Ayn Rand's POV

[Bromo33333]

Great heavens!! Why all this intense reaction to someone else's OPINION??

I don't happen to share the same viewpoint, but hammering anyone's opinion into a gauge of "rightness" or "wrongness" defeats the entire entire process of "connecting to another being"!

[snip]

What I see here is really[sic] not an argument over whether photography - or anything else - is art or not; It is the classic discussion of "Creativity" or "Capture".

[snip]

In my book it is the recognition of the "art" ... that ultimatey mystical process that fires our consciousness and causes us to begin the process of "capture". The factors affecting this are - or are close to, infinite - our life experiences; our "conditioning"; our education, social pressures, desire to "belong".... when do we get to infinty?

[snip]

I think I just said. "The media is NOT the `art'". Closely related, though.

Am I "right"? *I* think so - but I doubt (seriously - BIG TIME) that everyone else out there will agree.

We were trying to convey 3 major points.

1. The main argument of "what is art and what is not art" is really subtle since most people when presented with a painting and ask if they think it is art - even if it is representational - will say "yes" and if you were to show them Duchamp's "Fountain" (fountain) they would likely say "no" even though it was a very influential art piece. If you were to show them a picture of the urinal or painting to a bystander, they might say "no" or "yes" depending upon if they thought it was a tourist snap shot or some sort of intended art.

2. One of the main factors in art is intent. While this is a modern definition, the photo as described in #1, the bystander is trying to guess the intent. (And this is usually based upon something they have seen before as defined as "art" or "not art").

3. It seems one of the original posters is trying to figure out (in very long and overly flowered prose) where he fits in the "illustration/art" hierarchy, OR is trying to say that everyone else here is not an artist (thereby placing himself at the "top") - this ranking is the part that is ultimately futile and somewhat incendiary.

And the bottom line is that Ayn Rand herself, in _The Fountainhead_ denounced those that look to others for approval, ESPECIALLY in artistic/architectural endeavors. The whole book was about this. So people wringing their hands about whether Ayn Rand thinks photography is art or not (asking for HER approval) - is a rather rich irony.

 

[Bromo33333]

Technical/illustrative vs. art occurs across all mediums. Before the discovery of the camera and the photographic process there were only drawings, paintings to illustrate life, news, advertising.

[...]
Well photography is art, technical and illustrative, but so are drawings, paintings, sculpture, etc, etc....All depends on your point of view.

Not bad for a dreary, stormy 8:30 am in NJ. MORE COFFEE!!!!

Agreed - before photography, most painting and sculpture were really trades. The idea of painting for its own sake as is expected today, really didn't happen until photography came on the scene.

I think intent is so important in this sort of art - that it has to be the definition. But also, if an artist doesn't question or worry if they are "really" making art, it would be highly unusual.

 

[Jim Chinn]

I understand the point of view that a photograph can’t be a work of art because one does not start from a blank canvas creating something conceived purely from the mind.

If I photograph a tree, I have simply recorded an object. I did not create the tree, the sunlight or the shadows. I can however change the reality of the tree rendering it in abstract shades of black and white. I can enhance light and shadow with exposure and printing. I can alter the perspective relationships of objects in the scene. Select a detail for scrutiny or include it as part of a larger vista. I can use focus to emphasize a particular portion of the scene. I could go as far as to handcolor or tone my print. You still have to conceptualize what you want in the final print and the above are the tools (same as brush and palette) to get you there. So perhaps someone who simply points and shoots and has a machine make the print is a recorder of reality, but someone who approaches the subject with a specific end interpretation in mind is an artist in the creative sense of the word. One can also argue that the real art in photography is the selection and framing of the image itself.

The OP suggests that ordinary, utilitarian objects are not art, but I would have to disagree. There are a great number of examples of cars, bulidings, furniture even appliances that IMHO qualify as art.

I don't consider the above approach any different then Van Gogh painting sunflowers, Monet water lilies or Rauschenberg using tossed out junk and detritus to make his combines. They did not create the components that make the subject of the work. They do interpret them in their own way.

