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

[Sparky]

This is the post in this thread that nails it specifically. It is what I tried to say, but much better stated.

Thanks... I was kind of trying to distill the real 'issue' as best I could - though I'm sure it will fall on many deaf ears... as that's sort of part of the problem...

 

[Sparky]

I think one of the basic problems here is (perhaps due to experience, or simple superficiality) the idea that a photographic (or 'artistic) image should be necessarily 'graphically attractive' or 'unchallenging'. This makes good wallpaper or corporate advertisements but does not help the value of the medium of photography as powerful or meaningful - as Diane Arbus and many others before and after her have shown us...

 

[CGW]

Ambiguity and nuance makes some people uncomfortable. The "art"/"not-art" distinction is like a simple on/off switch for some people here but they're missing more than they know. It's their loss.

 

[puptent]

A never ending argument. What is art? If my floor is your ceiling, if your trash is my treasure, if a soup can can be a masterpiece; then why can't an image that uses The Snapshot as paradigm be artistic? Is there an attempt at expression or communication in Shore's work? Certainly! Is it effective for EVERY viewer? Certainly not. Every departure from the accepted norm starts this argument. The Ash Can school, The Abstract Expressionists, Minimalists, etc., etc., have had it said of them, "They might have technique, but it's not Art." Would I collect Shore? Probably not. But can I appreciate what it is he is trying to do with his image making? Sometimes I think we get mixed up with commercial success, technological mastery, marketing, and appreciation, and are left with only what we "like" or "don't like," and all too often that really is just keeping our own sacred ox from getting gored. If nothing else, Shore's images do at LEAST what a "snap-shot" does, and that is to capture an instant in time from a point of view. If they do MORE, then yes, I think that would be art. This would have been a much shorter thread if the question had been: WHO is Art?

 

[MattKing]

Two thoughts on this:

1) with respect to the images from Shore that are referenced, it seems they were intended to be considered as part of a group of images, so it probably is best to ask instead "What makes these art"?;
2) work can be created with the intention that it be considered as art, but I think in general, if there is some doubt, that the question should normally be asked after the fact, and should be closer to "should these works be evaluated as art?".

 

[ME Super]

20+ years ago, when I was in high school, my art teacher told me that drawing is learning to see. I didn't understand then, and am only beginning to understand now. But if someone, anyone, is moved by a work (be it a "snapshot" or "art") then the creator has created a work of art.

Learning photography is also "learning to see." See what works, what doesn't, and learning how to get the results you visualize. In that sense, we are all artists. Some of us are "snapshot" artists, others are "artist" artists. The latter simply have a wider appeal than the former, IMHO.

 

[Mark Minard]

What makes it art? Politics.

 

[perkeleellinen]

The issue is that 'art' has been monopolised by a small group of professionals based around the impenetrable world of galleries and museums. This tends to generate a range of reactions in those outside that world from bewilderment (you call that art?) and ridicule (he calls himself an artist!) to awe (that's what I call art) and undervaluing (I'm no artist). I prefer a broader approach that encompasses all creative thought as it eliminates the 'is it? Isn't it?' argument - it's all art and we all do it.

 

[markbarendt]

The issue is not whether something is worthy of any one individual's attention. That attention does not make something "art." As you say, anyone can decide for him or herself what interests him or her. The question in the thread is what makes the seemingly mundane or non-aesthetic "art." The very fact that these pictures seem unworthy of attention is part of the artistic concept behind why they were made and presented the way they were.

Take another look at the point in Sparky's post:

I think part of issue here is the shelf life.

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.

Sparky's argument is one of history and politics in the for profit "art" world.

The shelf life of most political arguments and ad campaigns are short, as is the shelf life of the posters and banners made to support them, Shore's work in Sparky's context qualifies as a poster in this historical context.

Society moves on and those posters/ads for the cause lose there context and become irrelevant.

They and their context are worth study as history of how the business of art and/or politics works, if those subjects affect your life.

Are they worth study or attention to put on my wall or influence my style as "art"????

