Who needs art today?

[RalphLambrecht]

... 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. ...

I don't share your view on the necessity for art to have value or significance, because to me it's sufficient if art is simply beautiful.

However, I do share your view on the Bechers. What's worse, they have produced another generation of crap photographers calling themselves artist, and their claim is supposedly verified by the enormous amounts of money their photograph fetch at auctions.

You are right though, some people have put them on a pedestal, when to me, they are to art what pigeons are to statues. The appreciation for art is more of a mystery than art itself.

 

[Q.G.]

I don't share your view on the necessity for art to have value or significance, because to me it's sufficient if art is simply beautiful. [...]

Well, there is your particular value, your particular significance.

The appreciation for art is more of a mystery than art itself.

Indeed!
Have you ever explored why you like things that are simply beautiful?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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

In my definition, the importance of including some level of consciousness is to exclude the accidental or lucky incident. Art is not the result of luck, it's the result of a conscious and creative process.

 

[Q.G.]

In my definition, the importance of including some level of consciousness is to exclude the accidental or lucky incident. Art is not the result of luck, it's the result of a conscious and creative process.

I agree, to a degree (we have been over the mix of levels of consciousness, and how i don't think the conscious bit takes precedence, nor has to take precedence).

I disagree too: that conscious involvement doesn't have to be aimed at creating art.

Someone may be obsessed with something, making many different attempts to make sense of that something by trying to create some order that reflects the yet understood essence of that something. The result may be an impressive body of works of art, without the creator ever having wanted to create an impressive body of works of art.
All he wanted was to make sense of something that for some reason or another was important to him.

Art doesn't have to be the result of a conscious attempt to create art.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Well, there is your particular value, your particular significance. ...

I need to be clearer. I do not believe that a creative piece of work needs to be significant in any way, shape or form to be art.

... Have you ever explored why you like things that are simply beautiful?

Of course, and found that beauty and significance has nothing to do with each other, but beauty and art are closely related.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

... Someone may be obsessed with something, making many different attempts to make sense of that something by trying to create some order that reflects the yet understood essence of that something. The result may be an impressive body of works of art, without the creator ever having wanted to create an impressive body of works of art.
All he wanted was to make sense of something that for some reason or another was important to him.

Art doesn't have to be the result of a conscious attempt to create art.

Agreed, but it has to be a conscious effort of some sort, as in your example.

 

[Q.G.]

I need to be clearer. I do not believe that a creative piece of work needs to be significant in any way, shape or form to be art.

I don't know... It has to be beautiful, or else it is not art.
What is that, if not significance?

Makes even less sense to me when you do dig into the 'why' question, the art appreciation thing:

Of course, and found that beauty and significance has nothing to do with each other, but beauty and art are closely related.

Why beautiful? What is beauty? What is art (the quality being beautiful imparts on thingies), as opposed to not art?
Are all beautiful things art? Etc.

How can you say that it is not about significance???

 

[Q.G.]

Agreed, but it has to be a conscious effort of some sort, as in your example.

In that mix of levels of consciousness, in which the conscious does not necessarily (or often) play the leading role.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

It's getting too hung up in words now. I see a lot of value in linguistic exploration, but let's avoid linguistic ping-pong. That never helps.

I will prepare a detailed explanation of my definition and post it later on. It will help to understand my comments, but it will take me a while to prepare it.

 

[keithwms]

[offending quote removed]

 

[Alex1994]

Now what relevance does saying philosophy isn't the most practical of academic disciplines have to this? Photography isn't very practical either - no art is any more practical or relevant than philosophy.

 

[keithwms]

I didn't say that philosophy isn't practical. As I read it, the quote is about "language problems" i.e. semantics and hairsplitting over what broad terms (like "art") really mean. We need to remember that photographers craft real, material objects that people view.... not just mere words and definitions.

P.S. Offending quote removed.

 

[JBrunner]

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

I think it is human nature do do things for a reason, even the most selfless act is justified with some kind of underlying reward for the perpetrator. The fuzz lies in exactly what that reward is and how it motivates a person. I do photography not only for the end result of personal gratification in the print, and occasional recognition from another (which is nice), but I think most of my impetus comes from the gratification I receive from the act, the process. Something like surfing perhaps, where the result of the activity (mostly getting wet) might be incidental to the activity itself (enjoying the expression within the activity).

 

[phenix]

If I will reply to only some of the contributions here above, it is not because I neglect the others. Those I don't reply are maybe clear and complete enough to make my comments useless, or are derivate discussions I don't want to step in but follow with interest. So, here start my replies promised yesterday:

I understand the question and the sentiments behind what it took to ask it. I feel the same too many times, but I still do this stuff. Why is that? Must be love. It can't be because I'm smart. Who would dump their entire life effort into anything, blindly, and due to GAS never has money to do anything like grown up people do? I've always followed my passions. I think it is important to do so, even if nobody truly appreciates your work.

Love for photography chases the loneliness (because this is the feeling behind my initial question)? It doesn't, it only makes it sweeter.

But on the other hand, all that stuff I said could be thrown out the window by a profit minded capitalist with a lucky camera. In fact I see a successful photographer selling prints right now that look like dog sh*t.

Most people prefer entertainment to art, and this pushed art, IMO, on the useless side.

 

[phenix]

Art serves two main purposes in present societies:
- Propaganda
- Entertainment

That's what I was afraid to here. Unfortunately it's true.

