Hi everyone,
I would like to start a discussion or to get your views on this topic. This is not meant to be as a discussion if photography can be considered as art. I think we all agree on that. I want to get views if it is always art, even if it leads to an emotional response from the viewer.
I remember an interview from a band discussing their music/albums and the expectation of the fans.
One member mentioned that if one that is able to create, but does so with the intention to please the audience, or with the intention to deliver something the audience wants, then he is not an artist anymore, he becomes an entertainer. Personally I have a ranking here. I rank artists higher than entertainers.
Provocative example: Britney spears is an entertainer, Bob Dylan an artist
Recent discussions here in the forum or some comments in ESS ("Not innovative, but sellable") finally triggered me to start this art vs. entertainment discussion in terms of (landscape)-photography.
I am aware that in the US, photography is much more recognized as art than it is in europe and I agree with the former.
I know that many landscape photographers consider themselves as artists (Website-links: "About the artist").
But here is the question: Is it "art" if I make my images for a certain public perception?. Confining oneself to a
certain genre is one thing, but seeking for specific composition with the mindset that it has to be sellable, puts further constraints on the artistic expression of the photographer. Does the photographer, the artist, turn into an entertainer?
Please let me know what you think of this,
thanks for interesting insights and learings!
These kinds of distinctions are so subjective. What is art? Discussions such as these are entertaining - enjoyable to participate in, but deeper meaning? Nah....
.
Eye of the beholder, and all that.
Posted by Mary Dempsey on July 22, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Hmmm Dietrich,
Very interesting question. One that I believe will evoke opposite opinions. I think if you took any picture, it will always be "art" to some and "entertainment" to others. My brother has a white elephant party every year. A few years ago I had found nothing to bring by the party date so I thought it would be funny (entertaining) to take one of my shots, frame it, sign it (as if I were "sombody" to photography) and take it as a white elephant gift. The humor being in that I am not a "famous photographer" and although I thought my shots were "Not innovative" I enjoyed them. Like you said in your last thread, " I started because I just had an urge to create something. It is the process of creation and the satisfaction I get from it." so when it came to the gift exchange I was embarressed because Everyone LOVED the picture and fought over it. They all thought it was "art" and too good for a white elephant gift. Now every year they "expect" a piece of my "Art" even though 99% of it wouldn't get many positive comments here. I deliberatly pick photos that I know these specific people will enjoy. So does that make me an artist or an entertainer? It doesn't really matter to me personally as long as my "audience" is happy with their product. That brings me as much joy as the art itself.
Just MHO,
Mary for the thought provoking question.
Posted by Ted Griffith on July 22, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Great discussion topic, Dietrich.
I myself don't think that there is a real line between art and entertainment. Art to me is always entertainment because I am always striving to please an "audience", even if it is only me. Art is a creative process that seeks to evoke an emotional response, even if it is not a pleasant one. If I do it to please others, it still takes the same creative process and still requires the response. That doesn't make the end product any less of an art form.
Art entertains my my senses and my mind. It's all art if you want it to be, or none of it if you don't want it to be. I'm not trying to deliver existentialist claptrap. I really believe this.
Art is a subset of entertainment. Mark Twain said, "Training is everything. The peach was once a bitter almond; cauliflower is nothing but cabbage with a college education." I think art is a trained appreciation of some kinds of entertainment.
I also think that it depends on who is looking and when. Walt Kelly's "Pogo" was entertainment when it was written; it's art now. Shakespeare's plays were never intended as art, only entertainment. They are entertaining today, but art as well. Closer to photography, Mathew Brady didn't set out to art with his Civil War photos. He was doing news.
Britney is a "performer"; whether or not she's an "entertainer" is entirely in the eye of the beholder!
When I think of art, I think of the creative process, not the quality of the end product or the intended audience; and certainly not the audience's subjective interpretation, which is what I think determines "popularity" or "entertainment" value.
Hi,
It's very simple for me. Art = Beauty = Truth. Also, Beauty does not equal Pretty. Sometimes it might, but often it does not. In my mind, photographic Art is when the goal
is bigger than the audience, bigger than the photographer. It's all about the subject and the equation above. Thanks, Tim
Hi everyone, thanks for the responses so far! It is very interesting to get these insights! Keep 'em coming please!
Dietrich
Posted by Tom Nevesely on July 23, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Though question.... I think that an artist will shoot/compose/process his shots in a way that's in line with his vision and style. If this happens to please an audience then fine. If not, that's fine too. Once the artist starts to consciously change his technique or style with the sole purpose of giving the people what they want he becomes and entertainer. It's kind of a gray area but I think the key is a deliberate change in one's "usual" style.
Posted by Jim Sabiston on July 23, 2008 at 1:50 PM
Interesting topic, for sure. Tom touches on something close to my thoughts on the topic.
First: 'art' is entirely subjective and all too often abused as a descriptor, which really clouds the subject. Like tom, I would suggest that art is most likely to happen when the creative muse is present and one remains true to their personal vision. Once you start looking for the sellable image, you move into the realm of the craftsman. This is not necessarily a bad thing and great images can still be the result, but 'art' becomes much less likely.
Hi everyone, thanks for the responses! Some good insights and it helps me to think about it and see some things from a different angle. Jim DeWitt: Some great points!
I agree that art is subjective of course. However I am still a bit in the line with Tom and Jim S. I also want to stress that I don't necessarily think that entertainment is less work, but the emotional content is maybe less. I think the entertainer needs as much technical competence and a mastery of the craft, mabe even more, but the artist adds some extra flavour to it. It is also true that what once was considered entertainment and "pop" is now considered art, so that serves as further "proof" how hard it is to define art or to separate it from the concept "entertainment". I am also aware that many works of classical and baroque composers were done as assignment back then, created for the purpose of pleasing an audience. Today its art because no contemporary musician and composer can deliver such pieces. I love Danny Elfman, but when I then listen to Jean Sibelius I hear a difference in depth. Same goes for Linkin Park vs. Metallica ...
Regards Dietrich
I am a Jazz Saxophonist and Photographer. My goal in either case is communication. In the case of improvisation, I want to get your attention as the audience. However once I have your confidence, I will want to perhaps show you something you didn't expect, widen your horizons, give you something new to think about. There is no dilution of content just perhaps a friendly delivery when needed. My goal is to do the same with photography: In the end, communication.
On the other hand, judgement on my success is always subjective. I accept that graciously. However I think many times the catagorization of entertainer vs artist is a camoflaged value judgement and the value judgement piece should be questioned. There is an art to being a great entertainer and art in being an artist. I think the two should be able to peacefully coexist, each respected for their worth.
Posted by Richard Wong on July 23, 2008 at 9:13 PM
I don't think that because you shoot some stuff for commercial reasons is mutually exclusive from having artistic expression. Some stuff you shoot because it could lend itself to more sales, some stuff you shoot because it makes for a great image, sometimes both happen in the same image.
I have mostly had the privilege of shooting what I want, when I want, and why I want - even if it has been requested or is an assignment (conditional). If someone else likes it or it invokes an emotion (is that not the same thing?), then all the better. Perhaps this is artertainment! If NO ONE likes it, then perhaps another field would be better!
Discussion
16 repliesI would like to start a discussion or to get your views on this topic. This is not meant to be as a discussion if photography can be considered as art. I think we all agree on that. I want to get views if it is always art, even if it leads to an emotional response from the viewer.
I remember an interview from a band discussing their music/albums and the expectation of the fans.
One member mentioned that if one that is able to create, but does so with the intention to please the audience, or with the intention to deliver something the audience wants, then he is not an artist anymore, he becomes an entertainer. Personally I have a ranking here. I rank artists higher than entertainers.
Provocative example: Britney spears is an entertainer, Bob Dylan an artist
Recent discussions here in the forum or some comments in ESS ("Not innovative, but sellable") finally triggered me to start this art vs. entertainment discussion in terms of (landscape)-photography.
I am aware that in the US, photography is much more recognized as art than it is in europe and I agree with the former.
I know that many landscape photographers consider themselves as artists (Website-links: "About the artist").
But here is the question: Is it "art" if I make my images for a certain public perception?. Confining oneself to a
certain genre is one thing, but seeking for specific composition with the mindset that it has to be sellable, puts further constraints on the artistic expression of the photographer. Does the photographer, the artist, turn into an entertainer?
Please let me know what you think of this,
thanks for interesting insights and learings!
Regards
Dietrich
Art is whatever you can get away with.
And, who says art can't be entertaining?
These kinds of distinctions are so subjective. What is art? Discussions such as these are entertaining - enjoyable to participate in, but deeper meaning? Nah....
.
Eye of the beholder, and all that.
Very interesting question. One that I believe will evoke opposite opinions. I think if you took any picture, it will always be "art" to some and "entertainment" to others. My brother has a white elephant party every year. A few years ago I had found nothing to bring by the party date so I thought it would be funny (entertaining) to take one of my shots, frame it, sign it (as if I were "sombody" to photography) and take it as a white elephant gift. The humor being in that I am not a "famous photographer" and although I thought my shots were "Not innovative" I enjoyed them. Like you said in your last thread, " I started because I just had an urge to create something. It is the process of creation and the satisfaction I get from it." so when it came to the gift exchange I was embarressed because Everyone LOVED the picture and fought over it. They all thought it was "art" and too good for a white elephant gift. Now every year they "expect" a piece of my "Art" even though 99% of it wouldn't get many positive comments here. I deliberatly pick photos that I know these specific people will enjoy. So does that make me an artist or an entertainer? It doesn't really matter to me personally as long as my "audience" is happy with their product. That brings me as much joy as the art itself.
Just MHO,
Mary
I myself don't think that there is a real line between art and entertainment. Art to me is always entertainment because I am always striving to please an "audience", even if it is only me. Art is a creative process that seeks to evoke an emotional response, even if it is not a pleasant one. If I do it to please others, it still takes the same creative process and still requires the response. That doesn't make the end product any less of an art form.
Thanks for the question!!!
I also think that it depends on who is looking and when. Walt Kelly's "Pogo" was entertainment when it was written; it's art now. Shakespeare's plays were never intended as art, only entertainment. They are entertaining today, but art as well. Closer to photography, Mathew Brady didn't set out to art with his Civil War photos. He was doing news.
When I think of art, I think of the creative process, not the quality of the end product or the intended audience; and certainly not the audience's subjective interpretation, which is what I think determines "popularity" or "entertainment" value.
It's very simple for me. Art = Beauty = Truth. Also, Beauty does not equal Pretty. Sometimes it might, but often it does not. In my mind, photographic Art is when the goal
is bigger than the audience, bigger than the photographer. It's all about the subject and the equation above. Thanks, Tim
Dietrich
First: 'art' is entirely subjective and all too often abused as a descriptor, which really clouds the subject. Like tom, I would suggest that art is most likely to happen when the creative muse is present and one remains true to their personal vision. Once you start looking for the sellable image, you move into the realm of the craftsman. This is not necessarily a bad thing and great images can still be the result, but 'art' becomes much less likely.
I agree that art is subjective of course. However I am still a bit in the line with Tom and Jim S. I also want to stress that I don't necessarily think that entertainment is less work, but the emotional content is maybe less. I think the entertainer needs as much technical competence and a mastery of the craft, mabe even more, but the artist adds some extra flavour to it. It is also true that what once was considered entertainment and "pop" is now considered art, so that serves as further "proof" how hard it is to define art or to separate it from the concept "entertainment". I am also aware that many works of classical and baroque composers were done as assignment back then, created for the purpose of pleasing an audience. Today its art because no contemporary musician and composer can deliver such pieces. I love Danny Elfman, but when I then listen to Jean Sibelius I hear a difference in depth. Same goes for Linkin Park vs. Metallica
Regards Dietrich
I am a Jazz Saxophonist and Photographer. My goal in either case is communication. In the case of improvisation, I want to get your attention as the audience. However once I have your confidence, I will want to perhaps show you something you didn't expect, widen your horizons, give you something new to think about. There is no dilution of content just perhaps a friendly delivery when needed. My goal is to do the same with photography: In the end, communication.
On the other hand, judgement on my success is always subjective. I accept that graciously. However I think many times the catagorization of entertainer vs artist is a camoflaged value judgement and the value judgement piece should be questioned. There is an art to being a great entertainer and art in being an artist. I think the two should be able to peacefully coexist, each respected for their worth.
Troup Nightingale