| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/30/2007 09:17:28 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
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. ;-) |
me too. I can look at photographs and paintings all day but usually at a gallery I only find a few I like or that touch me and those are usually not the ones everyone else is gushing over. |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 11:06:47 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by frisca:
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. |
It's folly to hold people to what they say? Perhaps it is. But even with his retraction-that's-not-a-retraction-because-he-never-said-what-he-said, I'm still hearing the familiar chorus that it's impossible to talk about art because it's subjective. Everything's subjective. You can still talk about it. In fact, you're still allowed to think about it. If you want to argue with agenkin, take him on with logic, not by dismissing the ability to reason as elitist. For a start, you can mention that art occurs across all genres and therefore you cannot exclude items from art simply by saying what genre they are in (especially Kitsch. A lot of Kitsch is art). |
|
|
|
03/30/2007 11:20:32 PM · #28 |
This is shaping up to be an interesting thread - it would be nice if it could stay coherent and not get locked.
I agree that it would be useful to define our terms more clearly to begin.
I am unhappy with the term 'fine art'. I am not sure what this means. I think I have an idea about what 'art' means, but I have some sympathy with many people above who think 'fine art' may just be a pretentious phrase. In fact I think it may be a good deal more sinister.
When I have encountered the phrase in the past it usually imports something purely subjective - almsost being synonymous with good art or very good art. I associate the phrase with the superior type of antique shop and with university prospectuses and learned societies. In French the term 'beaux arts' is, i believe, a near synonym.
I think it is an exclusionary term, designed to categorise at a stroke artistic endeavours as being worthy or unworthy of academic study. In modern terms this may extend to include worthiness for public funding or serious review etc.
The decision as to what is included in the worthy and unworthy categories will always subject to challenge. Some challengers will be accepted into the category of the worthy. The decision will be made by the guardians of those arts already within. Thus the best, or the most forceful, or the most amenable of the unworthy will become worthy. Crucially the most dangerous and potentially explosive of the unworthy will become worthy also. Thus their dangerous tendencies will be neutered.
I'm pretty sure Gramsci was among the first to outline this kind of idea. It fits in with his ideas of cultural hegemony and the adoption by the ruling class of the best of the cultutal innovations of the working class. I'm sure he explained it better, but that was in Italian and he had more time to think.
If this is the case then some of the pictures and categories set out above are ipso facto not 'fine art' since they clearly do not fall within the established canon of fine art. It is interesting to note in passing the expansion of the French Academie des Beaux Arts to include cinema in 1985 and photography in 2005.
If however we are just asking whether or not they are art the question is still open.
As to the categhories outlined at the beginning.
Even if kitsch is not fine art it may well be art. Kitsch seems unlikely ever to be accepted as fine art, partly because the fact that it is not fine art is part of what defines kitsch. It is a response to fine art. It is also not sufficiently threatening to the establishment to be require adoption by the establishment.
Look what I came up with ? This might in some circumstances be capable of being fine art. Ceci, ce n'est pas une pipe. Surrealism. Cubism. Miro. Kandinsky ? I can imagine all these movements and artists saying 'Come and see what I came up with.'
Pictures of things. Pictures of things are not fine art ? Well maybe. But to give just one example you are going to have to expalain Durer, especially The Young Hare, the Rhinoceros, The Large Turf. The miraculous thing about these pictures is that they are simply pictures of things, just things, not religious allegories or moral lessons but just a hare, a rhinoceros, a piece of earth, and worthy of being the subject of art in their own right. By the way, if kitsch is ever going to be art then Durer's self portraits will be at the front of the queue.
So I'd like some clarification. Are we discussing photography as art or as fine art ?
Are we supposed to accept that the categories of picture proposed above are defintively neither art nor fine art ?
Is the list of such categories cloased ?
Or is there an alternative method of working which might address these questions more effectively ?
PS I hope at least some of this made sense. It's late.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2007 11:51:27 PM · #29 |
Cool; an Interesting discussion about photography.
