| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/30/2007 07:03:45 PM · #1 |
The question "What is photography as a fine art?" comes up from time to time in these forums. It is pretty difficult to find an answer that's satisfactory to two or more people (although it is worthwhile and fun thinking and talking about it). I think that discussing what is not photo-art can be an easier and more productive exercise, because it can sweep away quite a large layer of images, and can serve as a starting ground for taking a stab at the bigger question.
I hope that this thread can keep on the topic of discussing categories of non-art images that are popular at this site, and, most importantly, not shift into discussing personalities.
Here's my stab at identifying a few categories of non-art images. I used some recent ribbon-winning entries for illustration. [This is nothing personal towards their authors: I simply went into the Challenge History and picked the first several images that suited my need.]
1. Kitsch
   
(by, respectively  Joey Lawrence, librodo, Larus, and  heida)
Kitsch, in my opinion, is the most interesting and the most difficult category. Interesting - because it pretends to be art, and difficult - because I've yet to see a very good definition of Kitsch.
Kitsch (when speaking of art) is something that pretends to be refined and masterful, but, actually, is a creation of low taste in a pretty wrapping, often very skillfully done. [Perhaps somebody else will offer a better definition of kitsch (anyone?).] In a kitschy photograph of a pretty girl, the girl is pretty beyond any doubt, and is usually reduced to whatever one of the current stereotypes of a beautiful girl would be. In a kitschy image of a sunset the colours will undoubtedly be overly saturated. A kitschy image of an old woman would have every wrinkle on her face emphasized. The problem is, there is usually nothing else behind such images, except for the skillful exploitation of the viewer's primitive emotions. A such, these images are merely decorative; at best, this is the kind of stuff that Ikea sells framed in its marketplace, mass consumption interior decorator material.
Excessive post processing is not a defining attribute of a kitschy digital photo, but is found in most of them. The kitsch masters love abusing dodge/burn, blur, colour saturation, etc., since these techniques help taking the superficial visual qualities to their extremes, which is essential for kitsch.
[Note: some contemporary art embraces Kitsch methods for creative and artistic purposes. I'm only talking about the nominal, primary meaning of the term.]
2. Look What I Came Up With!
   
(by, respectively,  scalvert, moonwell, Telehubbie, and De Sousa
This is a pretty popular category here, and, looking at these photographs, I often think: "Gee, that's clever, I wonder how they did that..." However, I think that such images are rarely anything more than just documentation of the submitters' creative ingenuity. Not to say that I don't admire the creativity and the effort that went into such set-ups.
3. Photograph of a Thing
  
(by, respectively, NikonJeb, IreneM, and eyewave)
Not much to say about this category: usually such photo depicts a visually interesting object, and there very little more in the image.
4. Commercial Images
  
(by, respectively, mpeters, yanko, and Shaurya)
Again, not much to write about here. These images are usually high quality photo stock material, and I can see them popping up in a TV commercial, or on flier in my mail box, but not in an arts gallery.
------------------
Thoughts, additions, objections?
|
|
|
|
03/30/2007 07:06:35 PM · #2 |
| Interesting premise. May I can improve my scores by trying to shoot inside those categories. ;) |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 07:10:14 PM · #3 |
Oh well, I often say art is usually an excuse for bad technique :-)
|
|
|
|
03/30/2007 07:10:20 PM · #4 |
I agree with all points and examples, well said, but i'd like to see you now define fine art photgraphy.
:) |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 07:10:55 PM · #5 |
Makes me wonder:
what is ART in your eyes? (and no, not Art Roflmao ;))
Not sure if I like this thread. Somehow (even though I know this was NOT your intention!!!) you managed to pull the images you posted down.
And: I just don't think Kitsch is the right word for the photos you picked.
What is your intention with this thread?
Message edited by author 2007-03-30 19:12:11. |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 07:13:32 PM · #6 |
I think it's a pretty interesting thread and I agree that none of the photos you picked are fine art (doesnt mean they arent interesting or beautiful).
I'd like to see what you would pick as fine art. Can you give examples?
Message edited by author 2007-03-30 19:14:39. |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 07:16:20 PM · #7 |
While I tend to agree with your basic premise on the different types of photography you have listed.. I have to disagree with the overall premise.
All of these things are still 'Art'. Just because you have a personal opinion about what art is for yourself doesn't mean any or all of these photos are excluded from art in general.
You have a good eye for separating and identifying genres, but I don't understand what I feel is a high-brow attempt at segregation for whatever purpose.
