A question of art?

bigsteve

bigsteve

Messages
586
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
It's probably safe to say that the majority of contributors to this and other photo forums feel a need to express an art form through their pictures, as opposed to simply accurately recording an instant in time.

I've just been re-watching Ep2 of the Genius of Photography and wanted to ask your opinions of Atget's Notre Dame picture, the one with the shadowed-out tree dominating the foreground.

There's obviously a good play of contrasts, and the narrator's opinion was that it might convey the feeling of nature overpowering great architectural progress.

Can I ask you in all honesty what your response might be if someone, maybe a beginner, posted a picture similar to this and asked for feedback? My gut feeling is that I'd suggest they stepped to the left or right of the tree and tried again!

Would you be able to see the artform they were trying to express, or are we losing the ability to interpret these things? And what might the future 'classic' photos look like if we all keep the bloody tree out of the frame? ;)
 
With so much talk of business, kit and technique these days it feels like ages since we've had a good art and pish thread.

It is odd that once you have a name for yourself we treat art very differently. As you say if an "unknown" snapper posted that we'd most likely say it could be better. From a revered photographer many will just assume a greater worth than is obvious and look up to it.

For me it will always come to down to how I react to the image when I first see it. As for that particular photo, do I like it. Don't know actually. ;)
 
Crap is crap is carp until... (as dazz says) someone grants you 'artist' status and then those that spout crap start to see 'art' in your crap and it gets critical acclaim from people with their heads stuck too far up their artistic arses to see the crap in front of them :D

And no, I don't like that shot - actually, I think it's - well you can guess :lol:

DD
 
I actually like the tree contrast; what I don't like is the the bit of wall in the bottom left and the dark bits in the upper corners, a step to the right and more careful composition would probably have solved them.;)
 
DiddyDave said:
Crap is crap is carp until... (as dazz says) someone grants you 'artist' status and then those that spout crap start to see 'art' in your crap and it gets critical acclaim from people with their heads stuck too far up their artistic arses to see the crap in front of them :D

And no, I don't like that shot - actually, I think it's - well you can guess :lol:

DD
Click to expand...

:agree:

I think there is a lot of "Emperors new clothes" syndrome in all types of Art.

If some expert writes a long trieste on a piece of art, explaining all types of things that the artist never even thought of when creating the work then it suddenly gains some kind of mythical credit.

What was the photgrapher up to in this case? perhaps he just liked the contrast between the tree and the background, perhaps he was just trying out a new lens and wanted to see how good the resolution was :D

David
 
DiddyDave said:
Crap is crap is carp until... (as dazz says) someone grants you 'artist' status and then those that spout crap start to see 'art' in your crap and it gets critical acclaim from people with their heads stuck too far up their artistic arses to see the crap in front of them :D

And no, I don't like that shot - actually, I think it's - well you can guess :lol:

DD
Click to expand...

That's perfectly put sir. :clap:

now if you can point me in the direction of these people, I've got alot of pics I could sell. :)
 
bigsteve said:
There's obviously a good play of contrasts, and the narrator's opinion was that it might convey the feeling of nature overpowering great architectural progress.
Click to expand...

Possibly. I might be tempted to disagree with the narrator's particular analysis.

Atget took photographs to sell as reference material for artists and the theatre. It was others in the 1920s that discovered his work and (mostly posthumously) raising it to the status of art that it never had had during most of his lifetime.

There is, however, one key element of context required to read the photo. Late in his career though (that one dates from 1925 and he died in 1927) he became obsessed with photographing trees.

Now, it then becomes a figure/ground question.

Most people would probably assume that the cathedral is the subject of the photograph and that the tree is merely getting in the way. However, it is likely that the tree is the subject and the cathedral provides a handy backdrop for it. The usual expectations are upset - now that is breaking the rules to artful effect.

Personally, I'd be careful about assigning any further meaning to the photograph though - especially one by Atget.
 
Last edited:
Quantum Sprite said:
I actually like the tree contrast; what I don't like is the the bit of wall in the bottom left and the dark bits in the upper corners, a step to the right and more careful composition would probably have solved them.;)
Click to expand...


Yeah, perhaps making it a prettier picture in doing so ...but would that make it better art?
 
Given that beauty is in the eye of the beholder plus I agree that a lot of 'art' has more to do with the Emperors New Clothes. That particular shot doesn't work for me.

I could appreciate it if the intervening tree was all the fine twigs and not that solid branch. the miasma clothing the cathedral as the representation of modern attitude to Religion would work for me. With all the walls and solid structures within the image certainly it doesn't
convey the feeling of nature overpowering great architectural progress
Click to expand...
 
And the opposite arguement that says that rules are there for the guidance of wise men and the obeyance of fools. That rules are made to be broken and that there are no rules in art. ;)

I can see the case for photography being all too technical and not enough about the artistic side of it. Focus on the taking of an image and not the making of an image. Personally I see so many images that although technically well done just leave me utterly cold. They make no impression on me at all.

While I agree that some art is pish of the highest standard we would all be poorer if it was all technique and no vision.
 
How many times do you look at a photograph and think "Really? That's supposed to be good?!"?

As has been said, a lot of the 'art' world is emperor's new clothes syndrome and, with those within the circle keen to stay there, it will ever be thus I fear.

I would happily wager that, were you to hang 20 pictures in a gallery without names etc., those that were heralded as good photos would be different to those chosen were the names of the photographers next to them.

Obviously, some photos are heralded as excellent simply because they are, but some are no doubt chosen because of who took them and, therefore, they must have had some deep and meaningful purpose for underexposing by a stop and missing the focus.

Drives me nuts to be honest! :bang:
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Yeah, perhaps making it a prettier picture in doing so ...but would that make it better art?
Click to expand...

Don't know really, my comments were mainly refering to para.4 of the OP, but having had many drunken conversations with friends of mine who've been to art college (but they've got proper jobs now:lol:), you can only be an artist/create art if you've been trained as an artist; and there is no such thing as good/bad art, there is only art: if created by an artist it is therefore art. My arguments differ but I was always outnumbered.:D
 
Quantum Sprite said:
Don't know really, my comments were mainly refering to para.4 of the OP, but having had many drunken conversations with friends of mine who've been to art college (but they've got proper jobs now:lol:), you can only be an artist/create art if you've been trained as an artist; and there is no such thing as good/bad art, there is only art: if created by an artist it is therefore art. My arguments differ but I was always outnumbered.:D
Click to expand...



Soz QS, meant to be rhetorical that question mark.



I agree with that above. :thumbs:
 
At the end of the day, I and I suspect many other photographers would consider "art" to be something which we personally find aesthetically pleasing, stunning or simply magnificent, whether it be photographic images, paintings or sculpture (or even man made objects - buildings, cars, aircraft?).
As far as I am concerned, "Unmade beds" and half cows preserved in formaldhyde do nothing for me whatsoever.
Then again, maybe I have no deep understanding of what "art" is.
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
lol. Art does not have to be pretty....


So why the heck do most of the replies on this thread assume it is meant to be? .... blimey the patronising on this thread is so ironic! ;)

he says patronisingly... excuse me folks ... it pees me off see.
Click to expand...

I agree it doesn't have to be 'pretty' and I do like lots of abstract 'odd' art too - but in my highly rated (by me :D) opinion this is simply crap - end of

But then I am from Yorkshire tha knows :thumbs:

DD
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
yeah but I know your judging it photographically Dave and I agree, its pants ... but as art, is it any good, do you like the artists reason for the photos existence ... that should be the question.
Click to expand...

You flatter me - I have no 'deep and meaningful' feelings or connections with art (photos or otherwise) - I make a snap judgement and either like/dislike - and this I dislike whatever it's trying to 'say' to me :D

DD
 
AliB said:
I can see the case for photography being all too technical and not enough about the artistic side of it. Focus on the taking of an image and not the making of an image. Personally I see so many images that although technically well done just leave me utterly cold. They make no impression on me at all.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with this. Just becuase something is technically "right" doesn't make it good. I've seen plenty of photos which are over-exposed, blurred or covered in lens flare that look great because they're really striking or atmospheric, and others which are perfectly exposed, perfectly sharp, but do nothing for me at all.
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
:D Much as I enjoy faltering you Dave, no I really wasn’t ….Like I said , your judging it photographically not as art.….why you confuse yourself by thinking that’s the same thing and making the same snap judgment ...only you know. ;)
Click to expand...

There you go then - simple Yorkshireman just doesn't 'get' it :lol:

DD








PS - it's still crap :D
 
I think Rob (musicman) has answered this in his post at #7 as far as any relevance to Atget is concerned.

Atget sold his work as "simply photographic documents"

It's only later that others have attempted to "elevate" his documentation to the heady hights of art.

They were nothing more than good little earners for him, buy one get one free.
 
