why is it that you think 99% of photography isn't considered an art form?

removed account4 · Aug 4, 2021

Arthurwg said:
It's not that you can't have "intention," it's just that it's not necessary.

people who "make art" intend on "making art". that is what art is, it serves no other purpose other than to be "art". we may take things out of context
and TURN something into art that wasn't intended to be "art" when it was created, whether it was a decorative desk made by Gorham, a 12foot tall painting to hide a water stain in a castle, or a contact print of shark's eggs. people other than the maker elevated it and converted the object into something it was never intended to be.
I can see what you mean, I think but I am not sure.

Arthurwg · Aug 4, 2021

My point: 99% of what's intended to be art simply isn't.

faberryman · Aug 4, 2021

Arthurwg said:
My point: 99% of what's intended to be art simply isn't.

So is it so bad it doesn’t even qualify as bad art? Are there any other criteria it doesn’t meet?

4season · Aug 4, 2021

I guess if you can sell it for large sums of money, it's "art":
Marcel Duchamp's Fountain
Andy Warhol's Brillo Box
Damien Hirst's The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living

Alan Edward Klein · Aug 4, 2021

BradS said:
I reject the the notion that intent is a necessary precondition.

Consider, for example, the 100,000+ photos taken by Vivian Maier. Do we know what her intent was? Is there any record of her aspirations? Was she just taking snapshots to document her life? What does that mean about her work? Is it all in limbo? contingent upon her (presumably unknown) intent?

I agree about the intent of the shooter. Who cares? We can't read minds nor should we. The picture stands on its own. It's up to the viewers to define what it means to them. If the photographer did their job, then the picture stirs something in the viewer's heart and soul. The more it stirs, the better, or should I say the more effective, the art.

Alan Edward Klein · Aug 4, 2021

MattKing said:
You may need to differentiate between individual photographs intended to stand on their own as one off pieces of Art, and bodies of work that are intended to be considered as Art together.
It is very rare that a single piece of work - photographic or otherwise - is acknowledged as Art without there being a body of work that it fits within.
Editing and curating is a large part of a lot of Art.
For that reason, photographs that were intended to be documentation can become Art through careful and purposive organization - the Art is mostly within the curation.
If you set out to create Art - intention from the beginning - you may end up with less that needs to be discarded when it comes time to do the editing.

Do we write off the Mona Lisa because it's individual? Most great art has been single stand-alone. Bodies of work are required by sellers of art as they commercially push this "artist" or that one.

Alan Edward Klein · Aug 4, 2021

michael_r said:
I understand that. But when I see people describe their work as fine art photography on their websites etc. I'm pretty sure that's not what they mean.

In any case, none of this has much to do with photography's historical "struggle" within the visual arts, in my opinion.

That's how they justify their higher prices.

MattKing · Aug 4, 2021

Alan Edward Klein said:
Do we write off the Mona Lisa because it's individual? Most great art has been single stand-alone. Bodies of work are required by sellers of art as they commercially push this "artist" or that one.

You missed the reference to acknowledgment.
And if you don't think Leonardo Da Vinci had a body of work ....

Alan Edward Klein · Aug 4, 2021

BradS said:
Which implies that art is in the eye of the beholder. It is Art because a viewer decided it is Art.

Actually, less is even required. What if the viewer knows nothing about art, the word art, or enough to even call it art? He knows nothing about its creator. He doesn't say anything about it nor can't. He lost his tongue. However, it stirs his soul when he looks at it. That makes it art even though he can't express it.

fdonadio · Aug 4, 2021

Nicholas Lindan said:
And then there is http://museumofbadart.org/

Some of the works are not outright bad, but now I’m too busy laughing of the the really bad ones and their descriptions. Nick, you saved my day! Thanks!!!

faberryman · Aug 4, 2021

Alan Edward Klein said:
Do we write off the Mona Lisa because it's individual? Most great art has been single stand-alone. Bodies of work are required by sellers of art as they commercially push this "artist" or that one.

