Photographer unknown - does it matter?

Arthurwg · 2025-04-24T12:35:47-0400

Alan Edward Klein said:
Most people don't care unless you're an art historian, student, etc. I don't. If a picture, painting, sculpture, or song for that matter is nice and I enjoy it, I really don't pay attention to who created it. Names and facts have to do with the intellect. Art with the spirit.

Can you really separate the two?

Don_ih · 2025-04-24T12:40:25-0400

Alan Edward Klein said:
You're complicating this too much. Whatever the reason, you look at a piece of art, either it does something for you or it doesn't. Basing your satisfaction on what others say seems rather limiting.

I wasn't complicating anything but addressing topic of this thread. I didn't imply anyone bases their satisfaction on what others say. I said, for the most part, you don't encounter anything in a vacuum. Unless you make the art, you get to see what someone else has chosen you should see.

Milpool · 2025-04-24T13:06:20-0400

runswithsizzers said:
But what is the reason? Either by education or osmosis you have developed ideas about what makes a good painting or a good photograph. Whether or not the art "does something for you" is influenced by a number of things, including what you learned in art class, by books you have read, by the opinions of artists who you respect, by critical reviews of art shows in museums and galleries. In other words, isn't your satisfaction is unavoidably influenced by what others have said?

I’m not so sure. I would say when it comes to artforms all of those things are more about “appreciation” (plus of course putting things in front of you to see, hear etc. in the first place), but that ultimately at least in my case whether or not it does something for me was innate from the beginning.

Sirius Glass · 2025-04-24T13:12:57-0400

I look at each photograph separately. While a name such as a name such as Ansel Adams, Dorothea Lange, or Henri Cartier-Bresson will have me automatically comparing to each's other work, that lack of a name will not cause me to look with less diligence or interest.

Alan Edward Klein · 2025-04-24T14:49:20-0400

runswithsizzers said:
But what is the reason? Either by education or osmosis you have developed ideas about what makes a good painting or a good photograph. Whether or not the art "does something for you" is influenced by a number of things, including what you learned in art class, by books you have read, by the opinions of artists who you respect, by critical reviews of art shows in museums and galleries. In other words, isn't your satisfaction is unavoidably influenced by what others have said?

Inspiration is on a different plane than intellect. You don't need schooling to love.

pentaxuser · 2025-04-24T14:53:18-0400

Don_ih said:
Some people hate Newton, for instance, so won't consider anything he did worthwhile.

To be fair he wasn't bad on gravity

pentaxuser

Alan Edward Klein · 2025-04-24T15:01:52-0400

Arthurwg said:
Can you really separate the two?

So you check to see who the artist is, before you allow yourself to enjoy it? I don't believe you.

Don_ih · 2025-04-24T15:59:34-0400

Alan Edward Klein said:
So you check to see who the artist is, before you allow yourself to enjoy it? I don't believe you.

It's more a matter of who decides what are you see. You can't just pick up "random art piece" that no one else has decided is worth seeing. You will only ever see what someone else has decided is worthwhile. Unless, of course, you make it yourself. Even then, you are probably following some kind of established practice to produce the work.

Don_ih · 2025-04-24T16:01:29-0400

pentaxuser said:
To be fair he wasn't bad on gravity

Good one - I was wondering what you were talking about for a second.

I meant Wayne Newton, of course.

Maris · 2025-04-24T20:55:34-0400

There are people who via their life history and reputation demonstrate a high level of creativity that I may admire and value.
As an art collector I would buy one of their works in order to possess a physical and enduring sample of that creativity.
The identity of the artist is crucial in this but the work itself not so much.

For example if I was offered a good condition 16x20 original Ansel Adams photograph characteristic of his famous style at an affordable price
I'd say SOLD! well before asking what the subject matter was.

snusmumriken · 2025-04-25T03:56:35-0400

Maris said:
There are people who via their life history and reputation demonstrate a high level of creativity that I may admire and value.
As an art collector I would buy one of their works in order to possess a physical and enduring sample of that creativity.
The identity of the artist is crucial in this but the work itself not so much.

For example if I was offered a good condition 16x20 original Ansel Adams photograph characteristic of his famous style at an affordable price
I'd say SOLD! well before asking what the subject matter was.

I can certainly understand that. The only signed photograph I possess by a recognised name (Frank Meadow Sutcliffe) is a very lacklustre example of his work. It came down to me through my family. I can’t think why anyone would have bought it unless they knew someone in the photo, or all the others were unaffordable.

But that’s the reverse of the question I posed. In the case of a photo that’s attractive in itself, is it somehow diminished if it’s a fluke, if the photographer does/did not demonstrate a high level of creativity? Or if it’s impossible to know that? As said, I’d like to think I appreciate an isolated photo solely for its intrinsic merits, but I recognise that that is not where I stop.

I suspect @Don_ih has said it all in post#2, but maybe there is more to come.

Photographer unknown - does it matter?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency