I get asked a lot and other people are often asked, "What are you trying to say with this photo?"
But personally I don't always shoot with a message in mind. If someone says "Gee, that picture is really _____," and no one else has that opinion, then I smile inwardly, feeling like I did something right. I like the idea of giving people an opportunity to interpret an image in any way they see fit. I know we all interpret images differently, but there are images we make with an easy-to-recognize, obvious message. There are also images we make that take some thought to analyze the meaning, if there is one at all. Which do you prefer? Anyone have a take on this?

I do not like analyzing images. What I do like is when image makes you come back, and every time you are looking at it it evokes different emotions, every time you are noticing something new, and it happens not because you've overlooked something before, but because you see it every time on a more and more sophisticated level.

I get asked a lot and other people are often asked, "What are you trying to say with this photo?"
But personally I don't always shoot with a message in mind. If someone says "Gee, that picture is really _____," and no one else has that opinion, then I smile inwardly, feeling like I did something right. I like the idea of giving people an opportunity to interpret an image in any way they see fit. I know we all interpret images differently, but there are images we make with an easy-to-recognize, obvious message. There are also images we make that take some thought to analyze the meaning, if there is one at all. Which do you prefer? Anyone have a take on this?

Great topic, O-man. It should lead to some interesting replies, as I'd imagine people feel many different ways about this. IMO, whether a photo has to "say" something goes hand in hand with whether the creator believes their work is expression or depiction.

Photographers who use the medium as an avenue of expression (usually) are expressing something specific. Those who simply try to capture a wonderful or interesting scene or lighting (again my opinion) are more apt to present an image at face value and let the viewer judge it for themselves.

Now of course, I think both of these pursuits are fine if that's what you want, and it must be said that a viewer can (and will) put their own ideas and meaning to ANY photo, regardless of whether the artist was trying to say something or not.

Personally, my work (like many) is a mix of expression and depiction. Sometimes, I try to share a very specific emotion or attitude. Other times I simply enjoy capturing a scene for the strength of its visuals alone...

I agree with Irakly that ambiguity or "layers of meaning" can be a powerful element to an image. An image that tries to "say" something but does it in an abstract or not so obvious way causes the view to think much more, thus giving the photo more power and life...

What is, and what isn't, expressing something? It's definately in the eyes of the beholder more than the photographer.

Think of a photo of a person. People who know this person all think the photo is great. It cought that person's nuances and personality on film. Others who don't know that person may think her smile, pose, or whatever, may look contrived, wrong, stiff, and so on. There's not much you can do about it. If the goal is to take a picture FOR or OF that person, it was achieved it irregardless of what some may think. If the goal is to make a shot for me or a third party, I may have missed and should probably have made the pose, smile,ect, really contrived! Then I, or the third party, may like it better.

Now take nature photography. I see a beatiful scene, decide what I like about it, and try and capture that on film (or in a file). My thoughts when I look at this are probably much different than yours. If people like looking at that image, whatever their thoughts are, I've succeeded. It doesn't matter to me if it stirs some deeply emotional pot or they just like the beauty of it.

I suppose for me, that more often than not I'm not trying to evoke a specific emotion out of someone. I do hope people look at my nature shots and think this is something we should preserve, not exploit.

Now, I wonder if guys like van gogh, monet, picasso, and others tried to evoke an emotion from the viewer in their paintings? Or did they just have some idea in there head and paint it? I can't imagin starry night having some deeply profound meaning. I would think it was, as well as most others, painted at face value and to let others decide.

In that vain, I suppose I'm more the face value person.

I was rooting through a box of books in the garge this morning (I have an allergy to sleeping it seems) and I found a book of Jim Morrison's poetry. There was a quote on the back cover (not exact): "Listen, real poetry doesn't say anything. It opens doors an the reader can walk through any one that suits him."
I like that and I would like to think that my photography works the same way.
While knowing the intent of the photographer can be very helpful in interpreting the image or understanding it, I would disagree that the intent should have to be told to the viewer. The photo, I think, should say this on its own with absolutely no explanation from anyone. I learned this early on when I got serious about writing. I got tired of having to explain my stories or other works to people who didn't understand. I complained about this to my creative writing teacher (12th grade) and she said "You stories should explain themselves for the reader. The only questions your readers should ask you are the questions you want them to ask." This stuck with me and dramatically improved my writing.
When I was doing photography in a news capacity it became essential to make each photo tell the whole story on its own. I didn't want to make someone wade through 500 or a thousand words on a story- I wanted them to look at the photo and know exactly what the story was about, or ask themselves "What is this story about? That picture is interesting. I think I'll read this one."
My photography since then has been a mix of Steve's ideas of expression and depiction. I think I express myself through photography by depicting those scenes I find emotionally moving. I do not feel that contrived scenes are my bag. I would rather walk up on a weird scene and take photos of it than make a weird scene and take photos of it. Reality is so much more entertaining than fiction... if you pay attention...

For me at least -
Art is something that makes me step back and take another look. If I can just look at a painting, photo, story, whatver, smile and think "That's nice", that is not art; it is just a nice painting, photo, story whatever. This is not to say that these images don't have value; they can be amazingly beautiful and make people very happy; they can also adeptly tell a story.
But for me, art makes me think, makes me look for different meanings, try to get inside the artist's head and understand why they chose that particular method/shot to express themselves.
Art makes me want to try to explain to someone how an image makes me feel, what the composition/light/shades/contrast does to me, how it affects me and my interpretation.
At the moment, I do not think my own photos are art unfortunately, but I am working on it!

Sometimes I just want to look at something pretty.



For me, art doesn't have to have some deeper meaning, or some hidden agenda. If it is interesting to me, and visually stimulating, then I enjoy it.

Of course, I do have a fridge covered in "art"

adina

Very often I try to find something that matches a feeling I have. On the other hand, a lot of times I photograph with nothing specific in mind. I just play it as it comes. If it's good, fine. I find 'letting it happen' relaxing, a playful vacation. Stimulating pictures almost always result. -Minor White, "Interviews With Master Photographers, by James Danziger"

This is exactly how I take photos - the scene is saying something to me (I just don't know what) and only later when I look at the processed photos is when meaning truly comes to them.

I don't think I've ever really tried to express anything through my photos. I mean, sometimes I'll try and do something dramatic, but that's not really an expression for me. But one thing have sort of found that I do is try to show how things we normally don't look twice at are actually pretty amazing...I've gone to school on the Palouse for several years, and always thought it was the most boring and ugly place. But since I've gotten into photography, I've learned to see a little deeper and realize that there is some pretty cool stuff around here....And that's what I try to convey in my photos. One of my friends from school (who has since moved away) always comments that he doesn't remember seeing any of the great stuff that I shoot, even though he lived here for five years. So I guess for me, photography is all about capturing the cool things that most people don't notice...

Small question... with a billion different answers. If you make an image (excluding the normal sort of family snaps at social events from this discussion) then something must have caused you to believe that it was worth capturing. If that impetus remains purely personal and to give just you, the photographer, some personal satisfaction, then that is OK.

Where the water gets muddier is when you wish to show the image to others, or you do not mind if they see it. Now your work has to appeal to more than just you. If your image says nothing, the responses that you get from other viewers tend to be negative and that can be very destructive of your personal esteem.

Engaging the viewer (other than oneself) is something that can be achieved in a variety of ways from using performance art... that invites the observer to handle the pieces and engages the viewer mechanically as well as psychologically, to muted use of colours to convey emotional responses and states. The actual subject matter is only one element in what the image conveys to the observers.

If your image says nothing (either good or bad) to the observer, I would suggest that it was not worth making. The arguments for and against the acsription of the term 'art' to photography do not really help to answer the question, in my view.

h

Of course it will say something, even it is a bad photograph or even if you aren't intentionally trying to communicate something. Photographs always "say something".
Photography is, amongst other things a form of visual communication .
The message will probably be different viewer to viewer, but there will always be some message.
Be it an actual message or a feeling or whatever!
Look at lanscape photographers, for instance.
One message a well composed lanscape is probably conveying a message of what that environment is like, or leave you with a feeling of, "wish I were there".

A documentary photographer on the other hand, is more likely communicating a message about the social condition of the person in the photograph.

An action/sports photographer, is more likely to communicate a message of agony or excitement of that particular sport in that particular moment.

I missed this thread when it was first posted. I am glad it resurfaced.
Brian
Photographic Communicator

Of course it will say something, even it is a bad photograph or even if you aren't intentionally trying to communicate something. Photographs always "say something".
Photography is, amongst other things a form of visual communication .
The message will probably be different viewer to viewer, but there will always be some message.
Be it an actual message or a feeling or whatever!
Look at lanscape photographers, for instance.
One message a well composed lanscape is probably conveying a message of what that environment is like, or leave you with a feeling of, "wish I were there".

A documentary photographer on the other hand, is more likely communicating a message about the social condition of the person in the photograph.

An action/sports photographer, is more likely to communicate a message of agony or excitement of that particular sport in that particular moment.

I missed this thread when it was first posted. I am glad it resurfaced.
Brian
Photographic Communicator
This is kind of what I was getting at when I started this thread. And I've really enjoyed all the responses so far. It's really interesting to know how we all approach photography. I agree that all images do say something, and that the message varies from person to person.
I'm interested to know if we have a specific message in mind, such as a social or political or philosophical statement, when we make an image. A shot of the incredible redwoods we have where I live says pretty much one thing: "Ain't nature great?" But an image of a clear-cut stand of redwoods says a totally different thing to many people: "Logging is bad" "The photographer must be an environmentalist" "Look at all the money our timber company made here" or any of a myriad of messages. I guess it keeps coming back to the fact that all our interpretation of visual stimuli are different and subjective. I could feel totally different about seeing the image of the clear-cut than if I was actually walking through it amongst the stumps. Which I have...
It does help to know the intent of the photographer, but I think that, as I said previously, and image should be able to stand alone, without a caption. All the great images of our time stand alone, without any explanation. They explain themselves.
But does an image need a specific message? No. The message, if there is one, should whatever the viewer wants it to be, or, since we are ultimately in charge of our emotions, whatever we allow it to be.

