Does a photo need to say something?

[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.

[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.

[Ronnoco]

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.
Cheers.

First of all, being picky, that is Ronnoco with 2 ns. and no I am not confusing commercial with 2 ms success and winning contests with whether a photo is art or not. You weren't reading carefully. I indicated several times that commercial success and winning contests were just two examples of recognition that suggested quality work and possibly art. Other examples include getting published in a quality magazine or newspaper with a large readership, being asked to present at a conference of professionals, being asked to teach a course in photography, winning a photo contract based on your portfolio versus several others who present theirs, etc. There are all kinds of examples, that recognize quality photo work as a possible art form on a less subjective basis than personal delusion.

Ronnoco

[darkman]

Other examples include getting published in a quality magazine or newspaper with a large readership, being asked to present at a conference of professionals, being asked to teach a course in photography, winning a photo contract based on your portfolio versus several others who present theirs, etc. There are all kinds of examples, that recognize quality photo work as a possible art form on a less subjective basis than personal delusion.

Ronnoco

I agree with what PJ said about levels of art. Maybe this is the point you're tyring to make?

However, teaching courses, getting published in mags and newspapers, getting a job based on portfolio, and catching typo's, reckognizes that you're compentent photographer and perhaps more importantly, you can sell yourself. Or like many "known" photographers, has someone else sell them. There are local photograhers that have made a name for themselves that I'm flabergasted by the (poor) quality of their work. Yet, they meet this criteria. There are also people who sell work based on their name even though they haven't produced anything decent in some time.

I've done all the above, consider myself an "artist," but realize there are people out there doing absolutely amazing creative photography well above what I'm doing (IMO).Yet, that doesn't mean they've met the above criteria of art by being published/reckognized etc. It doesn't mean that he could do what I do either.

A very successful product photographer once told me as long as you're shooting for someone else (to make money), you're not creating art. This guys work is amazing and I'm sure you've seen it. It's the work he does for himself that may never get reckognition, or seen by the masses, that he deems as his art work. (btw, I don't necessarily agree with his pov - his commercial work is awesome in every aspect)

IMO, the criteria you list has to do with being commercially successful, and not necessarily have to do with creating a high level of art.

[Ronnoco]

For Photographic Composition:

www.photoinf.com

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

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

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

Oh, "the conscious use of skill" and skill in a creative media is a combination of talent and learned technique. Creative imagination is where composition, centre of interest and impact come into a work. "Aesthetic" is a judgement based on technique and composition but a judgement in photography based on more objective criteria than simply personal delusion.

My point is that the best in painting, sculpture, design, photography, computer animation etc. is recognized as art by almost everyone. Therefore there must be certain criteria that most people would seem to agree on that make a work art, whether they understand and can express those criteria or not.

Everyone for example would agree that Leonardo Da Vinci had skill and creative imagination and used it to create aesthetic works. His work also withstood the test of time. He is therefore an artist. The same is certainly not true for certain modern "artists" whose works were not recognized by almost everyone and have not survived. Therefore they were not artists.

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

Well, Wildcard, you asked for a quoted definition. As a Canadian I work in French as much as English.

To quote from Larousse:

"art...manière de faire une chose selon les règles. Communication de l'expression d'un idéal de beauté dans les oeuvres humaines, habilité."

Salut!

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

Well, Wildcard, you asked for a quoted definition. As a Canadian I work in French as much as English.

To quote from Larousse:

"art...manière de faire une chose selon les règles. Communication de l'expression d'un idéal de beauté dans les oeuvres humaines, habilité."

Salut!

Ronnoco

"art...way of doing something according to the rules. Communicating the expression of an ideal of beauty in human works, skill."

Ronnoco