What good is art without intention?

[peter nelson]

<I>Photojournalists "find" their art</I><P>

 

Nonsense. The "art" in a HCB photo isn't the object or thing being photographed. It is the PHOTOGRAPH itself. If what you're saying were true then one of the greatest pieces of western art actually ceased to exist in the early 16th century. Because that's when Madonna Elisabetta, third wife of Francesco del Giocondo, died.<P>

 

(most people know her as the Mona Lisa)

[don_althaus1]

But if this idea that the photograph itself is the art object is true, then which photograph? The original print? the original print I make next week or the one I make on revisiting the negative next year? the poster? the gallery catalog print? the book print?

 

If I have a beautifully executed photograph of a roll of chain link fence does that become an art object? or just a photo of chain link fence?

 

And, Peter, of course you are right- postmodernism holds that nothing at all is known in certainty and all is realtive- I was just limiting it to "art" for the sake of discussion.

[peter nelson]

<I>But if this idea that the photograph itself is the art object is true, then which photograph? The original print? the original print I make next week or the one I make on revisiting the negative next year? the poster? the gallery catalog print? the book print? </I><P>

 

Each one that is a creation of the artist, of course! What makes you think they're mutually exclusive? Lots of painters do multiple renderings of the same scene (Monet's haystacks, for instance) or they do studies in charcoal or graphite before executing a painting, or they do a sculpture for a casting and then they sand or file each resulting casting.<P>

 

<I>If I have a beautifully executed photograph of a roll of chain link fence does that become an art object? or just a photo of chain link fence? </I><P>

 

If the photo represented some artist's creative vision - his choice of composition, framing, lighting, etc then it's his art. (whether it's 'good' art is a matter of personal taste) If the photo was taken by an automatic camera by happenstance it's not art because there was no artist; no one with a vision of what the intended compositional result was supposed to be. Art requires intention.

[glabarca]

 

 

 

This discussion is interesting, although much and clever things has been said, I would like to add a couple of remarks as well. Emre ask us to answer his questions instead or before digressing. I assume that this discussion for him has practical implicancies such as : Does it make sense to devote your time and energy on an artwork if the only outcome is that you may have fun creating it? What if that artwork takes a significant share of your lifetime? If one were immortal, it would not matter, but since this is not the case... or Can one become a great artist--hope to create art of lasting interesting--without direction?. I think that a lot as been answered already, It seems clear that for a contemporary artist there is always an intention, whatever it is (fame, beauty, money, having fun). But it seems to Emre, and many others, that some intentions are better than others, not all of them are at the same level, some might be permanent. This is connected with a concern on making works of �lasting interest�. It is assumed that some intentions produce more permanent works than others. To put in another way, there is the doubt (hope perhaps?) that it would be possible to make an important artwork, of everlasting interest by hazard, or with bastard intentions, or by mechanical means or without a valid intention. This can be frightening indeed, what if we devote our lives to make such a work that finally is not perceived as a work of art whereas our neighbor who is a carpenter hobbyist, with no notion of what art is, end up with a piece of furniture exhibited in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, highly priced by critics and curators? �Not nice perhaps, we may find us cheated. This is not metaphysics, it is a darn practical question. If we examine the history of art we find any kind of intentions, �good� and �bad�, �legitimate� and �bastard� behind everlasting work of art. Think at Velazques, no doubt of his artistic accomplishments, whatever he did was great art, but his intentions were mixed, very much so: from one side he wanted to do good work of art, to explore in a new pictorial language, to render reality in a new expressive way etc. but at the same time he was socially arrivist, he wanted money and �respect� from nobility, painted to please the court, etc. His genius was above his intentions, positive or negatives and produced art in its highest form.

 

On the other side you have artist that are dominated by artistic intentions, that means that their interest is mostly to produce new, in a way better art. Jackson Pollok and most of the New York expressionist were doing that, in fact they were running big risks going against the establishment, but they had an idea of what art should be in USA at that time. And on the contrary there have been artists that have less holly intentions producing great works of art (think of Toulousse Lautrec or Utrillo). Or you have artists like Caravaggio who painted religious work, meaning transmitting a religious message by means of painting being himself as atheist as could be possible in his time. Which was his intention then? He certainly had one, which was not visible in his time, besides having an innovative technique apparently he was communicating religious feelings, (being his paintings so emotional they are about feelings). Marc wrote about invisible ink, he is right and here applies to well. The point is that you don�t see it easily, even if you are the artist.