Tbh, I look at photography from a technical standpoint. I place a lot of emphasis on how crisp an image is, whether it's the composition or the actual details of the image. I dont see or look for messages in photographs, merely the care with which the photo was taken. This is also my stance on the "art" aspect of photography. To me expertise has a higher value than artistic form. Creativity has its merits, but there are better ways of being creative than others, and the difference is in the level of expertise.

I wont say much more as I'll probably just end up offending people :p

Indeed, that's a question I've been asked too; "what are you trying to say with this photo?"
If I'm out to take photo's I don't do it to make some points.
Estetics do make a picture good most of the time, but sometimes a picture is so appealing estetics don't count.
When making pictures I only have to keep an eye open for things I consider interesting. When taking it, then there are some technical things to keep in mind and some rules regarding to composition.
Indeed I believe everyone has his or her's point of view regarding to an image. We are raised in a society which pretended some things are nice, appealing... that's what makes some pictures makes everyone like it.
A topic hard to get a finger on... but I don't worry about it tough.

If I may chime in here... :D
I alwaysw loved pictures that tell you a story. Some pictures you have to read to understand them, to focus your mind on them to actually understand them.
And most of those pictures need a clear structure, balance and atmosphere apart from focal point. My mind doesn't want to wander about and figure out what it is supposed to see before it can start to interprete.
So each picture that holds some self-esteem should actually try to tell me something in a short moment. And only when it can do this, will I come back and appreciate it. Then I can start analysing the contents and put things into relation to each other, to find meaning in the arrangement and the framing.

In my opinion if I make something I consider to be art (which by the way is everything I do) then it's art.

Outdoorsman, at first I was surprised by how few people responded to your thread but my answer comes slowly as the question is elemental. You might have well asked, does the sun need to come up in the west? No it just does. Same is true of photographs. They all say something even if it is just an instant of reflected light. We've all seen images that say, they were really, really, really hard to capture or the photographer has really nice/crappy equipment. Something is said.
.
To Darkman who wrote, "...Now, I wonder if guys like van gogh, monet, picasso, and others tried to evoke an emotion from the viewer in their paintings? Or did they just have some idea in there head and paint it? I can't imagin starry night having some deeply profound meaning. I would think it was, as well as most others, painted at face value and to let others decide."

It is interesting that you chose painters who changed the language of painting because it was insufficient to express their ideas. As to "van gogh", the word on the street is that he was crazy so "starry night" may be only deeply profound to him.

Red

I have been a photographer for c 33 years, in all this time I have been expressing how I portray woman as objects of beauty in a light that I have felt
to be right at the time.

It took me quite a long time to understand what I was trying to achieve and to say.

There are so many eliments in pictures to control and to concider, so if what photographers are trying to say is not apparent in a single picture, prehaps we need to look at all of their work to get the full story.

I work commercialy and only recently have I been able to use both my personal and commercial work to get my story accross.

http://www.brucesmithphotographer.com
http://brucesmithphotoworkshops.bravehost.com/

Mainly, most of mine say ''Jeepers, this guy has no idea what he's doing.";)

Some you take with no particular purpose in mind. I am not really sure if people ( for the most part )look for a message in a photo. In the main, they're after something that pleases the eye. Photojournalists, I think, are the ones people look to if they're after a message. (Does that sound right?) If I go out and take a picture of a computer graveyard to illustrate the ever changing technology, and how it impacts on a throw-away society, people will look at it and say " Hey look----a pile of computers". I don't want to have to stand there and try to tell them what I'm trying to say. I think it's just better sometimes to show 'em a picture of ol' Shep.
John

With involvement in competitions of the National Association of Photographic Art, you hear a lot of judges comments, and the rules and criteria for artistic merit.

"Does a photo need to say something?"

Well, the photo should say something about the photographer or to put it better the photographer needs to "say something" by means of the photo, since art can be characterized as creative self-expression and communication in keeping with the elements of design.

Any photo should have a strong centre of interest which draws the other elements in the picture together and reveals the point of view and sometimes even something about the personality of the photographer.

An essential part of art is communication and if nothing is communicated to the viewer of a photo because of weaknesses in composition or technique then it is definitely NOT photographic art. That is generally speaking the condensed view of the National Association of Photographic Art and I certainly agree with it 100%.

Ronnoco

I think a photo needs to say enough so the viewer stops and takes time to look at it. With all the image bombardment we now have it's hard to get anyone to stay long enough to view any image. Images will still leave a mark even if only glanced at but holding somones attention for more than a glance is the quest.

Cheers

I would strongly suggest the book "Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography" by Roland Barthes. It is a very good book and it makes you contemplate what an image actually is and means. You'll think of photography in a different light.

I have been trained in an art school and received my fine arts B.A. in 2004, so photo crits have become second nature since then. The majority of my photography has been B/W and the hands-on darkroom experience so digital is quite new to me. I natually begin analyzing images and try to attain a meaning from them, but I usually just try and enjoy the image its self. I found then and I still find now that if you try and put too much thinking into creating and image and their meaning, I tend to lose my inspiration to take photographs. My whole take on photography is that sometimes you take a picture and try to convay a deeper meaning to the work and then sometimes you produce an art image that is all about 'the process' or technique. Its kinda like my internal struggle... do I take a stunning image just because its stunning or do I not take the image because it doesn't mean anything? :idea:

I would strongly suggest the book "Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography" by Roland Barthes. It is a very good book and it makes you contemplate what an image actually is and means. You'll think of photography in a different light.:

I think your suggested book's title.Reflections on.... indicates a very individual perception of photography. Obvious question I suppose, but is the author a photographer?

I would strongly suggest Spring into Digital Photography by Joseph Jaynes and Rip Noel The emphasis of their book is on both professional and artistic photography.


I have been trained in an art school and received my fine arts B.A. in 2004, so photo crits have become second nature since then..:

I taught in an arts school, so photo critiques have become second nature to me since :blush2: I am sorry to say a few decades before that.


My whole take on photography is that sometimes you take a picture and try to convay a deeper meaning to the work and then sometimes you produce an art image that is all about 'the process' or technique. Its kinda like my internal struggle... do I take a stunning image just because its stunning or do I not take the image because it doesn't mean anything? :idea:

Not at all. Technique and art are integrated or you have a lousy photo. There is no such a thing as a great painter that cannot use brush or paint well and that is technique. In photography, the camera, lenses, filters, lights, tripod etc. are the tools that may produce the "art", but if they do, it is the technique that makes it art.

To use your words "do I take an image because it is stunning?" The obvious answer to that question is NO! You are the photographer. You use your photographic tools and technique to make the image stunning.

Ronnoco

I think all photos or anything on display for that matter "say" something. Depending on the viewer the message may go through one ear and out the other. Or if the viewer is intrigued by the message then the viewer will stop and absorb more of what is being projected.

"A picture is worth a thousand words," but only those interested will read it....

IMHO

I think all photos or anything on display for that matter "say" something. Depending on the viewer the message may go through one ear and out the other. Or if the viewer is intrigued by the message then the viewer will stop and absorb more of what is being projected.

"A picture is worth a thousand words," but only those interested will read it....

IMHO

Well, for that matter, your choice of garbage container and how you put it on the curb may "say something" as well, but nevertheless anyone who considers that kind of statement art could be characterized as having a screw loose.

Ronnoco

Photographs are like any other object - they can be used as art, as a form of comunication, as a way of record an event or a memory, or any one of a million other purposes. And the fun part is that a photo if often used for many different purposes all at once - sometimes even by the same person!

My photos are primarily a tool for recording my memories of a particular place or time or event. Looking at a still image often brings back the memories with a clarity and sharpness I can't accomplish on my own, even years after the fact.

My photos often work as a form of communication. When I'm in a beautiful place, I like to try to capture a little of that beauty in a photo. I don't try to make the photo beautiful; I just try use the photo to open a window on the beauty of the original subject. The photo is the road, not the destination.

Lately I have been trying to develop a new skill - to create photos that are, themselves, objects of beauty. I seldom try to say anything with these photos, I simply want to create something that is intrinsically beautiful, at least to me.

So far, I have never been the type to take a photo in order to send a message. But perhaps one day I will be able to use my photos to say something, whether it's something important to me, or something important to others. That's a very difficult skill, but maybe I'll get lucky one day.

In the meantime, I'll just continue to point my camera at stuff I think is pretty, and push the button.

Photographs are like any other object - they can be used as art, as a form of comunication, as a way of record an event or a memory, or any one of a million other purposes. And the fun part is that a photo if often used for many different purposes all at once - sometimes even by the same person!

In the meantime, I'll just continue to point my camera at stuff I think is pretty, and push the button.

Perhaps the true distinction is between picture taking and photography. Picture taking is what you have defined above: pointing the camera and pushing the button. Photography is knowing the potential possibilities of all the equipment you have available as well as the effect of light, texture, colour, line, shape, composition and angles and then with good technique putting it all together to create an effective photo with some impact and a good centre of interest. Picture takers often take pictures with no real centre of interest and no meaning for any viewer but themselves. Photographers tend to make the effort to create an image that every viewer would find interesting and effective.

Photography takes more money, time, and effort than picture taking but many people do both depending on the situation. Continuing the distinction, one might say that a photo does need to say something but a picture does not.

Ronnoco

Not at all. Technique and art are integrated or you have a lousy photo. There is no such a thing as a great painter that cannot use brush or paint well and that is technique. In photography, the camera, lenses, filters, lights, tripod etc. are the tools that may produce the "art", but if they do, it is the technique that makes it art.

RonnocoI was only saying that sometimes the piece of art is about the subject depicted in the image, and sometimes the piece of art is art because of the process or journey it took to get the image. In contemporary art practice it is not always about image beauty, statement and purpose of the image is very important.

I was only saying that sometimes the piece of art is about the subject depicted in the image,.

No, either you are not being precise or you are making the wrong interpretation. Art and photography are never about the subject per se, but rather about how the artist or photographer decides to portray the subject...what tools are used and what effect is created based to a large extent on the elements of design.

and sometimes the piece of art is art because of the process or journey it took to get the image. ,.

You cannot separate process from subject. The subject and the "scene" determine the technique or the process for creating the work. A piece of art is never art simply "because of the process or journey it took to get the image". To put it another way, great technique with no centre of interest or subject still results in garbage, not art.


In contemporary art practice it is not always about image beauty, statement and purpose of the image is very important.

Well, you may know what you are trying to say above, but it does not come through in this quoted sentence.

Ronnoco

You must really get off on deconstructing everything people say. You have your opinion, I have mine. It seems like you come from a totally different school as I. To each one their own.

You must really get off on deconstructing everything people say. You have your opinion, I have mine. It seems like you come from a totally different school as I. To each one their own.

Deconstructing the media or media literacy is a course that is even taught at the high school level. There is no emotional "getting off on" component whatsoever. You must have missed that course in your area. :D Moreover, I told you I taught in an art school.
What do you think teachers do, when they mark essays that deal with the nature of photography as an art form? They read carefully what the student has written and make comments, related to the "argument" or the "logic" of the expressed opinion.

I am a photographer and I have won awards in the Canadian Association of Photographic art. I have done television, production, direction and camera work. I have taught photography, computer animation, and several other subjects. I presented at the North American arts schools conference. I have been doing this, since before you were born.

So, you may have your opinion, but back it up, by telling me about your experience in photography.

Ronnoco

Deconstructing the media or media literacy is a course that is even taught at the high school level. There is no emotional "getting off on" component whatsoever. You must have missed that course in your area. :D Moreover, I told you I taught in an art school.
What do you think teachers do, when they mark essays that deal with the nature of photography as an art form? They read carefully what the student has written and make comments, related to the "argument" or the "logic" of the expressed opinion.

I am a photographer and I have won awards in the Canadian Association of Photographic art. I have done television, production, direction and camera work. I have taught photography, computer animation, and several other subjects. I presented at the North American arts schools conference. I have been doing this, since before you were born.

So, you may have your opinion, but back it up, by telling me about your experience in photography.

RonnocoI didn't come here to be 'marked' or have every single word deconstructed. I posted my opinion, that is it. It is you that seems to have the need to dig your nose in everyone's statements. It gets old. Oh, lay off the condisending attitude, its not appreciated.

You've made your point clear... you're a great photographer, you've won lots of awards, you have more knowledge than I have. You da man.

I don't have to explain anything to you about why my opinion is the way it is. I made a statement of what I believe to be true. You don't like it, thats cool.

I'm done here.

I didn't come here to be 'marked' or have every single word deconstructed. I posted my opinion, that is it. It is you that seems to have the need to dig your nose in everyone's statements. It gets old. Oh, lay off the condisending attitude, its not appreciated..

Anyone who can express himself/herself in a clear and literate manner and means what he/she says, has absolutely NO reason to fear his/her own words in deconstruction or in any other approach to discussion or argument. Mispelled characterizations ...(the word you are seeking is "condescending") and a comma after "attitude" instead of the required . period, limit the credibility of what you are trying to say. This is the real world and in business one is judged by one's spoken and written literacy level. A person's level of writing can also put their indicated educational credentials open to question.


You've made your point clear... you're a great photographer, you've won lots of awards, you have more knowledge than I have. You da man. ..

Wow! I must say this is the first time I have seen four sentences with only one capital letter and one period, followed by an incomplete sentence. Obviously I did not make my point clear either but street style illiteracy belongs in the street, in my opinion. I won't even try to explain the difference between experience, the desire to continue learning, and greatness. I am sure that I do not have the correct overly emotional street style to successfully communicate at that level.


I don't have to explain anything to you about why my opinion is the way it is. I made a statement of what I believe to be true. You don't like it, thats cool.
I'm done here.

If your opinion is of absolutely no value to anyone else but you, and indeed you have proven that, both by what you have said and the manner in which you have said it, as well as by what you have not said or supported, then of course, why explain anything?

I made the ridiculous mistake of assuming that you wanted to share your opinion and support it, in discussions in this column. That is the purpose of forums, by the way. You seem to have another agenda.

Ronnoco

And what agenda would that be? I would really like to know. All I know is that I came to this board to learn something more about digital photography. That is it.

Oooooo, Mr. Pro is making fun of my spelling and grammar; it’s called making mistakes. I'm sure Mr. Pro doesn't make any. If you are such a great photographer than why don't you have a gallery? Come on, show your stuff expert. You seem to do a lot of talking but I don't see any action.

This one sure got 'off message'... Can we get back to the original question? It's a good one.

I don't think photos in general need to "say something" except to the person taking the picture--it was a point in time that was important enough to click the shutter (and probably do some editing in Photoshop). However, when you post pictures on the site, it's nice for everyone here if the picture has something to say, whether it turns out to be important to everyone or not. Pictures you posted days or years ago may not be as meaningful now, except to show yourself and maybe others how much you've progressed in your understanding of yourself and your equipment. Many times (even recently) I've posted a picture that I enjoy but was a dud on this site. That's OK--it makes me think more about what I'm doing with my photography. I appreciate all comments, constructive criticism and help, as long as they're well intentioned.

Our photography is a journey that we all take in our own personal way--no one's wrong, just different!

Perhaps the true distinction is between picture taking and photography. Picture taking is what you have defined above: pointing the camera and pushing the button. Photography is knowing the potential possibilities of all the equipment you have available as well as the effect of light, texture, colour, line, shape, composition and angles and then with good technique putting it all together to create an effective photo with some impact and a good centre of interest. Picture takers often take pictures with no real centre of interest and no meaning for any viewer but themselves. Photographers tend to make the effort to create an image that every viewer would find interesting and effective.

Photography takes more money, time, and effort than picture taking but many people do both depending on the situation. Continuing the distinction, one might say that a photo does need to say something but a picture does not.

Ronnoco

I don't think that's an 'A' or 'B' proposition Ronnoco; as Bill Murray once said, "there are many subtle levels."

Certainly there are people at both ends of the scale, but there are plenty who are in the middle, trying to take pics for themselves, but with varying degrees of consideration for the artistry involved.

Dividing photographers strictly into those two camps might also encourage people to similarly divide their photos - and that would be a terrible shame, because there are an awful lot of "picture takers" out there with great, untrained, natural eyes for composition, whose photos often rival those of the trained and experienced pros for artistry and emotional provocation.

Art isn't always created people who would strictly define themselves as "artists"; neither is photography always performed by those who would strictly define themselves as "photographers", so I think it's a mistake to try to pidgeon-hole people who point their cameras at things and click the shutter with little or no technical consideration as "picture-takers" and not "photographers".

I think anyone who captures an image with any kind of camera is by definition a photographer. It's only your interpretation of the relative value of their imagery that leads you to classify the people and the images in the "worth something" or "worth nothing" categories.

If the camera's automatic functions auto-focus and auto-expose properly, and you happen to have composed the scene with a strong focal point, and it says something to the viewer ... but all unintentionally, is that a photograph?

Does it have to be a conscious effort?

If the camera's automatic functions auto-focus and auto-expose properly, and you happen to have composed the scene with a strong focal point, and it says something to the viewer ... but all unintentionally, is that a photograph?

Does it have to be a conscious effort?

"you happen to have composed the scene with a strong focal point, and it says something to the viewer ... but all unintentionally"

If you composed a scene and hit the shutter release button, how can that be unintentional?

Someone's definition of your photograph might be entirely different from yours....that would be unintentional......but still valid since a viewer is free to translate what s/he sees.

"Does it have to be a conscious effort?"

Good question. We all have had those moments where you are browsing your newly printed/uploaded shots and find a shot that is a mistake but turned out interesting. Your desire to show others that photo becomes a "conscious effort" and the mistakes now becomes photographic art, perhaps?

This is just my own opinion of course.

Here's another question....

A photographer takes a picture, prints it, frames it, and now hangs it in his/her room. The photographer obviously appreciates his/her work BUT NEVER SHOWS IT TO ANYBODY!!

Is it art?

![/QUOTE]This one sure got 'off message'... Can we get back to the original question? It's a good one.![/QUOTE]

I agree totally, and was about to suggest that as well.

![/QUOTE]
I don't think photos in general need to "say something" except to the person taking the picture--it was a point in time that was important enough to click the shutter (and probably do some editing in Photoshop).![/QUOTE]

Actually what you are talking about is picture taking as I defined it earlier. You take a picture for your own purposes, put it in an album, for example and take a look at it from time to time.

To use another analogy, story telling may have a limited relevance, limited interest and limited appeal depending on the individual nature of the story. It may only be a diary or a journal. Literature is defined as a work with a more universal appeal to a larger audience.

Photography can be equally defined as picture taking with a more "universal appeal". However to get that attention and that "universal appeal", certain techniques that mix the artistic with the technical are required.

It is not only posting pictures on a site, it is also publishing in a paper, folder, magazine,presenting, entering a competition and selling your work. To do all of this successfully, the photograph must have a universal appeal and must communicate something about the photographer and his/her point of view of the scene or subject being photographed.

Thank you, by the way, for bringing things back to the appropriate topic.

Ronnoco

We don't have to be professional or even advanced amateurs to consider ourselves photographers and to feel that our photos might "say something" to someone besides ourselves. Isn't that enough? Over the years, we can communicate, share and grow as photographers in the process.

By your definitions, I and most of the people who post on this site are somewhere inbetween simple 'picture-taker' and 'artistic photographer', so where does that put us -- neither, or in the wide gray area between the two? We may (or may not) be headed toward acheiving the artistic photographer level someday, but not necessarily motivated in the direction of "publishing in a paper, folder, magazine,presenting, entering a competition and selling your work." Hopefully the finer points of word definitions and categories aren't the main issue. Art is extremely subjective, as are literature, music and other creative forms--they defy all but very general, high-level definitions and even those can be debated.

Personally, I prefer letting natural subjects (birds, flowers, etc.) be their own artistic statement; I simply compose the subject and enhance it slightly to bring the viewer's attention to the moment that I was privileged to be able to capture through a photograph. Nature itself is overflowing with universal appeal and doesn't necessarily improve through applying much technique--you just need a good eye and know when to click the shutter, along with using the best camera settings for the situation (lighting, focus, etc.). To my mind, the key to nature photography is to capture the action, angle &/or color that holds the viewer's attention for at least a few moments (well, maybe that does take a certain level of skill and technique). Other people prefer stretching their imagination more and creating thought-provoking images that require more advanced use of photgraphic and photo-editing technique, but the resulting images often have a less-than-universal appeal. Does that make those creations a higher level of "art" than simple nature photography?

I don't mean to be argumentative--these are genuine questions that I hope people will consider. OK, I'm stepping off my soap-box now.

We don't have to be professional or even advanced amateurs to consider ourselves photographers and to feel that our photos might "say something" to someone besides ourselves. Isn't that enough? Over the years, we can communicate, share and grow as photographers in the process..

Anyone may consider themselves a photographer or an artist for that matter, but that consideration is self-delusion if few peers or others agree with that assessment. There are a lot of starving artists out there because too few people are in accord with their self-assessment of being artists in the first place. They have not met the "standards" of design of successful artists. There are certain standards that differentiate story telling and personal journals from world literature, amateur films from award winners at Cannes, and in this case casual pictures from photographs with a universal appeal. You can only grow as a photographer, if you recognize the standards, and experiment with them to find an individual approach to attaining that universal appeal and recognition for the quality of your work as photographs.


By your definitions, I and most of the people who post on this site are somewhere inbetween simple 'picture-taker' and 'artistic photographer', so where does that put us -- neither, or in the wide gray area between the two? We may (or may not) be headed toward acheiving the artistic photographer level someday, but not necessarily motivated in the direction of "publishing in a paper, folder, magazine,presenting, entering a competition and selling your work.".

You are absolutely correct. As a matter of fact, most artistic photographers are sometimes picture takers too. When you have done journalistic photography as I have, the time and the situation does not always lend itself to the set-up, work and patience, necessary to create the great artistic photograph in any event. You do the best you can, under the circumstances but you recognize the weaknesses in the shot and think of how you could have done better and will do better next time. Even amateur photographers who are not interested in sales would like to display blow ups of their best prints in their homes or offices. To do that effectively and get the genuine appreciation of viewers requires that they meet the general "standards" that exist in photography as in any other creative field. To use an analogy from a different creative area: playing music off key on your piano in your home may generate compliments from your guests, but they won't be genuine.

Hopefully the finer points of word definitions and categories aren't the main issue. Art is extremely subjective, as are literature, music and other creative forms--they defy all but very general, high-level definitions and even those can be debated.

Art, literature and music are not subjective at all. Everyone may have a different view and appreciation of Shakespeare, Goethe, or Camus, but no one will say that they did not write literature. On the other hand, no one would say that Dan Brown wrote literature.
In art it is the same. Your view of the work of Leonardo da Vinci may be different from mine, but no one would say he was not an artist, sculptor, etc. In photography, no one would argue that Yosuf Karsh was not a great portrait photographer.


Personally, I prefer letting natural subjects (birds, flowers, etc.) be their own artistic statement; I simply compose the subject and enhance it slightly to bring the viewer's attention to the moment that I was privileged to be able to capture through a photograph. Nature itself is overflowing with universal appeal and doesn't necessarily improve through applying much technique--you just need a good eye and know when to click the shutter, along with using the best camera settings for the situation (lighting, focus, etc.). To my mind, the key to nature photography is to capture the action, angle &/or color that holds the viewer's attention for at least a few moments (well, maybe that does take a certain level of skill and technique.".

You made my point quite well.:)


Other people prefer stretching their imagination more and creating thought-provoking images that require more advanced use of photgraphic and photo-editing technique, but the resulting images often have a less-than-universal appeal. Does that make those creations a higher level of "art" than simple nature photography?.".

If they have less than universal appeal, than I would not consider them artistic images at all. As a matter of fact, having done a lot of scenic photography, and my mother is even better at it than I am, I recognize that it can be at an extremely high level of art, but there is a lot of "hidden" technique that goes into it.


I don't mean to be argumentative--these are genuine questions that I hope people will consider. OK, I'm stepping off my soap-box now.

You were not argumentative at all and made your point extremely well and in one case my point. :)

Cheers!
Ronnoco

Anyone may consider themselves a photographer or an artist for that matter, but that consideration is self-delusion if few peers or others agree with that assessment. There are a lot of starving artists out there because too few people are in accord with their self-assessment of being artists in the first place. They have not met the "standards" of design of successful artists. There are certain standards that differentiate story telling and personal journals from world literature, amateur films from award winners at Cannes, and in this case casual pictures from photographs with a universal appeal. You can only grow as a photographer, if you recognize the standards, and experiment with them to find an individual approach to attaining that universal appeal and recognition for the quality of your work as photographs.

Just because someones art is not recognised or popular doesn't mean that they are not artists. They might simply be bad artists. Or they might be practicing an unpopular style of art. Or they might be producing in a vacuum, and their art is not reaching the rest of the world.

How many of the greatest artists in history have been considered crap until decades of even centuries after their own death? "Peer review" is the absolute worst factor on which to judge whether someone is or is not an artist; saying someone is not a filmaker because their film is not lauded by Cannes or by the rest of the film industry is rediculous.

Again, I consider an artist to be anyone who creates art for its own sake, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks about their art.

As a pro photographer, you might look at my photography as pedestrian, lowbrow garbage, while I have had others look at it and rave over its beauty. I consider myself an artist simply because once in a while I take photos that are just meant to be art, as opposed to taking photos meant to capture my personal memories.

Just because someones art is not recognised or popular doesn't mean that they are not artists. They might simply be bad artists. Or they might be practicing an unpopular style of art. Or they might be producing in a vacuum, and their art is not reaching the rest of the world..

A "bad artist" is rather a humourous contradiction in terms. Someone who draws, paints, and sculpts badly is definitely not an artist. Someone who takes out of focus, badly exposed photos with heads or feet cut off, may be a camera user or a picture taker but that person would be self-delusional to consider themselves a photographer.

There is a specific difference in "popularity" or "universal appeal". Everyone for example has their own opinion and their own view of the work of Leonardo Da Vinci but the general consensus is that his work is art. Even if the style is unpopular, the recognition that it is an individual style that still meets the compositional and technical standards of quality make it art.

I taught both gifted (super intelligent) and talented (super creative skills) students at one point and it was easy just by looking at the work produced (photos, computer animation, art) to see the various levels from "pedestrian" to use your term all the way up to great art.
Interesting point was that everyone else at the school could recognize the same distinctions and levels.


How many of the greatest artists in history have been considered crap until decades of even centuries after their own death? "Peer review" is the absolute worst factor on which to judge whether someone is or is not an artist; saying someone is not a filmaker because their film is not lauded by Cannes or by the rest of the film industry is rediculous...

The difference historically however was that there were far fewer artists and far fewer people that had ever been exposed to art. Education in the arts and media communication has brought about changes in art appreciation. As far as "peer review" is concerned, having been on judging panels, you might be surprised to learn how much consensus there is about quality work and it is not subjective or arbitrary either.


Again, I consider an artist to be anyone who creates art for its own sake, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks about their art...

You missed the point. He or she is not creating art at all, unless it is recognized as such by the "world".


As a pro photographer, you might look at my photography as pedestrian, lowbrow garbage, while I have had others look at it and rave over its beauty....


That is not how it works at all. "Lowbrow" is a subjective term that has nothing to do with quality and would not be used by any seriously dedicated pro. On the other hand, if your photography was judged as truly ordinary and throw away quality, then anyone raving over its beauty would be either giving out false compliments or have a very limited exposure to quality work to make a valid comparison.


I consider myself an artist simply because once in a while I take photos that are just meant to be art, as opposed to taking photos meant to capture my personal memories.

Making the attempt to be an artist does not make it so. Having an eye for composition, the thorough knowledge of technique, some appropriate tools and equipment and the willingness to seek a personal view of perfection can lead you in that direction but recognition is still a necessary part of the process to become an artistic photographer.

Ronnoco

" A "bad artist" is rather a humourous contradiction in terms. Someone who draws, paints, and sculpts badly is definitely not an artist. Someone who takes out of focus, badly exposed photos with heads or feet cut off, may be a camera user or a picture taker but that person would be self-delusional to consider themselves a photographer."

Suppose the intent is out of focus badly exposed photos. Does that make the person a photographer? Or is it only when the image is technically correct and visually pleasing that they are considered a photographer?

Same could be said of someone who creates "bad" art. Perhaps the final piece is exactly how they envisioned it. Who's to say whether the writing, sculpting, painting or photo is good or bad?

If I take a photo with the head cut off, does that make me delusional to think that I am a photographer? What if I intentionally chop into the head?

I think art is created with intent. Other than that, who am I to say whether you or anyone else is an artist.

One more point...

" It is not only posting pictures on a site, it is also publishing in a paper, folder, magazine,presenting, entering a competition and selling your work. To do all of this successfully, the photograph must have a universal appeal and must communicate something about the photographer and his/her point of view of the scene or subject being photographed."


I don't think that these things qualify someone as a photographer. Does simply taking photographs (as opposed to being a picture-taker) for the joy that you find in it make you less of a photographer?

If someone intentionally makes a technically bad photo, prints it, frames, and hangs it on a wall WITH the intent to share/exploit the photo with others then it only takes one other person on this planet to sincerely like it......to make it art. IMO

I'm pretty sure that the best of the best art will have admirers and dislikers.

"Universal appeal" is probably unattainable. "General appeal" is probably a better word to characterize art that that gets over 50% approval from the audience that looks at it.

Art can not be bound by rules or it can not evolve.

If someone intentionally makes a technically bad photo, prints it, frames, and hangs it on a wall WITH the intent to share/exploit the photo with others then it only takes one other person on this planet to sincerely like it......to make it art. IMO.

You don't understand the nature of art. There is a difference between scribbling and writing, stories and literature, noise and music, self expression and communication, talking and public speaking, painting and art, and picture taking and photography.
The difference is in the quality of the work and the fact that it communicates something to a majority of viewers or listeners if it is truly art.

Anyone can put paint on a canvas but how they do it and inter-related with that, whether they communicate something to a majority of viewers by means of the finished product, determines whether it is art or not. Anyone can press the shutter button, but pressing the shutter button alone does not make the person a photographer or the product an artistic photo.


I'm pretty sure that the best of the best art will have admirers and dislikers.

"Universal appeal" is probably unattainable. "General appeal" is probably a better word to characterize art that that gets over 50% approval from the audience that looks at it..

To repeat my point, everyone may have their own view of particular art but when it comes to high quality work, there is a genuine consensus that it IS in fact art. Historically, some people at the time did not like the Beatles music but almost everyone recognized that it was music whether they liked it or not. Everyone who looked at the photos of Yosuf Karsh or Boris Spremo would recognize them as artistic whether they liked them or not.


Art can not be bound by rules or it can not evolve.

Art is not bound by rules but it is based on them, since rules create a more objective set of criteria for determining the nature of art. The same holds true for music, literature, film, video, or any other form of creativity.

Ronnoco

Ronnoco,

Where does ABSTRACT ART fit in your arguement?

If I intentionally create a technically poor photograph, print it, frame it, and put it on an easel while I sit outside the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. Most will pass me by, some will laugh, and maybe a small handful of people will STOP, LOOK, WONDER, SPECULATE, DEFINE, DISLIKE, APPRECIATE, and FEEL what I want to show the public.

If what I display to the public is not art then what do you call it?

Ever heard of Christo and Jeanne-Claude. When I was young, they put up a bunch of yellow umbrellas throughout California in tandem with putting up blue umbrellas in Japan. They put about 3000 umbrellas in total and two people even died in the process. They call that art.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christo

Everyone who looked at the photos of Yosuf Karsh or Boris Spremo would recognize them as artistic whether they liked them or not.


How would anyone say that Yosuf Karsh or Boris Spremo's work was not artistic? You're making it too easy.

Show me that you are capable of appreciating art that doesn't quite fit the text book style you are an advocate of. I have a gut feeling YOU stray away contemporary or modern art museums.

You don't understand the nature of art.

And you do? That's an incredibly arrogant and conceited thing to say.

Maybe manasca's (and mine, truth be told) definition of what constitutes art differs from yours, but that doesn't mean he doesn't understand the nature of art.

Your definition of art seems to be something along the lines of "whatever everybody agrees is art", while mine is more like "something created for purely aesthetic or communicative purposes."

Miriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines art as "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced." There's nothing in there about the relative level of said skills, or the approval or recognition of others.

Do you think that a childs spagetti creations are art? Or crayon drawings of dinosaurs? Crude, perhaps... child-like... simplistic... raw... but definitely ART.

How about a canvas splattered with a color or two, is that art? Museums and collectors certainly seem to think so, but let's face it - it takes no skill at all to splatter a canvas with colors. In fact, that is a form of art which mostly creates itself, since the mass of the paint, air resistance, gravity, centrifugal force, and the surface tension of the paint on the brush are all factors that are almost totally out of the artist's control - and yet paintings of that type are recognized as art and often sell for big bucks. And the people who create them are called artists.

Art is where you find it. Just because something doesn't fit your narrow definition of art doesn't mean it's not art, nor does it mean that the creator of such work is not an artist.

Ronnoco,

Where does ABSTRACT ART fit in your arguement?]

Abstract art still gets into the use of colour, shape, line, texture, lighting, reflection, perspective etc. The very best of abstract art in my opinion is the computer art that is in some American and Japanese museums of art. Some americans have a world reputation as computer artists. By the way, have you seen my primitive example of imaging or maybe art, (still open to question) done with the equivalent of a toy computer (8 meg of ram and a speed of 16 megahertz) in this forum?


If I intentionally create a technically poor photograph, print it, frame it, and put it on an easel while I sit outside the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. Most will pass me by, some will laugh, and maybe a small handful of people will STOP, LOOK, WONDER, SPECULATE, DEFINE, DISLIKE, APPRECIATE, and FEEL what I want to show the public. ?]

If it is technically and compositionally poor, then it will not catch any more than a cursory look from anyone and even that short glance would be only because of your choice of location rather than any interest or quality in the work.

If what I display to the public is not art then what do you call it??]

Well, in an Arts and Crafts Show, it would usually be called "junk" by those passing by, even if it was on an easel, and some certainly would laugh or shake their head in amazement at anyone who considers it art.

Ever heard of Christo and Jeanne-Claude. When I was young, they put up a bunch of yellow umbrellas throughout California in tandem with putting up blue umbrellas in Japan. They put about 3000 umbrellas in total and two people even died in the process. They call that art. ]

Well, Christo and Jeanne-Claude may have called it art, as did probably those that assisted them but I highly doubt that the community of artists that have worldwide reputations and their work in famous museums shared this view. As a matter of fact, I doubt that even a majority of the general public shared that view either unless I am missing some important detail in your example.

Ronnoco

Yeah, or the pile of bricks in the Tate Modern, or Tracey Emmins' Unmade Bed.
Doesn't fit my notions of art, but those-who-know-better-than-us at the Tate galllery think so.

The head of one gallery does not necessarily make a consensus when it comes to assessing art as art. To put what I said before in this context. I don't believe that either a large group of artists or a large group of the general public familiar with art would agree that such junk is art. Therefore it is not art.

Your example contradicts, Wildcad's point I believe too, that if one person believes it to be art then it is. No it isn't. Some consensus and agreement is necessary among a mixed group of peers and others familiar with art or photography to "assess" whether it is art or not.

Ronnoco

Where does ABSTRACT ART fit in your arguement?

If I intentionally create a technically poor photograph, print it, frame it, and put it on an easel while I sit outside the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. Most will pass me by, some will laugh, and maybe a small handful of people will STOP, LOOK, WONDER, SPECULATE, DEFINE, DISLIKE, APPRECIATE, and FEEL what I want to show the public.

If what I display to the public is not art then what do you call it?


Some art is meaningful only within a particular cultural/historical context. A lot of what is called "abstract" art can be classified as such. During and after WWII there was an artistic and philisophical backlash against "representational" art. Artists began playing with intellectual ideas about meaning and blurring the lines between images of things and the things themselves. A lot of powerful artistic statements and ideas came out of that time. One of my favorites is the American flag painting (http://www.askart.com/AskART/J/jasper_johns/jasper_johns.aspx?ID=30058) by Jasper Johns. Is it a painting of a flag or is it a flag? What's the difference? Can a painting be a flag?

To some extent, a lot of this type of art is elitist. It requires a certain level of artistic and historical education. It may not be pretty and it may not speak directly to your gut. But within the context of art history and our culture, it's still very meaningful and it helps define what does speak to your heart. There's art that's accepted now that would not have been accepted 100 years ago. And it's accepted because the ideas and work of esoteric/fringe/elitist artists pushed the limits and became incorporated in our cultural understanding of beauty, meaning, and aesthetics. All photographic art actually falls into that category. If you look at the history of photography, the first artists simply copied the style of contemporary painters. The first pure, photographic images that were shown as art were made by Edward Weston (http://www.edward-weston.com/), I believe. And they were seen as a radical departure by the art community and even other photographers. But now we consider those photos to be artistic masterpieces.

Is this not an interesting subject? There are so many angles and levels from which to approach it.

Your example contradicts, Wildcad's point I believe too, that if one person believes it to be art then it is. No it isn't. Some consensus and agreement is necessary among a mixed group of peers and others familiar with art or photography to "assess" whether it is art or not.

Ronnoco

So basically, art is art, and a person is an artist, only if other artists say so?

So you have to be an artist-approved artist to declare others artists so that they can approve you as an artist...

Your argument is elitist, circular, and self-serving, not to mention narrow-minded.

Like the dictionary says: art is "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced."

I see nothing in there about consensus, arbitrary approvals, or subjective "assessments" by anybody else.

So basically, art is art, and a person is an artist, only if other artists say so?

Your argument is elitist, circular, and self-serving, not to mention narrow-minded.
.

Really, I think it is rather silly to suggest in the reverse of my argument that anything using paint, chalk, plaster or a variety of other media is art, anything written is literature, any noise is music, and anything in video format is a great movie or great television.

Recognized quality determines the nature of the work. I find it humourous that anyone would consider this simple basic fact as elitist, narrow-minded, and how it could possibly be self-serving is beyond ridiculous.

Ronnoco

The head of one gallery does not necessarily make a consensus when it comes to assessing art as art. To put what I said before in this context. I don't believe that either a large group of artists or a large group of the general public familiar with art would agree that such junk is art. Therefore it is not art.

Your example contradicts, Wildcad's point I believe too, that if one person believes it to be art then it is. No it isn't. Some consensus and agreement is necessary among a mixed group of peers and others familiar with art or photography to "assess" whether it is art or not.

Ronnoco

1) How many people have to agree that it's art before it's art.

2) What if no one thinks it's art but in 20 years people decide it's art. How does that fit in? A pile of bricks might fit that example. Because the pile of bricks with the context of a gallery is a comment about art. Does that not make it art? And won't it be recognized as such in a few years?

1) How many people have to agree that it's art before it's art.

2) What if no one thinks it's art but in 20 years people decide it's art. How does that fit in? A pile of bricks might fit that example. Because the pile of bricks with the context of a gallery is a comment about art. Does that not make it art? And won't it be recognized as such in a few years?

Well, if your photography has won professional awards, been published in photo, travel, sports or other magazines, if it is in some galleries, if you have been asked to present photo seminars, if your photo business is extremely successful, etc. then the implication is that the quality of your work is at the artistic level.

The 20 years example does not fit at all. None of the bricks type examples from 20 years ago, ever successfully endured the test of time as works of art by any fraction of the general artistic community or the public.

Ronnoco

Well, if your photography has won professional awards, been published in photo, travel, sports or other magazines, if it is in some galleries, if you have been asked to present photo seminars, if your photo business is extremely successful, etc. then the implication is that the quality of your work is at the artistic level.


Ronnoco,

Your explanation on the "artistic level" seem so to be of very high standards. Also, it appears that what you call art must conform to specific standards and include universal apeal.

When someone not educated in those standards and has not achieved the milestones you have mentioned in the above quote....but uses a tangible medium to EXPRESS themselves...what do you call it?

The keyword is "express." When you hear a funny joke then you express yourself by laughing. When an average/sensible person is INSPIRED to EXPRESS themselves in a TANGIBLE MEDIUM.....what do you call the final OUTPUT of that motivation? Again, the example assumes the person has not education in the artistic form and has not been recognize an artist.

I ask this because it appears to me that you feel art is very specific without gray areas. Can't 'art' be a general word that can be categorized at different levels.

children's art
amatuer art
profession art
good art
bad art

But it's all still art, isnt' it? If not then what is it? Please don't call it 'trash', a term you like to use.

Really, I think it is rather silly to suggest in the reverse of my argument that anything using paint, chalk, plaster or a variety of other media is art, anything written is literature, any noise is music, and anything in video format is a great movie or great television.

Recognized quality determines the nature of the work. I find it humourous that anyone would consider this simple basic fact as elitist, narrow-minded, and how it could possibly be self-serving is beyond ridiculous.

Ronnoco

I never said than anything video qualifies as a great movie or television. It might be crap, but it's still art.

Recognized quality indicates the recognized quality of art. It does not qualify or disqualify it as art.

I find it elitist that you think only artists can say what is or is not art. That's like saying only an MLB player can say whether or not somebody is a real baseball player.

Well, if your photography has won professional awards, been published in photo, travel, sports or other magazines, if it is in some galleries, if you have been asked to present photo seminars, if your photo business is extremely successful, etc. then the implication is that the quality of your work is at the artistic level.

What if your business is only moderately successful? What if you have only been published in a student magazine? What if you were nominated for an award but didn't win?

The qualities you mentioned can indeed be used to judge whether a piece of art is accepted or successful, but not to judge whether it is or is not art.

Your argument is that art is only art if it is recognized as such by other artists. But what if it is only recognized as such by non-artists? What if is recognized as such by only one artist? Or by 5?

What standard do these other artists use to judge something as art or not art? If you can define their standard, then non-artists could use that same standard to judge for themselves what is or is not art. If you can't define the standard, then their judgement becomes completely subjective, rendering it no more or less valuable than a non-artist's judgement.

Ronnoco,

Your explanation on the "artistic level" seem so to be of very high standards. Also, it appears that what you call art must conform to specific standards and include universal apeal..

You are perfectly correct. I have often been "accused" (and I use the term humourously since in some cases it seems more like an accusation, but not by you, by the way) of having very high standards in everything that I do and in my expectations of others as well.
That does not mean that I necessarily meet my own high standards either, but the goal and direction are alwalys present. I am impressed with anyone who can differentiate between high standards and the stupidity of characterizing arrogance.


When someone not educated in those standards and has not achieved the milestones you have mentioned in the above quote....but uses a tangible medium to EXPRESS themselves...what do you call it?

The keyword is "express." When you hear a funny joke then you express yourself by laughing. When an average/sensible person is INSPIRED to EXPRESS themselves in a TANGIBLE MEDIUM.....what do you call the final OUTPUT of that motivation? Again, the example assumes the person has not education in the artistic form and has not been recognize an artist...

This is where even some art specialists make a mistake. Art is not simply self-expression through a medium. There is a distinction in levels of quality. Writing for example is not literature, since literature is a high quality of writing that deals with universal themes, structures, plot, characterization, and various other techniques. Amateur film-making often fails, because of the lack of structure, technique, organization, and technical excellence. On the other side, Alfred Hitchcocks movies for example can still be appreciated on many levels, long after his death and the death of most of the actors in his films.

Individuals often try to express themselves through painting but anyone with exposure to art and artistic talent can easily assess whether the person has the talent or not. Having taught various art forms to the gifted and talented, I have found that in the absolute best artists, it is part talent and part learning in the development of that talent. Moreover, I have also found that in the assessment of talent, skill and quality work in the arts, there is general agreement from those with equal experience and expertise.


I ask this because it appears to me that you feel art is very specific without gray areas. Can't 'art' be a general word that can be categorized at different levels.

children's art
amatuer art
profession art
good art
bad art

But it's all still art, isnt' it? If not then what is it? Please don't call it 'trash', a term you like to use.

Unfortunately, based on considerable experience, it does not work that way. At one time, as part of a special project, I taught computer art to groups of 4 year olds, all the way to 16 year olds. I also worked with other artists who were also teachers and produced a professional video on my project.

To probably the surprise of many here, who do not have this experience, it is possible to distinguish between talent and art at any level. They were all amateurs but the level went from throw away work all the way up to work that was equivalent to the top level of professionalism in computer animation at any of Disney's studios.

Quality is easier than you think to assess. All you require is the knowledge and experience of seeing work at a variety of levels. Attempting art does not make you an artist, despite the best of intentions and expressing yourself by painting or photography does not make you an artist either. It is the quality of that self-expression based on the standards of the particular art form.

Ronnoco

I think Ronnoco is stuck in a different time where art was only constructed (or deconstructed) by certain materials (i.e. paint, clay, bronze, stone, etc.) and it was only about beauty and realism. Today's contemporary art (which Ronnoco called "junk") may not fit into this narrow category, but its artistic merit still there. I have friends that have accompanied me to a gallery during a contemporary art show. Some just shake their heads and discount the work. I say if it elicits an emotional response and/or a deeper contemplation of a specific concept than I think the work is successful as art. It really frustrates me (and I'm sure a lot of people on this board) that someone can be so narrow minded and arrogant about art. Art snobs suck.

P.S. Ronnoco, if you are so accomplished as an artist, why don't you post some of your images. I would like to appreciate some "real" art.

P.S. Ronnoco, if you are so accomplished as an artist, why don't you post some of your images. I would like to appreciate some "real" art.

You obviously have no conception of the meaning of the word, nor of several others for that matter.

You obviously have no conception of the meaning of the word, nor of several others for that matter.Oh, now you are insulting my intelligence. As a matter of fact Ronnoco, I have a 140 IQ and have been top of my class for both of my degrees. It just happens that I have a learning disability so sometimes things don't come out right when I type (unedited writing). I did not come to this forum to be belittled by someone like you, I came to learn more about digital photography.

You flap your gums about art and how good of an artist you are but you never post your stuff. Come on, post your work. I want to see what you have been boasting about all this time. I'm calling you on your bull#$%@ Ronnoco. I'm doubting that you are as accomplished as you say you are.

Well, when it really comes down to it, it is former MLB players or coaches with a lot of experience that are doing the scouting that determine the "real baseball players".

[QUOTE=WillCAD}
What if your business is only moderately successful? What if you have only been published in a student magazine? What if you were nominated for an award but didn't win?
..

That is an experience common to many photographers at the beginning of their careers, but the really capable ones have gone on to win. I won awards, but not every award, I was nominated for. That experience is standard. The reality is that all that means is that I am better than some photographers but not as good as others. So what! That just means that I still have goals and objectives to strive for, and life would be boring without them.



If we are talking about the views of non-artists, it depends on their experience in the artistic field. If the non-artist has had absolutely no exposure to art and has not seen different levels of talent and capability in the field, then their views are questionable. If on the other hand they have studied art, seen a lot of it, and taught basic artistic skills to students successfully then their view is going to be more credible. If as well, they have their own careers bordering on the art field that are successful, then they may acquire even a little more credibility.

The reality is that a lot of hardened, realistic, successful professionals in various artistic fields have come upon what could be characterized as "off-the-wall fruitcakes" claiming to have intuitive insight into self-expressive art often while abusing substances. They may classify themselves as artists but no serious dedicated artist would agree with them. Then there are perhaps well-meaning amateurs with limited insight that don't realize that there is no such thing as instant success and instant respect as an artist in any of the creative fields without a lot of inate talent, hard work, effort and some business sense.

[QUOTE=WillCAD}
What standard do these other artists use to judge something as art or not art? If you can define their standard, then non-artists could use that same standard to judge for themselves what is or is not art. If you can't define the standard, then their judgement becomes completely subjective, rendering it no more or less valuable than a non-artist's judgement.

In photography I have already defined the standard. It is the elements of design or composition that are common to other art fields, combined with excellence in technique. In the elements of design and composition, you can ignore one of the elements only if it does not detract from your image, which means that in most cases you can't meet that requirement. In technique, every photographic decision that you make , must contribute to the overall image. Otherwise it detracts from your centre of interest and is a weakness in the image.

Ronnoco

Well, when it really comes down to it, it is former MLB players or coaches with a lot of experience that are doing the scouting that determine the "real baseball players".

Scouts determine who has enough talent to play for the major leagues. The DO NOT determine who is or is not a ball player.

That is an experience common to many photographers at the beginning of their careers, but the really capable ones have gone on to win. I won awards, but not every award, I was nominated for. That experience is standard. The reality is that all that means is that I am better than some photographers but not as good as others. So what! That just means that I still have goals and objectives to strive for, and life would be boring without them.

Vincent Van Gough sold only one painting in his entire career. He never won any awards, and as far as I know, he was never published or exhibited while he was alive. Is his work then "not art"?

