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

[Asylum Steve]

"my question is.. can the author himself regard his work as art or does such recognition has to come from the "audience" to be truly valid?..."

I think we all know that answer to this one. A more fun way of putting the question would be, "If an artist make art, but know one ever sees it, it is really art?"

" i might also disagree with art photography having to be meaningfull. absolutely absurd and meaningless stuff would sometimes make you think more than conservative one, by simply employing your imagination..."

If it makes you think, then obviously it's not meaningless... ;)

But I understand what you're getting at, and I agree...

[darkman]

I leave the country for a few weeks and we have a new board. Great!

Art is, above all, in the eyes of the beholder.

I was thumbing through some of my photography magazines that deemed themselves arty or fine-art. I find they're this way in the sense they don't focus on the equipment as much. But not necessarily that they have better photos. Others may, and probably do, disagree.

The thing that always stikes me is the diversity of images in all these magazines. From the amateurish snap-shot style (by their terms) that's in vogue now to the odd off the wall shots and everything between. While I appreciate all of them and the talent these photographers have, in reality I find I really like only a small segement of them. Even though they all invoke thought in me. Obviousely, others must have a completely different taste than me! Does this make any of us wrong or right? Of course not! It just means it takes something else to invoke that feeling in us that's been mentioned by some in this thread.

In this vain, art can be almost anything. Photography does fit into this category. Best of all, or worst of all depending on your outlook, people can do great in one category and poor in another. I don't beleive this makes them any more or less artistic. One must keep an open mind to that.

As an aside, while in Lucerne I visited the Picasso Museum which is mostly a photo exhibit by David Douglas Duncan. While individually a lot of the photos didn't do much for me, taken as a body was another story all together. If you start at the begining and go through to the end in order, it's was hard not to feal as if you just lived a segement of Picasso's life. It's interesting how art can be the body of things rather than the part. Or, a documentary can be art too.

[Fey]

I always liked Marshall McLuhan's definition: Art is whatever you can get away with.

Talking about whether a given photograph is art is not all that useful because I doubt we'll be able to agree on a reasonably precise set of criteria as to what constitutes art. Besides, it seems that a large part of what makes an image "art" is the intent of the creator and that can be hard to gauge :-)

I find it easier to think in terms of good photographs and bad photographs. Well, no, maybe that's too simplistic. Let's say -- from my personal point of view -- there are four types of images:

• Bad images (really easy to find all over the place :-) )
• Interesting images (something's there, but still...)
• Wow OMG images (very rare, unfortunately)
• Images I don't understand but accept there may be something to them

"Arty" photographs may find themselves in any of these four categories.

Fey

[AgmLauncher]

As I've said in another thread, I personally see little artistic value in random snapshots of things with interesting effects applied to them trying to be passed off as art. (Using rear shutter sync on a car to make the tail lights trail with the car in front at a standstill for example). This stems from my lack of interest (to put it nicely) in modern art. While I wont get involved in my critiques of art or what should be defined as art, I will say this:

Any creation, whether it's a photograph, or a painting, or random bits of metal spot welded together, will ultimately fall into two categories:

1.) Personal
-The "art" was made out of a unique combination of concepts, ideas, images, and feelings that only it's creator can fully appreciate and understand. This is not something a general audience can appreciate because there is no way for them to connect to it. Is this art? In my honest opinion no. It's a mood swing put into material form. Is it meaningful? Yes, but only to the person who made it.

2.) Public
-The "art" that was created is something that people CAN connect to. However the channels with which everyone can connect to the image are not as intense as the intended channels that a personal piece of artwork would have. By channels I mean things like composition, subject, lighting, colors, exposure etc. A picture such as this one which demonstrates a clean and simple composition, excellent lighting, and beautiful colors, is a technically well made piece of work. The first thing that comes to mind is "wow". Now, is this any more "artistic" than the personal kind of creation? Not necessarily unless you define art as the technical skill level with which the photograph was taken, as I do. It might be a cliche image of a sunset, but if it's well done from a technical standpoint, and has it's own unique composition or twist to it, THAT is art and it's something everyone can connect to.

It's a matter of "wow" or "what?" that I think defines art. If people are saying "what?", it's not art. If people are saying "wow", then it is. Just my 2 cents ;)

Edit: btw, I posted this without reading the other responses. It seems I have re-iterated a lot of the things that have been brought up earlier. I guess that's a good thing

[ken1953]

So many intersting points being made, all valid, so here's my 2 cents. As a musician, I have wrestled with the similar question, what is "music". I think about the other "arts" when trying to answer this age old question, ie, music, theater, painting, sculpting, poetry, "writing"..., etc. Yet, while sitting here, after so many years of trying to answer that question, I still have no idea. A thought I have this morning actually comes down to the "ART of cooking". If I take the best bowl of "chili" and slop it into a plastic bowl, sprinkle some onions and cheese on top, and stuff a spoon in it and set it on the table to eat, is that the "art" of cooking v.s. ladleing it into a fine porcelain bowl, sprinkling it carefully with the finest onions and cheese, ensuring a uniform coverage, placing that bowl on top of a matching saucer, garnished with a twisted slice of lime, a sprig of parsley, and placing it on a table set with sparkling white linen, set with the finest silver, a beautiful centerpiece, with silver candleabra topped with tall silver glitter coated candles. What is the art??? Same bowl of chili!!! Presentation??? Diners palette??? Appearance??? The work that went into the presentation??? I personally don't know. Is an intellects opinion worth more than an intellectually challenged persons opinion??? Again...I don't know!!!
One other example of the "what is art" question. Can an elephant or chimp or cow, etc. really create art??? Sorry, not in my book!!! But many people like the "art" created by these animals. And I must admit, I have seen a few that I like.
In conclusion, I know that I shoot several different ways when taking photographs. Naturally, there is the snapshot, then there is the "capture" of an interesting view that I wish to share, then there is the "learning" of taking a "good" photograph (are the best of these "artistic", are they all artistic?). Then there comes the times I'm trying to be "artistic"!!!! I shoot multiple shots of everything, since the slightest rustle of wind, the minute change of shadow, the blur of movement, the momentary presence of a bee on a flower.............
What is "art"??????
I think the answer is...Art, as beauty, is in the eye of the beholder!!!
Just my 2 cents...
Thanx...
Ken

[reverberation]

An old argument. The point, for historical accuracy, where photography became an art form (in my opinion) was when a French photographer inadverdantly exposed a negative accidentaly and finished developing it anyway. He was reviled and attacked as being Satanic. He was the first person in the history of human artstic expression to deliver a black sun. It was a turning point, to say the least. Death had arrived and demanded an audience. There was outrage, it was blasphemy...the Frenchman did escape with his life, but his career was sacrificed. He made a mistake, embraced it, refused to apoligize, and paid for it with his reputation. Science and art are closely related in this regard.