there. You don't find validation in the Big Bad World, so renounce that in favour of your inner world, declare that Master of the Universe, and find confirmation in the fact that that Big Bad World frowns over so much other-wordlyness. You can snap out of that circular prison, m, by taking a while to think about your farts, about the many ways in which even your godliness not just relates to or depends on, but is part of that Big Bad World outside.

absent · October 26, 2012

Good critiques are generated by caring and understanding, empathy and a desire to be constructive. Often felllow artists can be each others' harshest -- and best -- critics.

</blockquote>

I don't think Briot would disagree with this position. Neither, for that matter, would I.

One doesn't dismiss what others say simply because they're not facts.

</blockquote>

What about someone (not you, Fred) who writes off an entire genre (fine arts) as "not art" because he believes it is "not relevant" (whatever that means)?

Why not judge him as he has judged you (assuming you work in "fine art")?

How can he possibly have anything caring, understanding, empathetic, constructive or even useful to say about your work?

Norma Desmond · October 26, 2012

<<<Good critiques are generated by caring and understanding, empathy and a desire to be constructive. Often felllow artists can be each others' harshest -- and best -- critics.

I don't think Briot would disagree with this position. Neither, for that matter, would I.>>>

Glad to hear it. Then why -- in a thread where we are discussing what an artist is and where you have suggested that the difference between M and QG is the difference between an artist (LOL) and a critic -- emphasize only the negative aspects of criticism? Why post a quote that begins "Some people critical of artwork are disappointed with what life offered them and skeptical about other people’s endeavors" and that continues to talk about "keptics and cynics"? It suggested (at least to me) that because QG was being cast as the critic and then the one quote supplied about critics talked about them being "disappointed with what life had to offer them", well, . . .

<<<One doesn't dismiss what others say simply because they're not facts.

What about someone (not you, Fred) who writes off an entire genre (fine arts) as "not art" because he believes it is "not relevant" (whatever that means)?>>>

I'd consider that person not much worse listening to, sure, a cynic. But again, I didn't think we were talking about what SOME critics do. I thought we were talking about the overall role of criticism in relationship to art. I mean, there are some ARTISTS who are absolute jerks. But that fact is not going to undermine M's argument any more than a jerky critic here and there is going to undermine QG's.

My conclusion here would be that SOME opinions are ridiculous, like the one of the guy who said what he said about all fine arts. But Briot is suggesting something else, which I think is wrongheaded, when he says . . .

<<<At first I took these remarks personally, but I soon learned to not pay attention to them. These are opinions, not facts.>>>

He's suggesting not to pay attention to stupid critiques because they are opinions, not facts. That's wrong. You don't pay attention to stupid critiques because they are STUPID, not because they are opinions. As you yourself said, you wouldn't disagree with good critiques being about caring and understanding, etc. Well, those are also opinions. So it's obviously not the opinion part that is relevant and that's where I think Briot misses the point.

Sign In

Photography: Is it Art?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

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