So, what is Art anyway? What's the place of Photography there?

[mtbbrian]

BTW, so far I like Lava Lamp's simple declaration: if a photo attempts to document, in general it has less artisitic intent; if it tries to evoke, it generally has more.

I agree with that...

I like that statement too, but what about a photographer say like Eugene Richards or Mary Ellen Mark. Both of which are considered "documentary photographers", but do so in an artistic manner. That is by LL's definition they eveoke a lot of different meanins and feelings in their images.
Brian

[Asylum Steve]

...black and white.

You're exactly right, Brian, but that just shows the tremendous overlap we have when trying to define these things. As you point out, this is especially true of photographers that have made careers out of what can best be described as "artistic journalism".

This is the point I was trying to make in my answer to Irakly's question. Images can go back and forth between being seen as artistic or functional, depending on the context.

And as we know just from photos posted on this site over the years, many shots have elements of both...

Lava Lamp's statement is a broad generalization, which means there will always be exceptions...

-Steve

I like that statement too, but what about a photographer say like Eugene Richards or Mary Ellen Mark. Both of which are considered "documentary photographers", but do so in an artistic manner. That is by LL's definition they eveoke a lot of different meanins and feelings in their images.
Brian

[mtbbrian]

This is the point I was trying to make in my answer to Irakly's question. Images can go back and forth between being seen as artistic or functional, depending on the context.
-Steve

That is the thing that makes photography more "artistic" than any other medium! It crosses the boundries and be artistic and as you put it functional.

[Elysian]

So, what is Art anyway

The problem with art is that it's personal and that it doesn't follow any rules. Nobody can really describe what the reasoning is why some people might consider something art, whether it's a portrait or even something totally abstract.
Those who try to describe art are actually only guessing, nothing more. After all these years on this planet, man is still unable to explain what art really is. It's human to try to explain everything in life, but some things can't be explained and art is one of them.

I disagree with what Peter said, who wrote; "Photography, is basically IMO, todays ART". Photography is not art. Taking a picture however can lead to a photograph that is considered art by a majority of people, but that doesn't mean photography is art. I can move my finger through the dirt on the hood of my car and someone might consider the result art. Is this person wrong or right? Does that make a car, a moving finger or dirt 'art'?

I read the previous posts and I can only conclude that most of you guys really look at art from your own perspective, your own age, this particular hobby, the place you live, your knowledge, etc. That's to begin with totally wrong. A 12 year can consider something art and so can a 90 year old. Some New Yorker can call something art, but so can an Eskimo in Greenland. There are people who make art every day, there are ones who don't. Thre are people who have studied and there are those who can't even read. They will all have different views. Life experiences of the viewer also has an influence on how they perceive certain photographs.

See, we can all talk like "pros" with words like "intent", "meaning", "symbolic value", "expression", "evoke", etc, but let a random group of people (age, location, social life, experience, history, knowledge, etc) browse through Irakly's photo gallery (beautiful shots btw) and ask them to make a list of the photographs that they consider art and look at the results. Get the point?
And what if 80% consider a certain photograph art. Does than mean that the other 20% don't know what art is?
You know... this discussion is too ridiculous for words if you ask me.

Visit this thread weeks later and I'll promise all of you that there will be no answers but a lot of blah-blah, talking about everything and nothing. We should really move away from the word "art" and start talking about things like how to express feelings, height, emotions, loneliness, danger, innocence, age, beauty, speed and things like that. I consider that a lot more useful than wasting our time like this.

Just my $0,02 of course.

[Trevor Ash]

Beautiful post Elysian. You have an artistic way with words and you've described my opinion on the subject very well.

[Asylum Steve]

Joe,

If you read my reply to the question, I think you'll see we're on the same page...

The points you and I made are precisely why I felt "What is Art?" is NOT a very logical question to start the forum discussion on (sorry Irakly)...

Except, of course, to simply list everyone's individual opinion. I supose that has some value, but it doesn't exactly get us moving in any particular direction, now does it?

[Elysian]

Beautiful post Elysian. You have an artistic way with words

Thanks Trevor.

you've described my opinion on the subject very well.

Good, because that saves you a headache (the one I always get with a discussion about the definition of art)

Except, of course, to simply list everyone's individual opinion. I suppose that has some value, but it doesn't exactly get us moving in any particular direction, now does it?

I agree Steve. It's always good that a lot of people share their opinion, so that we have a broader view on things.
The more souls who join in, the more interesting these discussions are. I'm willing to join these discussions and to add my humble view on things. But as for this thread, there's nothing more I want to add. My opinion is clear and I just hope that we move to more substantial discussions, because discussing things is ok, but it must lead to something in my opinion and I'm happy that you see it this way too.