 

What I am pointing to is that intentions are not a guarantee of producing good art, or durable art. You can produce outstanding art with lousy intentions. The question in my humble opinion is indeed a metaphysical one, it is �what is art�, and our concern is to produce art, if you wish so. I am not going into this subject, perhaps another time, besides I have written about enough here.

One thing I would like to comment, Matt Kime said that If someone finds a piece of trash and they call it art, it is they who transform it from trash to art. � No object becomes recognised as art unless someone presents it as art"Art doesn't need to be made for a specific purpose to be considered art. Art is quite often divorced from the intentions and efforts of its creator. Someone creates something along a certain line of thought and presents it to an audience who has no connection to this line of though." - "A random creation can be considered art but it is the person who selects the item as art that converts the item from a typical object into art." I agree with this but I think that no anybody can transform a piece of trash in work of art. It is obvious that if Leo Castelli had shown in his gallery some rags and a dead bird would have been an artwork if I put them in the living room of my would have not, not even a third rate gallery can operate such a transformation. Duchamp could make an urinal an everlasting piece of art, I can not and I guess you neither. Marc add to this comment one observation that I fin unconvincing. He said: I agree with all these posts,(Matt�s posts) but what I personally find interesting to understand is WHY any public identifying an object as "art" *automatically* makes it art... I think it's precisely because this public would then have somehow LEND an intention to the artwork. I think that the explanation goes in another direction, it is not the public lending intention to the artwork, but it is that there are people able to discover the artistic value of some man made objects and showing it to less perceptive people, teaching us to see thet value. This is the difference (among others) between Leo Castelli and me, or Duchamp and me, they have an intuition that I don�t have, that only a few people have, and they have proved their intuition consistently.

 

[matt_kime]

you close your mind off to part of it

[suzanne_sippel]

Art is what happens when what the artist sees/thinks/feels is communicated to the world.

 

What I like to pose to my classes is not what is art, or what makes art, but what is bad art. I just gave them an assignment to bring back a GOOD traditional portrait and a BAD one. I think they will be suprised at what we find while examining these in critique.

Suz

[glabarca]

No Matt, it is quite the contrary, everytime you try to define art you put more things in it, you open what you already know to new layers of meaning. A definition is not a static formula, a definition changes with new experiences. A definition is precisely a challenge. You test your definitions against your experiences. I understand your point because very often people have learned definitions as being something immutable, definitive, but in fact they are not so. Artistic work can be enriched by intellectual work, by trying to understand, by defining. Something that always impressed me is that great artists (painters, photographers, musicians etc) read a lot, and some of ther write as well. Attempting to define is an effort in the way to produce better artwork.

[peter nelson]

<I>What I am pointing to is that intentions are not a guarantee of producing good art, or durable art. </I><P>

 

I didn't think what he was asking was whether intent produced "good" art, but whether it was art <B>at all</B> if it was not produced with intent.<P>

 

I claim that a minimum requirement for something to be "art" (good, bad or indifferent) is that there has to be an <U>artist</U> who <B>creates</B> the art, and that part of the creative process is <U>intent</U>. An artist is someone who starts with an idea, concept or vision in his mind, and executes what he has in mind, in his medium. Part of being a good artist is to have the skill in your medium to faithfully reproduce your idea, concept or vision.

[d_poinsett]

The intent of art is to evoke a meaningful experience if only in its creator. Art IS something created. An emotionally, intellectually, or spiritually moving thing is not art unless it is created for that purpose.

 

The distinction between whether something is art or not may have little bearing on the depth to which we are moved and the degree to which contemplate it.

[kasigi]

An earlier comment of 'art can be found' seems quite correct. I am dubious of the concept that art *HAS* to have meaning or *HAS* to convey/edify. Artwork can simply be a piece that is aesthetically pleasing. I think that art can convey meaning or can simply be something aesthetically pleasing that has been created or set apart from it's surrondings in some way and identified as 'art'

[windjammer]

I was compelled to pose those questions to myself some time ago -- the fundamental "What is Art?" I posted my answer in my bio, so click my name and read. Always welcome anyone trying to poke holes in it...

[chris_williams3]

1). The first question is "Do you think art should be made with a purpose..?" Well, of course it should! How could anyone really argue that art should not be made with a purpose (even if that purpose were as mundane as, "Hey, I just felt like it".)

 

This covers my response to question two as well: I challenge anyone here to name any art work, in any medium, that was made without intent. Intent, you understand, implies an "intender", that is, an agent who willfully interacts with the medium to produce the final result. This is the barest requirement. Found objects don't count in my book - this is just too lazy and undisciplined to be dignified with the word "Art", not to mention being an insult to those who approach their subject with commitment.

 

3. I don't think a random creation can be an artwork. Random can often be beautiful. Random can be worth contemplation. Contemplating randomness is an effort to understand what God's intentions were. Contemplating art is an effort to understand the intention of the artist. They are not the same, although one often tries to mimic the other.

[Brian]

<P>The idea (from the original question 2) that there may exist an artwork without intent raises a different category of question, i.e the creation or otherwise of the material world. Some of us believe that one Creator is responsible for the entire material universe, so any artwork that you may see is a primary or secondary creation from that source. Computers only do what they were programmed to do, so computer output is the work of Man, who is in turn the work of the Creator.</P><P>On a more mundane level, art is in the eye of the beholder, but the beholder does not have the option of viewing a totally random artefact.</P>

[oliver_s.]

I've given up on defining art. I just produce it.<p>A British auction house used (uses?) the following definition:<br>if the seller says it [the item sold] is art, and the buyer agrees it is art, then it <i>is</i> art.

[peter nelson]

<I>The idea (from the original question 2) that there may exist an artwork without intent raises a different category of question, i.e the creation or otherwise of the material world. Some of us believe that one Creator is responsible for the entire material universe, so any artwork that you may see is a primary or secondary creation from that source. Computers only do what they were programmed to do, so computer output is the work of Man, who is in turn the work of the Creator.</I><P>

 

I don't see how that gets around the question, since it still begs the question of whether the creator had intent.<P>

<B><U>My</B></U> claim, as I mention above, is that art must exist as a concept, vision, or idea <B>FIRST</B> in the mind of the artist, and then the artist uses his skill to execute that idea in his medium. But we don't know whether the Creator (if there was one) had the idea or vision of the universe first, and then went about executing it in his medium (matter and energy?), or whether the Creater generated the universe in the theological equivalent of a cosmic sneeze.<P>

 

Mrs. God: Gesundheit! Oh, look, dear, You've made another universe; here, let me clean that up for you . . .

[photoriot]

<ol>

<li> One valid "direction" for art: making money to eat.

 

<li> "Art irritates life."

 

<li> Check out <a href="http://gs2.sp.cs.cmu.edu/art/random/">

The Gallery of Random Art</a>. And in a similar vein,

<a href="http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dawkins_pinker/debate_p1.html">

Is Science Killing the Soul?</a>

</ol>

[don_althaus1]

An observation� Maybe the fact that we�ve been having these �art� discussions for more than 100 years should tell us something. Maybe the fact that we cite photography for its unique abilities, its unblinking gaze and then try to lump it in with �art� should tell us something� that the only way to win is not to play anymore.

 

Without boring all of you with the history, suffice it to say these ideas of art and photography have never been resolved, and will probably never be resolved. Maybe they can�t be� and maybe this is telling us that we have to move on. Barking up the wrong tree and all of that�

 

It would seem that �art� has lost its purpose of interpreting the world around us and then communicating that interpretation to others in a comprehensible form. It has been lost in all the rhetoric of �whatever the artist feels� or the rhetoric of �it�s art if I say it is,� etc. It has also been lost in the concepts of unit sales and net profit margins. If the artist doesn�t communicate the interpretation then nothing has been accomplished. The work is simply the equivalent of finger exercises on the piano.

 

In many ways all of this has done nothing more than raise art to the enviable status of decoration. And for those who hold that art is to be enjoyed �for what it is� or �an experience unto itself,� that makes the entire thing self-reflexive and anytime that happens it simply becomes stagnant and then irrelevant.

 

Of the many students I have taught, many come from an art background and tell me that it is about the design of the art space- the color, line, shape, and texture. I once had an instructor from a fairly well respected art program ask �What is art if it is not about design?�

 

Is this really the ultimate goal for photography?

 

Maybe we need to move photography from art- maybe we need to realize that the true relationship is not between the artist and the photographer but between the photographer and the author-

 

At some level the writer tells us who we are.

At some level the photographer shows us who we are. (There�s intention)

 

Maybe we need to stop worrying about creating �art� and start worrying about interpreting the world around us.

[mark__5]

"there are two people in every photograph, the photograper and the viewer"-Ansel Adams

 

Any image that is a pleasure to look at is simply that, do I need to find out if it is created by a computer or not to react to it? - no -

 

Trees are not art, but I still think that they are beautiful.

 

although at the same time I can say that I don't believe art is created if someone throws paint up in the air and lets it land on the canvas even if it is nice to look at. Who created it, gravity? no it was just a happy accident. This is an insight into my opinions about why I think that excellent craft is important to ones vision.

 

I create because I have to and need to, not to show it to anyone (I do show my work, but would still photograph even if no one was interested). When I see something that I react to photographically I have to photograph and interpret it. If I can't for some reason, there is always a feeling of loss, and I feel like a lesser person for it.

 

My work is created with an intent, to make me feel more human.

[anthony_d.]

For me, a great work of art is great entirely because it was created by another human being. Though the artist may be unknown or anonymous, the work itself, created by a man or woman of skill, originality and cleverness, brings glory to the artist first and by inference, to all of mankind. A great novel is great, not for its own sake, but because we recognize the greatness of the author who had the insight to create such a work. And we are happy to spend time in the 'company' of such a writer. Similarly with an artistic photograph, we appreciate that another person, the photographer, was able to create a unique perspective, original and striking, and we admire his cleverness and his vision. At all times, art connects us to at least one other person...music may connect us to more than one. That is the enjoyment of it.

With this principle in mind then, a random creation could never be considered to be art. If a group of monkeys could somehow type the novel 'Crime and Punishment', it would not be worth reading...for they would only be words on a page. More likely, though, a monkey with a camera might randomly take a worthwhile photo...but it would not be art.

[struan_gray]

Emre is really just asking whether selection is a valid creative

act. Personally, I'm amazed that a photographer would ever have

to ask.

[steve_swinehart]

>>"Do you think art should be made with a purpose; to edify, document, entertain, etc."<<

 

I'm not sure what art might be. Attempting to "make art" seems much like trying to force out a turd because you're constipated. You feel better after, but all you have is a turd. Or, art.

 

When I'm making photographs I'm being entertained - I don't care about anyone else - or the photograph's effect on someone else.

 

 

>>"If so, how would you feel if you could not distinguish an artwork with intent from one without; e.g. you mistook a computer generated landscape for a real photograph?"<<

 

I don't care as long as it's not boring. There are only two kinds of art: boring and interesting. I don't care how either are made, or the "intent," I only want to see the interesting kind.

 

 

>>"If not, then how do you create such artworks;"<<

 

Planning and random accidents. I'll take luck over talent any day - it's a lot more dependable.

 

 

>>"purely by intuition? Does it not follow that a random creation can be an artwork?"<<

 

Yes. Photography is a random event in much the same way trains have wrecks.

 

>>"Would you invest time to comtemplate this artwork, when you could be investing your time on something with an intent?"<<

 

Is it boring? If so, I'm leaving - even if the intent is to make something that's boring.

 

If it's interesting I'll spend time with it.

[jon w.]

To add a twist to some of the points raised above, it can be argued that many of Cartier-Bresson's street photographs are 'found objects' in an analogous sense to Duchamp's urinal in that they are entirely banal, everyday scenes given meaning by being 'framed' in a particular way and taken out of their original context (i.e. the flow of everyday life) to be placed in a new one (that of the print, if not of the gallery wall).

