Yeah, but is it art?

SuzanneR · Jul 9, 2014

The analogy to poetry is apt... I've often thought of photography as being its own language. Like language the words can become art, document, novel, poetry, etc.

I think intent is important, but not as valuable as, say, persistence. I consider many of the pictures I make to be art, and many to be snapshots. Sometimes, I intend to make art, but end up with snaps, and sometimes the snaps elevate themselves to art without my really trying. Art is what we say it is (and I daresay, we have Duchamp' Fountain to thank for that notion). For me, photography is often art, sometimes it's just a photograph, and sometimes it's bad art, but still art.

David Brown · Jul 9, 2014

SuzanneR said:
The analogy to poetry is apt... I've often thought of photography as being its own language. Like language the words can become art, document, novel, poetry, etc.

I think intent is important, but not as valuable as, say, persistence. I consider many of the pictures I make to be art, and many to be snapshots. Sometimes, I intend to make art, but end up with snaps, and sometimes the snaps elevate themselves to art without my really trying. Art is what we say it is (and I daresay, we have Duchamp' Fountain to thank for that notion). For me, photography is often art, sometimes it's just a photograph, and sometimes it's bad art, but still art.

Jaf-Photo · Jul 9, 2014

I think the discussion of good art vs bad art is even more contentious than the discussion of art vs non-art.

Sometimes great art is created with no intention at all. One example from photography is Eugene Atget. He was something of a professional failure who took to photographing backgrounds and objects, to sell these photos for use in painters' studios.

He and his photos were derided by art critics at the time (early 20th century France) but now he's seen as one of the fathers of photography.

Eric Rose · Jul 9, 2014

jnanian said:
once in a blue moon it is art ... most of the time it is just a photograph

So very very true.

lxdude · Jul 9, 2014

This photograph is, without a doubt, Art.

Dead Link Removed

MattKing · Jul 9, 2014

I wonder how Art Liem (gr82bart) is?

ME Super · Jul 9, 2014

It is art if the beholder believes it is art. What is art for me may not necessarily be art for someone else. It may or may not take intense effort on the part of the creator to create it.

A couple weeks ago I was taking photographs at a lake about 20 miles away from home. This particular lake has all sorts of lily pads and I was in the process of getting a photo of them when I heard a flapping sound behind me. My camera was on aperture priority mode with the autofocus engaged. I turned around, followed the bird in the viewfinder and ended up with this:

Is it art? I like it, though it could use some cropping. I like that the sun is glistening just right off of the edges of some of the feathers. Right place, right time, I guess. So yeah, with a little cropping it would qualify as art in my opinion. In someone else's, maybe not so much.

dehk · Jul 9, 2014

Never figure out what art is to begin with, and I don't care if I'll ever figure that out.

Dali · Jul 10, 2014

Jaf-Photo said:
He and his photos were derided by art critics at the time (early 20th century France) but now he's seen as one of the fathers of photography.

The fact Adget is considered as one of the fathers of photography has nothing to do with art but with history of photography.

Everyone has his own perception of what is art and what is not. That is why like others I consider this debate as futile as it won't go anywhere.

Jaf-Photo · Jul 11, 2014

Dali said:
The fact Adget is considered as one of the fathers of photography has nothing to do with art but with history of photography.

Everyone has his own perception of what is art and what is not. That is why like others I consider this debate as futile as it won't go anywhere.

Well, Atget is considered one of the fathers of ARTISTIC photography. That is, the evolution from basic portraiture or documentation to subjective and aesthetic images.

The technology was invented before he was born.

It's really well worth knowing the old masters.

Dali · Jul 11, 2014

Jaf-Photo said:
Well, Atget is considered one of the fathers of ARTISTIC photography. That is, the evolution from basic portraiture or documentation to subjective and aesthetic images.

The technology was invented before he was born.

It's really well worth knowing the old masters.

To continue with Atget exemple, the real question is: do YOU consider his work as artistic or not? We can then debate about the reasons you have consider it as art or not but it is another topic.

Umit · Jul 11, 2014

jnanian said:
hi david

once in a blue moon it is art ... most of the time it is just a photograph

That's true!

Jaf-Photo · Jul 11, 2014

Dali said:
To continue with Atget exemple, the real question is: do YOU consider his work as artistic or not? We can then debate about the reasons you have consider it as art or not but it is another topic.

I do. Atget had a unique vision. It's not always technically perfect, but artistically some of his photos still knocks the socks off stuff that's being produced today.

removed account4 · Jul 11, 2014

Dali said:
To continue with Atget exemple, the real question is: do YOU consider his work as artistic or not? We can then debate about the reasons you have consider it as art or not but it is another topic.

i think if here were here and you asked him
he might tell you that he was a documentary photographer
that he took photographs of things for archives and libraries
and that while he isn't an "artist creating art" he had
knowledge of painting and knew about composition ..
and photographs are about composition and being pleasing to the eye
(or pleasing to the eye at that time anyways ) ...

asking if something is "art" seems to be a waste of time because
what one person believes is "art" another doesn't ...

there is a sushi chef a few miles away from me who makes "art"
but a lot of people just think its food.

