How far is "too far" in the creation of art?

[darkman]

As for style, well, I'm pretty much a meat and potatos guy, but I'm not so closed-minded that I won't look at what others have to show. There's a guy who was on another forum and his gallery consisted mainly of grainy b&w photos of stairwells, subway car interiors....stuff like that. Now, to me it was just a bunch of blurred, grainy stuff--not what I'd consider wall-hanging material. He did have a large following who ooooooh'd and aaaaaaaah'd over his stuff. Different strokes/different folks. I've seen a lot of mountain biking stuff here, and although I'm not into that, some is pretty good. I do baseball, and not everyone is into that, so I can understand. This forum has helped me come a long way in how I view what others want to express in their work. Is it style over substance, or the other way around?
The one thing everyone is 100% in accord with though, is that the end does not justify the means, as displayed by our misguided friend with the gasoline art.

I shoot college sports on the side. If I consider that I get calls from media people to go to certain sport events because they're not happy with what they've received so far, or need specific shots, I think I must be doing something right Yet I stuggle seing this as art, even though I think they're good compositions. And, my favorite creatvie shots are never picked for publication! But as I pointed out, many people like this kind of capture and see it more "artsy" than, for example, a well composed landscape. Especially if it's done in BW.

For my more "creative" work, I did one nude that my wife disliked. Yet, I've been asked to show it in several shows.

What I'm leading to is what others have stated. No matter the subject of the photo, in general it need to shown to the correct audience. Each person has their own likes and dislikes that aren't right or wrong, just different.

Mike

[swmdrayfan]

Interesting point about the flag, Ken. Something we see nearly every day, yet so easily taken for granted. How do we feel when we see people in foreign countries burning it, and so often ... as you say, we ourselves desecrate it by improperly displaying it. Still the flag is but cloth and thread, though the ideals behind it are what commands respect. Photographers have given us indelible images of the flag...hanging limply from the stern of the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor, the raising on Mt. Suribachi, and the three firemen at ground zero on 9/11--photos that convey the indomitable spirit of this country.

Mike, what you say about sports photography is right. I've taken some shots that others like, so I know I've done something right, but in general terms I wouldn't call it art. Nothing I've taken really stands out in the same context as say, the photo of Babe Ruth at his last appearance in Yankee Stadium before he died, or Cassius Clay standing over the prone Sonny Liston, or Y.A. Tittle, knees down on the ground, a line of blood trickling down the side of his head.

[photophorous]

Creating art is just like anything else we do in life. My motta has, and always will be, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It's that simple. You should not harm anyone or anything, but if you are causing harm, you better have a good reason. And even so, getting into the 'ends justify the means' way of thinking, is particularly dangerous with something as subjective as art. You have to be pretty arogant to think whatever harm your causing with your art will have a net positive influence. Still, you should be free to affect the mood of the people experiencing your art, in what ever way you choose (disgust, outrage, etc.). They don't have to be part of it...as long as they know what they are experiencing is intended to be art, and not...say, actual Martians invading Earth.

This guy with the gasoline "art" is a whole different story. He's not an artist. I doubt he's even practiced much of what he preaches...if he's a photographer at all. I personally think he created that website and posted on this and other sites, just to stir up controversy. He gets pleasure from reading all the angry replies. His responses have been nonsensical. I can't fathom that he really believes what he says, unless he has very serious psychological problems...more serious than just taking pleasure in other peoples anger.

Back to my point on the ends justifying the means. Maybe Gasboy is a real environmentalist and thinks that by creating this controversy he'll make people think about polution more. Well, what if there's a bunch of kids out there taking his suggestions to heart and pouring gasoline in their neighborhood streams? Didn't work to well for him then. Trying to affect people in such a way is a very dangerous and irresponsible game to play. The risk is not worth it.

just my two pennies,
Paul

[swmdrayfan]

Paul, I have been thinking that very thing the last day or so. The guy probably is just jerking people around, and laughing at the responses. We're probably better served by not responding to his posts.

[adina]

And now he's got another thread started about his post.


As far as how far is too far, it varies on the individual. How far would I go? Not to far, but I don't think I'm making art. Few and far between I'll get a photo that seems like more than a child's portrait. Not that I'm dismissing portraits as wasting my time. But for me it's not about making art, it's about making a connection.

Is Irakly around? Ask him how far he'd go. Sure as hell a lot farther than I would. I'm not 100% sure, but I believe he fled his country for it. (someone correct me if I'm wrong)

How far did Van Gogh take it? Well, he cut off his ear (although I happen to believe Gaugan drove him too it)

There is no right or wrong answer, or any limit or line that you can't cross. It all depends on your convictions and your beliefs.