*edit* I understand that you are terming it 'fine art', but my disagreement stands. Fine Art is, always has been, and always will be, a subjective term used by people that believe they are better than others to distinguish themselves (or a group of themselves), from others.
Message edited by author 2007-03-30 19:18:36. |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 07:17:46 PM · #8 |
Oh, boy -- Break out the marshmellows and hotdogs, this thread is going up in flames a mile high. :D
I hope you will excuse me for saying so, but it seems to be you have a set idea of what art is and have looked for ways to label and identify what doesn't meet that definition so you have a generic rational for disregarding it. As I see it, art isn't for the edification of the viewer nearly as much as it is an outlet for the artist. Anything that allows the artist to express what is inside themselves for others to see is art. Putting a generic label to it such as, 'this is Kitsch' is no more useful than stating 'This is orange' with the rational that orange is a garrish color so anything orange is obviously not art.
A group or catagory of what is not art is easy to define. Since a person can find a way to express themselves with anything and in any methods they are restricted to use -- there is nothing that can not be art. The group of what isn't art is empty.
David
|
|
|
|
03/30/2007 07:23:06 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Fine Art is, always has been, and always will be, a subjective term used by people that believe they are better than others to distinguish themselves (or a group of themselves), from others. |
Couldn't have said that better myself.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2007 07:24:30 PM · #10 |
If the group of what is not art is empty, then we evidently require a new word for the category of endeavour that is deep, thoughtful and thought-provoking, challenging, expressive of more than the simplest thought or emotion, and sometimes threatening.
What should we call that?
Message edited by author 2007-03-30 19:24:58. |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 07:30:11 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by e301:
If the group of what is not art is empty, then we evidently require a new word for the category of endeavour that is deep, thoughtful and thought-provoking, challenging, expressive of more than the simplest thought or emotion, and sometimes threatening.
What should we call that? |
You are quite right, I mis-typed my thoughts. I meant only that there is nothing that is not capable of being art. But as others have pointed out, if it is or not is highly subjective. To state that something is not capable of being art is the same as refusing to allow another to decide for themselves if it is expressive for them or not. Does that make my thought clearer? :)
David
|
|
|
|
03/30/2007 07:30:44 PM · #12 |
In regards to the photos you listed as Kitsch would they still fit that definition of yours if they were all candids and not setups? Granted, Joey's and Heida's photos probably are too staged to ever be candids but lets say for example they all were. Would that change anything?
Also, since you pointed out one of my photos which I do agree fits the category I'd like to know what you think of this other one of mine:
How would this be categorized? |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 07:33:11 PM · #13 |
ok well I will try to keep this short, for both our sakes. Your assesment comes off as you saying you are better than them and seems snobish as do most conversations of what is "fine art" IMO. Why is your definition of what art is better than mine. Why are you better than me in defining art. Would you say that art is NOT subjective? If you agree that it is subjective then how can you say that something is not art.
I like harder music. sometimes I will hear someone call Limp biscuit heavy metal to me they most definantly are not but that doesn't make me right. I listen to more and know more about metal than most of the people that say this but that doesn't make me anymore right. Hell I have heard people say that Steve Perry and or Journey are good and this just sounds stupid to me:P but I am still not any more right than them. |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 07:34:48 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Fine Art is, always has been, and always will be, a subjective term used by people that believe they are better than others to distinguish themselves (or a group of themselves), from others. |
Couldn't have said that better myself. |
I'm amazed at how cavalierly people dismiss fine art at this site. It's sad. |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 07:35:51 PM · #15 |
do you consider the following to be art:
- an ansel adams image of half dome (or is it just post-card material)
- the mona lisa (or is it just a pre-camera version of a snapshot)
- yanni
the first two are clearly art to me. the third makes me cringe. that's just me... everyone may view them all differently. same with the images you discuss.
i also don't think that you can judge the artistic merit of something based only upon where that image may end up. i've seen picture-frames in the store with images of the mona lisa... does that degrade it to the level of snapshot? not for me. i've heard bach in an elevator... does that degrade it to the level of yanni? not for me.
