Wrestling with the concept of "Straight" Photography

[DavidTriplett]

David, did the electrician have any creative input into his work (was he allowed to create something different) ?

The electrical equipment had been identified and layed out in plan and elevation, but the details of how conduit would be routed and configured are left to the tradesman in the field. He had complete control over the pipework. I'll try to post a photo tomorrow (If I ever get home!).

[DavidTriplett]

Fred, please help me understand your perception of the difference between artist and artisan? Not to be argumentative, but seeking understanding.

[donald_miller5]

Exactly, an artist does not have to be a technician. How ever being a good technician helps. To be redundant I Cunningham work was recognized due to her technical talents. If Ansel Adams was not a good technician he would be Mr Adams in some obituary. If someone conceptualizes the greatest work of art ever but can not create it does that mean it did not exist or in valid. This raises the same question it you have 10 million monkeys paint for 10 million yeaby genius rs would trhe greatest work of art be created? So, is art something created or just a result of permutation?

[Norman 202]

David,that certainly muddies the waters in the debate, imo.

 

here's* another example of creative use of technology. a pulitzer prize winning pj using a car's camera to create 'exhibition' stills. But is it art?. The photos look ok, nothing special, but does that matter?

 

 

* Pulitzer-winning photographer uses Volvo SUV's built-in camera to shoot photo exhibit

[Norman 202]

a different take on art and craft. Phil kindly provided a link to a Belgian artist's interpretation of another's work.

 

#14_18#86#13 schwarzschild — Dirk Braeckman

 

Braeckman is a photographer from Flanders who printed a collection of negs taken during WW1.

 

I think the negatives given the time, societal views etc are truely artistic as are Braeckman's prints. So we have a combined effort. Can that be considered art?

 

is art + art = art? does design + art = art?

[Sandy Vongries]

Exactly, an artist does not have to be a technician.

Both Dali and Picasso would disagree.

A Pulitzer -- sorry, awards nowadays are political statements, and won by pleasing the left elite. A Nobel for an individual who at that point had accomplished nothing?

Awards for all to bolster "self esteem"? I guess...

Problem is, in life, things are rather different.

[Norman 202]

what about forgers? those who make fools (jools) of the establishment? artisans or temporary artists?

 

craft is time invariant, art is less obvious. pollock would be considered a pillock in the 17th, 18th, 19th century. the italian fella less so.

[Julie H]

This raises the same question it you have 10 million monkeys paint for 10 million yeaby genius rs would trhe greatest work of art be created?

 

 

Don't you think, after ten million years, they would have become craftsmonkeys? How long did it take homo artistum to get into the museums?

[Norma Desmond]

Sandy, did you purposely conflate Nobel and Pulitzer just to score what you obviously thought was a political point . . . classy! . . . or was it a mistake?

 

David, I notice you've introduced the word artisan as another word for craftsperson, unless you mean a shift of some sort. It's generally not a word I hear in conversation. I suspect you used it because it contains the root "art" and we may have to go back to our Greek roots and their use of the word techne in describing things like medicine and music, but I'd like to keep it a little more contemporary.

 

But, it probably gives us a good starting point, because what art and craft have in common is the idea of making something which, nowadays for art, includes finding something (see Duchamp's Fountain). I try to avoid Internet debates over What is art? and don't think many definitions of art hold up (I think what art is needs to be a long discussion and not a fixed definition), but I can give you some loose idea of where I think the differences lie. Art usually has an element of transcendence which craft doesn't necessarily have. Art usually expresses something to do with emotions which craft often will not. If craft and art are no different, I'm not sure why we have two distinct words for these things? While you've said theyre intrinsic to and immutable from each other, you seem to be using them synonymously, unless YOU can point to a difference between art and craft that suggests otherwise.

 

Now, whenever anyone dares approach assigning particular adjectives or qualities to art as I just did, they are bound to be harshly challenged, and that's part of the fun and part of the reason I said it takes a discussion rather than a quick definition. So you can consider my suggestions of the differences as the gun going off at the start of the race. There will be examples of crafts that are transcendent and emotionally expressive, but that won't matter because it's not the predominant idea behind craftsmaking, which has a much more particular end goal than art making.

 

Disclaimer: I consider architecture an art even though it's practical and has a goal. Those two things don't disqualify something from being art.

 

I've long considered Ansel Adams a consummate craftsman and just don't see him in terms of art because I think he mastered the craft of photography but never achieved that kind of emotional transcendence, or at least expressiveness, I'm talking about.

[Norma Desmond]

Just want to add that both craft and art will often involve creativity, in that any act of making is the creation of something. So, obviously, I believe that not every creative act is an artistic one. But that could get us off into a whole new quagmire, which is likely what we deserve for having this discussion in the first place! ;-)

[Norma Desmond]

Norman, a lot of art is a combined effort. Theater, orchestral music-making, a lot of dance . . . One element of art I consider significant is that it's been a dialogue through time, so in a sense it's been one big collaboration. Artists directly and indirectly respond to their predecessors, are influenced by them, pay homages to them. There is an element of sharing to art very much worth recognizing, sharing on a variety of levels.

[donald_miller5]

Let use a digital photo as an example. It has a finite number of pixels and each pixel has a finite number of properties. With a number crunching computer it is theoretically possible to generate every permutation and every photo that has been taken or ever can be takenin a digital format.

[Julie H]

Let use a digital photo as an example. It has a finite number of pixels and each pixel has a finite number of properties. With a number crunching computer it is theoretically possible to generate every permutation and every photo that has been taken or ever can be takenin a digital format.

 

It's not a digital photograph until somebody has chosen it.

 

 

Pick. Choose. Discriminate. That's what photographers do. Very good, Donald!

[Norman 202]

Norman, a lot of art is a combined effort

i like that idea. and the idea of using the work of previous artists. but how does one reconcile that with the notion that artist(s) don't make "a" anything? is that notion nonsense?

[Norma Desmond]

Yes.

[Norma Desmond]

Norman, for me art is very particular and very much about the thing made. That helps establish any transcending factor, is sort of the ground from which deeper emotional outpourings can be experienced. Painters make a painting. Composers compose musical compositions, which are heard when someone ( often someone else) plays them. My photos are "things" which are important to me, as things as well as carriers of expression, narrative and significance. Edited July 14, 2017 by Norma Desmond

[Norman 202]

Norman, for me art is very particular and very much about the thing made

although i've never "made" any art, anything physical (apart from the odd small print), i think it's vital that we (you) continue to create "things" and don't reduce art to a silly abstract thought.

[DavidTriplett]

art is very particular and very much about the thing made.

Fred, your point is, I think, very closely related to what I am trying to express. It is within this interstice of making that I perceive the consistent, if variable in degree, link between art and craft. I also think your connecting "art" to an intended emotional response, as opposed to emphasis on utility, is important. I found this discussion of art versus craft interesting and informative, even if I don't agree with it in every case (it completely ignores non-visual arts, such as music). (LINK) I also want to acknowledge that craft as craft alone, without art, is absolutely a viable concept. However, I believe there is far more artistic expression in much of what we consider craft than we seem willing to acknowledge.

 

I wonder if we can bring this issue back to Sandy's original post? Is a "straight" photograph more art, or is it craft, or can it be both, or neither? If a given photograph is imbued with emotional impact for you, but has no emotional impact on me, based on differing frames of reference, how does that alter its definition? I know that I've made many photographs applying my best understanding of techniques (craft), but without achieving the kind of artful impact I was hoping for. Others (far fewer) are more successful as artistic renderings. So, am I an artist or a technician/artisan? If one image requires more PP to achieve the photographer's artistic intent than does a "straight" photograph, is the first more or less art, or does it become heavily weighted in craft?

 

I know these are all very leading questions with infinite possible answers. My hope is that we thoroughly explore the degree to which executed art (including photography) is reliant upon the craft/technique/skill/knowledge of the artist, in addition to the artist's creative vision and emotional insight. I suppose we can imagine a case where a Michelangelo directs the execution of a marble sculpture, one where he, the artist, only envisions and directs the work, and that the execution is entirely in the hands of an artisan craftsman, who competently applies the techniques of the stone carver, but only as directed by the artist. In such a case the division between artist and craftsman in absolutely clear, but it is also clear that a meaningful synergy between the two is absolutely essential to realization of the artist's vision. Is not this synergy, whether in a division of labor or embodied in a single individual, essential to the making of art?