I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that "[m]ost great art has been single stand-alone." Perhaps you can elaborate. The Mona Lisa (actually La Gioconda) you mentioned is not "single stand alone". DaVinci has a large body of work in multiple disciplines. There are several other of his paintings on the walls in the gallery adjacent to the Mona Lisa. And there are more in the basement of the Louvre that they don't have room to display. DaVinci paintings are in museums throughout the world. No doubt there are DaVinci paintings in private collections. Most acknowledged artists have large bodies of work. Artists are in the business of creating works of art they can sell to support themselves, and often engage art dealers to represent them. Art dealers have to earn a living too. The fact that works of art are bought and sold does not diminish their status as works of art.

Alan Edward Klein · Aug 4, 2021

faberryman said:
I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that "[m]ost great art has been single stand-alone." Perhaps you can elaborate. The Mona Lisa (actually La Gioconda) you mentioned is not "single stand alone". DaVinci has a large body of work. There are several other of his paintings on the walls in the gallery adjacent to the Mona Lisa. And there are more in the basement of the Louvre that they don't have room to display. In addition, there are even more DaVinci paintings in museums throughout the world. No doubt there are DaVinci paintings in private collections. Most acknowledged artists have large bodies of work. Artists are in the business of creating works of art they can sell to support themselves, and often engage art dealers to represent them. Art dealers have to earn a living to. The fact that works of art are bought and sold does not diminish there status as works of art.

Dealers won't show new photographers unless they have a body of work. They're not interested in one offs. That's the point I was trying to make.

removed account4 · Aug 4, 2021

Arthurwg said:
My point: 99% of what's intended to be art simply isn't.

maybe its art but you just don't like it or can't appreciate it.
just saying something simply isn't art, because you say so doesn't really mean much in the greater scheme of things,
obviously it is your opinion and maybe you meant to say "my point is I don't think 99% of what's intended to be are simply isn't" because
im guessing if you posted examples of what you meant, people might say it isn't true ...
I once met up with this guy named David at a somewhat fancy gallery in Boston years ago and shows him some images he asked to see
and he laughed and said "this ( and he pointed to piles of debris on the floor that looked like a mess ) .. this is art". I thought it was kind of funny, and still do 30 years later.

Arthurwg · Aug 4, 2021

4season said:
I guess if you can sell it for large sums of money, it's "art":
Marcel Duchamp's Fountain
Andy Warhol's Brillo Box
Damien Hirst's The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living

Actually it's the other way around: If it's art it may sell for lots of money.

mohmad khatab · Aug 4, 2021

Yes, I completely agree with that point of view. And I agree with this article,
I agree with the percentage that came in this article (published).
Mr. Ansel Addamer once said an important saying, I remember it, (If you get five good photos every year, you are a lucky photographer).
This saying makes it clear that not every picture taken by the photographer is considered an "artistic picture".
The artistic image that can be described as (art), is difficult to obtain, and you do not know when you will be able to obtain it.
Getting it requires a moment of creativity, and it is a very rare moment, (if you already have the talent) and if you don't have the talent, you won't get that moment until Christ returns to earth again.
In fact, I was very amazed and amazed when I read in this forum the title of a post, in which the author of the post asks (((How to become a world famous photographer))

Pieter12 · Aug 6, 2021

What if you don't have or believe in a "soul?" I am going to go on the record that to the closest hundred-thousand of a point, none of it is art. Unless the are photos of someone named Art.

faberryman · Aug 6, 2021

Pieter12 said:
What if you don't have or believe in a "soul?" I am going to go on the record that to the closest hundred-thousand of a point, none of it is art. Unless the are photos of someone named Art.

I think the “stir the heart and soul” criteria is just hand waiving, unless someone can come up with a convincing explanation of exactly what that is, preferably avoiding any reference to the pineal gland.

Nicholas Lindan · Aug 6, 2021

faberryman said:
I think the “heart and soul stirring” criteria is just hand waiving, unless someone can come up with a convincing explanation of exactly what that is.

"Aesthetic arrest", from the Joycean definition of art in Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man:

“the instant wherein that supreme quality of beauty, the clear radiance of the aesthetic image, is apprehended luminously by the mind which has been arrested by its wholeness and fascinated by its harmony is the luminous silent stasis of esthetic pleasure, a spiritual state very like to that cardiac condition which the Italian physiologist Luigi Galvani … called the enchantment of the heart”

Also described as comprehension and appreciation without the interference of the conscious mind.