Jaf-Photo · Jul 11, 2014

Sure, he was a documentarian. But he transcended that and provided his unique vision of the things he was photographing. That's not an easy thing to do.

To hazard a guess, he was driven by a passion to document the world as HE saw it. That's why he took all those lonely photo walks with a big, heavy wooden box camera, despite nobody appreciating what he was doing.

removed account4 · Jul 11, 2014

Jaf-Photo said:
Sure, he was a documentarian. But he transcended that and provided his unique vision of the things he was photographing. That's not an easy thing to do.

the museums he sold them to didn't believe he transcended anything
it was "the surrealists" in the 1930s and bernice abbot who grabbed all his
glass plates out of the dumpster and elevated him to "artiste" ... 20-30 years after he made
the exposures and sold the prints to the libraries/museums that hired him.

Jaf-Photo · Jul 11, 2014

jnanian said:
the museums he sold them to didn't believe he transcended anything
it was "the surrealists" in the 1930s and bernice abbot who grabbed all his
glass plates out of the dumpster and elevated him to "artiste" ... 20-30 years after he made
the exposures and sold the prints to the libraries/museums that hired him.

That's the fate of most ground-breaking artists.

Vincent van Gogh was considered a ham-fisted lunatic by his contempories and Johann Sebastian Bach's original scores were used to wrap meat in a local butcher's store.

At the same many artists who are successful in their own time are soon forgotten when they're gone.

It's strange and unfair, but that's life for you.

removed account4 · Jul 11, 2014

yep

and at least as a octogenarian he was able to bask in the glory
of being a surreal icon

David Brown · Jul 11, 2014

OK, so now that the thread has morphed (they all do) away from the initial question, I'll make a few observations.

First, the stats as of this writing. This thread has had 905 views. Obviously, there are duplicates by the posters who have made multiple entries and a few my me, of course. The blog entry has been viewed via a link from apug 160 times. Again, perhaps a few duplicates. It is therefore indicated that many, if not most of the viewers of this thread did not read the blog post. That's okay. However, it is apparent from many of the responses in this thread, that many of the posters did not read the blog post either.

Perhaps it was poorly written, but I think the fact that it was poorly read is the issue here. I also admit that the title of this thread and the blog post is misleading. None the less, the essay states up front that there are no universally accepted answers as to what makes art. The intention was to get past that and acquiesce that there is art. Then, if there is art, the question was: "is photography art?" And as an answer to that, I offered the simple, but profound quote from Bernhard: Photography is art when it’s used by an artist.

Don't agree. Fine. That's the idea behind the discussion. I just had hoped more people would read the short essay before telling me I was wrong ...

Dali · Jul 11, 2014

Photography can be an art medium. Does it make photography an art? I am sure you see here the ambiguity of the question...?

MartinCrabtree · Jul 11, 2014

If I say it's art it's art to me. And that's all that matters.

jovo · Jul 11, 2014

"...producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power." Sadly, even this is not agreed upon. From the new topographics folks onward, deadpan, sometimes flat out ugly, and without regard for composition, lighting, or care in printing, contemporary photographs are 'art' by the arbitrary decree of the publishers and gallerists who offer them to an audience. Take a look at some of the incredibly unappealing photographs in about half the books for sale from photo-eye for examples that will curdle your milk. If revulsion counts as emotional power, then I guess the photographs that make me nauseous must truly be art.

doughowk · Jul 11, 2014

With all due respect to Ruth Bernhard, her statement is self-referential. I and my agents declare me to be an artist; therefore anything I produce is artistic and the physical result is art. It may be good for the ego, but I think we need some time and disinterested viewers to decide if my crap is art. Back in the 60s & 70s we were told that all of us could be artists, but they forgot to tell us that it takes alot of work to get there.
In so far as photography is becoming easier (thanks in large part to digital), it takes alot less work and is less deserving at being called art.

RalphLambrecht · Jul 11, 2014

David Brown said:
A short blog post:

http://silverdarkroom.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/yeah-but-is-it-art/

my photographs are art if ,I say so,because I'm the artist.They are fine art if others agree with me and buy them.

cliveh · Jul 11, 2014

I once attended a lecture by a photographer (can't recall his name), but he claimed that the artistic worth of any photograph can only be justified by its monetary value. A concept worthy of debate I think.

Yeah, but is it art?

SuzanneR

Moderator

David Brown

Jaf-Photo

Eric Rose

lxdude

MattKing

Moderator

ME Super

dehk

Dali

Jaf-Photo

Dali

Umit

Jaf-Photo

removed account4

Jaf-Photo

removed account4

Jaf-Photo

removed account4

David Brown

Dali

MartinCrabtree

jovo

Membership Council

doughowk

RalphLambrecht

cliveh

Yeah, but is it art?

Moderator

Moderator

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency