Does a photo need to say something?

[WillCAD]

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? How is pressing a shutter button random but not deliberate? Writing is deliberate but certainly not literature...even bad literature! Making noise is deliberate but certainly NOT music,...even bad music. 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 b : the body of written works produced in a particular language, country, or age c : the body of writings on a particular subject d : printed matter (as leaflets or circulars)

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?