Fools Gold

[charleswood]

<p>No one would reasonably argue that the entire [set] of fired clay pots doesn't include members that are Art. Can the best such example compare to Michelangelo's David as to fullness of expression and the degree of nuanced communication?</p>

<p>At a photography show I saw for sale, about $6K, small photographs upon which the artist had embroidered. She added texture to her photographs, the tactile sense spoken directly to, a fuller experience. Whatever the photographer felt she needed to express, an unembroidered photograph wasn't sufficient, wasn't serious enough although she <em>made</em> it so, bent the photograph to her purposed sense of expression.</p>

<p>That example speaks to a limitation of the photographic art form. I don't see adding embroidery as too much different from adding text to photographs, adding text some have done when addressing photography's limitations as an art form.</p>

<p>Music has changed over the centuries as we adapted music for whatever it was we wanted to express. Maybe in the realm of the 3d printer, that tool adapted together with photographs...to say more, or to say whatever more easily?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Charles, I'd be careful about placing too much emphasis on longevity. Early classical music performances were every bit as much high and serious art as the notes that were written down, and those unrecorded performances were gone the moment the audible music stopped, except in the minds and hearts of the audience fortunate enough to be present. Look at so many Greek statues populating our museums with missing heads and limbs. That's a testament to the fragility of some art and it doesn't make it non-art. All of those were art long before they had a long history. Art does NOT have to stand the test of time and it does NOT have to be cross-cultural. It can be short-lived and much more locally understood. As much as anything else, art is about our relationship to an object or experience. The minute we try to restrict it in terms of such guidelines as age or widespread understanding, we risk making a rule the artist or art world will find a way to break. From the Nannery essay quoted above: <em>"Works of high art are individual."</em> Baloney, of course! Some of our greatest art works have been collaborations.<br /> ______________________________________________________</p>

<p>To me, the very notions of "high" and "low" art are kind of abhorrent and probably have a basis in classism, racism, and other ugly human traits.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Sure, high and low being provisionally accepted by me for arguments sake. And the argument I make, the question of the OP as I read it, had more to do with how photographic art is <em>received</em> compared to other art forms. Allen seeming to argue it was less well received although the evidence he presented to make that case was weak.</p>

<p>And I don't argue that photographic art isn't art, just like I wouldn't argue that the harpsichord isn't capable of being used in Artistic expression just because the piano forte replaced it, preferred by composers for it's superior dynamic range. Can films meaningfully be analogized to the piano forte in regard to film having augmented still photography's capacity for dynamic story telling, where stills are more staccato-like time compressions viewed one at a time? But I do think that the question of fragility and longevity is relevant if value means received well enough to justify preservation, the cost of preservation being significant.</p>

<p>And with respect to my camera, which is still and video. There were sequences better expressed in single shots, but some of those sequences were better expressed in video. One thing, the David, sculpture probably compares better to a still. Hmmm. So what's the difference between a good form study in a still photograph v. a statue? Hmmm. Not much I suppose, if any.</p>

<p>Never mind, ah, sort of.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>The OP mentioned "Art" (don't know why it's capitalized) a bunch of times and then "serious creative art." I did not take that, nor do I understand why it would be taken to mean, the more academic term "high art." I took the OP to be wondering about how seriously photography should be taken as an art form and what value photos have. </p>

<p>I never thought of film as replacing still photography. To me, they are simply two different mediums. I don't see the analogy to harpsichord/piano. Murals aren't a replacement for painting and sculpture installations aren't a replacement for individual sculptures. If composers, for the most part, have stopped composing for harpsichords, that's one thing. Since still photos are still appearing in museums, galleries, and studios throughout the world, it might be premature to declare that something has yet replaced them.</p>

<p>I'm not sure why a conclusion would be drawn about the communicative effectiveness of photos because photos are accompanied, in some cases, by text or embroidery. Duchamp's <em>Fountain</em> was accompanied by a full manifesto. That simply becomes part of the story and experience of the art. It doesn't make part of it weaker. Do Man Ray's collages with photos make the medium of photography weaker or expand the medium? Some playwrights give more stage direction than others and some composers provide more dynamic and tempo instructions than others. Do the latter of each group create weaker works of art because of the accompanying instructions? No, IMO, those instructions become a part of the creation, just as text meant to accompany a photo is part of the fuller creation.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Is Photography really a serious Art?