 

[Jim Chinn]

And besides, the Museum of Modern Art and the Smithsonian both say photogrpahy is art. So there.

 

[25asa]

Hmm...so art is all about technical matter? I wonder how the "technical in art" manifests this tendency that elevates and feeds and advances the artistic human in mind in all of its (sp) creativity". Please tell me how that happens.

Interesting judgement that you made of oil painters. I wonder how many viable and legitimate artists share your viewpoint.

Is there a Hasselblad on the moon?

I'm sorry. I was up late, very cranky and was overcome with the creative urge to produce a rendition of bovine excrement in the key of Rand.

Of course art is not all about the tools used.

Having walked in oil painter's shoes, I have only appreciation for what they can accomplish. I find this usually not to be a two-way street.

 

[Ed Sukach]

1. The main argument of "what is art and what is not art" is really subtle since most people when presented...

I hate to tell you this, but when I see the phrase "most people" used, it tends to have a numbing effect on me. "Most People"??? Just who ARE these "Most People" and why is the incantation of their name anthying like a viable reference in a discussion?

 

[Bromo33333]

[...]

The OP suggests that ordinary, utilitarian objects are not art, but I would have to disagree. There are a great number of examples of cars, bulidings[sic], furniture even appliances that IMHO qualify as art.

I don't consider the above approach any different then Van Gogh painting sunflowers, Monet water lilies or Rauschenberg using tossed out junk and detritus to make his combines. They did not create the components that make the subject of the work. They do interpret them in their own way.

I still think 'intent' is probably the most important ingredient. Whether they succeeded or not is another matter altogether ....

 

[Bromo33333]

I hate to tell you this, but when I see the phrase "most people" used, it tends to have a numbing effect on me. "Most People"??? Just who ARE these "Most People" and why is the incantation of their name anthying like a viable reference in a discussion?

And why is it not, actually? Are you disagreeing with my point, or just quibbling about the verbiage? :curious:

 

[doughowk]

All art begins with reality. There may be a continuum from realistic thru representational to abstract, but one can not pick a point on the line saying this is now art. "Nude Descending Staircase", a computer-aided creation of a fantasy world or some other concept of the mind all begin with models based in reality.

Intent is also not a final indicator. Some photographers have intended to merely document an event, structure, human condition; yet they have inadvertently created works of art. And some photographers have set out intending to create works of art, and have merely documented a subject.

Perception is fickle. We may think we have determined what is art, yet others including later generations may say otherwise.

Paul Strand said something about the subject chose him for a photograph. May we do it justice when so chosen.

 

[Papa Tango]

This subject has been debated since the dawn of photography. There are still no answers, and there never will because the label of "art" will always be subjective; it has no inherent truth of its own. IMHO, spending an academic career (as some I know have) trying to sort this out is well...sophmoric.

Therefore, if a photographer falls in the woods trying to make art, who cares???

 

[Ed Sukach]

And why is it not, actually? Are you disagreeing with my point, or just quibbling about the verbiage? :curious:

Disagreeing with the supprt for your point. "Most people" - if I am not mistaken - do not think about art or artworks a great deal.

 

[JBrunner]

Food for thought from Ayn Rand, philosopher, from the book "The Ayn Rand Lexicon": A certain type of confusion about the relationship between scientific discoveries and art, leads to a frequently asked question: Is photography an art? The answer is: No. It is a technical, not a creative skill. Art requires a selective re-creation. A camera cannot perform the basic task of painting: a visial conceptualization, ie., the creation of a concrete in terms of abstract essentials. The selection of camera angles, lighting, or lenses is merely a selection of the means to reproduce various aspects of the given, ie., of an existing concrete. There is an artistic element in some photographs, which is the result of such selectivity as the photographer can exercise, and some of them can be very beautiful--but the same artistic element (purposeful selectivity) is present in many utilitarian products: in the better kinds of furniture, dress design, automobiles, packaging, etc. The commercial art work in ads (or posters or postage stamps) is frequently done by real artists and has greater esthetic value than many paintings, but utilitarian objects cannot be classified as works of art.