I think⦠(And this is just my opinion)
The categories Agenkin has assembled here do show some clear differences between the styles of photos, but I think without much effort we could pair each of these styles up with a similar style of what is widely considered âFine-Artâ in the real world.
Iâm not an expert on what is or isnât fine-art, but I think there are photos here at DPC that I would consider fine-art that fit all of these categories. We need to consider that most of the photoâs here at DPC are competing to meet a topic. The artists were never trying to create fine-art.
We have had several challenges of, shooting in the style of.....
I donât think weâve had a fine-art challenge yet. That might be fun, and a great way for everyone to show their version of fine-art.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2007 12:22:47 AM · #30 |
removed by dwterry
Message edited by author 2007-03-31 11:13:53.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2007 01:26:25 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by frisca:
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. |
It's folly to hold people to what they say? Perhaps it is. But even with his retraction-that's-not-a-retraction-because-he-never-said-what-he-said, I'm still hearing the familiar chorus that it's impossible to talk about art because it's subjective. Everything's subjective. You can still talk about it. In fact, you're still allowed to think about it. If you want to argue with agenkin, take him on with logic, not by dismissing the ability to reason as elitist. For a start, you can mention that art occurs across all genres and therefore you cannot exclude items from art simply by saying what genre they are in (especially Kitsch. A lot of Kitsch is art). |
Wow.. that's exactly what I *did* say.
Guess you failed grade 1 after all. |
|
|
|
03/31/2007 01:52:27 AM · #32 |
I wonder why anyone would want to define 'fine art'? The artist is rarely one who makes that decision about a work anyway.
Sometimes I believe that we try to define 'fine art' so we can more easily create it. I think that's a mistake.
The very nature of this site does not lend itself to fine art. The objective here is to shoot for mass appeal. In my personal experience, how 'fine' a piece of art is will be inversely proportional to the number of people who like it.
Photography is a red-headed step child in the world of fine art anyway. Digital photography is a red-headed step cousin twice removed.
The easiest way to make fine art is to spend a lot of time shooting the subjects you love to shoot. It will be fine art in your eyes. If your fine art requires public acceptance, you will likely give up photography before you get a chance to really get started.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2007 03:12:38 AM · #33 |
|
|
|
03/31/2007 03:19:30 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I wonder why anyone would want to define 'fine art'? The artist is rarely one who makes that decision about a work anyway.
Sometimes I believe that we try to define 'fine art' so we can more easily create it. I think that's a mistake.
The very nature of this site does not lend itself to fine art. The objective here is to shoot for mass appeal. In my personal experience, how 'fine' a piece of art is will be inversely proportional to the number of people who like it.
Photography is a red-headed step child in the world of fine art anyway. Digital photography is a red-headed step cousin twice removed.
The easiest way to make fine art is to spend a lot of time shooting the subjects you love to shoot. It will be fine art in your eyes. If your fine art requires public acceptance, you will likely give up photography before you get a chance to really get started. |
^
|
what he said. |
|
|
|
03/31/2007 08:19:36 AM · #35 |
I fail to understand why one would look at challenges to define fine art. Challenges are more like shooting for a job than producing fine art, you get an assignment and you hope you shoot something the client (voter) will like. If anything, DPC is about creativity. If fine art is a by-product of someone's effort then we get a bonus.
Tim
Edit: Typo
Message edited by author 2007-03-31 08:20:12. |
|
|
|
03/31/2007 10:29:21 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I wonder why anyone would want to define 'fine art'? The artist is rarely one who makes that decision about a work anyway.
Sometimes I believe that we try to define 'fine art' so we can more easily create it. I think that's a mistake. |
No, my intention was not to talk about "how", but about "what". Why some images raise complex thoughts and feelings in the viewer, while the effect of others is, at best, curiousity, or, at worst, disgust? I find talking and thinking about this interesting and challenging, that's all there is to it.
However, if one understands *what* he wants to achieve in his work, it may be easier for him to get there. But I don't think that understanding what's art, and what isn't is a requirement for creating it; I think that some artists work at an intuitive level.
