Photography: Is it Art?

[m_stephens]

<blockquote>

<p>Bad start. I gave you the names of philosophers hoping you'd look into them so you could understand a position other than your own relative to dichotomies. You belittle that by saying I've based my theories on philosophers I "enjoy" reading. Snarky, not substantive. Read them, then get back to me. But you won't. No way in hell.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred,<br>

Of course I am not going off to read several volumes at your request. That's an ancient debate dodge that wasn't even good 20 years ago.</p>

<p>Here's my observation about people saying "go read this, this and this" as the central part of their argument. If a person understands the material they are citing they will simply use it in the discussion as it fits. It's a wonderful extension of their knowledge, and it has good leverage and utility in such a discussion. But if they don't understand it, and don't know how to explain it, they will tell others to go off and read it. It's one of the most pointless tactics in the realm of discussion. "I'm right, and these three volumes will prove it if you go read them!"</p>

<p>No Fred. If you have some special knowledge about dichotomies that apply to this simple conversation, use it. I'm actually not that interested in the list of books you've read as an adjunct to a simple discussion. I am interested in what <em><strong>you</strong> </em>know during the conversation, not what your favorite author knows. This reminds me of guys who quote massive sections out of the works of others as arguments in place of their own thoughts. </p>

<p>Something I know from experience is that nothing much in the world is so complicated it can't be explained to a useable degree in a few hundred words. And if that can't be done, it's quite doubtful the person has mastered the material. </p>

<p>The subject you are about challenging here isn't very complicated. "Art and non-art" is a simple enough proposition to evaluate whether or not it is a dichotomy. My support for calling it a dichotomy is that there is no set of states or values that lie between art and non-art. Thus, the two terms are conflicting and contradictory and mutually exclusive - a dichotomy. I don't need additional training to make that case. I think all you have to do for your case Fred is describe the states that do lie between art and non-art. If that requires three volumes, well, I guess you have your work cut out for you. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>M, your entire post is ad hominen, not addressing the substance of my last post, only embarking on a critique of my recommendations of some reading for you. I don't usually recommend reading to people. You, however, are an exception. You don't listen to anything anyone says. I have explained the dichotomy issue enough times and you continue to think the dichotomy is about art and non-art, WHICH IT IS NOT. The dichotomy is about internal and external. That's the last time I will say it. The only reason I suggested you read others is that I thought if what I was saying, and have explained quite explicitly, came from a few other people in different words, you might start to get it. As I said, I really had no hope you'd pursue anything beyond your own self-involved nose, and you've proven me dead right.</p>

<p>Again, you condescendingly refer to my suggesting books as evidence that I can't possibly understand what I'm talking about. I've explained it ad nauseum here and you haven't once, NOT ONCE, addressed the substance of anything I've said about the false dichotomy between your supposed inner world and the supposed external world which is something different from this supposed inner world of yours. It's quite evident that you are stubbornly avoiding that issue by continually trying to make it as if I'm talking about the dichotomy between art and non-art, which I am not.</p>

<p><<<<em>Something I know from experience is that nothing much in the world is so complicated it can't be explained to a useable degree in a few hundred words.</em>>>></p>

<p>It has been explained. What you cannot grasp is that you completely lack the ability to actually pay attention to what someone else says, so what you think is not being explained is being explained over and over again, by at least two people here who you are simply ignoring when we do explain it.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Ahh, I actually may just have had a breakthrough. I think this may all be a troll. I read about trolls recently and they talked about it in terms of the poster consistently ignoring what is said and just stating the same things over and over in an attempt to inflame. There can be no other explanation for why someone would be told over and over again that the false dichotomy is about inner and outer , internal and external, and that person would continually respond by characterizing the dichotomy you were talking about as being between art and non-art. A classic trolling device. Good excuse for me to sign off again. And say, never again. Over. Out. Some things are a complete waste of time and breath.</p>

[m_stephens]

