That's my point. No one cares what the creator thinks. If his work doesn't stir the soul of at least some of the viewers, it isn't art. It's just the creator's ego.
I agree. Art is in the eye of the beholder. But most art is intentional and a lot of what the creator may consider art is not appreciated by many beholders.
Did Duchamp's "fountain" stir anyone's soul or just stir up the art world and critics at the time?That's my point. No one cares what the creator thinks. If his work doesn't stir the soul of at least some of the viewers, it isn't art. It's just the creator's ego.
Did Duchamp's "fountain" stir anyone's soul or just stir up the art world and critics at the time?
I don't know if it qualifies as a movement, but there seem to be a lot of staged self-portraits being done by women. Alienation and the plight of women in society tend to be the motifs, many times the figure itself is turned away from the camera to represent "every woman" or to grant anonymity. To me, it looks like it may come from the work of Francesca Woodman and grown from there.
A movement I see is a style of non-importance. Created by an abundance of social platforms and cellphones, people take pictures as part of their social functioning and let it end in the phone. No editing, cropping, printing or showing otherwise.
When I asked my cousin if I could see her vacation trip to Europe, she said they were all in her cell phone to be thumbed through. Photography has become for many just another ordinary activity unrelated to art, like brushing your teeth every day.
Shooting family is art if you define art as something that stirs the inner self and our emotions. When you look at a picture of someone you love, you fall in love all over again.
You're defining art from the perspective of the creator. I define art from the perspective of the viewer. If it stirs the viewer, it's art. It doesn't matter what the creator thinks. In fact, he might not even think of it at all. From the standpoint of art, it doesn't matter what the creator thinks or doesn't think? It has no effect on whether it's art.
You now see a lot of trends but not necessarily "movements". I think a movement requires ideological guidance, and that is missing from photographic trends.
Art is defined by the viewer rather than the creator? I guess all those people who bought those Elvis on black velvet images should be curators in museums.
As Larry David said, "A toilet? We're people. We do it outside. Only animals do it inside."
Or when you look at a photo of someone you used to think you loved and you regret the poor decisions you made in the past.
A friend has a commercial studio and he is frequently asked to remove someone (Photoshop). from a previous family portrait.
Art is defined by the viewer rather than the creator?
Art is something that is made by a creator but its existence as art thereafter is no longer under the control of the artist. So, if no one else else sees that something as art, it stops being art once the creator finishes it. Ain't that a shame? Art can be most ephemeral.
Art is something that is made by a creator but its existence as art thereafter is no longer under the control of the artist. So, if no one else else sees that something as art, it stops being art once the creator finishes it. Ain't that a shame? Art can be most ephemeral.
As long as the artist considers it art it will remain so.
Art history has had many movements, i.e. expressionism, dadaism, cubism, etc, while photography has had relatively few, which makes sense considering the relatively short existence of photography. It's hard for me to list many photographic movements actually, but off the top of my head there's the ƒ/64 group, the photo secessionists, the new topographics, and what I'd broadly call street photography. I suppose those are all "movements" but I'd like to read your thoughts.
Anyway, it seems to me that while our modern hyper-connected world has made it easy for a digital meme to be viewed by eighty million people instantly, it's also made it difficult for a goal oriented photography based art movement to gain traction.
Are there any photo movements today? What are they? Is it possible to make a new photographic movement today?
What happens when he dies like the Neanderthal? It's like the question about the tree falling in a forest when there's no one around to hear it. Does it make a sound? Is it still art? Maybe like the Neanderthal, who didn't know he was making art, it became art later because the viewers considered it art.
Did photographer Vivien Maier know she was creating art?
In years past, people called themselves singers, musicians, painters, photographers, sculptors, etc. Now they have to justify some of their high earnings so they call themselves artists. Curators and gallerists are in on the game too. They have to justify their high prices for salary and work. So they call the people who they represent artists.
Of course, they laugh at their customers and just consider them ignorant riff-raff. What do they know what's to like or what's real art?
I wonder what people are going to think about our photos in 100 thousand years?
Did photographer Vivien Maier know she was creating art?
In years past, people called themselves singers, musicians, painters, photographers, sculptors, etc. Now they have to justify some of their high earnings so they call themselves artists. Curators and gallerists are in on the game too. They have to justify their high prices for salary and work. So they call the people who they represent artists.
Of course, they laugh at their customers and just consider them ignorant riff-raff. What do they know what's to like or what's real art?
As long as the artist considers it art it will remain so.
They wonder why we took so many pictures of our food. Maybe they think our food was our deity. Based on today’s waistlines there might be something in that.
You're defining art from the perspective of the creator. I define art from the perspective of the viewer. If it stirs the viewer, it's art. It doesn't matter what the creator thinks. In fact, he might not even think of it at all. From the standpoint of art, it doesn't matter what the creator thinks or doesn't think? It has no effect on whether it's art.
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?