This is not to deny that HCB's act of 'framing' was more complex and demanding than Duchamp's, but surely part of his intention was precisely 'find' something as much as create it: to make it possible for chance to reveal something he didn't know before. Indeed, one of the wonderful things about photography is precisely that it permits us to cross the border between creation and discovery, to do both at once.

In other words, to act with intent is not the same thing as having total control over one's material (how can this be true if my 'material' is the world out there, as much as the photo-sensitive emulsion or digital file?). Others have already argued this point at length above, although with slightly different emphases, since they have focused on how the artist's subconscious and the difference between what the artist intends and the viewer understands subvert the desire for total control. For me, it's never been primarily about self-expression. My intent in street photography is to create the most favourable conditions for a controlled accident to occur. The Surrealists would say this is like being a medium at a sceance, and the photograph's purpose is to capture the 'automatic writing of the world'. I tried to suggest in my previous comment that I like to think of it as making the rules for a (gambling) game. Pace the Surrealists, perhaps it is also related to the way in which a scientist sets the parameters and rules for an experiment, although I, unlike a scientist, am not trying to prove a thesis. I am, however, trying to discover something new (either about the world, or myself, or photography as a medium with its own history), and to simultaneously fulfil and subvert my own intentions.

Of course, non-street photographers will probably have a very different take on all of this.

[keith_laban]

For some time now I have been working on an ongoing series, which are essentially photographs of found objects. I have recorded them as faithfully as possible and really my only input has been selection of the objects. Before I started the series I was working on some paintings and looking for inspiration. The first photographs were nothing more than quick reference shots, but in time the photographs evolved into the finished artwork.<p> Were these objects art before I found them? Clearly not, most were merely junk. Is selecting the objects and recording them enough? Possibly.<p>So the series was conceived by a painter, who recorded the objects using the medium of film rather than paint, using the skills of a photographer. If I had used paint, I doubt many would argue against the resulting artwork being classified as art.<p>What then if the photographer took photographs of the same objects, resulting in exactly the same photographs, would the results still be considered art? Maybe, but surely it would depend entirely on why the photographer took the photographs. Would it be enough if they were taken because the objects were thought to be pretty or beautiful and worthy of a photograph? I don't� believe so. But had the photographer started with the same concept for the series as the painter, then really there can be no argument that the resulting photographs should be considered as art. Film is merely a medium, it is intent or concept, call it what you will, that is all important<p>Selection is enough depending on intent.<p>I think by now most have seen the series �Found Paintings� I have been referring to. However if anyone would like to see them they can be seen <a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk/photoart.html">here</a>. This will hopefully take you to my index page and then automatically to the relevant page. Emre, not at all sure that this answers your questions, just a bit of a ramble really, LOL!

[g1]

Regarding randomness, perhaps there is some purpose and intent within the exercise or randomly producing something? Fractals for example, may be produced by random algorithms at the click of a button, but how many results might be rejected before the 'artist' ends up with his/her satisfactory result? The chosen piece has been produced by random means, but there may still have been intention and preconceived ideas, and according to those ideas a piece may be chosen by a process of elimination. The same goes for 'found' subjects. How many found objects are there for goodness sake? How come an artist chooses a particular one to label or exhibit as art? The intention may not be the same as a created piece of work, but that does not mean the artist did not observe the subject for a particular reason. Or he may not have a preconceived idea, and instead see something unusual or special which he wishes to present to the world. In either case, I think intention is there by default if the artist is presenting something as 'art'.

[imaginator]

I don't have time to read all the responses... too many, but I'll add this: Each person experiences art in thier own way, and even this can change as time changes our current perception and feelings... so the artist (photographer) can create "art", even though they may not appreciate it as art at the moment. Years later, the same art (image) may have a profound impact, or take on a totally different meaning, for both the artist and others who view it. I suppose if we could go back in time, we might find that what we now consider boring to be very fascinating... seen from a "fresher" viewpoint. Art = emotion, feelings... which are constantly changing as is our perception of art.