 

I don't see why a particular medium should not be included. Consider, for example, a wood rocking chair

by Sam Maloof, a Ruth Asawa sculpture made of wire, a glass basket by Dale Chihuly, frames created by

Roy De Forest to wrap around his paintings, or Newcomb College Pottery vases designed by (relatively)

unknown artists. I haven't put a lot of thought into it, but can't imagine a field or medium that would be

necessarily excluded.

[sjmurray]

<p>Just for the record, I threw in the Nannery quote for the sake of argument, as Charles mentions. Like Fred, and for the same reasons, I really don't discriminate between "high art" and "low art." As I said above, every definition of art basically focuses on art as a human expression of creativity and imagination. In the TED talk on creativity by Sir Ken Richardson mentioned in another thread, he asserts that children are born artists, in a sense. Art and creativity in general are human traits and are probably responsible for our survival on this planet. To maintain that one form of art is more valuable or important than another is just vanity.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>OK, just vanity, but too, the creative process includes self-doubt in the form of a sort of diminishing inner jury that isn't easily dismissed and probably doesn't reduce to an attribute of culture. It took me a long time to adjust to taking a camera out where the inner jury would say "But what <em>is</em> there to take a picture of?" After taking it out daily for some time I could honestly say to that jury: you're wrong, there's always something out there that I enjoy taking a picture of. The jury was there, but at least I had some grounding in experience from which to form a reply. Nevertheless, the jury's annoying yet.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Steve, yes, I understood that, but thanks for clarifying. Was just addressing the quote itself.</p>

<p>By the way, I haven't looked at the TED talk, but preceding Richardson:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once we grow up.</em> —Pablo Picasso</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One of the tasks of the artist can be to look at the world with a fresh pair of eyes. The wonder we often see in children's eyes is something we can often feel from a good artist.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Charles, I wonder if it's worth considering that a photo isn't always a picture <em>of</em>, even if it seems to be. I often look at a photo and think of the photo itself as the subject rather than the subject being something the camera takes a picture of. Hell, sometimes the subject of the photo isn't even seen within the frame. Sometimes it's the photographer behind the lens. Sometimes other things not shown. The IS NOT of a photo and many other works of art can be as important as the IS. Making it have to be a picture <em>of</em> something restricts it to a literalness which may be burdensome at times. What if it's sometimes a picture, period . . . remove the of, the need for a referent.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Fred I'm still absorbing that Avedon's Juan Patricio Lobato, <em>Carney</em>, Rock Ford, <em>Colorado</em>, <em>August 23</em>, <em>1980 </em>isn't all that different than a David, or that some of the paintings I've viewed of street scenes long ago aren't all that different from street photography, etc. etc. But yeah, if all we wanted was literalness then for a landscape we would just knock another hole in the wall and be happy.</p>

<p> </p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

Is Art serious about photography or is he merely silly about it?

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm still absorbing that Avedon's Juan Patricio Lobato, <em>Carney</em>, Rock Ford, <em>Colorado</em>, <em>August 23</em>, <em>1980 </em>isn't all that different than a David, or that some of the paintings I've viewed of street scenes long ago aren't all that different from street photography, etc. etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh, I think they're very different. And the time, craft, and painstakingness of creating a David is very different from the kinds of skill that go into creating a photographic portrait. I didn't mean to suggest they're not all that different. Likewise Hopper's street scene paintings compared to, say, Brassai's street photography, both of which I love. I am suggesting they're all art, serious art, high art, whatever term we want to choose. Avedon, by the way, though I recognize his unique abilities and his significant additions to the portrait genre and though I learn a lot from him, is not among my favorite photographers. Though his was a stark and committed vision, it's a bit cold for me. I saw his <em>American West</em> exhibition at least a couple of decades ago here in San Francisco, and the portrait you chose is among the ones that move me most. It doesn't match the breathlessness and awe I felt when standing in front of Michelangelo's <em>David</em> in Florence. Off hand, I have experienced that kind of awe when seeing some of the Stieglitz portraits of O'Keeffe, especially in print.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>On second thought, maybe the degree of awe was greater for the statue of David than for the portraits of O'Keeffe, and perhaps because of the painstakingness and, importantly, the history and my own anticipation of it, but I don't determine what's serious art by degree of awe or by the built up history. There's a wide range of awesomeness available. Like I said above, for me, wonder is often a key ingredient of the artistic experience. </p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Oldest art ever discovered almost half a million years old. Geometric scratchings basically. Maybe some day they'll find our scratchings as well.<br>

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/12/141203-mussel-shell-oldest-art/</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>All creativity is Art with a capital letter that is my thought. However, Photography seems to be the Cinderella of Art. It lacks any serious value in the Art world.</p>

<p>Let us look at the investment in Art and look at the comparisons compared with Photographic Arts. Private investment compared with other Arts.....pennies, cents?</p>

<p>Probably the most popular Art where individuals can express their vision.....but really it is about the unwashed masses who do not have a clue about Art. More concerned abour some craft of technological excellent...and the Art is poor the lost brother. Is photography about a click of a button and the latest cam....</p>

<p>Or, is it ever being capable of being a real Art? and recognized as such?</p>

<p> </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>In the real Art world , photographic Art...what is that a scribble on some cheap paper.</p>

<p>Oil painting to hang in your home or a photograph print....think about it in honesty.</p>

<p>HCB is a great among the Art of photography...yet when he was not financially pressured turned to the brush to express himself.</p>

<p> </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>I have blind faith because I want to believe, And faith is blind because faith is about believing and comes from the soul.</p>

<p>But my believe is all what matters, because I read it somewhere and my mates think the same because someone told us so....and they have a connection with the big bloke...</p>

<p>So, there.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>A final thought.</p>

<p>A photographic portrait of a person a single photograph which can change and change a again dependent on mood of photographer and subject.</p>

<p>A painting of that person, an act of imagination, from the inner feeling of perception, understanding, the feel of that soul.... a treasure given by imagination. The brush, the paint, the texture...A creative act. Escaping from the documentry.</p>

<p>The culmination of understanding.... imaginatively created from a higher function in our brain capacity. The mind coming together to complete, a completeness, not a single factual documentry image.</p>

<p>To create this from a single documentry imagine....is an expression of blind faith. The documentry image ....., or, the perception of the imagination, understanding, turned into a image of creativity....revealing truths beyond factual documentry.</p>

[golem_bngolem]

<p>Just some thawtz .... <br /> <br /> Photography is basically born yesterday [or just this morning]. <br /> There are works of 'modern art', very different from 'classics'<br /> that preceded them, and these modern works are a full 100<br /> years younger than photography. These young works change<br /> hands for millions at auction, but they somehow share a long<br /> history of centuries or even millennia with other 'plastic arts'<br /> [art resulting in an 'art object']. <br /> <br /> Photography, whatever else it may also be, is printmaking. If<br /> pricing of "art objects" is at least one of many paradigms by<br /> which we judge "Art", then compare photos to other graphics<br /> and serigraphs, NOT to paintings, etc.<br /> <br /> Not all those antique mega valuable items in Art Museums<br /> were Works-of-Art when they were originally produced by<br /> those commissioned [or forced] to craft them. Especially<br /> the cave paintings, do not [likely] reflect a creative nature<br /> nor an urge to communicate. They are generally believed<br /> to serve as ceremonial, religious, or superstitious totems<br /> to ensure material well being [successful hunt or harvest],<br /> or to instruct novitiates in the communal belief system.</p>

<p>"Decorative Arts" such as neolithic bead work may in some<br /> instances be for tribal identity or to "bring luck" but sooner<br /> or later such decoration came to be something done for no<br /> other reason than to please the eye. Pleasing the eye is not<br /> enuf to qualify as High Art or Fine Art, yet surviving pieces<br /> of such decorative art are valued partly for their sheer age<br /> of antiquity, but also as "artistic expression". <br /> <br /> A lotta what we now value a high art may have been simply<br /> Skilled Craft in its time of origin. <br>