 

[Whiteymorange]

What I tell my art students is simple: "If I put it up and ask you to look at it as art, it is art.... but that doesn't make it good art."

The other thing that is important when evaluating the "worthiness" of art photography, or any art, is the vision of the artist evident in a body of work, not necessarily in one piece. Many very fine photographs are only evident as artistically interesting because they are part of a body of work that ends up being more than a sum of the parts.

 

[guitstik]

Boy. What a slog to get to the end of this thread. My thoughts on this are very simple.

Do you have an MFA?

If you answer "yes,' then whatever you do is Art. (That's with a capital "A.")

If you answer "no," then it's a snapshot.

Kind of like what Maris said, only less eloquently.

Could you get anymore closed minded and cliquish than this? If this is the criteria set to determine who is or is not an artist then we need to get rid of Weston, Adams, Stieglitz, Steichen and about 90% of the photographers through out history.
I postulate that the only true people to decide what is or is not art is a parent. If you have never had a 4 year old show you his/her finger painting or playdoh figure you are not suitable to judge another. The best art gallery is the family refrigerator with all the art work hung on it. Think about it, at it simplest, the beaming face of a young child that has "created" a master piece for mom is what art is.
Art is about passion and creation for the pure pleasure of it the financial compensation is secondary. Adams approached Stieglitz with what he felt were his finest works with the same trepidation that a child would to a parent. His motive was not financial but validation from someone he felt was worthy of his respect and he wanted that same in return.
What of your own work? Who is the first person or group of people you show to? Are they going to increase your bank account or feed your ego?

 

[CGW]

Curious if anyone here ever read Susan Sontag's "On Photography."

 

[Steve Smith]

Could you get anymore closed minded and cliquish than this?

I had assumed that Joe's comment was not to be taken seriously.


Steve.

 

[2F/2F]

Sparky's argument is one of history and politics in the for profit "art" world.

Sparky's argument answers the question, which most other posters are not even trying to do.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I'm by far, not an art expert and won't even try to define for everybody what art is. But for me, it's any object created that helps me for a little while, leave my daily existence and enter another realm. When I come back, I go back to my daily life with a broadened perspective. There's a genre of art called vernacular photography.
http://www.thefoundphoto.com/

 

[CGW]

...the for profit "art" world.

Is there any other kind of "art" world?!

 

[pbromaghin]

Just because it's art, doesn't mean you have to like it.

 

[jovo]

I like this quotation a lot:

"A serious photograph not only sets itself apart from all other moments but also captures the particularity of its subject—a face, landscape, tree, store front, tool, cigarette butt, pattern of ice crystals—while at the same time revealing its universality. Again, that is what art does—what art demands and requires. Without particularity a photograph is but a meaningless generality. A photograph of a non-descript parking lot that could be anywhere in urban America, whether that photograph is eight feet by eight feet and hanging at MOMA or four inches by four inches in an automotive magazine, is exactly the same thing—a trite generality. The photograph that captures the particularity of its subject stops us because it lies outside the daily barrage of trite and general images we are bombarded with. It holds us because it is like no other moment. It holds us because it has seized its subject as it has never before been seized. " John Wood, 21st Editions

What is obviously significant about the new topographics photographers and those they've influenced is that they actually create images that ordinary folk wouldn't because they're so bland, non specific and forgettable. That makes them "art" for the same reason that Jean-Michel Basquiat is regarded as an artist although he demonstrated absolutely no evidence of painting skill or discipline. They've made something not seen before, and thus engaging to those who find no stimulation in derivative work.

And one thing more that I also like to quote from the painter and ASL teacher of painting, James L. McElhennie:

"Art has gotten a bad name as the realm of unctuous charlatans, greedy dealers and their glamortrash clientele--the hang of smartypants fish-wrapper scribblers and toot-brained mummies who dress like Johnny Cash. As cartoon-like as it seems..., the fashionable art world constitutes a tiny fraction of the comprehensive art world, but it has plenty of money behind it."

