| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/14/2008 03:07:36 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by mchalmers:
Art is subjective (Let's start with that)... |
Why? What good is it to move from the specific to the general making assumptions? |
|
|
|
01/14/2008 04:19:57 PM · #52 |
I question the necessity of specific intent to create "art". While most artists do intend to create art, the process for doing so can be a messy one, prone to accidents, some of which result in trash while others are bound to be happy accidents. Accidents that go someplace the artist did not originally intend to go, but are interesting and original enough to be called art. Artists, as a whole, would seem to have more of these happy accidents than the average person simply because they do more work. That does not preclude the average person from unintentionally having one of these happy accidents, though I suspect they are much more rare.
Message edited by author 2008-01-14 16:20:21.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2008 04:46:48 PM · #53 |
The "intent" to create art requires that one define oneself as an "artist". Much art has been created by folks who do not so define themselves, and would deny the label if it were applied to them.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2008 04:51:48 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by goodman:
art is in the eye of the beholder. if it speaks to me i'd buy it.
 |
...b-b-but the horizons not straight...y-y-you can't even see her face and h-her skirt is blown out. Grain!!! A little dark and NOT sharp at all.
What a fiasco. I wish I could say it was mine.
The OP had me miffed. I'm glad to read some great responses.
I haven't seen the collection's in question, so it's difficult to judge the OPers response but the thread title speaks volumes.
Les-I'm gonna let you pick all my faves from now on. |
lol, looks like i started something :) its awesome isnt it. |
|
|
|
01/14/2008 05:38:21 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I question the necessity of specific intent to create "art". While most artists do intend to create art, the process for doing so can be a messy one, prone to accidents, some of which result in trash while others are bound to be happy accidents. Accidents that go someplace the artist did not originally intend to go, but are interesting and original enough to be called art. Artists, as a whole, would seem to have more of these happy accidents than the average person simply because they do more work. That does not preclude the average person from unintentionally having one of these happy accidents, though I suspect they are much more rare. |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The "intent" to create art requires that one define oneself as an "artist". Much art has been created by folks who do not so define themselves, and would deny the label if it were applied to them. |
Let me clarify by what I meant by "intent of the artist" - while one can certainly define oneself as an artist and set out with the intent of creating art, that is narrower than what I mean. I simply mean to allude to the "intent to create" - note that this is just an intent to engage in an act of creation, not an intent to create art - without the deliberate creation, there can be no art. Does this rule out "happy accidents" as art, or the work of so-called "naive artists"? I don't think so, as long as the work occurs within that intention of creation. The end result does not have to be exactly what the artist was intending when they set out, but it also cannot be result of completely random chance.
By way of example - Let's say there is an unpaved courtyard where a group of people walk back and forth all day. This constant passage of people back and forth makes a pattern on the dirt of the courtyard that is quite pleasing to the eye and visually interesting. Is this art? I would say no. Now let's say that the people were walking back and forth across the courtyard with the intention of seeing what pattern would result? Is this art? I'd say yes. Is it "good" art. I don't know, I'd have to see it to judge. What if the people walked back and forth across the courtyard with no creative intent at all, but some photographer comes walking along and notices the cool pattern that the walking people have made and takes a picture. Is that art? Again, I'm willing to say yes.
The "intent to create" doesn't mean a rejection of chance, participation, serendipity, or any other organic or "democratic" approach. "Let's see what happens," is a perfectly valid approach.
But I maintain that there is no art without intent. If you have intent and an audience (even if it is just an audience of self) then there is the possibility of art. Without both, it's just a bunch of people trudging through the dirt. |
|
|
|
01/14/2008 05:41:25 PM · #56 |
Boy Meets Girl
...a match made in heaven
Message edited by author 2008-01-14 18:18:49. |
|
|
|
01/14/2008 07:06:51 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
... without the deliberate creation, there can be no art....
The "intent to create" doesn't mean a rejection of chance, participation, serendipity, or any other organic or "democratic" approach. "Let's see what happens," is a perfectly valid approach.
But I maintain that there is no art without intent.... |
I like your unpaved courtyard analogy., and your sense, I feel, is close enough to mine, as well.
I do, however, see a problem with terms and their usage, specifically here and in contexts like this. I haven't done a forum search for (what I'd consider) common DPC cliches: "the artist's intent/subjective art/art in the eye of the beholder" etc., but I bet you'll find numerous occurrences of these and similar blanket statements. It is also very easy to fall into the semantic trap.
But this isn't about semantics. It isn't about quick definitions either. To define art, even if this were possible, would be entirely inconsequential. But many people have a sincere interest in what art is, where it comes from, in what makes it tick and in how it effects us. Anyone intent (pun) on creating art would sustain such an interest, not as an academic exercise but, perhaps, as a result of struggling with the simple question of how and what to approach or just to arrive at some way to begin.
