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

[Craig75]

I fundamentally disagree that it is the viewer who determines whether something is art.

well in the case of abstract expressionism it was the CIA in league with boards of major us museums and foundations who got abstract expressionsim baptised by as "fine art" despite CIA thinking it was complete crap.

So yeah... you let the CIA tell you what is art.

 

[removed account4]

well in the case of abstract expressionism it was the CIA in league with boards of major us museums and foundations who got abstract expressionsim baptised by as "fine art" despite CIA thinking it was complete crap.

So yeah... you let the CIA tell you what is art.

The CIA was formed after Kandinsky was making art, right ?
abstract expressionism has been around for 100 years ...
if you are talking about American Abstract expressionists
Motherwell, Klein, de Kooning, Gorkey &c. sounds strange the CIA
was pressuring gallery owners and museums to ordain the movement,
seeing its precursors were already accepted as "art" by the gatekeepers.

 

[removed account4]

Nothing to do with art. Commerce and propaganda, maybe, but off-topic.

yes, off topic

 

[Craig75]

The CIA was formed after Kandinsky was making art, right ?
abstract expressionism has been around for 100 years ...
if you are talking about American Abstract expressionists
Motherwell, Klein, de Kooning, Gorkey &c. sounds strange the CIA
was pressuring gallery owners and museums to ordain the movement,
seeing its precursors were already accepted as "art" by the gatekeepers.

yes USA Abstract expressionism. It's all documented and admitted to by the CIA. The funnelled large sums of money through galleries and foundations into the promotion of 1960s US Abstract expressionsim as a tool against communism despute thinking it was all garbage themselves. From memory the CIA werent pressurising galleries, they already had CIA or people with close links to CIA on the boards of some huge US institutions.

 

[removed account4]

yes USA Abstract expressionism. It's all documented and admitted to by the CIA. The funnelled large sums of money through galleries and foundations into the promotion of 1960s US Abstract expressionsim as a tool against communism despute thinking it was all garbage themselves. From memory the CIA werent pressurising galleries, they already had CIA or people with close links to CIA on the boards of some huge US institutions.

I guess stranger things have happened.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

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):

• The artist comes across something that causes him aesthetic arrest;
• He frames it and exhibits it;
• The work induces aesthetic arrest in the viewer.

Joseph Campbell in "The Power of Myth," continues in the Joycean vein, quoting:

"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

 

[Craig75]

I guess stranger things have happened.

google it. it's all documented

 

[fdonadio]

So you take someone who has no background or education in art or art history into a gallery to view an exhibition of, say, one of the abstract expressionists, and he says it isn't art because his three year old could do better, is he, as viewer, the arbiter of whether such abstract expressionist's work is art? How about Duchamp's urinal?

He’s free to think and even say it isn’t art. And I am free to disagree with him. I can’t see why this guy’s opinion should matter to you and me.

Remember: the OP says “why 99% of photography isn't considered an art form” (emphasis mine).

 

[Frank53]

Funny, nobody mentioned Sturgeon’s law yet.
Regards,
Frank

 

[fdonadio]

Also by cultural and educational background, interests

Yes, sure. Although the teachers and even the curators of the museums that this person has visited will fit into the “influencer” label.

 

[faberryman]

He’s free to think and even say it isn’t art. And I am free to disagree with him. I can’t see why this guy’s opinion should matter to you and me.

Of course he is free to express his opinion and we are free to assign it whatever weight, if any, we deem appropriate. I do not believe that his opinion that the abstract expressionist’s work is not art because his three year old could do better has any bearing on whether the abstract expressionist’s work is or isn’t art. In that sense, I am not a proponent of philosophical relativism, and that extends to the field of aesthetics.

 

[George Mann]

Remember: the OP says “why 99% of photography isn't considered an art form” (emphasis mine).

95% would be more accurate.

 

[faberryman]

Does a sculptor call himself a sculptor or an artist? Does a painter call himself a painter or an artist? It's others that call him an artist. So shouldn't we call ourselves photographers?

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.

 

[Pieter12]

google it. it's all documented

The CIA may have promoted abstract expressionism because it ran contrary and sort of undermined the social realism that was Soviet art at the time. Abstract expressionism just was useful to the CIA's agenda. But they did not invent it, nor did they fund it. Peggy Guggenheim wasn't on the CIA's payroll.

 

[Vaughn]

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.

Photographers calls themselves artists when they don't want to be asked to shoot weddings.

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.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

There are cooks, pastry chefs and bartenders, hairdressers, landscapers and hot-rod makers and many more who create who call themselves artists. That said, is what they create "art?" Sure, for them and others. There is no official benchmark for what is art. 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.

 

[MattKing]

"Art for Arts sake. Money for God sake"

 

[removed account4]

Remember: the OP says “why 99% of photography isn't considered an art form” (emphasis mine).

this is true but I was speaking not in the context of what is or isn't "art" because that doesn't matter, I am talking about as it is represented with
"fine arts" in museums and represented in school art departments, its segregated as if it is not actually accepted as one of the "arts" .

 

[George Mann]

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.

I can't remember a single painting or sculpture that wasn't a facsimile of a person or thing that resembles anything in the known universe (abstract works aside).

The question is in what the facsimile conveys to the viewer.

Is it art? In the strictest classical sense, most photos wouldn't qualify.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

... in museums it's segregated as if it is not actually accepted as one of the "arts" .

That's because it isn't. 99.99% of photography isn't art and isn't meant to be. That taints the rest. With rare exceptions it hasn't been held to be a fine art for the past close-on 200 years. That's not going to change.

 

[Pieter12]

That's because it isn't. 99.99% of photography isn't art and isn't meant to be. That taints the rest. With rare exceptions it hasn't been held to be a fine art for the past close-on 200 years. That's not going to change.

And when you consider how many photographs are being made in the world today, maybe 99.99% is too small a number.

 

[Craig75]

The CIA may have promoted abstract expressionism because it ran contrary and sort of undermined the social realism that was Soviet art at the time. Abstract expressionism just was useful to the CIA's agenda. But they did not invent it, nor did they fund it. Peggy Guggenheim wasn't on the CIA's payroll.

promoting it is literally funding it. I never said they invented it. Not did i ever say Peggy Guggenhein was on Cia payroll. I said there were big instutions with CIA connections and covert CIA arts foundations fronts to funnel the money needed to promote and tour the work

 

[Arthurwg]

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.

Funny. In both cases I see a profound aesthetic sensibly that I love.

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[Arthurwg]

well in the case of abstract expressionism it was the CIA in league with boards of major us museums and foundations who got abstract expressionsim baptised by as "fine art" despite CIA thinking it was complete crap.

So yeah... you let the CIA tell you what is art.

Obviously the CIA was wrong and the art is truly wonderful (with the exception of Jackson Pollack, which really is crap). But the CIA is apparently wrong about most things.