[mjs1973]

There is no right or wrong answer, or any limit or line that you can't cross. It all depends on your convictions and your beliefs.

I think that sums it up pretty good.

You are right about Irakly too. Here is his Bio.

[ken1953]

I think that sums it up pretty good.

You are right about Irakly too. Here is his Bio.

I have not had a chance to really study a lot of Irakly's works, but most of what I've seen is fantastic. I'm wondering where he would be if "government" hadn't sidetracked him. It is extremely sad that a government can stifle anyones creativity. As a veteran, I "joined" to protect human rights, although, I'm not sure what good it did with the loss of freedoms we are now suffering even here in the United States. I do agree that there should be no limits, but, I also agree there should be a line drawn somewhere when it is actually detrimental to anything, including art. Where that line is...??? For some, damaging the environment, for others, defiling innocence, and then for some there is no line!!!!
I'm not an eloquent writer and have a hard time putting into words all I want to say, but I like where this thread is going, and I hope to hear lots of personal ideas on what is too far for them.
Ken

[mjs1973]

I almost hate to post these articles because I love this guys work, but I think they fit well with this discussion. I have a few of his posters hanging in my house and stop at his gallery everytime I go to Zion National Park.

Photographer admits fire role


By Angie Welling Deseret News staff writer Friday, December 7, 2001


The nature photographer accused of setting fires at Delicate Arch last year pleaded guilty Friday in federal court. Michael Fatali, Springdale, also pleaded guilty to setting two fires in Canyonlands National Park in August 1997. The 36-year-old professional photographer faces up to six months in prison and a $5,000 fine for each of the seven misdemeanor counts. Fatali also agreed to pay full restitution to the National Park Service for damage caused by the fires. Restoration is estimated at more than $16,000. On Sept. 18, 2000, Fatali led a group of amateur photographers to Delicate Arch to photograph the famous four-story sandstone arch, which is the backdrop of some Utah license plates. At his direction, Fatali's assistant and others from the group set two fires, one directly under the arch and another to the east of the structure. Aluminum baking pans brought along to contain the fire failed, and the flames scorched and discolored the sandstone. Fatali tried to stomp out the fires, but one was still burning when the group left the area.


Park visitors reported the damage to rangers the next morning. Officials were able to remove some of the scorch marks immediately, but remaining scars from the fire could not be removed because an oily or waxy stain had penetrated the rock. Fatali on Friday also admitted to starting two fires in Canyonlands National Park, the first on Aug. 12, 1997, at Horsehoof Arch and again on Aug. 13, 1997, at the Joint Trails Needles District. He used wood from within the park to start the two fires, he said. According to prosecutors, in November 2000 Fatali sent an e-mail message to members of the photography community apologizing for what happened, saying he "seriously regretted" the incident. "I simply screwed up," the message said. Defense attorney Kristine Rogers declined to comment Friday, saying Fatali would make a statement after his Feb. 1, 2002, sentencing hearing. Assistant U.S. Attorney Wayne Dance said Fatali fully acknowledged his criminal conduct by pleading guilty to all seven counts as charged. "It's a matter that's very serious," Dance said. "All of our national parks are for the enjoyment of future generations."

And one more...

Photographer Fatali Pleads Guilty in Fires Saturday, December 8, 2001


BY MICHAEL VIGH THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE


Springdale nature photographer Michael Fatali pleaded guilty Friday to seven federal misdemeanors for starting fires in two Utah national parks, including a blaze that marred sandstone underneath Delicate Arch -- the state icon that graces some license plates.


Fatali, who started the fires to achieve dramatic lighting effects during photo shoots, faces up to 6 months in federal prison and a $5,000 fine on each count when he is sentenced in February. Fatali has agreed to pay restitution to the National Park Service, a sum that prosecutors estimate will be $16,000.


Fatali lit the fires with Duraflame logs on Sept. 18 and 19, 2000, to demonstrate to amateur photographers "nighttime photographic techniques," he admitted in a statement to prosecutors. The unauthorized fires scorched and discolored sections of sandstone beneath and next to Delicate Arch in Arches National Park, prosecutors say.


Fatali also admitted Friday that in August 1997 he set two fires at Canyonlands National Park that also damaged park resources.


Prosecutor Wayne Dance said Fatali's crimes have untold victims. Thousands of tourists visit the parks each year.


