If it's automated, is it still (fine) art?

[blansky]

This whole damn thread is a red herring.

There is art (the content and semantics) and there is craft (paper and photons and chemicals and bits). You represent your art using a craft. You can automate a craft or change which particular strain of craft you use, but that has got nothing to do with the art that you perform using your chosen craft.

99.99% of APUG is craft; art ain't got nothing to do with what goes on in here.

I've always believed something like this. It's all craft.

Then the viewer determines whether TO THEM it reaches the level of emotional content to become ART, to them.

Some windbag in a gallery or marketing piece can try and spin the bullshit but that is just marketing.

This is the only way the definition works. That way a singer can partake, a mime, a guy pissing on a crucifix, a movie maker,a woodworker, a dancer, an actor, a photographer, a guy in Australia making strange noises about his minimalist declarations that only silver halide analog, you do your own printing etc etc yada yada, and well as every other form of expression can be brought under the umbrella, and catagorized.

IT'S ALL CRAFT.

And ART is personal.


An artist, is a term like " a lover". Well to whom? I may not think you're a lover, I may think you're an asshole. But someone else may think, you are a great lover. OK. Some people may think you're a terrible lover and some may think you are a beginning lover and some may think that if you don't carry out every aspect of the lovemaking experience then you aren't really a lover at all.

You could have someone else do the foreplay and you step in and do the orgasm part, then are you a great lover? Beats me. Ask the recipient.

Are you a great lover if you use a totally different body part to help her attain orgasm. What about if you use an electric vibrator instead of original equipment? OR even a battery operated one. Or solar powered. Are you really a lover if you use technology like that. What about a selfie?

Same answer. Ask the recipient. It's a personal experience. If she says, you're an artist and the experience was ART. She should know.
Hell, I still think you're an asshole. But that's just me.

However in all cases, it took craftsmanship to gain the desired result.

 

[polyglot]

Would you say, then, that a medium, not necessarily a craft, was necessary as a vehicle for art...and that that medium could take the form of a craft, skill, or both?

I would say that you need a medium in which to execute your art, otherwise it's just your imagination. To me it's not art until it's outside your head and reified.

And you need some level of skill to work in any medium, but the bar can be pretty low. A 5-year-old's scrawl is sufficient craft-skill to execute literature, the art is in the emotions etc evoked by the words, not the physical form of the words. Or if you want to do photography, you need to be able to compose and push a button, optionally make a selection of aperture/speed - again, I could teach that to a 5 year old. What matters is your composition, choice of light and how it affects the viewer - all the crap with phenidone and thiosulfate or photoshop and inkjet is just craft choices and can all be outsourced if you want without reducing the art that you reified (made real, fixed into a medium) when you opened the shutter - just like HCB outsourced all the craft of print-making.

Sure there are some correlations between people with powerful craft skills and people with good artistic vision but that's only because they practiced them concurrently. There a many more people with one and not the other, especially people with craft and no art. Citation: 99.9% of the photos people put on the internet. Conversely, I've seen wonderful art made with shitty cellphone cameras and while they might look better shot on LF Velvia, that doesn't reduce the artistic value of the images those people made where the only craft skill involved was "push the button".

 

[Truzi]

I don't think my photos would even be considered craft, lol.

 

[benjiboy]

The idea that photograph is "Art" is very recent one, certainly during the last fifty years mainly as a marketing ploy by photographers agents and galleries to help sell their work.

 

[Hatchetman]

I can buy the argument that photography is not an art. But then painting isn't an art either.

 

[Tom1956]

"Art" is the pontification of a craft.
"Art" is what you get your master's degree in so you can get a job at the IRS.

 

[dehk]

After reading this thread, It reminds me that I preferred to be called a Craftsman, or a technician, than photographer or especially artist.
Just so I don't have to argue with others, or most importantly myself.

 

[miha]

The idea that photograph is "Art" is very recent one, certainly during the last fifty years mainly as a marketing ploy by photographers agents and galleries to help sell their work.

A bit more that 50 years though. It started in 1905 with the Little Galleries of the Photo-Sucession, later 291 art gallery, ran by Stieglitz.

 

[I.G.I.]

A bit more that 50 years though. It started in 1905 with the Little Galleries of the Photo-Sucession, later 291 art gallery, ran by Stieglitz.

I guess benjiboy was referring to the mainstream museum institutions acceptance of photography as Art, more or less on equal footing with the traditional Fine Arts.

 

[miha]

Maybe but he said the idea that photography is art. That idea is much older.

 

[I.G.I.]

Oh certainly, the idea is older; probably as old as the photography itself.

But there is a hint: am not aware of any other creative group so preoccupied with the question is what are they doing art or not. This is clearly driven by a deep sense of insecurity, and possibly sense of inferiority. No need to, but it's indicative of the collective mental state.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Art,craft,yes,no........???? Jesus you all sound like a bunch of old ladies at the bingo parlor all trying to be heard at the same time.

 

[removed account4]

it boils down to its whatever you want to say it is.
and it doesn't matter whether it was made by a man or machine
cause after all, a camera is a machine too, that the "exposure monkey" operates

 

[cliveh]

Further to Blansky’s statement that “There is no such thing as an art gallery. It's merely an empty building with stuff on the wall and on stands. The rest is just marketing”.

I think a good entry for the Turner Prize would be an empty gallery. That way any gallery on the planet could display the concept.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

what is your definition of 'fine art'?

 

[Maris]

I guess benjiboy was referring to the mainstream museum institutions acceptance of photography as Art, more or less on equal footing with the traditional Fine Arts.

Whether photography is art may not ultimately be settled to universal satisfaction in APUG 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 defence 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. Even more curious than the admission of photography was the exclusion of the Impressionists as obviously not qualifying as creditable artists!

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Maris, THAT is a wonderful post! I enjoyed that immensely.



Ken

 

[MattKing]

Yes Maris, that was wonderful.

Any French litigation about digital being Art?

Reminds me of the old drinking laws around here. You can see remnants of them in old, former "beer parlours" which had two entrances - one labeled "gentlemen" and the other labelled "ladies and escorts".

 

[RalphLambrecht]

to methe wordsautomation andartare in conflict by definitio, because art is created not copied

 

[Gerald C Koch]

To approach the question from the other side: if today's Van Gogh used a computer to create his paintings in a fraction of time he needed with paint and a brush... would that still be art? Apparently, Van Gogh was a fast painter and didn't spend "more than a few days" on some of his well known works. But see here, how quickly it can be done today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eXSaJS0Gts

Another example: if todays Michelangelo took a 3d scan of David (yes, such scanners exist) and have it 3D printer, would that still be art? OK, 3D printers are still a bit rough for a masterpiece like David, but how about a CNC stone cutter? Yes, such stuff exists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3Ff0qwYMyY

How many people would call the robotic sculpture art? And how many would call the digital paint art? (personally, I'd expect none for the sculpture, but some for the painting; would be an interesting research actually).

My hypothesis is, that people inherently value something as Art, when it's hand made by another person.

Interesting question as this story was just presented on PBS.

http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Cultur...nating-story-about-the-artistic-process-video

Does this make Vermeer's paintings any less artistic because he used the technology of the day? Other famous artists have used the camera obscura to help them. There is more to art than just the mechanics. One must have a vision before anything else. Vermeer was very thorough in planning out the settings of his paintings. Technology is no help there.

 

[jernejk]

This topic is quite confusing, contradicting, and opens more questions than answers.
If renaissance was about craft, why is it considered art today?
If art is only not depicting reality, these are not art, either: http://www.cuded.com/2013/02/50-mind-blowing-pencil-drawings/

If feels like the craft of creating objects which are visually pleasant had been called "craft" for the most part of the history, and only in more modern times it departed from copying the reality. Maybe with the raise of Baroque, continued with symbolism, impressionism and of course surrealism and pop art. It came to the point where anything depicting something "ordinary" is not considered "art" anymore - but that is ONLY at this particular point in time and we'll see how the future generations evaluate our time and decide what was art and what is kitsch or just insanity.

Anyhow, there have been many good thoughts shared and many different views. There is no final answer, so it's pointless to trying to find it.
Personally, I find peace with the quote below. I don't feel the need to create "art". I just like doing what I'm doing.

After reading this thread, It reminds me that I preferred to be called a Craftsman, or a technician, than photographer or especially artist.
Just so I don't have to argue with others, or most importantly myself.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Well is it art?

 

[I.G.I.]

Whether photography is art may not ultimately be settled to universal satisfaction in APUG 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 defence 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. Even more curious than the admission of photography was the exclusion of the Impressionists as obviously not qualifying as creditable artists!

As much as historical anecdotes are entertaining often there is the unspoken assumption that past generations had the same values like us; more often than not that is not the case. During the 19th century photography gained prestige and was valued precisely because it was not subjectively artistic, but objective rendition of reality based on scientific principles; that was the century of exciting scientific discoveries, and many in the visual arts (impressionists, cubists, art nouveau, art deco and modernism) wanted to implement some of them. To have their portrait taken was a matter of prestige for the middle and upper classes precisely because of this photography's aura of objectivity and scientific prestige (it was 20th century with it's use of sciences as murder and brainwash tools that tarnished the public perception of science and technology). Respectively, high brow art never had this kind of universal, almost mythical prestige which it have today, no doubt due to it's objectification and fetishisation by the contemporary capitalist society; indeed the very idea what is art, and of artistic significance changed/evolved with each century, and what we consider art today, was not thought as such in the past (as recently as 18th/19th century only marble was considered suitable for the elevated subject matters of sculpture; or, of instance, during the construction of the St. Peter cathedral in Rome the Italians, under the guidance of such luminaries as Michelangelo, Bramante, and Bernini, used the Coliseum as a marble quarry... )

 

[batwister]

Any French litigation about digital being Art?

I believe there was a case, but they lost the evidence.

 

[The Stone]

Hi,

Interesting topic.

I have just completed a bachelor degree in visual arts so perhaps I can provide a little perspective here.

In the first year of my degree there were many discussions about "what is art" all of which came to the conclusion that there is no definition of art.

It seems that you are drawing from examples of the great artists as the basis for your definition of art in todays time. The problem with this is that since modernity the idea of what art has changed rather drastically because of the Dada movement. Think urinal, think bicycle wheel on a stool, think readymades. So if that is art, then what isnt't? Anything can be art. Then we came to POST-modernism, things became even more conceptual and in my opinion often more boring to look at.

In my degree our artworks are judged first and foremost on concept, then technical skill. I believe that it is important to have both. In my opinion the role of art is to pose a question and good art is that which challenges the way we accept the way the world is and tries to fill in the spaces that are left unattended in our societies.

Everyone each has their own definition of art. I for one don't think a painting can be done on a computer because there is no paint involved. I also think that if a sculptor decides to use a 3D printer to create an object is totally acceptable if there is enough conceptual reason to make that object. For gods sake the artist who made the highest selling contemporary work of art ever (damien hurst) didn't make it himself nor does he make anything but a commodity. Sadly, craft and skill - which are important to me as a photographic artist - don't particularly constitute the validity of art as they once did.

There was an important essay written by Walter Benjamin which you might like (or not like) to read called The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction which is relavent to this topic.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk