| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/31/2007 04:39:09 PM · #76 |
ok, I'll agree with you,  asimchoudhri :) |
|
|
|
03/31/2007 04:50:38 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well I'll go on record as saying almost everything that comes out of a Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera does not qualify as fine art. |
i think a lot of people that shoot with or admire the photos from Diana and Holga cameras might disagree with you. |
|
|
|
03/31/2007 06:15:36 PM · #78 |
|
|
|
03/31/2007 06:19:02 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
There are convenient quotes from famous people to illustrate any imaginable position ... So, please, stop throwing names at me. :) |
OK, but why can't I use them to illustrate mine? |
|
|
|
03/31/2007 10:22:59 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by asimchoudhri:
some different approaches include:
1- art is defined by the creator, and it doesn't matter what the observer thinks
2- art is defined by the response of the observer, regardless of the intention of the creator
3- art is defined by the creator AND the response of the observer |
Thanks, this distinction is important. Obviously I was talking about #2.
As to your point of things being named after the artists, but not critics, I believe that the critics' role is rather underestimated. I think that the critics take upon themselves a rather unpleasant role, which is very necessary to drive the artists to challenge themselves. |
|
|
|
03/31/2007 10:23:48 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
OK, but why can't I use them to illustrate mine? |
Sure, I was half-joking. "Half", because it was funny to see several name droppings in a row. :) |
|
|
|
03/31/2007 11:37:10 PM · #82 |
I 'm quite confident that there is a reasonably reliable way to tell a 'good' image (in the sense of 'sound' and 'worthy') from a 'lesser' one, which would have nothing to do with its popular appeal and everything to do with a universal quality inherent in it. When, on very rare occasion, the two coincide, we would have what I'd call a 'great' work.
Yet, much 'great' work remains unrecognized. It is not the quality of such work which is lacking, it is only that the range of human experience itself varies significantly between individuals. Love, grief, joy, sorrow; envy, jealousy even, the drama and tragedies we all share effect us more or less profoundly, sooner or later or, sadly, not at all, if we deny them.
We can, however, ask questions to help us determine the quality of a work. These are some questions I ask which, I believe, can take us beyond a mere subjective appeal:
ΓΆ€ΒΆ does the image exhilarate?
ΓΆ€ΒΆ does it stimulate awareness?
ΓΆ€ΒΆ does it accommodate or promote disscociation?
ΓΆ€ΒΆ does it encourage resentment against evil?
ΓΆ€ΒΆ does it convey a charge (as in energy)?
ΓΆ€ΒΆ does it have range? Can we define that range?
ΓΆ€ΒΆ is it an imitation, an invention or neither?
ΓΆ€ΒΆ if it appears to be an imitation, is the imitation well concealed or frankly acknowledged?
ΓΆ€ΒΆ is the mood, emotion, circumstance of the photo credible and convincing?
ΓΆ€ΒΆ does the work inspire transport, restlessness, action, thought?
ΓΆ€ΒΆ if someone looked at the same image once every ten years, would it still hold true?
If the answers do not come unequivocally but indicative of the possibilities of scale, I believe, we have something we can safely call measure.
Different people have different causations, and I don't think it matters if one has come to art (the excitement, the near-religious experience of it) via one way or another, but I do believe that those who have the most to gain or loose by it will likely be driven to discriminate between that which they recognize as either good and solid or as soft and rotten. They will stake their life on the first and, readily, put their fist through the other.
This, IMO, is how art is managed when it is capably managed. It is how it gets places where it can be seen and felt, where it can be of use to the people who rarely know what is good for them, if my shrink and history is any indication.
Art, I propose, is measured, not defined.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2007 11:49:41 PM · #83 |
I think it is easy to define "photographic art" - a term I prefer that is roughly equivalent to "fine art photography." Here are two operational definitions:
1) Photographs that are displayed as art works by art museums along with art in other media (painting and sculpture) are photographic art.
Photography has long been considered an art form and has been displayed by art museums. But shows of photographs were relegated to the basement or back hallways. In the last few years there has been a major shift; photographs are being displayed in the prime exhibit areas for contemporary art. These works are being recognized as being on a par with works in traditional media. This is photographic art.
2) Photographs that are sold in the art market at prices comparable to works in other media are photographic art.
Lots of people here are glad to sell prints for prices in the hundred dollar range. Art prices tend to be much higher. A photographic diptych of an American supermarket by Andreas Gursky sold on February 7th at Sothebys for 1.7 million pounds (over 3 million dollars). This was a record-breaking price and is certainly not typical. But the price of non-art photographs is usually based on production costs; a different logic determines art prices.
Neither of these definitions is very useful to those of us (like me) who would like to be photographic artist. They don't help us get accepted by museums or to sell our works at art market prices.
Arcady has been more helpful. He, at least, is telling us what not to do.
--DanW |
|
|
|
04/01/2007 12:02:52 AM · #84 |
Hey, I resemble that remark!!! And I'm no one's step child. :P
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
[...Photography is a red-headed step child in the world of fine art anyway. Digital photography is a red-headed step cousin twice removed. ...} |
Message edited by author 2007-04-01 00:03:22. |
|
|
|
04/01/2007 12:48:24 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Art, I propose, is measured, not defined. |
That's a fair statement.
An artwork often evolves over time as well. Nostalgic value seems to support a lot of things.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2007 12:49:33 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by wheeledd:
I think it is easy to define "photographic art" - a term I prefer that is roughly equivalent to "fine art photography." Here are two operational definitions:
1) Photographs that are displayed as art works by art museums along with art in other media (painting and sculpture) are photographic art.
Photography has long been considered an art form and has been displayed by art museums. But shows of photographs were relegated to the basement or back hallways. In the last few years there has been a major shift; photographs are being displayed in the prime exhibit areas for contemporary art. These works are being recognized as being on a par with works in traditional media. This is photographic art.
2) Photographs that are sold in the art market at prices comparable to works in other media are photographic art.
Lots of people here are glad to sell prints for prices in the hundred dollar range. Art prices tend to be much higher. A photographic diptych of an American supermarket by Andreas Gursky sold on February 7th at Sothebys for 1.7 million pounds (over 3 million dollars). This was a record-breaking price and is certainly not typical. But the price of non-art photographs is usually based on production costs; a different logic determines art prices.
Neither of these definitions is very useful to those of us (like me) who would like to be photographic artist. They don't help us get accepted by museums or to sell our works at art market prices.
Arcady has been more helpful. He, at least, is telling us what not to do.
--DanW |
The problem with this definition is that pretty well everything is not "art" until long after it has been created. We put things in museums and pay millions of pounds for them when they are old and the artist is dead. |
|
|
|
04/01/2007 01:54:34 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Art, I propose, is measured, not defined. |
That's a fair statement.
An artwork often evolves over time as well. Nostalgic value seems to support a lot of things. |
More than fair..... near perfectly accurate. The measure brings much more than nostalgia.....
Art in general is a social phenomena, in particular it is a "confession of personality." Art is a "process of abstracting." (not to be confused with pure abstraction).
Art workers have little or no control, and really no business in society's results of the accumulation of work, except through the channel of their craft.
"What this country does not need is more fine art"
quotations - John Graham & Garrison Keillor
Message edited by author 2007-04-01 10:05:53. |
|
|
|
04/01/2007 11:12:30 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Art, I propose, is measured, not defined. |
You do realize that, once you come up with a measurement method, it becomes the definition. :) It doesn't matter if we say "measured" or "defined" - the most important point is that there are some criteria (both objective and subjective) that can help tell art from otherwise.
By the way, here is a "measurement" method for photo-art that I recently saw. I think that it is, at the very least, interesting. The method talks of three levels of an art photography. It is somewhat reminiscent of Pashis' definition of art photography that's linked to above, with a twist.
First level is informative, it's where the technicals are evaluated: is the bit of reality that makes up this photograph captured adequately?
The second level is the photograph's symbolism, semantics. What is it that this photograph tells us or makes us feel beyond that which is visible up front?
The third is the level of abstract composition. In this level you try to dehumanize the image, that is throw away all of its symbolisms, emotions, meanings, and information, and evaluate it entirely as a combination of light spots, lines, patterns, etc. It helps to mentally try to replace visible objects by abstract shapes (cubes, spheres, pyramids, etc.) and see whether the composition still makes an involving image.
The idea is that all three levels are necessary to "measure" an art photo. |
|
|
|
04/01/2007 11:15:35 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
First level is informative, it's where the technicals are evaluated: is the bit of reality that makes up this photograph captured adequately?
The second level is the photograph's symbolism, semantics. What is it that this photograph tells us or makes us feel beyond that which is visible up front?
The third is the level of abstract composition. In this level you try to dehumanize the image, that is throw away all of its symbolisms, emotions, meanings, and information, and evaluate it entirely as a combination of light spots, lines, patterns, etc. It helps to mentally try to replace visible objects by abstract shapes (cubes, spheres, pyramids, etc.) and see whether the composition still makes an involving image.
The idea is that all three levels are necessary to "measure" an art photo. |
Yes, but all of the art, ALL of it, comes from how those three things interact. |
|
|
|
04/01/2007 10:11:25 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
You do realize that, once you come up with a measurement method, it becomes the definition. :) It doesn't matter if we say "measured" or "defined" - the most important point is that there are some criteria (both objective and subjective) that can help tell art from otherwise... |
We can borrow method from biologists: first hand examination and continual comparison of one slide of a specimen with another (study an image in its generic, cultural, historic context and by contrasting it with diverging takes when possible). If we move closer to a definition of sorts by doing so, I have no objection.
The problem with attempting a definition these days lies with the fact that ten different people will have ten different understandings of the terms used for describing their meaning. It is a problem of language as much as it is symptomatic of our tendency to abstract by moving from away from the simple toward generalities.
So it does, in my view, matter a great deal, whether we set out to measure or go for definition from the start. Personally, I do not trust any contemporary with the kind of care for terminology that would, actually, clarify this issue.
As far as the subjective/objective axis is concerned, it's easy to blow into the subjective horn. It's quite a different matter to to show objective criteria. I do not believe it can be done without a 'measure', by going over the facts of an image with scrutiny, diligence and a sense for context, no matter how many times we split the atom. |
|
|
|
04/01/2007 10:19:08 PM · #91 |
| is there a quirky, grainy snapshot category of photography? I think this might be where i belong. |
|
|
|
04/01/2007 10:25:46 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by grigrigirl:
is there a quirky, grainy snapshot category of photography? |
that is definitely art, especially since you top my statistical favorite list! |
|
|
|
04/01/2007 10:40:25 PM · #93 |
I don't think that this thread is going to resolve the issue.
My $.02 is that a lot of how images are classified comes down to good salesmanship, timing, and which social class of people are exposed to the imges.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2007 10:48:08 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
I don't think that this thread is going to resolve the issue.
My $.02 is that a lot of how images are classified comes down to good salesmanship, timing, and which social class of people are exposed to the imges. |
You could only spare two cents for the discussion? :-( |
|
|
|
04/01/2007 10:58:19 PM · #95 |
| the way i see it, if you can touch just one person, then you have accomplished something. The world of claiming yourself as an artist is typically a land of pompous egomania...at least from my experience in such worlds. This site is offended by a definition of fine art photography because everyone wants to be an artist. How can you get a proper assesment of your work from other insecure photographers all striving to impress? Perhaps the judging of something as art should indeed be left to the critics. Can an artist even really know if he has created fine art? I would imagine the creation of a piece is pure self expression in the moment of its creation. I have no idea what fine art photography is. I only know what i like. And with a site like this, what I like is generally over looked and under appreciated. Sometimes it hurts my soul when I have seen an image that I consider brilliant and inspiring, and then to see that it has been over looked by the masses. I do know that the imagery I see here does become redundant. The same concept becomes utilized over and over again. Its as bad as browsing wedding photography websites. You see the same thing over and over again. It is depressing when it seems that everything has been done and there is nothing new to discover...nothing new to do. And, it is boring to see the same concepts utilized on this site..over and over and over again. But that is just rude of me. This is a learning site. People of all levels of understanding are here to learn and grow in the realm of photography. I wish people would be more original and enter images that they shoot for themselves..not images shot for a challenge..shot for a score. I wish people would do this because I desperately want more inspiration. I want someone to prove to me that photography is not limited and there will always be new angles, new light, new expression in this medium to be discovered. I wish people would quit belly aching about scores and just shoot because they love it. Enter the odd and unusual in the hope that just one person might be touched...and then be happy with that when he/she is. This mass appeal for ribbon winning is just a sign of our human greed. We all want to be recognized, loved and appreciated on some level of our being. A dpc ribbon is not gonna do it. It is not food for the soul. This is off topic somehow..i will be quiet now... |
