Art photos are manipulations

[Vaughn]

Great! Clean, to the point. We got it. No more disagreements or confusion! I appreciate the lack of a reference to selling.

So an artist is anyone making art -- correct? Or do we still need to told by someone that we are an artist before we are an artist...then we can start making art. But wait, we were already making art!

So by our definition, a 3 year old drawing a cat for his mom is making art...totally agree. Beginner's art -- what many grown-ups try to get back to.

Edited to add: something one of the profs had on their door in the Art Dept I worked in: A young child asked her mom's friend what she taught her college students. The professor answered, "Drawing." To which the child asked in puzzlement, "They forget?"

 

[removed account4]

Great! Clean, to the point. We got it. No more disagreements or confusion! I appreciate the lack of a reference to selling.

So an artist is anyone making art -- correct? Or do we still need to told by someone that we are an artist before we are an artist...then we can start making art. But wait, we were already making art!

So by our definition, a 3 year old drawing a cat for his mom is making art...totally agree. Beginner's art -- what many grown-ups try to get back to.

+1 !

 

[Sirius Glass]

Can someone give us a practical usable definition of Art that we can build consensus on? Perhaps a max of three sentences -- no run-on or compound sentences. No big words that in turn need to be defined.

Because if we can't make it that short and sweet, it will be of little use to us. We won't build a consensus on gobbly-gook.

What and ruin the fun???

 

[Vaughn]

Yeah, I know. I was hoping some of the members who are incredibly well-read and knowledgable on all things Art would be able chime in with a precise and short definition, but not so far.

 

[jamesaz]

Is this where the ‘I know it when I see it’ phrase is used?

 

[MattKing]

Is this where the ‘I know it when I see it’ phrase is used?

That one works better for pornography!

 

[markjwyatt]

Yeah, I know. I was hoping some of the members who are incredibly well-read and knowledgable on all things Art would be able chime in with a precise and short definition, but not so far.

Not sure I am incredibly well-read and knowledgable on all things Art (actually, I am pretty sure I am not), but,

Human creativity of one or more persons [artist(s)] displayed, expressed, or presented in some sensible way for other humans to experience.

 

[Helge]

Can someone give us a practical usable definition of Art that we can build consensus on? Perhaps a max of three sentences -- no run-on or compound sentences. No big words that in turn need to be defined.

Because if we can't make it that short and sweet, it will be of little use to us. We won't build a consensus on gobbly-gook.

That’s the basic and profound mistake.

You are not asking a simple question, and likely not even the correct question.
You are asking for “news” where really what is needed and wanted is “new”.

“News” goes into your mind so easily and readily because there is already a ground work that makes it stick, relate and understandable.

Your thought cloud and concept space is closely aligned with the giver of the news.

What you are asking would need some pretty radical restructuring and lengthy initial “calibration” of the receivers mind.

If you somehow find that patronizing and “not worth it”, that’s actually in an recursive way, a perfect example of the selfsame meta concept of ontology.

Art as a singular word (not necessarily as a concept), is also a strictly western idea.
East Asian countries have different words covering different ground.
But of course the English word and associated ideas has in modern times affected the East Asian approach and look on what could be broadly said to be the equivalent to “art”.

Going right back to and looking at, and understanding the earliest pictorial art would probably be more interesting and thought provoking, than anything anyone could write in a forum like this, for a general idea of what images is and means to humans.
Incidentally, the latest episode of the best radio program ever, and in turn the best podcast ever, In Our Time with Melvyn Bragg is about cave art:
https://podcasts.apple.com/dk/podcast/in-our-time/id73330895?l=da&i=1000492351737

 

[Vaughn]

Oh, yes...that is the one we are going with so far...but there are some who have read the Books and I am hoping they can add or even subtract from your definition to make it even clearer. (edited: and they have!)

Another thing I like about yours is that is universal. Art has been around far before Western culture and will be around (hopefully) afterwards. Any definition should transcend (IMO) cultural boundaries and ideals, yet be of some use within them. It was suggested that your definition was too broad to be of use. I will disagree as it gives a solid base to build upon and that if the definition is too broad, then one can add the needed cultural references that will make the definition more useful in ones discussion.

