| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/01/2006 03:22:57 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by taterbug:
Here's an extreme example, but I think illustrates my opinion:
If you were to take a dump on my table, and I looked at it and said..."Now that's art."
then isn't it?
can you tell me it is not any more than I could tell you your favorite painting is not? |
Hmmm I'm sure there is an artist somewhere making fecal art, if not, maybe you can be the first.
Andres Serrano made "Piss Christ" which was a jar full of his urine with a crucifix inside.
Marcel Duchamp took a common urinal and submitted it for an art show. It was rejected, but the piece itself is now considered a valuable and significant work, as are many of his other "Readymades".
|
|
|
|
02/01/2006 03:24:34 PM · #52 |
i've always been comfortable with thinking about it as a matter of Intent.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2006 03:48:38 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by southern_exposure:
But a photograph that ... cause debate with the viewers is ART. |
Woooohoo, I am an artisit :-) YAY!!! ;-) I'm sooo happy now ...
*doing the happy dance*
|
|
|
|
02/01/2006 04:01:28 PM · #54 |
| BrennanOB just wrote, "Art is in the how not the what." I think this is true to an extent, but the 'what' is also crucial. If Art is to be judged as such, regardless of whether it is a photograph or any other form, it must be objectifed. I think the crucial question is whether or not that object can be said to transcend its subject. |
|
|
|
02/01/2006 04:30:15 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Hemmingway to Irving Penn "Nice photos Irving, what kind of camera do you use?"
Penn "Thanks Ernest, I like your work too, what sort of typewriter do you use?" |
LOL -- perfect riposte. |
|
|
|
02/01/2006 04:50:03 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by anthonytuck:
I think the crucial question is whether or not that object can be said to transcend its subject. |
Absolutely, the guy who paints the stripe down the middle of the road and Gerhardt Richter both work in paint, but only one of them creates art ( at least art I know of, the striper might be a trancendet genius yet to be discovered). Not all painters are artists, nor is every photographer barred from artistry by their medium. |
|
|
|
02/01/2006 04:58:06 PM · #57 |
Here's an article from last May about the National Gallery of Canada acquisitions.
//www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2005/05/11/Arts/mamanspider050511.html
In about the middle of the article they mention the stripe and the dress made from a side of beef. |
|
|
|
02/01/2006 05:06:21 PM · #58 |
One issue that has not been touched on in this thread is the distinction between "art" and "craft". To be a craftsman is to have technical command/control of your medium. To be an artist is to at some level transcend that medium, as has just been pointed out. Creators of custom furniture, for example, are for the most part highly-skilled (and well paid) craftsmen. Yet there is some furniture that has transcended craft and risen to the level of art, at least in the eyes of critics and the "art world". There are chefs whose work transcends their craft and becomes "art" in its own right.
And there is also a commonly-made distinction between "art" and "design", where it is even more difficult to draw the line. All architects are "designers" by definition, but a few architects have been recognized as artists for their work; Frank Lloyd Wright is an obvious example. The same applies in the graphic arts field. And in the area of jewelry design.
It's not important what you call it; if it moves you, it is "art" in your eyes. If it moves many people over an extended time, it becomes "art" in the world's eyes.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2006 05:19:00 PM · #59 |
I think that Photography may be \'over-rated\' for what it really is. A photographer is able to visualize what nature or life correspond to their own perspective. It is a matter of high subjectivity I must admit, but does not mean that photography is art.
Remember that you just press a button (with a little correction), the \'main\' job (specially those days since the format becomes easier to handle) is done by the camera (part of chemistry in the old days, part of physics and optics, nowadays, computer and electronics). Ok, the photographer is responsible for little correction or should I say adjustments.
Imagination is also a part of the process (but I should not associate imagination with art, because I think they are rather more independent than completely dependent). Now, whereas the photogapher just presses the button, the painter is spending an incredible amount of time to create a piece of art (specially in the old days, I must admit that I admire a lot the impressive amount of work they did). In photography we tend to simulate or to re-create what we want to shoot with different aspects, I do not think that we are able to \'create\' since the camera is doing part of the job. In photography, you will have to be dependent on yourself and the camera, in painting, you depend on yourself only. That\'s where the creation comes from.