<blockquote>

<p>Except if you had bothered to read what I said, that's not the phenomenon I was talking about. What I said was: "It's not a matter of <em>either</em> the artist or some "external" agency, as if the artist is an "in" and everything else is an "out." So, clearly I was talking about your internal/external dichotomy, which is false, not your art-non/art dichotomy. I said similar things in previous posts which you also missed. I didn't say all dichotomies, such as light switches being on or off, were problematic. I said the internal/external dichotomy was problematic. That you see yourself as internal and not part of the external you seem to think is trying to force itself on the artist is problematic. Because you are part of the external you think you have excluded yourself from.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred,<br>

The rest of your post is about creating a distinction that has no relevance. If we call them A and B, we have:<br>

ITEM A: Art and non-art<br>

ITEM B: Artist and external agency<br>

These might be different words, but they mean the same thing. Whatever difference you are creating doesn't have any significance or meaning that's relevant to my position. I'm just using two phrases to describe the same effect.</p>

<p>A: "Art or non-art" is just short hand for the <strong>conflict</strong> between the artist's freedom to declare his work as art and some other power's right to say it is not art.<br>

B: "Artist and external agency" is just a description of the <strong>conflicting</strong> powers to declare something as art, or not.</p>

<p>They are interchangeable with respect to my position about where the right and freedom lies to describe one's work. Why you conflate this with in and out is not clear to me. I suppose I can accept that it is "<em>one and other</em>." But, in and out has no significance that I can detect.</p>

<p>Maybe I need to make the argument with really simple language. There is an artist named BOB, and a critic named Mary. Bob is not Mary. Mary is not Bob. Bob and Mary are not in and out, or internal and external. They are two people, who live in the same world, this one. Bob takes a photograph and says, "Here is my art." Mary says, "That's not what I call art Bob. It's just a fart Bob." Do, you see the conflict? There's no internal ins or external outs or special worlds. There's two human beings in conflict in this world.</p>

<p>Bob explains: "I've put my soul into that photograph, and I have had a spiritual revelation of the most grand kind about my relation to the universe as a result of my creating that photograph. So, knowing the truth of my own experience, having the freedom to express that truth, and how this photograph is a representation of that truth, I say that this photograph is art. After all, I am an artist. Art is the process by which I discover my place in the universe."</p>

<p>Mary replies: "Sorry Bob, it doesn't meet my/our criteria for art. It is not art."</p>

<p>That's "art and non-art." That's "artist and external agency." There's no internal world and external world, just two people in conflict over who has the authority to describe the photograph as art. Bob asserts his authority to say "art." Mary asserts her authority to say "non-art."</p>

<p>So, after dozens of posts saying Bob can't have that authority, I've yet to hear even one explanation of why Mary should have that authority.</p>

 

[m_stephens]

<blockquote>

<p>Again, you condescendingly refer to my suggesting books as evidence that I can't possibly understand what I'm talking about. I've explained it ad nauseum here and you haven't once, NOT ONCE, addressed the substance of anything I've said about the false dichotomy between your supposed inner world and the supposed external world which is something different from this supposed inner world of yours. It's quite evident that you are stubbornly avoiding that issue by continually trying to make it as if I'm talking about the dichotomy between art and non-art, which I am not.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think it is condescension to point out what is just plain ridiculous. Telling someone to go read three books over some simple concept like "what is a dichotomy" is simply a silly tactic in a simple discussion. </p>

<p> </p>

[m_stephens]

<blockquote>

<p>Ahh, I actually may just have had a breakthrough. I think this may all be a troll. I read about trolls recently and they talked about it in terms of the poster consistently ignoring what is said and just stating the same things over and over in an attempt to inflame. There can be no other explanation for why someone would be told over and over again that the false dichotomy is about inner and outer , internal and external, and that person would continually respond by characterizing the dichotomy you were talking about as being between art and non-art. A classic trolling device. Good excuse for me to sign off again. And say, never again. Over. Out. Some things are a complete waste of time and breath.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred,<br>

Your gross misunderstanding here doesn't fly. There is no inner and outer. That's a construct you made up on your own. But even if there were such a claim you seriously can't believe that simply saying something is a false dichotomy is the same as proving it is a false dichotomy. If you are attempting to show any proposed dichotomy as false, you have to demonstrate it. I showed you exactly how to do that, and you chose not to. </p>

<p>I'll demonstrate it once more for you, only because you have called me a troll. If I propose happy and sad as a dichotomy, it means there are no states of being that lie between the state of happy and the state of sad. If you wanted to show this to be a false dichotomy, you would say, "melancholy lies between happy and sad," so it is a false dichotomy. It's really quite simple. Just standing there yelling "false dichotomy, false dichotomy!" doesn't get it done. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I said "Goodnight, Gracie." Save your breath for someone who cares.</p>

[m_stephens]

Your goodnights only dismiss yourself. Just how many more dramatic exits do you plan on making?

[q.g._de_bakker]

M,<br><br>I'll explain one thing more to you: ad hominems are argumentations that do not adress the matter nor position someone takes but try to undermine the authority of the person holding that position instead.<br>With your position being that what you say goes, a position that puts your authority center stage, it's not an ad hominem to 'attack' that position, even though it tackles the person's presumed authority.<br>That is also evident (cannot not be) in the way you dismiss everything that is put up against your position: everytime you are asked to defend and explain your position, you do so by dismissing the authority of your opponents. It began with being told we are agents of the "institutions", it ends in this childish <i>"Your goodnights [etc.]"</i>.<br>If it has made you doubt and rethink your psoition for a single moment (but there is no reason to assume) it may have been worth our (i.e. including you) while. Even if it would not have resulted in a change in position.<br>But have you? All you show is that ad hominem nonsense, never a dialogue.

[absent]

<blockquote>

<p>I am only referring to the individual human soul connecting to the nature of the universe.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, but without some religious assumptions, where does the "soul" come from? It cannot be proven objectively to exist, so its existence must be taken on faith - and faith is the essence of religion.</p>

<p>Again, this is a digression better pursued in private.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Jim Ruley, in the following quote from the Chinese artist Ai Weiwei,<strong> whether or not you agree with what he says</strong>, can you see what he means by "soul"?</p>

<p>"Modernism has no need of various masks or official titles, it is the primal creation of the awakened, its ultimate concern is with the meaning of existence and reality of situations. It is vigilance against social and human crises, it is not compromising, it does not cooperate.</p>

<p>"Such awakening is reached through a process of self-recognition, a process teeming with a thirst for and pursuit of a spiritual world, with unending doubts and puzzlements.</p>

<p>"The result of such fearless truth is that we may observe in modernist works an unadorned authenticity, panic, emptiness, and anomia. This is not some cultural choice, just as life is not a choice. It all stems from an interest in one's own existence, this interest is the cornerstone of all spiritual activities, and the goal of all knowledge."</p>

<p>[... ]</p>

<p>"Humans are destined to be narrow-minded empiricists. But only by venerating the mystical world can we rise above our petty quandaries. Humans are animals who have renounced nature, and from among every possible path, humans have chosen the longest and most remote path leading to the self.</p>

<p>"Making choices is how the artist comes to understand himself. These choices are correlated to one's spiritual predicament, and the goal is a return to the self, the pursuit of spiritual values, and the summoning of spirits. These choices are inherently philosophical.</p>

<p>"A painful truth of today is that even as we import technologies and lifestyles, there is no way to import spiritual awakening, justice, or strength. There is no way to import the soul." [<strong><em>/end quote</em></strong>]</p>

<p><strong>Whether or not you agree with Ai Wei Wei's quoted outlook</strong> on "humans," do you see how he is using the word "soul" in the context of his art?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>Just how many more dramatic exits do you plan on making?</em>>>></p>

<p>As many as I damn well please.</p>

<p>LOL. You don't know much about art or philosophy and have now shown you have a real lack of understanding of theater. I've made more dramatic exits with my middle finger. Believe me, if I wanted to be dramatic, I have a lot better up my sleeve than simply dismissing your sorry self with a "Goodnight, Gracie." It's just that you're not worth my flare for dramatics.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>the Chinese artist Ai Weiwei</em>>>></p>

<p>Weiwei goes astray in so many ways that it's hard to know where to begin. And, yes, it does matter whether we agree or not. First is his assumption that "humans are narrow-minded empiricists." He states it as fact and then moves on from there, which is ridiculous. And, even if humans do have "petty quandaries" (like what, for instance?), why would the need a mystical world in order to rise above it?</p>

<p>What informs the assumption that "making choices is how the artist comes to understand himself"? Can the artist not come to understand himself by noticing the accidents that happen to him. Who's goal is a return to self? Weiwei? Well, that's great, jolly for him. Don't saddle me with that nonsense. Please.</p>

<p>And, oh, yes, I see how he is using "soul." </p>

<p>Now, I know I, too, have used the word "soul." Sometimes it can be very descriptive and, when I've used it, it's heartfelt. But I'm honest enough to understand that embedded in my use of it is all the religious crap that goes with it, even if I am using it somewhat differently. Not to be aware of what words and symbols are already laden with is putting one's head right in the hot sand. You don't use "soul" in a way that's divorced from all the connotations it has for people. If you have half a brain (and a quarter of a soul) you recognize the fullness and power of the words you use . . . and go from there.</p>

<p>In other words you don't get to "create" the meanings of words. You get to share those meanings. Like art. You don't get a tabula rasa from which to create (whether it's the meaning of a word or a work of art) despite the naive thinking that tells some people artists create from nothing, or the even more petulant "no-thing." </p>

[m_stephens]

<blockquote>

<p>M,<br /><br />I'll explain one thing more to you: ad hominems are argumentations that do not adress the matter nor position someone takes but try to undermine the authority of the person holding that position instead.<br />With your position being that what you say goes, a position that puts your authority center stage, it's not an ad hominem to 'attack' that position, even though it tackles the person's presumed authority.<br>

<br />That is also evident (cannot not be) in the way you dismiss everything that is put up against your position: everytime you are asked to defend and explain your position, you do so by dismissing the authority of your opponents. It began with being told we are agents of the "institutions", it ends in this childish <em>"Your goodnights [etc.]"</em>.<br>

<br />If it has made you doubt and rethink your psoition for a single moment (but there is no reason to assume) it may have been worth our (i.e. including you) while. Even if it would not have resulted in a change in position.<br />But have you? All you show is that ad hominem nonsense, never a dialogue.<br>

Q.G.,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think we've had plenty of dialog. I've discovered that if I speak much more simply, it is understood better. So, I don't think you are showing evidence that you know why you shouldn't attack another person's character in a simple conversation such as this. Let's review it. Here is what you said to me yesterday:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>You don't find validation</strong> 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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am not going to use any fancy terms. I'll just be more clear and simple. That kind of statement is a personal attack. A personal insult you hurl on me, the person making the post. It's the equivalent of saying, "you, m stephens are unsuccessful in the world and renounce it." It's a type of psychological judgement, but you are not a psychiatrist and I am not your patient. You don't know me, and have no basis to make such judgements about my person. </p>

<p>Do you understand that - yes or no?</p>

<p> </p>

[m_stephens]

<blockquote>

<p>As many as I damn well please.<br>

LOL. You don't know much about art or philosophy and have now shown you have a real lack of understanding of theater. I've made more dramatic exits with my middle finger. Believe me, if I wanted to be dramatic, I have a lot better up my sleeve than simply dismissing your sorry self with a "Goodnight, Gracie." It's just that you're not worth my flare for dramatics.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Honestly? Your bluster and theatrics here impress me even less than the pretentious "go read these books and get back to me" style of argument. But, you know, do flap away!</p>

[m_stephens]

<blockquote>

<p>Sorry, but without some religious assumptions, where does the "soul" come from? It cannot be proven objectively to exist, so its existence must be taken on faith - and faith is the essence of religion.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And neither can gravity be so proven. Nor can the Big Bang theory. But that doesn't mean those ideas are in the realm of religion. Science is not in the business of proving things. It is in the business of explaining things. </p>

<p>We're not having a specific discussion of religion, or science, or metaphysics. So, some latitude for usage of words commonly used in those fields might be useful. Yes, I said "soul," and many religions have extremely detailed doctrines about the soul. From the point of view of the holders of those doctrines, any use of the word soul may seem to be a reason to challenge the user to make it conform to those doctrines. I don't have a reason to want to do that for this discussion. </p>

<p>Soul, as I used it means individual "consciousness" or personal awareness and subjectivity. It apparently exists in people who belong to religions and people who don't. If you'd like to declare that everyone with self awareness is religious, you are free to do so. I know that is a popular position these days, but I just disagree. </p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<do flap away>>></p>

<p>Gladly. Your being stuck on the suggested reading thing makes you think you've found a good excuse not to address the substantive issues I've explained about your false "self" / "external agency" dichotomy. You have a notion of self that's a ghost in a machine. It's anachronistic thinking at best. Illiterate at worst. And it's been explained to you plenty and in detail. You just choose to ignore it or you can't comprehend it and think it's not been said.</p>

<p><<<<em>I've discovered that if I speak much more simply, it is understood better. I am not going to use any fancy terms. I'll just be more clear and simple.</em>>>></p>

<p>That you think you've veiled your <em>ad hominem</em> attack here by not uttering the exact words that call someone else simple shows your ignorance and lack of social skills. We all know what people can pull in Internet forums to appear not to be flouting rules or making <em>ad hominem</em> attacks. But rewording is just that. We see through you. You started the thread that way and continued throughout, defensively claiming you were being attacked when it was you who was attacking from the very beginning. And you've used that defense, as others have pointed out, to avoid the substance of any argument given to you. Most of us have addressed your points one by one. You, on the other hand, have avoided the substance of pretty much everything that's been said to you, preferring to play the eternal victim. It's tired.</p>

[m_stephens]

<blockquote>

<p>"Making choices is how the artist comes to understand himself. These choices are correlated to one's spiritual predicament, and the goal is a return to the self, the pursuit of spiritual values, and the summoning of spirits. These choices are inherently philosophical." - <em>Ai Weiwei</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em><br /></em>Julie,<br>

I think that's a good explanation of making art. I think you could replace the word spiritual with the word psychological and many people with bugaboos about seeing the word spiritual disconnected from a formal religion context might see the importance of it. </p>

<p>For example, art often is a direct response to <em>alienation</em>. Is alienation a psychological condition or a spiritual condition? Well, it depends on who is talking about it. I earlier mentioned the quest for redemption and salvation. Are those spiritual needs or psychological needs? We do know that those words are used in religious doctrines, but they have no custody over those human conditions. The atheist has the same quest for salvation as the deist. </p>

<p>If any of that is true about art, then one thing becomes obvious: Only the artist knows his condition (soul, consciousness, psychological profile). If that is true, I think it also follows then that autonomy and or sovereignty is the most essential ingredient for the artist's successful use of art as a tool to these discoveries. "This is my art!" is the natural result. </p>

