Who needs art today?

[JBrunner]

Suzanne, I don't think the sentiment that art is junk bears much examination.

But I truly *DO* believe that art is the same thing as navel gazing. Art is a medium of critical self reflection, pure and simple.

Not me, it's just something I do. I don't put a lot of thought, hand wringing, evaluating (self or otherwise) or introspection into it. I just do what comes to mind.

 

[keithwms]

But further critical thinking on your question makes me wonder; if the observers weren't there, would the artist still do the work?

As I wrote above, "fine" art as I know it is fundamentally a communicative/linguistic act.

But this does not mean that the art will communicate to anyone, nor that any specific viewer is intended, nor that there even needs to be an observer at all. Art can be fulfilling in an introspective way too.

This reminds me of a lovely thought in "Zen in the Art of Archery," which is of course the little book that Minor White famously asked his students read. The author writes that, as an untrained novice, he first thought that archery was all about hitting a target. He later discovers that the target really was himself. This requires some contemplation! I think you will find that this lesson extends very well to photography.

(Incidentally, this isn't the main point in the book, in my opinion. The main point is that these things must be discovered through one's own thinking and experience; that's the "zen" part. And I believe that was what White was all about, and why he found so much value in the book.)

 

[RalphLambrecht]

... She won many regional awards at shows, and she had quite a number of people beg pictures from her. And she gave quite a few paintings to family and friends. And she had more than one regional write up in news papers. Locally she was considered quite an excellent artist. You can decide if that's "successful" of not. ...

So, yes, my mother created art purely for herself, and she supported herself working in a government office...

Michael

If your mother exhibited her work and won a number of shows, she was indeed successful, but she hardly created art purely for herself. The fact that she exhibited her work proves that she sought the recognition of others. Consequently, she did not do it to purely please herself, which some people claim to be their sole motiv. In her case, she gained the apparently well-deserved recognition from the viewing public. That's a very typical reward for an artist, and short of receiving payment, often the only reward.

I seriously question people claiming that they don't require such reward.

 

[removed account4]

Who needs photographic art today, fine-art painting, sculpture, poetry, etc.? I mean new pieces of art. Who other than the artists themselves?
And at what price?

who needs art ?
i guess we all do to a certain extant.
new / old, does it matter ??

at what price ? ... minimum wage, usually.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Not me, it's just something I do. I don't put a lot of thought, hand wringing, evaluating (self or otherwise) or introspection into it. I just do what comes to mind.

Does all photography really need to be art? Can it not just be fun and hobby to some? Photography can be art, but it doesn't have to be!

 

[JBrunner]

Does all photography really need to be art? Can it not just be fun and hobby to some? Photography can be art, but it doesn't have to be!

I don't think it does, and I actually think much of it isn't, including a fair share of that which aspires to be. I know one photographer that thinks her "ART" is qualitative in direct proportion to the the amount of angst and self absorbed pretentious commentary and introspective navel gazing she gives it. I seem to bother her a great deal, and she accuses me of holding back and all sorts of other less than pleasant motives when I tell her I'm not really sure why I did something, and nor do I care enough to devote much thought to it. My thought, and what I tell her, is that she tries way too hard. Art is like breathing to me, not like childbirth, as it seems to need to be for some.

I think there is a gulf of difference in the person who needs to be about making art and those who just do for whatever reason.

 

[michaelbsc]

If your mother exhibited her work and won a number of shows, she was indeed successful, but she hardly created art purely for herself. The fact that she exhibited her work proves that she sought the recognition of others. Consequently, she did not do it to purely please herself, which some people claim to be their sole motiv. In her case, she gained the apparently well-deserved recognition from the viewing public. That's a very typical reward for an artist, and short of receiving payment, often the only reward.

I seriously question people claiming that they don't require such reward.

I do agree that recognition from others constitutes a form of payment, intangible as it may be.

But I also think there is some level of compulsion for expression through images in some people, much as there is a compulsion toward expression through language in most people.

Hence my further comments:

But further critical thinking on your question makes me wonder; if the observers weren't there, would the artist still do the work? Can you reevaluate the concept of "customer" to include the emotional satisfaction derived from some other person's appreciation of the work. Specifically, would the artist still create the work if it was never to see the light of day, remaining forever unobserved and not exhibited?

