intentional vs random - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

09/25/2003 04:45:46 PM · #1

Relating to some of the recent threads on snapshots et.al.

What are your feelings regarding art, does it always have to be done with intent?
Can "art" be random in nature? Opportunistic?

dsa157

Canon EOS-50D

09/25/2003 04:56:21 PM · #2

sure! I think some of those happy accidents can result in amazing art. I think it still boils down to the final product though - does it have universal appeal (or a particular interest group or other subsection of the population) or is it just something *you* (ie the photographer) think is worthwhile.

Nothing wrong with the latter case, you should enjoy your own work, but don't subject the rest of us to it.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

09/25/2003 05:48:02 PM · #3

luck plays a big part. But you tend to be luckier the more prepared you are and the more planning that's gone into being lucky...

Its hard to be lucky with a great sunrise if you are at home in bed for example...

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

09/25/2003 06:15:07 PM · #4

hmm,, but "happy accidents" are, by and large, random.

Can they be art? yes and no, I think.

For example, a photographer is intentionally take photo's of, say the pyramids at Giza, and by chance, while shooting just as the light gets right, all the tourists w/ tacky shirts are out of frame, she/he starts shooting and lo and behold upon review of the nights shoot,,,, the space shuttle had been goin across the moon.

Now, certainly this is a random, unpremedidated happy circumstance... no the she/he didn't know it was going to happen.....

BUT if the shot had not been set up with care initially, that random occurance could very well be "just" another snap full of nasty shadows and who knows what else.

Can anyone give an example of a truly random piece of art?

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

09/25/2003 06:16:52 PM · #5

Originally posted by sslickk:

Can anyone give an example of a truly random piece of art?

Anything by Jackson Pollock ?

Lava Lamps

Random Dot Stereograms.

jimmythefish

Canon EOS-10D

09/25/2003 06:28:56 PM · #6

Pollock's stuff was anything but random...

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by sslickk:

Can anyone give an example of a truly random piece of art?

Anything by Jackson Pollock ?

Lava Lamps

Random Dot Stereograms.

irockstars

Canon PowerShot A70

09/25/2003 07:36:59 PM · #7

In my Art 101 book, it lists the formal elements of design [line, value, texture, etc]. But also listed is chance!
I don't see how art could be planned. Sure, you often start with the idea in your head, but how many times does it turn out exactly how you had imagined? By physically working with the materials, we usually find a better solution.

OneSweetSin

Nikon D3000

09/25/2003 07:52:19 PM · #8

Originally posted by irockstars:

Excellent defination!

09/25/2003 07:58:03 PM · #9

Originally posted by irockstars:

I agree,,, when working w/ glass you rarely have an object turn out exactly as planned. Working w/ any mutable medium creates the opportunity for random chance to become involved.

That's not what I'm talking about, what I ponder is; can a work of art, as defined by a walk throught say the Art Institute or Met, have been originated as a truly random or chance occurance.

I wonder if some one put an automatic imaging device in a place selected by a computer generated set of co-ordinates, if that device would be able to capture a random image deemed worthy to be called art?

Sort of the give a chimpanzee enough time with a typewriter and eventually he will write a complete sentence train of thought.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

09/25/2003 08:01:57 PM · #10

Yup - you can even vote on it. I wonder if the computers argue about what the scores mean ?

//gs2.sp.cs.cmu.edu/art/random/

09/25/2003 08:47:41 PM · #11

snort......

Some of it is interesting I grant... and if we thought a person or persons had laboured over it would we look at it differently?

jmritz

Fujifilm X30

Custom Made Pinhole

09/25/2003 09:06:44 PM · #12

From my point of view all actions have an element of randomness to them. I'll bet even the best photographers out there take more than one photo of a given item. Even if it was set iup.

09/25/2003 09:24:27 PM · #13

Originally posted by sslickk:

That's not what I'm talking about, what I ponder is; can a work of art, as defined by a walk throught say the Art Institute or Met, have been originated as a truly random or chance occurance.

I think that the question should be rephrased. Almost any item can be thought of as art depending on the situation, culture, person and so on. (I'm obviously not talking about quality, although that might be the actual point of this thread.)

The question of art can be rephrased as a question of place and time. The same object in different spacial or temporal situations may be regarded as art or not. A famous example comes from music when John Cage 'performed' his 4'22'', a piece consisting of silence. Arguably, this is as confrontational as the Pollock example mentioned earlier. Cage was stating that even nothing, when presented with all the trappings of art, needs to be considered (think of the meaning of considered carefully) as art. The promting of this act of considering is one function of art.