When such a man or woman looks to the outside, he'll preconceive and sort his ideas by subject divided into degrees of meaning (which worked for a while until history disposed of subjectivism and declared it officially and happily dead). The trouble (and joy of it) is that anyone lives in the present, and this is where he must look for the magic. Homer, Michelangelo and Cartier-Bresson lived in their present. We must find ours, individually, first hand and par experience.
When a man looks to the inside, he listens and observes here and now, he partakes in the present. His ego (which, of course, was behind all his ideas and intent) should become largely superfluous or - it acts as a kind of lyrical interference. The more he sheds it, the clearer the air and his vision.
In your charmingly imitable analogy, there is, the way I see it, no intent at all. There is discovery.
To call it intent would point to a presence of ego, again, killing the whole harvest.
Message edited by author 2008-01-14 19:34:49. |
|
|
|
01/14/2008 07:33:14 PM · #58 |
|
|
|
01/14/2008 07:43:52 PM · #59 |
[seriousness off]
So the 'intent' thingy rules out all the things I do while I am drunk. Specially the poetry part.
[/seriousness off] |
|
|
|
01/14/2008 07:46:25 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
[seriousness off]
So the 'intent' thingy rules out all the things I do while I am drunk. Specially the poetry part.
[/seriousness off] |
Intent is different than inspiration! :-)) |
|
|
|
01/14/2008 07:49:45 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Intent is different than inspiration! :-)) |
Dude, I don't care what your lawyer says... :-P
|
|
|
|
01/14/2008 08:13:50 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I question the necessity of specific intent to create "art". While most artists do intend to create art, the process for doing so can be a messy one, prone to accidents, some of which result in trash while others are bound to be happy accidents. Accidents that go someplace the artist did not originally intend to go, but are interesting and original enough to be called art. Artists, as a whole, would seem to have more of these happy accidents than the average person simply because they do more work. That does not preclude the average person from unintentionally having one of these happy accidents, though I suspect they are much more rare. |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The "intent" to create art requires that one define oneself as an "artist". Much art has been created by folks who do not so define themselves, and would deny the label if it were applied to them. |
Let me clarify by what I meant by "intent of the artist" - while one can certainly define oneself as an artist and set out with the intent of creating art, that is narrower than what I mean. I simply mean to allude to the "intent to create" - note that this is just an intent to engage in an act of creation, not an intent to create art - without the deliberate creation, there can be no art. Does this rule out "happy accidents" as art, or the work of so-called "naive artists"? I don't think so, as long as the work occurs within that intention of creation. The end result does not have to be exactly what the artist was intending when they set out, but it also cannot be result of completely random chance.
By way of example - Let's say there is an unpaved courtyard where a group of people walk back and forth all day. This constant passage of people back and forth makes a pattern on the dirt of the courtyard that is quite pleasing to the eye and visually interesting. Is this art? I would say no. Now let's say that the people were walking back and forth across the courtyard with the intention of seeing what pattern would result? Is this art? I'd say yes. Is it "good" art. I don't know, I'd have to see it to judge. What if the people walked back and forth across the courtyard with no creative intent at all, but some photographer comes walking along and notices the cool pattern that the walking people have made and takes a picture. Is that art? Again, I'm willing to say yes.
The "intent to create" doesn't mean a rejection of chance, participation, serendipity, or any other organic or "democratic" approach. "Let's see what happens," is a perfectly valid approach.
But I maintain that there is no art without intent. If you have intent and an audience (even if it is just an audience of self) then there is the possibility of art. Without both, it's just a bunch of people trudging through the dirt. |
Then what of those objects that are the result of pure chance? As an example, when I used to shoot 35mm film, once the cassette was loaded, two or three frames needed to be exposed to make sure the film was properly engaged and the film being exposed was not fogged. Occasionally, I would not have the lenscap on and some of those frames were quite interesting visually and I went so far as to submit them to a juried show. The creation of these works was totally without intent. They display all of the characteristics of art, yet, by your definition, they are not art. I disagree.
Message edited by author 2008-01-14 20:14:46.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2008 08:29:27 PM · #63 |
Sometimes I think the debate is more about the term artist versus art. I believe that all people who deem themselves as an artist have intent in their work. Art on the other hand can be the creation of a self proclaimed artist or those by happenstance. Art is something that appeals to the human subscious on an intangible level.
Their are many people who the public deems as an artist but the individual themself does not. Likewise there are those who consider themselves artists yet what they produce is not art.