I think the answer is yes, but the level of detail and finish in the works will suffer. The prospect of exhibition compels most artists to put more effort into the details than they would be likely to do once the concept has been presented.

Specifically, my perception of the "artistic" personality is that the compulsion is to express a concept, and once that concept is expressed the artistic "spark" is satisfied. And without the prospect of exhibition the work would be finished at this point.

But the prospect of exhibition to other observers compels the artist to put more work into the details of the "fit and finish" so to speak. Which, in fact, improves the quality of the work.

I think some level of work would be done regardless of feedback from others. Think of this as "doodling" if you will. I believe that this level of "art doodling" will be produced regardless of any external feedback. This is the compulsion part, and people will do it without reward.

And I also agree that recognition from others from exhibition is a form of payment that has reward value, certainly to my mother and others that I know. I've even admitted on a number of posts in APUG that I like it when my family fawns over pictures I give them. That's my reward for spending untold hours on the weekends to get a print figured out just right, at the cost of bunches of chemical and paper. There's no financial reward; only the "Wow!" from someone I care about.

And I'll postulate that it is the "payment" (whether money or recognition) that propels art from the "doodling" stage to the "fine art" stage.

MB

 

[Q.G.]

Looks like we're not that far apart, but more importantly, now I better understand what you mean with 'art'.

I'm with Shawn on the definitions of conscious, unconscious and subconscious. The first and last happen together all the time. The first and second do not.

Though the thread has moved on a bit:

I too don't think we are far apart in how we both understand art.

I don't share that already 'classical', stict subdivion in conscious, subconscious and unconscious.
Though once very popular (and still that in some circles), it is rather contrived, and fit only, i think, for a specific purpose, the mechanical deconstruction of what we are.
The important bit however is to note that whatever status and content we might give to those terms, what we do is always the result of a simultaneous mix of all three (except in some logic that is too simple to reflect what we do, conscious and unconscious are not mutually exclusive), with the 'conscious' bit not playing the lead role most of the time.

 

[Q.G.]

Suzanne, I don't think the sentiment that art is junk bears much examination.

But I truly *DO* believe that art is the same thing as navel gazing. Art is a medium of critical self reflection, pure and simple.

It's more than that. It is a form of communication.
It records (which makes it a form of communication that is able to contribute to culture) and conveys something (probably best called 'meaning').
If navel staring, self reflection is part of it (and i believe it is, yes), it's navel staring and telling people about it.
But that's already contained in the 'reflection' bit: even if the only person receiving the meaning conveyed by an art work is the creator himself, it's communication.

The thing is that because it never is purely conceptual, i.e. has an existence outside of our minds, is an utterance in whatever medium you particular form of art makes use of, other people can receive the message, get the meaning too. If intended or not.
So navel staring or not, it is public too.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Michael

As far as I can tell, your mother, and artists like her, do not belong to the group of people who claim to do it all for themselves. Going after exhibitions, and knowingly taking all the risks that come with exhibiting ones work, exclude her from that group.

 

[Q.G.]

Does all photography really need to be art? Can it not just be fun and hobby to some? Photography can be art, but it doesn't have to be!

Yet it always is.
Whether it is great art, art worth paying attention to, art, perhaps, which we would call trivial and not worthy of the name, is quite another matter.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

... I don't share that already 'classical', stict subdivion in conscious, subconscious and unconscious.
... whatever status and content we might give to those terms, what we do is always the result of a simultaneous mix of all three ...

Yes, I agree, there are no hard borders between those terms. My definition of consciousness includes all levels of it, except for totally unconscious brain functions, such as breathing and heart beat.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Yet it always is.
Whether it is great art, art worth paying attention to, art, perhaps, which we would call trivial and not worthy of the name, is quite another matter.

There is the problem! Photography's ultimate and all-inclusive claim for being art, in all cases. BS to that! If everything is art, nothing is. If it's not a distinction, who needs it?

There is no such thing as 'great art', 'mediocre art' or 'art not worthy of the name'. There is only art, and it's always worth paying attention to. It's 'value' is up to the observer, but is either is, or it is not, and if you just want to have fun and enjoy the hobby, it doesn't even have to be.

The problems starts when people demand that all photography must be art, which is nonsense!

