Posted by Russ Shugart on June 18, 2011 at 10:51 PM
I just got back from the movies. We saw Midnight in Paris. It's about a guy that fantasizes about being in Paris in the 20's and meeting all the famous artists of that time and earlier.
So - Stream of Consciousness On: Is what we do "true art"? Because it hasn't been around since cavemen scratched animals on the cave walls is photography less valid? Painters get more money in general for what they do, the good ones anyway. Who could argue that Ansel Adams, Edward Steichen, Marc and David Meunch, Shiro Shirahata are not artists. Painters can create anything that comes to mind, photographers have to at least start with what reality presents therefore what we do is harder. Do you feel a little bit looked down on by painters? Are our "old masters" any different from the old masters that held a brush/pencil/piece of chalk? In your heart of hearts, do you think you'd feel any different if you were a painter? Is painting more "romantic" than photography. Could a painting "change the world" like the shot of Tenzing Norgay standing on top of Everest, the Kissing Riot picture of a couple of days ago, the Vietnamese girl running from the napalm attack, Kent State photos or the tank man at Tiananmen square? Stream of Consciousness Off.
Posted by Kurt Bowman on June 18, 2011 at 11:16 PM
Good question and I like the topic Russ. Personally, I think art can come in many forms, not only painting or drawing. I personally don't care what some painter thinks of my craft. What I care about is what I get out of it first and second how it impacts others that view it. However, I think every photographer should study the old painters because I think there is a ton to learn from them about light and composition.
Bottom line for me...art is anything that evokes an emotion or thought, but it can come in many forms.
Posted by Jack Brauer on June 19, 2011 at 12:21 AM
First thing that comes to mind is that all your examples of world-changing photos are journalistic photos, not nature/landscape photos. I see more in common between [much/most] painting and landscape photography than I do between landscape photography and journalistic photography.
That said, I think the lines between all this blur pretty quickly. I do think paintings and other art forms can change the world as much as any other. One example that comes to mind is Sue Coe, a printmaker whose graphic illustrations of slaughterhouses definitely left an impact on me as much as any photo I've seen.
Anyhow, I guess I only responded to your last question; it's all way too broad to possibly discuss at once!
Posted by Russ Shugart on June 19, 2011 at 2:03 AM
Jack, you're right is was a lot. I know that painters, prior to our medium, depicted events and noteworthy images, not just art. Thinking about what you're saying maybe part of it is that photography encompasses art and news/journalistic depictions and painting seems to me to be dedicated to artistic pursuits. I guess it boils down to this, even though I absolutely love photography and feel like I haven't even begun to scratch the surface, and plan to practice at it till the day I die, sometimes it feels like we're not members of "the club" whatever that means. I'm probably just over thinking it all, or maybe it's just too much caffeine late in the day!
Posted by Howard Cihak on June 19, 2011 at 2:33 AM
I think what we do is "art," but the problem is comparatively few see it as "art."
IMO, here's why. Very few are able to pick up brushes, paints, et al, and produce a work of beauty. That's why so many people will buy crappy paintings. It's because they think almost anything that someone painted must be good.
In comparison, anyone can pick up a camera and point it at something. The general public is unable to appreciate the nuances of light and shadow, composition, colors, et al, and that's why so many of them tend to see no difference between what we do and what the relative crap (snapshots) they produce. That, and a strong tendency to believe the key to great photography is really good equipment coupled with pure dumb luck.
In the end, I shoot for myself, and I consider what I do to be "art." I appreciate compliments from those who seem to be able to see that, by the number of excellent images I have, that something more than expensive equipment and pure dumb luck was involved. I don't expect everyone to embrace what I shoot. Hell, great as it is, I personally am not enthralled by the Mona Lisa.
Posted by Roger Rouch on June 19, 2011 at 10:46 AM
I had a discussion with a friend about this recently. I think the bottom line came down to the fact that "art" can be broadly defined and include literature, photos, paintings, music, or just about any other kind of communication. When we think of art, probably painting and sculture are some of the first that come to mind, but that is a pretty narrow definition. Here is one definition I ran across:
According to Tolstoy, art must create a specific emotional link between artist and audience, one that "infects" the viewer. Thus, real art requires the capacity to unite people via communication (clearness and genuineness are therefore crucial values). This aesthetic conception led Tolstoy to widen the criteria of what exactly a work of art is. He believed that the concept of art embraces any human activity in which one emitter, by means of external signs, transmits previously experienced feelings. Tolstoy offers an example of this: a boy that has experienced fear after an encounter with a wolf later relates that experience, infecting the hearers and compelling them to feel the same fear that he had experienced—that is a perfect example of a work of art. As communication, this is good art, because it is clear, it is sincere, and it is singular (focused on one emotion).
Photography will never be painting as much as literature will never be music, but they all can be art. "True art" to me is mismatch of terms, sort of like "re-frigerate" or "jumbo shrimp", but there is good art and bad art. And both paintings and photographs that are not art.
I think any means of expressing yourself creatively is (or can be) art. Cooking, poetry, architecture, landscaping... Any of these can be undertaken for utilitarian purposes or as creative pursuits. I think "art" is defined more by a person's intent than by the tool they've chosen.
What differentiates good art from bad art, and significant art from irrelevant art has a lot to do with what is being expressed, and how well it's being expressed. I don't think a painting, a photograph or any other art form can change the world; imo, only the message being expressed or the thoughts being provoked can do that.
Just having the tool and the intention to "create art" doesn't make it art IMO. I agree with Roger and by extension Tolstoy: art is in the eye of the beholder, it's when you create something that evokes an emotional connection. Just looking at something and saying it's pretty doesn't evoke an emotion. Seeing millions of identical shots of Maroon Bells doesn't evoke emotion.... except rage for the hoards of "artists" crowding the lake shore every September weekend
I know for a lot of us it's our "creative outlet" but I am very hesitant calling my work art. I studied art in college and have sketchbooks full of "doodles" and my own paintings on my walls. I love doing it and won't stop doing it (whatever the "it" is called). I do it for me, and if someone has a connection to it then I call that success. Until then, it's just my own therapy, and boy do I need it!
Posted by Bill Brennan on June 19, 2011 at 8:57 PM
Thanks for starting this discussion. Like Bob, I agree with Howard's views. Plus I would add that colleges and universities have accepted photography as fine art as evidenced by their offering degrees in fine art photography. In addition, I like to read Alain Briot's views about fine art photography.
The statement that Photography can be "Art" is strongly evidenced by many of the photographers here on NPN. Those who have the ability,eye, and skill to capture in the camera a photograph which evokes beauty and or emotion in the viewer. I have those feelings on a regular basis on this site which I enjoy and attempt to learn from.
I give thanks for this venue!!
Posted by Russ Shugart on June 19, 2011 at 11:04 PM
I think maybe I should have titled my spew differently. I guess a better title might have been "Is photography less (broad definition of less here) than painting, or maybe sculpture" instead of "Art or Not" because I truly believe that photography is art. Especially when I look at guys like Edward Steichen and Shiro Shirahata and the bunch I mentioned above.
I was talking to my wife about this morning and she made some of the same points Howard did and to me that all rings pretty true. After I posted and I had the thought that maybe people don't see it as "valid" of an art form as painting because maybe the learning curve is shorter. I suppose that you could learn to create Ansel Adams like stuff faster than you could learn to pump out Rembrandt type paintings. I kind of agree with Aleksandra in that, if painters and the public in general do think that photography is somehow less than what artists create with brushes, who cares. In some ways though I do feel that we're not members of the club. I don't know why that bothers me, if it's really true, but sometimes it feels that way. Probably my own issue!
Part of this comes from last weekend. There was a art fair down by 8th and Grant street. I didn't make it through the whole thing but in the 2/3rds I did, no photography. Down on South Gaylord, many more painters than photographers. I haven't been to that many art districts but my impression is that there's a lot more painters represented in these venues than photographers. Maybe that's not such a bad thing though.
I believe that questions like "is photography art" or "is photography less than painting or sculpture" are irrelevant for the artist. What is more important is to ask, "is my photography art" or "is my photography less than painting or sculpture", etc. Only you fully know and understand the intent behind your creations and so only you can answer these questions in the context of your own work. Too many folks seem to rely on collective thinking when it comes to such topics and in my humble opinion they are really missing the point.
My suggestion therefore would be to forget about looking for acceptance into any sort of club. One of the most important lessons I have learnt from studying art history is that the artists I admire and look up to were all strong individualists, who were not afraid to carve their own path.
I would agree with Anil about belonging to the club aspect of this. Many artists who are renowned today could not get into the "club" during their life times, and many, like Van Gogh, died penniless feeling that he was a complete failure. By the same token,even highly regarded photographic art does not even come closed to bringing the same price in the art market as those works of painters, sculptors, etc. Why is this? I guess the art world does not perceive it to be as valuable. Then we come to the next question....does art have to have perceived monetary value to be real art. All sorts of questions come up, it seems.
Maybe the additional price tag comes from the fact that painting or a sculpture is one and only original and you can make multitude of copies of a photograph...
Discussion
15 repliesSo - Stream of Consciousness On: Is what we do "true art"? Because it hasn't been around since cavemen scratched animals on the cave walls is photography less valid? Painters get more money in general for what they do, the good ones anyway. Who could argue that Ansel Adams, Edward Steichen, Marc and David Meunch, Shiro Shirahata are not artists. Painters can create anything that comes to mind, photographers have to at least start with what reality presents therefore what we do is harder. Do you feel a little bit looked down on by painters? Are our "old masters" any different from the old masters that held a brush/pencil/piece of chalk? In your heart of hearts, do you think you'd feel any different if you were a painter? Is painting more "romantic" than photography. Could a painting "change the world" like the shot of Tenzing Norgay standing on top of Everest, the Kissing Riot picture of a couple of days ago, the Vietnamese girl running from the napalm attack, Kent State photos or the tank man at Tiananmen square? Stream of Consciousness Off.