In another subject, the nature is more organized that we may think it is. Crystallography is one of the science (a lot of physics) that may reproduce the art of Life in this world since it enables to look at the structure of crystals. Nature is well organized.
Art is a difficult topic to speak of, it is so subjective that we may be so confused with it.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2006 05:27:53 PM · #60 |
Of course, photography can be art, and in our case (DPC'ers), it is.Originally posted by MPRPRO:
Photography is art.
To know how and when to capture an event, a pose, what lighting to use to best depict the image you desire, to forever stop time and space, to be there even though you are now miles away, to feel a feeling someone emotes at a moment gone forever, to touch inocence even though you have for so long been jaded, to almost smell the scent of a women from an image you colected into little electronic pixels after your rapturious venture is not an accident.
Or is it?
If it is, photography is not an art, if it isn't it is an art.
Michael |
Very well put Michael!!! I'm going to print this and hang it on my bulleting board.
Now, my two cents:
Photography can be a simple documentation of an event or object (a medium with which to record history), or it could be taken to another level and become a work of art. Those of us who painstakenly do more than just record moments KNOW that photography is art. We consider all the variables that make a photograph art, and then patiently wait for even the most seemingly insignificant variables to evolve to be the best that they can be (a completely full moon, the sun to set a few degrees differently the following month, a flower to fully open, etc.). We wait for these variables that are beyond our control, and then fine tune the variables that we do control (camera settings, composition, post processing, etc.) We do all this so as to make our final work of art its best. This is not just taking a picture.
In the past five weeks, I have driven an hour to photo this sailboat nine times and taken over 1200 shots of it. I have, however, passed on entering any of these images in any challenge, including Free Study, Off-Centered Subject, Blue II, and Best of 2005. This subject would have easily met the details of any of these challenges. I have not entered this subject because, although I photographed it (which is simple to do) I do not believe that I have completed this work of art as best as I can. I am patiently waiting for an even better sunset (among other variables) to complete my work of art.
I'll lift the cover and let you have a peek.
This is one of my works of art in progress. It is not just a photograph. I'll let you know when I am finished with it. |
|
|
|
02/01/2006 06:20:25 PM · #61 |
I hope I will not disappoint you, but this shot does not require talent. It is nothing than a good picture with nice colour and shades. I really like it. But if another photographer was with you, and taking the same type of picture at the same time, don't you think the picture will look the same, at least to a great degree (let's assume there will be no processing from photoshop). Now, ask two artists to draw (or to paint) a model, it is very likely that the two sketches will be very different (in style, in colour, in the way they just draw -> by their own hands, it is the talent that they are trying to expose), that depends on the artistic perception of the person. I am trying to remember that photography requires the interaction between the photographer, the camera and the model.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2006 06:28:16 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
One issue that has not been touched on in this thread is the distinction between "art" and "craft". To be a craftsman is to have technical command/control of your medium. To be an artist is to at some level transcend that medium, as has just been pointed out. Creators of custom furniture, for example, are for the most part highly-skilled (and well paid) craftsmen. Yet there is some furniture that has transcended craft and risen to the level of art, at least in the eyes of critics and the "art world". There are chefs whose work transcends their craft and becomes "art" in its own right.
And there is also a commonly-made distinction between "art" and "design", where it is even more difficult to draw the line. All architects are "designers" by definition, but a few architects have been recognized as artists for their work; Frank Lloyd Wright is an obvious example. The same applies in the graphic arts field. And in the area of jewelry design.
It's not important what you call it; if it moves you, it is "art" in your eyes. If it moves many people over an extended time, it becomes "art" in the world's eyes.
Robt. |
Can someone move to the level of artist without first mastering the craft? I think not. Not normally but I'm sure there are a few genuiuses that are exceptions.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2006 06:39:37 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by msieglerfr:
Now, ask two artists to draw (or to paint) a model, it is very likely that the two sketches will be very different (in style, in colour, in the way they just draw -> by their own hands, it is the talent that they are trying to expose), that depends on the artistic perception of the person. |
Nope, you would assume wrong.Two sketches of the same thing done by differnet people tend to look about as similar as the photographs they might take if they decided to document a scene using that technology. Look at the results of a DPC get-together sometime, you would be surprised that the photographers were standing in the same area.
I studied Visual Design and was taught how to draw as a method of communication. Simple skills and tricks to fool the eye into seeing a 3-D world in a series of smudges on a piece of paper. Drawing, potterey, architecture, music, all the arts are based in rigid practice and constant repetition. The notion that photography is a seperate and distinct thing from the othe arts is just held because most people in our society no longer are taught to paint or write music. Anyone can be taught to draw, It requires little more native talent than making a technically decent photograph. |
|
|
|
02/01/2006 06:53:34 PM · #64 |
You have missed the point that I took a fair amount of time to make, but your reply will help me to make it better.
Originally posted by msieglerfr:
I hope I will not disappoint you, but this shot does not require talent. It is nothing than a good picture with nice colour and shades. I really like it. But if another photographer was with you, and taking the same type of picture at the same time, don't you think the picture will look the same, at least to a great degree (let's assume there will be no processing from photoshop). |
Of the nine times that I have been to this place, another photographer was NOT there with me. That's the point.
I didn't just show up there by mistake so many times at so many different hours (of a 24 hour day). See my Roads Challenge entry titled "Straight to the MOON Alice": I stated in my comments there that I was there to photograph a sailboat that night.
I have in my mind a particular work of art that I am trying to achieve with this subject and I'm working on it methodically. It DOES take talent as well as foresight to make this art come together as I envision it with the right "nice colour and shades".
Imagine not two photographers trying to capture the best images of this sailboat at the same time. Imagine informing two photographers of a photographic opportunity and giving them a week to capture it (sort of like a DPC challenge). You would not get two identical works of art, and one or both of them might even just be a haphazard snapshot.
I'm not just taking a picture and neither is "another photographer".
Message edited by author 2006-02-01 18:58:14. |
|
|
|
02/01/2006 07:01:23 PM · #65 |
Sketches might not be the right word, but two paintings then. Take two independent artists, the final result is very likely to be different, because, they have different skills, different perception, different style. Maybe the final result of painting will look completely different from what we (people) can see. Take Van Gogh for instance, he has a really unique perception of 'life'. That's what all his paintings are about.
'Anyone can be taught to draw, It requires little more native talent than making a technically decent photograph.'
Maybe, but that does not make them talented. Very few are beyond the limit of what men are able to do.
There is a huge gap between photography and painting that will never be filled, just because they are two separate concepts, maybe there is some overlap, but this overlap is small enough to consider them more independent than dependent.
I do not think we are Van Gogh, Delacroix, or David...they were unique and they left us some great pieces of art.
Do not take my words too seriously, Photography can be assimilated to 'pseudo art' (maily because it has a lot of subjectivity in it)maybe, but you must admit that photography is much more accessible than painting for most men. I think that is good enough, and we are quite happy to shoot pretty pictures, as long as it satisfies the photographer and the audience, one can consider that the main goal is reached.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2006 07:17:35 PM · #66 |
In my lifetime I have done drawings, paintings and sculptures. In trying to create art in each of those mediums you need to add lines, paint or mold your image. There is no difference for an artist using photography as his/her medium; you need to know what to shoot, when, how and why. And with a little luck you are able to capture that exact point in time where what you see in the viewfinder matches what you saw in your imagination.
Knowing when and where to point the camera is as difficult and creative as knowing which piece of marble doesn't belong on a statue. |
|
|
|
02/01/2006 07:21:09 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by msieglerfr:
photography is much more accessible than painting for most men. |
They don't sell paint brushes in your neighborhood? |
|
|
|
02/01/2006 08:06:56 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by th3ph17:
i've always been comfortable with thinking about it as a matter of Intent. |
I think this too.
It appears that there is a difficulty in defining "art". Just like "love".
I think art and love are very parallel and that they are ALL about intent.
That it has EVERYTHING to do with taking what you have inside and with a specific purpose, reaching out to another.
So if two photographers take identical shots, one can be art and the other not.
The other popular definition is based on results and what abilities the creator has developed. |
|
|
|
02/01/2006 08:09:30 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by briantammy:
I think art and love are very parallel and that they are ALL about intent. |
Interesting thoughts - I'm curious - does that mean there's no such thing as accidental art? |
|
|
|
02/01/2006 08:14:22 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by mycelium:
accidental art? |
???
is that the opposite of "an intentional mistake" |
|
|
|
02/01/2006 08:22:15 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by msieglerfr:
Very few are beyond the limit of what men are able to do. |
I would dare say none are (except maybe women?). I'm so glad photography isn't art. I'm getting fed up with all this art stuff. I just do what I do and I don't care what anyone calls my "pretty pictures," after all they look EXACTLY like everyone elses anyway...
Message edited by author 2006-02-01 20:27:13. |
|
|
|
02/01/2006 08:29:16 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by briantammy:
Originally posted by mycelium:
accidental art? |
???
is that the opposite of "an intentional mistake" |
I dunno, maybe. Could just be a nonsense combination of words.
Here's one thought experiment-
Let's say there's some large piece of industrial machinery, designed to be nothing but functional. The machinery runs through its useful life and is then discarded. Now some internet start-up gets ahold of this big piece of machinery and places it outside its corporate office and calls it "art."
So does it become art because the corporate guys call it art, because they intended it to be art, even though it wasn't their creation? Was it art from the beginning, and the industrial guys just didn't know it? Or is it not art at all? |
|
|
|
02/01/2006 08:52:08 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by msieglerfr:
I think that Photography may be \'over-rated\' for what it really is. A photographer is able to visualize what nature or life correspond to their own perspective. It is a matter of high subjectivity I must admit, but does not mean that photography is art.
Remember that you just press a button (with a little correction), the \'main\' job (specially those days since the format becomes easier to handle) is done by the camera (part of chemistry in the old days, part of physics and optics, nowadays, computer and electronics). Ok, the photographer is responsible for little correction or should I say adjustments.
Imagination is also a part of the process (but I should not associate imagination with art, because I think they are rather more independent than completely dependent). Now, whereas the photogapher just presses the button, the painter is spending an incredible amount of time to create a piece of art (specially in the old days, I must admit that I admire a lot the impressive amount of work they did). In photography we tend to simulate or to re-create what we want to shoot with different aspects, I do not think that we are able to \'create\' since the camera is doing part of the job. In photography, you will have to be dependent on yourself and the camera, in painting, you depend on yourself only. That\'s where the creation comes from.
In another subject, the nature is more organized that we may think it is. Crystallography is one of the science (a lot of physics) that may reproduce the art of Life in this world since it enables to look at the structure of crystals. Nature is well organized.
Art is a difficult topic to speak of, it is so subjective that we may be so confused with it. |
If all photographers do is just press a button, then all painters do is push paint around on a canvas.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2006 08:54:20 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by mycelium:
Let's say there's some large piece of industrial machinery, designed to be nothing but functional. The machinery runs through its useful life and is then discarded. Now some internet start-up gets ahold of this big piece of machinery and places it outside its corporate office and calls it "art."
So does it become art because the corporate guys call it art, because they intended it to be art, even though it wasn't their creation? Was it art from the beginning, and the industrial guys just didn't know it? Or is it not art at all? |
As mentioned earlier, Marcel Duchamp entered a urinal in a juried art show in Paris. The work has since become iconic. There are those who argue that "context" is a valid component of art. All sorts of things pass for "art" in the Art World. And all sorts of people think it's ridiculous. De gustibus non disputandum est...
Then you have Claes Oldenburg, who became famous for creating giant sculptures of ordinary objects.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2006 09:10:44 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by mycelium:
Originally posted by briantammy:
Originally posted by mycelium:
accidental art? |
???
is that the opposite of "an intentional mistake" |
I dunno, maybe. Could just be a nonsense combination of words.
Here's one thought experiment-
Let's say there's some large piece of industrial machinery, designed to be nothing but functional. The machinery runs through its useful life and is then discarded. Now some internet start-up gets ahold of this big piece of machinery and places it outside its corporate office and calls it "art."
So does it become art because the corporate guys call it art, because they intended it to be art, even though it wasn't their creation? Was it art from the beginning, and the industrial guys just didn't know it? Or is it not art at all? |
Sure, it's the classic quandary, "Does form follow function or function follow form?"
The Bauhaus school of art would tell you that form should follow function. Others would say that art is strictly about form and there's a vast spectrum of beliefs in between.
In the case of the industrial machine, I would have to say that if you can understand that the form of such a machine exists only because an engineer or group of engineeers undertook the creative act of designing and building a machine to perform a function, then yes, it can be considered art.
|
|