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
The very nature of this site does not lend itself to fine art. The objective here is to shoot for mass appeal. In my personal experience, how 'fine' a piece of art is will be inversely proportional to the number of people who like it. |
The objective here is whatever each of us chooses; some compete for the votes, others take an opportunity to present their work and discuss it. |
|
|
|
03/31/2007 10:34:10 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
Okay ... so what if we share some of the DPC images that *WE* think are representative of fine art? |
As the thread creator, I would prefer we did not do that. I asked in the first post to stay on the topic of what is not art, because, in my opinion, is is a simpler task. Some of the postings in this thread prove that, I've never seen so much agreement when discussing the definition of art. I understand how hard it is not to shift in discussing what is art, but let's try. :)
Message edited by author 2007-03-31 10:34:55. |
|
|
|
03/31/2007 10:38:00 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by Ben:
I agree with all points and examples, well said, but i'd like to see you now define fine art photgraphy. :) |
I once posted a definition with which I agreed in a different thread. I still think that that definition is very close, with one addition. But please let's not discuss it here. :) |
|
|
|
03/31/2007 10:40:40 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by biteme:
And: I just don't think Kitsch is the right word for the photos you picked. |
What word do you have in mind?
Originally posted by biteme:
What is your intention with this thread? |
Talking about art and non-art photography. |
|
|
|
03/31/2007 10:49:02 AM · #40 |
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. |
Some of it is subjective (which, as Don pointed out, does not prevent us from discussing it).
But a great deal of it is objective. I'll give you an example. Is microfilm reproduction of books a genre of art photography? I think that we can quite objectively identify this type of photography as non-art. And I believe that the list does not end with this.
This is how I think that all of the categories I identified in the first post are objectively non-art. My choice of examples was subjective, and I understand that some people hold Librodo's images, for instance, for something more than kitsch, so we can disagree there. But there is nothing subjective about the categories, defined abstractly. |
|
|
|
03/31/2007 11:01:28 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by Pedro:
Kitsch from the 1800s |
I don't believe any of Van Gogh's paintings have anything to do with kitsch. If someone ever considered them kitsch, they were wrong. The sample you posted is anything but primitive and easy to swallow. I don't understand how or why it would be called kitsch. |
|
|
|
03/31/2007 11:11:05 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by biteme:
What is your intention with this thread? |
Talking about art and non-art photography. |
Art vs. non-art? OK, all the "classifications you made examples of are art. They might not be "fine art" but even the simplest stick drawing by a 4 y/o is "art".
I think you've gone above your head a bit or you fell off your rocker...
|
|
|
|
03/31/2007 11:16:09 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
I asked in the first post to stay on the topic of what is not art, because, in my opinion, is is a simpler task. Some of the postings in this thread prove that, I've never seen so much agreement when discussing the definition of art. I understand how hard it is not to shift in discussing what is art, but let's try. :) |
Understood, and I've removed the post.
But, isn't it easier to figure out what something is, or is not, by discussing both sides of it? It gives you something to throw darts at ... to see if they stick or not. Anyway, as I said, I removed the post.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2007 11:18:09 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
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. |
I've read all of this with much interest, but I'm still troubled by your definition of "kitsch" as it applies to photography, though I see you aren't necessarily satisifed with this definition. Can you explain what low taste is? High taste? Present an example of high taste?
Whereas I can accept that popular images here represent a kind of commercialism that's readily consumed, your definition including "low taste" does indeed sound exclusionary, as though most people are unable to distinguish brass from dross. Perhaps this ultimately defines "fine art" for you, as others suggest?
|
|
|
|
03/31/2007 11:30:12 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by thelobster:
I am unhappy with the term 'fine art'. I am not sure what this means. I think I have an idea about what 'art' means, but I have some sympathy with many people above who think 'fine art' may just be a pretentious phrase. In fact I think it may be a good deal more sinister. |
I agree, the term Fine Art is dubious; that's why I prefer saying Art, but the problem is that, I think, many people include craft as an art form, so saying "fine art" seems appropriate in some cases. Of course, possibility of acceptance (or otherwise) of a photograph by the establishment is something that I don't care to discuss very much.
Originally posted by thelobster:
As to the categhories outlined at the beginning.
Even if kitsch is not fine art it may well be art. Kitsch seems unlikely ever to be accepted as fine art, partly because the fact that it is not fine art is part of what defines kitsch. It is a response to fine art. It is also not sufficiently threatening to the establishment to be require adoption by the establishment. |
I don't think Kitsch is a response to fine art; I think it's a response to popular demand for art.
Originally posted by thelobster:
Look what I came up with ? This might in some circumstances be capable of being fine art. Ceci, ce n'est pas une pipe. Surrealism. Cubism. Miro. Kandinsky ? I can imagine all these movements and artists saying 'Come and see what I came up with.' |
Good point, but I did not mean to say that "Look what I came up with!" images cannot be art, just that, most of the times, they aren't.
Originally posted by thelobster:
As to the categhories outlined at the beginning.
Even if kitsch is not fine art it may well be art. Kitsch seems unlikely ever to be accepted as fine art, partly because the fact that it is not fine art is part of what defines kitsch. It is a response to fine art. It is also not sufficiently threatening to the establishment to be require adoption by the establishment. |
I don't think Kitsch is a response to fine art; I think it's a response to popular demand for art.
Originally posted by thelobster:
Pictures of things. Pictures of things are not fine art ? Well maybe. But to give just one example you are going to have to expalain Durer |
As you said yourself, Durer's pictures are interesting to us today because they broke the tradition, which adds a whole new layer of importance. A similar painting of a hare, if drawn today, and not in the late XV century, is unlikely to attract much interest.
Originally posted by thelobster:
Are we supposed to accept that the categories of picture proposed above are defintively neither art nor fine art ?
Is the list of such categories cloased ? |
No, we are supposed to discuss them, and add other categories.
Originally posted by thelobster:
Or is there an alternative method of working which might address these questions more effectively ? |
Perhaps.
Originally posted by thelobster:
PS I hope at least some of this made sense. It's late. |
Certainly did, thanks!
Message edited by author 2007-03-31 11:31:29. |
|
|
|
03/31/2007 11:35:12 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I've read all of this with much interest, but I'm still troubled by your definition of "kitsch" as it applies to photography, though I see you aren't necessarily satisifed with this definition. Can you explain what low taste is? High taste? Present an example of high taste? |
Yes, I dislike the "low taste" wording myself, it's too ambiguous. Would saying "primitive, lacking sophistication" be better? |
|
|
|
03/31/2007 11:36:35 AM · #47 |
I would still like to see the OPs idea of "fine art" photography. I understand this thread is trying to wead out what isn't but we could be here all day adding categories. I especially like the "I dropped my camera down the stairs and this is what I got" category (common amongst camera phone users).
Is there anyone on here that does "fine art" photography? If there are... do they ever win ribbons? I see amazing photographs go unnoticed but by a handful ever challenge and it's truely disheartening... but are those even "fine art" enough? |
|
|
|
03/31/2007 11:38:27 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Is there anyone on here that does "fine art" photography? |
I do and you should all be ashamed of yourself for not seeing it as such and be willing to pay premium prices for it.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2007 11:43:35 AM · #49 |
I implore you then, please post something that you would consider as "fine art". you have given plenty of examples of differing categories, but not an example of fine art photography.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2007 11:45:55 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by Louis:
I've read all of this with much interest, but I'm still troubled by your definition of "kitsch" as it applies to photography, though I see you aren't necessarily satisifed with this definition. Can you explain what low taste is? High taste? Present an example of high taste? |
Yes, I dislike the "low taste" wording myself, it's too ambiguous. Would saying "primitive, lacking sophistication" be better? |
Not sure how tongue-in-cheek your response is, but at least it affirms what I said about exclusion and mass appeal. Still, you should define high taste, or non-primitive, or sophisticated photographs, and rather than try to define what something is not, which seems counter-intuitive, you should explain to us what the antithesis of non-fine-art looks like to you. :/ See how goofy this gets? |
|
