Is it Art or just a Photograph? - DPChallenge Forums

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

06/11/2003 01:01:10 AM · #3

Originally posted by OneSweetSin:

If it makes you think then you have art.

What, if it suspends thought and/or involves the senses, if then there is one to involve?

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

06/11/2003 02:42:37 AM · #4

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
If it makes you think then you have art.

What, if it suspends thought and/or involves the senses, if then there is one to involve?

Zeuszen, I'm not clear on what you're asking. Do you mean to make a distinction between the rational (thought) and the emotional? That the two of them can be seperated in our response to art?

To me, thought is our conscious attempt to understand and make sense of the world in us and outside of us. I think it's always there, whether or not we're having an emotional response to art, or anything else in life. There maybe different levels of thought and understanding, but as long as we're conscious, I think it's always active.

Thought, and art, can be motivated and influenced by the emotions, but to produce, or understand art, takes thought and sometimes, many levels of understanding. That's why they give art history classes! :)

I think the point of John's quote of Aristotle is to suggest that art involves a deeper level of understanding and experience, from either
the producer, or consumer of art...and that takes thought. I don't think art seperates out the different aspects of our mind's
activities, but rather integrates them...or maybe I should say good art does that. It's a holistic activity.

Nikon MF 180mm f/2.8 ED AIS

06/11/2003 02:17:20 PM · #5

> Olyuzi

My (specific) response, Oly, was to the preceding post. I felt that a blanket statement like that is more inclined to lead us away from the matter (Setz's post) than narrowing the gap. It is, IMO, precisely this kind of (lazy) approach that fosters the already rampant misconception that art is the essence of philosophy or emperical academia. The artistic premise, however is not likely one that can deliver functional definitions of 'meaning' to those intent on having them. Meaning, in other words, remains elusive. Quick and easy 'fixes' do not exist.

I (emphatically) share your inclusive view of how we come to grips and grasp, although my embrace of the merit of art history classes is somewhat less enthusiastic than yours :-). What I want to stress here is that consciousness does involve the 'senses', so thought may have experience to draw from, and a purpose to follow.

The 'Emotions', particularly when it comes to the creative process, are equally capable of clouding a perspective instead of sharpening or honing one. The looseness with which we often use the word (emotion), may also include 'a failure of feeling', as evident in the sentiments our ego attaches to our personal ambitions, desires and 'belongings'.

When too much attention to thought corrupts the sensory data, I think (pun intended!), we have exactly the kind of dilemma that we have had and that continues to occur in discussions 'about' art. This is what alarmed me to respond in the first place.

Message edited by author 2003-06-11 14:19:10.

mcmurma

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

06/11/2003 02:36:15 PM · #6

The question of what constitutes 'art' is very personal. I feel that everyone carries their own yardstick to measure artwork by... even if you don't make a conscience effort to do so.

"The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance." - Aristotle circa 350 B.C.

I think the key words here are: ..."their inward significance." This places things on a personal level that can't really be defined by a set of rules or guidelines.

mbardeen

Canon PowerShot G3

06/11/2003 03:22:29 PM · #7

Perhaps the better question is: Do you consider what you are doing art?

I wrestle with the question everytime I submit a picture. Do I take the shots that please me, or do I take the shots that please the voters?

It is less of a question when I take photos for my personal pleasure.. I take what I see, sometimes others enjoy what I see, sometimes they don't. That's not my problem - this is my unique world view.

Does the fact that I found it significant enough to take a picture of make it art to me?

-Matt

christo

Canon EOS-10D

06/11/2003 03:48:58 PM · #8

Originally posted by mbardeen:

Perhaps the better question is: Do you consider what you are doing art?-Matt

No, I think it's the point. It's not up to the photographer to decide whether it's art or not. I have to disagree with that.
If it was true, then the concept of art just wouldn't exist! Everything and nothing would be art if I and only I can decide what art is!
You produced art IMO when you produce something able to induce a feeling to the viewer. And the more people you touch by your photograph, the better your photograph is. The deeper feeling you induce, the more common feeling to any people you induce, the better your art is IMO.

06/11/2003 04:07:18 PM · #9

mbardeen > Only you know how excited you are about your photograph. Only you know the nature of your excitement. To bridge a gap, I would ask, are you 'duly' excited? Did you learn or experience something before it became common knowledge, property or attribute? Is it conceivable that the excitement carried into your capture would make the world richer for it? Could it serve a common purpose? Etc...

The viewer (the general public) does what he does or will. If your piece is infectious enough and he has a breath for it, there will be agreement as well.

Christo, I feel, sees it similarly, in his words

Message edited by author 2003-06-11 16:07:49.

jerrft

Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z3

06/11/2003 04:34:23 PM · #10

Originally posted by christo:

Originally posted by mbardeen:
Perhaps the better question is: Do you consider what you are doing art?-Matt

No, I think it's the point. It's not up to the photographer to decide whether it's art or not. I have to disagree with that.
If it was true, then the concept of art just wouldn't exist! Everything and nothing would be art if I and only I can decide what art is!
You produced art IMO when you produce something able to induce a feeling to the viewer. And the more people you touch by your photograph, the better your photograph is. The deeper feeling you induce, the more common feeling to any people you induce, the better your art is IMO.

So, given this interpretation, can art exist if it is seen by no one other than the creator(artist)? If a tree falls in the woo...

christo

Canon EOS-10D

06/11/2003 04:58:12 PM · #11

Originally posted by jerrft:

So, given this interpretation, can art exist if it is seen by no one other than the creator(artist)? If a tree falls in the woo...

Exactly, in this case it can't. Many definitions of art imply the notion of communication.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

06/11/2003 05:30:40 PM · #12

> jerfft

Does a tree exist, if it is seen by no one other than the creator? :-)

joanns

Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro

06/11/2003 06:17:01 PM · #13

I am enjoying this thread because I was thinking the same thing about this photo.This past weekend I was taking photos at a river and saw this scene. I suppose you would call it a snapshot because they didn't pose for me but I loved it. I love that the young couple was going to climb up the tree and swing out over the water and drop. I love that the young man held his hand out for his girlfriend to help her across. I love that there is a tree that someone actually nailed rungs and fastened ropes to so that people could experience some good old fashioned fun. Here's the photograph - my art, or just a snapshot. Changed to b&w in PS.

kavamama

Panasonic DMC-FZ10

06/11/2003 06:26:29 PM · #14

Originally posted by joanns:

snip.. Here's the photograph - my art, or just a snapshot. Changed to b&w in PS.

IMHO, THAT'S ART!

Sonifo

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

06/11/2003 06:32:59 PM · #15

joann~That is not a snapshot. That is an awesome photo. This is exactly what the quotes meaning is.

joanns

Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro

06/11/2003 06:39:08 PM · #16

Thank You!!! I just love it. I only wish I could have gotten their attention and offered them a print of it. Oh well.

Jak

Fujifilm FinePix S602Z

06/11/2003 06:41:25 PM · #17

Originally posted by christo:

Originally posted by jerrft:
So, given this interpretation, can art exist if it is seen by no one other than the creator(artist)? If a tree falls in the woo...

Exactly, in this case it can't. Many definitions of art imply the notion of communication.

I disagree with this entirely. If your statement is true it means, for example, that da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" was NOT art while it was in his studio, but suddenly became art when he took it outside and showed it to someone. That doesn't make any sense to me.

I prefer Spinoza's definition: Art is "any human creation which contains an idea other than its utilitarian purpose."

PS: joanns, that is one heck of a fine image!

Message edited by author 2003-06-11 18:44:43.

mbardeen

Canon PowerShot G3

06/11/2003 06:45:53 PM · #18

The more popular a photograph, the more it is considered "art"? I'm not sure I'll agree with that. I'd rather touch one person to their soul than just brush over a million people's skin.

In DC there was an artist, a great one (though I can't remember his name), who built a great diorama in a spare garage. Nobody knew it existed other than the artist until he died. He wasn't creating art to touch people, he was creating it to satisfy his own need for creativity. Yet when revealed to the world it was declared to be "art". Why?

Art isn't a popularity contest to me. I don't specifically go out and take pictures to touch people's souls. I just take the pictures that satisfy me - I don't worry if they are art or not.

Yet, when I submit to challenges, I wonder if what I am submitting is art or not.
-Matt

ps. Joann - good shot. Thanks for sharing!

edit: Found the name of the artist
James Hampton: You can read more about him here.

Message edited by author 2003-06-11 18:59:50.

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

06/11/2003 10:55:17 PM · #19

Joann, I believe the appeal of this photo of yours is that it will endure.

It will endure, I'm sure, because it expresses primal humanity tangibly. Everyone will re-cognize the feeling and sense of having been there. Some things will remain 'fresh' despite of time, because they are perceived as 'new' with every individual occurance.

The contemporary bridge (seemingly 'interfering' with the pastoral idyll) will conceivably add an epochal dimension to this shot, which is more difficult to appreciate today. Under the circumstance, the b & w is the only choice.

I too am moved by this.

christo

Canon EOS-10D

06/12/2003 12:36:02 AM · #20

Originally posted by mbardeen:

The more popular a photograph, the more it is considered "art"? I'm not sure I'll agree with that. I'd rather touch one person to their soul than just brush over a million people's skin.

-Matt

OK, I guess I explained myself very badly (english is not my mother language) because you totally misunderstood my point.

My point was: the more people you touch to their soul, the better art you produced because you touch something that is common to most of the people, i.e. something very deep, common to the human nature.

My point was: I don't believe in art that only a few critiques like and not the public, because I believe a masterpiece should touch anybody, no matter what level of knowledge they have.

Message edited by author 2003-06-12 00:38:13.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

06/12/2003 01:11:40 AM · #21

What a great photo, Joanns!
I see it as art because it expresses two somewhat opposing notions, that of love and exhuberance and nature against a backdrop of the very straight highway/bridge, representing science, security, strict tolerances, and the manmade. Both the tree and the bridge unite these two notions really well in that they both represent a passage. The bridge a symbol of a crossing over danger, and a means of just
getting someplace else, and the tree a passage for the couple into something "deeper." The bridge takes you over the water, the tree takes you into the water.
I love the way they cross each other. It's a really wonderful image.

06/13/2003 01:57:21 PM · #22

This thread has prompted me to explore the general premise in a more playful but nevertheless sincere way. I'm posting this for your amusement:

Life Is What Death Is Naturally Fond Of

There is nothing and something for everyone.

What is art and what isn?t. What is and what is not art.
What is nothing and what is something, what not. What is nothing not art not a bit of it, sham or a shade of any use to anyone with an inquiry. What is found is not requisitioned, not a bit. When it is found it is there. Something else not found is not nothing, even when it is missed. Something because nothing being nothing is comparably something. What is not nothing is still something about nothing, something about that which is not. When something is, when it exists, it is because of nothing. So what is art when it is something and not nothing and not about art or about life but art, then it is art.

What is nothing and something and what is not nothing, not art, not life or death or a beautiful thing but something truly worth nothing, even when it is not. Is something not something because nothing is nothing. Is nothing not cause and motif and all the more reason for something to do or to be or to make sense of. Life being life is what death is naturally fond of, what is not missed or misplaced; and if nothing is found it is mined or invented, and if nothing is missed it is a complacency. What is never displaced is never left, it is taken for granted. When something is gone long enough, it is worshipped.

Everything is something, what is art is something charged with the essence of this. There is nothing at all that is not special or significant that is not also indicative of something that isn?t. There is art. There is art if anything indicative of everything in something especially when it is not. There is nothing in nature indicative of what is and what isn?t art. What is art is not necessary because nothing is necessary. God is not necessary because matter is god. Art in a breath is a series of vowel sounds.

Nothing is there and not being is, anything special is not an option, it is central. Everyone knows a reality. What reality is, what happens to everyone, shows when there is nothing. It shows. An exhibit is a window, it is what it is but what is seeing is often not shown. An exhibit is there, it is there in a space that is white that is nothing but form. What really shows is not there and nothing is found to be or to do or to make something of. An exhibit is there in the space that is form. Something is nothing but form and emptiness. And this is something to see.

And a lack of form is not content, clearly. Something is never the same. Water is never the same. Water is always and never and near, changeably sane. Clearly, the water knows that it is. Clearly, something is nothing but water and wind and air. And nothing can be
more sounding and musical. On the hill

nothing stands or shines forward, is art.

And the absence of art is not something easily changed, it is not
a function of art to prove its existence, or is it