Tripe. An artist creates art using any means at his or her disposal.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Disagreeing with the supprt for your point. "Most people" - if I am not mistaken - do not think about art or artworks a great deal.

Ed -

I'd take it another step further and say that most people don't think, period. No wonder they don't have an informed opinion about what is or is not art.

 

[Ed Sukach]

All art begins with reality...

Interesting point. Dali painted images he "saw" in his dreams. I suppose one could argue that his DREAMS originated - or were derived in some way - from his "reality". I would comment that, grinding fine, this is true - but at the same time ... a very large stretch.
Hmmm ... "Realistic" Abstracts. I'll have to think about that one.

Then again ... someone once wrote a story about how the ultimate curse was to ONLY be able to perceive the world *exactly* as it is.

This is an interesting subject - one that provides a fertile field (complete with a due amout of natural fertilizer) for thought.
However ... to "cause and effect":

If we were to resolve this successfully and finally come to an irrevocable, absolutely inarguable conclusion about what Creation, Capture -- the clearly defined Charterisitics of what "Art" is ... we will have also defined what art is NOT. That will describe a boundary around our choices and freedom - and I do NOT think that is anything like a "good idea".
Just think ... a computer program could then be written to produce art works - entirely devoid of human input.

Guys ... I'm not going to hold my breath...

 

[RAP]

Dianne

"I think intent is so important in this sort of art - that it has to be the definition. But also, if an artist doesn't question or worry if they are "really" making art, it would be highly unusual."[/QUOTE]

Not sure what you mean by this, but I would think that all the good intentions in the world do not necessarily create a work of art. From the good and purest of intentions of a student to a master, the final out come that the auidience experiences is the final determination. Even then, you have to consider the test of time of a work of art which I think is one of the best determinating factors.

You might even consider the value factor. Is the price at auction something to consider, let alone whether a artist can make a living by selling/buyers actually paying money?

I spent a little time this afternoon shooting storm clouds through the chain link and cross bars of a baseball back stop. My intentions were pure, but it does not necessarily mean the images will work. They could very well be a flop and end up in the garbage.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

All art has some basis in reality, even the most abstract. The only art that would have no basis in reality whatsoever would be a piece that has no physical existence. A painting, no matter how abstract, is still a two-dimensional object which reflects light. If it didn't, we wouldn't be able to perceive it. So on that most basic level, even a Mark Rothko painting has some basis in reality. Motherwell "saw" something that inspired him to make the canvasses he did. Even Dali, whose paintings came from his dreams, well, his dreams were based on reality, perhaps a highly distorted reality, but nonetheless. If there were no common referents (ie not in some way derived from reality), the paintings would be un-makeable and uninterpretable.

 

[arigram]

One reason Art is powerful is that defies any sterile examimation, any objective analysis, any scientific-like investigation, any puristic interpretation, any forced limitations, any stylistic, aesthetical, ideological, etc dressing, any cell, any prison. The moment you try to contain Art in a box and tie it up with definitions and limitations, it breaks free and mocks at your futile attempts.
You can't restrain Art.
Art is not Science and scientific thought cannot dissect and categorize it.
All those who try do it only for personal gain, recognition and money.

 

[Bromo33333]

Ed -

I'd take it another step further and say that most people don't think, period. No wonder they don't have an informed opinion about what is or is not art.

We are hardly a lighthouse in a foggy ocean! We cannot decide amongst us what is or is not definitively art - so perhaps the person you descibe is a model of economy!

 

[Bromo33333]

Disagreeing with the supprt for your point. "Most people" - if I am not mistaken - do not think about art or artworks a great deal.

Okay - fair enough. But for whom do we create art, then? Ourselves? Would seem to be rather self defeating if we cannot even define the stuff.

