An "art" question

[adina]

Okay, so we've established that art is something that envokes emotion...

SO. You have a portrait of a child that makes her mother cry. An image of a bride on her wedding day that causes tears. These are obviously emotions. But do the images qualify as art? Or are they simply well executed photos that have captured a moment that causes the viewer to remember, which in turn causes the emotion?

If the image is dodged/burned/adjusted, whether in the darkroom or in PS, to match the photographers vision is it then art? Or if the photog captures the intended image in the original shot, is this technical knowledge? Or could it be looked at as art?

Can portraiture or wedding photography fall into this "art" catagory? By it's nature it is documentary, does that make it less of an illustration?

early evening ramblings.....if my typing makes sense....

adina

[Trevor Ash]

No, you make sense. You've put together a good list of the contradictions that have been argued quite a bit already. I've come to the conclusion that there is no easy answer. It's in the same ballpark as "what's the meaning of life?"

[almo]

No, you make sense. You've put together a good list of the contradictions that have been argued quite a bit already. I've come to the conclusion that there is no easy answer. It's in the same ballpark as "what's the meaning of life?"

If the answer was a simple one then we would not need a forum to discuss it.


almo

"art is what we see"

[Lava Lamp]

Okay, so we've established that art is something that envokes emotion...

SO. You have a portrait of a child that makes her mother cry. An image of a bride on her wedding day that causes tears. These are obviously emotions. But do the images qualify as art? Or are they simply well executed photos that have captured a moment that causes the viewer to remember, which in turn causes the emotion?

If the image is dodged/burned/adjusted, whether in the darkroom or in PS, to match the photographers vision is it then art? Or if the photog captures the intended image in the original shot, is this technical knowledge? Or could it be looked at as art?

Can portraiture or wedding photography fall into this "art" catagory? By it's nature it is documentary, does that make it less of an illustration?

early evening ramblings.....if my typing makes sense....

adina

There used to be a Budweiser beer poster of three women in bathing suits that resembled the Budweiser label with the caption: "I may not know art, but I know what I like."

I think defining art is like the defining of pornography, which often comes down to: "I'll know it when I see it."

[Clicker]

There used to be a Budweiser beer poster of three women in bathing suits that resembled the Budweiser label with the caption: "I may not know art, but I know what I like."

I think defining art is like the defining of pornography, which often comes down to: "I'll know it when I see it."

Good Point of view! I agree with Lava!
Besides, Art to me....is Junk to my sister.

Just ask her.

[Clicker]

Okay, so we've established that art is something that envokes emotion...


adina

oh, and I may think something is art just for its sheer beauty, But it doesn't make me feel any emotion - necessarily...

Example: Statutes that are just **shapes**


Ahhh found a perfect example:

Sculptor Isamu Noguchi!

[Irakly Shanidze]

It is an excellent question. portraiture, wedding photography and photojournalism are so-called applied fields, and we rarely see them as artistic. Indeed, most wedding shots and portraits that we see cannot possibly be interesting for anybody who is not closely involved with the person, or persons on the photo.
It does not mean, however, that they cannot be artistic. The moment when a photo becomes art is when it can envoce emotions regardless of relevance of the subject matter to a particular viewer. Just as Mona Lisa, which is unquestionably one of the most renowned works of art, differs from countless painted portraits of dignitaries that nobody even remembers now, a photographic portrait may become an immortal work of art.
As for weddings... Well, check this out, it speaks for itself. http://www.fotografz.com

[megan]

Ahhh found a perfect example:

Sculptor Isamu Noguchi!

While his art is "just shapes," they evoke more primal responses in some. Feelings that can't even be explained, just.... feelings. A "sense." And they are just lumps to some people.

If anyone has ever had a chance to visit the IN museum right in my general 'hood of Long Island City, sensing his work in the surroundings designed and dedicated to him give you a different experience than seeing one piece amongst other's art in a setting dedicated to many different creators/creations.

But you're right - a perfect example of one person's art = another person's, well... lump.

Megan

[michael stringfield]

Art is all about perception. You can't tell someone what art is and what art isn't. There are common things we view as art but everything can be art to someone, and someone may view riding a street car in downtown Portland artistic like myself.