When all is said and done it is all hand waving.

faberryman · Aug 6, 2021

Nicholas Lindan said:
"Aesthetic arrest", from the Joycean definition of art in Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man:

“the instant wherein that supreme quality of beauty, the clear radiance of the aesthetic image, is apprehended luminously by the mind which has been arrested by its wholeness and fascinated by its harmony is the luminous silent stasis of esthetic pleasure, a spiritual state very like to that cardiac condition which the Italian physiologist Luigi Galvani … called the enchantment of the heart”

Also described as comprehension and appreciation without the interference of the conscious mind.

When all is said and done it is all hand waving.

Thank you for reminding me of that passage from Joyce. If that criteria adopted, it certainly raises the bar for what qualifies as art. Still, we have the issue of what causes aesthetic arrest in one may cause a yawn in another. It shifts the burden of creating a work of art from the artist's creativity and skill to the viewer's aesthetic sensibility. And how do you account for the ten year old whose mother dragged him down to the museum for a little culture and was bored to death, but fifteen years later, after maturation and education, our young Werther goes back down to the museum and swoons viewing the masterpieces contained therein. It wasn't art then but it's art now, the "it" being the work in question, which hasn't changed one iota in the intervening period? Or riddle me this: does a work of art lose its status as art if, although you experienced aesthetic arrest the first few times you saw it, it no longer does so because you have seen it so many times (including on lunch boxes and umbrellas) that it has become commonplace, or your tastes have simply changed? Is emotionalism coupled to aesthetic relativism really the best approach?

Nicholas Lindan · Aug 6, 2021

faberryman said:
... we have the issue of what causes aesthetic arrest in one may cause a yawn in another.

Maybe an "arresting yawn" could count. In any case, if we all agreed it would be a pretty dull world.

Alan Edward Klein · Aug 7, 2021

Pieter12 said:
What if you don't have or believe in a "soul?" I am going to go on the record that to the closest hundred-thousand of a point, none of it is art. Unless the are photos of someone named Art.

Everyone has a soul. Not everyone has a heart.

MattKing · Aug 7, 2021

Alan Edward Klein said:
Everyone has a soul. Not everyone has a heart.

removed account4 · Aug 7, 2021

Nicholas Lindan said:
Maybe an "arresting yawn" could count. In any case, if we all agreed it would be a pretty dull world.

maybe that is what the yawn is, because most of what people consider to be art is really really boring, just the same old same old over and over and over again, nothing new nothing inspiring just fawns and rainbows and dewy grass and buttercups and a rainbow in the distance... give me a upside down urinal any day, at least it is art with a sense of humor ( and maybe .. a pee cake ).

Arthurwg · Aug 7, 2021

How about "Liberty Leading the People," or "Raft of the Medusa"? True, these are paintings, but IMHO they certainly rise to the definition of "ART". I do think we get close to that in war photography. But meanwhile. the latest copy of the NYRB arrive today with an article "What Makes it Art?" I'll make a report after I read it.

Alan Edward Klein · Aug 7, 2021

Matt: Just like the song says, you need a heart to see and feel art. A soul won't help.

Lyrics to If I Only Had A Heart
If I Only Had A Heart:

(Tin Man)
When a man's an empty kettle
He should be on his mettle
And yet I'm torn apart
Just because I'm presumin'
That I could be a human
If I only had a heart

I'd be tender, I'd be gentle
And awful sentimental
Regarding love and art
I'd be friends with the sparrows
And the boy that shoots the arrows
If I only had a heart

Picture me a balcony
Above a voice sings low

(Snow White)
Wherefore art thou, Romeo?

(Tin Man)
I hear a beat, how sweet!

Just to register emotion, jealousy, devotion
And really feel the part
I could stay young and chipper
And I'd lock it with a zipper
If I only had a heart

why is it that you think 99% of photography isn't considered an art form?

removed account4

Arthurwg

faberryman

4season

Alan Edward Klein

Alan Edward Klein

Alan Edward Klein

MattKing

Moderator

Alan Edward Klein

fdonadio

faberryman

Alan Edward Klein

removed account4

Arthurwg

mohmad khatab

Pieter12

faberryman

Nicholas Lindan

Advertiser

faberryman

Nicholas Lindan

Advertiser

Alan Edward Klein

MattKing

Moderator

removed account4

Arthurwg

Alan Edward Klein

why is it that you think 99% of photography isn't considered an art form?

Moderator

Advertiser

Advertiser

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency