| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/04/2005 06:54:49 AM · #26 |
As far as I can make out it is when someone decides they will pay big bucks to hang it on their wall.
|
|
|
|
09/04/2005 07:25:08 AM · #27 |
The question is like this. Wich is more art than another Britney Spears or let's say Pavarotti? Some of the youngsters will say Britney is art, I can't. But if you look back in history, most artists wasn't well recived at theyr time, Rembrandt literrarily died of starvation, Dali was jailed a few times, everyone hated impressionism when it first started, most of them was better recived far after they died. Today there is a new factor in it. Industry. We live the big globalization where according to some, even in this thread, if it doesn't worth alot of money it doesn't woth shit.
It's the same with photography, and it is verry hard to draw the line between what is purely comercial, art and snapshot. Especially between the first 2, snapshot is easier to recognize, it is that photography that makes you woner "what on earth should i like here?" I myself am a traditionalist I like old school photography and I have not much feeling for shiny colorful digital macro of flowers and insects. I tend to regard those as purely comercial photography that triggers an imotion but an imediate and easy one. A direct one if you wish. I mean beautiful colors, pleasant to the eye what's not to like? but that's all it has (for me). On the other hand there is that type of photography, regardless of it's field, that you like but at first you have a verry hard time to tell why you like it. And you keep staring at it, and come back to it for so many times in search to find the answer to he question. "Why do I like this so much?" I think this is where art photography really starts. But it is all subjective to the viewer's perspective.
I think it is not the tehnically perfect, it is certainly not what people would spend alot of money on, I tink it's what will remain over years. |
|
|
|
09/04/2005 09:53:25 PM · #28 |
It usually takes society a little longer to catch with and to understand the work that is true 'art'. Most of the so called artists of their time end up being forgotten. Something that sells is really no indication of it's quality or it's ultimate influence. There is tons and tons of so called art. It has it's moment and then quietly slips off into oblivion.
|
|
|
|
09/04/2005 09:56:34 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by azoychka:
It usually takes society a little longer to catch with and to understand the work that is true 'art'. Most of the so called artists of their time end up being forgotten. Something that sells is really no indication of it's quality or it's ultimate influence. There is tons and tons of so called art. It has it's moment and then quietly slips off into oblivion. |
But that doesn't make it any less "art"; it just makes it less enduring art... We're making a big mistake if we equate art with what endures, or for that matter with what is popular. Art is a state of being, as it were.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-09-04 21:56:57.
|
|
|
|
09/04/2005 10:11:57 PM · #30 |
2 ( the arts) the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance : the visual arts | [in sing. ] the art of photography.
Dictionary definition. Hmmm, well so much for that discussion. i do like the idea of it being a state og being. A very nice way of putting it.
|
|
|
|
09/04/2005 10:31:17 PM · #31 |
Piet Hein said it thus: "There is one art, no more, no less; to do all things with artlessness."
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-09-04 22:31:46.
|
|
|
|
09/04/2005 10:40:57 PM · #32 |
I think photography transends into art when it moves the emotions. I mean there are alot of snapshots out there, but there are also great art photographers. I would consider art photography to be another genre of photography just like port or commercial or medical ect. I think it's almost imposable to make it as a fine art photographer unless you can find a nich in the market. There are places like bar harbor maine and gatlenburg where art photographers can thrive if they are good.
|
|
|
|
09/04/2005 10:42:39 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by gi_joe05:
I think photography transends into art when it moves the emotions. I mean there are alot of snapshots out there, but there are also great art photographers. I would consider art photography to be another genre of photography just like port or commercial or medical ect. I think it's almost imposable to make it as a fine art photographer unless you can find a nich in the market. There are places like bar harbor maine and gatlenburg where art photographers can thrive if they are good. |
And Carmel, California; Mecca of the pure landscape photographer.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2005 06:00:22 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
it just makes it less enduring art... We're making a big mistake if we equate art with what endures, or for that matter with what is popular. Art is a state of being, as it were.
Robt. |
There is no such thing as less enduring art. Not where I live. In a young country like yours (no offence) that may be, but where I come from and in art school I been they tought us ALOT of arts history but they never told us there is also "less enduring art". I may have missed that course. If it makes you feel better you can think that, but I say art is Ansel Adams, HC Bresson and many more of these guys who will remain in histoy for ever, "less enduring art" by definition is something that is not to important to last? There is so much art in this world dating and enduring for thousands of years why would anyone even care about the less enduring when a life time is not enough to sniff the enduring one? Beats me. |
|
|
|
09/05/2005 06:46:29 AM · #35 |
There are plenty of great cameras and lens and common images but little art that leaves a lasting imprint on your soul. How many times do you have to see basically the same images over and over again before people get bored with it? Art is not some cool processing or great focus. DPCers love 'the same'. They glory in the familiar. The photo that takes no thougght, no effort, leaves no imprint, no emotion, but boy isn't that pretty and great technique. Well remember it is not the person that clicked the image but the person who designed the camera, lens and processing program. If there is an art here it lies with them! Sheesh! Can we not be so boring!
