How we feel about what we do

[danielheller]

<p>I feel good...<br>

(Dan, thanks for the compliment in the opening post)</p>

[cyanatic]

<blockquote>Most familiar looking photos I see are tropes rather than cliches.</blockquote>

<p>Maybe you can show me tropes. I'm eager to learn, but I'll try to rein in my enthusiasm.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Steve,</p>

<p>How about <a href="http://www.google.com/images?client=safari&rls=en&q=film+noir&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ei=YUXUUvHwPNGFogSn4oEw&ved=0CDsQsAQ">THESE</a> examples of film noir?</p>

<p>Familiar and trope-ish but not necessarily cliché.</p>

<p>Some of the great noir photographers and filmmakers utilized the foggy, dark, wet pavement neon reflected, femme fatale led detective as tropes, or types, a recognizable style, and did so artistically and with their own individual stamp as well, as an exploration of the genre, not as a mindless repetition of it. Some of the B and C grade directors simply handled them in a hollow and cliché manner. Those clichés are good as camp. The better directors get into visual and/or psychological depth. Some of those better films are also campy and we can hoot and holler at some of them as well. But they also go deeper. The strictly campy ones are just that, strictly campy, with little beyond the surface.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Alan:</strong> <em>"if you can look at it and feel good about what you've created and have others enjoy it too, isn't that enough, what it's all about?"</em></p>

<p>Alan, for me, this works sometimes, but only sometimes. Other times, my photos remind me of very unenjoyable situations or events and I find some of my better ones and some of the better ones of others not enjoyable at all, yet important and significant. IMO, neither photography nor art is always about enjoyment.</p>

<p> </p>

[cyanatic]

<p>Fred -- Sorry. I was just being silly and making some bad puns. I know what you and Lex meme. </p>

[jordan2240]

<blockquote>

<p>Alan: "This whole thread is edging, more quickly than slowly, to what is the definition of art. It seems in all the other threads about the definition of art, we never were able to pin it down. So I suppose we can all figure our work is or is not art according to our own definitions."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>And there you have it. Now let's all try to define 'music' as well. </p>

[AlanKlein]

By enjoy Fred, I mean whether you liked it. If you

watch a sad movie, you can certainly say you

enjoyed it for the emotional value even though it

brought you to tears.

[AlanKlein]

Fred. I love those film noir shots you linked to. The

darker and foggier they are, the more I like them. It

takes me emotionally to another place and time.

Isn't that what good art should do?

[cyanatic]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=6173649">Alan Klein</a><a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 13, 2014; 04:24 p.m.</p>

 

<p>Fred. I love those film noir shots you linked to. The darker and foggier they are, the more I like them. It takes me emotionally to another place and time.</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>Ditto, Fred. I'm so busy being ridiculous that I didn't even remark upon your link. I love the look and feel of those. Even some of the B grade film noirs you refer to are enjoyable to watch if only for presentation of atmosphere.</p>

 

[heri_rakotomalala1]

<p>I think if there's an intent of self-expression and not just documentation, then the photographer shouldn't be worried about callign it art</p>

[danielheller]

<p>Yes, love these Film Noir movies.<br>

"The Third Man" in particular and "Sunset Boulevard"...</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Alan, IMO, good art can do a lot of things. Some good art keeps me right here in the moment and doesn't take me to another place and time. Whether I like something has little to do with whether I consider it art, since there's a bunch of art I don't like.</p>

<p>_________________________________________</p>

<p><strong>Music</strong> - 1) <em>the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity</em>; 2) <em>organized sound</em>.</p>

<p>That's a good beginning, though no dictionary definition will ever tell the complete story. John Cage has already surpassed this definition by creating a piece of music that is silent, though it has a duration. Of course, the silent part is questionable (and part of the equation) since one rarely sits in an audience without noises being made within the duration Cage's piece is being presented. Nevertheless, John Cage's piece works, partially because of the traditional definition of music and his thwarting of that. I can accept Cage's work in that context and still understand music, using the traditional definition as a working definition without becoming a slave to it.</p>

<p><strong>Art</strong> - 1) <em>something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings</em></p>

<p>As long as beauty is understood in the Greek sense, as being much more than pretty and much more than simply a superlative for pretty, it's probably significant to art. Like Cage's piece of music, there will be art works that may surpass this definition, which doesn't render such a working definition useless. It just means art evolves, but it evolves from a baseline.</p>

