Does a photo need to say something?

[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.

[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

[Photo-John]

To keep it KISS simple, I don't believe there is such a thing as bad art, bad music, bad literature, etc.

Key words: "I don't believe"

While I agree with a lot of what Ronnoco has to say on art, I also think it's a very - ahemm - subjective subject. To some extent, I believe you're all correct. And I also think you're all speaking at cross-purposes. Art can be percieved and defined in many ways. I usually consider there to be "ART" and art. "ART," communicates more broadly and at a deeper level. However, art, is something we can all do. When your art starts to speak to more people and on a more profound level, it starts moving up the ladder towards being ART. I won't presume to say where the line is. But I do believe there is higher art and lower art.

Your humble mediator...

[Ronnoco]

Key words: "I don't believe"
However, art, is something we can all do. presume to say where the line is. But I do believe there is higher art and lower art....

Not at all! "We" can't even all draw, paint, write or even handle a camera with complete technical competency, let alone create anything close to art or literature. Perhaps some of us can, but certainly not "all".

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

Key words: "I don't believe"

Your humble mediator...

And with a great sense of humour, as well!

Ronnoco

[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.

[adina]

I've done commercial work that has been published in both a book and magazines. People also pay me, and I have been asked to teach a class.

Does that mean I get to be a photographer?

[Photo-John]

I've done commercial work that has been published in both a book and magazines. People also pay me, and I have been asked to teach a class.

Does that mean I get to be a photographer?

You are a champ!

But do you feel fulfilled?

[adina]

You are a champ!

But do you feel fulfilled?

Well, that depends on how much they pay me!

Seriously, I'm fulfilled. My hours are flexible enough to make sure I don't miss important events (like kindergarten graduations) and I get to play with cute little babies, and come home to mine who are both potty trained and sleep thru the night.

I get paid enough to keep me in coffe and shoes, and the thrill of seeing my name on the bottom of an ad in a magazine.

Works for me!

[Ronnoco]

You are a champ!

But do you feel fulfilled?

Gee, John, who is at all concerned about "feeling fulfilled"? It is about doing what you like to do, and getting paid for it.:thumbsup:

Ronnoco

[WillCAD]

Wow, I go away for a few days and other people join in the debate!

Lots to talk about here. Okay, first of all, not to be picky or anything, but ronnoco, my name is not "Wildcard", it's WillCAD. That's Will with two L's, capital-C, Capital-A, and capital-D, all one word.

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.

Once again you are passing off subjective criteria as being an objective measure of what is or is not art. What if someone is published in a magazine of mediocre quality? Or a newspaper with only a small readership? What if you are asked to present at a conference of serious amateurs? What if people constantly ask you informally for photographic advice (isn't that a form of teaching, just not in an accredited classroom with tenure and a reserved parking space)? What if your portfolio is just as good as the winner of the contract but he underbid you?

All of these things are subjective criteria, not objective, because circumstances and personal preferences can easily change the outcomes of any of them.

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.

Time for another dictionary definition: aesthetic
1 a : of, relating to, or dealing with aesthetics or the beautiful <aesthetic theories> b : ARTISTIC aesthetic value> c : pleasing in appearance : ATTRACTIVE aesthetic features -- Mark Mehler>
2 : appreciative of, responsive to, or zealous about the beautiful; also : responsive to or appreciative of what is pleasurable to the senses

So "aesthetic" is all about the beautiful - and beauty is one of the most subjective concepts in all of Human history. Every individual has his or her own personal conception of beauty, making it a completely unquantifiable quality - which throws your idea of "objective criteria" right out the window. There can be no objective criteria defining something that is inherently subjective.

And the argument that work which "survives" is art, and anything that is lost is not art is also hooey. You know as well as I do that there have been great and powerful works of art created by every Human civilization from the day that a guy first smeared charcoal and blood on a cave wall, yet the vast majority of those works is destroyed by changing tastes, shifting cultural mores, and plain old time. Works of art which are today considered some of the greatest in history only date back 1000 years or less, while Humanity has been producing art in one form or another for at least 30,000 years.

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!

Gracias. Yo no habla la Frances. Could you provide a translation into English for us poor Americans (we speak English and Spanish in the US, instead of English and French as you do in Canada).

Key words: "I don't believe"

While I agree with a lot of what Ronnoco has to say on art, I also think it's a very - ahemm - subjective subject. To some extent, I believe you're all correct. And I also think you're all speaking at cross-purposes. Art can be percieved and defined in many ways. I usually consider there to be "ART" and art. "ART," communicates more broadly and at a deeper level. However, art, is something we can all do. When your art starts to speak to more people and on a more profound level, it starts moving up the ladder towards being ART. I won't presume to say where the line is. But I do believe there is higher art and lower art.

Your humble mediator...

That's sort of what I have been saying all along, John. I also believe that there are many levels of art (more than just the two you mentioned). I believe that something can still be art even if it's crappy art by my standards, and work becomes better and better by the subjective and shifting standards of society it becomes higher and higher art, with works at the pinnacle of a form like DaVinci and Monet and Shakespeare becoming what you termed "ART" (which I would simply call "high art.")

Ronnoco's contention is that anything that doesn’t' qualify as high art is simply not art, a argument that I find absurd, because the idea of what constitutes high art changes as Human society evolves, cultures rise and fall, and fashions and fads come and go.