Photography as artistic expression

Svend,

I was fortunate to see several Rembrandts last summer at the National Gallery in Washington and share your reverence.

Thanks for expressing the sentiment so very well.

Joe

bjorke said:

I'd give credit for that to R. Mutt.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't, and for this reason - although Duchamp obviously opened the door to the exhibition of ready-made objects as art, his use of the "R. Mutt" signature left in a sense a loophole for people to dismiss his "work" as a joke if they felt so inclined. Furthermore, Duchamp's work has had the serious consequence (possibly unintended) of inviting consideration of industrial products as art (cars by Bugatti, Harvey Earl, Lamborghini, etc., countless other products, the list is endless), whereas Warhol was straight-ahead 100% shamelessly and unflinchingly in the trash business!

Regards,

David

Harley Earl.

And while Harley Earl was the chief of GM's Art and Color department (he actually coined the department name), he had no formal art or design training himself - most of the designs he was credited with were more a result of his being able to communicate (read yell at until they got it right) a concept to the designers who worked for him - most famously "longer, lower, wider". Great car designers from the classic age included Gordon Beuhrig, Raymond Loewy, and later at GM, Bill Mitchell, who actually did pen designs himself.

copake_ham said:

Now, Art, I'll try to remember your real Avatar name if you remember to put the "n" in "munch"!

Click to expand...

Damn auto-spell check! More slippery than the buttery yellow liquid they pour over the popcorn. Anyway, 98k posts to go and this site will hit the big leagues.

Regards, Art.

jstraw said:

Harley Earl.

Click to expand...

Ok, now we've sorted the typo out, any feelings about Warhol, Duchamp, or the world in general?

David H. Bebbington said:

Ok, now we've sorted the typo out, any feelings about Warhol, Duchamp, or the world in general?

Click to expand...

Nope.

Donald Miller said:

What about photography for that matter is it truly artistic? Is most of what I produce and observe in photography simply illustration? Is the illustrative output of any value to either myself or to a prospective viewer? What defines artistic output?

Click to expand...

This reminds me of how there are such different approaches to photography, such as with AA vs. Minor White. They both firmly believed in photography as an art form and that they were truly being "artistic" in their own practice of it, but there could not have been a greater difference in there own approaches to the image on the ground glass and thus to the image on the paper.

"What defines artistic output"

*To white, I think the answer was found in the "thoughts, feelings, and reactions of the artist to his subject and his image." (quote: AA, autobiography)

*In contrast to Adams, "When a photograph is made, I consider it an accomplished fact. Then, I go on with the next creative effort. To brood over something irrevocably done is a waste of time"..............."If something moves me, I do not question what it is or why; I am content to be moved."

IMO, Donald, your photographs are what you believe them to be (I've seen some damn nice ones). Ilustration or Art? I just don't think words can answer that question, but we all probably agree that the photograph itself is supposed to.

But I do think that the effort in itself is so entirely a personal effort, that the question is clearly aswered, at least in our minds, when you look at that dried print in the room light and it sings to you (I wish this happened more for me ). At that point, at least for me, the question of "artistic output" becomes moot, or of no practical consequence. It is what I want it to be and others can make up there own mind.

Just my thoughts.

Chuck

If someone is sufficiently in control of a picture making medium, photography say, so that the picture comes out the way they want then the picture is a map of those wants; a mind map; thought made visible. To look at such a picture is to be in the presence of art.

Because modern technology enables pictures to be generated by people who don't care very much, don't try very hard, don't have a particular end point in mind, but hope maybe something will eventuate, just looking at a picture is not enough. One has to study the putative artist as well.

Should it turn out that the "artist" didn't bother putting the picture through their own mind I won't bother putting it through mine either.

"Because modern technology enables pictures to be generated by people who don't care very much, don't try very hard, don't have a particular end point in mind, but hope maybe something will eventuate, just looking at a picture is not enough. One has to study the putative artist as well."

And how would one know the difference as a viewer of said photographs? How would the viewer know if the composition was meticulously composed or just a randomly timed event?

Chuck1 said:

"What defines artistic output"

*To white, I think the answer was found in the "thoughts, feelings, and reactions of the artist to his subject and his image." (quote: AA, autobiography)

*In contrast to Adams, "When a photograph is made, I consider it an accomplished fact. Then, I go on with the next creative effort. To brood over something irrevocably done is a waste of time"..............."If something moves me, I do not question what it is or why; I am content to be moved."

Click to expand...

EXCELLENT!! post, Chuck1. I agree with every word. Captured, and I will proceed to carve it in stone.

Ed, I kind of lost track of this thread and sort of forgot about it after that last post from me. I checked in and saw this response from you.

It seemed very fitting to the discussion of the post. I have to admit that I am more aligned with Adams' point of view.

Thanks
Chuck

Hello Donald,

your website is worth a recommendation:

Dead Link Removed

All the best

Horst

I have seen many interesting responses to Art vs. Photography.

What it all boils down to is quite simplistic.

ART is subjective.

“One mans garbage is another mans gold.” This statement rings true when applied to art.

There isn’t a person on this planet that can tell me what art is or what art should be. I’ll decide that for myself. If one decides that photography is not art that is fine for that individual. That is his or her opinion.

I on the other I hand find photography to be extremely artistic. We all see the world differently and our cameras lenses capture these subtle nuances.

The argument becomes redundant when one views art as subjective.