What is Art? Is Nature Photography Art?

Why beat a dead horse, when you can drag out a live one and start the beating anew?

It seems to me, there's no point debating the issue brought up in Michael's post until you've sorted out people's response to the above questions.

So, lets start with the relevant definition from M-Websters Online. Id like the OED version, but im not a subscriber (please post if available!):

Art (n): "The conscious use of skill and creative imagination, especially in the production of aesthetic objects...and the works so produced"

I doubt anyone would quibble with the idea that good landscape or nature photography requires "skill", "creativity", or that the results can be "aesthetic". But what about the "creative imagination" idea?? Previsualization is arguably a creative use of imagination, but I don't think that's what this is taking about. If "creative imagination" is parcel and part of landscape photography, then i should be able to post a shot of the Matterhorn being beset by lapping ocean waves, with a moonrise, rainbow, and dancing elk. No disclosure required--it's all "art" after all. No??

Stan

Is there a link to Michael's post so I can read it? Without the link not only do I feel like I am in left field, I think I am playing a different ball game?

I think nature photography is art. It requires knowledge of composition, color, pattern, etc, everything that other art forms such as painting require. The creative part is pretty clear, I think everyone will acknowledge the difference between what most of the public shoot and what 'professional' photographers produce.

As to your last sentence about "the Matterhorn being beset by lapping ocean waves, with a moonrise, rainbow, and dancing elk. No disclosure required--it's all "art" after all.", I think the issue is a practical versus theoretical issue. Theoretically, I think you are correct, if you call yourself an artist then you should be able to do what you wish. Practically though, for better or worse, the public has an expectation of what photography is. Currently, the expectation for the most part, is that it is "real". In every thread relating to this topic you see statements similar to 'so and so asked me if it is really that way it is or has been Photoshopped', clearly there is an expectation there as far as nature photography goes. I think this expectation may evolve over time, but at this point in time this is where we are. An example of this is this forum, we have galleries for all the different genres of nature photography, AND we have a Photo Art gallery that is for "The Photo Art and Series photo critique gallery is intended for digitally manipulated or multiple exposure photos that are intended as obvious artistic renditions of nature." Now the interesting part is the last portion of the statement that says "obvious artistic renditions of nature". Obviously the person who wrote that has a different interpretation of 'is Nature Photography art' without manipulation.

The other way to approach it is, if it isn't Art, what is it? Is it a learned skill, like typing? I think not, since one can be technically proficient in the operation of equipment, but still not produce 'artistic' images.

Then of course, everyone has their own definition of 'Art'. There is a lot of stuff I see in art galleries that I have a hard time calling 'Art'. My favorite example was a painting I saw at the East Wing of the National Art Gallery in Washington, DC. It was titled something like "White on White" and is a canvas painted edge to edge in a uniform white paint. To me that isn't art, or maybe to me it just isn't good art. I had noticed that the description accompanying a piece of work was as proportionately long as it was abstract. While most descriptions were a sentence or two, the description for this one was easily 15 sentences long. I decided that the more you had to explain it, the less it was art and more of an intellectual statement.

Some excellent points, Scott. I agree with the idea that nature photography requires all those skills you mentioned; of course a distinction from say painting is that the camera collects all the relevant information for the photo, whereas it all comes from the painters eye and/or imagination in the painting (nothwithstanding that some paintings use a photo for reference or template).

As to your third paragraph, I have heard some argue that good nature photography can indeed be a completely learned skill--that 'aesthetic' composition can indeed be taught and learned, though some may be better than others in learning rate. I may not agree with that analysis--but I've heard it from some excellent photographers! So, for example, they might point to the lack of children lauded as child "photography prodigies", unlike other arts such as music, where it seems there are always child prodigies coming to light.

I think you are making the correct distinciton in the last paragraph--it may not be "good" art--but i think its fairly clear that the process involved is art--it meets the definition i posted. That's what im getting at--defining the process and not the results.

Lia, the post is just bleow mine--for easy reference, Here it is!

So much fertile ground here, but let me add some fertilizer.

I can consistently produce technically excellent photographs--that is a skill. If I take a technically excellent photograph of a beautiful subject, I can produce a beautiful picture--that is an illustration.

If the photographer seeks to produce an image that will evoke a strong emotional response in the viewer, when the image succeeds, that is art.

Hence, to my untutored mind, the two elements that define visual art, and separate it from illustration, are the intent of the artist and the response of the audience. Inasmuch as the level of response from all possible audiences varies with the variety of individuals in the audience--it is impossible to achieve consensus.

Finally, from my reactionary viewpoint, I believe that all art evolved from the requirements of pre-literate pedagogy (a pretentious piece of pedantry). That is, the core virtue of art is as a teaching device. Over time, with the invention of writing, the teaching value of art has evolved from the illustrative (this is where you spear a mammoth) to the evocative (share this inexpressible emotion).

If it evokes strong emotional response, it's art? Hmmm, dunno about that.
Eddie Adams' famous photograph of General Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing a handcuffed Viet Cong suspect in 1968 evoked so much emotional response in Americans it helped reverse their attitude to the war. So was that photograph an illustration or art?

I have to ask since this topic comes up all the time, not just NPN, who really cares?

Here's the answer.

"Here's the answer"

MG, I knew it was just a matter of time before this would show up. And, I couldn't agree more!

The whole topic reminds me of something I once heard in Camp-4: "If we spent as much time climbing as we do talking about it, standards would be through the roof!"

-P

OK. How much has the most famous painting or sculpture sold?

How much for a famous photo? And was the photo of a happening or a creation??

And, many painters photograph subject material for their effort. Does that mean anything??

The money should answer the question what the public says "art" is...

the fisch

Well, I think once again that you mean the money should answer what "good" art is. Im talking about what makes it art in the first place, cause that goes to the question of how much if any manipulation is kosher in nature photography. That's why i brought up the issue of child prodigies--has anyone ever heard a child described as a "photography prodigy"??

But you're right, Larry--the market probably should play a role, it goes to what Jerry talks about in the thread below--about people's expectations.

And, if you are one of those who "doesnt really care", then there is no need for you to read or respond to this thread

Ok, I know this may just be a pet peeve of mine, but come on with the "Previsualization" already. Even the spell check here doesn't acknowledge it as a word. To visualize, "To form a mental image of". So what is with the pre-"form a mental image of"? To imagine before you begin to imagine.

Sorry Stan I really don't mean to pick and this is in now way directed at you. Everyone seems to say that silly thing. Ok, I admit you pushed my button and I haven't even answered the question yet. I need some air!

I knew that being an English Prof would some day come in handy for this forum. Pardon the length, but OED is never brief. I anyone wants me to look up photography or nature, or the two together, I would be happy to do that as well. Happy reading!

Oxford English Dictionary lists 4 uses of the word “art”: 2 as a noun (including abbreviation of the noun “article”), and 2 as a verb. I left out the abbreviation variation. Of the 3 that remain, each has its own variations, so the roman numerals below are the 3, with sub-categories for each. I will admit that I removed the numerous usage histories for all but the least expected of the definitions, but I can go back in and include those if someone likes.
Most interesting to me for our discussion in this thread are I.3&6 III.2 and all of IV. It seems art has much in common with inducing, perhaps through artificial means, a specific response.

I. Skill; its display, application, or expression.
1. Skill in doing something, esp. as the result of knowledge or practice.
2. Skill in the practical application of the principles of a particular field of knowledge or learning; technical skill. Obs.
3. As a count noun. a. A practical application of knowledge; (hence) something which can be achieved or understood by the employment of skill and knowledge; (in early use also) a body or system of rules serving to facilitate the carrying out of certain principles. b. A practical pursuit or trade of a skilled nature, a craft; an activity that can be achieved or mastered by the application of specialist skills; (also) any one of the useful arts (see sense 4b). Cf. art and mystery n. at MYSTERY n.2 2c.
4. With modifying word or words denoting skill in a particular craft, profession, or other sphere of activity. a. With a genitive or genitive phrase, as ‘the writer's art’, ‘the art of government’.
the art of love n. [frequently with reference to Latin Ars Amatoria, the title of a work by Ovid; compare also Anglo-Norman art d’amur (13th cent.)] the skill or technique of seduction and lovemaking.
5. An acquired ability of any kind; a skill at doing a specified thing, typically acquired through study and practice; a knack. Freq. in the art of .
6. Skill in an activity regarded as governed by aesthetic as well as organizational principles. Now rare.
The range of activities covered include the visual arts such as painting, drawing, and sculpture, and also other creative arts such as music, literature, dance, drama, and oratory.

