Ceramics are the rising star of the art world. Tons of great stuff out there, now getting appreciated.
The Vancouver Art Gallery currently has an exhibit showing, comparing and contrasting the work of the potter, Edith Heath and the painter Emily Carr.
Edith Heath's pottery is considered Art, where most pottery is not.
The VAG has an extensive collection of photographic Art, which they display regularly.
The academies and organizations of the past no longer determine the standards, nor do museums, galleries or government agencies. It's a chaotic free-for-all.
I disagree. None of the artists ever received funds directly or indirectly. Having artwork exhibited may lead to sales, but I would not consider it funding the art or artists.promoting it is literally funding it
I would love to be enlightened. Could you provide an example with an explanation of the aesthetic sensibility you see?Funny. In both cases I see a profound aesthetic sensibly that I love.
Aesthetics seems to be concerned more with beauty and taste. Some works of art intentionally run contrary to that. For example, Penn's cigarette butts, Andres Serrano's Piss Christ. Picasso's Guernica is not about beauty, but the horror of war.The formal field of philosophy known as Aesthetics provides a comprehensive rubric for discussing issues about art in an intelligent manner. Marketing and selling "art" is an entirely different subject.
I'm talking about the stuff that is already accepted into museums, by the heavy hitters of yesterday, today and tomorrowThat's because it isn't.
you can say that again !Photographers calls themselves artists when they don't want to be asked to shoot weddings.
you're probably right and everyone has a camera/cellphone and everyone makes pictures of stuff all the time.But why do I think that others think that 99% (or 95%, or sci-fi's 90%) of photography is not considered an art form? Mostly because 99% (or whatever) of photographs are just pictures of things.
Come visit the Getty Center in Los Angeles. There is an entire level of one of the pavilions dedicated to photography and they regularly mount stunning shows. The research institute gallery also has frequent photography shows.I'm talking about the stuff that is already accepted into museums, by the heavy hitters of yesterday, today and tomorrow
its certainly considered art, but its segregated as if it isn't considered art.
its got nothing to do with what is or isn't art, but where it is found in a museum and where photography departments typically are found
in a university setting. its a discipline that seems to be outside what is generally considered to be art, the fine arts and they didn't/don't know where to put it...
several years ago I saw an exhibit at the Boston MFA of pretty much The Who's who of photography, Weston, Adams &c .. it was in a poorly lit basement gallery.
Aesthetics seems to be concerned more with beauty and taste. Some works of art intentionally run contrary to that. For example, Penn's cigarette butts, Andres Serrano's Piss Christ. Picasso's Guernica is not about beauty, but the horror of war.
Gaaa! Feathers ruffled!I am going to ruffle some feathers here, but I don't like Atget much. I find his photos (with the exception of those with people) flat and uninspiring. I think he was correct in assuming he was not an artist, but a provider of materials for artists to use as reference. Wonderful documents of an era, maybe not much else. The same goes for his greatest promoter, Berenice Abbott. Her work following his example, documenting New York City, does nothing for me.
I disagree. None of the artists ever received funds directly or indirectly. Having artwork exhibited may lead to sales, but I would not consider it funding the art or artists.
I'm talking about the stuff that is already accepted into museums, by the heavy hitters of yesterday, today and tomorrow its certainly considered art, but its segregated as if it isn't considered art.
Interestingly, the article uses the term aesthetic many times but never defines it. Also, I was a bit put off by the references to extra-terrestrial art and art beyond our species.Aesthetics extends beyond issues of beauty and taste. For those who may be interested in the definition of art beyond Merriam Wesbter, there is a short, tip of the iceberg introduction in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/
I'd love to !Come visit the Getty Center in Los Angeles. There is an entire level of one of the pavilions dedicated to photography and they regularly mount stunning shows. The research institute gallery also has frequent photography shows.
Interestingly, the article uses the term aesthetic many times but never defines it. Also, I was a bit put off by the references to extra-terrestrial art and art beyond our species.
Nice. Why post it then?You may attribute whatever weight you wish to the article.
Nice. Why post it then?
Funny, nobody mentioned Sturgeon’s law yet.
Regards,
Frank
"Ninety percent of everything is crap."
Now it has been mentioned.
Aesthetics seems to be concerned more with beauty and taste. Some works of art intentionally run contrary to that. For example, Penn's cigarette butts, Andres Serrano's Piss Christ. Picasso's Guernica is not about beauty, but the horror of war.
I am not denying the appeal of any of those, although for me, Atget's original prints suffer when compared to what Berenice Abbott printed from his negatives.Difficult to explain Atget to a non-believer. First of all, it's a visual thing. Second, Atget the man is clearly behind the camera. Third, tones and colors are beautiful IMHO. He also shot some female nudes, which I love. As for Penn's cigarette butts, I find them absolutely beautiful. Piss Christ also beautiful (idea coupled with sensibility), while Guernica moves me greatly. Recently I've been reviewing the "horrors of war" photos in the AP's "Vietnam: The Real War," and "Requiem: By the Photographers Who Died in Vietnam and Indochina." Absolutely beautiful pictures, works of art as far as I'm concerned.
A noble quest, sir!By the end of my course, they can name a few photographers, have a better appreciation for photography as an artistic expression, and realise the power of the photographic image.
How does the viewer know the intention of the photographer? Would a current viewer know it was originally taken 80 years ago as a snapshot to record an event? I don't think so. So as long as the piece does something emotionally to the viewer, it's art. We photographers are allowed to get lucky you know.Far better minds than mine have proposed a definition of art. Some ideas that have stuck in my limited consciousness are:
James Joyce, in The Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man, has his lead character expound that art can defined by (crudely paraphrasing):
Joseph Campbell in "The Power of Myth," continues in the Joycean vein, quoting:
- The artist comes across something that causes him aesthetic arrest;
- He frames it and exhibits it;
- The work induces aesthetic arrest in the viewer.
"Proper art, of course, means art performing a function that is proper to art -
the kind of function only art can serve. And improper art is art in the service
of something else."
Where improper art is kinetic as it causes the viewer to desire, loath or act. Advertising comes to mind. Joyce labels all such art as pornography.
I feel this makes a good definition of art vis a vis photography. Photography is the art of framing -- framing something that causes the photographer aesthetic arrest, making an image of the scene, and then exhibiting the image -- thus provoking an aesthetic reaction in the viewer.
Art by this criteria must be intentional. A snapshot made to record an event is not art, no matter how it affects the viewer. The view from a scenic point in a national park is not art, no matter that it causes aesthetic arrest in the viewer. The creation of the scenic point, parking lot and all, however, is art.
Snapshots made as a record are not art; something is not art just because I, or someone else, says it is. If simple say-so counts then the concept of art becomes meaningless.
References:
An essay on aesthetic arrest: http://www.meditation24-7.com/page29/page29.html
A good exposition on Joyce and Campbell: https://www.abuildingroam.com/2010/07/examining-james-joycestephen-dedalus.html
Well, in that case, I consider myself a finer art photographer. Two can play that game.I have not met any sculptors so I don’t know what they call themselves. I suspect their choice of appellation is context dependent. I have known a few (art) painters and they called themselves painters or artists depending on context. The photographers I know who deem their work art call themselves fine art photographers. I don’t see any reason they shouldn’t call themselves 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?