Everyone gets a trophy

[chuckroast]

Thirty plus years ago, I went to an art school and was enrolled in the photography program.

One of the required classes was “Humanities in the Arts”. The first day of class the subject of “what is art?” was discussed. The instructor showed many of examples of “art” and the discussion ensued.

I distinctly remember one example after all these years. It was an art installation at some gallery, of an ordinary shovel leaning up against a white wall. That was it.

The instructor asked the class, is this “art”? Needless to say, the discussion turned lively in both directions. One of the points the instructor was trying to make was “art” is in the mind of the beholder. There is no right or wrong answer. It varies from person to person, on many levels.

Are some of the images posted online crap? There is no correct answer. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Was the art installation of an ordinary shovel leaning up against a white wall “art”?

In my opinion it was crap. Good thing it came with a shovel.

It is my view, that the whole "art is relative to the viewer" thing is a kind of philosophical laziness that's been inflicted upon us. Certainly, we all have things we like more- or less, but that's not the question. Art is by the artist and for the artist, not the arts consumer. The "beholder" is not relevant to whether or not art is being made, the artist and their intent are. Whether the beholder gets it or not is not part of the "is it art" equation.

We also have been taught to shy away from questions like "What is beauty?". This is another outcome of the sloppy thinking that came out of the Deconstruction and Postmodern philosophical drivel of the 20th Century. In "The Great Transformation" by Stanciu, he launches an absolutely robust definition of beauty (indeed, his argument is beautiful itself) that should be tattooed inside the brain of all artists (Ch. 22).

The nature of art, beauty, and meaning is a difficult conversation, but that doesn't mean we should throw our arms up and say "well, it's just whatever you want it to be". It's one one of the many ways that "crap" gets promoted as great stuff since there isn't even an attempt for objective standards.

(And a pox on Jacques Derrida for taking us down this rathole in the first place.)

 

[Vaughn]

I just took a quick look at my gallery postings, lol, over 40 old vehicle photographs.

I have a couple in there somewhere...in fact, one is up in the kitchen -- one of the first environmental portraits of my triplets with the 8x10. Taken up at the end of our street.

But the ban on the low-hanging photographic fruit was really just a symbolic gesture to encourage us to dig a little deeper in subject matter. In my case, photography was taught primarily as an art form, with neither the technical nor commercial aspects deeply gotten into the first couple of classes. Basically one learned what the camera and process could do and along the way find one thousand words worthy of making a picture out of.

 

[MattKing]

I do know that my Dad used to say ruefully that he never needed to see another slide or home movie of the Kodak show in Hawaii, for as long as he lived!
He was the customer service manager at a Kodak Canada Kodachrome and Ektachrome processing la in North Vancouver, BC Canada for about 22 years prior to his retirement in 1983.
I am willing to extend some grace to a photo instructor who just wants not to see any more photos of anything

 

[Pieter12]

Instagram’s algorithm plays a large part in determining what is seen. Inferior photos often have more views and likes than exceptional ones.

Here’s a snippet from Instagram where they describe how to work with their algorithm to get more exposure:

“
How often people see your content is based on what they like, comment on and even how you tag or format posts. Try these tips to boost yours:

• Play to your audience and their niche
• Post in popular formats, such as reels
• Tag a location
• Invite people to engage”

Posting a great photo without using the tools effectively doesn’t get you anywhere.

It is not necessarily that the photos are inferior, but that the posting party is more astute at hitting the algorithm's designated targets.

 

[Pieter12]

It is my view, that the whole "art is relative to the viewer" thing is a kind of philosophical laziness that's been inflicted upon us. Certainly, we all have things we like more- or less, but that's not the question. Art is by the artist and for the artist, not the arts consumer. The "beholder" is not relevant to whether or not art is being made, the artist and their intent are. Whether the beholder gets it or not is not part of the "is it art" equation.

We also have been taught to shy away from questions like "What is beauty?". This is another outcome of the sloppy thinking that came out of the Deconstruction and Postmodern philosophical drivel of the 20th Century. In "The Great Transformation" by Stanciu, he launches an absolutely robust definition of beauty (indeed, his argument is beautiful itself) that should be tattooed inside the brain of all artists (Ch. 22).

The nature of art, beauty, and meaning is a difficult conversation, but that doesn't mean we should throw our arms up and say "well, it's just whatever you want it to be". It's one one of the many ways that "crap" gets promoted as great stuff since there isn't even an attempt for objective standards.

(And a pox on Jacques Derrida for taking us down this rathole in the first place.)

Cultural (both institutional and educational) background, ethnic and moral values have a lot to do with how one judges art and beauty. And art does not necessarily have to be beautiful. Decoration can be deemed beautiful but does not always qualify as art.

 

[chuckroast]

Cultural (both institutional and educational) background, ethnic and moral values have a lot to do with how one judges art and beauty. And art does not necessarily have to be beautiful. Decoration can be deemed beautiful but does not always qualify as art.

Yes, that's what the Postmoderns taught us all. They were mostly just wrong.

Good art, at least, can be objectively judged, it's just that the criteria is very hard to ascertain. But we have innate wiring to identify something as good art irrespective of cultural, educational, ethnic, etc. differences. Witness for instance, the Japanese obsession with Bach and Mozart even though their indigenous music is pentatonic and not remotely similar.

As to beauty and it's components, I would point you to the aforementioned book by Stanciu. He lays waste to the notion that we cannot objectively judge beauty ... and it's not cultural.

 

[Pieter12]

Yes, that's what the Postmoderns taught us all. They were mostly just wrong.

Good art, at least, can be objectively judged, it's just that the criteria is very hard to ascertain. But we have innate wiring to identify something as good art irrespective of culture, education, ethnic, etc. differences. Witness for instance, the Japanese obsession with Bach and Mozart even thought their indigenous music is pentatonic and not remotely similar.

As to beauty and it's components, I would point you to the aforementioned book by Stanciu. He lays waste to the notion that we cannot objectively judge beauty ... and it's not cultural.

And I would point to body mutilation among some cultures.