III. Verb, transitive
1. trans. To confine, restrict, or limit in location or in action.
a1382 Bible (Wycliffite, E.V.) (Bodl. 959) (1961) Judges i. 34 Ammorre artede [a1425 L.V. maad streit; L. arctavit] e sonys of dan in e hul. c1430 N. LOVE Mirror Blessed Life (Brasenose e.9) 239 So is he [sc. Jesus] constreyned and arted, that he may nou t meue. 1496 Dives & Pauper (de Worde) I. xviii. 522 God is..free in his doynge, and not arted by the planetes.
2. trans. a. To constrain, compel, oblige, or urge (a person) to do something; to bind (a person) to an action, obligation, etc. b. To urge, incite, or induce (esp. something abstract).
3. trans. To ally closely, relate to. rare.

IV., verb transitive
1. trans. To obtain or gain by art. Obs. rare.
2. trans. To make artificial. Obs. rare.
3. trans. To instruct in an art. Obs.
4. trans. with it. To use art or artifice. Obs.
1637 H. SYDENHAM Serm. 152 Hee that can art it hansomely in ways of dissimulation. 1655 W. GURNALL Christian in Armour (1669) xxvi. §2 324/2 When they have Arted it most in packing their sins, to hide them from the Worlds eye.
5. trans. colloq. to art up: to make artistic; to add decoration to. Also intr.
1929 Amer. Mag. Jan. 126/3 The knowledge that spinning wheels are perfectly good antique stuff..had been impinged upon..by the desire to art up and decorate indiscriminately. 1940 A. THIRKELL Cheerfulness vi. 104 The necks..wanted arting up a bit, as the frocks were so very plain in cut. 1999 Times Union (Albany, N.Y.) (Nexis) 18 June D6 West works hard at it, arting up both the sex and sexual violence with the same glossy photography he uses to evoke the steamy Georgia atmosphere.

Larry Fischer said:

The money should answer the question what the public says "art" is...

Hey Larry,

I make no apology for being blunt here, but that's patently absurd. Money has about as much to do with defining art as it does love.

Beethoven's 9th is public domain.

Cheers

Carl

Thanks Marylynne! Interesting that the OED definition focuses on skill and practicality, with no mention of 'imagination' or even creativity! Photography sure seems to fit using those terms.

Hey Carl, if Beethoven were alive today I'm guessing he'd be pretty wealthy
Since you're quite an 'artful' photographer yourself, Carl, what do you think--is all nature photography art??

Brad--I can't speak for others here, but on behalf of Ansel and myself, I am actually able to visualize things before i even visualize them! I'm that good...

Art is in the eye of the beholder. Some museums will display pieces that involves bodily fluids and waste, which I consider to be more disgusting than art, but if the museum says it is art then it is art to them.

I disagree, RIchard--once again i think you are talking about what consitutes "good" art. You don't think that art can be ugly or even disgusting? That's why I am saying it's the process that counts. For example, you can get a toddler to splash some paint on a canvas, and probably many folks wouldnt be able to distinguish between that end result and some 'highly regarded' nouveau artiste--but i would argue that the process that led to the result is clearly different in the two cases, which makes the baby's work not art, but the artiste's work "art"--whether you like the result or not!

Hey Stan

Why is the work of the toddler not art? Isn't the process the same? You're essentially arguing that art must meet some predefined yet imaginary standard to fit your definition. I think that's misinformed.

You missed the point concerning my comment about Beethoven; what does the transferring of little pieces of green paper have to do with whether or not something constitutes art? Nothing.

Is ‘all nature photography art’? No, of course not. But neither is all ‘good’ nature photography art. I don't think the issue is one of technical merit, aesthetic beauty or financial value - it's intention. Art is a process, a verb, not a product. When we're making art, I think we understand that.

The requisite of skill and practicality seems to miss the boundary between art and craft - the 2 are very different. I don't think craft might bring a person to tears, for example.

Cheers

Carl

I'm glad you agree that Ansel "Visualized". Evidently over time others for some reason added the "pre" on to it for no apparent reason other than not understanding what visualize was to begin with. Hey not a problem.

OK, three words, "nature", "good" and "art", right.

OK, from Thomas Hobbs:

"Nature <is> the Art whereby God hath made and governs the World."--
The Leviathan, pg 1

So, the study or photography of nature is at least a study of art.

Now from The American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828.

Art: 1) The disposition or modification of things by human skill, to answer the purpose intended. In this sense art stands opposed to nature.

2) A system of rules, serving to facilitate the performance of certaian actions; opposed to science, or to speculative principles; as the art of building or engraving. Arts are divided into useful or mechanic, or liberal or plite. The mechanic arts are those in which the hands and body are more conerned than the mind; as in making clothes, and utensils. These arts are called trades. The liberal or polite arts are those in which the mind or imagination is chiefly concerned; as poetry, music and painting.

3) Skill, dexterity, or the power of performing certain actions, acquired by experience, study or observation; ...

I believe photography at least fulfills item 3.

In sum, nature photography is the art of studying the Real Artist (God the Creator) through skill, dexterity, experience and observation and recording that for others and posterity. Nature photography is good art because it studies the True Artist; it threfore cannot be bad, but the quality of the study, in terms of "good", is subject to comparison with a nebulous "absolute beauty" or "form", as Socrates stated. The "goodness" will therefore always vary with individual perception.

That's the best I can come up with, Stan.


the fisch

Carl--I completely agree with you're last paragraphs, in fact that is what I have been arguing all along, that art is a process and not necessarily a result. Given that fact, on cannot argue that "all nature phtoography is art", which is what some were doing in the other thread below. I disagree that the toddler's work is "art" though--maybe if i had used "elephant" instead of 'toddler' it might have been more clear? It's not my definition--it's Webster's!

Larry, thanks for the follow-up. Do you see any conflict between on the one hand, as you put it, that nature photography as art "studies 'true' art, and 'records' for others and posterity", and the point you made about definition #1, that art is meant to "supplement" or "supercede" nature. Isnt there an inherent contradiction there??

Michael, I finally have a reason to bookmark something on YouTube. Thank you very much.

Nature photographers can be a very confused and insecure bunch Myself included, at some point. And that's a comment based upon continual observation, rather than this one thread. You see these discussions constantly, because nature photographers are often quite unsure when it comes to self-definition ... whether it comes from internal suspicion or external influence (both are very strong these days). We are unsure how to market ourselves, how to write our "artist's statement", and so forth. Many, if not most, feel the need to incorporate the notion of "art" somewhere along the way ... whether it's for commercial success, notoriety, etc. Most of us should probably just worry about refining the enjoyment and purpose behind our own photography (our craft, our art, our message, or whatever) - rather than worrying if we are creating art or not. Photography (even nature photography) serves many purposes, and only one of them is "art". The true artists are out there doing their thing, without a care in regard to definitions or what other people think. Find out what you love to do (or love to shoot, with whatever tools), and do it - without regard to formulas and convention. But more importantly, let others worry about whether or not your work is "art" or not. Photography is photography. If someone of importance happens to decide that your photography is art, then enjoy the ride.

Stan,

I probably mistyped. I should have capitalized "true artist' to indicate diety.

I've corrected that mistake.

By my definitions, using Hobbs, the Dictionary of 1828, and Socrates, art can never supercede nature or the study of nature, and its study must be relatively good.

This is my corrected statement:

Nature photography is good art because it studies the True Artist.

This brings in the source of nature, and Hobbs referred to God as the source of nature, so we are studying the True Artist, i.e. God. In my take the artist will never surpass, supercede if you will, the Original.

And if Nature is good because God is good, then the study of nature through photography cannot be bad, it must be good.

I would furthear add that it is perception that makes it good or not good based on the nebulous incomplete "forms" of which we, according to Socrates, are imbued with, and which represent a yet unknown absolute beauty. Socrates speaks of other forms, too, such as the concept of equal, justice, etc.

All our art attempts to approach the ultimate "beauty" form, but that is impossible.

But when attempting to present that which is subjectively beautiful to us, we can only present and let others judge, which they will do, based on a relative scale which has at the top the unknown ultimate.

All art which studies the creation is good. How's that??



the fisch

Thanks, Larry--understood!
Jesse, thanks for your thoughts! Note that i didn't start this thread expecting to 'resolve' anything--just wanted to hear some insights like yours

Stan: I'm back to contribute something less immature

Jesse said:
"Most of us should probably just worry about refining the enjoyment and purpose behind our own photography (our craft, our art, our message, or whatever) - rather than worrying if we are creating art or not."

I'd posit that Jesse's advice is the most important statement on this page. Less talking, less thinking, and more doing is the path to creating whatever-you-want-call-it. To quote a major corporation, Just Do It.

Thanks, Michael, as the thread starter im the only one allowed to be immature here, its in the rules

I think Jesse's advice is great, I acknowlege that. Too bad that Co. isn't knocking on his door to offer him a sponsorship cause his incredible photography is worth it if you ask me.

"Thinking about it" most definitely has its rewards, though. Some of the most financially successful photogs on this site thought long and hard about their marketing strategies, i can promise you that. They didnt "just do it". And I know someone else here on NPN who is churning out the best photos theyve ever taken because they recently thought long and hard about what it was they were doing in the field, what sort of statement they were making. I agree one shouldnt get hung up in circular pointless debate; my interest here is to try and come up with some practical thoughts on the 'art' of nature photography, so that when someone poses the question of "how much is too much?", like Michael's post below, there's some meaningful background to base your opinion on. There's room for both action and thought, IMO.

I haven't gotten the chance to read through all of these yet but I like what Scott said about that painting which was just a canvas painted with white paint. It had a description which was significantly longer than the other pieces of art.

I feel that true art should speak for itself and should not need to be explained. With art you are trying to show something and convey an idea to your audience even if that idea is as simple as "look how beautiful this scene is". Sure you can always go on and on talking about any piece of art but it shouldn't have to be explained to be appreciated. So to tie this in to nature photography, you shouldn't have to explain why you did something the way you did or why you put that stick where you did. If everyone is asking why you did what you did, there may have been a better way to convey your message so they didn't have to ask. Maybe you should have omitted that stick from the composition if everyone keeps asking "why" questions about it. It should speak for itself and draw the viewers attention into the photo. They should just see the photo and think "wow thats a great photo" not have to ask a gazillion questions or have you explain it to them before they can appreciate it. A short description can definitely help to convey the message further, especially if you are trying to support a cause for conservation with your nature photography but the photo should stand out on its own without the description. Then again its all a matter of opinion and I'm sure some people will disagree and feel that a description can be part of the art as is the case with the canvas painted white.

I definitely feel that good nature photography is creative and is art. Sure nature provides the scenery and the light but there are so many different ways to capture a scene, many of which would just be a boring photo. That is where the creative and artistic part comes in, figuring out how to capture it in a way that elicits an emotional response from the viewer. Some people think photography is easy and that the camera does all the work so it is not art but as nature photographers we all know that is not even the least bit true. There is a huge difference between a photograph and a snapshot, one is art and one is not.

Always fun to beat a dead horse, Stan, figuratively speaking of course... I've never actually put a top hat on and tried it

Regarding that white canvas: this has been done so many times, that even if the first one were art because of the statement, which I will grant, every one thereafter, was not art, in any sense of possible imagination, IMO. Every MOMA has one, and if they don't, they have a black one, or a blue one, or half and half, etc... come on folks, what's been done has been done. Art must have some aspect of originality IMO, a direct copy of anything, is not art anymore. Ok.. done venting

I very much like Jesse's point, which Michael quoted, but I agree with Stan.. thinking, for some people, can be very helpful. I do a lot of thinking, and some of my better received pieces are ones that had a lot of philosophical thinking either before, or during, the taking of the photo. Note that many other forms of art are all about thinking: writing and some styles of painting are two that spring to mind. But, there is also a power to the 'rawness' of a photograph created by instinct. Like writing a song, vs. improvising. Actual content, vs. raw emotion.

"Thinking, for some people, can be very helpful."

Floris - That's a great quote. May I use it?

haha, sure Buck.. I guess taken out of context it brings a whole new meaning with it

Stan, you wrote above:
"Thanks Marylynne! Interesting that the OED definition focuses on skill and practicality, with no mention of 'imagination' or even creativity! Photography sure seems to fit using those terms."

Notice that only the first (and probably most current) definition emphasis skill and practice of technique. The others seem to emphasis artifice and even deception, suggesting that at its core, the concept of art includes the concept of manipulation in order to achieve a result. Interesting considering that some think nature photography isn't art because we are just illustrating what's there, and others think that if we change what's there through manipulation of some sort, then it's not nature anymore. Quite the paradox we find ourselves in!

I disagree with Austin in that anything created can be considered "art".

By definition, which I've already given in a previous post: 3) Skill, dexterity, or the power of performing certain actions, acquired by experience, study or observation; ...

Even a snapshot is "art" by definition, it is an action that created something. Experiecne, study or observatin are separate, or inclusive in an action. Action is "creative" and that is a fundamental in "art".

Now, whether it is good or not is always subjective.

We each compare the created something with respect to certain concepts of an absolute. That varies with each person and the determination of good or less good will always be spread over a wide spectrum.

It white painted on canvas art? Yup, is it good. My take, NO. What's your take--Carl will probably say YES. I bet I will find out.

And the Matterhorn and Ocean overlapping is art by definition. Would I like it? I've seen some montages that I did like. Would anyone else? Don't know, can't say, won't speculate--the ol' legal wiggle.

Why worry--just do it--the ol'd Nike wiggle...

the fisch

Hey Larry, how much are you wagering on you're bet? Carl has pretty refined tastes, so i'd say Ivory or Cream, maybe YES, but white? NO WAY!

I just like taking pictures - its fun

^^ That man wins the debate.

In all seriousness, he has a good point, and one which kind of goes along with Stan's. Art is a process, not a product.

I don't want to get into the whole "good" art deal a whole lot, but I just want to say that the art (for lack of a better term for the physical result of the process...) I appreciate most takes originality and skill. Sorry, but no painted white canvases will ever hang in my living room

What is art? Honestly, being a scientist, I don't really know. I was actually told that by an art professor of a photo art course I took in college in 1977 (I took many photography courses in college -physics, chemistry, art..... as many as I could since I was hooked many years earlier). My approch to photography was too scientific in his words. I guess. I did not have wierd, twisted faces in my images I guess in my technically correct images of landscapes. Maybe my work is not artistic (by some, many standards) but I will never forget those words. .....but photography is a passion of mine, and I do it for me and not to sell images (yeah it would be nice to sell some images for extra money, but it is not my profesion).

I do know some of the work my technicians and others do/have done in the laboratory is called art, or rather AN ART, when they polish a metallurgical mount to bring out the most in a sample to find root cause of success or failure and craftfully photograph it through a microscope..... So what? So many things can be called an art. ....but does it move us emotionally? Not really, especially on a spiritual level. .....but photography which portrays nature in a realistic manner, that has meaning to ME, moves ME on a spiritual level and is ART IMO.

I do put my heart and soul into trying to capture my feelings through photography..... and I do try to keep it real. So what? It is what moves us on a spiritual level that can be called art (regardless of text book definitions and art professer opinions) IMO. .....and that level is different for all of us. Period.

So should we stop beating a dead horse? Only if it is injurying a living animal! Just my scientific two cents.....

"Art is making something out of nothing and selling it." Frank Zappa

Pete D.

"Art is making something out of nothing and selling it." Frank Zappa

Pete D.

In that case... nature photography is not in the least any kind of art. We are making something out of lots of things (ie. nature).... In fact, we're turning that something into less (photography is the art of subtraction).... and then failing to sell it (in general at least.. these days!).

(please read with a somewhat sarcastic tone personally, I think nature photography can be very much an art, but it entirely depends on the photographer's style. Taking a pretty picture of a pretty mountain is not art IMO, no more than journalism is art, but finding a unique interpretation that has an emotional response, is. Sometimes the lines get blurred, and that's perfectly fine.)

Larry Fischer wrote:

It white painted on canvas art? Yup, is it good. My take, NO. What's your take--Carl will probably say YES. I bet I will find out.

Hey Larry

Well, I would try to NOT be so presumptuous as to make the call without having seen the piece, eh? :)

Cheers

Carl

I think nature photography can be very much an art, but it entirely depends on the photographer's style. Taking a pretty picture of a pretty mountain is not art IMO, no more than journalism is art, but finding a unique interpretation that has an emotional response, is. Sometimes the lines get blurred, and that's perfectly fine.

You've clearly stated that this is just your opinion and I think that is important to emphasize, but I think it speaks to the attitude of the art world today. There are no current movements. Its a world of "me" right now. Its also a world where there is a drive towards uniqueness/individuality/novelty with almost a rejection of everything that has come before while simultaneous giving recognition of the predecessors. Thats a tough place to be since there are thousands of years worth of really good art that came before.

Ironically, when I look at what is showing in the art photography market today, there is an amazing amount of homogeneity across the field.

So why isn't it art if its a pretty scene? It certainly served Moran and Bierstadt well. It served Adams and Rowell well. Why isn't photojournalism art? Picasso's Guernica or Dali's Soft Construction with Boiled Beans are a response to the horror of human behavior at its worst and the are in many ways similar to the photographs of Robert Capa or Weegee. What makes Picasso an artist while Capa is a mere photojournalist?

And in regards to Larry Fischer, Stan Rose and Carl Donohue's side discussion on the "white canvas" there is certainly case law for this in Agnes Martin's work which early on primarily consists of white canvas with thin lines and later took on faint pastel tints in the wash. I'm sure that other examples of lead or titanium white canvas can be found in the abstract expressionists.

I think ultimately the arts come back around to skill and craft with a mix of imagination/vision/creativity. At some point a decision is made between an embrace of the creative and an embrace of the skill or the marriage of both and that comes at different times for different people. They are not mutually exclusive, but there is certainly a range. For example, my personal opinion of Ansel Adams work is that he often focused so heavily on the technical drive for the perfect negative that his photography seems somewhat sterile or clinical to me at times. On the other end of the spectrum you could point to photographers who are so entrenched in the creative, that they cannot even trip their shutter, ie Gregory Crewdson.

Certainly among photographers, the marriage of technical skill and craft are important since successful photography requires instrumented measurement of light and a semi-scientific understanding of its impact on film. But even this can be overcome through the use of assistants.

Regardless, this is a horse that is most certainly beaten dead.

So why isn't it art if its a pretty scene? It certainly served Moran and Bierstadt well. It served Adams and Rowell well. Why isn't photojournalism art? Picasso's Guernica or Dali's Soft Construction with Boiled Beans are a response to the horror of human behavior at its worst and the are in many ways similar to the photographs of Robert Capa or Weegee. What makes Picasso an artist while Capa is a mere photojournalist?

Is it art if I go to the MOMA and photograph someone's sculpture or a painting? I think it is possible (interesting angles, light, or context, which reveal something more about the piece that wasn't trivially obvious), but more than likely, you're just documenting someone else's art... and that, IMO, is not art. That's no different from going to a mountain viewpoint and taking a picture of it. Again, it is possible to create art from such a position, but it's going to take a little more work than just snapping the view... the view being the art of scientific forces

There are no current movements. Its a world of "me" right now. Its also a world where there is a drive towards uniqueness/individuality/novelty with almost a rejection of everything that has come before while simultaneous giving recognition of the predecessors.

I think that's a great place to be! I guess you could say HDR is a movement, but I'm certainly not moving with it. I think technology has been developing so much in the last 50 years that there are so many possibilities new opportunities, that there's no time for a movement to develop... not the way one could when all there was was paint, canvas, marble, and a few other raw materials.

In the wonderful world of photography today there is so much more of the photographer's personality involved than in times past where taking an image was strictly to push the shutter button. Almost all of us use the capabilites of our cameras and post processing tools so that the majority of images become one of a kind and therefore should be considered our own works of art.

This is a magical time for photography and it continues to grow as an art form. As more and more people avail themselves of the use of a camera, hopefully the competition will help us grow and others will appreciate the difficulty and dedication it takes to make a exceptional image. I welcome the challenge.

Hey Floris

What's the difference, say, between photographing another's artwork, and Mikhail Baryshnikov dancing the Nutcracker, or Wynton Marsalis playing 'Autumn Leaves'?

Cheers

Carl

That's an easy one Carl: a chimpanzee can be quickly taught to photograph someone elses artwork, while he would struggle with the Nutcracker or even Autumn Leaves
If Marsalis played the original note for note exactly in intended tempo, then there's no difference. The difference is in the interpretation, and Floris has already pointed out that in most cases, there's no interpretation involved in the documentary shot.

Hey Stan

The premise behind the chimp example is ????? - I'd struggle with the Nutcracker, though I have Autumn Leaves down just fine. Most people would struggle with either as well.

Classical musicians would argue with you on the Marsalis example - they usually don't even get to choose what tempo or interpretation that play with, as the conductor makes that choice, yet they'd still claim to be artists. You disagree?

Cheers

Carl

That's like directing me to take a picture of your car to sell on ebay, and telling me under what light and angle to shoot in. If you asked me then if i was the "artist" for that shot id emphatically say 'no'. I still claim to be an artist though, too.

Hey Stan

Well, in that case, most orchestral classical musicians, including the world's finest, aren't artists.

......... hhhmmmmmm. :)

Cheers

Carl

Carl - playing a violin (or any instrument) takes a lot more skill than snapping a prescribed shot (in not too difficult lighting conditions). I would assume that's pretty obvious... with cameras being capable of doing everything automatic these days. So far as I know there are no automatic violin playing machines. Skill is no doubt a part of art, though I tend to stress originality, thought provokingness, and aesthetics more heavily in my personal definition of art.

Also, you can clearly hear the difference between a good musician/quartet/orchestra from a mediocre one, and a large part of that difference is a result of the emotional full-body aspect that a good musician puts into any piece they play, be it a prescribed piece+conductor or a jazz solo. I'm not sure how to describe it, but I had the pleasure of listening to a fantastic string quartet who did exactly that experiment: they played a piece literally by the books, and one with various (and very very subtle) interpretations and emotional investment, the former was not art, the latter was... to my ears at least. With a conductor and an orchestra it gets a little more complicated, but as a whole, as an entity, the orchestra is most certainly an artist, and seeing as it is composed of many individuals, all of which are critical to the performance, those individuals must be artists as well. Depending on one's definition of art - whether on the creative control or technical skill side - the conductor may take more or less of the "credit" for the orchestra's artistic production. Each of the musicians, however, have to be completely in synch with each other for it to work - the conductor isn't "conducting" in real-time - he/she is just making sure things stay on track.

Food for thought: a good quartet's brain waves are in synch when playing a complex piece

Hey Floris

Now you're talking. :)

Firstly, I think the “state” we bring to art (or art brings to us) is the factor, and the ONLY factor. What you're calling the ‘full-body aspect’. I once heard Carlos Santana respond, when asked how much of his guitar tone comes from his hands (I'm paraphrasing):

“I would say maybe 5%”.
Interviewer, disappointed: “only 5%?”
Carlos: “Yes - the other 95% from my calves, my groin, my elbows, my tongue, my toes, me entire body”.

I, as a guitarist, nearly fell over, his comments hit me so hard. That's where art comes from, IMO.

That said, my 2nd point is that I don't think skill has anything to do with it. None whatsoever. Skill is not a part of art. Who's to define what constitutes skill? Where are those boundaries? How do we apply “skill” in pointing now to what some fellow in a loin cloth did on a sandstone wall thousands of years ago?

Skill is merely a function of intentioned repetition, and highly over-rated. Don't let it get in your way. :)

Cheers

Carl

Some interesting points, guys! Carl, im not saying i disagree with you, but that idea then begs the question: if skill is not a part of it, then how can one differentiate between what is art and what is not? By taking skill out of the equation, I could take that same picture of your car, as you directed, but by putting my "tongue, groin, etc" into the performance i could then claim that the performance and the product were "art". I want to be clear--is that what you are saying??

Hey Stan

I think it's a process, an engagement, that's all. I don't think that becomes “art” when the person reaches or touches a certain threshold of skill. What if, on the other hand, they have an off day and don't make, compose, play, photograph anything that you like or that someone else deems lacking of technique? Is that not art? Is that person not an artist because they weren't “on” that day?

Photographers perhaps more than most are aware of how many attempts it might take to make that one photo that is the gem - how many bald eagle photos before the wing position was “just right”? That kind of measurement is a bit silly, IMO - it holds no real value or usefulness.

Of course, my position makes it often impossible for others to say what might qualify or not either. How are you or I to say whether Carlos played a particular passage with everything he has, or whether he's just skillful? It becomes about honesty; and Carlos knows, that's what matters.

The hypothetical you give, of the car photo, I think serves little purpose, because I don't think you seriously mean it when you describe the scenario - if you photograph the car, you're probably NOT doing so with the passion we're talking about, so to try to build an abstraction like that doesn't serve the discourse. However, if someone IS passionate about photographing cars, and they go about it with their heart and soul, then I'm sure they touch that moment as well.

The point is it's not up to you or I to differentiate between what else is art and what is not - hopefully the art we make will do that. If not, I don't see that it matters; what matters is that we engage the process.

Cheers

Carl

I like your points Carl.. perhaps I am mislabeling skill as "the ability 'to get into it' ". (I'm including the mere ability, along with the extent to which one can get into it, as well as the reliability of getting into it in that statement). Of course, raw technical skill allows certain things to be done... but I agree, the "art" doesn't come from that part, that's simply a tool in a sense.

Stan, back at the start of the thread you replied to my post and stated:

"I think you are making the correct distinciton in the last paragraph--it may not be "good" art--but i think its fairly clear that the process involved is art--it meets the definition i posted. That's what im getting at--defining the process and not the results.

After following along with the thread, my personal opinion is that it is not the process that defines art, it is the result. In my first post I brought up the example of the White on White painting and questioned whether it was art at all or just bad art. Others later brought in examples of singers or musicians and whether if they just played the notes was it art or not. One can go through the process of painting, photography, playing music, etc, but that doesn't make it art. Simply playing notes doesn't make it art; simply applying paint to a substrate doesn't make it art; and simply aiming a camera and hitting the shutter button doesn't make it art. It is art only when the Viewer thinks it has transcended mere craft (use of technical abilities). Just like the painter who painted the White on White piece, I can paint the ceiling in my living room white. In my view neither one of us created art. I can write a book on the aesthetic theory I used when I painted the ceiling to try to justify what I did, but it still isn't Art - to me. Others may disagree and put one of our creations in the National Gallery of Art.