<p>Definitions for many words are inadequate. Discussions about these subjects can be much more fruitful, like the one we're having. Ideas get thrown out. Sharing occurs. Art can be significant and we can talk about it reasonably even if we can't quite pin it down.</p>

<p>In these discussions, I try to remember the difference between defining or discussing art on the one hand, and figuring out what things are or are not art on the other. That it's difficult to agree on what things are art and what things are not does not mean I can't have a working definition for or a general understanding of art.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"Maybe you can show me tropes. I'm eager to learn, but I'll try to rein in my enthusiasm."</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=hitchcock+rope&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Xm7UUomTJ4nu2gXFpoEo&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1125&bih=635"><strong>Here ya go</strong></a>, Steve. Be sure to give 'em enough.</p>

<p><a href="

the darkness that gets you down."</a></p>

[dan_south]

<p>John Cage's silent performance (4'33) isn't music. It was a social experiment and a publicity stunt, but not music.</p>

<p>John Cage never surpassed any definition of music. He danced around the edges of those definitions to see how far he could push them.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Soooo... Will any of you photographers and snappers be offended if I call myself an artist? :-}</p>

<p>Nobody seems to get their nose out of joint when I call myself a graphic artist -- creating graphics for web page layouts and such. I would HOPE some of my photography is more worthy of being called art than some stupid web page graphic!</p>

<p>Here... ART:</p>

 

[sarah_fox]

<p><img src="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/bokehpatterns.jpg" alt="" width="335" height="150" /><br /> ART! :-)</p>

<p>I have many more examples. One of my most commonly used graphics is a single, transparent pixel, which is mildly profound -- somewhat like a zero is to mathematics. But I also have bits and pieces of squares and rectangles of different colors, bars, dots. It's really a very large portfolio.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>So this is what photos are all about - communications. Not only for what the picture is saying to others but also by allowing us photographers to to have a real relation with other people.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You make a very good point, Alan. Thanks for sharing your experience.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"John Cage's silent performance (4'33) isn't music. It was a social experiment and a publicity stunt, but not music."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>4'33" was indeed music, and despite the TED speaker's argument that it was "only" conceptual art and not music, he was not persuasive in refuting decades of artistic criticism and the composer's own well documented intentions. There's no need to quote or cite those sources here because the composition and performances are thoroughly documented. The audience *was* the music. And it was perfectly improvised with every performance and could never be misinterpreted.</p>

<p>To deny 4'33" status as music is to describe the classic Cheap Trick "Live at Budokan" performance of "I Want You To Want Me" as merely music. The audience nearly overwhelmed the performance with an enthusiastic singalong and helped usher in a whole generation of weaboos and otaku fandom. Arguably, without that album's incredible commercial success and almost unprecedented airplay for a live concert album, Cheap Trick might never have attained a status higher than its self-described facile goal of being an homage to/parody of Badfinger and The Beatles. The audience noise was an integral part of the performance that made the band commercially successful. That unprecedented cultural milestone coincided with and contributed to a symbiosis between the US and Japan. All because of these unabashedly rabid fans singing "Cryin'-cryin'-cryin'!"</p>

<p>Along with musique concrete, 4'33" was, pardon the pun, instrumental in the development of free form jazz, noise rock, found sound, the appropriation and remix culture, and defying easy categorization of the boundaries between formal composition and the recognition of life and existence itself as a form of art and music.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>In a similar way, this earlier assertion by another participant here fails to acknowledge the existence of art beyond an 18th Century stage of development:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"This is exactly why <em>everything </em>ends up being "art" - like <a href="http://www.saatchigallery.com/artists/artpages/tracey_emin_my_bed.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Tracey Emin's dirty mattress</a>. Art, my foot."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Emin's installation, like every well conceived installation, is in part a visual and experiential narrative equal to an unbroken chronology of narrative partners ranging from cave drawings through temple hieroglyphics and elaborate burial rituals to epic poetry, theater, dance, novels, movies and popular songs.</p>

<p>Emin's bed is the visual representation between Romeo's "I must be gone and live, or stay and die", and Juliet's "Romeo, I come! this do I drink to thee!" as she falls, seemingly dead, upon her bed. It is John Lee Hooker singing "Send me your pillow, baby, that you been cryin' on", and Sting singing "The bed's too big without you". It is every stillborn child, and every woman who died in child bearing.</p>

