Moving from technique, form and equipment to art???

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Tough definition of "art"

"one's own voice and offering something to the world that is completely original and one's own."

What if people, most of the time, don't listen to you?

Should art be a mirror to what is happening in the world?

Suggest viewing the movie, "Smash His Camera!" It shows different opinions from people who think they know art. Do they know art? Is his photography "snaps"? Or is there more to the photographs?

Here is a page where you can view articles on the movie:

http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=S...tertainment"]&FORM=EWRE&qpvt=Smash+His+Camera

Does art become more arty after the artist dies?

Interesting, don't you think?

Nobody listened Vincent Van Gough when he was a live. He never sold a painting nor his brother the art dealer, Theo. How his Van Gough's art is now revered all over the world.

As for art mirroring the world, do you mean make one's art as everybody sees the world? I'd rather see art of other worlds. The internal worlds of artist. The most interesting art to me portrays a reality not apparent to ordinary conciseness. Do you want to be feed a diet of art that is created by and for people the psychopathology of the ordinary?

 

[wclark5179]

"do you mean make one's art as everybody sees the world?"

Sorry, no I don't mean that. I make art as I see the world. However, in my case, I need to make photographs, perhaps it isn't art to some but it is to those that hire me. They see how I view the world is how they want their story told be it an individual portrait, family or event photographs like a wedding. Not everyone sees the world as I do but some do and some of those choose my services.

Another article to check out is written by a Mr. Fritz Liedkte in the LensWork Issue #89, the July August edition, pages 48-51.

Have a wonderful weekend.

 

[markbarendt]

All artists evolve over time as they discover new things, and as they absorb new influences.

My point isn't about evolving or not, we all change over time, it's simply about having a bit of focus on expressing a specific thought for a specific audience.

If I am the audience I am free to do what ever I like, if I add other people to the audience my motivations for the work changes.

 

[markbarendt]

To me, at its core, photography is a communicative act. I wouldn't do it otherwise.

Absolutely.

The question for me is "to what audience?"

What I'm trying to say here is that what I want to tell (express to) "myself", "my wife", "my friends", my community" or "the world" are each different.

My relationship to the audience defines what I want to do.

 

[Steve Smith]

This is an interesting topic as unlike any other art form, photography is really just making a representation of something which already exists. i.e. the subject in front of the lens.

Whilst this is also often the case of painting, sculpture, etc, it doesn't have to be. It could just be in the mind of the artist. With photography there has to be a subject which has to actually exist.


Steve.

 

[markbarendt]

With photography there has to be a subject which has to actually exist.

Steve.

http://www.uelsmann.com/

Is the subject the input or the output?

 

[Steve Smith]

Is the subject the input or the output?

They are very good and expertly done but there were actual subjects used. Not sure about the input/output bit though.


Steve.

 

[markbarendt]

Although the individual parts Uelsmann uses are rooted in reality, they never existed together.

For me the inspiration for art is rooted in the output I intend, not the input available.

 

[moouers]

Seems I'm two months late, but I'll share my thoughts anyway...

My desire to show my vision has driven my gaining knowledge of the technical side of things. My own self, my art if you will, is the driving force behind what I do and the gear is the furthest thing from my mind. I see gear as a means to achieve what I set out to do in the first place and sometimes it takes a certain one piece of gear to accomplish that, but that just doesn't consume me.

 

[benjiboy]

Why are people so obsessed about their "Vision" making "Art", and not content with with making good pictures ?.

 

[stradibarrius]

For me, I am trying to learn to see beyond the "snapshot" vision. To develop my artistic vision, if I have any. I think it may depend on what your goal is???? My goal is to see and capture the things views etc. that make people stop and see rather than just look.
But that is my goal...

 

[markbarendt]

Why are people so obsessed about their "Vision" making "Art", and not content with with making good pictures ?.

Why limit our creative thought to content?

 

[benjiboy]

Why limit our creative thought to content?

Why not convince themselves as soon as they have some basic understanding of how to use the tools and techniques of the craft that they have to be " true to their vision" and refer to their work and other photographers as "Art", I don't believe that photography is an art this idea is a relatively recent concept in the last thirty years or so promoted by photographers agents, gallery s and auction houses to sell photographers work.
There are and have been indeed some wonderful photographers in the past and present who I greatly admire, but as craftsmen who are masters of their craft, if you had called them artists to their face they would have laughed at you .

 

[Q.G.]

Quite possibly.

But you are in danger of that happening to you too when you suggest that you can decide that something is or is not a form of art based solely on the medium.

 

[benjiboy]

Quite possibly.

But you are in danger of that happening to you too when you suggest that you can decide that something is or is not a form of art based solely on the medium.

I doubt if the great renaissance painters considered themselves " Artists" in the modern sense of the word with a capital "A" but rather on the same level as a master stonemason, as a very skilled artisan, however I do believe that some great photography can approach "Art" but on rare occasions, and very few of them, by no means as many as those who write about their, and other photographers art on internet forums .

 

[Q.G.]

I think you are right: the understanding of what art is, but much more even the way it functioned in society has changed a lot since then.

But even then noone would have told someone that he could not be an artist (whatever that meant then) because of themedium he or she used.

Think of it as of a pen: people use it to write shopping lists. People also use it to write literature.
It's not the medium. It's how, and to what end, you make use of it.

Photography is a form of art. Not all of photography is. But definitely some of it.

 

[benjiboy]

Good QG I'm glad we agree at last

 

[Casey Kidwell]

Just to play devils advocate, the tools follow the art, not vice-versa. Some of the most competent and knowledgeable photographers I know are also some of the most shallow creatively. At the same time I've known some artists who are painfully (to me) ignorant of technical photographic knowledge but have brilliant "eyes" and minds and work with a conceptual complexity that wasn't learned but just possessed. And I hate them. Also, art doesn't care what society thinks.

 

[Q.G.]

Also, art doesn't care what society thinks.

You are thinking about art as a pursuit of beautiful thingies?

Art, back then and certainly now, does care what society thinks.
It's part of the thinking society.