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

[David Hatton]

Just a thought..If an image derives it's value as Art from it's context, i.e. the series, then shouldn't it also stand alone. I'm wondering about the scenario of purchasing and displaying a single image. How do I explain/understand the Art if the other members of the series are missing. Also, does the series lose it's value as Art if a single image is removed?
I know what I mean (I think:?)

 

[jovo]

... does the series lose it's value as Art if a single image is removed?
I know what I mean (I think:?)

Check out the prices of individual cels from animated films. From the right film, the prices are pretty high I think.

 

[benjiboy]

Apparently if the exposures are made on a 10"X8" camera it's considered to be art.

 

[Moopheus]

I see no real difference between a photo as 'art' and one as a 'snapshot'. It's a false dichotomy.

I also am okay with a snapshot being art. Sometimes pictures are good and/or interesting for various reasons, and sometimes they aren't, and it doesn't always matter who took them or why. Being art doesn't make it good; art can be bad (I say this as a frequent visitor to the Museum of Bad Art). Also, these particular photos, in my nonexpert opinion, are hardly Shore's best work, from what I have seen of it. All artists, no matter how talented, will produce inconsistently. Not everything will be great, some will be, shall we say, minor work. Some artists are better at hiding their minor work, but well-known artists can sell their minor work for money, so sometimes they do.

 

[jovo]

Maybe the discussion needs to move away from what art is or isn't to what adjectives each of us attributes to a given work or series. Words like boring, trite, derivative, sloppy, vivid, compelling, gorgeous, piquant, moving, evocative, finely crafted, poorly made, and on and on. There will never be a consensus about what art is with a capital "A", but we all have formed opinions, or are in the process of doing so, about most of what we encounter.

 

[Moopheus]

This is partly why "Art" is so hard to define--the attributes we associate with art don't apply uniformly to all art. And, of course, reactions to art can be very subjective. We can be moved by one thing, find another weird and surreal, appreciate the third for its technical sophistication, another for its total lack thereof, find one thing funny, another deadly serious, and so on and so forth.

 

[bwrules]

Every time I trip the shutter of a film camera I am intending to make art, but still most of what I produce I reject as no better than a snapshot.

True for most photographers that are striving to produce something worthwhile.

I regularly go through the negatives and throw most stuff out. When I manage to have shot something good, I put that strip into a 'special' negs box. A side benefit is it's easier to organize and manage them. At one point I thought I should save crappy stuff for historic perspective (a few years from now maybe it would be interesting to see how people look, etc.), but then there is flickr and such for that.

 

[2F/2F]

Snapshooting is a technique used for making art in this case. The technique itself does not determine whether it is art or not.

I don't really think the question is: "is a snapshot art." That seems to be how at least a few people are approaching the original question. That is kind of like asking if a number 2 pencil used on paper is art. The answer is, no, it is not; it's a tool -- a technique. But it is a technique that can be used to make art.

The work itself should be judged as art or not art, not the techniques used to make it.

 

[Tony Egan]

Hey I reckon his pictures are great.

Yep

 

[Tony Egan]

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

Yes, twice. And have you read AD Coleman's review of it in his collected essays on photography, Light Readings?

 

[Eric Rose]

It's not art until some dickhead who has been anointed by those who make money reselling says it is.

 

[Sparky]

It's not art until some dickhead who has been anointed by those who make money reselling says it is.

In a way (possibly not the way that you mean) - you'd be exactly right. As unfair as it may seem it's the way of the world - well, the way of the market... there is no meritocracy. If your work as an artist is 'useful' to an individual or organization with money and influence... then it's 'art' and will be promoted as such - people will start salivating over how beautiful and remarkable and clever it is - but this is only because the PR has made you receptive to it... i know that sounds kind of cynical but that's exactly how it works. Probably more 'now' than 'back then'...

 

[benjiboy]

In a way (possibly not the way that you mean) - you'd be exactly right. As unfair as it may seem it's the way of the world - well, the way of the market... there is no meritocracy. If your work as an artist is 'useful' to an individual or organization with money and influence... then it's 'art' and will be promoted as such - people will start salivating over how beautiful and remarkable and clever it is - but this is only because the PR has made you receptive to it... i know that sounds kind of cynical but that's exactly how it works. Probably more 'now' than 'back then'...

As I wrote, the idea that photographs could be considered to be "Art"as opposed to craft has only become prevalent since WW11 promoted by photographers and galleries trying to sell their work.

 

[Sparky]

As I wrote, the idea that photographs could be considered to be "Art"as opposed to craft has only become prevalent since WW11 promoted by photographers and galleries trying to sell their work.

well it depends what you mean by 'prevalent'.. you could set that point in 1920 or you could set it in 1970... but the battle to get the photograph recognized as art has been going on since the mid 1800s - through steichen and stieglitz who fought like crazy to have the medium ordained...

 

[Eric Rose]

In a way (possibly not the way that you mean) - you'd be exactly right. As unfair as it may seem it's the way of the world - well, the way of the market... there is no meritocracy. If your work as an artist is 'useful' to an individual or organization with money and influence... then it's 'art' and will be promoted as such - people will start salivating over how beautiful and remarkable and clever it is - but this is only because the PR has made you receptive to it... i know that sounds kind of cynical but that's exactly how it works. Probably more 'now' than 'back then'...