 

[Helge]

Not sure I am incredibly well-read and knowledgable on all things Art (actually, I am pretty sure I am not), but,

Human creativity of one or more persons [artist(s)] displayed, expressed, or presented in some sensible way for other humans to experience.

That’s the definition of any human made object, or even purely mental concepts.

 

[Vaughn]

Thanks, Helga! You seem to agree with my point exactly! People keep interrupting discussions demanding that a definition of art is needed before any discussion can continue. And from I gathered from what you wrote, you agree that any attempt of that here is pretty damn impossible.. A link that you supplied awhile back said was one of the ways to solve the Problem of the Heap was consensus -- our Heap is the question: when does a person become an artist...how much time, experience, failures, successes, proper recognition, etc is needed to be be piled on before the heap (person) becomes an Artist ( and their work, art)? I do not think any consensus will be reached soon!

I hold that anyone participating in the process set forth in our simple definition can call themself an artist. Then the rest of the world can weigh in if they want, looking in with their various cultural differences of what art and artists are, and provide their opinions. But the artist has every good reason to ignore them and create.

That’s the definition of any human made object, or even purely mental concepts.

That would be Conceptual Art, correct?

 

[Helge]

Thanks, Helga! You seem to agree with my point exactly! People keep interrupting discussions demanding that a definition of art is needed before any discussion can continue. And from I gathered from what you wrote, you agree that any attempt of that here is pretty damn impossible.. A link that you supplied awhile back said was one of the ways to solve the Problem of the Heap was consensus -- our Heap is the question: when does a person become an artist...how much time, experience, failures, successes, proper recognition, etc is needed to be be piled on before the heap (person) becomes an Artist ( and their work, art)? I do not think any consensus will be reached soon!

I hold that anyone participating in the process set forth in our simple definition can call themself an artist. Then the rest of the world can weigh in if they want, looking in with their various cultural differences of what art and artists are, and provide their opinions. But the artist has every good reason to ignore them and create.

That’s the definition of any human made object, or even purely mental concepts.

That would be Conceptual Art, correct?

Thanks Vaughn, but in case it’s not autocorrect, that is Helge.
As in the masculine version of the name.
I refuse masquerading as a female to gain extra social currency points. ;-)

According to old and new art historic paradigms anything human made and invented is in a sense art:
The high and low art designation without necessarily implying value is the classic basic idea. By the marxists and “new intellectuals” viewed as stodgy and even racist.
Or in the newer more egalitarian, PC all inclusive by force school, it’s up to you and the creator what is “art”.

But that’s hardly what’s being discussed here.

The word “art” is a cognate or of the same etymological strain as “arms”, arse/ass and the Danish “arti” which means to behave or be well mannered.
The original Indo-European root is related to “fitting” or “joining” words.
But used in the modern sense, it is actually quite recent, with the earliest instances of approximately the same use, being around seven hundred years old and the fully developed modern use being only two to three hundred years old.
It’s about the same with the Germanic equivalent “kunst”, which originally means “to know” or “have learned”.
Point is, that art as a concept is naturally bourgeois and leading/upper class and quite new.
And, there is nothing wrong or disqualifying about that.
Manners and ideas of the upper classes are emulated by the lower classes for good reason.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Art: "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."

 

[markjwyatt]

That’s the definition of any human made object, or even purely mental concepts.

Humans are artists and engineers. I did limit my definition to "sensible" art; though all art operates in the mind (after entering through the senses).

 

[markjwyatt]

Art: "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."

I did not limit my definition to "visual"; though this is relevant on this particular forum. I did not want to exclude music, dance, and other potential forms of artistic expression.

 

[Vaughn]

Or in the newer more egalitarian, PC all inclusive by force school, it’s up to you and the creator what is “art”.

Sorry -- bringing 'PC' and class into this is very strange. Does not work for me. It shows a one-sideness in a world view that I distrust.

Art: "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."

Not typical -- art has always has heavy religious and political elements, also, as primary motives beyond just beauty (making use of its emotional power.)

 

[Helge]

Sorry -- bringing 'PC' and class into this is very strange. Does not work for me. It shows a one-sideness in a world view that I distrust.

If you think that is strange, then you are not ready to participate in a discussion like this.

Political correctness, of one kind of another has been with us since time immemorial.
Same with classes.

Discussing whether you like it or not, is like discussing whether you liked your latest cold.