The same holds true with Hirst putting a chemically-enriched cow in a tub, or (forget name) throwing tyres on the floor of the Tate Gallery. The place of art, in this case the Tate, is established. The time for art is also established. The actual content is a matter for the viewer or listener.

Originally posted by sslickk:

Sort of the give a chimpanzee enough time with a typewriter and eventually he will write a complete sentence train of thought.

09/25/2003 09:32:59 PM · #14

Originally posted by Koriyama

The same holds true with Hirst putting a chemically-enriched cow in a tub, or (forget name) throwing tyres on the floor of the Tate Gallery. The place of art, in this case the Tate, is established. The time for art is also established. The actual content is a matter for the viewer or listener.

[quote=sslickk:

Sort of the give a chimpanzee enough time with a typewriter and eventually he will write a complete sentence train of thought.

Even if they did manage to produce something that resembled a humanly-typed sentence by sheer mathematical coincidence, it doesn't mean that they will have somehow embodied the chain of cognitive events we call thought.[/quote]

Exactly,, and if we bring into the equation "thought" the idea must be there right from the start.... Yes, it may mutate,yes randomness becomes part of the process,, but it all hinges on the intitial concept.
Whether it is worthy to be called art is, of course, many times exceedingly debateable.

So true random art/images/etc.etc.etc. do not have THOUGHT so would not have that essential element of premeditation which is what engenders an integral part of art. ?

jmritz

Fujifilm X30

Custom Made Pinhole

09/25/2003 09:55:40 PM · #15

Well, I think it is the observer that denotes the (ART) interpretation. It is our minds that perceive and attach meaning to objects. They could be created by the weather,time of day,how we are feeling. Does that mean ART is in us.:)

09/25/2003 11:23:38 PM · #16

Originally posted by jmritz:

No, because we don't/ can't control the variables you say. We can, and do, control the location and timing of art.

It would be possible, of course, to capture that moment in any subjective manner you feel fit and present that as art. The art comes in the presentation, not of the object.

TooCool

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

09/26/2003 01:04:31 AM · #17

Chance HAS to be part of the equation....Why else do print photographers (for example in the fashion field but also in wild life, sports etc....) shoot miles of film???? There is always a random element unless you are talking about absolute still life!!!

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

09/26/2003 01:16:05 AM · #18

The reason why they shoot rolls and rolls of film isn't in the vain hope that they'll get a great shot. To imagine that would be say that the difference between the great and the rest of us lies purely in chance.

They take rolls of film because the Chances are something will happen between the point when they choose to release the shutter button and the film actually being exposed. In that split second, heads can turn, eyes can blink, the subject can move away from the focal point.

They will think about their shot, compose it, then expose it as professionals. They don't take great shots by chance. Great shots are ruined by chance.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

09/26/2003 01:17:49 AM · #19

Originally posted by toocool:

You could take the point of view that they are "leaving nothing to chance" by virtually shooting photo-quality videos of the models.

The one who takes a chance is the photographer who needs a fashion shot, snaps off a frame, and sends the model home and goes off to develop it ....

Almost all rainbow shots are a result of chance, or circumstance, or serendipity. So are most good candids, and action shots of accidents, incidents, or events.

smellyfish1002

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

09/26/2003 01:22:53 AM · #20

Originally posted by sslickk:

I have heard that when lightning hits the sand on a beach, it melts the sand into glass, some of which are nice sculptures. Totally random and accidental... created by Nature!
JD

09/26/2003 03:09:02 AM · #21

Originally posted by smellyfish1002:

I have heard that when lightning hits the sand on a beach, it melts the sand into glass, some of which are nice sculptures. Totally random and accidental... created by Nature!
JD

However beautiful these objects may be, they are not art. The term 'art' originally stands in opposition to 'natural'. That is, 'artificial' 'made by man'.

Now, if these objects were taken from their natural environment either physically or photographed and shown to the world in a recognised situation, that action of showing them would be considered art.

jmritz

Fujifilm X30

Custom Made Pinhole

09/26/2003 02:06:38 PM · #22

Now, if these objects were taken from their natural environment either physically or photographed and shown to the world in a recognised situation, that action of showing them would be considered art

That is exactly what I said.It is the human mind that Percieves ART as ART. It can be anything! I could run my fingers through sand and the world could all stand up an yell,"That's ART!".Or just a well known Critic, And the rest of us would ponder, "Maybe".