|
|
|
|
09/05/2005 07:12:53 AM · #36 |
I agree partly with azoychka. Last week someone made a posting about how we are drawn to "purdy" pictures, mostly due to societal conditioning. We look at an image, have seen it sold at print shops as framed or mounted art, and we automatically assume it is a great picture if we see one in the challenges like it. Art has a way of worming its way into your soul, and one way to tell if a photo here has artistic strength, is by seeing which ones you remember, even weeks after a challenge. If you can still see it, still be moved by it, then chances are that the photo is in the realm of art, at least for you. That is the trick in art. We are moved as individuals due to our personalities, experiences, and memories. Hence, art is difficult to define because it truly is a personal response within our own soul.
Message edited by author 2005-09-05 07:13:55. |
|
|
|
09/05/2005 07:25:28 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by azoychka:
There are plenty of great cameras and lens and common images but little art that leaves a lasting imprint on your soul. How many times do you have to see basically the same images over and over again before people get bored with it? Art is not some cool processing or great focus. DPCers love 'the same'. They glory in the familiar. The photo that takes no thougght, no effort, leaves no imprint, no emotion, but boy isn't that pretty and great technique. Well remember it is not the person that clicked the image but the person who designed the camera, lens and processing program. If there is an art here it lies with them! Sheesh! Can we not be so boring! |
AMEN! Most times I feel like here is more like a "how much I can spend on camera lenses and lighting equipment" contest than a photography contest. This should work verry well in a field that I described above as "comercial photography" but no art. Oh and since we are talking on what works on DPC there is also "how popular am I and how many site friends I can get to vote for me" contest but that's another discussion that I can' proove, it's just a feeling I have.
Originally posted by ladymonarda:
We are moved as individuals due to our personalities, experiences, and memories... |
You are right, but if I may, let me add to this, education and culture.
Message edited by author 2005-09-05 07:33:38. |
|
|
|
09/05/2005 08:31:26 AM · #38 |
I know what you mean. There is also the possibility that some of those voters without cameras have simply signed up to support one of their friends on the board, and vote those pictures tens and all the other's ones. The people I work with have offered to do that very thing for me, because they know my pictures in advance. I won't let them though. If I can't make the grade on my own merit, then it is not worth it to try. Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
Originally posted by azoychka:
There are plenty of great cameras and lens and common images but little art that leaves a lasting imprint on your soul. How many times do you have to see basically the same images over and over again before people get bored with it? Art is not some cool processing or great focus. DPCers love 'the same'. They glory in the familiar. The photo that takes no thougght, no effort, leaves no imprint, no emotion, but boy isn't that pretty and great technique. Well remember it is not the person that clicked the image but the person who designed the camera, lens and processing program. If there is an art here it lies with them! Sheesh! Can we not be so boring! |
AMEN! Most times I feel like here is more like a "how much I can spend on camera lenses and lighting equipment" contest than a photography contest. This should work verry well in a field that I described above as "comercial photography" but no art. Oh and since we are talking on what works on DPC there is also "how popular am I and how many site friends I can get to vote for me" contest but that's another discussion that I can' proove, it's just a feeling I have.
Originally posted by ladymonarda:
We are moved as individuals due to our personalities, experiences, and memories... |
You are right, but if I may, let me add to this, education and culture. |
|
|
|
|
09/05/2005 12:31:50 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by ladymonarda:
I know what you mean. There is also the possibility that some of those voters without cameras have simply signed up to support one of their friends on the board, and vote those pictures tens and all the other's ones. The people I work with have offered to do that very thing for me, because they know my pictures in advance. I won't let them though. If I can't make the grade on my own merit, then it is not worth it to try. |
AMEN! Most times I feel like here is more like a "how much I can spend on camera lenses and lighting equipment" contest than a photography contest. This should work verry well in a field that I described above as "comercial photography" but no art. Oh and since we are talking on what works on DPC there is also "how popular am I and how many site friends I can get to vote for me" contest but that's another discussion that I can' proove, it's just a feeling I have.[quote=ladymonarda]
Help...ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
|
|
|
|
09/05/2005 12:34:48 PM · #40 |
i call photography a 'subtractive' art. i don't know if this is said of photography by someone famous, it sort of just popped into my head one day. it basically means you narrow down your view of the world into a window (photo) to show a different way of looking at something. it takes the same skills IMO as composing a painting. you're attempting to stir emotion or pass along a message.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2005 12:37:37 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by saintaugust:
i call photography a 'subtractive' art. i don't know if this is said of photography by someone famous, it sort of just popped into my head one day. it basically means you narrow down your view of the world into a window (photo) to show a different way of looking at something. it takes the same skills IMO as composing a painting. you're attempting to stir emotion or pass along a message. |
exactly.
All photographs are doors to other worlds. Some doors you want to go through, some you don't. I love doors. :)
|
|
|
|
09/05/2005 12:42:13 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
Originally posted by bear_music:
it just makes it less enduring art... We're making a big mistake if we equate art with what endures, or for that matter with what is popular. Art is a state of being, as it were.
Robt. |
There is no such thing as less enduring art. Not where I live. In a young country like yours (no offence) that may be, but where I come from and in art school I been they tought us ALOT of arts history but they never told us there is also "less enduring art". I may have missed that course. If it makes you feel better you can think that, but I say art is Ansel Adams, HC Bresson and many more of these guys who will remain in histoy for ever, "less enduring art" by definition is something that is not to important to last? There is so much art in this world dating and enduring for thousands of years why would anyone even care about the less enduring when a life time is not enough to sniff the enduring one? Beats me. |
Look at it this way: Painter "A" is much-admired in his lifetime and his contemporary, Painter "B", is totally ignored, can't sell a painting to save his soul. A hundred years later, Painter "B" is considered by art historians and such to be one of the great artists of his time and Painter "A" is relegated to a footnote in the art history books, if that. His work did not endure, at least from that viewpoint (the critics aren't God, of course).
Yet both were artists.
It's not a matter of seeking out the less enduring, not at all; it's just that what endures acquires accumulated "value", from a cultural POV.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2005 12:46:18 PM · #43 |
ACKKK! The problem is when the masses dictate. I can only hope that a hundred years from now, Thomas Kinkade will be a footnote. Remember that when you worry about scores. Yes, you can be commercially successful to the point of cliche, but is that really what you want?
|
|
|
|
09/05/2005 12:54:38 PM · #44 |
| The value assigned by a viewer to a photograph that terms it as art is not a result of that piece speaking the loudest, the most eloquently or even in the most alluring voice; it is contained within the whisper to the viewer, "I am related to your experience." |
|
|
|
09/05/2005 01:14:21 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by RonBeam:
The value assigned by a viewer to a photograph that terms it as art is not a result of that piece speaking the loudest, the most eloquently or even in the most alluring voice; it is contained within the whisper to the viewer, "I am related to your experience." |
Nor really. It is not about whispering or relating to your experience. It goes well beyond that or everything would be the same. As we see here so often.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2005 01:26:02 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by azoychka:
Originally posted by RonBeam:
The value assigned by a viewer to a photograph that terms it as art ... it is contained within the whisper to the viewer, "I am related to your experience." |
Nor really. It is not about whispering or relating to your experience. It goes well beyond that or everything would be the same. As we see here so often. |
I don't believe you implying that our experiences are all the same, are you? Reread what I wrote. Of course the subjective nature of art speaks to the diversity of individual experiences. Why else would one weep in front of a Dali and another scratch the head and say. "What the heck is THAT!" |
|
|
|
09/05/2005 02:26:52 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Look at it this way: Painter "A" is much-admired in his lifetime and his contemporary, Painter "B", is totally ignored, can't sell a painting to save his soul. A hundred years later, Painter "B" is considered by art historians and such to be one of the great artists of his time and Painter "A" is relegated to a footnote in the art history books, if that. His work did not endure, at least from that viewpoint (the critics aren't God, of course).
Yet both were artists.
|
No they were not both artist. Painter A was just a comercial clicheist. Same way I'm sure that crazy frog song sells alot today but will be forgoten future generation no further than 1 year in the future won't know it ever existed, macarena, lambada, milli vanilli and so many bullshit that once were big sellers, as compared to Mozart who never sold anything at that time it was even impossible to sell anything but some louzy tickets, but he is there since centuries, and will be for centuries to come. Ofcourse, macarena, lambada, and all those had something that made the masses happy for a few days, but they lack that something that makes it last for ever. And I thing here is where we should search for art, not in how much it is sold regardles if during or after artist's life. That is a way to judge comercial potential of something, art can be also comercial but it is not a rule.
Someone said here that it must have a message and trigger an emotion. That's true but not too accurate, or to vague if you wish. I will use the same analogy. Macarena, Lambada, and all those, had some sort of mesage, and it clearly trigerred emotions. Happyness and joy when you dance to a brand new cool song in a disco is an emotion for sure. Any photography sends a message, even if the mesage is not more than "this is my dog" that is a message and I'm sure there are some who love dogs who will feel an emotion thowards the subject even if the image is the most terrible image of a dog that was ever made. I think the key word is refinement. How refined is that message and how refined is the manner in wich the aartist triggers an emotion.
We live in the digital age where almost everyone can aford a digicam and almost everyone is taking pictures everywere I go. That's happening even here in Romania where people are not that rich I can only imagine what goes on in the western world. It is a MUST only a few to have what it takes to make art or if we are all artists we loose the whole ideea. Art is something an artist does and the large majority is just saying WOW. It can't be the other way around, anyone who learns to handle a camera is an artist except those who don't care. And those are not even gonna come to say the wow. With a bit of training and spending on equipment anyone has what it takes to sell, but only a few make art.
Those are the ones who take such pictures that when you look at them, your nearly disgusted with all your pictures you ever taken, and realise that even if you feel you have potential there is still a loooooooong road ahead. I'm sure you have seen some of those, I did. |
|
|
|
09/05/2005 02:33:54 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
No they were not both artist. Painter A was just a comercial clicheist. Same way I'm sure that crazy frog song sells alot today but will be forgoten future generation no further than 1 year in the future won't know it ever existed, macarena, lambada, milli vanilli and so many bullshit that once were big sellers, as compared to Mozart who never sold anything at that time it was even impossible to sell anything but some louzy tickets, but he is there since centuries, and will be for centuries to come. |
In a sense, this begs the question, then. You're saying that "art" is whatever endures, and whatever does not is not "art". You are drawing a line and saying, "If you don't pass this level, it wasn't 'art'." That's a personal choice, and you have the right to make it, but it seems pretty limiting to me. You do not accept "degrees of art" apparently; yous eem to be saying "Either it's great, or it is not art. An "artist" is someone who makes great, enduring works of art."
But this leaves out of the equation all who strive for their entire lives but never become great. I think there are artists who deserve the title, thousands of them, tens of thousands even, who will be little-remembered but who nevertheless spoke to somethign important, in however limited or halting a way, and should not be put down or denigrated because they never became Rembrandt.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2005 02:44:53 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Look at it this way: Painter "A" is much-admired in his lifetime and his contemporary, Painter "B", is totally ignored, can't sell a painting to save his soul. A hundred years later, Painter "B" is considered by art historians and such to be one of the great artists of his time and Painter "A" is relegated to a footnote in the art history books, if that. His work did not endure, at least from that viewpoint (the critics aren't God, of course).
Yet both were artists.
|
No they were not both artist. Painter A was just a comercial clicheist. Same way I'm sure that crazy frog song sells alot today but will be forgoten future generation no further than 1 year in the future won't know it ever existed, macarena, lambada, milli vanilli and so many bullshit that once were big sellers, as compared to Mozart who never sold anything at that time it was even impossible to sell anything but some louzy tickets, but he is there since centuries, and will be for centuries to come. Ofcourse, macarena, lambada, and all those had something that made the masses happy for a few days, but they lack that something that makes it last for ever. |
A five year old child can create a work of art that may only hang on the refrigerator for a month. The fact that it was temporary makes it no less a work of art then something that endures the centuries. Thier are artists who create masterpieces in ice and others who sculp sand at the beach. The sweetist guitars in the world are never recorded and play for an audience of 2. That fact that fame has been sought out and found does not an artist make.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2005 02:47:33 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
In a sense, this begs the question, then. You're saying that "art" is whatever endures, and whatever does not is not "art". You are drawing a line and saying, "If you don't pass this level, it wasn't 'art'." That's a personal choice, and you have the right to make it, but it seems pretty limiting to me. You do not accept "degrees of art" apparently; yous eem to be saying "Either it's great, or it is not art. An "artist" is someone who makes great, enduring works of art."
But this leaves out of the equation all who strive for their entire lives but never become great. I think there are artists who deserve the title, thousands of them, tens of thousands even, who will be little-remembered but who nevertheless spoke to somethign important, in however limited or halting a way, and should not be put down or denigrated because they never became Rembrandt.
R. |
If it sounded like that, I didn't mean it like that. Art world is a tough one, and certainly isn't room for anyone, only a few pass thru and among those who die unknown, there many many really great artists I'm sure about that. As in everything luck also always goes in the ecuation I admit. I didn't mean the endurance as an absolute rule, god knows even crap can endure sometimes, and certainly not ONLY what endures is art. But from what once manages to break the ice, it is known, accepted sold and whatever and in a few years is completely forgoten that was no artistic value at all I have no doubt about that aonly a temporry commercial value. |
|