Now, as far as weddings go. Yes, they are very well executed photos that have all been done over and over again. And yes, they envoke emotion when viewed. I am a wedding photographer, and I feel like it's not that creative for me anymore. When I started doing it, I was really into it because I was learning new ways of taking photos and learning new gear and poses. But, now, I have a routine that works for me really well and I make good money because I can consistently take good photos( I hope). And that's great as far as paying the bills, but I'm starting to lose my passion for the art aspect of a wedding because I feel like I'm not stretching myself in new areas like I was before.

Now, I'm a film major, and I've just recently started working on a short film somewhat like the move crash and felt more artistic in discussing the ideas with the producer than I ever do at a wedding. And once again, this is my perception of art. Some people can shoot weddings for a living their whole life, and all the power to you buddy. but I can't, I think that art is something so rewarding, and so challenging that when you finally have that feeling of accomplishment, then you can say that it's art.

Michael Stringfield
www.stringfieldphotography.com

[AgingEyes]

Art is what the artist says it is when I say it is not.

[photophorous]

To me, defining art depends less on the person who experiences the art (for which the emotion is evoked) and more on the person who created the art (for which the emotion was expressed). I think attempts to define art are often confused with attempts to define "good" art, and there in lies the problem. My definition of art is basically anything that is a form of personal expression. However, it is practically impossible to judge art without considering who is effected by this expression, and that stream of thought implies that popularity decides. Popularity is not a meaningless measure, it is definitely relevant in many ways, but when it comes right down to it, we don't care how many other people are moved by a piece of art that moves us, until we start talking about money or we start seeking self-assurance. I decide what is good by how it effects me, not by how many other people feel the same way. I might decide whether I can afford it, or whether I'm a weirdo, based on what other people think, but those are different issues.

I think a documentary photograph that evokes memories which in turn evokes emotion is art, because at some level the photographer was responding to and expressing emotion when deciding what was worth documenting. That doesn't mean it's good art, and doesn't mean it will be popular art. Simply pressing the shutter button is not creating art, but when a photograph is created deliberately and comes out as the photographer intended, I say that qualifies. That happens all the time, so the idea of trying to define what is and isn't art is kind of trivial. One of the things that separates photography as an art form, is that a photograph can be created in an instant, as a reaction, with little or no planning, and with out a second thought from the photographer. It's still art, in my opinion, but only the viewer can decide if it's good art.

Paul

[Wild Wassa]

Possibly I produce more rubbish than most ... that is what makes what I do, art. Don't mistake pretty pictures for art.

The moment I take what I do seriously, that is the day that I'll have given up being an artist. I only use photography as one of the techniques of art.

It isn't an image that makes something a work of art it is a mind set. I take shots and paint, sculpt and draw because I can't help myself. No artist I know has stopped and said or even thought, "Today I'm going to become an artist or is what I'm doing art." If you have to question, what you do as being art, ... let's just hope you are a late bloomer.

We all take good images, I fluke my share of acceptable ones. One of my friends once asked my wife Helen, "When will he finish painting." Helen said, "When I take the brush out of his hand." (do not view that as a comment on over painting). The moment I think I've produced something special, then it probably wasn't me who did it.

Every artist should be allowed one wedding shot to be called art though, but only one. No decorative art is really art ... cheese cake or twee is not art, even if it looks nice. Art questions, art doesn't answer, nor should art be so obvious that it hinders imagination ... like the average cheese cake shot does. The more crappy your work, the more likely it is that you really are an artist.

Art is made by people who can't help themselves, not by people who fluke the odd good shot and feel it is art ... my work is all sad. I don't expect it to be anything but crap, I don't care if it is viewed as crap either. The National Gallery of Australia, thinks I'm an artist ... I've signed several contracts with them that say I am. I signed a contract with the NGA that allows them to display my art. I know, I'm still trying to understand why, isn't that what galleries are about, places where artefacts are seen by people?

Artists don't stop to question what they do, which is different to asking questions with what they do, all artists use their art to question. I've not ever seen a wedding image question anything that requires imagination from the consumer.

Portraits are very different. Some photographic portraits are truely extraordinary images of a life ... I'm not talking about emos.

Warren.