You may be a photographer but are you an artist?

[removed account4]

i see the meat dress to be more of a publicity stunt than a work of art,
it was a stunt artfully done perhaps, and now, years later
people are still talking about it. any publicity is good publicity as they say

 

[Helios 1984]

I've heard that art should shock and provoke but I'm not sure it's always used properly. Sometimes I think shock is used to strengthen mediocre art.

I'd rather say that it should generate an emotion or a feeling, even if indescribable. Rembrandt paintings look like they could start talking and tell stories, Renoir works make me feel relaxed like a warm summer evening with a refreshing breeze, Vereshchagin amazes me with wonders of foreign lands and cruel scenes of forgotten wars, and Boldini's belle epoque is so delightful that I could spend hours looking.

 

[removed account4]

hi helios 1984
when the renoirs came out that makes you feel like a relaxed summer evening,
it shocked the sensibilities of the french artists of the day because it was not
the accustomed style people were used to. it was his impression not a
realistic image, something that might have been painted by leonardo, or carravagio
or other "traditional" renaissance painters. renoir and rembrandt with his use
of shadow ... were not run of the mill, things that the general public
or even patrons were used to seeing. imagine if you were gertrude stein
and used to seeing picasso's blue boy or other "realist" works from that period
and you comissioned him for a portrait .. and he gave you a cubist painting as a portrait ..

 

[Ces1um]

I'd rather say that it should generate an emotion or a feeling, even if indescribable. Rembrandt paintings look like they could start talking and tell stories, Renoir works make me feel relaxed like a warm summer evening with a refreshing breeze, Vereshchagin amazes me with wonders of foreign lands and cruel scenes of forgotten wars, and Boldini's belle epoque is so delightful that I could spend hours looking.

I'm much happier with your definition and reasoning than the one more routinely portrayed. There's skill (and art) required to evoking subtle emotions or feelings. Base or primitive emotions can be summoned at will by anyone.

 

[Helios 1984]

hi helios 1984
when the renoirs came out that makes you feel like a relaxed summer evening,
it shocked the sensibilities of the french artists of the day because it was not
the accustomed style people were used to. it was his impression not a
realistic image, something that might have been painted by leonardo, or carravagio
or other "traditional" renaissance painters. renoir and rembrandt with his use
of shadow ... were not run of the mill, things that the general public
or even patrons were used to seeing. imagine if you were gertrude stein
and used to seeing picasso's blue boy or other "realist" works from that period
and you comissioned him for a portrait .. and he gave you a cubist painting as a portrait ..

Hi John,

At least she could hang the cubist portrait in the dining room and show it to her guests. Now imagine if poor Gertrude had commissioned Egon Schiele.

Spoiler

PS: I've been temporarily banned from somewhere for posting "Odalisque with Red Culottes" : /

 

[removed account4]

hi helios 1984
i see what you mean, but from what i remember, the main thing about that was it's a fauvist paintng not the subject matter.
for generations painters have painted figurative work, hadn't they? fauvists shocked
the sensibilities of people who were used to using muted colors, not bright vivid ones. paint
technology had changed during that time and finaly people were able to enjoy brightness.
the other things that shocked people at the same time period
were victorian houses ( painted in colors as bright as a fauvist painting --- lead paint ? ).
now we are not shocked by vivid colors that matisse or van gogh would
have used, it is part of our regular vocabulary, even in photography ( plenty of garish photographs out there
made with a digital camera or .. velvia ).
a giant suit made of the front lawn, or a dress made of prime rib .. im sure there are designers today
using some hidden technology used to made the dress or suit in things that are taken for granted today.
everything that is new has the potential of opening our eyes ( shocks us ) and then it is toned down and becomes run of the mill.
imagine how shocked the world was at the 1880s when they saw that they could push the button and kodak would do the rest ..
or in the 1930s when 3foot length fluorescent light bulbs were releast to the general public, or when plastic was invented ..
now its nothing but then .. kind of shocking. you didn't to be a professional to make photographs or need an lighting designer
to make your cold cathode lighting system and plastic is so common there is an island of it floating off the coast of california.
( that's the shocking part of this story )

 

[Helios 1984]

hi helios 1984
i see what you mean, but from what i remember, the main thing about that was it's a fauvist paintng not the subject matter.
for generations painters have painted figurative work, hadn't they? fauvists shocked
the sensibilities of people who were used to using muted colors, not bright vivid ones. paint
technology had changed during that time and finaly people were able to enjoy brightness.
the other things that shocked people at the same time period
were victorian houses ( painted in colors as bright as a fauvist painting --- lead paint ? ).
now we are not shocked by vivid colors that matisse or van gogh would
have used, it is part of our regular vocabulary, even in photography ( plenty of garish photographs out there
made with a digital camera or .. velvia ).
a giant suit made of the front lawn, or a dress made of prime rib .. im sure there are designers today
using some hidden technology used to made the dress or suit in things that are taken for granted today.
everything that is new has the potential of opening our eyes ( shocks us ) and then it is toned down and becomes run of the mill.
imagine how shocked the world was at the 1880s when they saw that they could push the button and kodak would do the rest ..
or in the 1930s when 3foot length fluorescent light bulbs were releast to the general public, or when plastic was invented ..
now its nothing but then .. kind of shocking. you didn't to be a professional to make photographs or need an lighting designer
to make your cold cathode lighting system and plastic is so common there is an island of it floating off the coast of california.
( that's the shocking part of this story )

Hi John,

I was looking at it from the wrong angle, I was thinking "Shock" only in a scandalous way (sexuality, sensible topics) and forgot about the power of colours & techniques.
I can understand why painters were shocked when Renoir & Monet walked down the street with their impressionist canvas (Damn youngsters!).
Like you said, people were not used to vivid colours, it must have been a fantastic eye-opener.
Nevertheless, classic & academic run of the mill is still captivating, even if nobody has been shocked in a while (some Carravagios makes me feel uncomfortable tho)

Hard to imagine how people felt when they saw a daguerreotype, attended a cinématographe projection or heard music coming out of a phonograph for the first time.
I'm envious, those are the kind of things that we rarely experience these days.

 

[jtk]

I don't think the question, the OT, is a concern to artists. Which suggests that photographers aren't typically artists. And I would buy that. Photography isn't art, though a photographer may occasionally do art. Not normally, and not primarily. Can't dance, can't sing, won't ...k, don't swing. Must we be artists in order to justify our lives ?

 

[KenS]

Artists often are requested to provide a 'meaning' for their artistic endeavours (especially in Institutes of Higher Learning) I found it extremely difficult to provide either the required 'Statement of intent' other than the fact that my 'eye' found it to be an interesting two-dimensional 'composition of a three dimensional object' with a shape, form and a visible 'texture'
Ken

 

[Sirius Glass]

If ones asks what my photograph means, I do not feel that I need to answer them, so I do not.

 

[Ces1um]

If ones asks what my photograph means, I do not feel that I need to answer them, so I do not.

That must be awkward- "Hey, Sirius Glass, I like your photo of that duck. What does it mean?" ....awkward silence......more awkward silence.... nervous cough.....person eventually walks off confused and uncomfortable.

 

[MattKing]

That must be awkward- "Hey, Sirius Glass, I like your photo of that duck. What does it mean?" ....awkward silence......more awkward silence.... nervous cough.....person eventually walks off confused and uncomfortable.

Somehow I don't see Sirius taking allegorical photos of a duck.....

 

[Sirius Glass]

Somehow I don't see Sirius taking allegorical photos of a duck.....

Neither do I.

 

[Ces1um]

Neither do I.

You're just not using your imagination. Picture a city that's sitting on a powder keg, ready to go off. On one side of the divide are protesters. Masked, angry, molotov cocktails lit and in hand. On the other side of a long divide, soldiers dressed in black behind riot shields, pepper spray and weapons loaded with rubber bullets. In the center at the far end of the divide, a lowly street vendor selling, yup- you guessed it- bbq'd duck to whoever feels peckish after the skirmish. There- dramatic enough for Mr. Glass? Did I minimize the allegorical nature of a photo of a duck enough? I've got more if you need. Lol.

 

[jtk]

IMO it's not MY "art" unless it asks an unwritten question. No question? Not MY art.

YOUR art is up to you.

 

[removed account4]

Hi John,

I was looking at it from the wrong angle, I was thinking "Shock" only in a scandalous way (sexuality, sensible topics) and forgot about the power of colours & techniques.
I can understand why painters were shocked when Renoir & Monet walked down the street with their impressionist canvas (Damn youngsters!).
Like you said, people were not used to vivid colours, it must have been a fantastic eye-opener.
Nevertheless, classic & academic run of the mill is still captivating, even if nobody has been shocked in a while (some Carravagios makes me feel uncomfortable tho)

Hard to imagine how people felt when they saw a daguerreotype, attended a cinématographe projection or heard music coming out of a phonograph for the first time.
I'm envious, those are the kind of things that we rarely experience these days.

i know exactly what you mean. that time period of industry and invention must have been something else !
it is weird, these days fantastic new things are invented, sometimes i thas the same impact
but its more like a half deflated baloon because the movie industry and written word has cornered the market
of not so distant future and what it has the capability of being like, so when self tying shoes or hover boards or ultralights ( weird personal helicopters from the 1980s )
or in the egg egg scramblers or ... are invented and marketed they don't really have the same impact because in this modern hyperwired reality some of the world lives in
( although i imagine there are still large groups of peoples on this planet who haven't been touched by modernist technology, im remembering the film "the gods must be crazy" )
im wondering when the next giant discovery will be that really impacts people the way electricity, or photography or portable music/spoken word, or tele-vision, or tele-phonie or
automobiles .. might be. it seems these days nothing is really shocking, like the good old days !

