What is Art in Photography?

[gr82bart]

When is photography defined as art?

"What this means is art can be quantified objectively through more conventional methods of evaluation. ......

1. A Demonstration of Virtuosity
2. An Expression of Purpose
3. A Commitment of Effort"

"This explains why most good photographs do not qualify as art. A good photographs is based on content in front of the camera, and how it’s visually presented. Because of that, there isn’t anything specifically unique about a good photograph, given that content can be replicated - regardless of how rare or inaccessible the content may be. ...."

"....if everyone can claim their work is art, art will cease to have any value. For art to retain value, its recognition must derive from generally accepted sources that are qualified. ....."

"....So, until any work is purchased on the basis of artistic recognition, calling it art is meaningless. It may appear to be somewhat harsh to define art in such narrow and material terms, but what other measurable standard is there?...."

Dead Link Removed

In other words, $ ....
Thoughts?

Regards, Art

 

[Brook Hill]

I think John Ruskin came pretty close to defining what art is he said:-

"Fine art is that in which the hand, the head and the heart of man go together."

I think this could apply to photogaphy but by no means to photography in general.

Tony

 

[Ko.Fe.]

It is easy. Then I go to art gallery and like photography where.

 

[faberryman]

A poorly written freshman essay by someone admittedly obsessed with Leica cameras and lenses, answering the question: who is a dilettante?

Saw this in the About section of the site: "Remember, this is a blog. I don't perceive myself as an expert - nor should you."

 

[btaylor]

Who cares? I read the blog page you linked to. Why is that guy so hung up on coming up with a definition? If you tell me the thing you're showing me is art, it's up to me to make my own decision about it (hey this is great Art! Oh my, this is terrible. How did this crap get into a museum? This changes the way I see the world!) The writer's perspective is FAR too narrow. It's been 100 years since Marcel Duchamp presented his "Fountain."

 

[btaylor]

faberryman if that's a freshman essay he needs to read his assigned reading before he turns in something like that.

 

[removed account4]

hi art

i think he has touched upon some interesting points. couldn't agree more, most everyone with a camera believes they are creating photographic art, that is a given.
he states that the photographer has to be proficient or understand or master the medium .. i don't agree with that at all.
there are been photographers ( or other disciplines of object making ) who didn't really have a full comprehension of their medium
they just made stuff and were deemed artists. plenty of people use p/s cameras and just enjoy making photographs some are more artistic
than the most hailed gorgeous full scale large format images i have ever seen.
in the end art, i think art can be anything, created by anyone ... the person doesn't need to say or suggest it is "art" its other people maybe
that define it, and if someone buys it ( purchases it in a gallery, not "buys it" as in is duped, sure if they buy it ( are duped too ) more power to them !

people have their own preconceived notions of everything ... as far as i am concerned you can be making photographs for 60 years or more, endlessly, and barely scratch the surface of what photography is...
thanks for the post

 

[pdeeh]

art in photography is what john does

 

[eddie]

he states that the photographer has to be proficient or understand or master the medium .. i don't agree with that at all.
there are been photographers ( or other disciplines of object making ) who didn't really have a full comprehension of their medium
they just made stuff and were deemed artists.

I'm not sure I agree, John. I think you can accidentally make a piece of art without mastering your medium but, to be an artist, you need to be able to repeat the accident. This requires some comprehension of the medium.

as far as i am concerned you can be making photographs for 60 years or more, endlessly, and barely scratch the surface of what photography is...

I am with you 100 percent on this.

 

[dasBlute]

troll bait. any thoughts of your own, besides the loquacious '$'?

If someone likes your work 100 years from now, then it's art.
You don't get to decide, your intention doesn't matter one iota.
If *one* little kid looks at it, and feels hope or joy, you've done your work.
Everything else is vanity.

 

[Vaughn]

An artist is someone who calls him/herself one. A Master of Art is a different beast altogether.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

 

[removed account4]

I'm not sure I agree, John. I think you can accidentally make a piece of art without mastering your medium but, to be an artist, you need to be able to repeat the accident. This requires some comprehension of the medium

why does something have to be repeated ?
as egbert souse ( accent grave over the e ) said to joe the bartender
"i like to bathe in the same water twice"

 

[eddie]

John- I think it's just my personal bias concerning "art". In my attempts at "art"-making, I'm looking to create a body of work. Until I get a few which relate to each other in some way, I don't feel like I've succeeded.

 

[removed account4]

i can see what you mean ..

 

[Dali]

troll bait. any thoughts of your own, besides the loquacious '$'?

If someone likes your work 100 years from now, then it's art.
You don't get to decide, your intention doesn't matter one iota.
If *one* little kid looks at it, and feels hope or joy, you've done your work.
Everything else is vanity.

+1.

 

[eddie]

I don’t see the OP as a troll. I think a troll is an outsider who shows up just to roil the waters. The OP has been a long time member and contributor. While I find defining “Art” a difficult endeavor, I see nothing wrong with discussing it.

 

[removed account4]

I don’t see the OP as a troll. I think a troll is an outsider who shows up just to roil the waters. The OP has been a long time member and contributor. While I find defining “Art” a difficult endeavor, I see nothing wrong with discussing it.

couldn't agree more eddie !
art has been here since the beginning ...

its too bad people take probing questions
or questions/statements that don't go along
with their own ideology as trolling ...
==
i don't think art ( as in whats made ) has anything to do with
whether or not someone likes it in 100 years or if it made some kid feel hope or joy .
maybe sometimes certain types of art do that, but
francis bacon's portrait of the pope innocent x certainly doesn't do that
and neither do the studies of arshiel gorky or malevich or el lissitzsky
moholy nagy, man ray or the movies of david lynch, lars von trier or wim wenders,
or james jarmusch ... or even the work of a thief or con artist
IDK,
bringing joy to people has little to do with art

 

[dpurdy]

The reason this debate keeps coming up in various forms and is never resolved to everyone's satisfaction is that we don't agree on the definition of the term art. It is seen as meaning different things to different people. For some it is a level of quality, for others it is a level of appreciation, for others it is intent. For myself art is a science, it is the science of aesthetics. It has nothing to do with success. It has everything to do with trying to express your personal aesthetic. It can be intended for yourself only or it can be intended as a communication to others. To me, anything done to purposely express aesthetic consideration is art. My grandmother making her own recipe for sugar cookies is doing art. My mother making vinegar pie for April fools day is art. Me trying to express something with visual impact is art. General Schwarzkopf saying that desert storm has raised war to a fine art is full of shit. Any surgeon who is said to have raised surgery to a fine art is not.

 

[Dali]

Art is what institution and market recognize as such. You can have a different opinion, you don't have the final word and nobody cares what you think hence the futility of such debate. Shoot for yourself and your friends, you might be labelled as an artist 100 years for now... maybe.

 

[dpurdy]

Art is what institution and market recognize as such. You can have a different opinion, you don't have the final word and nobody cares what you think hence the futility of such debate. Shoot for yourself and your friends, you might be labelled as an artist 100 years for now... maybe.

"Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), expressing the author's imaginative or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power.[1][2] In their most general form these activities include the production of works of art, the criticism of art, the study of the history of art, and the aesthetic dissemination of art."

 

[dasBlute]

its too bad people take probing questions
or questions/statements that don't go along
with their own ideology as trolling ...

Actually, he didn't ask any probing questions, he asked an unanswerable one, and threw chum in the water with
someone's blog and added -and I quote- "$ ..." as his summary of the article. tl;dr would be as meaningful.

If you don't think that's trolling, then we can agree to disagree.

You cited a lot of artists, but made no mention of why you think what they created is art.
What was your visceral reaction to their work that made you say, "That's Art"?
Pick one, and tell me how it made you feel.

and btw - hope and joy cover a lot of ground. A tragedy can make one
despair at the paucity of human goodness and then give you hope about
the resilience of the human spirit. You're right, I choose to cherish art
that seeks to ennoble, to "bridge to gap", soul-to-soul, and celebrate
and remind us of our better natures, that we're all connected and we're
all in this together.

That doesn't mean it has to be beautiful or 'feel-good', or easily understood.

I wasn't rejecting all photos not made of puppies.

 

[removed account4]

you want me to tell you why the people i have listed have been considered visual artists ?
i have already it is because they have made things that have made people think.
you suggested art was a troll and
your definition suggested that "art" had to make childred smile or feel joy or be OLD

troll bait. any thoughts of your own, besides the loquacious '$'?
If someone likes your work 100 years from now, then it's art.
You don't get to decide, your intention doesn't matter one iota.
If *one* little kid looks at it, and feels hope or joy, you've done your work.
Everything else is vanity.

i suggested what you said ( all of it ) was BS.

no one 100 years from now will care about photographs gursky or prince or cindy sherman made
( chances are they wont' exist cause they are color )
their photographs sold for millionand they have ALREADY been named as "photograhic art"

the people i named who where photographers all changed something they invented something ... a style or technique that
as since become "common" photograms, solarization, abstratexpresssoinismm cubism,, constructions/graphic design
or even stealing someone elses work, chaning it a little and suggesting it is your own, and "ART".
the film makers-- wim wenders, james jarmush and david lynch ... they have changed how movies aer made, expressed
and presented

nothing to do with children ...

i could tell you what *I* think but it really doesn' t matter the people that matter, the people that label things
have already named these things not me .. and i don't disagree with them ...

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The beholder decides if it's art, not the photographer.

 

[dasBlute]

your definition suggested that "art" had to make childred [sic] smile or feel joy or be OLD.

I'll admit, I was terse, I meant that [In-my-opinion]

1) Art should move people, I used a simple, concrete example, pardon me.
2) Art needs time to be assessed.

And thank you for your generous assessment of my opinions. Apparently they are all BS.
But I now know, from your obviously superior wisdom that:

1) $$$ = Art, if it sells enough, It is Art.
2) Individual opinions matter not, only statistical aggregates. If enough of the 'right' people say so, it is Art.

I again, apologize for having and expressing opinions, and shall henceforth compose sonnets and hymns to your name, forevermore.