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

[Photo-John]

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 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, 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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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

[biggy smalls]

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.

[Ronnoco]

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.

[biggy smalls]

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.

[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

[WillCAD]

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

[Ronnoco]

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

[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!

Ronnoco

[WillCAD]

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/artart...iststoday.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/artart...iststoday.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

[Ronnoco]

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? 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.

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/artart...iststoday.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/artart...iststoday.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]

[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?

[Ronnoco]

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 perhaps poetry. I am sure that among those who believe your premise are the starving artists, unpublished writers, and "musicians" in the subway or on the street that are just above the level of begging. My point is that they will never achieve anything better than this low level without truly learning their "craft" and aspiring toward becoming a true artist if they even have the capability and talent to accomplish that goal in the first place.

This view is not at all narrow minded or elitist. It is reality. The first dose of reality for young people is when they discover that wishing for and wanting a certain career goal does not make it so. Interesting that "American idol" throws the "cold water" of reality on a lot of the dreams of people who thought they were artists, musicians etc.

Success in a creative field happens when peers and/or the general public recognize the quality of your work and regard you as an "artist" in your field, based on your talent and expertise with using the tools of your area of creativity, as well as on the sensory impact, artistic, emotional and communications effect of your work.

Ronnoco

[WillCAD]

Okay, I'll keep it similarly simple:

Music: the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity b : vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony

art: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced

poetry: metrical writing : VERSE b : the productions of a poet : POEMS
2 : writing that formulates a concentrated imaginative awareness of experience in language chosen and arranged to create a specific emotional response through meaning, sound, and rhythm

There is nothing in any of those definitions about quality, success, peers, concensus, awards, or public recognition.

Your use of the word literature is correct in this context, as it applies to a special class of written works with specific attrributes: 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)

But I have never said, hinted, implied, or alluded to an opinion that all written works qualify as literature. They do not; however, all written works are inherently "writing."

Cite your source. Show some articles that back up your opinion that something is not art unless it is deemed "quality" by general or peer consensus. Give me a dictionary or encyclopedia entry that backs up your definition of art.

[Peter_AUS]

I can't believe how long this crap has been going on now, give it a rest will you.

[WillCAD]

I can't believe how long this crap has been going on now, give it a rest will you.

We are enjoying a spirited debate, Peter. If you don't wish to participate, or even read the thread, that is, of course, your perrogative. You are under no obligation to contribute or even to pay any attention whatsoever to the present discourse. But your admonition is somewhat rude and completely non sequitur to the issue at hand.

In other words, if we're bugging you, just ignore us and move on. It's not like we're arguing in your living room.

[darkman]

Cite your source. Show some articles that back up your opinion that something is not art unless it is deemed "quality" by general or peer consensus. Give me a dictionary or encyclopedia entry that backs up your definition of art.

I've been followig this thread. While it's somewhat comical, I do agree with WillCAD. IMO, Ronoco is confusing comercial success and winning contests as the measure to whether a photo is art or not.

We could go on with examples or definitions. Was Picasso making art ONLY because he WAS a master draftman? Thelonious COULDN'T have been making music by creating DISSONANCE. Wasn't it Renoir who was asked to LEAVE the ART SCHOOL because he wasn't a good enough draftsman?

I know a lot of people who probably like the work I get paid for better than my creative work. To me that means nothing. If I'm not being paid, I need to please myself. Not a judge or a client.

I quit the local club a couple of years ago because ALL they cared about was the "contest." Moreover, the contest awarded portrait 101 (watch those catchlights!) and rule of third landscape photo's. Strangely, the work awarded the highest wasn't usually what the artist judging would do; except when pleasing a client.

Cheers.