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

[Arthurwg]

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.

Ceramics are the rising star of the art world. Tons of great stuff out there, now getting appreciated.

 

[faberryman]

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.

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.

 

[Pieter12]

promoting it is literally funding it

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.

 

[Pieter12]

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

I would love to be enlightened. Could you provide an example with an explanation of the aesthetic sensibility you see?

 

[Pieter12]

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.

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.

 

[removed account4]

That's because it isn't.

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.

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

you can say that again !

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.

you're probably right and everyone has a camera/cellphone and everyone makes pictures of stuff all the time.
its a tough racket !

 

[Pieter12]

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.

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.

 

[faberryman]

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.

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/

 

[warden]

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.

Gaaa! Feathers ruffled!

I like Atget. Sure a lot of his work is straight-up documenting with no aim for art that I can see, but his work is worthy of the attention it gets from the art community. I'm glad Berenice saved him from obscurity, which is where he was headed.

His St. Cloud and other park images call to mind ink blot Rorschachs and I love the atmosphere.

And his storefronts lean to surrealism frequently. He may not have thought of himself as an artist, but he was wrong.

(I agree that 99.99% is probably too low a number, for what it's worth.)

 

[Craig75]

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.

Other artists would fund their tours and exhibitions through publicists and dealers as either speculative investments by dealers or sales commissions. If someone is covertly writing cheques to pay for your tours they are directly funding your work.

I've had it myself with arts council UK funded projects. Can i do this tour? Hmm.. ok here is a cheque. You slap the arts council logo on your project and away you go. It's the exact same principle.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

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.

Didn't you answer your own question - it may be in an Art Museum but it's not considered Art, instead it's art.

* * *​

With all this talk of the CIA my mind translated the GDA to the "Cleveland Institute of Art." I'm thinking, I didn't know it was that well known or ever embroiled in controversy. Then it dawns, oh, the one in Washington. "Never mind," - Emily Litella.

 

[Pieter12]

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/

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.

 

[removed account4]

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'd love to !
thanks Pieter12

 

[faberryman]

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.

You may attribute whatever weight you wish to the article.

 

[Pieter12]

You may attribute whatever weight you wish to the article.

Nice. Why post it then?

 

[faberryman]

Nice. Why post it then?

I thought perhaps some people might find it useful in their consideration of the question of the definition of art beyond that found in internet dictionaries. I see it hasn't been very useful to you because it didn't have a definition of aesthetics. It also didn't have a definition of metaphysics or epistemology or some other big words. I am surprised you didn't mention it didn't even have a definition of art, which is the title of the article and what we are discussing. I also understand that you were put off by the references to alien art and art of other species. If I were you, I'd steer clear of the philosophy of religion too.

 

[foc]

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

"Ninety percent of everything is crap."
Now it has been mentioned.

 

[faberryman]

"Ninety percent of everything is crap."
Now it has been mentioned.

I haven't done a deep dive, but I don't think Sturgeon offers any guidance on how to differentiate the 10% good stuff from the 90% crap, so as a law it is not really verifiable. In that sense, it is more a quip than a law. Wikipedia, the font of all knowledge, calls it an adage. I have also seen it referred to as Sturgeon's Revelation. I don't think there is anything particularly revelatory about it. Everyone knows it intuitively. Don't you, when you are walking down the aisle in the store, any store, assuming you still go to stores, ask yourself who buys all this crap?

 

[Arthurwg]

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.

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.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

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.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

When I was at Uni studying Art, I thought all the students in the photography program were there because they could not draw or paint. That view changed about a year after I graduated. The general public probably still thinks this way. It's common. Everyone has a cell phone. Painters are rare.
For fun, at the start of every photography class I teach, I ask my students to name one famous photographer. Crickets...
Next, I ask for s famous artist. The usual suspects are listed with ease.
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.

 

[Vaughn]

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.

A noble quest, sir!
The photo program I was involved with in one way or another for a few decades ran along the same line, with the desired end result of empowering the students to use the photographic image as mode of artistic expression. While a student could have his/her emphsis in photography, they would still need to take the same basic classes the painting students, for example, are required to take. A purely technical program would have bored me to tears as a student and later as the darkroom tech. We would fill two to three beginning classes (24 students each) every semester. Many non-art majors got quite surprised at the work required, as we did not teach recreational classes. A good Saturday night was a group of us, beer and chips, taking over the darkroom, and printing until 3 or 4 in the morning.

 

[jimgalli]

Because 99% of photographers are mechanics, not artists. Certainly 99% of what is discussed here is mechanics. 99% of the people in the hobby are completely satisfied to solve the next problem.

A parallel is the old car hobby. 99% of the geezers are getting their enjoyment from the mechanical process. When the car is finished, they don't know what to do with it. Sell it and find another project car to work on.

That didn't really answer your question though. Why is it that you think 99% of photography isn't considered an art form? Does anyone really think 1% actually IS art? That would be an incredibly optimistic percentage I would think.

It's late. I didn't read through the thread. IF I just said the same thing everyone else said; Sorry. I'll read a bit tomorrow.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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

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.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

Well, in that case, I consider myself a finer art photographer. Two can play that game.