"Our national parks are here for the enjoyment of current and future generations," Dance said. "It's a matter that's very serious."


Fatali declined to comment and his attorney, Kristine Rogers, deferred comment until her client is sentenced on Feb. 1, 2001.


In his statement to prosecutors, Fatali said he brought aluminum pans to the shoots to contain the fire. The pans failed, however, and the Duraflame logs burned directly on the sandstone, causing damage directly under and to the west and east of the arch.


Fatali also said some of the sooty, oily residue was tracked onto the sandstone after he stomped on the duraflame logs. Fatali told U.S. Magistrate Samuel Alba he did not have a permit to light any of the fires.


Park visitors reported the damage to rangers the next morning.


Officials were able to remove some of the scorch marks immediately, but remaining scars from the fire have proven difficult for park service employees to eradicate.


On Aug. 12, 1997, Fatali used wood from Canyonlands National Park to build a fire at Horsehoof Arch. The next day, he did the same thing at a slot canyon known as "The Joint Trail."


Fatali, 36, who is known for his stunning images of Utah's desert landscapes, operates a gallery outside Zion National Park in Springdale and a photography school in nearby Rockville.

[ken1953]

Michael, I was watching The Travel Channel yesterday and they had a marathon of National Parks in the West and I kept being brought back to this post by you!! I feel that Mr. Fatali's motives were honorable and I know many fires have been started in these parks for millenia. I'm sure Mr. Fatali learned a very expensive lesson about thinking about the consequences before doing the action.
That being said, many people don't think and are only trying to create. I'm wondering if Steve Jones "knew" what the consequences were, but intentionally damaged the environment, or whether he just didn't think about his actions and was just trying to "create" an effect. I'm not trying to be diplomatic about this situation, but how many of us have done something stupid simply because we didn't think it out fully! Me for one!!
Ken

[JSPhoto]

I shoot college sports on the side. If I consider that I get calls from media people to go to certain sport events because they're not happy with what they've received so far, or need specific shots, I think I must be doing something right Yet I stuggle seing this as art, even though I think they're good compositions. And, my favorite creatvie shots are never picked for publication!
Mike

Mike,

Interesting comments, especially since the sports editor I deal with the most calls my work art. They almost always use the ones I point out, and in most cases I could just send them those and nothing else. There are odd times those when they use the mundane shots over the spectacular jusat because of who is in the shot.

JS

[darkman]

Mike,

Interesting comments, especially since the sports editor I deal with the most calls my work art. They almost always use the ones I point out, and in most cases I could just send them those and nothing else. There are odd times those when they use the mundane shots over the spectacular jusat because of who is in the shot.

JS

Hi JS,

I'm not sure you took my comments in the context it was written in. Nor do I understand what your point is? I can generally tell what images the sports editors like. I know when to supply "mundane" shots because they'll want a picture of a person I didn't get a "spectacular" shot of.

Of course it's art. Almost any click of the shutter is IMO. So, yes, there's an element of art to it, but to me it's not "art." I liken it to comparing craft to folk art to fine art and all the shades in between. To me, sports photography falls in the craft to folk art range. Converseley, I 100% disagree with Adina saying her portrait work isn't art. It's just a different viewpoint. There's no correct answer.

mike

[masdog]

I shoot college sports on the side. If I consider that I get calls from media people to go to certain sport events because they're not happy with what they've received so far, or need specific shots, I think I must be doing something right Yet I stuggle seing this as art, even though I think they're good compositions. And, my favorite creatvie shots are never picked for publication! But as I pointed out, many people like this kind of capture and see it more "artsy" than, for example, a well composed landscape. Especially if it's done in BW.

For my more "creative" work, I did one nude that my wife disliked. Yet, I've been asked to show it in several shows.

What I'm leading to is what others have stated. No matter the subject of the photo, in general it need to shown to the correct audience. Each person has their own likes and dislikes that aren't right or wrong, just different.

Mike

Darkman,

I also shoot sports for a college level Athletic Department, but I would have a hard time calling the images art. The school displays prints of some of the images, but they're not really artistic in any sense of the word.

Sean

[Michael Fanelli]

After reading all these comments, I just have to say: If art doesn't upset you it isn't doing its job. So much art we consider great today started with a vision that was often derided, ridiculed, and declared garbage. Good artists are brave people. Artists who are timid are forgotten.

Yes, if someone destroys other people's property, prosecute him/her. But that is such a minority that its no more than a footnote.