Is photographing art, art?

[jtk]

"art" isnt.

Google "artwashing".

 

[Javert]

Short answer:
Yes.

Longer answer:
The term 'art' as we use it today is fairly new, and if the objects you photograph are older than a few hundred years the maker would would not have considered themselves as an artist, nor their work as pieces of 'art' but rather as craftsmen. By considering these object as 'art' we move away from simple definitions such as "It's art if the maker intended it to be art". My own view on this is that we must use an form on linguistic analysis of the type that Wittgenstein used when he tried to define the concept 'game' when we define the concept of 'art'. In short it means that we accept that no one definition is sufficient alone, and that there are many things that can make something 'art'.

 

[removed account4]

If pictures of sad or happy clowns, puppies and rainbows, kittens with balls of yarn,and little kids at their 1st birthday face planted in chocolate cake can be considered “art” I don’t see why photographing someone else’s art ( building sculptures whatever) can't be considered art, never really understand why any of this matters. People should just make photographs any way they want whether or not anyone else says it’s art.

 

[markbau]

If pictures of sad or happy clowns, puppies and rainbows, kittens with balls of yarn,and little kids at their 1st birthday face planted in chocolate cake can be considered “art” I don’t see why photographing someone else’s art ( building sculptures whatever) can't be considered art, never really understand why any of this matters. People should just make photographs any way they want whether or not anyone else says it’s art.

I agree. I really don't see the point of these labels. I don't even use the term "art" anymore. If I see a print I like, that's enough. If I create a print that I like (which doesn't happen very often) I'm happy. I don't see the need to attach a label to mine or anyone else's work. I have recently been reading a book "What Good are the arts?" by John Carey. It talks about this subject at length and is quite thought provoking. The whole "art world" has become so pretentious and now is just a branding exercise. A Koons stainless steel sculpture of a rabbit recently sold for 90 million dollars. This is not what I would call art, it is a commodity, giving the owner bragging rights, showing the world how rich he is. As practising photographers, we should be able to look at a print and judge its craftsmanship, but beyond that, it is just a matter of personal opinion. I know the saying "I don't know what art is but I know what I like" is an often derided term but I agree with it. I have been singularly unimpressed by some "works of art" that I am supposed to be impressed by (according to those "in the know") and I love some work that many people deride as rubbish. Who cares? If I like it, I like it, if I don't, I don't. I think many people use their "art" as a vehicle for validation. It matters to them that others like their work.

 

[CMoore]

This is something I have been guilty of myself, seeing an interesting piece of sculpture and photographing it, telling myself I was doing something unique with it. Looking back, there was nothing really unique about it, it was just using someone else's art. What made it -something- was the original piece of art.

Most of the time I now focus on trying to make everyday, mundane things look interesting. Or photographing people. I'm just curious of what other people think about including art object in photographs.

That is not a bad Project/Concept at all.!

Talk about mundane.......
Over the course of several months, my photo teacher took pictures of several Garage Sales she went to. She could have assembled a rather interesting book from it all.
There was frequently a frame or two of the house (some of the homes were gorgeous in their own right) a couple shots of the immediate neighborhood, and the pictures of the items for sale.
But she set it up quite well, and it all made for a rather enjoyable slide-show.

 

[jtk]

If pictures of sad or happy clowns, puppies and rainbows, kittens with balls of yarn,and little kids at their 1st birthday face planted in chocolate cake can be considered “art” I don’t see why photographing someone else’s art ( building sculptures whatever) can't be considered art, never really understand why any of this matters. People should just make photographs any way they want whether or not anyone else says it’s art.

It is a non-question. Is the work significant in some way? Who determines? Me, maybe somebody else. Is it competent?

 

[removed account4]

i'm not sure why-not. competency has nothing to do with anything: it is just a side show.
besides, who decides who is competent, a panel of experts ? plenthy of experts are FOS
it s too bad branding geniuses have duped us into thinking otherwise

 

[jtk]

i'm not sure why-not. competency has nothing to do with anything: it is just a side show.
besides, who decides who is competent, a panel of experts ? plenthy of experts are FOS
it s too bad branding geniuses have duped us into thinking otherwise

nothing matters in trumplandia

 

[removed account4]

I agree. I really don't see the point of these labels. I don't even use the term "art" anymore. If I see a print I like, that's enough. If I create a print that I like (which doesn't happen very often) I'm happy. I don't see the need to attach a label to mine or anyone else's work. I have recently been reading a book "What Good are the arts?" by John Carey. It talks about this subject at length and is quite thought provoking. The whole "art world" has become so pretentious and now is just a branding exercise. A Koons stainless steel sculpture of a rabbit recently sold for 90 million dollars. This is not what I would call art, it is a commodity, giving the owner bragging rights, showing the world how rich he is. As practising photographers, we should be able to look at a print and judge its craftsmanship, but beyond that, it is just a matter of personal opinion. I know the saying "I don't know what art is but I know what I like" is an often derided term but I agree with it. I have been singularly unimpressed by some "works of art" that I am supposed to be impressed by (according to those "in the know") and I love some work that many people deride as rubbish. Who cares? If I like it, I like it, if I don't, I don't. I think many people use their "art" as a vehicle for validation. It matters to them that others like their work.

