Is it Art and if it is, is it worth the money for the name or otherwise?

[Sirius Glass]

The Jackson Pollock estate is going to be sad to hear that.

I can only hope.

 

[blockend]

What's a good composition? Do you overlay the golden section on the image to see if the ingredients line up?

 

[faberryman]

More convoluted thinking about art.

 

[jtk]

He wanted something special and unique. Lots of art buyers enjoy supporting artists more than they enjoy the actual art they buy. And sometimes they just like participating in something interesting, even if that means buying something ridiculous. It's not any different from owning a Hasselblad or Leica. Or pretty much any kind of collector. Some people enjoy spending money on impractical things. It's their money. They earned it. It's their choice where to spend it.

Agreed. I should have mentioned that the collector's 20X24 portrait was 20X24 POLAROID. Big fun but (IMO) valuable mostly because of the laborious process.

I don't know why you have this negative attitude towards the art label. But you do realize the irony in rejecting the artist label for its elitism while simultaneously submitting your work to a gallery with all of the other artists, don't you?

I do have trouble accepting the "art" label because it's so routinely applied to crapola... My own work rarely meets my own aspiration: Presbyterian childhood.

Today I'm an artist, tomorrow I'm not. How about you? Are you an artist? Are your photos art?

 

[faberryman]

I do have trouble accepting the "art" label because it's so routinely applied to crapola...

Again, you are confusing art in general with good art in particular. There are different levels of talent in all fields of endeavor. Doesn't mean that artists in the second or third tier (or who you don't like or understand) aren't artists and what they create isn't art. The problem with only calling good art "art" is you are never going to get agreement. Acknowledge it is art, and say you don't think it is very good. Then we can debate aesthetics.

My own work rarely meets my own aspiration: Presbyterian childhood.

I just went through a portfolio review. The person doing the review thought some of the work I deemed less successful as more successful and vice versa. Sometimes it is worthwhile to have someone objective comment on your work. Other times you know something is not worth printing.

 

[jtk]

Again, you are confusing art in general with good art in particular. There are different levels of talent in all fields of endeavor. Doesn't mean that artists in the second or third tier (or who you don't like or understand) aren't artists and what they create isn't art. The problem with only calling good art "art" is you are never going to get agreement. Acknowledge it is art, and say you don't think it is very good. Then we can debate aesthetics.


I just went through a portfolio review. The person doing the review thought some of the work I thought less successful as more successful and vice versa. Sometimes it is worthwhile to have someone objective comment on your work.

Faber... designating some "art" as "good" vs "not-good" is political (like Nazi/Soviet designations) unless we accept successful sales price as a utilitarian, if dubious, measure. Nonetheless, I admire your decision to take part in a portfolio review. I've taken part in a mini-version of that every other month with a small group's B&W print exchange. We're careful about tone of feedback...I'm sure your review was more useful to you.

I think "good" vs "not-good" is a way of dodging mysterious...and interesting...issues.

 

[faberryman]

I think "good" vs "not-good" is a way of dodging mysterious...and interesting...issues.

I assure you moving to a discussion to aesthetics is anything but a dodge. If you doubt me, read a little Schopenhauer before turning off the light.

 

[jtk]

I assure you moving to a discussion to aesthetics is anything but a dodge. If you doubt me, read a little I Schopenhauer before turning off the light.

Faber, I have no reason to "doubt you". I don't think your preoccupation with "definitions" pertains to art or much else. I'll point you to someone who's been very influential, and that I appreciate: https://belfioreword.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/sontag-against-interpretation.pdf

 

[Sirius Glass]

What's a good composition? Do you overlay the golden section on the image to see if the ingredients line up?

No, go read some art and art history books that discuss composition. Not everything in art and photography fit into prepackaged overlays.

 

[blockend]

No, go read some art and art history books that discuss composition. Not everything in art and photography fit into prepackaged overlays.

I completely agree, but that wasn't your original claim. You said "To be called art, it should at the minimum have a good composition". I can think of numerous great works of art in which composition is either a secondary feature or irrelevant to the quality of the art, and cite the art historians who would agree. What is good composition in photography? What is good composition is pre-Renaissance religious painting, or outsider art, or cave painting or Futurism or abstract expressionism? Any template you care to impose on ideas of goodness will reveal as many exceptions as not.

 

[jim10219]

I do have trouble accepting the "art" label because it's so routinely applied to crapola... My own work rarely meets my own aspiration: Presbyterian childhood.

Today I'm an artist, tomorrow I'm not. How about you? Are you an artist? Are your photos art?

Of course I’m an artist! And not just because I have a BFA. I’m an artist because I have an insatiable curiosity for meaning and relationships. I am driven to the exploration of myself and the world around me through as many perspectives as can be imagined. It’s how I was born. It’s who I am.

Are my photos art? Of course! Are they good art? Not yet. I was recently introduced to the photography world by my fiancé who’s a rather adept photographer. As of now, I am exploring the various mediums and tools of the trade to define my personal style and relationship to the craft. I come from the painting/sculpture world which I found fun, but unprofitable. I would spend hundreds of dollars and many months on a single project, only to struggle to sell my work at prices worthy of the investment. In photography, I’ve discovered new methods of mass production that allow me to cut my costs and increase my revenue through minimizing my monetary and temporal investments, while still achieving similar rates of return. Thus, I can still explore the same themes that excite me, learn new techniques (which is always fun), and refresh my creativity and visual vocabulary which can at worst, serve as inspiration for my other endeavors.

And yeah, the majority of art in this world is crapola. But there is also so much that is transcendent and sublime! Are some artists narcissistic and shallow? Yeah. But I’ve also met many who are genuinely inspiring human beings!

Mark Rothko was once asked how long it took him to paint one of his color field paintings. His answer was 50 years. Financial and critical success is not what made him great. Perfecting his brush stroke did nothing for him. It was 50 years of failures spent searching within himself for the connection to his own essence that culminated in the courage to produce something as perfect as a flat field of color whose apparent visual simplicity served as the perfect vehicle for the Trojan Horse of emotional and intellectual complexity that his later work embodied. Not everyone appreciates his work. But for those of us who do, we are immensely grateful for the gifts he left us. And that’s what drives me. I do not fear failure. I fear premature success and the complacency that comes with it. So just because an artist is producing crapola today, doesn’t mean they won’t produce something revelationary tomorrow.

 

[tnp651]

My mother once showed me an art history book from the 1920s. About a third of it was devoted to ancient Greek and Roman art; a big section was Chinese art, but only its pottery. The Impressionists got only one page, and Van Gogh was not mentioned. My conclusion was that Great Art is a cultural construct which changes with time.

 

[jim10219]

My mother once showed me an art history book from the 1920s. About a third of it was devoted to ancient Greek and Roman art; a big section was Chinese art, but only its pottery. The Impressionists got only one page, and Van Gogh was not mentioned. My conclusion was that Great Art is a cultural construct which changes with time.

Of course! So is everything else. Not all art retains it's meaning for all of time. As the times change, so do our perspectives, and thus the relevance of a particular piece can change as well. It's art, not science. There are no constants or rules to rely on. Otherwise, every one of Van Gogh's paintings would have sold before the paint was even dry. Instead, it took years after his death for the general public to even become aware of his work. He was ahead of his time. Just like written history, the pantheon of great artists is always in flux, always under the influence of the modern perspective.

 

[blockend]

the pantheon of great artists is always in flux, always under the influence of the modern perspective

Indeed. Look at the narrative painting of the c19th, prized in its time, setting the standards of realism, but mostly seen as sentimental potboilers now. By contrast an untitled drawing by school janitor Henry Darger sold for over 600,000 euros at Christies. Bill Traylor was an African American born into slavery, a subsistence sharecropper whose simple, bold drawings fetch big ticket prices, $52,500 in this case: https://www.christies.com/Lotfinder/lot_details.aspx?sid=&intObjectID=5867361&T=Lot&language=en

Tastes change.