And art has always been about that tension, dichotomy and striving. And is shaped by that in convolution or even symbiosis.
Art is the peacock tail of humanity. It can never go into inflation, and can always find new alleys.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Sorry -- bringing 'PC' and class into this is very strange. Does not work for me. It shows a one-sideness in a world view that I distrust.



Not typical -- art has always has heavy religious and political elements, also, as primary motives beyond just beauty (making use of its emotional power.)

The definition I used included "...emotional power." Religious (awe) and political (propaganda) would fall into that definition.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I did not limit my definition to "visual"; though this is relevant on this particular forum. I did not want to exclude music, dance, and other potential forms of artistic expression.

Dance and music might be considered performance art as differing from visual art like photography. Architecture and let's say drinking goblets might be considered utilitarian art, as they have a function and purpose in addition to beauty, awe, spiritual, and mental stimulation. Some people might call these crafts rather than art. Photography could also be decorative art in addition to fine art if you use it on your wall to fill a space so it looks nice. No wonder it's so hard to define art.

 

[KenS]

Photographs aren't truth and can't even be truthful.
They are simply depictions.
Snip

Try telling that to a sitting judge in a court room.... Photographs are more likely to be accepted as truthful (as a something seen) over any artist's 'depiction'.

Ken

 

[Vaughn]

...And art has always been about that tension, dichotomy and striving. And is shaped by that in convolution or even symbiosis.
Art is the peacock tail of humanity. It can never go into inflation, and can always find new alleys.

Excellent, and as I mentioned, it is also the 3 yr old drawing for his mother. One can not exist without the other, not because they are two separate things tied together, but they are one.

 

[MattKing]

Try telling that to a sitting judge in a court room.... Photographs are more likely to be accepted as truthful (as a something seen) over any artist's 'depiction'.

Ken

See my discussions with Alan about how courts actually use photographs - with some very few exceptions they aren't used to supply direct evidence.
They are demonstrative in nature, and in many cases they are exceptionally useful. But their value comes from how they demonstrate or illustrate facts that are proven using other forms of evidence.
They aren't truth, but they can help explain and illustrate truth - just as diagrams and drawings can.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

And that is almost universally unnecessary, because "playing" with a photo only matters when the "played" with photo becomes inconsistent with the actual, admissible direct (rather than demonstrative) evidence, which a photo usually is not.
I've done enough photojournalism, and used enough photography in a court of law, to be able to exercise reasonable judgment and know whether an omitted thumb is either inconsequential or material.

Matt, OK I'll grant you're right about the thumb in this case in a court of law. But let's not lose my point about truth. If the public learns that the photo has been manipulated, they start questioning the accuracy and truthfulness of the whole picture and what it represents. After all, this photo was used to tug at the hearts of the public to provide government funding for a certain group of people who were in economic trouble. It was used as propaganda. It's artistic value came later. Maintaining standards in the area of photojournalism and documentation is still very important. Modern technology's ability to easily change photos does not change the need for ethics. It's a slippery slope.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Matt, OK I'll grant you're right about the thumb in this case in a court of law. But let's not lose my point about truth. If the public learns that the photo has been manipulated, they start questioning the accuracy and truthfulness of the whole picture and what it represents. After all, this photo was used to tug at the hearts of the public to provide government funding for a certain group of people who were in economic trouble. It was used as propaganda. It's artistic value came later. Maintaining standards in the area of photojournalism and documentation is still very important. Modern technology's ability to easily change photos does not change the need for ethics. It's a slippery slope.

That's all very fine and good when talking about photojournalism and evidentiary photographs. But this conversation was started about ART. Art has no need of ethical standards for how to include or exclude subject matter (plenty of other ethical standards could/should be applied, but the method of getting to Point B, with art, is largely irrelevant). Not all photography is art, and not all art is photography.

 

[faberryman]

I saw an exhibit of historic photographs in Philadelphia last year. Some of the most beautiful photographs were hand tinted daguerreotype portraits. How do I know that the woman was really wearing a light blue shirt? I mean if the photographer changed her shirt from white to blue what else did he change? Maybe it was actually a one-legged man with a big wart on his nose. Are these the kind of insane questions people are asking themselves when they look at photographs? If so, you probably have bigger problems than "manipulation".