 

[Q.G.]

There is the problem! Photography's ultimate and all-inclusive claim for being art, in all cases. BS to that! If everything is art, nothing is. If it's not a distinction, who needs it?

There is no such thing as 'great art', 'mediocre art' or 'art not worthy of the name'. There is only art, and it's always worth paying attention to. It's 'value' is up to the observer, but is either is, or it is not, and if you just want to have fun and enjoy the hobby, it doesn't even have to be.

The problems starts when people demand that all photography must be art, which is nonsense!

No.
The problem starts when people insist that the difference between art and what would not be art is a fundamental, essential difference, and not a difference in degree.

There is no "demanding" involved in any of it. Thinking in terms like that is the result of thinking that there are barriers between art and not-art that have to be overcome (or whatever way you can imagine we should deal with barriers), i.e. is the result of thinking that the two are fundamentally different, and is (again) where the problems begin.

There is nothing "ultimate" about it either. Thinking in terms like that too is the result of assuming that art is something 'other worldly', instead of something being part of what we regularly and routinely do and deal with.

Simplified: it's all communication.
Some things that people communicate would better have been left uncommunicated. Other things are quite interesting and/or useful. And some things touch us in our cores.
No fundamental difference.

 

[SuzanneR]

Suzanne, I don't think the sentiment that art is junk bears much examination.

But I truly *DO* believe that art is the same thing as navel gazing. Art is a medium of critical self reflection, pure and simple.

It certainly can be, but I doubt the folks who painted the caves in Lascaux were interested in critical self expression. I think they were interested in critical survival, and found the impulse to creativity vital in that endeavor.

But honestly, I find a lot of art that is merely self involved or only about self expression to be ultimately boring... much of the best art asks questions of all of us in a more universal way.

And we all need it.

 

[michaelbsc]

As far as I can tell, your mother, and artists like her, do not belong to the group of people who claim to do it all for themselves. Going after exhibitions, and knowingly taking all the risks that come with exhibiting ones work, exclude her from that group.

Ralph,

I think you're original comment some messages back that "I seriously question people claiming that they don't require such reward." is probably closer to the mark than I would have admitted prior to this conversation. And after being tasked to critically evaluate it, I concur that your assessment of my mother's work is probably more correct than my own "idealized" memory. She got paid in the currency that she valued - approval of her peers.

All that aside, I still postulate that an "art doodling" compulsion exists that compels many artists to produce things without regard to reward, and I'll further postulate that exhibition of work prompts the artist to refine the piece - regardless of medium - in ways that are specifically done to receive the reward.

So, after several hours of thinking about this I'll take the position that we're really looking at a two tier rather than a monolithic phenomena. The expressive side, whether the agonizing child birth kind or the serendipitous enlightenment kind Jason speaks about, is done without regard to reward. But the refinement of the expression is done specifically as a reward generator.

For example, a la Jason's model, one of my best works is a rather simple picture of wooden stairs that are the dune crossover at a beach. When I made the exposure I didn't really think about it too much. I was looking for something to illustrate DOF receding from the lens. But in the contact prints it became clear to me that there was potential in the shot beyond what I originally recognized, and some judicious cropping made it into a picture that is on display at my brother in law's house. The original compulsion for the exposure was merely "that's kind of interesting." But the hours of work for the enlargement/matting/framing were seeking the reward of approval by others.

MB

 

[michaelbsc]

I wrote:

But further critical thinking on your question makes me wonder; if the observers weren't there, would the artist still do the work?

And keithwms wrote:

As I wrote above, "fine" art as I know it is fundamentally a communicative/linguistic act.

But this does not mean that the art will communicate to anyone, nor that any specific viewer is intended, nor that there even needs to be an observer at all. Art can be fulfilling in an introspective way too....

....He later discovers that the target really was himself.

And I believe that this is the impetus for the innate compulsion to art. But in a Zen kind of way, we could state that the refinement stage, once one surpasses the desire to receive feedback, is a return to the roots.

This is getting too heavy for Saturday afternoon. Hey, anyone else here use DD-X?