Thoughts??
Russ
www.AlpineGalleria.com
Bottom line for me...art is anything that evokes an emotion or thought, but it can come in many forms.
That said, I think the lines between all this blur pretty quickly. I do think paintings and other art forms can change the world as much as any other. One example that comes to mind is Sue Coe, a printmaker whose graphic illustrations of slaughterhouses definitely left an impact on me as much as any photo I've seen.
Anyhow, I guess I only responded to your last question; it's all way too broad to possibly discuss at once!
Russ
www.AlpineGalleria.com
IMO, here's why. Very few are able to pick up brushes, paints, et al, and produce a work of beauty. That's why so many people will buy crappy paintings. It's because they think almost anything that someone painted must be good.
In comparison, anyone can pick up a camera and point it at something. The general public is unable to appreciate the nuances of light and shadow, composition, colors, et al, and that's why so many of them tend to see no difference between what we do and what the relative crap (snapshots) they produce. That, and a strong tendency to believe the key to great photography is really good equipment coupled with pure dumb luck.
In the end, I shoot for myself, and I consider what I do to be "art." I appreciate compliments from those who seem to be able to see that, by the number of excellent images I have, that something more than expensive equipment and pure dumb luck was involved. I don't expect everyone to embrace what I shoot. Hell, great as it is, I personally am not enthralled by the Mona Lisa.
According to Tolstoy, art must create a specific emotional link between artist and audience, one that "infects" the viewer. Thus, real art requires the capacity to unite people via communication (clearness and genuineness are therefore crucial values). This aesthetic conception led Tolstoy to widen the criteria of what exactly a work of art is. He believed that the concept of art embraces any human activity in which one emitter, by means of external signs, transmits previously experienced feelings. Tolstoy offers an example of this: a boy that has experienced fear after an encounter with a wolf later relates that experience, infecting the hearers and compelling them to feel the same fear that he had experienced—that is a perfect example of a work of art. As communication, this is good art, because it is clear, it is sincere, and it is singular (focused on one emotion).
Photography will never be painting as much as literature will never be music, but they all can be art. "True art" to me is mismatch of terms, sort of like "re-frigerate" or "jumbo shrimp", but there is good art and bad art. And both paintings and photographs that are not art.
What differentiates good art from bad art, and significant art from irrelevant art has a lot to do with what is being expressed, and how well it's being expressed. I don't think a painting, a photograph or any other art form can change the world; imo, only the message being expressed or the thoughts being provoked can do that.
I know for a lot of us it's our "creative outlet" but I am very hesitant calling my work art. I studied art in college and have sketchbooks full of "doodles" and my own paintings on my walls. I love doing it and won't stop doing it (whatever the "it" is called). I do it for me, and if someone has a connection to it then I call that success. Until then, it's just my own therapy, and boy do I need it!
Bill Brennan
I give thanks for this venue!!
I was talking to my wife about this morning and she made some of the same points Howard did and to me that all rings pretty true. After I posted and I had the thought that maybe people don't see it as "valid" of an art form as painting because maybe the learning curve is shorter. I suppose that you could learn to create Ansel Adams like stuff faster than you could learn to pump out Rembrandt type paintings. I kind of agree with Aleksandra in that, if painters and the public in general do think that photography is somehow less than what artists create with brushes, who cares. In some ways though I do feel that we're not members of the club. I don't know why that bothers me, if it's really true, but sometimes it feels that way. Probably my own issue!
Part of this comes from last weekend. There was a art fair down by 8th and Grant street. I didn't make it through the whole thing but in the 2/3rds I did, no photography. Down on South Gaylord, many more painters than photographers. I haven't been to that many art districts but my impression is that there's a lot more painters represented in these venues than photographers. Maybe that's not such a bad thing though.
Russ
www.AlpineGalleria.com
I believe that questions like "is photography art" or "is photography less than painting or sculpture" are irrelevant for the artist. What is more important is to ask, "is my photography art" or "is my photography less than painting or sculpture", etc. Only you fully know and understand the intent behind your creations and so only you can answer these questions in the context of your own work. Too many folks seem to rely on collective thinking when it comes to such topics and in my humble opinion they are really missing the point.
My suggestion therefore would be to forget about looking for acceptance into any sort of club. One of the most important lessons I have learnt from studying art history is that the artists I admire and look up to were all strong individualists, who were not afraid to carve their own path.
Regards.