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.
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.
But further critical thinking on your question makes me wonder; if the observers weren't there, would the artist still do the work?
... 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...
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 ...
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!
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.
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.
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....
....He later discovers that the target really was himself.
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.In my mind, photography is kind of like contemplating my navel. I'm contemplating my world through images.
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. ...
... 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
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?