Yeah the whole art world is kind of strange, isn't it ? But I think buying artwork has alwys been bragging rights of the person who owns it. rich people for the longest time spend a lot of time socializing and bragging, to their friends and hopeful friends why should things be any different now compared to 160 or 200 or 500 years ago ? but it sure is strange. i watch automobile auctions on TV once in a while. its similar .. someone bought a 21 window volkswagon bus for more than 700thousand american dollars a little while ago ... will that person ever drive it or will it just go into storage ..
but regarding judging craftsmanship, what if the intent of the person is not to exhibit massive technical craftsmanship? i learned of someone who makes exquisite pottery, so beautiful that she mutilates each piece so it isn't perfect anymore. where in that judging craftsmanship equation is the INTENT of the maker ?

nothing matters in trumplandia

why aren't people smart enough to decide whether or not they like something ? and why does
the reason anyone likes something have anything to do with anything or you or me or anyone else?
my comment has nothing to do with the dumbing down of society or the back lash against education &c
but the foolishness of having someone or decides whether or not an "artist competent" or competent enough for someone to appreciate.

 

[jtk]

Yeah the whole art world is kind of strange, isn't it ? But I think buying artwork has alwys been bragging rights of the person who owns it. rich people for the longest time spend a lot of time socializing and bragging, to their friends and hopeful friends why should things be any different now compared to 160 or 200 or 500 years ago ? but it sure is strange. i watch automobile auctions on TV once in a while. its similar .. someone bought a 21 window volkswagon bus for more than 700thousand american dollars a little while ago ... will that person ever drive it or will it just go into storage ..
but regarding judging craftsmanship, what if the intent of the person is not to exhibit massive technical craftsmanship? i learned of someone who makes exquisite pottery, so beautiful that she mutilates each piece so it isn't perfect anymore. where in that judging craftsmanship equation is the INTENT of the maker ?


why aren't people smart enough to decide whether or not they like something ? and why does
the reason anyone likes something have anything to do with anything or you or me or anyone else?
my comment has nothing to do with the dumbing down of society or the back lash against education &c
but the foolishness of having someone or decides whether or not an "artist competent" or competent enough for someone to appreciate.

The idea that art doesn't involve competence is purely goofy.

That sounds like a regional backlash against skills and education.

 

[Luckless]

The idea that art doesn't involve competence is purely goofy.

That sounds like a regional backlash against skills and education.

What is the level of competence in an art form required before it can be declared 'art'? And what authority sets and defines this level?

 

[removed account4]

The idea that art doesn't involve competence is purely goofy.

That sounds like a regional backlash against skills and education.

LOL I don't think so. I have absolutely nothing against skills or education but I realize there are people with no formal education who run circles around educated people. Picasso at 14 completed the ADBA exam in 14 days ( it typically took 2 years to complete ) and with no formal training it was the best submission they had ever seen. Are you suggesting that if paintings from his youth were found that they shouldn't be permitted to be called "art" because he wasn't formally trained or perhaps deemed "competent" by some sort of panel of experts? Should people be tested for "competency" before they say they LIKE a certain artwork as well? Do they need to pass some sort of art history exam to know where it fits in to the world and why? Should they be tested on the artist's family history/ethnic background, or where they are coming from
so they can appreciate the work, or is personal attraction+connection enough ?
Maybe these people can join an organization and just pay yearly dues and just say they are competent.
Sounds like classic snobism to me.

 

[Ariston]

I've met Art a couple of times. He is an ugly SOB, and I wouldn't consider any photo of him to be artistic.

 

[jtk]

LOL I don't think so. I have absolutely nothing against skills or education but I realize there are people with no formal education who run circles around educated people. Picasso at 14 completed the ADBA exam in 14 days ( it typically took 2 years to complete ) and with no formal training it was the best submission they had ever seen. Are you suggesting that if paintings from his youth were found that they shouldn't be permitted to be called "art" because he wasn't formally trained or perhaps deemed "competent" by some sort of panel of experts? Should people be tested for "competency" before they say they LIKE a certain artwork as well? Do they need to pass some sort of art history exam to know where it fits in to the world and why? Should they be tested on the artist's family history/ethnic background, or where they are coming from
so they can appreciate the work, or is personal attraction+connection enough ?
Maybe these people can join an organization and just pay yearly dues and just say they are competent.
Sounds like classic snobism to me.

Vapour.

 

[removed account4]

Vapour.

Classic jtk response, thanks.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Vapour.

Sometimes I get the impression by what you write that you are sitting in your own vapours....

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Copying flat art is a simple craft; that is not to say it is easy.

 

[jtk]

Copying flat art is a simple craft; that is not to say it is easy.

Technical skills don't get much respect from certain quarters, but "copying flat art" can be closer to "ART" than a lot of self-proclaimed photo "artists" know. Lots of those self-proclaimed "artists" are easily satisfied.

There is little distinction between "art" and "craft" beyond the fact that "artists" wax goofy-poetic and apply labels to their work and are easily satisfied. In general, craftsmen recognize good Vs bad while "artists" do not, tho they promote their own work.

 

[awty]

Technical skills don't get much respect from certain quarters, but "copying flat art" can be closer to "ART" than a lot of self-proclaimed photo "artists" know. Lots of those self-proclaimed "artists" are easily satisfied.

There is little distinction between "art" and "craft" beyond the fact that "artists" wax goofy-poetic and apply labels to their work and are easily satisfied. In general, craftsmen recognize good Vs bad while "artists" do not, tho they promote their own work.

Yes I would agree. I blame social media for encouraging mediocrity. I look at picture making as a craft from start to finish. Takes a lot of dedication to do well and requires peer reviews to make sure it actually is done well and ultimately if you want to profit from it, sales, in which case you need a product to sell, for me thats a finished print

 

[jtk]

Yes I would agree. I blame social media for encouraging mediocrity. I look at picture making as a craft from start to finish. Takes a lot of dedication to do well and requires peer reviews to make sure it actually is done well and ultimately if you want to profit from it, sales, in which case you need a product to sell, for me thats a finished print

Yes, social media (including Photrio's "Media") does encourage mediocrity. But inability to distinguish good from bad, art from non-art, didn't begin online.

A famous Minor White lesson entailed showing prints to people we don't know, random people on the street, asking for their responses. Minor was a quality-extremist who asked his students to seek something on top of that...not instead of that.

 

[jtk]

What is the level of competence in an art form required before it can be declared 'art'? And what authority sets and defines this level?

We thank teachers for helping us get to a "level of competence" ....

 

[jtk]

LOL I don't think so. I have absolutely nothing against skills or education but I realize there are people with no formal education who run circles around educated people. Picasso at 14 completed the ADBA exam in 14 days ( it typically took 2 years to complete ) and with no formal training it was the best submission they had ever seen. Are you suggesting that if paintings from his youth were found that they shouldn't be permitted to be called "art" because he wasn't formally trained or perhaps deemed "competent" by some sort of panel of experts? Should people be tested for "competency" before they say they LIKE a certain artwork as well? Do they need to pass some sort of art history exam to know where it fits in to the world and why? Should they be tested on the artist's family history/ethnic background, or where they are coming from
so they can appreciate the work, or is personal attraction+connection enough ?
Maybe these people can join an organization and just pay yearly dues and just say they are competent.
Sounds like classic snobism to me.

"personal attraction+connection" is not reliably a good thing.

Bad spelling when calling people names ("snobism" sic) tells its own story.

 

[jtk]

What is the level of competence in an art form required before it can be declared 'art'? And what authority sets and defines this level?

Sorry, I can't help you with that. Perhaps you know a teacher.

 

[removed account4]

Yes, social media (including Photrio's "Media") does encourage mediocrity. But inability to distinguish good from bad, art from non-art, didn't begin online.

this website and social media are filled with hobbyists. Why is it so important that every image posted here or anywhere else be perfect or made by someone who is deemed competent? I'm not sure why people can't just enjoy themselves.

 

[jtk]

this website and social media are filled with hobbyists. Why is it so important that every image posted here or anywhere else be perfect or made by someone who is deemed competent? I'm not sure why people can't just enjoy themselves.

Nobody asks for perfection. Hobbyists typically want to learn and gain skills. Picasso was trained, well before 12, by a professional artist (his father)...he continued to learn until he died.

People do "just enjoy themselves". Is that reality under attack somewhere?

Being "not sure" is an important first step... being unsure is a positive sign.