What Makes it art, when it simply could be a snapshot?

[Dave Ludwig]

What Makes it Art? I've always thought "Critics" or " Community Acceptance". Controversy could also play a part which is being proven here. The quality of tool used should be moot, it only affects the resolution of subject matter.

I have been watching this forum for a long time and only recently joined and I find some hypocracy to those who shoot film then scan and print the negative. Is this analog simply because you use a film camera then digitally finish the process? and tell me honestly you never digitally manipulated a print beyond that which you can reproduce in a darkroom? I looked at Shore's photo's and find them quite interesting.
For those on the forum who apparently and simply like to argue, I await the incoming volley of arrows, but don't expect me to engage.

 

[aluncrockford]

It may well be that as you develop as a photographer, and the more in depth you look at the history and advancement of photography then you may well understand why the Stephen Shore images have an importance, to call these images snapshots,whilst being fully entitled to your own opinion, might well run the risk of appearing a touch ill informed . It might help put the work in context to look at his book uncommon places, then move on to new topographics , the Dusseldorf school of photography, and William Eggleston . To simply decry work that you might not fully understand could be best described as unfortunate.

 

[Voyager]

My Grandmother takes snapshots: one roll of 24exp lasts a year. She makes some artistic decisions along the way: should she point the camera here or there, that flower or this one, is the scene worthy of a photograph? She decides based on what looks best; then when she takes the film to the chemist to be printed, the assistant asks her: matt or gloss? When she chooses she makes another artistic decision based on what looks best.

Thanks for setting things straight...I'll never look at that Picasso fella the same way anymore...

 

[5stringdeath]

Shore (and others) are loosely grouped into the New Topographics ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Topographics

Visual arguments aside (whether we think something LOOKS good enough to be art, subjectively) the Topographics were responding to what came before them, mainly but not only the gorgeous landscapes of Ansel Adams, etc. All artistic expression is a reaction to something ... either other art, beauty, the world, emotion... whatever ...

Whether one likes a certain style is another thing but the New Topographics did have a unique statement to make about landscape and how it is recorded by the camera. I've always enjoyed this type of work. Robert Adams has always been heavy on my bookshelf, I like his work a lot.

 

[Bill Burk]

...Starting at the bottom of the photograph we have three small rectangles laid on two larger squares of different tones...

Vincent, it sounds like you might be onto something here. Your explanations make sense. There is a lot of geometry and tension in these photographs.

I can't imagine a regular person taking snapshots would ever lift camera to eye in any of these places.

Uncomfortable, eerie stuff

 

[thegman]

I would say what makes a photo art, or not is the same criteria that makes Tracey Emin's "My Bed" art, and my own bed not art. It's whether you say it is or not.

 

[artonpaper]

This is such an interesting question. When I was in grad school, I'd put up my photos in a critique class led by William T. Williams, a well known abstract painter, and every week he'd ask me, "So why is this art?"

Eventually I said what the surrealists and dada-ists said, "Because I say it is." He bought that, but I wasn't completely comfortable with that answer. I kept thinking, and researched further and eventually wrote an article for a local art publication called, "Photography, Is it Art?"

In the interest of brevity, here are a couple things I touched on. First, the original practices that were considered art, say, during the Renaissance, DID NOT INCLUDE PAINTING! Painting was considered a manual craft. The arts were such things as poetry, music, dance, comedy, tragedy, geometry, and astrology. No sculpture, or architecture, either.

Leonardo Da Vince actually wrote a treatise on why painting should be considered a valid art form. He argued that if poetry is considered art, and poetry is appreciated through the ear, then painting should be considered art, since the eye is a superior organ to the ear. Most folks he said, would prefer to lose their hearing over losing their sight.

Second, what was Cartier-Bresson doing, if not taking snap shots? A snap shot being a hunting term, for a shot fired off with quick aim and reaction.

I chose my screen name here, not to proclaim myself an artist, but to proclaim one possible result of picture taking. In the end, art is in the eye of the beholder.

artonpaper, aka Doug Schwab

 

[removed account4]

why is anything considered more than it is ?

i have a collection of "snap shots" in a photo album i bought
years ago. they were all taken with a in the 1920s.
i am sure at the time they were "snapshots" just photographs taken quickly to
record the time and place, or a gathering of friends ...
but now, many years later so much more can be read into them, and i find
them to be far more "artful" than most photography that is considered "art" ...

in a way it is tomayto / tomahto

 

[Jim Jones]

One thing that makes a snapshot become art to some photographers is the presence of an admiring viewer or a potential buyer with money.