If we are talking about the views of non-artists, it depends on their experience in the artistic field. If the non-artist has had absolutely no exposure to art and has not seen different levels of talent and capability in the field, then their views are questionable. If on the other hand they have studied art, seen a lot of it, and taught basic artistic skills to students successfully then their view is going to be more credible. If as well, they have their own careers bordering on the art field that are successful, then they may acquire even a little more credibility.

So only those who have studied and taught art are capable of recognizing what is or is not art? Then why the hell are there museums? Why are there movie theaters? Why are there magazines? Are these not venues where ordinary, uneducated folks can appreciate art? Or is it your opinion that only a self-appointed group of Art Gods can tell people, "Here, this is art - because WE say it is. You may look at it. But that over there, that's not art. You may think it's pretty, it may speak to you, it may have some relevance to your life, but WE say it's not art, so ignore it and move on." Sorry, dude, I may not be the freest thinker in the history of the world, but I refuse to have others tell me what IS or IS NOT art, I prefer to make up my own mind.

The reality is that a lot of hardened, realistic, successful professionals in various artistic fields have come upon what could be characterized as "off-the-wall fruitcakes" claiming to have intuitive insight into self-expressive art often while abusing substances. They may classify themselves as artists but no serious dedicated artist would agree with them. Then there are perhaps well-meaning amateurs with limited insight that don't realize that there is no such thing as instant success and instant respect as an artist in any of the creative fields without a lot of innate talent, hard work, effort and some business sense.

Yes, and the reality is that an awful lot of those "off-the-wall fruitcakes" are recognized at great and talented artists decades or centuries after their deaths, while the imbecilic Art Gods of their own era who discounted their work as "not art" have been forgotten like bugs under the tires of history.

You also keep using words like "amateur," "professional," and "business." This sounds like you are using commercial and financial success as a measure of what is or is not art, which is a complete load - whether or not something is worth money has no bearing on whether it is or is not art, only on whether it is or is not intrinsically valuable.

In photography I have already defined the standard. It is the elements of design or composition that are common to other art fields, combined with excellence in technique. In the elements of design and composition, you can ignore one of the elements only if it does not detract from your image, which means that in most cases you can't meet that requirement. In technique, every photographic decision that you make , must contribute to the overall image. Otherwise it detracts from your centre of interest and is a weakness in the image.

What you're describing, again, is a way of evaluating a piece of art's merits relative to another piece of art. It's not a way of determining what is or is not art.

Read over this article, which agrees with my point that "art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder."
http://www.metronews.ca/tech_news.asp?id=7962

Scouts determine who has enough talent to play for the major leagues. The DO NOT determine who is or is not a ball player.]

I was using part of your quote but nevetheless it is the perception of the scouts and most of the players that playing in the majors is the ultimate goal.

Vincent Van Gough sold only one painting in his entire career. He never won any awards, and as far as I know, he was never published or exhibited while he was alive. Is his work then "not art"?.]


You missed my point along way back that times have changed. During Van Gough's period there was far less exposure to art, far fewer people who had even viewed art, and only those with means viewed exhibitions. The level of education and visual literacy was also considerably lower than it is today. His artistic predicament was a product of the times in which he lived. It cannot serve as an analogy for a completely different time when education is better, media exposure is worldwide, and almost all educated people have had some exposure to art.


So only those who have studied and taught art are capable of recognizing what is or is not art? ]

Read carefully! I did not say that at all. I was talking about different experiences that would give one a knowledge and experience with art. There is no only in that statement at all except added by your assumption or characterization.


Then why the hell are there museums? Why are there movie theaters? Why are there magazines? Are these not venues where ordinary, uneducated folks can appreciate art? ]


Sure they are, but I already pointed out that there are standards of quality that determine what gets displayed in museums, what gets shown in movie theatres and what gets published in magazines.

Or is it your opinion that only a self-appointed group of Art Gods can tell people, "Here, this is art - because WE say it is. You may look at it. But that over there, that's not art. You may think it's pretty, it may speak to you, it may have some relevance to your life, but WE say it's not art, so ignore it and move on." ]

Trying to put words in my mouth again! I did not say that at all but at the same time, it makes absolutely no sense for someone who is tone deaf to determine what is music, or someone with limited visual literacy and no exposure to art, to determine quality work.


You also keep using words like "amateur," "professional," and "business." This sounds like you are using commercial and financial success as a measure of what is or is not art, which is a complete load - whether or not something is worth money has no bearing on whether it is or is not art, only on whether it is or is not intrinsically valuable. ]

Amateur and professional only distinguishes between enthusiasts with an interest and those who have and perhaps continue to make money from their work. For the amateur, recognition as art may come in winning awards. For the professional, commercial and financial success is a form of recognition of the quality of his/her work. Getting published, winning professional awards, presenting at conferences to peers, teaching courses are all forms of recognition of skill, talent, and quality work....not the only ones, but some examples.


What you're describing, again, is a way of evaluating a piece of art's merits relative to another piece of art. It's not a way of determining what is or is not art."?.]


What you have missed again, I put into these simple analogies of various creative areas.
Random pounding on a piano is not music. Using a pen, pencil or computer is not creating literature and pushing a shutter button is definitely not photography.

Ronnoco

http://www.metronews.ca/tech_news.asp?id=7962

I read the article and the author is way out of touch with reality. I should know. I made presentations on Digital Art more than 15 years ago and taught it for a while 10 years ago in a recognized arts school. I also presented later on computer art to the North American Conference of Arts Schools. There are a number of recognized computer artists and some Americans and Japanese are as a matter of fact at the top of this field.
Work is recognized by its presence in a number of art museums around the world. There have even been television programs 10 years ago on the development and recognition of digital art. In this forum I showed a primitive example of a digital work that I did on the equivalent of a toy computer (8meg ram and 16megahertz speed). I used a 3D graphics program, fractals for what looks like water and sky and ray tracing for the reflections.

So, I find it humourous that an art form that has been around and recognized for more than 15 years,....the author calls new and unrecognized. Silly!:p :p

Ronnoco

I was using part of your quote but nevetheless it is the perception of the scouts and most of the players that playing in the majors is the ultimate goal.

The ultimate goal of whom? Of all ball players? Certainly, playing in the majors is the ultimate goal of many, just as exhibition in the Louvre is the ultimate goal of many artists, but that goal alone does not define them as ballplayers, or as artists.

You missed my point along way back that times have changed. During Van Goughs period there was far less exposure to art, far fewer people who had even viewed art, and only those with means viewed exhibitions. The level of education and visual literacy was also considerably lower than it is today. His artistic predicament was a product of the times in which he lived. It cannot serve as an analogy for a completely different time when education is better, media exposure is worldwide, and almost all educated people have had some exposure to art.

But your point that only those familiar with art can determine what is or is not art is blown by that - because whether that community was smaller in Van Goughs time or not, it still existed, and it still rejected him and his work as "not art", an opinion which is now considered to be primitive and narrow-minded.

Read carefully! I did not say that at all. I was talking about different experiences that would give one a knowledge and experience with art. There is no only in that statement at all except added by your assumption or characterization.

Well, let's re-examine your original quote, then:

If we are talking about the views of non-artists, it depends on their experience in the artistic field. If the non-artist has had absolutely no exposure to art and has not seen different levels of talent and capability in the field, then their views are questionable. If on the other hand they have studied art, seen a lot of it, and taught basic artistic skills to students successfully then their view is going to be more credible. If as well, they have their own careers bordering on the art field that are successful, then they may acquire even a little more credibility.

Okay, you're right that there is no "only" in that statement, but clearly you give more credibility to those who have studied art and taught art, and less credibility to those who have not studied art or taught art. I find this to be a primitive and narrow-minded point of view on a par with those who dismissed Van Goughs works, because it assumes that those who have never studied or taught art have no ability at all to distinguish what is or is not art, which is certainly not the case.

Sure they are, but I already pointed out that there are standards of quality that determine what gets displayed in museums, what gets shown in movie theatres and what gets published in magazines.

Those standard of quality determine what is displayed, shown, and published, but they do not, in and of themselves, determine what is or is not art. There are plenty of people out there who create art on a daily basis, art which has never been exhibited in any of the forums you mentioned. This does not mean that their creations are not art; it may mean that their creations are poor art, or unpopular art, or unprofitable or commercially unviable art, but they are still art.

Trying to put words in my mouth again! I did not say that at all but at the same time, it makes absolutely no sense for someone who is tone deaf to determine what is music, or someone with limited visual literacy and no exposure to art, to determine quality work.

Again, I'm not trying to define "Quality work", I'm trying to tell you that quality does not determine what is or is not art. Quality is subjective, based entirely on ever-changing standards; what is considered crap art today may be considered high art tomorrow - but whether it's crappy or not, it's still art today as much as it's art tomorrow.

Amateur and professional only distinguishes between enthusiasts with an interest and those who have and perhaps continue to make money from their work. For the amateur, recognition as art may come in winning awards. For the professional, commercial and financial success is a form of recognition of the quality of his/her work. Getting published, winning professional awards, presenting at conferences to peers, teaching courses are all forms of recognition of skill, talent, and quality work....not the only ones, but some examples.

Yes, those things you mentioned are all ways of measuring ones success, popularity, skill level, amount of acceptance in the world at large, etc. But those things do not determine what is or is not art - they determine how professionally successful an artist is, how popular a piece of art is, how much skill the artist has in their chosen form, and how accepted a type of art is to the world at large.

What you have missed again, I put into these simple analogies of various creative areas.
Random pounding on a piano is not music. Using a pen, pencil or computer is not creating literature and pushing a shutter button is definitely not photography.

