Non-Art photography at the DPC - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

03/31/2007 12:22:56 PM · #54

I wish I could express myself in English as I do in my first language to better explain my point of view, but I'll try.

This is one of the most interesting threads from the last months, and I think it will be a good opportunity to clarify some misunderstandings without any preconception.

It's a good idea, before using labels like "Art", "Fine Art", "Kitsch", etc to know what they mean. Wikipedia is a good place to clarify this words (confused by many).

And we must understand that labels exists to make our life easier.
So there is no problem in them and no one have to be afraid to be labeled with some of them.

The secret is to be labeled without general agreement. Only the best artists can stay in this category,
because they are original and above everything.

Please see this links for the definition of Art, Fine Art and Kitsch.

IMO almost all of us (me included) are aspiring to produce art, and that is a noble decision,
but art is a sublime activity not reached by all. In most cases we do produce studio Craft.

For sure, there are some photographers here at DPC making art, and no one producing Fine Art,
but the best label I can find to define the most popular photographers around here is Kitsch.

Yes, Kitsch is the label that best fits the dominant taste of DPCers.

Below, you can find some links with good examples of Kitsch (used painting for the examples).
Margaret Keane, Thomas Kinkade, Boris Vallejo and Maggi Hambling (this last link is a not so obvious kitsch example, but for sure is kitsch)

IMO DPC=Kitsch.

RobotBanjo

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

03/31/2007 12:38:50 PM · #55

"The the idea of art kills creativity."
-Douglas Adams

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

03/31/2007 12:39:45 PM · #56

Originally posted by De Sousa:

I wish I could express myself in English as I do in my first language to better explain my point of view, but I'll try.

Very well said.

_eug

Nikon D50

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

03/31/2007 01:03:13 PM · #57

Originally posted by NightShy:

"The the idea of art kills creativity."
-Douglas Adams

You quoted Douglas Adams. I love you.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

03/31/2007 01:26:40 PM · #58

"Kitsch" is an excellent term to categorize most high-scoring DPC work, and possibly most DPC work in general. My own included. Although I find it odd none of agenkin's examples included landscapes.

Unfortunately, many people think "kitsch" refers exclusively to the sentimental/saccharine genre of "art" and this isn't so. It's worthwhile posting the introduction from Wikipedia's "Kitsch" page linked earlier:

Kitsch is a term of German origin that has been used to categorize art that is considered an inferior copy of an existing style. The term is also used more loosely in referring to any art that is pretentious or in bad taste, and also commercially produced items that are considered trite or crass.

Because the word was brought into use as a response to a large amount of art in the 19th century where the aesthetic of art work was associated with a sense of exaggerated sentimentality or melodrama, kitsch is most closely associated with art that is sentimental; however, it can be used to refer to any type of art that is deficient for similar reasonsâ��whether it tries to appear sentimental, glamorous, theatrical, or creative, kitsch is said to be a gesture imitative of the superficial appearances of art. It is often said that kitsch relies on merely repeating convention and formula, lacking the sense of creativity and originality displayed in genuine art.

Though kitsch and kitschy may be terms used to criticize, the term is sometimes used as a compliment as well, with some finding kitschy artwork to be enjoyable for its "retro" value or unintentional, ironic humor or garishness.

The whole idea/concept of "kitsch done deliberately as Art" has always fascinated me. For whatever that's worth.

At the risk of being ridiculed, here's one of the few images I have entered in a DPC Challenge that I think approaches "true art":

Comments by a number of people indicate to me that it is working at an abstract level, which basically is what you need to have "Art", IMO, as opposed to "Craft".

R.

Pedro

Nikon D200

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED

03/31/2007 01:40:47 PM · #59

Originally posted by agenkin:

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.

I was mostly just amusing myself - that self-portrait of VanGogh (which I agree is not at all Kitschy) is one of many he painted to boost his own chronically suffering ego. Apparently (I never met him so this is third-hand information) he often painted himself without his flaws to feel better.

I don't disagree that lots of DP art is kitsch as you've defined it, but I contend that throughout history art could fit that definition. Masterfully done representations of what that particular society has deemed 'beautiful'. I could just as easily has posted Rembrandt's Portrait of a Young Woman with the Fan, 'cause in the 1600's she was The Heat :)

It's an interesting thread. Likely an examination of the Evolution of Art, more than anything. I wonder what will be considered Kitschy in 2100?

Peace

03/31/2007 01:43:00 PM · #60

I am mainly offended that Arcady didn't include any or my shots in what is not "fine art". I've endured enough of his comments on my ribbon winners to not be on that list!

For shame!

Personally I think we too often make the mistake that "fine art" means "unaccessible art". Personally I find a much better definition of "fine art" to be "examples within a genre that reveal a mastery of the modality". I guess that avoids the "which modalities count as fine art?" question altogether, but we'd probaby not even be talking about photography at all in most art circles if that were the question.

In that regard I think Arcady misses the boat. Anybody who has read his previous posts knows he has an obvious taste in photography (B&W photojournalism with minimal processing). I basically read his original post more as a "this is what I don't like" essay rather than a discussion of "what qualifies as fine art?".

03/31/2007 01:46:23 PM · #61

Originally posted by agenkin:

I missed this the first time through the thread, but I think this perfectly reveals that agenkin is merely defining kitsch to his own tastes. The argument is known as "The True Scotsman" in atheism/theism circles. Everything that fits his argument is defined as kitsch, everything that doesn't fit his argument is rejected as "well, that wasn't true kitsch to start with."