If asked, I always refer to myself as a photographer, other people may be painters or sculptors, or whatever, but I believe to be called an artist is to be judged on a body of created works. This last July 4th I went down to a major art festival in Denver and met an artist who created works that combined watercolor,calligraphy, and original poetry. Coincidentally one of her pieces was of a scene that I had photographed. I had the image on my iphone and showed it to her, along with other images, during our conversation. A little while later a friend of hers came up and she introduced her friend as a painter and then introduced me to her friend as a "fellow artist". To me this was a great compliment based upon her seeing images I had taken, not having anything to do with the "process" or my self-professed title, only the results.

Like Beauty, Art is in the eye of the beholder.

Scott said, "It is art is only when the Viewer thinks it has transcended mere craft (use of technical abilities)."

In my humble opinion, this is the crux of matter.

-P

I agree, Scott-good points!

Hey Scott,

I'm curious as to what a painting or piece of music might be if the viewer doesn't think it has “transcended mere craft”? And how exactly do measure this transcendence if it's not technical?

Cheers

Carl

Edited typo.

I believe you meant to say "does not" no, Carl?

Carl, I would call it Art. How you measure transcendence is probably harder to describe and would probably vary on a case-by-case basis. I definitely do not think it is technical. Say you have a metal sculpture, it may have been fabricated with perfect welds, or cast perfectly but if that is all there it is not art in my book - now a professional welder who covets the quality of welds more than anything else might consider it Art. Just as a photograph may be technically perfect, in exposure, shutter speed, technique that creates a sharp image, etc., it doesn't make it Art. At the same time a photograph may be technically imperfect, underexposed, out of focus, etc that may be considered Art. I would probably measure transcendence more along the lines of where someone feels an emotional connection to the work in some way.

If, as Stan mentioned, you meant "what a painting or piece of music might be if the viewer does NOT think it has transcended mere craft" I would say the painting would simply be a painting or an illustration or a drawing. A piece of music would simply be a song or a composition. An example would be a documentary film. I think the History Channel or something similar has a show called "How It's Made" and an episode will go through the manufacturing process of how jelly beans are made for example. The narration is monotone, the cinematography is a motionless camera focused on a machine, then they move on to a clip of the next machine. On the other hand you have a documentary that wins an Academy Award. Both were done technically correct, but only one had a lasting impact on it's viewers, only one is ART, to me.

Hey Stan

Fixed it, thanks.

hey Scott,

I agree that technique is essentially irrelevant. I think then, you actually make the point that art IS the process; I doubt anyone can feel any 'emotional connection' to a piece if there's is no emotional connection involved in the process. If a musician doesn't play with their soul, how do you hear any soul in the music? Further, if one DOES hear some emotion in the piece, and the performer played with without any emotion, what does that say about the audience? :)

Cheers

Carl

I dunno about that, Carl. There is a bit of confusion in my mind between the creation and the performance--Floris and I had a discussion aobout this in an earlier thread relating music to photography (eg., what's the correct analogy between a musician playing another's music, and someone composing/shooting nature and then later processing the shot to present it). For example, I could easily program software or hardware to mechanically play a piece by Mozart or whoever without any 'soul' at all--yet i suspect i'd still be able to recognize the artistic genious behind the music, and I probably might even feel an emotional response to the piece if I had never heard it before. I might prefer the live musician playing with all they've got, but if that same musician played a set of random notes with all their heart, i'm betting i'd prefer the computer's rendition of Mozart.

Carl, I think there is a significant difference between music (performance) and photography (static). You are right, the "emotion" of the musician while he is playing does affect the "product", but I would argue that it is still not the process or emotion of him playing that determines how I feel about what he is playing. It is in fact the sound (product) that he produces that will be judged. For instance Jimi Hendrix played "The Star Spangled Banner" at Woodstock on his electric guitar. If you have ever heard it, he obviously put a lot of his soul into his performance. Regardless, almost every single person who I have had listen to it has said it is a piece of junk and some have gone on to say it is an insult to our national anthem. In fact one person described it as "drug-induced scratching on a guitar". Those people in no way, shape, or form consider that a work of Art. Others of course would.

In regard to photography, I am in fact stating that process has NOTHING to do with what I consider Art. I can take a documentary photo of a possession of mine for insurance purposes and use the exact same process as I would to take a photo someone might consider art. I can view a painting, sculpture or a movie, and know nothing about the process of how it was created and consider it Art. We have all heard stories of elephants or chimps, or whatever creating paintings. Some people could, and do, consider them art. Did the animal put any of their soul or emotion into the painting, or was it simply a muscle reflex? Does it matter? (my answer is no) Someone viewing that painting, without knowing the source, could love the colors, patterns, texture, composition, or whatever and decide it was beautiful and consider it a piece of Art.

Carl, when you said "art IS the process" I believe you are talking from the viewpoint of an Artist, not the Viewer who is the person evaluating whether it is Art or not. And I can see that from the viewpoint of someone creating something. Much like a traveler saying "it's not the destination, it's the journey. Back to the White on White example, I can see how the creator of that may have went through a long intellectual (and maybe even emotional) process and the evolution of that thought led to the painting and other variations to that painting. To that person the painting was probably just part of the process. But a Viewer (me for example), seeing the painting without a description, or knowledge of the process, may only see white paint, not art. When I first saw the painting I read the description and I have since read a little on the movement and the artist that created the piece. Now knowing the "process", I still do not consider it Art, I consider it an illustration of an intellectual idea much the same as a math formula in a physics theory. My sole judgement is based on viewing the finished "product".

You also said "I doubt anyone can feel any 'emotional connection' to a piece if there's is no emotional connection involved in the process". I doubt anyone is capable of "creating" anything without some sort of emotion. Humans have emotions 24/7 so I'm not sure the point. Lack of enthusiasm by a child playing a piano when he wants to be outside playing is an emotion and is reflected in the product. Sure, one would assume some/most of what people may consider art was created by people passionate about what they were doing, but even depressed/suicidal painters created works of art. And putting emotion into your work doesn't guarantee everyone will consider your work Art.

Hmmm, If so, Scott, i prefer Carl's idea of the process as art--because at least there's some objectivity to that. With your 'definition', art is completely subjective--each decides what is and what isn't. Assuming the person is honest, you can always ask whether they intended a piece to be art or not, and their truthful answer decides how it is classified. It's pretty obvious that the child who would rather be outside isn't putting any 'artistic' emotion into the piano piece, he/she wants to go outside--that's a seperate emotion not directed at the art. If the intent isn't there, than you may call the result art--but i don't. I say you just found the result aesthetically pleasing, just as the people who call the chimp or the elephant's work "art" aesthetically pleasing--but it's not art! The chimp could accidentally produce something really hideous, that the same people would say is 'not art', but only because it doesn't please them. But the proscess was the same in both cases--so I would argue that it is not art.

Your Hendrix example is a perfect one. Like Carl, Im a longtime guitarist. When i first heard Jimi's SSB, i also thought it was just annoying noise. Didn't take many months of practice before my mind quickly changed though and i realized the artistic brillinace of the performance. It required a great deal of skill--but also a great deal of intelligence and emotion. I didn't 'get it' before just as the majority you have spoken to 'don't get it'--but my experience taught me differently, and i came to the correct conclusion that it was indeed art--i was wrong before and so are those who insist it is not art--they simply don't get it! How it is recieved by the public makes not one iota of difference about the correct characterization of the performance as 'art'. It's probably not coincidental that some of the most valued things (certain expensive foods and beverages come to mind) are not that universally popular--they require an acquired taste. Anyhow--some food for thought (as i polish off this cheap but delicious turkey )

My brain hurts, its hard to banter about this and watch football at the same time...

Stan, I don't think the idea of the process as art is any more objective. You state in your third sentence, if you ask a person that created something if it was intended as art and they say yes, then it is art. How is that any more objective than asking a viewer if it is art? What are the qualifications? And who qualifies the assertion? It kind of reminds me of 20 years ago all of a sudden janitors became Sanitation Engineers and handymen became Maintenance Engineers. The qualifications and duties were the same, but now they were self-proclaimed Engineers.

"How it is recieved by the public makes not one iota of difference about the correct characterization of the performance as 'art'." I honestly don't think this is one of those correct/incorrect or right/wrong issues, it all a matter of opinion. And the art-viewing public in the end will be the one who decides. One of my favorite pieces of "art" is at Denver International Airport. Due to Colorado law stating that art had to comprise at least 1% of any public construction project, the $5 billion airport generated millions of dollars of "art" projects. One of the proposals selected by a juried panel consisted of taking a bunch of old farm equipment found on the old farms that made up the new airport, and lining it up along a fence. For this the "artist" was paid thousands of dollars. How is this lineup any different than walking down a row of junk cars in a salvage yard? Intent? I'm sure I could write a thesis and justify either one just as the "artist" did to get the commision, but it would never be art in my book. I'll go back to a definition I used earlier, "It is art is only when the Viewer thinks it has transcended mere craft (use of technical abilities)." By simply lining up the farm equipment along the fence, how did it become art? How was it transformed? I have an open mind to change my opinion, but a statement from the artist saying "Because I intended for it to be art" isn't going to do it. In the end, the artist will call it art, and I will not, then we can shake hands and continue on our own paths.