 

[sun of sand]

i thought i locked this thread earlier

 

[phenix]

I barley had the time to read half of the replys this Saturday evening. I’ll do the rest tomorrow. I’ll also have to reply myself to some contributions, and this will take some more time, as there are many interesting points. So, I’ll be back tomorrow, sometime later. Thank you all for enlightening this subject, and keep contributing.
Thanx.

 

[benjiboy]

In my mind, photography is kind of like contemplating my navel. I'm contemplating my world through images.

There are too many people trying to make "Art"instead of photographs, most of the great photographers I.M.O were just trying to make a living and in the process produced work that has subsequently been regarded as art, and were never self styled artists.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

No.
The problem starts when people insist that the difference between art and what would not be art is a fundamental, essential difference, and not a difference in degree. ...

You are changing your tune. I objected to 'everything is art' as in 'it always is' in your previous post. I don't think there is a hard dividing line between art and non-art either, but there is art and there is not art.

The claim that photography is always art, or must always be art, is ludicrous and add unnecessary stress to all photographers. Looking at my picture on the last speeding ticket proves it to me.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

... one of my best works is a rather simple picture of wooden stairs that are the dune crossover at a beach. When I made the exposure I didn't really think about it too much. I was looking for something to illustrate DOF receding from the lens. But in the contact prints it became clear to me that there was potential in the shot beyond what I originally recognized, and some judicious cropping made it into a picture that is on display at my brother in law's house. The original compulsion for the exposure was merely "that's kind of interesting." But the hours of work for the enlargement/matting/framing were seeking the reward of approval by others.

MB

That's a good example, and it proves that there is no hard dividing line between the levels of consciousness. It also shows that the creative process of photography does not ned with the exposure of the negative. Darkroom work is a big and important part of our art making.

 

[Q.G.]

You are changing your tune. I objected to 'everything is art' as in 'it always is' in your previous post. I don't think there is a hard dividing line between art and non-art either, but there is art and there is not art.

The claim that photography is always art, or must always be art, is ludicrous and add unnecessary stress to all photographers. Looking at my picture on the last speeding ticket proves it to me.

Not really changing tunes, no.
But perhaps not clear, not the best way of wording what i meant.

The thing is that art and not-art are not essentially different. It's all about how we appreciate things about our judgement.
Relevance is a huge part of it. And there are no absolutes about art.
We probably agree on that.

That leads me (at least) to the thing you reject, being that there is a potential for being art in lots of things. Even in speeding tickets.
It all depends on what we can see it to represent, how relevant, poignant, even, we think it is.

Take the Becher's Grundformen, for instance. All those photographs are, are mug shots of buildings.
Not art to me, because for the life of me, i can't see how that would be important, or valuable for the way i live my life.
But apparently other people do see something important, something relevant, conveyed by those boring pictures.

If that can be art, your speed camera picture can be too.
(And let's not be blind to the fact that things like that have been part of art work recognised as such many times before.)

There is art, and there is not-art.
But that distinction does not lie in the art itself, not in the photographs, but in how we appreciate them. All photographs are art, if only someone sees them as such.

But yes, some are so trivial, so banal, that it would be hard to imagine that anyone would think they even could be art, ever.
And in that respect, there is art and there is not art the way you meant this.
Yet people are strange...

 

[RalphLambrecht]

There are too many people trying to make "Art"instead of photographs, most of the great photographers I.M.O were just trying to make a living and in the process produced work that has subsequently been regarded as art, and were never self styled artists.

Ben

Good point! The artist who creates art without knowing it does not fit my definition very well, unless he or she does it at least subconsciously.

Is it possible to do it unconsciously, or was it just a hype adding something to the photographs that was never intended to be there in the first place? Then it would not be art per my definition, because it wasn't a conscious creation.

 

[Q.G.]

There is a difference between consciously trying to create art, and consciously creating something not bothering whether it is art or not.
The result of both can be art. The latter no less than the former. The former no less than the latter.

Dismissing the latter, because the aim of the exercise would not be to win the accolade of being called art, i.e. because there was no conscious attempt to create art, would not make much sense, i'd say.

Dismissing the former, because consciously aiming to create art could indicate that the would-be-artist is not involving himself with anything but winning the accolade of being called art and an artist, could make more sense.
But it of course does in no way prove that what is created deliberately as art could not be art.

In short: what is the importance of the conscious, deliberate act exactly?