 

[nhemann]

"art in the eye of the beholder" - I think I'd rather say that its in the eye of the creator and up to the viewer to decide if he/she agrees. My thought being that from either end of that equation, it allows for an arrogance by the artist to declare "Its Art - deal with it" - or a belittling disregard by the viewer of the creator's vision and thought process. Its the application of a mind to something that imbues an object with "arty-ness". In the example above - "My Bed" is clearly art because everything in that piece is there because of a reason and a desire to tell the viewer something more about, in this case, her life; "my bed" or "your bed" is also just as clearly not art because of the lack of thought in it. Though if you hauled it out on the street corner and invited people to analyze your life based upon what you randomly dropped and used then voila! - you just created a piece - through the application of mind to things.

What about randomness? is it art if I just run around and take picutures at will? I've played with this and enede up with interesting things - it might not be successful art, others might do it better than I did, but the choice to use randomness as a tool was a decision I made, involved me thinking about it and is in the end still art to me.

I love these threads not only for the opportunity to see others thoughts but also to help solidify my own by forcing me to work them out in my head....I hope this one goes on for while...

 

[guitstik]

"Art" is subjective and is totally independent to the individual either creating or experiencing it. I like free form jazz and Jackson Pollock where as most people can't stand either one. When I was in Art School I went trough my JP phase and did a series of painting in his style. As I was creating I felt an extreme pleasure from the simple fact of applying paint, gesso, plaster of paris and what ever else came within my grasp. It felt as if I was giving birth to something and I did not know if it was "good" or "bad" but it was extremely emotional to me and that is what I was trying to convey in those pieces. When it came time to show my "art" there were some that could feel what I had put into them and those that thought they were crap. When looking at a photograph it is a good idea to try and break it down into what the photographer was "seeing". Vincent went about this the right way, I usually try to identify my first response to a photo and then I break it down. The first thing I felt from this particular photo was a sense of being off balance and tension. There really is no main subject in it and the strongest point of focus for me are the two squares up front and all of the lines that seem to zigzag through the picture up to the power lines. I personally am not really impressed with this picture but I at least put an effort into trying to understand what the photographer was trying to depict and that is all that most artist ask.

 

[Steve Smith]

Almost all arts are also crafts in varying ratios.

Painting the window frames of my house is pure craft with no art involved. Using a chisel to cut a concrete block to length whilst building a wall is also just a craft without art.

Likewise, using a camera to copy an old negative or print is also purely craft.

However, all of these processes can be used as art (the making of it) to produce art (the actual thing).



Steve.

 

[CGW]

I have been looking at a few images from Stephen Shore over the last few days. My wife was peaking over my shoulder this morning and comment "What makes these special? Aren't they just snapshots?" She was commenting on his shot US93, Kingman AZ - http://www.jacksonfineart.com/private_artist.php?id=53&imageid=154

I have to admit, that his did start my own questioning on what is art and what is a snapshot? While I actually enjoy Shore's work (I like images that you must explore and not simply just look at), I do see my wifes point.

So, who decides that imagery like this is art? Does it come down to the effort put in? Does it come down to the strength of previous work? Or are we like sheep - I.E., if someone says it's good we all then think it must be good? (I believe he had connections with Warhol)

Just some random thoughts

Cheers

Does it sell? Does it appreciate?

Art without commerce is just a hobby.

Or in this case, just a snapshot.

That's the awful truth.

 

[bwrules]

Shore's work is largely straight documentation in the vein of Walker Evans. Nothing wrong with straight documents being artwork.

 

[rphenning]

It's all pretty subjective, and trust me when I say I love me some Stephen Shore, but those photos are just meh. Snapshot is a good word for them. Art vs. snapshot is totally based on the observer's perception, I think. Can't win them all.

 

[lns]

Ugh, these sorts of discussion always end up in someone saying "my kid could do that." Usually pointing to a Pollock.

It would be hard to fairly judge Stephen Shore by clicking the link in the original post. That gallery isn't a dealer of Stephen Shore. Those scans are awful. Really, there are much, much better examples of his work available all over.

Isn't it more profitable to look at his most celebrated work, easily available in book form at Amazon or your favorite library? To try to figure out what the artist is trying to show with his work, and how he does it? Looking at his work in person would be even better, and odds are your favorite museum will have a piece.

Not every artist is every viewer's cup of tea of course. I am entirely uninterested in Ansel Adams's work. That doesn't mean I'd say Adams isn't an artist but a mere shooter of postcard images. To the contrary, I can see why others appreciate his work. And as for Shore, whether you like him or not, he is a major artist of American photography. Along with Eggleston and a few others he practically invented color art photography in the 1970s. He's also a respected teacher and writer about photography. One of the things he did, speaking generally, was to document an ordinary middle class experience like a road trip using a large format camera and color film, at a time when color film wasn't considered a material for artists, and diaristic photos of ordinary life weren't considered a subject matter for artists. I'm sure he got a lot of the "snapshot" comments. He was probably courting that particular criticism and turning it on its head. But his work showed that such snobbery was out of place.

-Laura

 

[epatsellis]

This is such an interesting question. When I was in grad school, I'd put up my photos in a critique class led by William T. Williams, a well known abstract painter, and every week he'd ask me, "So why is this art?"

Eventually I said what the surrealists and dada-ists said, "Because I say it is." He bought that, but I wasn't completely comfortable with that answer. I kept thinking, and researched further and eventually wrote an article for a local art publication called, "Photography, Is it Art?"

In the interest of brevity, here are a couple things I touched on. First, the original practices that were considered art, say, during the Renaissance, DID NOT INCLUDE PAINTING! Painting was considered a manual craft. The arts were such things as poetry, music, dance, comedy, tragedy, geometry, and astrology. No sculpture, or architecture, either.

Leonardo Da Vince actually wrote a treatise on why painting should be considered a valid art form. He argued that if poetry is considered art, and poetry is appreciated through the ear, then painting should be considered art, since the eye is a superior organ to the ear. Most folks he said, would prefer to lose their hearing over losing their sight.

Second, what was Cartier-Bresson doing, if not taking snap shots? A snap shot being a hunting term, for a shot fired off with quick aim and reaction.

I chose my screen name here, not to proclaim myself an artist, but to proclaim one possible result of picture taking. In the end, art is in the eye of the beholder.

artonpaper, aka Doug Schwab

I recently had a portfolio review, and the only critique (other than quantity of work, they expect you to have tons of crap instead of a few dozen thought out, well printed compositions. Don't get me started on the politics of academia) came from the painting professor, asking me if I am able to previsualize, a la Zone System, and famliar enough with the materials to know what I'm going to get, then he doesn't consider it art, period. The only reply I could even come up with was "Stieglitz, Photo Secessionists, early 20th century. Photography as an art form has already been established over 100 years ago, do you really want to rehash that entire episode?"

Needless to say, I wasn't accepted into the vaulted BFA program, solely based on the quantity of work, not the quality. While told I could reapply, I'm perfectly happy with a BA. Frankly, if the school values 100 banal images over a handful of well composed and printed ones, I'm not losing sleep over it.

So, what the hell is it with painters? They seem to think they have a lock on "art" and every other medium is somehow inferior.

 

[Sparky]

IN DEFENSE OF SHORE AND THE NEW COLOR PHOTOGRAPHERS OF THE 1970'S

Ugh, these sorts of discussion always end up in someone saying "my kid could do that." Usually pointing to a Pollock.

-Laura

Actually that's relevant to what I want to say - and I'd like to start off with a joke here:

Q: what's the difference between modernism and post-modernism?
A: with modernism you say 'my six year old can do that' and with postmodernism you'd say 'my twenty six year old can do that."

If you look a little more deeply into the joke - the idea is that people tend to be biased solely on the outward appearance of things. By the same line of reasoning appearing frequently in this thread, a rather bland 18th century portrait by a court painter would be far superior to any picasso or franz kline or what-have you.

When you bring up Shore specifically - it's impossible to judge the work (or at the very least ignorant) without understanding the context of the work. Shore (and Eggleston and many others) at the time were trying to question the primacy of the 'fine art' photograph. And yes, they were making reference specifically to the snapshot (much of this sort of exploration came, in my opinion, out of the dialogues susan sontag brought up in 'on photography' - still one of the most profound and meaty works ever written on the subject). In essence, you could say, they were trying to be enfants-terrible (bad boys) by trying to de-legitimize prior photographic masterpieces in a very tongue-in-cheek kind of way.

But I knew this discussion would come up again in the internet age... one of the main problems (and a problem germaine to the aims of this web site) is people viewing images in a web browser in low resolution. I doubt very much that Shore's detractors would feel the same way when seeing his work in person (owing mostly to much of it being shot on 8x10 in the form of large colour prints, a completely novel thing for the time). They are VERY clearly images that have been very skillfully crafted and very carefully considered.

