Does a photo need to say something?

[SmartWombat]

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.

[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

[WillCAD]

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.

[Ronnoco]

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

[WillCAD]

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]

[QUOTE=WillCAD}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..[/QUOTE]

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?
..[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=WillCAD}
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?..[/QUOTE]

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.[/QUOTE]

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

[Photo-John]

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?

[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?

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

[poker]

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.

[Ronnoco]

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