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

[Vaughn]

The Wiz...just gave me a thought about religion in general...the man behind the curtain is now brave enough to stand behind a pulpit.

 

[Robert Maxey]

I dare say we are not going to arrive at a consensus on whether artistic intent is required for the creation of a work of art if we have not established a consensus on a definition of art, and I have no expectation that we will.

I agree. We will not settle much here. We cannot define art, can we? As soon as we do, we are forced into saying someone's work is not artistic and blood flows.

I have looked at some of the work of those here and to me, there is lots of art. Some of you really do nice work.

Is a photographer's work diminished if it is later discovered he or she was really in it for the money? If an amateur comes along and out Ansels Mr. Adams and the photographer is not known, what about his work? What if Karsh said he was only in it for the money? Actually, I am sure he was in it for the money to some extent.

I forget the artist's name, but he paints a solid color square in the center of the canvas. Then he paints a wide border around the square, filling the canvas. I can do exactly the same quality work, but I'll never be hung in a gallery. Perhaps just hung. Anyone here could do the same. Is this art? I cannot say. Do his painting sell for vast sums? Yes they do.

So my question is what makes a photograph artistic? I look for shadow detail, highlight detail and extreme sharpness. That is how I tend to view photography. These are my personal needs in a photograph. The method is also important. Some techniques can be described as art as well. Can they not?

Bob

 

[Pieter12]

I forget the artist's name, but he paints a solid color square in the center of the canvas. Then he paints a wide border around the square, filling the canvas. I can do exactly the same quality work, but I'll never be hung in a gallery. Perhaps just hung. Anyone here could do the same. Is this art? I cannot say. Do his painting sell for vast sums? Yes they do.

It is about the interaction of the colors and the relative space. His name was Josef Albers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Albers_) and he was the first to do it and his career was based on exploring the relationship between color and space. Yours would not be worth a dime for two reasons: you do not know what you're doing and you are just copying Albers.

 

[Robert Maxey]

It is about the interaction of the colors and the relative space. His name was Josef Albers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Albers_) and he was the first to do it and his career was based on exploring the relationship between color and space. Yours would not be worth a dime for two reasons: you do not know what you're doing and you are just copying Albers.

Yup, that seems to be the fella. Although I remember the colors as being more vibrant.

I must also agree with you about my Albers-esq paintings, should I decide I want to try. That said, I understand color and color relationships and since we are talking about high priced art, the esteemed Mr. Albers could have likely used other colors. I recommend that he use more Celadon and Coquelicot.

And second there is no copying in art; just paying homage and borrowing inspiration. Well, until the lawyers arrive..

Bob

 

[Robert Maxey]

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.

I think that is completely fair. Poets and comic book authors will write no matter what. If they sell a book, they will gladly accept the advance and royalty checks. I suspect if one of the Photrio members was told his/her photographs are not real art, he or she will keep on shooting and printing and ignoring the detractors

Bob.

 

[Robert Maxey]

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. I

I once showed a friend some View-Master reels I made of a Brough-Superior and told her it was worth between $350,000.00 and half a million. She was less than impressed; asking why some old bike was worth that. That particular bike causes me aesthetic arrest and in others a big yawn.

Bob

 

[Robert Maxey]

A lovely song. Incidentally, that song was omitted from some disks. Can you imagine that? Somewhere Over The Rainbow was also almost cut. Fro the movie.

If interested, find the Rhino Records Deluxe Version, 2-CD set.

Bob

 

[faberryman]

I agree. We will not settle much here. We cannot define art, can we? As soon as we do, we are forced into saying someone's work is not artistic and blood flows.

It is not so much the later, but that determining what is "art" is a complex undertaking. Many exceptionally intelligent people over centuries have devoted significant time, if not careers, to working on the problem, and have come to different conclusions. Superficial explanations like "it is art if the artist intended it to be art" (note using the defined term in the definition) or "it is art if it stirs the heart and soul" are simply not helpful in advancing the conversation.

 

[BradS]

The difficulty seems to be that Art is, by nature, subjective. Is it reasonable to ask for an objective definition?

 

[faberryman]

The problem seems to be that Art is by nature, subjective. There can be no objective definition.

Certainly liking or not liking, or appreciating or not appreciating, what is called art is subjective.

The difficulty seems to be that Art is, by nature, subjective. Is it reasonable to ask for an objective definition?

Well, I am not sure I agree. I think simply saying "it's all subjective" is just throwing your hands in the air and admitting defeat in the face of a complex and difficult concept.

 

[removed account4]

I think that is completely fair. Poets and comic book authors will write no matter what. If they sell a book, they will gladly accept the advance and royalty checks. I suspect if one of the Photrio members was told his/her photographs are not real art, he or she will keep on shooting and printing and ignoring the detractors

Bob.

making art is a physical and mental and emotional urge scientists and people who are much smarter than me say .. people gonna make things whether someone else claims its art or not. its a coping mechanism, its psychoactive, you know like drinking municipal tap water. whether others say something made is art or not is inconsequential often times, and often times people laying down criticism throw shade because of jealousy and negativity, not because something isn't artistic. and with photography its usually because "I can do that, that's not art". whatever ..

 

[BradS]

Certainly liking or not liking, or appreciating or not appreciating, what is called art is subjective.


Well, I am not sure I agree. I think simply saying "it's all subjective" is just throwing your hands in the air and admitting defeat in the face of a complex and difficult concept.

but is it really complex and difficult? or is it sublimely simple?
Could it be that it is in actual reality exceedingly and deceptively simple?

 

[Vaughn]

Liking or disliking something has nothing to do with the definition of art. Unless one feels one is the person who decides such things, of course.

 

[faberryman]

but is it really complex and difficult? or is it sublimely simple?
Could it be that it is in actual reality exceedingly and deceptively simple?

What did you have in mind?

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Could it be that it is in actual reality exceedingly and deceptively simple?

Of course it's simple. If only everyone else on this planet would simply agree with me the whole thing would be settled. And if only everyone else on this planet would stop having this same attitude.

* * *​

What is and what isn't art is a consensus and thus it all comes down to attempts at defining the meaning of the word.

The OED says:

6. The application of skill to the arts of imitation and design, painting, engraving, sculpture, architecture; the cultivation of these in its principles, practice, and results; the skillful production of the beautiful in visible forms.​

Messers. Mirriam & Webster say:

4a: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects.​

I think most people would agree with:

1. I knows it when I sees it and don't nobody tell me different.
​

 

[Vaughn]

Interesting that all those definitions seem to ignore the arts of the voice (and dance).

 

[BradS]

What did you have in mind?

without giving a whole lot of thought, perhaps it is as simple as, If a human experiences the work as art then the work can be categorized as Art.
This has some interesting implications. For instance, it makes intent a sufficient but not necessary condition.
...but it boils down to, it is Art if someone says it is.

probably there needs to be some concept of human involvement in the creation too.

if I plant an Italian Cyprus tree in my back yard and prune it periodically so that it does not interfere with the powerlines, it is probably not Art. (because nobody is likely to experience it as Art).
However if I plant 1000 Italian Cyprus trees in a pattern specified by a landscape architect and they are meticulously pruned then maybe they are Art.

 

[faberryman]

without giving a whole lot of thought, perhaps it is as simple as, If a human experiences the work as art then the work categorized as Art.

You are using the defined term in the definition, so we still don't know what the term "art" means. You have proposed a definition of "Art", which is equally unhelpful, since we don't know, at least from your definition, what "art" is.

 

[BradS]

You are using the defined term in the definition, so we still don't know what the term "art" means. You have proposed a definition of "Art", which is equally unhelpful.

You're trying to define the word. I'm trying to devise a categorization rule. The two may be related but the latter does not depend on the former.

EDIT: Perhaps, because it is a matter of human experience, this is a special case where not only is a definition of the word not necessary but it is, in fact, not possible (again, because it is entirely subjective).

 

[Pieter12]

Interesting that all those definitions seem to ignore the arts of the voice (and dance).

Performing Arts

 

[faberryman]

You're trying to define the word. I'm trying to devise a categorization rule. The two may be related but the latter does not depend on the former.

The difficulty seems to be that Art is, by nature, subjective. Is it reasonable to ask for an objective definition?

Apparently not.

 

[BradS]

Apparently not.

Indeed. See the Edit I added (apparently simultaneously as you were typing).

 

[faberryman]

You're trying to define the word. I'm trying to devise a categorization rule. The two may be related but the latter does not depend on the former.

Is the categorization rule you have devised capitalizing the term for what comprises the category?

EDIT: Perhaps, because it is a matter of human experience, this is a special case where not only is a definition of the word not necessary but it is, in fact, not possible (again, because it is entirely subjective).

That certainly does have the advantage of saving everybody a lot of work. I will note, however, that, by your own admission, you arrived at this conclusion "without giving a whole lot of thought" to the issue, so perhaps you will refine it upon further reflection.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

In all seriousness, realistically speaking 99% of all "art forms" are not art. 99% of paintings painted today I would not buy or hang in my house. Probably 99.99%. Ditto sculptures, lithographs, etc, etc. 99.99% of all attempts at art are just that - attempts. They're either being done for vernacular consumption or they're just flailing in the dark by a blind man, imagining he's doing ballet. It doesn't reduce the value of the work to the intended audience (the "art-maker" and their immediate circle of friends/family/hostages who happen to view the object/action of creation). But 99.99% of any medium can also be honestly written off as lacking sufficient artistic merit as to not count as "Art" with a capital A. That includes what most of us here on APUPhotrio do. We may intend for more in some cases, but the net result of our work is still the blind man in the dark thinking he's dancing ballet.

 

[Pieter12]

If you want to see how bad the state of "art" is today, attend an art school's MFA show. Part of it is the "everyone deserves a trophy" culture, part because nobody has the balls to call it like they see it. The unfortunate side effect is the only ones who are willing to truly criticize art tend to be narrow-minded cultural elite.