 

[Sirius Glass]

You're just not using your imagination. Picture a city that's sitting on a powder keg, ready to go off. On one side of the divide are protesters. Masked, angry, molotov cocktails lit and in hand. On the other side of a long divide, soldiers dressed in black behind riot shields, pepper spray and weapons loaded with rubber bullets. In the center at the far end of the divide, a lowly street vendor selling, yup- you guessed it- bbq'd duck to whoever feels peckish after the skirmish. There- dramatic enough for Mr. Glass? Did I minimize the allegorical nature of a photo of a duck enough? I've got more if you need. Lol.

Yes, then I would duck rather than being goosed.

 

[Helios 1984]

i know exactly what you mean. that time period of industry and invention must have been something else !
it is weird, these days fantastic new things are invented, sometimes i thas the same impact
but its more like a half deflated baloon because the movie industry and written word has cornered the market
of not so distant future and what it has the capability of being like, so when self tying shoes or hover boards or ultralights ( weird personal helicopters from the 1980s )
or in the egg egg scramblers or ... are invented and marketed they don't really have the same impact because in this modern hyperwired reality some of the world lives in
( although i imagine there are still large groups of peoples on this planet who haven't been touched by modernist technology, im remembering the film "the gods must be crazy" )
im wondering when the next giant discovery will be that really impacts people the way electricity, or photography or portable music/spoken word, or tele-vision, or tele-phonie or
automobiles .. might be. it seems these days nothing is really shocking, like the good old days !

You forgot the internet, we forget about it because it's omnipresent but this thing is crazy amazing. Where else could I spend hours looking at paintings scattered across Europe, learn how to troubleshoot a dishwasher, listen the best of Dave Brubeck, watch the international news, communicate with folks across the planet, order teas from the Indies, and read delusional folks prophesying the return of Kodachrome. All these wonders, and we're not shocked one bit because it has become part of our lives like electricity or the telephone.

 

[faberryman]

IMO it's not MY "art" unless it asks an unwritten question. No question? Not MY art. YOUR art is up to you.

You can ask a question about any photograph. Who? What? When? Where? How? Why? And unless the question is in the title, it is always unwritten. Doesn't seem like a determinate of art to me.

 

[jtk]

i know exactly what you mean. that time period of industry and invention must have been something else !
it is weird, these days fantastic new things are invented, sometimes i thas the same impact
but its more like a half deflated baloon because the movie industry and written word has cornered the market
of not so distant future and what it has the capability of being like, so when self tying shoes or hover boards or ultralights ( weird personal helicopters from the 1980s )
or in the egg egg scramblers or ... are invented and marketed they don't really have the same impact because in this modern hyperwired reality some of the world lives in
( although i imagine there are still large groups of peoples on this planet who haven't been touched by modernist technology, im remembering the film "the gods must be crazy" )
im wondering when the next giant discovery will be that really impacts people the way electricity, or photography or portable music/spoken word, or tele-vision, or tele-phonie or
automobiles .. might be. it seems these days nothing is really shocking, like the good old days !

I'm shocked almost daily, and usually positively. Tech tools aren't shocking for me, they just leverage my curiosity.

 

[jtk]

You can ask a question about any photograph. Who? What? When? Where? How? Why? And unless the question is in the title, it is always unwritten. Doesn't seem like a determinate of art to me.

For me, discovery (a-ha!) is the point. Easy answers (titles, reviews, signs, visual jokes) minimize "shock" thereby reducing significance.

 

[slackercrurster]

I don't think the question, the OT, is a concern to artists. Which suggests that photographers aren't typically artists. And I would buy that. Photography isn't art, though a photographer may occasionally do art. Not normally, and not primarily. Can't dance, can't sing, won't ...k, don't swing. Must we be artists in order to justify our lives ?

Sure photography is an art, just like baking bread is an art.

Whenever the outcome is uncertain and decisions have to be made, there is art in the process. The art can be divided into 2 categories: technical art and art of creativity. You can be a great technician and terrible at creativity and vice versa.

If photography was not an art, then one photo would be as good as the next.

 

[faberryman]

For me, discovery (a-ha!) is the point. Easy answers (titles, reviews, signs, visual jokes) minimize "shock" thereby reducing significance.

All art need not be about shock.

 

[removed account4]

sometimes a photograph is just a photograph
there is no deep meaning, there is no shock
there is no hidden context.

 

[jtk]

sometimes a photograph is just a photograph
there is no deep meaning, there is no shock
there is no hidden context.

Yes. Sometimes it's simply decorative.