Your point about acquired taste I think nails it right on the head. There needs to be an appreciation of what art is, for you it was expanded when you took up guitar, and like anything else in life, that appreciation and level of acceptance evolves as your experience in life grows. People will always have their own definition of art based on their own education and experience. For some it will be a relatively narrow definition, and for some it will be as broad as to encompass all of human achievement.

Stan Rose wrote:

There is a bit of confusion in my mind between the creation and the performance--Floris and I had a discussion about this in an earlier thread relating music to photography (eg., what's the correct analogy between a musician playing another's music, and someone composing/shooting nature and then later processing the shot to present it).

Hey Stan,

Processing the shot is akin to mixing a CD - no more, no less. Playing music is creating music - whether you wrote it, I wrote it, or Mozart wrote it. Historically people have played others' compositions for millennia, far more frequently than their own - composing pieces is actually something of a rarity. A better analogy to playing covers is photographing from Oxbow Bend or Wonder Lake.

I could easily program software or hardware to mechanically play a piece by Mozart or whoever without any 'soul' at all--yet i suspect i'd still be able to recognize the artistic genious behind the music, and I probably might even feel an emotional response to the piece if I had never heard it before.

“..recognize the artistic genius? Sure. Feel anything? Not unless the 'programmer' put something organic into it - quantizing rhythms and subtle shifts in dynamics. As I touch on a little later, what you do feel, if anything, is probably a function of something else - an association with the piece, etc.

I might prefer the live musician playing with all they've got, but if that same musician played a set of random notes with all their heart, i'm betting I'd prefer the computer's rendition of Mozart

One of the reasons hypotheticals don't fare well in such discussion. How, exactly, does a musician “play a random set of notes with all their heart” - I'd submit that's impossible.

Scott Fricke wrote:

I think there is a significant difference between music (performance) and photography (static).

Hey Scott,

Oh, for sure - there is absolutely no ‘performance’ in photography, or anything similar. But the engagement, that ‘losing oneself’, can be markedly similar, and that, to me, is where the art lies (and the only place it lies).

In this sense, emotion is really the wrong word to use; I only used the word in reference to a specific post above. What I look for is engagement and attention; a complete giving of attention, a bringing into presence that art does for the artist, and sometimes the audience (though I believe that is entirely secondary).

.. but I would argue that it is still not the process or emotion of him playing that determines how I feel about what he is playing. It is in fact the sound (product) that he produces that will be judged. For instance Jimi Hendrix played "The Star Spangled Banner" at Woodstock on his electric guitar. If you have ever heard it ...

An excellent example of art that stands precisely because of what I just wrote about (not to mention the technical excellence, the originality and the power of the subject matter and expression) - when you say ‘the sound he produces’ you're dismissing the fact that the sound came entirely from within, it's a function of Jimi, in that time and space - as a guitar player, I understand completely that the tone coming from my instrument comes from me - what I give to it is what you hear.

To digress for a moment, I think there are 2 main reasons why so many people found/find it hard to appreciate that performance:
1) what he expressed was, to many people, almost treasonous - it's an extraordinarily confrontational performance - sonically, visually, philosophically, etc. It's a challenge that's easier to turn away from than to give it some time and energy.
2) our ears are conditioned - we like what we've been taught to like.

I think that performance is one of the greatest moments in art, ever.

I am in fact stating that process has NOTHING to do with what I consider Art. I can take a documentary photo of a possession of mine for insurance purposes and use the exact same process as I would to take a photo someone might consider art. I can view a painting, sculpture or a movie, and know nothing about the process of how it was created and consider it Art. ... Someone viewing that painting, without knowing the source, could love the colors, patterns, texture, composition, or whatever and decide it was beautiful and consider it a piece of Art.

2 comments:

I think you're looking at the process as a technical event rather than the engagement of the artist. The connection the artist makes with the subject, the moment, indeed through them, with the universe, is where art lies. That's why live music can be so powerful, and recorded music can never capture that moment, that quality - recordings can illustrate it, at best, but never hold it.

As Stan notes above, to qualify art as bound by parameters of the audience makes it somewhat meaningless - anything, and therefore nothing, might be art. It might be art today and not tomorrow (or an hour from now). It might be art in Greece and not in Italy. Art on black matte and not on a white matte. Look at what we call ‘artifacts’ - at one time, will the Mona Lisa, or Venus de Milo become an artifact, no longer art? Essentially, you're saying that a Big Mac could be art because someone likes it a lot.

How we as audience members view a performance/photo/painting/etc is completely dependent on our history, our conditioning, our relationship with the artist and the discipline, our association with the piece, with what's going on outside, the weather, the lighting, etc, etc ... with so many things. That, in my mind, makes it a rather meaningless construct by which to define art.

I listened to Jimi's Woodstock thing earlier, in fact, just to get into the groove of your conversation, and ya know what sprang to my mind? Halfway through it I thought "I want something to eat" - my reaction to it, or parts of it, was completely guided by the fact that I'd not eaten for a few hours and was hungry. Other times I've heard it and been 100% mesmerized by it.

Audience reaction is dependent on all kinds of variables that are unrelated to the performance itself, and vary enormously. Yet the performance itself, Jimi playing it, was what it was - there's nothing that will change that at all.

Here's another example; I got to see one of my favorite musicians, Larry Carlton, play guitar in Atlanta one time, at an outdoors venue called Chastain Park. Larry is a superb musician (check out his tracks with Steely Dan). So in the middle of his gig, his band leaves the stage, it's just him and his guitar, and he starts playing, ever so quietly, this little bluesy thing ... a note, silence, a couple of notes, space, a breath, a note .... he's barely touching the guitar, I can hear the strings rattle on the fretboard. He digs deeper and deeper, and it just goes out of this world; it's beyond sublime, it's in the realm of the supernatural. And literally HALF the audience take this as intermission, get up out of their seats, and start asking their friends who wants what to drink or if anyone would like more cheese and crackers. I'm serious, this is one of the finest musicians on the planet, playing guitar like the hand of God has touched his brow and these folks, who paid to attend the performance, are concerned with saltines.

So it seems to me the process, the engagement of artist and creating, is where art lies. The audience appreciation for the product is secondary, still of some value, but ultimately secondary. The real value, and what art is all about, is the process of creating - remember the old adage that humans are made in God the Creator's likeness? What could possibly be more God-like than to be creating?

Carl, when you said "art IS the process" I believe you are talking from the viewpoint of an Artist, not the Viewer who is the person evaluating whether it is Art or not

Absolutely. I think using the word art to describe the experience of the audience is to misunderstand art - though it's probably a far more common interpretation. At one time lotsa folks thought the earth was flat, too, eh? :)

I don't think the idea of the process as art is any more objective. You state in your third sentence, if you ask a person that created something if it was intended as art and they say yes, then it is art. How is that any more objective than asking a viewer if it is art?

Simply because there's one artist - the maker of the art. And they know. Everyone else merely guesses. Or, how about with a group performance? Have you ever read any of the research done on the synchronicity in the brains of artists performing together? It's pretty amazing stuff - and when it happens, everyone involved knows it, immediately.

.. One of the proposals selected by a juried panel consisted of taking a bunch of old farm equipment found on the old farms that made up the new airport, and lining it up along a fence. For this the "artist" was paid thousands of dollars. How is this lineup any different than walking down a row of junk cars in a salvage yard? Intent? I'm sure I could write a thesis and justify either one just as the "artist" did to get the commision, but it would never be art in my book. I'll go back to a definition I used earlier, "It is art is only when the Viewer thinks it has transcended mere craft (use of technical abilities)." By simply lining up the farm equipment along the fence, how did it become art? How was it transformed? ....

... hhmmm ...The viewers (juried panel) clearly decided this is art, yet you say it's not? That's precisely one of the problems with the idea that the parameters of art are the realm of the audience - they're not.

Ask yourself what happens when there is no audience? I played guitar for nearly 2 hours last night, only stopping when my D string broke. Sitting in my room, the lights off, I watched the snow fall softly through the cracked window, under the lights of the neighborhood streetlights. For a good 30 minutes of that time, the music, myself, the snow and the night were one. Yet there was no other audience. So it's not art?

I doubt anyone is capable of "creating" anything without some sort of emotion. Humans have emotions 24/7 so I'm not sure the point. Lack of enthusiasm by a child playing a piano when he wants to be outside playing is an emotion and is reflected in the product. Sure, one would assume some/most of what people may consider art was created by people passionate about what they were doing, but even depressed/suicidal painters created works of art. And putting emotion into your work doesn't guarantee everyone will consider your work Art.

Again, 'emotion' is the wrong word to use, because, much like the word “art”, its meaning is so subjective.