Mozart was WILDLY popular in his day. Is his work not fine art?

Message edited by author 2007-03-31 13:47:32.

krnodil

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

03/31/2007 01:54:43 PM · #62

Originally posted by Pedro:

Masterfully done representations of what that particular society has deemed 'beautiful'.

I like this definition of kitsch - and it's especially important to keep in mind the "masterfully done" aspect. Kitsch doesn't necessarily equate to "cheap" or unskilled attempts at artistic representation. Kitsch inspires a love/hate relationship, in a sense, because we (sometimes) respond to it, despite our recognition of potential cliche in the representation itself.

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED

03/31/2007 01:55:52 PM · #63

I think Pedro was using that definition for "art" not "kitsch"...

charliebaker

Canon PowerShot S2 IS

03/31/2007 01:58:22 PM · #64

In this fascinating discussion, I stand as one who appreciates art in its many forms, and prefer not to make hard line distinctions between fine art, sentimental art and commercial art. IMO, art is what we create that reflects/touches the whole of our life as human beings, including our spirit, not just our eye or mind. This is perhaps what Robert (Bear) is referring to with his statement, "working at an abstract level, which basically is what you need to have Art".

Sister Wendy Beckett has done us a lovely service, in her work as an art commentator, to help ordinary folks discover the wonder of art in its many forms. When asked how one might learn to look at art, Sister Wendy's answer offers some helpful insights into this present forum discussion:

I would tell them to go to a museum and look at no more than two or three works, perhaps even two or three taken at random. Look at them. Walk backwards and forwards between them. Go and have a cup of coffee. Come back again. Wander around the museum. Come back again. Go to the shop. Buy postcards of them. Look again, and go home. At home, look at the postcards. Borrow from the library books on these artists. Go back again. Eventually you will find they open up like one of those Japanese paper flowers in water. You have to expend time and energy. If you don't want to do that, you can still get a lot of enlightenment and entertainment by just wandering around, but you'll never get the deep spiritual nourishment.

PBS on Sister Wendy

Pedro

Nikon D200

03/31/2007 02:01:24 PM · #65

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I think Pedro was using that definition for "art" not "kitsch"...

Personally I'd say it was both, but i was referring to Arcady's OP which was referring to Kitschy Photographs of beautiful people. Cuz I like to take those, kitschy or otherwise :P

krnodil

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

03/31/2007 02:08:26 PM · #66

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I think Pedro was using that definition for "art" not "kitsch"...

Possibly, but he made the contention prior to that definition that "throughout history art could fit that definition" of kitsch, in a sense making the claim that all art has a kitschy potential.

Or am I off on my interpretation? Pedro? :) I don't want to put words in your mouth you didn't intend...

Pedro

Nikon D200

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED

03/31/2007 02:15:49 PM · #67

Originally posted by krnodil:

You've read me correctly :)

and with respect to the OP, I really only took one small part of a long post to respond to. So in fairness that may have been a minor part of his original contention. I don't really have a strong enough opinion on the subject to get into a lengthy debate about it. Besides the ponies are at the gate in just over an hour, and I have a date with a thoroughbred.

P's out

Seanachai

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

03/31/2007 02:33:46 PM · #68

Originally posted by agenkin:

Thoughts, additions, objections?

Opinion has caused more trouble on this little earth than plagues or earthquakes.
- Voltaire

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/31/2007 03:14:22 PM · #69

Art is making something out of nothing and selling it.
-- Frank Zappa (1940 - 1993)

It is only an auctioneer who can equally and impartially admire all schools of art.
-- Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Critic as Artist, 1891

Jammur

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

03/31/2007 03:19:13 PM · #70

My thanks to the OP for providing us with the opportunity to philosophize about the meanings of art.

I resist the idea of turning art, and in this forum the art of photography, into stamp collecting, and I have fundamental questions about this process.

Why do we feel the need to categorize everything?

Is it elitism or defeatism? (I understand art so well that I know the difference between this and that. or I can't understand all of art, so I'll specialize.)

Does giving something a name tell us any more about its nature or message?

theyetifanclub

Nikon D50

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 28-80mm f/3.3-5.6G

03/31/2007 03:52:37 PM · #71

Not to be rude, but I think it is bad taste to point out someone's work as 'not art'. If we photographers are REALLY artists, we'll stop critisizing someone else's style. I mean look at the film vs. digital fued going on, I think art is someones way of expressing themselves all those 'Kitsch' images were excellent examples of fine art, did the artist covey feeling and emotion, is the peice beautiful to look at, and is the peice thought provoking? Yes, then it's fine art, let's stop bickeing and share out diffrent styles!

Message edited by author 2007-03-31 15:53:27.

agenkin

Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera

Nikon MF Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 AIS

03/31/2007 04:19:04 PM · #72

Originally posted by Seanachai:

Opinion has caused more trouble on this little earth than plagues or earthquakes. - Voltaire

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Art is making something out of nothing and selling it. -- Frank Zappa

It is only an auctioneer who can equally and impartially admire all schools of art. -- Oscar Wilde

There are convenient quotes from famous people to illustrate any imaginable position. For example, Frank Zappa *also* wrote that art is anything around which one puts a frame: for example, if one blows his nose on stage, declaring a miniature, it automatically becomes art. So, please, stop throwing names at me. :)