Blah blah blah. My random 2 cents |
|
|
|
01/14/2008 08:31:35 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
 |
Sorry for the sidetrack but I just wanted to recommend that all of  zeuszen's posts should automatically include a background image and fancy fonts.
Carry on. |
|
|
|
01/14/2008 08:32:09 PM · #65 |
*
Message edited by author 2008-01-21 16:32:06. |
|
|
|
01/14/2008 09:09:11 PM · #66 |
| Ha, look what I started. But really, I've come to question an artists motives. I think they know how to take shots that leave a lot of subjectivity and criticism, but they themselves really aren't expressing anything too profound through there work. It's the critics that invent most of the deep meanings. |
|
|
|
01/14/2008 09:15:17 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
Ha, look what I started. But really, I've come to question an artists motives. I think they know how to take shots that leave a lot of subjectivity and criticism, but they themselves really aren't expressing anything too profound through there work. It's the critics that invent most of the deep meanings. |
It's not my job to invest my work with "meaning". Without a viewer there is no "art". The "meaning", such as it is, comes from the connection with the viewer. It is what YOU make of it, not what I make of it. The critic, pompous and self-involved though he may be, has a valid point of view, at least equal to the POV of any other viewer.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2008 09:17:45 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
It's the critics that invent most of the deep meanings. |
Exactly. This is why whenever I see a documentry finding hidden meanings of MonaLisa it puts smile on my face.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2008 10:02:51 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
Ha, look what I started. But really, I've come to question an artists motives. I think they know how to take shots that leave a lot of subjectivity and criticism, but they themselves really aren't expressing anything too profound through there work. It's the critics that invent most of the deep meanings. |
It's not my job to invest my work with "meaning". Without a viewer there is no "art". The "meaning", such as it is, comes from the connection with the viewer. It is what YOU make of it, not what I make of it. The critic, pompous and self-involved though he may be, has a valid point of view, at least equal to the POV of any other viewer.
R. |
I would have to disagree on the equal part. At least a critic makes an attempt to see through analysis and a good one without reservation where as the average joe, especially a jealous one, goes straight to conclusion.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2008 10:14:49 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by yanko:
The critic, pompous and self-involved though he may be, has a valid point of view, at least equal to the POV of any other viewer.
R. |
I would have to disagree on the equal part. At least a critic makes an attempt to see through analysis and a good one without reservation where as the average joe, especially a jealous one, goes straight to conclusion. [/quote]
You'll notice I said at least equal?
R.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2008 02:41:15 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by figaro:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
most of the time (especially in digital) it boils down to a lazy or bad photographer. |
*flinches* The amount of time I spend on my B&W conversions...
|
Hey, if you're not hitting the desat button, I'm happy :-D |
Having just voted on the Portrait with Spectacles challenge I'm now inclined to agree with you on what seemed initially to be a bit of a sweeping statement. A lot of very good B&W stuff goes on at DPC from people who know what makes a good B&W and can produce an effective conversion. On this evidence, that's certainly not the majority. |
|
|
|
01/15/2008 03:44:10 PM · #72 |
when i take a picture - i'm a photographer
when i hang it a gallery - i'm a artist
when i sell it - i'm a successful artist
:)
|
|
|
|
01/30/2008 02:43:25 PM · #73 |
Different medium, but reflecting much of the apathy/antagonism towards various new art forms expressed in this thread. (And a fun rant to boot.)
Michael Collins, "Bansky's Ideas Have the Value of a Joke"
"The core of art today is satire and gags and attention-getting stunts. As a society we all kind of know this but somehow we also accept that it̢۪s a social faux pasever to mention it." |
|
|
|
01/30/2008 03:26:20 PM · #74 |
Art vs. commercial photography... Look at my top row, those of my photos that DPC decided it likes. Then look at second row of my own selections, the ones I like. The top row is crisp and oversaturated. The bottom row is largely soft and experimental.
The idea that anything DPC doesn't like can't possibly be art is just silly. Everything in my top row has been submitted to other contests at one point or another. Everything that has won real world ribbons or other recognition is quite a bit further down in the standings. I like my second row much better than my first, even though their subjects are terminally common. A leaf clinging to a tree. Me sitting on my bathroom floor. A common house plant. Yet another photo of my cat. For me, these have more of a right to be called art than the ones the folks here happened to like best.
I don't care anymore about what anyone here thinks is art or not art, good photography or bad photography. I definitely don't like the idea that "good" is limited to the stuff that does well here. These days, I prefer exploring the world beyond that.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2008 03:43:09 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by ralph:
when i take a picture - i'm a photographer
when i hang it a gallery - i'm a artist
when i sell it - i'm a successful artist
:) |
And when you edit it to please the DPC? |
|