Take music, again. We've all heard the idea of some great musician who can 'play one note and make it sing', or similar. That has nothing to do with technical prowess, with intellectual ideas, etc, and everything to do with attention - giving one's attention, completely, to the note, to the music, to the moment. If the artist does not do that, then I don't believe the audience will be brought into that moment either - they may certainly respond well to it, because they have a history with the piece, or they're in a good mood, or a bad mood, or well fed, or whatever. But they won't truly be there, present, like they can be when the artist is completely there. That, to me, is not only the value but the purpose of art.

“Shoot your passion” actually means something .. it means shoot that which moves you to be present, that which touches your soul. If we don't do that, it's merely a gig - it may be pretty, it may be technically excellent, it may be well received by the masses - but that's not much to do with art. Those castles are made of sand, and fall into the sea - eventually.

Cheers

Carl

Thanks Carl for your elaborate and well written thoughts... I completely agree with all you've said.

In fact, it's really no different than anything else in life... it's the passion with which anything is done that matters.

In fact, it's really no different than anything else in life... it's the passion with which anything is done that matters.

Amen!

Lucy Van Pelt has identified a salient criterion for determining whether or not a work is a true work of art. I saw it in this morning's newspaper. Click here true art

Lucy's criteria works for me, Buck!

So does that mean you have to have a shutter speed that long or spend that much time in photoshop?

Stan,
Until recently, I'd always try to photographically reproduce a beautiful scene exactly as I'd seen it. I wanted to document beauty, just as I'd documented many things throughout 12-year journalism career of writing and limited photography. I wanted the viewer of the end product to emotionally experience what I did.
I realized, however, that that isn't really enough in making memorable landscape images. We've seen so many landscape images, especially with the internet, that so much has become cliche. To break out of that, and present something fresh, photographers need to be increasingly more creative.
Now, my approach is to look at a scene and determine which elements to use and how to place them in the frame. I may use filters to get a certain contrast or color. I may use wide angle to accentuate the wide open scene, or I might compress it with a tele. I may try various angles to increase the image's appeal.

There's a thread of thought permeating the preceding discussions here that touches on whether reprodution of art are to be considered art in their own right, and associated with that, the closeness/improvization of the copy to the original. Wynton Marsalis's version of "Autumn Leaves" was an example. Well, here are my thoughts. Would we label somebody who could reproduce Marsalis' version of "Autumn Leaves" note-for-note a non-musician? Sure, he may lack the creativity of Marsalis, or the scores of musicians who have their own interpretations of that jazz classic, but speaking as a "guitarist" myself, I've learnt all too well that faithful reproductions of even simple compositions is a lot harder than it would seem. First, there are the notes themselves. Figuring out by ear every note is no mean task on a sufficiently complex Jazz piece. It takes a highly skilled ear to parse a stream of music, or even a chord, down to its component notes. Then comes the tempo. Then the phrasing. Then the actual playing of each note/chord. Every little bit makes a difference. And often I've found it easier to improvize than atually reproduce note-for-note the original. Herein lies the real debate. Does an improv of the original, albeit a less interesting take, qualify as art but a perfect reproduction does not? Does the boring improv mean the musician is more talented than one who renders a perfect reproduction?

In the same vein, I think photographers who can reproduce a classic image perfectly also deserve credit - sure, the light will never be identical betwen two different images, but it takes talent to determine how to compose an image that renders a scene in exactly the same way as a previous photographer did. Of course, one assumes there are no instructions that say "place tripod legs in these pre-drilled holes at location marked "X", place tripod head at 5' above ground, use 38mm focal length, f11, etc". Just as an example, I've seen so many images of dawn on Mt. Whitney seen through the Mobius arch in the Alabama hills. Each image is slightly different, since for this scene moving the camera even a couple of inches in any direction makes the small arch opening hide or reveal some part of the Sierra range in the backdrop. I doubt I could reproduce even my own image of this scene, let alone someone else's. And that does not even account for the light. Of course, I hold an original image in higher regard, but only if it's one that appeals to me on purely aesthetic/emotional grounds. I don't value originality for its own sake.

I think Stan is on to something though regarding a "process" being required for something to be labeled "art". However, as someone else pointed out, the viewer may not care about the process, only the product. I've been on both sides of the tabe, and I relate to both. If I see an image or hear a song that does not appeal to me in a visceral way, I don't really care what went into making it. Therein lies the crux of the matter. Art should not have to explain itself to be appealing. It either does or does not to each individual. The role of art is to pique interest, preferably to the point where the viewer wants to know how it was made. Having to explain how it was made to elicit interest is back-asswards.

Question: is Thomas Kinkade an art? Is a mass production of ovestaturated grand vistas with mountains and lakes an art? Is mass production of oversweetened and diffused pictures of creamy streams straight for kitchen calendars for housemoms an art?
Where is the difference between mass production of craft and the true art?
Art for me is breaking bareers. Breaking taboos. Creating things that makes one think. Creating things that provoke emotions. Creating things that makes us dream, or cry, or seek, or remember.
Making things that are unavailable or unseen in real life. Seeking hidden things. Exploring inner or outer boundaries.
Don't mix art with craft. To make art you do not need to be a craftsman. You are not even required to control the camera settings. You may create art with Holga. For art you need a vision. A message.
For craft you need years of hard work and experience. You need to be absolutely perfect in controling the camera, colors, tones, light. This is craft. But never art.
Art is vision. Craft is labour.
You may have both. Some have both. Very few, though.
This forum promotes craft. This forum is strongly anti-art. Look at the comments. The craft gets the praise.
Once I mentioned a contest for nature photo where nothing is sharp. A contest for unsharp nature photo. I was laughed at. Can I mention it here again? A contest for unsharp landscape photo. Can we do that?

I'll add that to the weekly challenge themes, Cezar

I find it personally hard to believe anyone would not consider landscape photography art. It takes a series of thoughts and actions to come up with a comp that is for one thing, a departure from reality in the first place. It is a smaller piece of a bigger picture. usually the part that we find the most aesthetic. So deliberate series of thoughts, and actions specifically implemented to create, and present the most aesthetic image possible is an artistic process.

Is digital processing of those same images art? I believe that it is. If you put the same raw file in front of 100 different people, the final processed images will vary probably 100 different ways. So again, this is due to a series of thoughts/evaluations, and deliberate actions to achieve an aesthetic result. I think that process no matter where applied, and applied to what, is art. Now I'm not saying it's good!!! We all have our own tastes, and opinions of what is good. Good in terms of quality, and also good in terms of asthetics. I don't think that is a valid debate. I also don't think the price tag is a confirmation of something being good. It might be a demonstration of the willingness of some to spend nauseating amounts of money on something that sucks, only because it was expensive!!!! For me, if I like a piece of art, and it is within my means to buy it, I sometimes do.

It seems that a certain posted image is what stimulated this debat on this particular occasion. If an image doesn't have spectacular natural light, is it not capable of being a good image, without being designated as photo art? is the artistic ability of the photographer not recognizeable without great natural light? So is dodging and burning just cheating now, or the compensation for a lack of artistic talent?

I think all artistic genres, and mediums have changed, or evolved over time through the advancements of the quality of materials, and equipment used. I don't quite understand the reluctance of so called purists to not accept the new forms of thier chosen craft. There is always going to be change and advancements that improve our ability to achieve our goals. It isn't necessarily better, or worse in my opinion, just different.

I think that spirited debate is a good thing. I actually enjoy it quite a bit. I don't understand the hostility that was expressed with the initial comments that started this one. And as far as Thomas Kincaid being art or not, good or bad. I don't think he's worrying about it all that much, on his way to the bank! If you want to be true to your own artistic integrity, fine. But if you want to make some money with it, you will cater to the trends of the market. That might require making a few kitchen calenders along the way!

Chris

This forum is strongly anti-art.

That is false. There have been images posted here from Holgas, images of blank expanses of nothing, out of focus scenes, and wild and crazy experiments (ie. things that go against the grain). What kinds of comments did these images get? For the most part, very positive ones, actually. Perhaps not 70 such comments, but more than 20 in several cases I can remember. They don't get posted often, but when they do, they are in fact appreciated.

Images that are 'art' for the sake of being 'art', and have no aesthetic merit, are typically not well received. But art that goes against the grain, and is still aesthetically pleasing, is valued here. We just don't see very much of it. Please, feel free to jump in with some

Once I mentioned a contest for nature photo where nothing is sharp.

I fondly remember a photo by Jesse Speer this past fall, only a few snowflakes were in focus, and the rest completely blurred/soft. I think it received over 40 comments of justified praise.

Is nature photography art?
When my 13 y/o daughter looks at an image I've created and says "that's pretty", I try to explore what she means. When my wife says "that's pretty" I know I've missed the boat. A flower can be pretty. A work of art, whether a photograph or a painting or a poem either works or it doesn't as art to the extent that it conveys some essence of the flower that the artist has captured. Ideally it will convey an essence that the veiwer would never have seen or felt on his or her own without the experience of that work of art. The flower can't do that, only art can. Unfortunately, those of us who feel the intense connection with nature that leads us to do nature photography are all too easily drawn into seeing these essences in anything natural, and then get too easily focused on the technical details that please us. Believe me, most (mature, knowlegeable) people care not one whit about sharpness, depth of field etc etc, and instantly associate saturated colors with kitsch regardless of the content otherwise. On the one hand, what Cezar is saying is very threatening to me, but on the other I feel in my heart that he is right. It is not impossible for nature/landscape photography to be art, it's just not easy (for most of us) and no amount of craft can make it so.
-Dan

I think the difference is in depth, whatever "depth" means. You can have a movie that has no depth or substance (again - what is "depth?), but has large publicity because of large amount of sex. A lot of people watch it because of sex. The movie has no message, has no content, but appeals to public on a very shallow basis. It appeals to animal instinct. It doesn't address the higher intellectual needs of a human, but it goes directly to low instinct, to hormones, to the animal nature of a man.

Art is something that goes beyond those instincts, something that changes the viewer's mind, something that only developed mind or eye can see. Something that elevates the viewer to a different level. Teaches something, opens eyes, provokes.
In order to do that it needs to be new, to be creative. Sometimes it needs to break rules.

Are saturated flowers leading the eye to a lake with elks and swans, and then to a mountain surrounded by a rainbow a piece of art?
It is like a cake with extensive amount of sugar and crème. It is shallow, it is pleasing at first taste, but then it very quickly makes you sick. It doesn’t address a person with a developed taste, but addresses an undeveloped child who goes for sugar.

Coming back to photography, I think the difference is whom a photograph is addressing. Is it addressing someone who wants to be thought provoked, or is it addressing someone who goes after saturated colors, swans and rainbows, because it is everything (s)he understands?

The discussion started because of a photograph by Marc Adamus. A photograph that in my opinion is not offering a challenge for my mind. It was an example of over sweetened cake, shallow and vain. The point is that the image was not bothering me at all. I don’t care. There are many such images everywhere. I am not going to make a fuss about those images. I just don't look at them. What was bothering me were the crowds of worshipers who attracted by the smell of sugar run by hundreds after that image. And it was taking place where? On a Nature Photography forum where I can expect more sophisticated crowd. Or at least this is the reason I purchased my own membership.

There ARE landscape images that provide such challenge. Photographs that show relationships between elements, that show the depth of space or time, show imagination provoking texture or shapes. Or they offer a different look at nature. A look that changes the way I see things.
Example: William Neill http://www.williamneill.com/portfolios/. His images are simple, but so deep! I don't know why, maybe because they are simple but still take me to lands that don’t exist, make want something I will never get. They make me want to seek for things that don't exist.
Or a Russian photographer, Ludmila Tabolina: http://www.mdf.ru/i/photo/000/782.jpg
She makes nature photo in the way I would never thought it was possible. It's new for me.

Artists are those, who have message to share. Not the ones who use lollypop effects to attract little children..

> And as far as Thomas Kincaid being art or not, good or bad. I don't think he's worrying about
> it all that much, on his way to the bank! If you want to be true to your own artistic integrity, fine.
> But if you want to make some money with it, you will cater to the trends of the market. That might
> require making a few kitchen calenders along the way!

Chris, this is 100% true! Absolutely. But then those who sold their souls to marketing should realize that they are not on the positon to call themselves artists. They should not be role models for artists. I know that everybody needs to make a living this way or another. That is obvious. Everybody has to feed his/her kids and pay for mortgage. Myself included. But are we talking about art or about jobs and economy? I don't get it.

Cezar,

We are talking about art. I was just trying to point out that if we expect to make any income from our chosen art, we have to adhere to the market trends. If the trends in the market are for a "sugar high", then we have to try and provide that. If something deeper and more meaningful is what you or anyone else wants to stay true to. Then a specific audience has to be targeted that has a similar vision or taste. My photography is first and foremost for me. As your's is for you I'm sure. I would love to experiment and find my true subject and style. I might someday. But the relatively small amount of time I have to pursue it, leaves me with some choices. I sometimes shoot icons, and take relatively easy shots because I don't have the opportunity to venture miles off trail, and wait for days for something to happen. But that doesn't mean that i have any less passion for what i am doing. I still try and make the most aesthetic comps that I can. I have noticed myself getting a bit more selective. Sometimes choosing to leave the camera in the pack for situations I would have taken it out before.

You have backed up your position with some good points. The beauty of it is, that we can choose for ourselves what we like. Also what we consider art, or not. It's up to us and us alone to make that decision. we don't have to like or appreciate the fact that there are a lot of "children" attracted to the "candy" But if that's what it is, then that's what it is. I myself still like candy!

Out in front of the city hall here where I live, there are a lot of geometric shapes made of steel. Someone welded them together, and painted them, and called it art. And someone agreed, and bought it. I think it's hideous!!! I also think that anyone with some paint, metal, and a blow torch could create that stuff. But it's what the city officials here thought would look nice on the front lawn! So I guess what I have really been trying to say all along, is that opinions vary. I just don't know how it took me so long to get to the point!

Chris

“Our fine arts were developed, their types and uses were established, in times very different from the present, by men whose power of action upon things was insignificant in comparison with ours. But the amazing growth of our techniques, the adaptability and precision they have attained, the ideas and habits they are creating, make it a certainty that profound changes are impending in the ancient craft of the Beautiful. In all the arts there is a physical component which can no longer be considered or treated as it used to be, which cannot remain unaffected by our modern knowledge and power. For the last twenty years neither matter nor space nor time has been what it was from time immemorial. We must expect great innovations to transform the entire technique of the arts, thereby affecting artistic invention itself and perhaps even bringing about an amazing change in our very notion of art.” --Paul Valéry

Does that mean we get better lollipops?

Hey Guy

You quoted;

In all the arts there is a physical component which can no longer be considered or treated as it used to be, which cannot remain unaffected by our modern knowledge and power. For the last twenty years neither matter nor space nor time has been what it was from time immemorial. We must expect great innovations to transform the entire technique of the arts, thereby affecting artistic invention itself and perhaps even bringing about an amazing change in our very notion of art.” --Paul Valéry

Nonsense.

Dance? Singing? Music? Poetry?

Cheers

Carl

Dance? Singing? Music? Poetry?

Are you saying these had not changed and evolved over the years?

Minuet vs. Lambada - same thing?
E.E. Cummings vs. Homer - no change?
Would hiphop be considered art in the times of Beethoven?

Guy

Hey Guy

All things evolve, including our views on such things, eh?

The issue, though, is what drives that change; the quote suggests "a physical component which can no longer be considered or treated as it used to be, which cannot remain unaffected by our modern knowledge and power." - and to that, I say, poppycock. Or, this line: "We must expect great innovations to transform the entire technique of the arts,"

Many artforms and artists adhere to traditional process - turn your question around; "Would Beethoven be considered art in the times of hip hop (i.e., now)? "

Sure. I don't see how Kindle makes Dickens any less artful.

Cheers

Carl

PS: I will add, however, that the circular avatar clearly reflects greater artistic vision than the more traditional box. :)

So those of us who have no avatar must not be artists at all!

Hey David

Unless you're going for the understated thing. :)

Cheers

Carl

He didn't say it was the only driver for change. He's suggesting that physical/technological innovation can't be overlooked as a change agent, and a very powerful one at that.

Any work of a creative mind will be accepted as art by some people at any given time, so there's no circular argument here, only a recognition that things do change and for a variety of reasons. It wasn't too long ago that electronic musical instruments were dismissed by many.

Guy

Hey Guy,

No, but he does state that this knowledge and power affects all the arts - implying, to me, that it's inherent, which I disagree with.

Quotes can be funny things - out of context they may or may not mean the same thing .. and I'm not familiar with the one you presented. On the whole, I think it's not a wise quote. This kind of comment:

"We must expect great innovations to transform the entire technique of the arts," - I mean, really, that's not right at all.

and this one:

"even bringing about an amazing change in our very notion of art"

we don't even have A notion of art .. discussions like this one illustrate that.

or

"a certainty that profound changes are impending in the ancient craft of the Beautiful"

certainty now includes "death, taxes and profound impending changes in the ancient craft of the Beautiful"?

Technique and technology open doors - but the view, indeed the steps, through many other doors remain as rewarding, as beautiful and as important as ever.

The Mona Lisa is just as beautiful now as it was 100 years ago, no?

"Photography has not changed since its origin except in its technical aspects, which for me are not important. --Henri Cartier-Bresson"

Cheers

Carl

The Mona Lisa is just as beautiful now as it was 100 years ago, no?

That's only cause it was restored repeatedly through the application of modern conservation techniques, Carl

Sorry, cant give Carl the last word, that might hasten the end of the world

Hey Stan

Actually, the slow withering of such a work of art is largely the result of too many camera flashes.

:)

Hasten the end of the world? I'm not even sure it's fully started yet.

Cheers

Carl