<p>Unless your concept of art stopped with the Golden Mean and diatonic scales. Mine stops just before Conway Twitty.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Or art is a reflection of the spirit of an age.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Sarah,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would HOPE some of my photography is more worthy of being called art than some stupid web page graphic!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>With webdesign and related discussions on usability, UX and so on, it's actually more and more becoming like a science... and then you have people complaining that photography with it mathematics for apertures is too scientific, "blocking the creative juices" and other such outerworldly reasonings.... And yet, the last few years saw so many great developments that opened up the floodgates for truely inspiring designs (but I guess this false dichotomy between science and art is old news already).<br /> I can thoroughly enjoy a site that has a captivating design, while remaining obvious to use, clear and offers a consistent experience and communication. There is a lot of skill, effort and creative thinking that goes into it. Art? Well.... yes.<br /> So, you're Artist²?</p>

[vrankin]

<p>While in my twenties, thirties and forties I made photo albums and enlarged prints (wet process B&W) for our children and grandchildren to enjoy someday. I also harbored a hope that ultimately my photos would be valued for their historical and technical merit, and provide some kind of witness beyond me. Now in my mid sixties, it seems there was some ego involvement in that kind of thinking. During our last move a few years ago I hauled a few hundred pounds of the least interesting prints to the landfill. I figured I'd done our children the favor early. We make a few online photo books from family gatherings each year, and an annual calendar as a Christmas gift for the kids and grandchild. My serious photography has moved online. I'm a contributing member of PSA and a local photo club. Members appreciate the value of a good image, but like the old war veterans, we're dwindling in numbers and rising in average age. It's mind-boggling, what is happening in imaging. It really should have been obvious to me much earlier. Images are best utilized within significant moments of our fleeting life together. It's a humbling but freeing perspective. I'm not thinking anymore about whether my photography is "art". It seems pointless.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Howard: Thanks for your perspective. My wife and and I, both in our sixties, moved to a 55+ community where we are spending our retirement with others who are all older than 55 years. I joined the community's photo club that with other 55+ communities in the area have judged photo contests. But <em>no</em> paper photos are required for many of them. All photos are loaded into the computer for display on a HDTV. </p>

<p>At first I thought this was crazy as my old photo club always required prints. But after reading your post, it seems that my neighbors have already discovered some of what you have learned already. Thanks.</p>

<p>Of course when we moved I dragged all my 16x20 photos that had been removed from the walls even at our old residence while we lived there. My wife won't let me hang them in the new place except in the garage! I've found that by giving them away, the people getting them might appreciate them, and they have. The rest should really go into the dump as well as should most of the slide trays and other stuff collected through the years. Heck I don't really want to look through them myself to decide which of the few might have value that I should keep. Why would anyone else?</p>

<p>The next decision is probably to get rid of the MF film camera. It's damn too heavy anyway. For internet, HDTV and the smaller size print presentations, do I really need more than a small camera? Of course in the back of my mind, there's always that thought about the last, great photo I will create that should be blown up and presented to the world. A piece of <em>art</em>!</p>

 

[spanky]

<p>Remember, what cultures have defined as art didn't always get created to fit this definition. They were created to serve a utilitarian purpose and the people who created these works were not seen as artists but rather as craftsmen. The Sistine Chapel by Michelangelo for example was created to communicate biblical stories to people who were illiterate at the time. Many great works from this era were produced as decoration in churches and as alter pieces to be used in ceremonies. They became art in the eyes of the generations that came after because the high level of skill and creativity used to produce these works was apparent. Walker Evans was not trying to create art when he set out to take pictures of poverty stricken families in the Dust Bowl for ( I think) it was the FSA. It became art because it achieved a high level of expressiveness. Now, I don't consider comic strips such as Gilbert to be art, but I certainly have no beef with anyone who does. People have varying ideas which are personal to them on what passes as art and what does not. I've been called an artist by several people. Does this make me one? In their eyes it does because my work has reached a point where they consider it as such. What effect does this have on me? None, I simply see their comment as they way it was intended - as a compliment to me.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>I'm sometimes called a 'documentary photographer' but... a man operating under that definition could take a sly pleasure in the disguise. Very often I'm doing one thing when I'm thought to be doing another.</em> <strong>—</strong><strong>Walker Evans</strong><br>

<br>

<em>I began to wonder – I knew I was an artist or wanted to be one – but I was wondering whether I really was an artist. I was doing such ordinary things that I could feel the difference. Most people would look at those things and say, “Well, that’s nothing. What did you do that for? That’s just a wreck of a car or a wreck of a man. That’s nothing. That isn’t art.” They don’t say that anymore.</em> <strong>—</strong><strong>Walker Evans</strong></p>