The Art Object and its Usefulness

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

09/17/2011 05:02:27 AM · #151

Originally posted by yanko:

This thread doesn't have enough pictures.

Is this art?

what about this?

Picture A? Yes.

Picture B? No.

"The photograph must no longer be the slave of the subject. The subject must become the slave of the photograph."

Sorry to be pursuing this distinction so relentlessly, but this is a splendid example of it.

raish

Olympus C-2500L

09/17/2011 05:37:12 AM · #152

[pedantry]Begging the question is the opposite of asking the question. Begging the question assumes an answer and thereby renders the question redundant.[/pedantry]
wikipedia

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

09/17/2011 06:11:18 AM · #153

Originally posted by raish:

[pedantry]Begging the question is the opposite of asking the question. Begging the question assumes an answer and thereby renders the question redundant.[/pedantry]
wikipedia

Oh, no! Not another thread derailed by someone's misunderstanding of the concept of petitio principii?
Please don't do it. The proposition that Pollock's Blue Poles cannot be art because a 3-year-old could paint it assumes the truth of a statement contained within the proposition, but which is yet to be proven. That is, that a 3-year-old cannot create art. It therefore begs that question.

Same blunder of logic holds for the apes and the cats.

Begging the question is not 'the opposite of asking the question'; it's a putting a premise the validity of which depends on the truth of the very matter in question. Please don't go on about this. It doesn't matter that I am right and you are wrong; we both know what I mean.

raish

Olympus C-2500L

09/17/2011 06:21:24 AM · #154

Well, you being right and me being wrong does sort of spoil it. I retract.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

09/17/2011 06:36:39 AM · #155

Originally posted by raish:

Well, you being right and me being wrong does sort of spoil it. I retract.

Haha! Me too. See? Now nobody is right or wrong, and it still doesn't matter.

raish

Olympus C-2500L

09/17/2011 08:42:01 AM · #156

ceci n'est pas une faute

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

09/17/2011 11:09:11 AM · #157

It's kind of unnerving to see someone use "beg the question" correctly. I can't even think about art anymore.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

09/17/2011 12:09:41 PM · #158

Even though ubique used the term correctly, he seemed to miss my point about the cat photos. If you look at my post I raised the possibility that the person who put the camera around the cat's neck is the artist. My real point was not the usual "can animals produce art?" but rather continuing along the idea of serendipity. If people could not agree on the serendipity factor of HCB's work, then surely they could see the luck involved in pictures coming from a cat's meanderings...

(Note I asked the question as an "extension of the conversation" which just prior had been about luck.)

Message edited by author 2011-09-17 12:12:13.

Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] WR DC

09/17/2011 12:52:48 PM · #159

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Even though ubique used the term correctly, he seemed to miss my point about the cat photos. ...

You're right and I apologise. I'm guilty of responding to my recollection of the cat post, rather than to the actual post. I wasn't even certain who posted it. You had indeed used the cat case in a more legitimate and thoughtful way than I had properly acknowledged. Sorry, I was sloppy. I should have looked the post up again.

In the context in which you used it, I'd nevertheless still say that the resulting lucky shots are art. Just as I'd say that those pictures taken by setting the self-timer and tossing the camera into the air are art. Once again, the subject is subordinated to the photograph. It has to be; there's no way to know in advance exactly what the subject will be, by either the cat method or the self-timer toss method.

I'm not trying to trivialise art nor to insult artists in making this argument. I'm just pointing out that if art happens when the subject is subordinated to the process of depicting or representing it, then all of those things have to be allowed; the apes, the cats, Andy Warhol and luck.

tnun

Ricoh GR III

09/17/2011 01:28:31 PM · #160

petitio principii? whaa? where? I just woke up. Wha'd' I miss?

those monkeys still shooting with their leicas?

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

09/17/2011 03:21:43 PM · #161

Originally posted by ubique:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Writing about art is like dancing about architecture.

No. It isn't.

I can see both sides of this argument. :)

In my opinion, writing about art is impossible, only because we are limited to our perception of that art - as such, I feel that writing about the experience of art is perfectly valid and a fine pursuit - but writing about art is inherently limited by the perceptions and interpretation of the writer.

For me? It's about the exploration, the experience, the feelings and the unique interaction with each piece, be it my own, or that of others. :)

And, Don, thank you very much for the wonderful thread starter. :)

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

09/17/2011 05:09:31 PM · #162

Originally posted by ubique:

I'm not trying to trivialise art nor to insult artists in making this argument. I'm just pointing out that if art happens when the subject is subordinated to the process of depicting or representing it, then all of those things have to be allowed; the apes, the cats, Andy Warhol and luck.

Not to mention that the cat owner is picking from hundreds of photos. It's strikingly similar to my artistic method, actually. :)

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

09/17/2011 06:53:27 PM · #163

Originally posted by posthumous:

It's kind of unnerving to see someone use "beg the question" correctly. I can't even think about art anymore.

My reaction precisely; I'd given up fighting that battle...

R.

daisydavid

Canon EOS-5DS R

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

09/17/2011 08:33:11 PM · #164

Poor Posthumous

Polonius:
Your noble son is mad:
Mad call I it, for to define true madness,
What is't but to be nothing else but mad?
But let that go.
Queen:
More matter with less art.
Polonius:
Madam, I swear I use no art at all
That he's mad, 'tis true, 'tis true 'tis pity,
And pity 'tis 'tis trueâ��a foolish figure,
But farewell it, for I will use no art.
Hamlet Act 2, scene 2, 92â��99

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

09/17/2011 08:46:09 PM · #165

Originally posted by daisydavid:

What kind of fool am I?

daisydavid

Canon EOS-5DS R

09/17/2011 09:52:55 PM · #166

You are not the fool, sorry, I should have been clearer. It's my warped sense of humour that reminded me of this passage. Poor Posthumous to have to suffer some of the maddness of this thread that you so rightly and gallantly started. The passage was to highlight the difficulty in interpretations of all things art. Please, I mean no disrespect.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

09/17/2011 11:05:09 PM · #167

Originally posted by daisydavid:

disrespect or respect, I enjoyed your post. I'm often known to rebut Shakespeare with Anthony Newley.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

09/17/2011 11:11:19 PM · #168

Originally posted by daisydavid:

Poor Posthumous to have to suffer some of the maddness of this thread that you so rightly and gallantly started.

To post, or not to post: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous idiocy,
Or to take arms against a sea of misquotations,
And by opposing end them? To correct: to argue;
No more; and by ignoring a thread to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That internet is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To disconnect, to sleep;

Message edited by author 2011-09-17 23:11:46.