Are you relegated to the periphery of the art world

[Jim Jones]

I find it more interesting that Western Art thinks it is the center of human achievement. That it is the Art to judge all other Art by.

This is the heart of any unbiased discussion on art. Most of the significant creative progress in human history lies outside the narrow category of Western Art. That, in turn, has been subdivided into countless categories, often to magnify the insignificance of an individual's trivial accomplishments. It seems presumptuous for any individual to define Art in a way that must apply to everyone. This should preclude arguing about Art without defining art in unambiguous language. To me there seems to be art, or at least beauty, in the nests of some birds and the webs of some spiders, even though those creatures may be oblivious to our appreciation.

 

[Pieter12]

I live and operate in the part of the world that is dominated by Western art (and I'm not talking about Frederick Remington). Although I do have a piece of Aboriginal art on my wall, I wonder what someone from that culture would think of everything else on my walls--from a Chagall poster, some watercolor landscapes to abstract expressionist paintings and a lot of photography.

 

[Maris]

Whether photography is art may not ultimately be settled to universal satisfaction in PHOTRIO but it has been decided in a court of law; and a very long time ago too.

1861 in France saw photographers Mayer and Pierson bring a copyright action against the photographic duo of Betbeder and Schwabbe. The ruckus was over pirated pictures of Lord Palmerston. Mayer and Pierson claimed copyright protection under the French copyright laws of 1793 and 1810. The catch was that those laws protected only works of art so the court's decision hinged on whether photography was art.

Mayer and Pierson lost! Photography apparently was not art according to the court's judgement of 9 January 1862.

Mayer and Pierson appealed the decision on 10 April 1862. Their lawyer, a Monsieur M.Marie, gave an eloquent defense of the art of photography using many of the ideas now raised in this very thread. The court reversed its previous decision and declared on 4 July 1862 that photography was art.

The battle was not over. Later in 1862 a group of famous painters including Ingres petitioned against the decision. The arguments they used bear a striking resemblance to the anti-art-photography sentiments also found here and there in this thread.

Finally on 28 November 1862 the French court threw out the painters' petition and photography has enjoyed secure status as art ever since; at least in France it has.

Another curious corner of history reveals that the Paris Salon of 1859 admitted photographs to be displayed along with paintings and sculpture. The catch was that the photography display was accessed through a different doorway to the Salon. Even more curious than the admission of photography was the exclusion of the Impressionists, Monet, Renoir, Sisley, and the like as obviously not qualifying as creditable artists!

 

[VinceInMT]

…

Letrec, Van Gogh and impressionists was famously hugely inspired by Japanese woodblock prints (that in turn earlier was inspired by Dutch painting) and East Asian painting.

Islamic art has been very influential in a number of ways and at different times in different periods.
…

And today, doing so is put under criticism as “cultural appropriation.”

 

[Don_ih]

Even more curious than the admission of photography was the exclusion of the Impressionists, Monet, Renoir, Sisley, and the like as obviously not qualifying as creditable artists!

Impressionists were rebels and heretics.

 

[Vaughn]

And today, doing so is put under criticism as “cultural appropriation.”

Yep, our past has carelessly laid down a copious amount of cultural landmines that we must now carefully dance around.
...as we lay down a few more for those who follow. BOOM!!!!!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Whether photography is art may not ultimately be settled to universal satisfaction in PHOTRIO but it has been decided in a court of law; and a very long time ago too.

1861 in France saw photographers Mayer and Pierson bring a copyright action against the photographic duo of Betbeder and Schwabbe. The ruckus was over pirated pictures of Lord Palmerston. Mayer and Pierson claimed copyright protection under the French copyright laws of 1793 and 1810. The catch was that those laws protected only works of art so the court's decision hinged on whether photography was art.

Mayer and Pierson lost! Photography apparently was not art according to the court's judgement of 9 January 1862.

Mayer and Pierson appealed the decision on 10 April 1862. Their lawyer, a Monsieur M.Marie, gave an eloquent defense of the art of photography using many of the ideas now raised in this very thread. The court reversed its previous decision and declared on 4 July 1862 that photography was art.

The battle was not over. Later in 1862 a group of famous painters including Ingres petitioned against the decision. The arguments they used bear a striking resemblance to the anti-art-photography sentiments also found here and there in this thread.

Finally on 28 November 1862 the French court threw out the painters' petition and photography has enjoyed secure status as art ever since; at least in France it has.

Another curious corner of history reveals that the Paris Salon of 1859 admitted photographs to be displayed along with paintings and sculpture. The catch was that the photography display was accessed through a different doorway to the Salon. Even more curious than the admission of photography was the exclusion of the Impressionists, Monet, Renoir, Sisley, and the like as obviously not qualifying as creditable artists!

That answers the question. Time to close the thread.

 

[MattKing]

As much as I like to talk about legal issues, I'm loath to depend on a court decision for the determination of something like "is photography Art?"
Decisions like that don't give you a universal answer. Instead, they answer the much more limited question of whether photographic works were included in the type of art works protected by French copyright law.
Useful, but not entirely definitive.

 

[jtk]

I think it would best serve everybody if we (at Photrio) decided, for everybody on the planet...now and in the future, that "photography is not art."

 

[VinceInMT]

If we go back to my original post, the quote I cited stated:

”One of the more accessible mediums, photography has long been an entry point for those relegated to the periphery of the art world…”

This doesn’t say what is or what is not art but mirrors my position that “art” is more inclusive and rather than being a binary is more of a continuum with some works grouping toward a center and other works farther from it. The quote infers that photography is one of those farther from the center but is still considered a form of art.

That said, photography is not alone in that. Textiles and anything considered “decorative art” have long been placed there as well. And then there is the entire genre of “Outsider Art” that is also given a place at the table but with an asterisk.

One of the most popular books used by art historians as an introductory teaching text that attempts to define the canon of Western Art is H.W. Janson’s “History of Art.” It contains about 3,000 entries and is identified as creating the “what’s in/what’s out” approach in dealing with art. Not only did it have a very Euro-centric bias, the version published in the mid-1980s featured NO women artists, corrected in the 1990s when it let 19 women into the fold. One of those women was photographer Annette Lemieux who was removed in the 2001 edition. Other texts are now competing with Janson and certainly expand the type of work considered “art” including photography, video, maps, and the decorative arts.

So, going back to that original quote and why I brought this up, it’s not whether photography is an art, but why it, and other mediums, are on that periphery. The quote takes a stand that it is its “accessibility,” something we discussed lightly before heading into the “what is art” rabbit hole. I’ll rephrase my title of this thread to:

”Assuming the fact that photography is so accessible, that is, that most everyone can do it, does that impact how you feel about your own craft?”

I suppose we could make that more psychological than philosophical by asking does its accessibility impact your self-esteem? On other visual art forums, I haven’t seen discussions by drawers, painters, ceramicists, or sculptors, decidedly fields less accessible than photography, spend much time defending their medium of choice.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

There are far more obvious "captures" that most people will think of when it's mentioned. Getting the photo of blowing out the candles, the picture of getting handed the diploma, kissing the bride, a particularly silly expression on a kid's face. Using a camera to "capture" moments has been the mission statement of Kodak for over a century. It's something everyone knows how to do - or at least they think they do.

It's not against painting that you need to establish the validity of photography as an art form, but against the everyday, banal and mundane, ubiquitous generation of photos by the billions of people who in no way consider what they're doing "art".

There's a lot to be said for capturing family members and friends with smiles on their faces. There's an added bonus if the Taj Mahal is in the background.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I posted "likes" which is not a total universal without exception statement. That does not mean all. To expand on my points, before the Europeans the Australian aboriginals had permanent houses that they used in rotations, megastructures, river damming for fishing with retention pools to keep trapped fish alive, large irrigation projects, petroglyph stones across the country to show water holes, commerce, hunting and migration trails. They have the longest continuous civilization dating back 65,000 years with very few battles or wars, while Western Civilization gets teary eyed over the 14,000 year old Neanderthal cave painting in southern France and northern Spain which is not even part of a contiguous civilization. Yet because they did not make and use pottery they were not considered civilized or a civilization. That is definitely a Western Privileged Viewpoint.

Before someone from a northwestern state gets his panties twisted in to a knot, here are two references:

• Dark Emu, Aboriginal Australia and the birth of agriculture, Bruce Pascoe, Scribe Publications UK Ltd, Victoria, Australia & London UK, 2018 ISBN 9781947 53087
• The Biggest Estate on Earth, How Aborigines Made AustraliaU, Bill Gammage, Allen & Unwin,rows Nest NSW Australia, 2011 ISBN 978 1 74331 1325

Future art historians might conclude that we had no art at all in our generation since DVD's don't seem to be able to last more than a decade or so. My point is that there may have been more art than we realize even a million years ago when they had a lot less technology than we have now. It's just that time and nature has destroyed most of it if not all. Just like ours might be. The irony of it.

 

[VinceInMT]

Interesting material and nice. I've noticed in museums that many photo art they present combine photos with other materials. I forget the name of this type of art - maybe someone can help me. I think museums look for something different.

Thanks. I would label that type of art, and my own examples of it, as “mixed media.”

 

[Sirius Glass]

Future art historians might conclude that we had no art at all in our generation since DVD's don't seem to be able to last more than a decade or so. My point is that there may have been more art than we realize even a million years ago when they had a lot less technology than we have now. It's just that time and nature has destroyed most of it if not all. Just like ours might be. The irony of it.

Many people at least in the US cannot maintain a single thought in their mind before they finish reading a bumper sticker.

 

[Pieter12]

Many people at least in the US cannot maintain a single thought in their mind before they finish reading a bumper sticker.

You assume they can read a bumper sticker.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You assume they can read a bumper sticker.

My bad.

 

[markjwyatt]

The fact that we are arguing about whether photography is art, whilst photographs sit in galleries and sell for $1000s+, and some photographers consider themselves artists, and artists themselves cannot settle the question is a strong clue that photography is probably art. Art creates controversy by its nature.

Photography is art that has never been fully accepted as art, and may never be because it is so common (and often not artistic) also.

 

[Pieter12]

I know we're veering back to the topic of Is Photography Art?, but here is an interesting excerpt from a review of Hugh Eakin’s new book, “Picasso’s War: How Modern Art Came to America” by Louis Menand from a recent issue of The New Yorker magazine:

"The art world isn’t a fixed entity. It’s continually being reconstituted as new artistic styles emerge. Twentieth-century fine art, in Europe and the United States, passed through a series of formally innovative stages, from Cubism and Surrealism to Abstract Expressionism and Pop art, and each time art entered a new stage and acquired a new look the art world had to adjust.

At the most basic level, the art world exists to answer the question Is it art? When Cubist paintings were first produced, around 1907, they did not look like art to many people, even people who were interested in and appreciated fine-art painting. The same thing was true of Jackson Pollock’s drip paintings (around 1950) and Andy Warhol’s soup cans (1962).

But you don’t know it’s art by looking at it. You know it’s art because galleries want to show it, dealers want to sell it, collectors want to buy it, museums want to exhibit it, and critics can explain it. When the parts are in synch, you have a market. The artist produces, and the various audiences—from billionaire collectors to casual museumgoers and college students buying van Gogh posters—consume. The art world is what gets the image from the studio to the dorm room."

 

[snusmumriken]

In introducing the show, editor Grace Elbert says:

”One of the more accessible mediums, photography has long been an entry point for those relegated to the periphery of the art world…”

What a frightful snob.

 

[snusmumriken]

In any case, I don't see how anyone seeking an entry point can already have been relegated. It makes no sense.

 

[faberryman]

So let's say after all is said and done, it turns out that photography is considered art, how will that impact you and the photography you are personally engaged in.

So let's say after all is said and done, it turns out that photography is not considered art, how will that impact you and the photography you are personally engaged in?

It won't make the slightest difference either way for me. The discussion of whether photography is art is largely an intellectual exercise.

For those who sell their photographs, will it increase or decrease the prices you are able to charge for you prints?

The thing I find striking in visiting galleries exhibiting photography is that, with a few notable exceptions, the prices for prints are such that, after the gallery takes its commission, the photographer probably isn't really earning all that much for his time and effort and skill and creativity.

 

[jtk]

faberry, if it's agreed upon that photography (broadly) is an art I will need to buy a beret. Otherwise...

 

[MattKing]

So let's say after all is said and done, it turns out that photography is considered art, how will that impact the photography you are personally engaged in.

So let's say after all is said and done, it turns out that photography is not considered art, how will that impact the photography you are personally engaged in?

It won't make the slightest difference either way for me.

For those who sell their photographs, will it increase or decrease the prices you are able realize from you efforts?

How about if it turns out that photography can be art, can that not mean that there is something that we may decide to aspire to with our photography, if we so desire?

 

[MattKing]

faberry, if it's agreed upon that photography (broadly) is an art I will need to buy a beret. Otherwise...

Only if it is a raspberry beret.

 

[VinceInMT]

The fact that we are arguing about whether photography is art, whilst photographs sit in galleries and sell for $1000s+, and some photographers consider themselves artists, and artists themselves cannot settle the question is a strong clue that photography is probably art. Art creates controversy by its nature.

Photography is art that has never been fully accepted as art, and may never be because it is so common (and often not artistic) also.

That anything can be art was settled by Marcel Duchamp in 1917.