Woooh, that's stirred things up, hasn't it? :D

I must agree that I've never really got 'art', but I know an aesthetically pleasing picture when I see it. I spent a while looking at C-B's stuff a while back and had to agree with an 'arty' friend that everything was where my eyes were pleased to find them. Actually, I raised the point and she just smirked and nodded. :thinking:

Anyhow I guess one of the questions I was trying to ask was, when someone posts a photo that's a bit off the wall, breaks every rule or whatever, are you ever prepared to look beyond the aesthetic value and seek a deeper meaning to it? Is there a space for personal 'art' on forums like these? :shrug:
 
bigsteve said:
are you ever prepared to look beyond the aesthetic value and seek a deeper meaning to it? Is there a space for personal 'art' on forums like these? :shrug:
Click to expand...

Yes and I'd bloomin' hope so!

But that does not extened to manky selective colouring in wedding photos or not bothering to pose a bride :naughty:
 
Why is it when looking at a photograph we perhaps judge it's artistic merits with supreme technical perfection, whereas with a painting the image is judged, not the skill with which the paint was mixed and nuances of brush stroke minutely examined after the manner of pixel peepers. If I was using the Atget photo as a basis for a painting I would probably leave the tree out, that is the advantage of painting I can shift stuff around at will or leave it out until I'm happy :)
 
I don't see a lot of "art" on this site to be honest as everyone is more concerned with the straight photographic element, ie. more of the technical element, so very few of the images I see here have any ambiguity to them (The "I wonder what that is" effect).

I liked this image which was a little different for TP (I hope polochick doesn't mind me linking); http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=243031&highlight=monet

I think a lot of the extreme HDR is also artistic but suspect the majority don't like it.

As photographers I believe we like to see what is "real", rather than made-up, so unlike Flickr or 1x there is hardly any montage work or using a photo as a basis to create a different image.
 
Last edited:
bigsteve said:
Woooh, that's stirred things up, hasn't it? :D

I must agree that I've never really got 'art', but I know an aesthetically pleasing picture when I see it. I spent a while looking at C-B's stuff a while back and had to agree with an 'arty' friend that everything was where my eyes were pleased to find them. Actually, I raised the point and she just smirked and nodded. :thinking:

Anyhow I guess one of the questions I was trying to ask was, when someone posts a photo that's a bit off the wall, breaks every rule or whatever, are you ever prepared to look beyond the aesthetic value and seek a deeper meaning to it? Is there a space for personal 'art' on forums like these? :shrug:
Click to expand...

You picked the wrong photographer to use as an example, he was'nt an "artsit", he was a documenter.

Others, since his death have tried to elevate him to the ART status, he would have larfed his head off, and put his prices up.
 
Love The Genius of Photography :thumbs:Photography has a big art world and you really have to be in it to like it. Its not just about the photography, its about the theory, words and everything behind, its the artists expression through photography.

bigsteve said:
Is there a space for personal 'art' on forums like these? :shrug:
Click to expand...

Personally I would never put any of my theory based photography on here, it has to be shown in a certain audience and I dont think this forum is. It would probably get ripped to shreds and for all the wrong reasons. But this is a super forum none the less. :)
 
Best not to confuse technical merit with artistic. TP is almost entirely focused on the former, and not really in the right position to judge the latter.
 
pinktrainers said:
Best not to confuse technical merit with artistic. TP is almost entirely focused on the former, and not really in the right position to judge the latter.
Click to expand...


Well I may be alone but I disagree with that. I rarely give a toss about the technical background to an image as I'm not that technical myself however my concern and interest with any image is on (I guess) the artistic side: composition, colour, meaning, story....all that stuff :)

Yes of course the technical stuff is important in knowing how an image is achieved and realised but for me thats secondary to the image itself and the emotions and feelings, on whatever level, that image conveys.

Hmmm that all sounds a bit arty farty but its been a long week :D
 
There have been some great responses, thanks guys.

I think I'm questioning this because I'm torn right now. I've been wanting to find a primary focus (hah!) for my photography because I can't do everything. From all the sub-disciplines that photography offers I believe I've settled on a small project that I'd like to do. It could last a year or it could roll on for ages. I've discovered someone in USA has done something similar recently on a much grander scale, but that requires access that I'd never get.

It's part documentary, but there would be a lot of creative interpretation from me at the same time. It'd make sense to maybe a couple of dozen people in my circle of friends but I'd also like to think that some of them might be recognised as valuable insights some day too.

I've already said that I know nowt about art so I hope it doesn't sound too pompous, but a creative expression of emotion with a bit of alternative/fringe lifestle mixed with good technique has to count for something, doesn't it? :shrug:
 
Dark Star said:
Well I may be alone but I disagree with that. I rarely give a toss about the technical background to an image as I'm not that technical myself however my concern and interest with any image is on (I guess) the artistic side: composition, colour, meaning, story....all that stuff :)
Click to expand...

I think we just have a disagreement on the definition of "artistic" here. Composition and colour are both, to me, technical elements. Meaning and story, when not contextualised by the artist, don't count as artistic features by my definition, purely because when you view art in a gallery, it is always with an awareness of the artist, the background, the social context, and normally the intended symbolism. You don't get that on TP, and even if you did, it's not really the right format for it, just because it would be so unlike what we are used to.

What we are getting into here is of course a much more convoluted debate over what is and is not art, and what counts as artistic value. Probably a bit too deep to get into on here!
 
pinktrainers said:
I think we just have a disagreement on the definition of "artistic" here. Composition and colour are both, to me, technical elements. Meaning and story, when not contextualised by the artist, don't count as artistic features by my definition, purely because when you view art in a gallery, it is always with an awareness of the artist, the background, the social context, and normally the intended symbolism. You don't get that on TP, and even if you did, it's not really the right format for it, just because it would be so unlike what we are used to.

What we are getting into here is of course a much more convoluted debate over what is and is not art, and what counts as artistic value. Probably a bit too deep to get into on here!
Click to expand...

Good points there, however I don't believe meaning and story are simply boosted to artistic facets of an image only when the artist is known and understood. I've seen plenty of meaningful art whilst unaware of the artist and his/her background!

And you're probably right about the potential convolutions that await us if we continue in this vein :) Its Friday night and there's a bottle of red with my name on it somewhere :)

So lets disagree :) and thats what its all about really :) Subjectivity
 
Surely art has to be nothing more than something that exists purely to elicit an emotional response when we experience it.

This is how we end up with someone placing some bricks in a room and calling it art. I end up having to agree it is art by my own definition but lazy and crap art in my book. If you see, hear or watch something and it leaves you with an opinion, it has as much right to be called art as anything else and your reaction/opinion is as valid as anyone elses.
 
I keep scrolling down expecting some searing opinion from Arkady.

Rob where are you??

David
 
dazzajl said:
This is how we end up with someone placing some bricks in a room and calling it art.
Click to expand...

Well, that is the Daily Mail summary of Equivalent VIII by Carl Andre; although to be historically accurate, it was a piece by Colin Simpson in The Sunday Times that kicked off the controversy. :)

I'm not going to mount a defence of Andre, but I return to the point made in my first post on this thread; when interpreting art one must place it into the cultural context that produced it, perhaps also the personal context of the rest of artist's body of work.

Artists do not operate in a cultural vacuum. Their work is influenced by what is going on around them and what they have done before. Moreover, it plays its own part in defining the art that comes after.

You cannot properly understand Picasso's Guernica without a basic understanding of the circumstances of the Spanish Civil War. Take it out of that context and it becomes meaningless. Your appreciation of the work is reduced to an ill-defined sense of aesthetics, taste and novelty. This is not a sound foundation upon which to build an assessment; art as a cabinet of curiosities.

This is the problem with the question posed by the OP, which is to ask what happens if you take images like Atget's and remove entirely them from their proper context. At the very least, we do not live in 1890s Paris; our world is very different to Atget's. Of course they will not make sense. Of course their significance will not be apparent.

BTW, I'm realistic enough to recognise that this ideal is far from being the way the world operates. As contexts change, our appreciation of what has gone before also changes and the significance of the cultural output of previous generations waxes and wanes. Very few people today would advocate the demolition of the Midland Hotel at the front of St Pancras Station, but in the 1960s, that was a very real proposition.
 
dazzajl said:
If you see, hear or watch something and it leaves you with an opinion, it has as much right to be called art as anything else and your reaction/opinion is as valid as anyone elses.
Click to expand...

This works absolutely fine for everyday, individual purposes, but for those who actually need to work with a black and white definition of "art", it's more or less meaningless.

This is why I prefer to fix my definition in the intentionality of the artist. I don't believe in accidental or incidental art. Naturally, there's no definitive right answer, but I'd like to explain why sometimes it's necessary to be more specific.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top