 

[Pastiche]

One reason Art is powerful is that defies any sterile examimation, any objective analysis, any scientific-like investigation, any puristic interpretation, any forced limitations, any stylistic, aesthetical, ideological, etc dressing, any cell, any prison. The moment you try to contain Art in a box and tie it up with definitions and limitations, it breaks free and mocks at your futile attempts.
You can't restrain Art.
Art is not Science and scientific thought cannot dissect and categorize it.
All those who try do it only for personal gain, recognition and money.

I think this bears repetition...

EVERY single time I've heard ART defined, an exception to the def. leaps to mind. Unless the defitions are so broad and vague, that NOTHING is excluded.

It *feels* like .. trying to peel a hard-boiled egg covered in grease... while wearing boxing gloves... without being allowed just to smash the shell...

The nearest I've come to a def. myself - is that ART is a kind of attention.
The artist has it, and wishes to communicate something of it to the recipient via the work... and.. it does sound as though intent is a key ingredient in that process.

 

[bjorke]

And like many of Rand's opinions...laughable.

Thanks for saving me time

As for definitions of 'art' these threads go on endlessly all over the web. Oddly I never see anyone come at it from a linguistic bent, following Wittgenstein's lead on family resemblances and such so that it's made evident that one doesn't NEED a restrictive definition in order to be able to use the word 'art' -- and to make 'art' -- successfully.

I use two overlapping definitions:

1. Art is the revelation of the specificity of things.
2. Art is whatever you can get away with.

 

[Ed Sukach]

The more I think about the definition of "Art", the more inclined I am to separate "Art" --- the "process, the"doing" --- from the "Work of Art".

Interesting observation: Every time we try to nail "Art" down by defining it, exceptions to our definitive framework appear - enough so that a re-definition is necessary. Are we, therefore, to include everything???

I have to look at the "flip" side: "Does excluding anything serve any useful purpose?"

It may (although I can't think of any), but it does come with side effects - we will, of necessity, have established boundaries by that exclusionary process - and I have been struggling to be free. I think freedom to create, or capture - or create BY capture - is the state where *I* produce my BEST work. I don't know how to be partially (acknowledging boundaries) free.

"How can we do Art without KNOWING what it is?" I don't know. It does seem to work that way, though. Considering what I wrote, an equally valid point to ponder might well be, "How can we do it when we DO know (or think we know) what `art' is?"

 

[Ed Sukach]

Thanks for saving me time

I use two overlapping definitions:
1. Art is the revelation of the specificity of things.
2. Art is whatever you can get away with.

It might be of use to include a - pretty good - sculptor's definition:

"Art is anything you can roll down a hill without having something break off."

- Michelangelo Buonarroti

 

[Bromo33333]

"How can we do Art without KNOWING what it is?" I don't know. It does seem to work that way, though. Considering what I wrote, an equally valid point to ponder might well be, "How can we do it when we DO know (or think we know) what `art' is?"

This reminds me of the politicians definition of pornography "I know it when I see it."

Went to the Whitney Biennial this year, and was surprised that the art exhibited in it was rather "pornographic" - some porn the way we think of it (a movie loop called _Caligula_, I am pretty sure you can guess the content! ), some was not sexually explicit but still seemed rather pornographic to me. I am not sure if I would call the stuff that struck me that way as art or not. I do know the art world has become decadent enough, and unoriginal in theme (racism, sexism, porn, and "is this art?" being the big ones) enough to make me wonder when and if it will recover.

What does this have to do with what we're talking about? Only thing is that outside of photography, it seems the art world is grappling with this, and art criticism seems unable to deal with it.

 

[Bromo33333]

Thanks for saving me time

As for definitions of 'art' these threads go on endlessly all over the web. Oddly I never see anyone come at it from a linguistic bent, following Wittgenstein's lead on family resemblances and such so that it's made evident that one doesn't NEED a restrictive definition in order to be able to use the word 'art' -- and to make 'art' -- successfully.

I use two overlapping definitions:

1. Art is the revelation of the specificity of things.
2. Art is whatever you can get away with.

I wonder what Derrida said about it - I would be surprised if he didn't have a go at it!