 

[CGW]

I like this quotation a lot:

"A serious photograph not only sets itself apart from all other moments but also captures the particularity of its subject—a face, landscape, tree, store front, tool, cigarette butt, pattern of ice crystals—while at the same time revealing its universality. Again, that is what art does—what art demands and requires. Without particularity a photograph is but a meaningless generality. A photograph of a non-descript parking lot that could be anywhere in urban America, whether that photograph is eight feet by eight feet and hanging at MOMA or four inches by four inches in an automotive magazine, is exactly the same thing—a trite generality. The photograph that captures the particularity of its subject stops us because it lies outside the daily barrage of trite and general images we are bombarded with. It holds us because it is like no other moment. It holds us because it has seized its subject as it has never before been seized. " John Wood, 21st Editions

What is obviously significant about the new topographics photographers and those they've influenced is that they actually create images that ordinary folk wouldn't because they're so bland, non specific and forgettable. That makes them "art" for the same reason that Jean-Michel Basquiat is regarded as an artist although he demonstrated absolutely no evidence of painting skill or discipline. They've made something not seen before, and thus engaging to those who find no stimulation in derivative work.

And one thing more that I also like to quote from the painter and ASL teacher of painting, James L. McElhennie:

"Art has gotten a bad name as the realm of unctuous charlatans, greedy dealers and their glamortrash clientele--the hang of smartypants fish-wrapper scribblers and toot-brained mummies who dress like Johnny Cash. As cartoon-like as it seems..., the fashionable art world constitutes a tiny fraction of the comprehensive art world, but it has plenty of money behind it."

Why "quote and run"? What sense do you make of these comments? I'd like to know who qualifies(and how)to render a "trite generality" verdict on an image?

Today's NYT article on Jeffrey Deitch is a useful look-in on how outlaw/outsider art can become legit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/24/fashion/24DEITCH.html?_r=1&hpw

 

[markbarendt]

...the for profit "art" world.

Is there any other kind of "art" world?!

Can one be considered a photographer if one does not get paid regularly for photography?

Was Picaso an artist before he sold any work?

It is my opinion that commercial/for-profit art is a specialty within the art world. It does require some proficiency in the art in question, but what is actually even more required is proficiency in BS; "B"usiness and "S"ales if you get my drift.

I know many very talented people with incredible skills within their individual artistic realms who simply choose not to be involved in the "BS" specialty within the art world. They just share their works with friends, peers, their community, their family; without any expectation of compensation.

I am not trying to disparage those who are good at "BS", those who choose that specialty within "art" or other "skill set" as a vocation, heck I rank as a reasonable practioner within the "BS" specialty having supported my family nicely for twenty-five years with "BS".

Just because I can make a living with "BS" doesn't mean the quality of my work is any better than a snapshot, it just means my clients like my "BS".

 

[jovo]

Why "quote and run"? What sense do you make of these comments? I'd like to know who qualifies(and how)to render a "trite generality" verdict on an image?

John Wood, as publisher of 21st Editions is, like Brooks Jensen of LensWork, a person who views a lot more photographs than most people do, and at a high enough resolution, or as actual prints to publish his considered opinion. Here's a link to the complete essay: http://21steditions.wordpress.com/2...y-so-much-contemporary-photography-is-boring/

As for my own opinion, I'm really in flux about this topic having started out with a decidedly negative view, to feeling much more inclined to be open to this kind of work. The point of what I wrote between quotations is that I'm beginning to get bored sick of endless reiterations of Adams/Weston/Kenna et al. (which pretty much summarizes what my own work derives from) and am willing to give a very different approach a good long look. I've read and reread Robert Adams' book "On Beauty in Photography", and am earnestly trying to understand if not yet embrace a very different aesthetic.

 

[Benjamin Lewando]

I try not to let fear of making work that may inspire ridicule influence what I do.
I feel that lasting conviction and devotion to the most ridiculous artistic endeavor empowers the would be artist with license to make whatever they please with impunity.
I'm not sure if I would consider ten pages of discussion about SOME of my work punishment or ridicule, but it's use as example of the possible false representation of photography as art might feel a bit like ridicule.
Without projecting my thought process on shores working continuity, I do often feel a functional failure in the hanging of one or two (of my) photographs in a gallery without their familial context to carry their intention.
Just as the scientists observation of phenomena becomes an influential part of that phenomena; my, and our dogmas and opinions become an influential part of art, and even of an artist whose work is being scrutinized.
Regarding the snapshot comparison, I'm a big fan of the magazine published, snapshot like photography that proliferated in Japan in the 60s and '70s.


.

 

[limnides]

Curious if anyone here ever read Susan Sontag's "On Photography."

It's on my list of absolute must-reads, but every time I take a trip to the library there are no copies available. I'm starting to think that I'm better off just buying it.


I was going to respond to this thread when it was still on page one, but I hesitated and ended up closing the window without posting. I have a nasty habit of doing that, and considering this is a forum and the entire purpose is conversation, well, anyway... I'm digressing a bit too much.

Now that I've read through all ten pages, I wish I remembered exactly what it was I had written. I'm finding it hard to rewrite while considering new posts, and doing so without it sounding rushed.

When I first viewed his work I didn't realise who it was I was looking at. I found the images to be eerie in composition - the washed out tones lent well to a feeling of saddened nostalgia. Once curiosity got the better of me and I Wiki'd the artist and read a bit about him, I understood the images a bit better - something I find is required a lot of the time when it comes to the conceptual.

If it were just a snapshot, I don't believe there could be a explanation involved - I think this is where it's being separated. The art is definitely in the crafted imagery of the final product, but it's also inside the reasoning and something that needs to be taken into account. When you're viewing the image of the empty highway you're also viewing the artist's reason behind it - it's meant to be a part of the image, not an addendum.

I really want to include this, but I can't cite my sources and I'm not sure enough whether this was a 60s or 70s reaction - but I do know that colour photography was something that you just didn't see in the gallery space. If I'm not wrong - he was probably one of the first to pioneer colour as a serious medium, in which case goes further to explain his success with these images.

It probably helped that he knew Warhol, too. but that's a whole 'nother story.

 

[nolanr66]

Two guys standing around taking pictures with identical gear. One guy is shooting art and the other snapshots. The difference is in their personality. One guy is a legend in his own mind and the other guy is just out taking some pictures.

 

[Sparky]

Okay Mark - well I guess I'd have to ask you what topic of discussion exists outside a historic or cultural context of ANY kind? I don't wish to pick any fights here but simply saying that argument is limited because it refers to a limited context isn't useful - or worse - it's using a tautology to defend one's point of view. The point I was making DOES refer to the context in which the photograph was made - I can see no more relevant way of exploring a given situation. By ignoring the context we end up back at square one. That's the point. Consider the context. Yes. the 'Art world' or the world of educated opinion. That's the context in which it was made and to which it refers. Just like much of the work by 'some fine art photographers' as we call them might be meaningless and valueless without the existence of ansel adams, or edward weston, or Wyn Bullock or what-have-you. Nothing exists in a vacuum.

I am not personally a FAN of Mr. Shore's - but I do defend his right to make the kinds of photographs that interest him. As we all must. The only alternative to this would be fascism - to dictate the kind of subject matter one can and can't explore... I would suggest you read Szarkowski's introduction to the MOMA book 'The New Color Photography' to get a grasp on what these people were attempting... and go from there...

I think part of issue here is the shelf life.



Sparky's argument is one of history and politics in the for profit "art" world.

The shelf life of most political arguments and ad campaigns are short, as is the shelf life of the posters and banners made to support them, Shore's work in Sparky's context qualifies as a poster in this historical context.

Society moves on and those posters/ads for the cause lose there context and become irrelevant.

They and their context are worth study as history of how the business of art and/or politics works, if those subjects affect your life.

Are they worth study or attention to put on my wall or influence my style as "art"????