But this is the nature of this kind of work. Like Richard Prince, those blazing new ironic territory frequently are derided, especially far in retrospect. Without having knowledge of the photography museum circuit at the time, it is quite impossible to know what you're looking at, especially when the work is making reference to that milieu specifically.

 

[Sparky]

Here's another relevant and maybe more pointed discussion... http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=25504

 

[Hikari]

I guess it all depends if it was captured with silver or silicon...

 

[hoffy]

Wow!

I go to bed and wake up to read this!

An awesome balanced set of responses!

Firstly, I have to apologise about the original linked image. It is not of the best quality, but it was the only online version I could find when I started the thread.

I would like to address some of the replies:

Well now, wait a minute...

I'm no artist, but I've bummed around art museums a lot...here's what I see:

Starting at the bottom of the photograph we have three small rectangles laid on two larger squares of different tones--somewhat like modern artists do to introduce tension...

That fence is angled across the frame, adding a little uneaseiness (he could have repositioned himself to get it flat, but chose not to).

The road to the right leads the eye to that prominent structure (signs?) in the town; a town which is laid out on one plane and which the eye absorbs in one sweep. There's almost nothing to keep the eye from sliding out of the right side of the frame.

The mountains are jagged. He couldn't alter that. But it does add tension; it does argue with the expanse of flat-toned sky above it.

And look at the wires on top. A snapshooter might have repositioned to eliminate them, and a lesser photographer might have cropped them out, but there they are, angled across the image, interfering with the sky space. And if you eye picks up both the fence and the wires at the right side of the composition, your brain might say they will meet sometime in the distance (or future).

I like it. It's ominous. It's desolate. I feel a chill.

I like how you have described what you see. When I saw this one hanging at the exhibition I saw it at, I found myself continually going back to it. While in the outset I went "Why?" I admit the question of Why made me look a bit deeper to see if I could understand why. It must have had some form of profound effect, as it made me look it up and start this thread!

This is true. Outside of these scientific applications (another example would be speed cameras), all photography involves some sort of thought into how it is to be created. I see that thought process as the definition of art.

How do you get that thought process across? How do you get that thought process accepted as art? Does it become accepted art when someone else sees it the same way?

In my head the one aspect that distinguishes "snapshots" from "art" is the amount of thought and planning that is happening before the shutter gets pulled. I think we can all agree that nobody drags out an 8x10 around and goes around willy-nilly burning through film. Whether it is good or bad is an entirely different arguement. You may not agree with it, you may not like it but there is no denying that some significant thought took place with regards to why that particular door frame, particular stop light was included or excluded from the frame. Even in my own work, I never just put the camera to my face and snap, I think about it - any of us that care about what we do will -unless your entire concept was to not think about it - but Oops! you just did. lol

Also, I think its especially important to not isolate one photo and view it as an solitary piece, but rather understand the overall concept that the artist/photographer was exploring and how that photo fits into it. I'm not terribly familiar with this particular series but I would be willing to bet my paycheck that Stephen had a very distinct idea that he was going after.

Finally, I went through this very discussion ("why is this art") myself with Stephen's work a few years back -though with a differnt set of images. I remember being distinctly annoyed that he was famous for this? But after reading more into his work - working in color (Gasp!) and very consciously working with "non-artistic" subjects and just in general bucking tradition. I soon found myself viewing parking lots and gas stations and other distinctly plain things in a completely different way. I don't like all of his work but I have an enormous amount of respect for what he did and what it has done to me as a "see-er." I think if any artist, regardless of media, can get you to change the way you look at or think about something, then the effort was enormously successful.

Sorry if thats long - I love to discuss these philosophy of art issues

No, long is good! Would it be any less art, though, if it was a handheld shot with a 35mm? Possibly not. I do agree, though, that it needs to be taken in context. I was possibly being unfair by singling out this one shot, as when you look at it as a group, it makes much more sense.

What Makes it Art? I've always thought "Critics" or " Community Acceptance". Controversy could also play a part which is being proven here. The quality of tool used should be moot, it only affects the resolution of subject matter.

I have been watching this forum for a long time and only recently joined and I find some hypocracy to those who shoot film then scan and print the negative. Is this analog simply because you use a film camera then digitally finish the process? and tell me honestly you never digitally manipulated a print beyond that which you can reproduce in a darkroom? I looked at Shore's photo's and find them quite interesting.
For those on the forum who apparently and simply like to argue, I await the incoming volley of arrows, but don't expect me to engage.

