|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/17/2013 04:34:21 PM · #26 |
"What is art?" is the proverbial Gordian Knot of questions. If art is the thing that provokes a reaction (which is how I think of "art"), rather than it being a specific externalized expression of creativity, there can never be a consensus, because as individuals we are moved by different things. "Pap" for one is "Manna" to another, and obviously, vice versa. Art can also be used to describe a common action taken to an unexpected and elevated level, like folding napkins, carving fruit, or shining shoes.
Although an interesting intellectual exercise, trying to answer this question is also relentlessly frustrating, and invariable ends in acrimony, no matter where or who is discussing it. |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 04:40:45 PM · #27 |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 05:09:38 PM · #28 |
A funny thing about discussions of art is that they get so emotionally charged, mostly because people think they are answering the question, "who is an artist?" which is nothing but vanity.
Art is something that happens. An artist is just a fairy in a smock.
If you can get over the "artist" question, you might be able to have more fun discussing art.
I find there are two major definitions of art, and people usually hold one or the other.
1. Art defies expectations. It surprises you, shocks you into a new awareness, at least temporarily.
2. Art exceeds expectations. It is masterfully crafted to look like something you've seen before, and give you this comfortable feeling that the artist knows what he's doing and you know what you're doing.
Both definitions are equally valid. There's simply no point in debating which one is true, and yet much time gets wasted doing exactly that.
Maybe there should be two different words for these two very different things, but we seem to be stuck with one.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2013 05:45:44 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
1. Art defies expectations. It surprises you, shocks you into a new awareness, at least temporarily. |
I tend to fall into this camp. Brecht's 'âArt is not a mirror held up to reality but a hammer with which to shape it.â etc. I also include in this all the great documentary photography that i love. Great documentary photography does much more than just reflect reality.
It is of course kind of useless to try and find a definitive definition. I do have personal ideas that shape what is not art though. Photography used for advertising in any way is not art. Imagery that is used to sell something other than itself is not art. It's ugly and debased. I detest advertising though so i admit that is a personal definition. (i say that as someone who makes money through selling images through agencies into whatever squalid life as book covers or calenders or whatever. A necessary evil as i have to fund my various vices) |
|
|
|
12/17/2013 10:29:16 PM · #30 |
Well, I know exactly what art is. Some of you also seem pretty close, some not so much.
As soon as you see it my way, all will be good.
On a more serious note, I believe art needs to make you feel something. Happy, sad, angry, peaceful, something. And II feel it needs to do so without cheap tricks.
IMHO Great Art needs to make me see, or feel in a way that I have not experienced before.
This definition is fail safe, drains to the bilge, won't rot your teeth, but your mileage may vary.... |
|
|
|
12/19/2013 11:29:03 AM · #31 |
One thing that amuses me about this debate is that historically photography contributed to the redefinition of art. Before photography, painting could be all about skill of reproduction. If Da Vinci had managed to create a camera, he would never have touched a paintbrush again.
The Impressionists knew of this new invention called the camera, and they are known as the first movement toward abstraction in Western painting. It's not a coincidence. Painting had to become something else besides reproduction, and as a consequence it started to be about something else besides skill.
And now, as photography no longer requires chemistry skills, and now no longer requires computer skills, the crisp, detailed photo becomes less and less impressive. Style, like the "Instagram look" or the "Grunge look" etc etc etc, all available as Photoshop actions, becomes less and less impressive.
The question is, What's left? What will impress us?
It's a scary question. It's not an impossible question, but it's dangerous. And I imagine it's a harsh one for someone who's put a lot of time into developing the skills that once were essential: lighting a studio, setting up a camera, etc. But those skills can still be used. It's just that you'll need something else as well. And no skill, no technique, should be used blindly, it should always be used to some effect. The skill itself no longer impresses, just like poor Ingres. Hardly anyone looks at his paintings anymore. They're all gawking at Van Gogh.
Message edited by author 2013-12-19 11:29:28. |
|
|
|
12/19/2013 11:44:47 AM · #32 |
| A fascinating observation, Don. Evolution, development, change - all these things take something that becomes popular and democratizes it somehow so that more people are able to do "it" as well. Something about survival of the fittest, and imitation being flattering, and all that. Regardless of what "it" is (in every field - i.e. technology, fashion, music, finance, etc.) as soon as something is popular, an army of "me-toos" materializes, and the original is often buried in obscurity. Which is why we, as "artists" (and I use the term loosely) need to constantly push ourselves to try new things, explore new ideas, continue to transform ourselves and our vision - adapt or perish. We cannot avoid new ideas, new discoveries, new inventions. And I completely understand that the place of stagnation (which is where I feel I'm in at the moment) can be terrifying and yet, also "incentivizing". |
|
|
|
12/19/2013 12:14:47 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
A funny thing about discussions of art is that they get so emotionally charged, mostly because people think they are answering the question, "who is an artist?" which is nothing but vanity.
Art is something that happens. An artist is just a fairy in a smock.
If you can get over the "artist" question, you might be able to have more fun discussing art.
I find there are two major definitions of art, and people usually hold one or the other.
1. Art defies expectations. It surprises you, shocks you into a new awareness, at least temporarily.
2. Art exceeds expectations. It is masterfully crafted to look like something you've seen before, and give you this comfortable feeling that the artist knows what he's doing and you know what you're doing.
Both definitions are equally valid. There's simply no point in debating which one is true, and yet much time gets wasted doing exactly that.
Maybe there should be two different words for these two very different things, but we seem to be stuck with one. |
One can be art. The other one "fine" art, henceforth shortened to fart. |
|
|
|
12/19/2013 12:21:33 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
One thing that amuses me about this debate is that historically photography contributed to the redefinition of art. Before photography, painting could be all about skill of reproduction. If Da Vinci had managed to create a camera, he would never have touched a paintbrush again.
The Impressionists knew of this new invention called the camera, and they are known as the first movement toward abstraction in Western painting. It's not a coincidence. Painting had to become something else besides reproduction, and as a consequence it started to be about something else besides skill.
And now, as photography no longer requires chemistry skills, and now no longer requires computer skills, the crisp, detailed photo becomes less and less impressive. Style, like the "Instagram look" or the "Grunge look" etc etc etc, all available as Photoshop actions, becomes less and less impressive.
The question is, What's left? What will impress us?
It's a scary question. It's not an impossible question, but it's dangerous. And I imagine it's a harsh one for someone who's put a lot of time into developing the skills that once were essential: lighting a studio, setting up a camera, etc. But those skills can still be used. It's just that you'll need something else as well. And no skill, no technique, should be used blindly, it should always be used to some effect. The skill itself no longer impresses, just like poor Ingres. Hardly anyone looks at his paintings anymore. They're all gawking at Van Gogh. |
Actually, the camera was around long before photography. It's important not to confuse the two. Don't forget that many artists in the 16 and 17th centuries are believed to have used a camera obscura as an aid in correctly rendering scenes, especially with respect to perspective and that the idea of the camera obscura dates back to 300-400 BC.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2013 12:24:32 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Actually, the camera was around long before photography. It's important not to confuse the two. Don't forget that many artists in the 16 and 17th centuries are believed to have used a camera obscura as an aid in correctly rendering scenes, especially with respect to perspective and that the idea of the camera obscura dates back to 300-400 BC. |
especially Da Vinci, which is why I used him as an example. |
|
|
|
12/19/2013 12:53:57 PM · #36 |
Why didn't the Romans invent photography?
Message edited by author 2013-12-19 12:54:50. |
|
|
|
12/19/2013 04:18:18 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
A fascinating observation, Don. Evolution, development, change - all these things take something that becomes popular and democratizes it somehow so that more people are able to do "it" as well. Something about survival of the fittest, and imitation being flattering, and all that. Regardless of what "it" is (in every field - i.e. technology, fashion, music, finance, etc.) as soon as something is popular, an army of "me-toos" materializes, and the original is often buried in obscurity. Which is why we, as "artists" (and I use the term loosely) need to constantly push ourselves to try new things, explore new ideas, continue to transform ourselves and our vision - adapt or perish. We cannot avoid new ideas, new discoveries, new inventions. And I completely understand that the place of stagnation (which is where I feel I'm in at the moment) can be terrifying and yet, also "incentivizing". |
This is a pretty good description of an artist--not a member of the army of 'me-toos,' not looking for a trend to follow but constantly trying new things, new ideas, to transform & grow.
Message edited by author 2013-12-19 16:27:14. |
|
|
|
12/19/2013 10:14:22 PM · #38 |
There is nothing new under the sun!
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 07/26/2025 04:59:02 AM  |
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: 07/26/2025 04:59:02 AM EDT.
|
