| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/16/2011 03:50:31 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
I certainly understand the points being made about what constitutes art. However, I don't think photography always HAS to be art. There are many genres of photography that are perfectly valid and not art in any way. For example, I have been doing the product photography at work the last several years. I see my work appreciated when it saves my division money on hiring a pro (who did a sloppy job, IMO) and seeing those efforts used in our product brochures.
It does not all have to be art. It does not always have to tell a story or have some greater implied meaning. |
It can also be merely a vehicle. I find my photography to be more a matter of perspective, i.e. a way to share my view on a subject than art for its own sake. I've actually pretty much NOT considered myself an artist, but more of a craftsman who uses his equipment to accomplish his purpose.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2011 04:13:30 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The point with the Pieta was not that it is realism, but that it was meant to invoke positive emotions rather than "in your face" ones. |
What do you mean by "positive emotions"? Is crying positive or negative? Also, what do you mean by "in your face"? If you meant "forced to view it" then Christ the Redeemer statue would be guilty as charged. However, I'm guessing that's not what you meant. |
|
|
|
09/16/2011 04:19:28 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
But in no way is HCB's work an accident even the random occurrences are captured with his intent in the moment he captured them. |
Meh. That's a very strong statement bordering on mythos and would be difficult to prove. Let's just say I think HCB was "lucky" at times and that I don't think that detracts from his work at all. In fact, I think it strengthens it. |
If he was simply "lucky" then why has no one been able to equal his work? |
|
|
|
09/16/2011 04:31:31 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by ubique:
My own view of art is that it is supposed to be uncomfortable, ambitious, audacious, and most certainly not comforting and familiar. I truly believe that; that for a thing to be of real artistic consequence to me, it must be disquieting or at least unexpected on some level. And it is simply impossible for that standard to be satisfied by a thing that is popular. That's just a function of human nature; most people will recoil from the unfamiliar or the uncomfortable. |
This really gets to the heart of it. If art has any purpose at all, it's to rebel against this very unfortunate human nature. Making the unfamilar and the uncomfortable, more familar, more comfortable is what art tries to acheive. This in turn fuels the evolution in the human heart and mind. It's the only mechanism we have to becoming better people. This is why works that are considered safe, comfortable and familiar struggles to become art. There's simply no need for it. |
|
|
|
09/16/2011 04:33:53 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
But in no way is HCB's work an accident even the random occurrences are captured with his intent in the moment he captured them. |
Meh. That's a very strong statement bordering on mythos and would be difficult to prove. Let's just say I think HCB was "lucky" at times and that I don't think that detracts from his work at all. In fact, I think it strengthens it. |
If he was simply "lucky" then why has no one been able to equal his work? |
Yeah and that work is vast. He could be the luckest man ever.
Message edited by author 2011-09-16 16:34:06.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2011 04:43:37 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Meh. That's a very strong statement bordering on mythos and would be difficult to prove. Let's just say I think HCB was "lucky" at times and that I don't think that detracts from his work at all. In fact, I think it strengthens it. |
If he was simply "lucky" then why has no one been able to equal his work? |
Ah! The monkeys have abandoned their typewriters and all picked up Leicas! I don't think he said he was simply lucky. Luck figures into the work of anyone who shoots candid or street. It's a double-edged sword, of course. |
|
|
|
09/16/2011 04:47:03 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by bvy:
I don't think he said he was simply lucky. Luck figures into the work of anyone who shoots candid or street. It's a double-edged sword, of course. |
I think there is a combination of luck, recognizing the shot when it is in front of you, and perhaps an instinctual feel for when something is about to happen.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2011 04:50:57 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Yeah and that work is vast. He could be the luckest man ever. |
"I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." Thomas Jefferson
When someone is constantly lucky enough to have put themselves in the right place at the right time, and is perfectly ready to take full advantage of the potential that the moment presents, it ceases to be luck. |
|
|
|
09/16/2011 05:08:22 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by yanko:
Yeah and that work is vast. He could be the luckest man ever. |
"I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." Thomas Jefferson
When someone is constantly lucky enough to have put themselves in the right place at the right time, and is perfectly ready to take full advantage of the potential that the moment presents, it ceases to be luck. |
Have I been Yanko'd? Didn't I say "luck favors the prepared" up above? :) As has been said, I don't think HCB was ONLY lucky, he was also a master at all the things mentioned by Spiff.
As far as him never being equalled. I just disagree. I'm sure he's been equalled in specific pieces of art. As a body of work, perhaps he's never been equalled because nobody else worked at it as long as he did. Also, much of his work gets better with time. It's possible there are street artists right now who will be appreciated at his level in 75 years but are currently working in obscurity. The future masters of the early Digital Period.
Message edited by author 2011-09-16 17:20:37. |
|
|
|
09/16/2011 05:16:51 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The point with the Pieta was not that it is realism, but that it was meant to invoke positive emotions rather than "in your face" ones. |
What do you mean by "positive emotions"? Is crying positive or negative? Also, what do you mean by "in your face"? If you meant "forced to view it" then Christ the Redeemer statue would be guilty as charged. However, I'm guessing that's not what you meant. |
Trick question. "crying" is not an emotion. :D It can be linked to both positive and negative emotions. The specific emotions I mentioned were "peace, gratitude, love". I mean "positive emotions" in the common sense I think you understand. I don't mean it in any subtle way.
"in your face" implied the artist accentuating aspects of the piece to force consequent reactions upon the viewer, especially uncomfortable emtions. In this specific example Michaelangelo diminishes the stigmata of the crucifixion to reduce the chance the viewer merely reflects on the horror of his execution. Yes, the Son of God has just been killed a tortuous death, but he wants us to rather reflect on the emotions between mother and son (and in allegory God and Man). I suppose I was being a bit loose with my words as one could just as easily be "in your face" with positive emotions (Care Bears anyone?). I meant it in a negative context and probably should have said "in your face negative ones". |
|
|
|
09/16/2011 05:48:22 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"in your face" implied the artist accentuating aspects of the piece to force consequent reactions upon the viewer, especially uncomfortable emtions... |
I would be very careful with interpreting Renaissance art in this way, that is, with a kind of modernist eye, and especially the way that posthumous has been doing it here. I don't know the personal details of Michelangelo's motives, but there is no question that he was a supplier whose work had been tendered. His boss: the church. His product therefore reflected what the buyer wanted.
He may have been able to imbue his personal religious insights into his work, but that is by no means guaranteed. The interpretation of David, Pietà , or any overtly religious piece of art from this time reflects on the interpreter, not necessarily the artist. I enjoyed your interpretation (and Don's), but I don't know that it accurately reflects Michelangelo's intent. He loved his work, but work it was, and it had certain guidelines. I love my work, too, and consider myself an artist and craftsman, but I still must be able to sell what I produce.
Message edited by author 2011-09-16 17:49:24. |
|
|
|
09/16/2011 06:03:08 PM · #137 |
| You have a fine point Louis. I was utilizing a brief quote I found on wiki where Michaelangelo described a "religious vision of abandonment and a serene face of the Son". |
|
|
|
09/16/2011 06:22:15 PM · #138 |
This thread doesn't have enough pictures.
Is this art?
what about this?