There is also the third
- Collectible product

In what world?

Science, philosophy, art, are the only ways for humanity to advance and have a purpose for existence other than mere instinctual survival, but that's not when humans are mere resources.

I fully agree.

 

[phenix]

Every magazine editor, book publisher, art director, advertiser, gallery owner, art lover & collector, reader, web surfer, museum goer, thinker, and the list goes on - all these NEED fine art. It's everywhere, and to the point that we often miss it.

Do you live in present? This was years ago when governments payed artists to work (latest was in Pollock times), when every respectable city was building a new museum ('60-'70). This doesn't exist anymore.

But very creative people are working hard everyday making just about everything you see in our communication saturated world.

It's rare, very rare, that I see something worthing to stop and think about. Most of what I see is sh*t.

But maybe you mean something framed and put on a wall, that's "expressing" some esoteric, intangible yet profound secret, with a price tag under it? People need those too - and they pay good money for them.

This also might fall in the category mentioned above.

Who buys art? Lots of people do. Every time you see a gallery do some math, and start by wondering how that business survives paying prime retail rent while keeping a mostly empty space. If it's there longer than a year or two, or if it's there for years, it's because people buy art.

In my neighborhood is an old art gallery that never sold a painting, never. The owner rented some works, without letting the painters know and without paying them. Had a friend in this situation. And this is all.

 

[phenix]

This might be at the root of the OP's question, in which case I can only say:
Keep going, and make sure you know what you're doing it for (I hope it's not money or global fame).

Photography can also 'just' be a nice hobby. It doesn't have to be art, does it?

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!

Thanks for encouragement.
No, it's not money, nor fame, it's about avoiding loneliness (if an artist could hope such). Hobby, yes, but this was in the past. I moved on.

 

[phenix]

I believe there is vast difference between subconscious and unconscious....

This is a matter of the past. Unfortunately, psychology chose lately to replace the name "subconscious" with the name "unconscious" at the risk to create confusion between intuition and coma...

I've heard it said that our best work is often a manifestation of that which we are unable to express any other way... and I largely agree.

Interesting way to see it!

 

[phenix]

The whole point of art is that it's useless, it doesn't feed us, clothe us or enhance our lives in a practical, measurable way. Instead it's the raison d'etre of all the practical, measurable activities.

So, it finally has a use: "to be, or not to do"!

 

[phenix]

My question is why even cave folk still create art despite barely scratching out an existence? It's one of those human activities that isn't necessary for existence, but it's part of what makes us human. Art makes the difference between existing and living.

Recent hypothesis link cave paintings to healing rituals, as primitive religion. And if so, a new question rises: today, in the western societies, religion lost the praised place it previously had. Did this killed art too? If I would try to answer, I would say that there is no direct link between religion and art. The '60s were atheist years and lot of art have seen the light than. Myself, I'm sort of an atheist too, and need art like air. I think there's another issue here: ideals. These are more and more rare todays. No more ideals, no more art and need for art. And with these I fully agree with your last sentence.


And as a parenthesis: see my avatar? It shows one of the two small statues (the other is a woman) found in a grave dating from 6000-4500BC, from a prehistorical people living 3000 years of peace on the Black See border. They left not a single trace of weapons behind, only agricultural tools and art. It seems they also didn't knew slavery, and didn't practice human sacrifices. One of their (two?) gods was Apollo, with his 9 nymphs (one for each art), later adopted by Greeks. The other one, a feminine deity it seems, was about reproduction and agriculture (rain maybe too). Apollo was about the sun and the arts. For more details google for Hamangia culture. If I had to localize in time and space my "lost paradise" (as ideal, not religious belief), I would point to this culture.

 

[phenix]

There are at least two things that make us human. One is to create art, the other is to ask questions.

So, after finding an answer to my question, when I'll start to create art, I'll become a double human, and... will need to lose some weight.

 

[phenix]

art is junk

thread over

Junk might become art, some artists might be junkies, but art to become junk?

i thought i locked this thread earlier

What are you afraid of: questions, answers, thinking, feeling, living?

 

[phenix]

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?

Michael, this is true but not so easy for everybody. I mean, some are easy in working by and for themselves, but I'm not. I'm ready to help my neighbor, a very old lady (this is real, not a cliche), anytime she needs help, but I'm lazy for myself. I can live with my ideas of future works in my mind all my life, and never shot and print them, unless I feel somebody might need my (or, better said, such a) work. Not fame, nor money, just the need. I'm self helpless, and this might be my real problem, not the question I asked in the beginning of this thread. Need to think more on this issue.

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.

Unfortunately, my compulsion is toward imagination rather than expression. In expression I'm social dependent, thus my initial question.

 

[phenix]

Do you seriously make photographs for other people?...I do it to keep breathing.

I don't mind if other people like how my breath smells

Art is happily incidental to some of my photography.

I too shoot for myself. I need the time out with one of my beloved classic old cameras, and I need the time in my darkroom making my prints. It keeps me sane, and sober. I like to share my work with my freinds, and I like to share my knowledge with others. If, some where down this road, I sell one or two pieces, that's great, but I shhot for myself, and my well being.

You, lucky, happy people!

 

[phenix]

Well, this is it for the moment. Thank you all. I've already found some answers, not exactly what I initially asked, but something even deeper (and personal).
Thanks!