Of Conceptual Art, and Photography

Daniel_OB said:

"In short - are prints the art work? or is it plausible to say - the IMAGE is the work of art, the print is A rendition."

A photograph is a print, material think that has its material properties. Platinum print looks differently that silver gel. a print of the same image...
A photograph is not work of art, it might be is. One of the best print ever made at the time when it is shut (around 1920) was consider just anything but not work of art. Beauty does not lie in its subject but in the WORK. Remeber Durrer's mother drawing, time worn woman.

A print can be work of art, an image is nothing, if we consider that an image is a subject a photograph represnts.

Click to expand...

In painting it was not unsusal for someone to use a camera lucida (or is is obscura?) - well a pinhole thingie to help frame the painting - and not much hand ringing is done about if the painting is the work or the image. So I think you are right - it is the end work that is the art - not that it matters a ton...

Daniel_OB said:

"A photograph is a print, material think that has its material properties. Platinum print looks differently that silver gel. a print of the same image...
A photograph is not work of art, it might be is. One of the best print ever made at the time when it is shut (around 1920) was consider just anything but not work of art. Beauty does not lie in its subject but in the WORK. Remeber Durrer's mother drawing, time worn woman.
A print can be work of art, an image is nothing, if we consider that an image is a subject a photograph represnts.

Click to expand...

I don't mean to be offensive ... but I'm having real trouble understanding this...

WHAT "One of the best print ever made at the time it is shut was (around 1920) was consider(ed?) just anything but not a work of art".

At the time WHAT is (was?) shut? Who did the "considering"?

??? "is not a work of art, it might be is." ????

Chaucun a son gout.....

Ed
Looking at photography as form of art, as initially the only purpose of photography was, shut made by (name of photog is something like Rise or similar), of bandits in NYC (New York City). It is documentary photograph and at the time it is made was considered as nothing more than a snapshot. Later on the same photograph draw more and more attention. Today, (after photog passed away) the same photograph is considered among the "best" photograph ever made. I think that now many knows what photograph I talk about. It is way in art ALWAYS. One of the rare law in art. One is artist long after the guy is in heaven. It just cannot be different way (in our time, around year 2000). Hope it is clear.

"is not a work of art, it might be is."
If photyography is art than every photograph is work of art. This is not true. A photograph once made might be is work of art might be not. A long time after it is made can be judged (there are and rare exceptions like in just anything). Whistler's mother (painting) long time resident in history of art is just (I think for the wrong reason) droped out from to be representative painting of the artist.... So there is no -for sure- art it is always -might be-. How thinks are going today even and Michaelangelo is no more -for sure-.

www.Leica-R.com

Ed
I think you have one quest. more
At the time WHAT is (was?) shut? Who did the "considering"?

Do you mean who are the people that say "this is art" or "this is not art". Is that the question?

www.Leica-R.com