I have never said that random creations are art. I have said that deliberate creations are art, whether they are considered "quality work" by the artistic community or not, whether they are professionally successful or not, whether they get exhibited or published or not. As I said, crappy art is still art - and the standards by which "crappy" and "quality" are measured are ever-changing, meaning that todays crappy art might be considered high art tomorrow, and vice versa.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next, try these articles, none of which define art as something that is generally agreed upon as art by those who know art - in other words, they don't all agree with me, but none of them agree with you:

Professor Christopher L. C. E. Witcombe, Sweet Briar College, Virginia
http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/artartists/artartiststoday.html

Leo Tolstoy
http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361r14.html

NSCAD University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
http://www.nscad.ns.ca/study/what_art.php

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_is_art
Professor Christopher L. C. E. Witcombe, Sweet Briar College, Virginia
http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/artartists/artartiststoday.html

Leo Tolstoy
http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361r14.html

NSCAD University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
http://www.nscad.ns.ca/study/what_art.php

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_is_art

But your point that only those familiar with art can determine what is or is not art is blown by that - because whether that community was smaller in Van Goughs time or not, it still existed, and it still rejected him and his work as "not art", an opinion which is now considered to be primitive and narrow-minded.]


Your view of Van Gogh is not quite complete. It could be argued that Van Gogh did not produce art until the last 5 years of his life, after he studied art and met Pissarro, Monet, Gaugin and in 1886 began work in the style of the Impressionists. It is considered by all that he produced his best work between 1886 and 1890 shortly before his death. It was the work during this period that established Van Gogh as an artist and it was too late for recognition while he still lived.



Well, let's re-examine your original quote, then:

Okay, you're right that there is no "only" in that statement, but clearly you give more credibility to those who have studied art and taught art, and less credibility to those who have not studied art or taught art. I find this to be a primitive and narrow-minded point of view on a par with those who dismissed Van Goughs works, because it assumes that those who have never studied or taught art have no ability at all to distinguish what is or is not art, which is certainly not the case.]

Baloney! I give credibility to those with experience in art to judge art. You don't gain that experience by magic or simply by personal delusion. Researching, studying and teaching art, and being recognized for your art work or your critique and understanding of art work by your published articles, or books, are some examples of acquiring that recognized experience. However there are also some caveats here too. You cannot truly and completely learn to be an artist. Art is a combination of inborn talent and learning.

When I was teaching digital art, I found that some students had the talent, the eye and the personal style for effective self expression. All they were missing were the tools and the technique, but they could not become artists without them too.

Certainly and logically, anyone who has no experience at all with an art form, would be hard pressed to judge its quality. To find this logic to be primitive and narrow minded is as ridiculous as calling random noise making...music.


Again, I'm not trying to define "Quality work", I'm trying to tell you that quality does not determine what is or is not art. Quality is subjective, based entirely on ever-changing standards; what is considered crap art today may be considered high art tomorrow - but whether it's crappy or not, it's still art today as much as it's art tomorrow.]


This is where the "instant artist" tries to justify the lack of effort, work, and time necessary to become a true and genuine artist. Quality is not subjective. Any experienced photographer and certainly any pro can recognize excellent technique: lighting, exposure, white balance, colour, tonality, detail, framing, contrast, etc. Since most of the general public have some exposure to photography, they can recognize some aspects of excellent technique as well. That is one major element in determining quality in artistic photos. Camera equipment may change from analogue to digital but the same elements make up excellent technique and one quality element. It is certainly NOT ever-changing.

The elements of design and composition are not ever-changing either. An artistic photo requires a centre of interest with some impact to attract the eye of the viewer. All design elements of the image either contribute to or detract from the impact of the centre of interest. Some elements relate to the role of line, forms, shapes, colours, lighting, etc. in creating the total image and the impact created and desired by the photographer.


.
Yes, those things you mentioned are all ways of measuring ones success, popularity, skill level, amount of acceptance in the world at large, etc. But those things do not determine what is or is not art - they determine how professionally successful an artist is, how popular a piece of art is, how much skill the artist has in their chosen form, and how accepted a type of art is to the world at large.

I have never said that random creations are art. I have said that deliberate creations are art, whether they are considered "quality work" by the artistic community or not, whether they are professionally successful or not, whether they get exhibited or published or not. As I said, crappy art is still art - and the standards by which "crappy" and "quality" are measured are ever-changing, meaning that todays crappy art might be considered high art tomorrow, and vice versa..]

Oh, come on! That is a false distinction, you are making. Pounding on a piano is random but not deliberate? :confused: How is pressing a shutter button random but not deliberate? Writing is deliberate but certainly not literature...even bad literature!:p Making noise is deliberate but certainly NOT music,...even bad music.:p Music, literature and all art forms have basic standards that define their nature.

Ronnoco


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next, try these articles, none of which define art as something that is generally agreed upon as art by those who know art - in other words, they don't all agree with me, but none of them agree with you:

Professor Christopher L. C. E. Witcombe, Sweet Briar College, Virginia
http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/artartists/artartiststoday.html

Leo Tolstoy
http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361r14.html

NSCAD University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
http://www.nscad.ns.ca/study/what_art.php

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_is_art
Professor Christopher L. C. E. Witcombe, Sweet Briar College, Virginia
http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/artartists/artartiststoday.html

Leo Tolstoy
http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361r14.html

NSCAD University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
http://www.nscad.ns.ca/study/what_art.php

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_is_art[/QUOTE]

Your view of Van Gogh is not quite complete. It could be argued that Van Gogh did not produce art until the last 5 years of his life, after he studied art and met Pissarro, Monet, Gaugin and in 1886 began work in the style of the Impressionists. It is considered by all that he produced his best work between 1886 and 1890 shortly before his death. It was the work during this period that established Van Gogh as an artist and it was too late for recognition while he still lived.

Are you seriously suggesting that every painting that Van Gough made prior to the 5-year period before his death is not art, simply because it is not his best work? That's so ridiculous I won't even bother to refute it any further.

Baloney! I give credibility to those with experience in art to judge art. You don't gain that experience by magic or simply by personal delusion. Researching, studying and teaching art, and being recognized for your art work or your critique and understanding of art work by your published articles, or books, are some examples of acquiring that recognized experience. However there are also some caveats here too. You cannot truly and completely learn to be an artist. Art is a combination of inborn talent and learning.

When I was teaching digital art, I found that some students had the talent, the eye and the personal style for effective self expression. All they were missing were the tools and the technique, but they could not become artists without them too.

Certainly and logically, anyone who has no experience at all with an art form, would be hard pressed to judge its quality. To find this logic to be primitive and narrow minded is as ridiculous as calling random noise making...music.

I never said that someone with no experience at all with an art form could competently judge its quality. But someone with no experience can recognize something AS art, even if they cannot competently judge a piece of art's relative merits or quality.

I don't speak a word of French, but I know French when I hear somebody speaking it.

This is where the "instant artist" tries to justify the lack of effort, work, and time necessary to become a true and genuine artist. Quality is not subjective. Any experienced photographer and certainly any pro can recognize excellent technique: lighting, exposure, white balance, colour, tonality, detail, framing, contrast, etc. Since most of the general public have some exposure to photography, they can recognize some aspects of excellent technique as well. That is one major element in determining quality in artistic photos. Camera equipment may change from analogue to digital but the same elements make up excellent technique and one quality element. It is certainly NOT ever-changing.

The elements of design and composition are not ever-changing either. An artistic photo requires a centre of interest with some impact to attract the eye of the viewer. All design elements of the image either contribute to or detract from the impact of the centre of interest. Some elements relate to the role of line, forms, shapes, colours, lighting, etc. in creating the total image and the impact created and desired by the photographer.

So if a photograph doesn't meet all of your rules and regulations for "excellent technique" is not art? Again, you are arguing that something is not art unless it qualifies, by your standards, as excellent. I say it's still art if it sucks, it's just sucky art.

Oh, come on! That is a false distinction, you are making. Pounding on a piano is random but not deliberate? :confused: How is pressing a shutter button random but not deliberate? Writing is deliberate but certainly not literature...even bad literature!:p Making noise is deliberate but certainly NOT music,...even bad music.:p Music, literature and all art forms have basic standards that define their nature.

I never said anything about random pounding on a piano being music. Deliberate stringing together of notes is music, even if it's awful music.

I never said randomly pressing a shutter button is art. Deliberately pointing a camera at something, composing and framing a shot, and clicking the shutter button, creates a photograph. It might be crap, but it's still a photograph, and i still consider it art, even if it's crappy art.

I never said that all writing qualifies as literature. You are using the word "literature" as being synonymous with "art", an assertion that I never made. Miriam-Webster's online dictionary defines literature as: writings in prose or verse; especially : writings having excellence of form or expression and expressing ideas of permanent or universal interest (2) : an example of such writings <what came out, though rarely literature, was always a roaring good story -- People> b : the body of written works produced in a particular language, country, or age c : the body of writings on a particular subject <scientific literature> d : printed matter (as leaflets or circulars) <campaign literature>

Writing is an art form. Written works therefore qualify as art. Bad written works qualify as BAD art, while writings having excellence of form or expression and expressing ideas of permanent or universal interest qualify as literature.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Through this entire debate you have continued to assert that something is only art if it is of "quality", and that "quality" can only be defined and evaluated by successful, lauded, recognized artists.

Does this mean that you don't think that there is any such thing as "bad" art? Since something has to be good before it can be art, then it would follow that anything that is not good is not art, so there is no such thing as bad art. Is that what you're saying?

To keep it KISS simple, I don't believe there is such a thing as bad art, bad music, bad literature, etc.

There may be art, music, literature and other forms that individuals don't like, don't appreciate, or perhaps even consider pornographic but the difference is that these forms still meet the quality standards of the particular field to be considered art as in the structure, techniques, skills, expression of talent, visual, auditory, or other emotional impact of the work, universal themes in some works, and of course demonstrated expertise with the tools of the particular artistic field to create the overall impact and effect of the work.

Bad art, bad music, and bad literature are simply NOT art, NOT music and NOT literature.
The reverse of this argument is ridiculous, because it requires that anything done with a brush is art, anything done with a musical instrument is music, and anything done with a pen or computer is literature or perha