That's exactly what I was getting at. The "dickhead" I was referring to is not the artist, but rather the limp wristed, black suited, designer glasses art pundit that prances around with their magic wand tapping those few lucky artists that will now become "acceptable" to the uneducated art buyer just looking to make a good investment. Art is a currency, just like gold, silver, and pork bellies.

I am beginning to hate the word "art". It's meaningless in todays context. In todays world I could create a series of photos featuring steaming dog shit, print them 8 feet wide and as long as some paid off expert says it's "art" the NY galleries would be falling all over themselves trying to get me do a show. I would do it too. Then as a grand finale I would take a big dump in the middle of the show floor and call it performance art. Of course my shit wouldn't stink cuz some art wanker says so. Once I get my pants pulled up the bidding would start for me to photograph this new one of a kind limited edition piece of natural sculpture. I would make only 1, therefore limited edition, 10 foot print signed by me, in blood on the reverse.

Naturally I would have to shoot this monumental photograph with film because it's the new chic, scan the neg and make a big freaking digital neg (because anything done on a computer takes superior intelligence, therefore is worth more), build some custom made enlarger that takes up an entire plane hanger, coat this 10 foot square (square because that is more "arty") with some rare metal (so we can call it an "alt" process) and let the sun (appeals to the tree huggers with money) expose this paper through a rare earth lens that will self destruct once the exposure is finished. Thus making it impossible to ever make exactly the same print again.

All bases are covered. The "art" people will make a fortune on my piece of crap and with the teeny tiny cut of the commission I get there might be enough money left to gas up the car to drive home.

Once I get home and check out the latest buzz on the net I will find out that the anointers have found a new smuck to fawn over and I have been totally forgotten. Yesterdays news. Now I can't give my shit away let alone sell it.

 

[benjiboy]

I mean prevalent in the sense that the majority of people would consider it so.

 

[jglass]

Well. That's pretty good. I understand the cynicism and it's a very real aspect of the art MARKET. However, within the art world, there is also serious exchange in the work and in the criticism about real issues around aesthetics, truth, beauty, etc., and, for me, that's what art is about. For me that's also what Stephen Shore is about. How and why is his work true and beautiful? Those are serious questions that deserve serious engagement regardless of what side you come out on because those are the questions his work was intended to raise.

The issue of how much his photos sell for is, for me, a separate issue that, indeed, can have the stench of capitalism, trenoidism, etc., about it.

 

[Eric Rose]

Well. That's pretty good. I understand the cynicism and it's a very real aspect of the art MARKET. However, within the art world, there is also serious exchange in the work and in the criticism about real issues around aesthetics, truth, beauty, etc., and, for me, that's what art is about. For me that's also what Stephen Shore is about. How and why is his work true and beautiful? Those are serious questions that deserve serious engagement regardless of what side you come out on because those are the questions his work was intended to raise.

The issue of how much his photos sell for is, for me, a separate issue that, indeed, can have the stench of capitalism, trenoidism, etc., about it.

I agree with everything you say. But talk is cheap and doesn't pay the bills if you are trying to make a living as an artist. I have been taking stuff like Stephen Shore for probably as long as he has. It's just as good technically and emotionally, spiritually but no one has knocked on my door yet to produce a NY or LA show. Sure I have had lots of shows in my home town of over 1 million people and have sold a fair number of prints everywhere but in my own home town, but what I am referring to goes beyond meager success.

 

[Steve Smith]

That's exactly what I was getting at. The "dickhead" I was referring to is not the artist, but rather the limp wristed, black suited, designer glasses art pundit that prances around with their magic wand tapping those few lucky artists that will now become "acceptable" to the uneducated art buyer just looking to make a good investment.

I know who you mean: http://www.saatchionline.com/


Steve.

 

[Eric Rose]

Check this out: http://williampowhida.com/wordpress/archives/1243

 

[Dinesh]

...., but rather the limp wristed, black suited, designer glasses art pundit that prances around with their magic wand .

That's a tad offside.

 

[Eric Rose]

The key to becoming a financially successful artist, and by that I mean well known and collected, is network connections. Shore hung out with Andy Warhol as a teenager in the Factory. Through Warhol he met John Szarkowski, the director of photography at the MOMA in NYC. He showed Szarkowski his photographs and discussed his project in the early stages and developed a relationship with him, so when the project was done, Szarkowski felt it was developed enough and artistically important enough in the times for exhibition.

A lot of artists meet the last two points in their work, but they do not know the right people. I am trying to correct that in my own career. I make good work that gets shown a lot in smaller venues like juried shows and universities, but for major exhibitions and museum, I don't know anyone. They mostly work off of recommendations by curators they know. If other curators don't know you, then they aren't going to recommend you to the larger places.

Do I agree with this system? No, but I have to learn to play the game by the rules if I want the career. Bitching about it on a hobby forum doesn't change the system.

Ya I know all that. Can't afford to fly down to NY every other weekend to smooze the right people. Bitching is so therapeutic though. Don't take what I say seriously, ever. I post for my own amusement and nothing more.

 

[Eric Rose]

..

 

[Sparky]

Don't be bitter people... did you think it was a meritocracy or something?? that's one of the biggest tragic myths out there - like the american dream... it's not 'how good you are' but who you know and whose palms you're greasing ultimately that matters the most. It's just a fact of life. Art is art and the gallery system/art market is a completely separate entity... yes- i wish it weren't that way...

 

[removed account4]

you and greg said it ..
a lot of it is connections, like everything else in life.