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.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

What makes art, art, is that it changes the viewer. It inspires and evokes a sense of awe, sadness, love, spirit, and other emotions. If it doesn't do that, it's not art, even if the creator claims he's creating art and is an artist. Until then, he's only a photographer, painter, sculptor, musician with a little too much ego. The viewer awards the trophy. You don't award one to yourself.

 

[Pieter12]

What makes art, art, is that it changes the viewer. It inspires and evokes a sense of awe, sadness, love, spirit, and other emotions. If it doesn't do that, it's not art, even if the creator claims he's creating art and is an artist. Until then, he's only a photographer, painter, sculptor, musician with a little too much ego. The viewer awards the trophy. You don't award one to yourself.

Pretty broad definition. A savage animal attacking you would be art with those parameters.

 

[TJones]

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

Not necessarily, probably not even most of the time, but often that is the case.

 

[Pieter12]

Not necessarily, probably not even most of the time, but often that is the case.

I remember a seminar a few years ago stating that hashtags and tagging were essential to being found on Instagram, that a lot of photo editors and photo buyers searched the site for purchases and assignments. So the astute user would hashtag as many aspects of the posting to make them more readily discoverable.

 

[TJones]

I remember a seminar a few years ago stating that hashtags and tagging were essential to being found on Instagram, that a lot of photo editors and photo buyers searched the site for purchases and assignments. So the astute user would hashtag as many aspects of the posting to make them more readily discoverable.

Yes, that is one of the main tools to make best use of the algorithm. You can use up to 30 hashtags for each photo.

 

[warden]

I remember a seminar a few years ago stating that hashtags and tagging were essential to being found on Instagram, that a lot of photo editors and photo buyers searched the site for purchases and assignments. So the astute user would hashtag as many aspects of the posting to make them more readily discoverable.

Hashtags as a discovery tool have been demoted so if you want to use a couple that’s fine but don’t go crazy with it.

 

[Don_ih]

Instagram is an advertising-fueled platform. They will promote whatever is mostly on-trend at any moment. They will also promote to you whatever they think you're likely to look at, based on the massive amount of information they've gathered about you (from Facebook, from Threads, from your previous use of Instagram) and whoever they consider your peers (people who are the same sex and age as you, people who "like" the same things you do). They will push reels up your nose because that is a format that allows for more advertising.

Instagram has nothing to do with photography. If you want to post photos there, do it to show the few people that actually pay attention to you and not for likes.

Chances are next to no one is looking through Instagram to find photos to purchase or photographers to hire. You may as well choose by throwing a dart into a filled baseball stadium and hire whoever you hit.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Pretty broad definition. A savage animal attacking you would be art with those parameters.

In my post, I referenced a photographer, painter, sculptor, musician, all humans as examples. I didn't include savage animal

 

[Don_ih]

It inspires and evokes a sense of awe, sadness, love, spirit, and other emotions. If it doesn't do that, it's not art

Examples? That's the advertising campaign - tell me about the reality. It's not that art can't do those things - some art does, but it will depend on the person. So, you are describing some individual experience of art - and not what art itself is. And it's not a universal individual - some art will stir the emotions of some and leave others cold (and, surprisingly, the art itself is indifferent).

 

[koraks]

In my post, I referenced a photographer, painter, sculptor, musician, all humans as examples. I didn't include savage animal

I interpret @Pieter12's suggestion as "having a savage animal attacking the artist would qualify as art by your definition." I think it's pretty easy to group that under conceptual performance or endurance art. It's not a very big step from the 1974 performance by (with? aimed at?) Abramović.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I interpret @Pieter12's suggestion as "having a savage animal attacking the artist would qualify as art by your definition." I think it's pretty easy to group that under conceptual performance or endurance art. It's not a very big step from the 1974 performance by (with? aimed at?) Abramović.

Well, there are inspired chimps that paint better than me and deserve a trophy. If their work inspires the viewer, then I suppose it's art too.

 

[koraks]

You're missing the point @Alan Edward Klein. It's not about the chimp.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Frankly, I'd prefer someone honestly stated the shortcomings of whatever I happen to post. Some people are more insecure, though, and are hesitant to show their work due to fear of people disliking it. Anyway, a lack of reaction is generally a good sign of apathy on the part of the audience. There's no need for a "meh" button, since no reaction does the job perfectly well.

Consider on this forum, if your gallery post gets 400 views and 3 likes - that's 397 "meh"s.

I agree.

 

[Pieter12]

Instagram is an advertising-fueled platform. They will promote whatever is mostly on-trend at any moment. They will also promote to you whatever they think you're likely to look at, based on the massive amount of information they've gathered about you (from Facebook, from Threads, from your previous use of Instagram) and whoever they consider your peers (people who are the same sex and age as you, people who "like" the same things you do). They will push reels up your nose because that is a format that allows for more advertising.

Instagram has nothing to do with photography. If you want to post photos there, do it to show the few people that actually pay attention to you and not for likes.

Chances are next to no one is looking through Instagram to find photos to purchase or photographers to hire. You may as well choose by throwing a dart into a filled baseball stadium and hire whoever you hit.

That is not my understanding. With the demise of sourcebooks and reps, commercial and editorial art buyers turn to the internet. Instagram is one of the places they look.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

But may depend on the era: https://www.bozar.be/en/calendar/bellezza-e-bruttezza

 

[chuckroast]

But may depend on the era: https://www.bozar.be/en/calendar/bellezza-e-bruttezza

The fact that pretty much any normally functioning human can see the difference between the "beautiful" and the "ugly" in such paintings further suggests that such sensibilities are innate to humanity.

 

[Don_ih]

Instagram is one of the places they look.

And when they search, Instagram feeds them what Instagram thinks they should see. You can't look through Instagram without an account and Instagram will characterize your "tastes" based on what you look at. So you can find stuff on there but it won't solely be based on what you're looking for. It's likely fine for someone like an editorial art buyer, though.

 

[Pieter12]

The fact that pretty much any normally functioning human can see the difference between the "beautiful" and the "ugly" in such paintings further suggests that such sensibilities are innate to humanity.

The point is not ugly or beautiful, but how the standards evolved over time. From the description: "The exhibition traces how the standards of beauty and ugliness evolved from the last quarter of the 15th century to the end of the 16th century—key transitional periods..."