<p>No surprise that the culture as vast moving organism running on hundreds of algorithms like materialism, would attempt to blunt the artist, cut him off, redefine his purpose, and take over judgement of his work. Well yes, that is what culture does. The NYT Bestseller List, and all. Slavery, war, materialism, capitalism, celebrity and really a hoary long list of machines are often what is causing the artist's pain in the first place. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>No surprise that the culture as vast moving organism running on hundreds of algorithms like materialism, would attempt to blunt the artist, cut him off, redefine his purpose, and take over judgement of his work. Well yes, that is what culture does. The NYT Bestseller List, and all. Slavery, war, materialism, capitalism, celebrity and really a hoary long list of machines are often what is causing the artist's pain in the first place.</em>>>></p>

<p>More dorm-room level self-congratulatory afraid-of-the-mainstream-cultural-boogeyman psycho-babble. Throw materialism, slavery, capitalism, and celebrity into the same sentence and you've created your <em>cause célèbre</em>. Mazel Tov!</p>

<p>Did you ever consider thinking of yourself as part of your audience, as part of your culture, empathizing with those viewing your work, not setting yourself off in some lonely corner because only you can know what you're going through? Give it a try sometime. You might make a friend.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"That kind of statement is a personal attack. A personal insult you hurl on me, the person making the post."</i><br><br>That kind of statement, m, is a statement directly adressing the position you put forward.<br>Again: if your statement is that you are always right (which it is), any attempt to question that will give you fuel for such a 'red herring' defence.<br>There is no dialogue with someone who says he's right, by decree, and by force of his own sacred nature.<br>In answer to your <i>"Do you understand that - yes or no?"</i>: i do. But you don't give any clue that you even begin to.

[q.g._de_bakker]

P.S.<br>Read "if your position is that [etc.]" instead of "if your statement is that [etc.]".

[m_stephens]

<p>Fred,<br>

It looks like you are attempting to have some discussion with me. I have read the naughty little petulant rants above. I am sorry to say that level of exchange holds no interest for me. I will keep scanning your posts though, and If I see something of substance I'll be sure to reply. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>If I see something of substance</em>>>></p>

<p>Ok, then. As you say, let's start simply. Can a 5-year-old child who has created something that many people consider art and that a curator comes across and puts in a show of children's art be an artist if that child hasn't declared herself to be an artist? Now, the idea of the curator and the others may be troublesome here, because that gets into the "external agency" problem. So, lets forget those people for a minute and just ask, Can a 5-year-old child who expresses their alienation at the world (or maybe we don't even know what specifically the child is expressing) by painting be considered an artist if she hasn't declared herself to be one or may not yet even know what that word means?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Next question . . .</p>

<p>Can there be art without an artist? Can the world, or someone in the world, come across something that someone made with no knowledge that the maker ever considered themselves or declared themselves to be an artist and maybe even with the knowledge that the maker was making this thing for strictly practical purposes and can that discovered thing be art?</p>

[m_stephens]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"That kind of statement is a personal attack. A personal insult you hurl on me, the person making the post."</em><br /><br />That kind of statement, m, is a statement directly adressing the position you put forward.<br />Again: if your statement is that you are always right (which it is), any attempt to question that will give you fuel for such a 'red herring' defence.<br />There is no dialogue with someone who says he's right, by decree, and by force of his own sacred nature.<br />In answer to your <em>"Do you understand that - yes or no?"</em>: i do. But you don't give any clue that you even begin to.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Q.G., <br>

Let me invoke for background, the concept of human rights. That specifically, some rights are inalienable. One of those is the right of speech. The essence of the right to speech is the <em>right of self expression</em>. Think carefully for a moment about all which that right entails. All the kinds of expression. The position I described as the artist's right to declare his work art, is a natural part of his right to self expression.</p>

<p>The right to express oneself by making a photograph (any work of art) is of course within these inalienable rights. The right to speak the words, "This is my art!" about your work product is likewise within these in alienable rights. The free exercise of these well understood essential human rights is apparently what you find so repulsive, you refer to like this: "There is no dialogue with someone who says he's right, by decree, and by force of his own sacred nature." Yes, the inalienability of these human rights does make them look as though they are by force of sacred nature. </p>