I know you won't engage, but I fail to see how the second part of your comment has anything to do with the context of the image and discussion. Just because an image has been 'digitized' doesn't make it any less art (didn't Ansell Adams say in an interview shortly before his death that he was excited about digital capture?)

It may well be that as you develop as a photographer, and the more in depth you look at the history and advancement of photography then you may well understand why the Stephen Shore images have an importance, to call these images snapshots,whilst being fully entitled to your own opinion, might well run the risk of appearing a touch ill informed . It might help put the work in context to look at his book uncommon places, then move on to new topographics , the Dusseldorf school of photography, and William Eggleston . To simply decry work that you might not fully understand could be best described as unfortunate.

Again, an excellent view. It is because of these reasons I asked these questions. I am trying to understand why.

Thanks for the responses everyone! I don't expect my wife to understand as she is simply not into photography in this way, but the responses have certainly help me understand. Whether it is a snapshot or not (I think we have established that Shore has put a certain amount of thought and effort in the shot), it has made me look just that bit deeper and maybe try to understand where ANY specific photo comes from.

Cheers

 

[hoffy]

...................................
But I knew this discussion would come up again in the internet age... one of the main problems (and a problem germaine to the aims of this web site) is people viewing images in a web browser in low resolution. I doubt very much that Shore's detractors would feel the same way when seeing his work in person (owing mostly to much of it being shot on 8x10 in the form of large colour prints, a completely novel thing for the time). They are VERY clearly images that have been very skillfully crafted and very carefully considered.
...............................

Just to respond to this and to put it into context, I have just seen this image as part of an exhibition (American Dreams, an exhibition from the George Eastman House, currently on display at the Ballaratt Art Gallery in Australia). There were 4 other Shore image on display.

 

[tkamiya]

It may well be that as you develop as a photographer, and the more in depth you look at the history and advancement of photography then you may well understand why the Stephen Shore images have an importance.

I'm very much interested in hearing what you know about the work in reference. Obviously, you are going by more than mere visual appeal of the photograph. In your opinion, what makes these photographs work of art?

 

[2F/2F]

Art is made by an artist. Define artist first, IMO. Beyond that, who really cares? I.e. defining it is pretty pointless. Galleries will show pretty much anything these days. And I think that is a good thing, over all.

Check out "American Surfaces" for some context as to why his "snapshot" work has been considered art by many. Use any technique and tie the images together conceptually in a related series, and you are probably making art. Snapshooting is just one of the techniques used to make that art.

This book also came out at an important time for fine art photography. Consider it an assault on the status quo of fine art gallery elitism at the time – the "anti-Adams" philosophy, you might say – the proverbial turd in the punchbowl of the fine art world. Another such example would be the Starn brothers, a bit later. Robert Frank and Lee Friedlander were seen similarly earlier – not technically sound or fit for inclusion in the art world. But they made their places in the editorial world and kept plugging until things eased up. Now they are viewed as great artists, and their work is seen as some of the most classic photography made.

It is also of note that most of Shore's work was very technically competent, and he was making it at a time when color photography was an outsider medium in the fine art world. If something he did looks like a snapshot, there was a reason behind it. It doesn't mean it is good, or that it is great and relevant art, but it was definitely done with his full intent, with some sort of concept behind it.

 

[Maris]

So, who decides that imagery like this is art? Does it come down to the effort put in? Does it come down to the strength of previous work? Or are we like sheep - I.E., if someone says it's good we all then think it must be good?

Art is valorised by discourse. Volorisation is the process whereby something with no inherent worth accumulates value. In the case of art photographs the discourse that counts is generated by critics, collectors, promoters, exhibitions, and publications. Stephen Shore's work is supported by an enduring scholarly concensus that it is worthy of respect. And that is the problem.

In my time as a gallerist I noticed that "art scholars" invariably toe the general line on what is good or bad. It is impossible to graduate from art college, get a job, draw salary, enjoy promotion, or plot a career path whilst being a renegade. Artists, maybe even Stephen Shore, know this and expect that once they have made a name in the art world they can get away with virtually anything. In too many cases it comes down to pretenders to accomplishment being lionised by pretenders to scholarship. If the first pretence is discovered the second is revealed as well. Recriminations follow particularly from collectors who paid high prices for schlock.

There is no doubt that Stephen Shore's photographs are art. They are earnestly done at a high technical level. But I reckon they are also thoroughly bad art; assuming there is such a thing.