<br>

There are at least two kinds of "Fool's Gold": Iron Pyrite and<br>

Aurum. I'm not speaking from, nor promoting, asceticism.<br /> <br /> In case you fail to grasp whatever argument I'm possibly<br /> making or supporting, forget it. I'm just thinking out loud,<br /> as the thread title apparently encourages.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Calling it "high art" or "low art" is just another way of beating up on people who wish to express themselves and their imaginations in aesthetic, emotional and spiritual ways. Almost all of us will not have the ability of Michelangelo or Adams. However, rather than trying to bring down the whole effort with negative thoughts and protestations, why not praise all of us who do the best we can to bring beauty and meaning to this world?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I think one can (and perhaps should) praise the effort without necessarily praising the result. Many devote serious time and effort to photography, to painting, and to sculpture. And I might praise their dedication and seriousness while recognizing that many of the results of that labor may not be art and may not be any good. Saying someone is not an artist or not a good photographer is not beating up on them. Why would it be? </p>

<p>Many great photos don't bring beauty into the world, since beauty is not what a lot of photos are about. But regardless of that, people might try very hard to bring beauty into the world and not succeed. What might be said about that? it could constructively and lovingly be something short of praise.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So is art. Threads like these just smack of elitism.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Well if what is art is to be determined in the way that so much is in our society, namely the lucre people are willing to pay for it, then rest assured all you aspiring art photographers that there are photographic prints selling in the 2-4 million USD range. A few created by Cindy Sherman for one, and a few other photographers. Can anyone seriously say that any particular medium is makes or doesn't make it art? </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Threads like these just smack of elitism.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's one way to look at it, if you're so inclined. I prefer to keep art separate from what's merely popular or from what anyone who has an opinion thinks is great. Popularity has its place, just not in terms of aesthetics or art. Otherwise, Thomas Kinkade would be a supreme artist and American Idol audience voting would become the arbiter of the aesthetic day. There has to be some difference between art and crap. A lot of people like crap. That's not art. It's bad taste. Why do school drama clubs still hold auditions for their theater performances instead of letting anyone play any part? I suppose all this is elitism . . . or maybe it's just life. It might be all rosy and sweet to tell every athlete "You're a winner" and stop keeping score in baseball and football games, very democratic, but it wouldn't be much fun and it wouldn't create an atmosphere of excellence. Let's stop awarding gold medals at the next Olympics so no one can claim they're a better athlete than anyone else. Being able to judge art good or bad despite the effort put into it might or might not be elitist. If recognizing excellence and expertise is elitist, then so be it. But it's also realistic and honest. Telling every photographer who tries hard that their work, because of that trying, is a success and it's art would be a sham. Most photography, most painting, and most sculpture is <em>not</em> art! And that is OK with me. It doesn't make it valueless by any stretch of the imagination. Photos and paintings can have other value besides monetary and besides being called "art." "Art" is not a term of validation. It's a term of a particular type of human appreciation and not everything you or I wants or likes falls under that umbrella.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Let's stop awarding gold medals at the next Olympics so no one can claim they're a better athlete than anyone else"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Using the Olympics is a poor analogy. Awards there are based mainly on time, speed, who comes in first or who makes more goals. That takes the emotion and inexactitude of opinion that "plagues" art. That's why many use money, the cost of art, as a guideline for what's better. It's the only non-emotional way of doing it. Is it better? Well, ask the guy that paid for it. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Popularity has its place, just not in terms of aesthetics or art."</em><br>

<em> </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Regarding Kinkade, why can't popular work be artistic as well? Because there are millions of Sinatra fans, does that make him any less an artist? Are you saying that millions of people are just dodos because they find inspiration in Sinatra's work or Kinkades'. Who are you to judge? Certainly you have the right to your opinion. But so do they. The moment you say only your opinion counts, well, that's elitism.</p>