Does a photo need to say something?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WillCAD

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Ronnoco

---

I 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biggy smalls

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biggy smalls

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biggy smalls

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biggy smalls

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Ronnoco

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biggy smalls

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biggy smalls

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biggy smalls

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronnoco

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moley

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pweb

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pweb

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pweb

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.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pweb

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pweb

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WillCAD

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WillCAD

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WillCAD

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WillCAD

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WillCAD

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manacsa

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manacsa

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manacsa

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronnoco

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronnoco

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manacsa

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manacsa

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manacsa

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manacsa

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