everyone will have different opinions, and that's fine. however, to reach some sort of consensus... maybe we can all agree that yanni is crap. |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 07:36:49 PM · #16 |
Kitsch from the 1800s
 |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 07:37:40 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Fine Art is, always has been, and always will be, a subjective term used by people that believe they are better than others to distinguish themselves (or a group of themselves), from others. |
Couldn't have said that better myself. |
I'm amazed at how cavalierly people dismiss fine art at this site. It's sad. |
Nobody is dismissing fine art. I am dismissing the idea that it is in any way exclusive or non-subjective. |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 07:38:11 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Fine Art is, always has been, and always will be, a subjective term used by people that believe they are better than others to distinguish themselves (or a group of themselves), from others. |
Couldn't have said that better myself. |
I'm amazed at how cavalierly people dismiss fine art at this site. It's sad. |
Don't be dismayed. I dismiss it everywhere else too ;-)
|
|
|
|
03/30/2007 07:39:26 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Fine Art is, always has been, and always will be, a subjective term used by people that believe they are better than others to distinguish themselves (or a group of themselves), from others. |
Couldn't have said that better myself. |
I'm amazed at how cavalierly people dismiss fine art at this site. It's sad. |
Nobody is dismissing fine art. I am dismissing the idea that it is in any way exclusive or non-subjective. |
No, you were dismissing Fine Art. I know how to read. |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 07:41:19 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Fine Art is, always has been, and always will be, a subjective term used by people that believe they are better than others to distinguish themselves (or a group of themselves), from others. |
Couldn't have said that better myself. |
I'm amazed at how cavalierly people dismiss fine art at this site. It's sad. |
Nobody is dismissing fine art. I am dismissing the idea that it is in any way exclusive or non-subjective. |
No, you were dismissing Fine Art. I know how to read. |
Reading is one thing, rejecting the clarification of the speaker about something HE SAID is folly. Don't be offended simply because you want to be. |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 07:43:34 PM · #21 |
I dismissed "fine art". But if anyone wants to pay $10K for any print in my portfolio, I'll call it anything you want me too. :-P
Fine art is an elitist term used to give worth to art that the aristocrats admire. Nothing more, nothing less.
Edit for clarity.
Message edited by author 2007-03-30 19:44:15.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2007 07:47:43 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Fine Art is, always has been, and always will be, a subjective term used by people that believe they are better than others to distinguish themselves (or a group of themselves), from others. |
Couldn't have said that better myself. |
I'm amazed at how cavalierly people dismiss fine art at this site. It's sad. |
Nobody is dismissing fine art. I am dismissing the idea that it is in any way exclusive or non-subjective. |
No, you were dismissing Fine Art. I know how to read. |
I didn't say fine art didn't exist, or dismiss it. I said it's a subjective term. Which it is. I have my ideas of what fine art is for myself. You have yours. Agenkin has his.. Fotomann has none (just kidding).. etc. etc. etc. However, I do not believe that any art form is in any way better than any other art form on a basic level. The only thing that separates something that people term 'fine art' from 'not fine art' are a bunch of people gathering together to decide that they like a form better than others. That's all. The end.
This is why you have a million people looking at Mona Lisa, which is a painting *I* find rather boring and not worthy of my time, and only a few hundred looking at another piece of work in a small-town museum that I find utterly fascinating.
What *you* feel is fine art, to you, is fine art. It might not be to me or someone else. That's not dismissing it, it's merely qualifying that there's no true genre except in the eyes of whatever majority group of people is agreeing on what it is at that particular point in time. |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 08:09:02 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Oh well, I often say art is usually an excuse for bad technique :-) |
Then how do you explain your "Got Cheese" photo? Oh wait, that's bad taste. Nevermind.
Message edited by author 2007-03-30 20:09:33. |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 08:18:59 PM · #24 |
Fine art photography, sometimes simply called art photography, refers to high-quality archival photographic prints of pictures that are created to fulfill the creative vision of an individual professional. Such prints are reproduced, usually in limited editions, in order to be sold to dealers, collectors or curators, rather than mass reproduced in advertising or magazines. Prints will sometimes, but not always, be exhibited in an art gallery.
The term Art is used to describe a particular type of creative production generated by human beings, and the term usually implies some degree of aesthetic value. An artist makes a work of art for various purposes, such as creating an experience for others or as part of a ritual. There is no general agreed-upon definition of art, since defining the boundaries of "art" is subjective, but the impetus for art is often called human creativity.
-- in Wikipedia
Using simple words, Art is produced more for beauty or spiritual significance than for physical utility. You can have art in a fork or simply his pysical utility.
Here's an exemple you can read in both ways. It depends on the viewer.
 |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 08:21:29 PM · #25 |
To me ... "fine art" is the kind of art everyone else looks at and ponders its significance in the overall scheme of things, but when I look at it ... I just don't get it. ;-)
|
|