|
|
|
04/01/2007 11:01:04 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by grigrigirl:
the way i see it, if you can touch just one person, then you have accomplished something. The world of claiming yourself as an artist is typically a land of pompous egomania...at least from my experience in such worlds. This site is offended by a definition of fine art photography because everyone wants to be an artist. How can you get a proper assesment of your work from other insecure photographers all striving to impress? Perhaps the judging of something as art should indeed be left to the critics. Can an artist even really know if he has created fine art? I would imagine the creation of a piece is pure self expression in the moment of its creation. I have no idea what fine art photography is. I only know what i like. And with a site like this, what I like is generally over looked and under appreciated. Sometimes it hurts my soul when I have seen an image that I consider brilliant and inspiring, and then to see that it has been over looked by the masses. I do know that the imagery I see here does become redundant. The same concept becomes utilized over and over again. Its as bad as browsing wedding photography websites. You see the same thing over and over again. It is depressing when it seems that everything has been done and there is nothing new to discover...nothing new to do. And, it is boring to see the same concepts utilized on this site..over and over and over again. But that is just rude of me. This is a learning site. People of all levels of understanding are here to learn and grow in the realm of photography. I wish people would be more original and enter images that they shoot for themselves..not images shot for a challenge..shot for a score. I wish people would do this because I desperately want more inspiration. I want someone to prove to me that photography is not limited and there will always be new angles, new light, new expression in this medium to be discovered. I wish people would quit belly aching about scores and just shoot because they love it. Enter the odd and unusual in the hope that just one person might be touched...and then be happy with that when he/she is. This mass appeal for ribbon winning is just a sign of our human greed. We all want to be recognized, loved and appreciated on some level of our being. A dpc ribbon is not gonna do it. It is not food for the soul. This is off topic somehow..i will be quiet now... |
Wow. Keep talking :)
|
|
|
|
04/01/2007 11:13:10 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by grigrigirl:
the way i see it,[snip]..i will be quiet now... |
as always I agree with 99% of what you say, JB. The only thing I'll contest is the notion of entering challenges as a means of self-expression. the *point* of entering a challenge is to win, right? Otherwise why not just put the photos in your portfolio? Just as an olympic athlete will use tried and true techniques to win, a photographer would/should do the same. Every so often someone tries something new and it actually works, then people jump on board and do the same thing. Ever watch Michael Johnson run the 200m? Goofiest running style I ever saw at the time - now it's commonplace (moreso, anyway). It's when the new innovations capture the imagination of the masses that I think he/she has succeeded. Remember the first time you saw one of Manny's portraits on the site? To us it was new back then. Now people can say the style is tired and overused, but dammit it's still good. Better than good - freaking inspirational at times :)
most of the time I don't post the stuff that really moves me for the same reasons you don't. I appreciate it for me, and I don't want that feeling ruined by those who don't agree :) |
|
|
|
04/01/2007 11:20:08 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by Pedro:
most of the time I don't post the stuff that really moves me for the same reasons you don't. I appreciate it for me, and I don't want that feeling ruined by those who don't agree :) |
Yes, unlike some ribbon-winners, you can and do take inspirational, truly original photos, photos that are art, but you rarely enter them into challenges. And I think that's unfortunate. Yes, your scores would take a hit. But DPC would improve. The best way for voters to open their mind to art is to have someone established blow their minds.
But it's not my place to hand you a cross. We all must bear our own cross! Keep on truckin' |
|
|
|
04/01/2007 11:21:06 PM · #99 |
| I've come to learn art cannot be captured within the confines of definition but is only experienced when its message brushes against your soul. You cannot explain how the wind feels against my face as it is my wind and my face and my experience. That is art. |
|
|
|
04/01/2007 11:23:45 PM · #100 |
Pedro...that is where we differ. You let mass opinion affect your own opinion of yourself and your work. If you really and truly appreciate something of your own creation..why would another not appreciating it affect you? Its fine to enter only for high scores. I am purpously entering redundancy at the moment. Its all an experiment. But you, pedro, of all people...have so much potential. Is it fair to say I would like to be inspired by such things? Why not share your intimacy by sharing those images that come from the truest of you?
I believe that if we are to evolve as photographers, we must evolve as humans. How are we to evolve if we limit ourselves to the boundary of limited mass appeal and "what works" for the moment? |
|
