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

First, before we start fighting fiersly and endlessly, let's figure out what is the fight going to be. Your opinions are extremely welcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irakly Shanidze

First, before we start fighting fiersly and endlessly, let's figure out what is the fight going to be. Your opinions are extremely welcome.

---

Art is a presentation that evokes an emotional response.

The place of photography is to document (not art) and to be used as a tool to evoke an emotional response (art.)

What other questions do you have?

I think there are two basic kinds of photography: illustration and art

Illustration is anything that operates on a purely representative, pictorial level. That would be snapshots, most travel, portrait, sports, and landscape photography - including most of what I do.

In order for me to consider a photograph art, it has to have meaning and symbolic value. This is where things get complicated. A photo that has meaning for one person might not for another. But for me, it's meaning that makes art. The more universal the meaning, the more powerful and "better" the artwork. Art is always the goal for me. I don't think it make it there very often. But it's my ideal and I hope the path I walk is meandering in that direction.

[QUOTE=Lava Lamp]The place of photography is to document (not art) and to be used as a tool to evoke an emotional response (art.)[QUOTE]

So you're saying that photography is not art? Not capable of being art? You don't think that a photographer can capture or create a piece that has layers of meaning stimulates emotion, and speaks to the human condition?

Is art as simple as something that stimulates emotion? How much emotion? What's the threshold, or is there one? And is it fair to talk about what the "role" of photography is? I didn't know it was as simple as just documentation. What about when I use a toy camera and make multiple exposures to juxtapose multiple symbols and draw emotional comparisons? Is that documentation?

[QUOTE=Photo-John][QUOTE=Lava Lamp]The place of photography is to document (not art) and to be used as a tool to evoke an emotional response (art.)

Quote:

---

So you're saying that photography is not art? Not capable of being art? You don't think that a photographer can capture or create a piece that has layers of meaning stimulates emotion, and speaks to the human condition?

Is art as simple as something that stimulates emotion? How much emotion? What's the threshold, or is there one? And is it fair to talk about what the "role" of photography is? I didn't know it was as simple as just documentation. What about when I use a toy camera and make multiple exposures to juxtapose multiple symbols and draw emotional comparisons? Is that documentation?

---

My use of "documenting" would be synonymous with your term "illustration." It's important to note that documenting/illustrating and "art" are not mutually exclusive. Documentary photographs can be art.

I would draw the distinction between what moves us emotionally (even a little) and what doesn't. The amount that something moves us and even if it moves us at all will vary person by person and image by image. It might also be useful to think about the photographers intention in taking the picture, but this has obvious flaws: 1) we can't know what the photographer was thinking, and 2) even if we did, "happy accidents" may occur that produce "art."

My comment on the place of photography was really a response to the original question. What I meant to convey is that it is a tool that can document or illustrate and in so doing produce "art." The first images you may see in an art history textbook are cave paintings. Surely, they weren't intended as art, but we see them that way now, don't we.

I'll comment on your last question another time. I think I may have to read it a few more times. ;)

I said this before in the other thread discussion that started all this.

I wonder what the Old Masters would have done, had they had photography as their medium to create ART. Would we still have the same amount of Oil Paintings, Water Colours etc, or would we have them as photographs.

Think about it.

Photography, is basically IMO, todays ART, instead of having to learn to use paint brushes, canvas etc, we learn to use a camera, film, filters, light(s/ing), backgrounds etc to present the same thing.

Take the Mona Lisa for instances, that is a Portrait, the same thing could be produced using photography if it was available at the time but wasn't, so the means that where available at the time, Oils and Canvas, where used instead.

Go back further and Cave Men/Woman used Bark, pastes, walls etc to show thier primative paintings which were/are considered to this day, ART Work.

I think it is time to get over the differences of Art being a Canvas based idea and take it to the level that Art work forms from many different forms. Like Marble, Clay, Paint, Mosaics, Buildings, Photography.

I mean, we call someones painting, who painted white on white, Art Work. I call it a big bloody rip off of money, by someone that had a thought to do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photo-John

Illustration is anything that operates on a purely representative, pictorial level. That would be snapshots, most travel, portrait, sports, and landscape photography - including most of what I do.

---

John, I understand what you're trying to say, but problems arise when talk about the term "photo-illustration".

A photo-illustration is normally considered a heavily treated photo that brings in more artistic design elements. It is a very common way of creating photo "art" from more traditional types of photo images.

As you can see, the term is easily confused with you applying the term illustration to a photograph, which you say to you means purely representative.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that most associate photo-illustration as a MORE artistic means of expression, not less... :cool:

I'm not sure I knew that. But I can see what you mean. Like if I took a photo, pumped up the contrast all the way and turned it into something that was more like a drawing.

When I say "illustration", I mean, literally, an image used to illustrate.

An important aspect of these discussions will be defining our terms. I plan on tackling that soon in another post...

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...

What is art?

In it's most basic form, "created" art is all about intent. Intent to communicate or elicit a feeling, emotion, or reaction from a viewer.

If this intent is with the creator, a work is art from its inception, regardless of the subject. Of course, whether it succeeds or not or is considered good or not is a different matter...

Work can also "become" art after the fact (sometimes long after the fact), if the intent is with someone who gathers the visual material and organizes or arranges it into a presentation for people to view, or simply appreciates an artistic quality of an image when experiencing it in a different context than it was originally intended.

Some perfect examples of the latter are the many photographers (crime scene documenter Weegee comes to mind) who did not consider themselves artists at the time they were working, and whose photos were only seen as a body of art many years later when it was grouped and presented in books and galleries.

Or something like looking at enlargements of dental x-rays and finding unexpected beauty or conflict in the various patterns of the image. Or even viewing a series of police mug shots and noticing a disturbing or frightening quality to the group as a whole because of the style used to create them.

So, is this a broad definition of art? Yes it is. Is there a tremendous overlap between funtional photography and "artisitic" photography? You'd better believe it. It is often in the eye of the beholder...

In fact, you can make the case that ALL VISUAL WORK has an artistic aspect to it, and so everything is art in some way, shape, or form.

Don't believe me? Take 10,000 color slides of nothing in particular out of the trash, mount them all together in a gallery, shine light through them, and it will naturally present an interesting visual concept and so qualifies as art.

But that's not really the point. In fact, in light of this reasoning, I don't think the big question should even BE "what is art?" We already know the answer to that...

I would like to make a remark about prehistoric cave drawings. I actually researched the subject for my academic needs some time ago. What is interesting, images of animals, hunting scenes, etc were definitely ment to be as realistic as possible, but one of the oldest drawings ever found was a highly stylized female torso. I found it fascinating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asylum Steve

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

...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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtbbrian

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asylum Steve

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trevor Ash

Beautiful post Elysian. You have an artistic way with words :)

---

Thanks Trevor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trevor Ash

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) :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asylum Steve

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.

I just wanted to add that when photography was new the photoraphers called themselves "Photographic Artists", so they must have considered it an art. Actually why not consider it art? There is art in everything. When it is brought to a certain level, it is art. To me, it means a work that has exceeded the mundane, common elements and soared to a level of meaning.
Kit

hhmm.. good start for very interesting and potentially pointless discussion :)
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 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.

"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?" :D

" 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...

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.

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

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 :p

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