Fine art photography

[q.g._de_bakker]

It would be as justifiable as the fine artist condescending to the superficiality of many critics, which the critics are whining about.

Perhaps. But that"s yet another story.

 

I think it is just and correct.

Barry understands what Fine Art is.

[samstevens]

I think Barry’s understanding is of a common (in both senses of the word) caricature of what fine art is.

 

My guess is many of these fine art caricatures are inspired by envy.

[rodeo_joe1]

It would be as justifiable as the fine artist condescending to the superficiality of many critics, which the critics are whining about.

Who condescended first?

A vicious circle of patronisation and condescension maybe?

 

The position we have now is that anything is allowed to be art. With the consequence that what is good, bad or 'fine' art is purely a matter of opinion or even conjecture. Therefore the 'ignorant', 'unsophisticated', neophyte, naive, apostate or reactionary opinion is just as valid as any self-appointed expert's, Sunday-supplement-pundit's or that of any of their gullible acolyte's.

[samstevens]

Who condescended first?

The caricaturists.

 

The so-called condescension of fine artists is a figment of the imagination of bystanders to art, who often don’t produce art but like to bellow and joke about its “flaws.”

 

Fine artists are busy refining their crafts and visions while supposed critics languish in obscurity pondering gear and technical details but unable to explore creatively themselves or appreciate what better artists are doing.

 

So they poke fun. It’s a defense mechanism.

[q.g._de_bakker]

The caricaturists.

 

The so-called condescension of fine artists is a figment of the imagination of bystanders to art, who often don’t produce art but like to bellow and joke about its “flaws.”

 

Fine artists are busy refining their crafts and visions while supposed critics languish in obscurity pondering gear and technical details but unable to explore creatively themselves or appreciate what better artists are doing.

 

So they poke fun. It’s a defense mechanism.

And that's a caricature of the observation that some artists are only concerned about refining their crafts, mistaking that for creativity.

[samstevens]

The phrase put up or shut up comes to mind.

 

At a certain point, words without any work to back them up ring hollow, especially when we’re talking about actually making art, fine or otherwise.

 

the treachery.............of subtext......

[samstevens]

the observation that some artists are only concerned about refining their crafts, mistaking that for creativity.

You carefully (or carelessly) neglected to paraphrase me completely, leaving out the vision part, which might be where you would have found the creativity you missed.

[q.g._de_bakker]

You carefully (or carelessly) neglected to paraphrase me completely, leaving out the vision part, which might be where you would have found the creativity you missed.

That there is some sort of vision involved in Fine Art, Sam, is your supposition. My remark is about Fine Art. Not about what you think it is.

[samstevens]

And that fine art lacks vision is your (mis)understanding. Edited March 10, 2021 by samstevens

[samstevens]

Anyway, as there’s no evidence that you’re a practicing photographer or artist, and as your thoughts come across as theoretical and not experiential, I’ll forego further conversation with you. I think it’s more fruitful to dIscuss these things from a more personally-derived and practical standpoint, neither of which I get from talking to you. Adios.

[rodeo_joe1]

Insert pretentious title here.

[rodeo_joe1]

The impossibility of erectile dysfunction in the mind of someone virile.

 

Homage to Rose Selavy #1.

 

I hope the sub-text isn't too subtle!

[q.g._de_bakker]

Anyway, as there’s no evidence that you’re a practicing photographer or artist, and as your thoughts come across as theoretical and not experiential, I’ll forego further conversation with you. I think it’s more fruitful to dIscuss these things from a more personally-derived and practical standpoint, neither of which I get from talking to you. Adios.

That's the definitive final argument. We'll turn it into another internet meme, call it Steve's law.

[kmac]

Let's just say a photo is "fine art" if it hangs on your wall for a long time without you ever feeling the urge to take it down

[arthur_gottschalk]

How about Lewis Baltz, an artist-photographer who claimed he had no interest in photography but established himself as a very successful fine art photographer using very basic techniques coupled with a few great ideas. He came to prominence in the New Topographics . show at Eastman House in 1975, a show that included Robert Adams, Nicholas Nixon and Stephen Shore among others. His most well-known series (he always worked in series) was a study of Park City Utah as it was being developed as a resort. His concept was to remove all "aesthetic" considerations from his pictures, with the intention of letting the camera make the picture directly with minimum input from him. His technique, shooting in 35mm with a 35mm lens, always on a tripod, was to use the slowest film available to him at ISO 6, stopping down to the smallest aperture available for maximum clarity and depth of field. Yet IMHO, he was a great fine art photographer, based on a very good concept and excellent execution. Was his work devoid of "aesthetic" content? I think the very goal of removing it was a very clear aesthetic statement. And I do think his rather small prints are very beautiful.

[samstevens]

Was his work devoid of "aesthetic" content?

There may have been aesthetic content in what he was shooting rather or more so than how he was shooting it.

 

Or just . no frills.

I think the very goal of removing it was a very clear aesthetic statement.

An aesthetic statement may be different from aesthetic content.

 

Your observation reminds me of a great quote I recently came across ...

“Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, 'atheism' is a term that should not even exist. No one needs to identify himself as a 'non-astrologer' or a 'non-alchemist.' We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.”

—Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation

So, maybe Baltz's so-called aesthetics is a kind of atheism.

[arthur_gottschalk]

BTW, Baltz printed everything at Grade 2.

 

And I think the problem of atheism is much more complex than a simple belief in God. It's more like, a belief in God generates the existence of God.

[samstevens]

the problem of atheism

Atheism isn’t the problem. God is.

 

Anyway, I’d hoped it would be evident that the quote was meant as analogy, to respond to your questions about aesthetics, not to directly address theology.

[Vincent Peri]

Atheism isn’t the problem. God is.

 

Hmm... God isn't the prob-

lem... HUMANS are...

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

[arthur_gottschalk]

Atheism isn’t the problem. God is.

 

Anyway, I’d hoped it would be evident that the quote was meant as analogy, to respond to your questions about aesthetics, not to directly address theology.

 

 

I was making an analogy as well.

[inoneeye]

"The ideal photographic document would appear to be without author or art." L.Baltz

no frills...

I as a viewer think all images have an aesthetic. The question of an aesthetic motivation for the photographer to capture and present an image may be devoid or minimized. Or just intentionally removed from our consideration. One of the most notable aesthetics of Baltz's work is encountered in the way they are most often displayed and presented in book format. For example using small prints in a grid, the striking print contrast sometimes used the notable symmetry and the use of equilibrium often found in singular images.

His body of work is unique with the Lewis Baltz signature. the individual photos not so much. That suggests a working aesthetic.

[samstevens]

I was making an analogy as well.

Please explain your analogy and how it relates to aesthetics. I don't get it.

[samstevens]

His body of work is unique with the Lewis Baltz signature. the individual photos not so much. That suggests a working aesthetic.

Thanks.

 

Baltz’s work is very much a project. As such, an intentional non-art approach will be most evident in the series of photos. One photo in isolation might leave a very different impression than each photo as part of the series will and than the series itself will.

 

Interestingly, this is also true of a lot of more intentionally art-driven works, that aren’t meant as series. One Monet painting has, I believe, a different aesthetic than when we consider his body of work, in which “Impressionism” is more clearly (sorry for the oxymoron) revealed than it could be in one painting.

[arthur_gottschalk]

Please explain your analogy and how it relates to aesthetics. I don't get it.

 

I believe that aesthetics and theology are both branches of philosophy. Theology was your choice.

[samstevens]

Arthur, you said you were making an analogy. What is the analogy you were making by talking about belief in God generating God’s existence? In other words, what was your point relative to Baltz’s aesthetics?