Message edited by author 2011-09-16 18:22:56.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2011 06:27:43 PM · #139 |
| There's nothing that is purposely created that isn't attractive. Even a microwave tower has a certain beauty. We have aesthetics built-in, and there's no escaping them. Whether any particular object is "art" or not is debatable, I suppose, and the definition hints mostly at the object's purpose, but those pipes sure are beautiful. |
|
|
|
09/16/2011 06:28:55 PM · #140 |
|
|
|
09/16/2011 06:53:39 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I'm more interested in expanding the notion of what can be art, rather than limiting it, but at the same time offering possibilities for judging and critiquing art. |
I was happy to read this post as perhaps your posts have more pliability than I read into them. |
|
|
|
09/16/2011 06:57:04 PM · #142 |
but in the context of photography, the mistake would be to think that you are an artist because you can run a camera. are you an author just because you can type fast or transcribe dictation? hell no.
just because you take a tutorial on f-stops and PhotoShop technique... you are not an artist. but you may be one, and if you combine "artistic skill" with photographic technique- that's dangerous.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2011 07:14:01 PM · #143 |
art?? |
|
|
|
09/16/2011 07:22:51 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
art?? |
No. Not Art. Che. Art has much less hair.
Message edited by author 2011-09-16 19:23:09. |
|
|
|
09/16/2011 07:23:30 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
No. Not Art. Che. |
Gesundheit. |
|
|
|
09/16/2011 07:31:33 PM · #146 |
|
|
|
09/16/2011 07:46:16 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
art?? |
I'll be serious with you this time. Can we call it "pop art"? I think it's art as much as Warhol's stuff is art and I'd consider Warhol to be an artist. |
|
|
|
09/16/2011 07:49:32 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Ah! The monkeys have abandoned their typewriters and all picked up Leicas! ... |
This seems to be the case. |
|
|
|
09/16/2011 10:33:49 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
1. No. Art cannot exist without context. It's like walking without friction.
|
It's so hard to make sweeping generalizations about art without finding the exception to break it. What about an abstract photograph entered anonymously in a free study with no title? Is this now not art? If we declare it to have context, I'd like to see an example of something that doesn't. Context would then be a quality of everything and the generalization becomes useless. |
"entered anonymously in a free study" means very little to 99% of the world's population. So yes, there is still context in your statement. What you call "abstract" means something very different to us than it does to a Muslim in the middle ages. Context, context, context. It's unavoidable. And just to be clear, I'm more concerned with the context of the viewer than the context of the artist.  raish showed us cave drawings. They are still art to us, thanks at least in part to the popularity of "primitivism" in Picasso's time, but their context has changed completely. There's no way to know what the art meant to the people who created them.
The ape paintings and the cat photos are pure context, which is enough to make them art, imho. That's debatable, but art always exists within a context. When I look at a Monet I'm seeing something entirely different than what a Salon judge saw when he looked at the very same painting.
Brennan mentioned Beuys. Artists of that period rebelled against the "art object" and worked purely in context with "installations" and "happenings." Beauty can strike you anywhere, can come from "nature," but art requires context.
Message edited by author 2011-09-16 22:34:09. |
|
|
|
09/17/2011 04:56:59 AM · #150 |
Regarding the Apes with Brushes and the Cats with Cameras:
These examples of 'non-art' are generally presented to confound and embarrass the perceived art snobs and experts. Indeed in many cases such stunts, or similar 'art deceptions', were deliberately conceived to do so.
However, the exercise begs the question: that the output of such processes cannot by definition be art.
The solution to this question is that it can, and it is.
But the artist is not the apes and the cats; the artist is the human who gave the apes the paints & brushes, and the human who put a camera saddle on the cats.
I refer you to this very astute and illuminating fragment of the OP on the subject of how to transition from photography-as-photography to photography-as-art:
"The photograph must no longer be the slave of the subject. The subject must become the slave of the photograph."
That addresses photography specifically of course, but the principle holds for other media. The ape and monkey stunts do indeed satisfy that slavery test, and contrary perhaps even to the primary intention of the human perpetrators, the result is perfectly legitimate art. Not necessarily good art, but not necessarily bad art either.
My mother has told me that Jackson Pollock's Blue Poles (the only work of his she's seen) cannot be art, because "any 3-year-old could have painted it". She is wrong about that last bit, but even if she were right, her position still begs the question: that a 3-year-old cannot produce art. Why not?
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/05/2025 06:55:47 PM EDT.