[DavidTriplett]

I suspect my perspective on this issue (craft vs. art) is heavily influenced by my profession. For the most part, I do not actually build what I design. I am reliant upon contractors to execute my designs, much as the artist must rely upon the stone carver in my previous example. But I know this is the case, and I work closely and diligently with the contractor to obtain the intended outcome. It is a joy to work with craftsmen who catch the artistic vision and apply it to their own work, such as the electrician described previously. Where I am both the maker and the artist (or designer), I am always cognizant of the degree to which my own technical skills may or may not support the creative, artistic vision I have in my head. Sometimes the lack of technical ability or knowledge significantly impacts what I design. In the macro case, my building designs must include materials and construction means and methods that are economically available in the marketplace. On a more personal level, I sometimes must learn new things (issues of craft) in order to achieve my artistic goals. Or, I may constrain a photographic opportunity to an approach that I believe I can address. As my technical skills improve, so do the variety of photographic opportunities I can seek or exploit. How is this different from others' perspectives?

[Supriyo]

I think one craft can involve a lot of inner crafts, for example a big construction project can include masons, electricians, technicians, painters, carpenters, the supervisor who coordinates among them, and the architect who instructs the supervisor (may not be exactly like this). each of these professionals are experts in their own crafts. The supervisor specializes in coordinating the other craftsmen, thats his craft. The architect builds the framework into which, the individual crafts fit seamlessly, thats his craft, the designing. In other words, craft doesn't always have to involve rigorous hands-on performance, it can be more abstract like designing or managing.

 

I thought I should share this video of Takashi Amano instructing his team to build one of his nature aquariums. See how he directs the placement of individual stones and plants, and the workers find creative ways to achieve what he wants. Here craft is involved in both levels, hand on working in the aquarium, and designing the placement of nature elements in the tank. His aquascapes are quite exquisite, although lost of people copy them nowadays.

 

[DavidTriplett]

His aquascapes are quite exquisite

Would they be considered "art"? I'm inclined to say "yes", but others might feel differently.

[Supriyo]

If one image requires more PP to achieve the photographer's artistic intent than does a "straight" photograph, is the first more or less art, or does it become heavily weighted in craft?

 

A succesful image always involves a combination of camera skills and post processing skills or crafts. For some images, the second craft is needed less, while the first craft is likely to be important in all cases. However, by looking at many images on PN and elsewhere, I tend to feel that an important craft is in recognizing when to use post processing and to what extent, a critical decision that can break or make an otherwise promising photo.

[Supriyo]

Would they be considered "art"? I'm inclined to say "yes", but others might feel differently.

 

Good question, they are indeed considered art, like aquatic gardens but with reference to naturally grown landscapes. Although I haven't seen his work in person, I have seen other aquascapes, and I tend to agree. A well crafted one can fulfill many of the characteristics of art, like create emotional response, imagination etc.

[DavidTriplett]

Here is an image of the conduit I mentioned earlier. I agree that this is primarily representative of craft, but, for me, there is a very discernible hint of the artistic in the execution of this work. Perhaps that is because there are so many other, far more mundane and less expressive examples to which I can compare.

[Norma Desmond]

I also think your connecting "art" to an intended emotional response, as opposed to emphasis on utility, is important.

David, I didn't connect art to an intended emotional response. I connected it to an artist's emotional expression. While I think some artists may intend a certain emotional response from viewers, I think often that's not the point, and it's more an outpouring of emotion than a concern with response.

 

[i'm using my iPad and it's hard to copy and quote in PN, so from here I'll reproduce your statements in quotes without the PN formatting]

 

David said: "However, I believe there is far more artistic expression in much of what we consider craft than we seem willing to acknowledge."

 

One of my pet peeves is art being used merely as a superlative. If it's great, it must be art. I believe there simply is great craft that is just that, craft. That doesn't, in my eyes, make it any less than art. It's just different. But I'm not sure what the investment is in making the finest craft into art, as if that will somehow ensure its being taken seriously or somehow elevate it. As a matter of fact, I think it does a disservice to craftspeople, as if being a great craftsperson isn't enough and in order to have really arrived a craftsperson has to be seen as an artist. I think that's a misuse of the word and the idea of art and fails to recognize the beauty and significance of craft for its own sake or in its own right.

 

As to the question of straight photos and post processing, that factor, which IMO is mostly a made-up and futile debate that does nothing more than waste a bunch of brain cells, has no impact on whether I think of a photo as art or not.

Edited July 15, 2017 by Norma Desmond