Is there such a thing as art photography?

[AndrewFlannigan]

Well, if off topic is now on topic, this young lady in South Street, Exeter caught my eye. She appeared to be looking out for someone who she expected to come down the road. I'm not sure who would call it art but then, it might be...

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Your post is probably the definition of "off-topic", Alan........

But probably equally insightful.

The question of Photography and Fine Art. has been discussed ad infinitum. since its discovery in the early 19th century.
a thread like this will certainly not resolve the matter to anyone's satisfaction

Such diversions, as the beauty and charms of Kazakh women, provide light relief and perhaps greater enlightenment.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

https://media.vogue.co.uk/photos/60dee834e1390ff25b680e59/2:3/w_2560%2Cc_limit/GettyImages-1321910396.jpg

Now this must be Art

 

[woof woof]

Your post is probably the definition of "off-topic", Alan........

All part of the rich tapestry that is this forum and the wider internet

But whenever I see Borat memories of the real Kazakhstan and its people do ease my pain.

 

[woof woof]

Such diversions, as the beauty and charms of Kazakh women, provide light relief and perhaps greater enlightenment.

You may know Kazakhstan has a mix of ethnicities including central Asian people and Russians and some do have their own distinct style but as the world tends towards homogenisation generalisations may become increasingly outdated. The beauty of some of the women really stuck me and was at times unexpected for example at a medical centre the cleaners were absolutely stunning and once when stopping in the countryside to ask directions from a random passing family the lady was one of the most beautiful people I've ever seen, absolutely stunning. Her husband, much less so Although beautiful people can no doubt be seen anywhere some parts have fewer obesity issues than others and some people seem to take more care of their appearance. I do understand that beauty may be subjective and if thinking about attraction I don't believe I have a preferred type. Looking at the men I saw fewer handsome ones than I'd have expected, the norm seeming to be rather podgy and unfit and often vaguely scruffy looking ones, alcoholism (which I was told was rife) and drugs perhaps playing a part.

I've had three partners from overseas who said they wouldn't enter into a relationship with men from their home countries or race because of alleged traits which if expressed by me would be seen as highly racist but these views are shared by some and can lead to women (and men too for all I know) actively looking for outside partners. For example the Kazakh lady told me I'd be targeted in Kazakhstan and told me a story about a business meeting she had at a restaurant with two western men. She was approached by a woman who demanded one of the men as my lady friend didn't need two, things became heated and they had to leave. Not that there's a shortage of men in Kazakhstan but apparently some women think there's a shortage of worthy partners. I did see this first hand in Kazakhstan when at a business and pleasure sort of meeting I accompanied her to at a rather nice ski resort I was approached by a very attractive younger woman who asked me to leave the group and go off with her. When we went back to the same place the following day she approached me again, I got out of the car, shut the door and turned around and she was 6 inches from my face. Another time at a concert when I was one of only two obvious westerners in the interval and at the end of the concert I had a crowd around me. Other than all that it is in places a beautiful and culturally rich country with friendly and welcoming people and I'd recommend a visit

Sorry to go way OT

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Sorry to go way OT

Yep. OTT sounds about right.

 

[pukkagen]

Where for 'art' thou bank.c.



↑ OP escaping over high wall from this elephants graveyard, with Nurse Hatched left to punish remaining characters with saltpetre.


Coz' even R.P. would realise you need talent & such implements to produce art, not a camera.

 

[droj]

I‘m inclined to think it’s a waste of time trying to pin these things down too narrowly because the definitions always fail.

Yes, but attempts at analysis might still be mind-improving, and help with appreciation of the spheres within which we operate.

I'm wedded to the view that an essence of art is that in the end it's a synthesis of the creator's intent and how the work is received. The art needs to communicate to reach its full value. To declare that one is an artist doesn't make you one. And there can be delusions on both sides. Do definitions matter? Maybe not so much in themselves, but vigorous enquiry about the nature of things is to my mind profitable. The opposite is to be lazy and to gloss over any issues that might be present. Given that definitions can be blurry and the meanings of words ambiguous - but understanding must be life-affirming, surely?.

Right, I'm off to Kazakhstan ...

 

[myotis]

Yes, but attempts at analysis might still be mind-improving, and help with appreciation of the spheres within which we operate.

I'm wedded to the view that an essence of art is that in the end it's a synthesis of the creator's intent and how the work is received. The art needs to communicate to reach its full value. To declare that one is an artist doesn't make you one.

I agree fully with your first sentence, but...

I would argue as I have done earlier in the thread, that declaring yourself as an artist, does make you an artist, because it describes your intent, it just doesn't necessarily make you a good artist. What you are describing is what I would describe as good art and artists, but can't people who make lower value art (ie art that fails to fully communicate its creators intent) still claim to be an artist, just not as good an artist as they would like to be.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

What you are describing is what I would describe as good art and artists, but can't people who make lower value art (ie art that fails to fully communicate its creators intent) still claim to be an artist, just not as good an artist as they would like to be.

Are you saying then, that there are objective standards of art or are you not?

 

[droj]

because it describes your intent

But that intent could be an empty fantasy, and even if genuine you might lack the skills to realise it.

What you are describing is what I would describe as good art and artists, but can't people who make lower value art (ie art that fails to fully communicate its creators intent) still claim to be an artist, just not as good an artist as they would like to be.

Well yes, of course!

But I'm still trying to champion analysis of the nature and content of any work, coupled with peer review. Again, we need to keep away from that inarticulate term 'like' - it just doesn't wash, seriously. The nature of art, though, includes emotional and intuitive aspects - but these can be observed within ourselves, analysed and reported on. The discussion isn't firstly about technique - in the case of visual art it's about the experience of seeing (for music, obviously, it's about hearing, but the same arguments apply).

 

[myotis]

Are you saying then, that there are objective standards of art or are you not?

Well, as I explained in another post there are objective approaches to assessing art.

I'm not sure what sort of objective standards you mean. I think of standards as things universally applied e.g Minimum amounts of fat content in cream cheese to allow it being labelled as "cream cheese" (if such a standard exists) . Why would anyone want this kind of universal standard applied to the arts. I think the video I posted by Sarah Urist Green, as Sphexx put it, had it nailed.

However, like most things in life, beyond personal likes and dislikes, we need to rely on the judgement of experts to help us learn about things, whether it’s the arts or the sciences. We can then accumulate these expert opinions, weigh one against the other, and select an appropriate mix to blend with our own life experiences and form our own opinions.

 

[droj]

Although 'seeing' is innate in us, we may have differing aptitudes for it - and it's often buried, not least by the mainstream education system which stresses thought above intuition, and by the demands of daily life and making a living. It can be subject to education, though - I was greatly helped years ago by reading "The Hidden Order of Art" by Anton Ehrenzweig, but not everyone would have the appetite to plough through it.

I think that many popular-level pronouncements about art are driven by lack of understanding coupled with a sort of egotistic protectionism. But that's how it is. It's not life-threatening, and it's up to each of us what we do.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

we need to rely on the judgement of experts to help us learn about things, whether it’s the arts or the sciences.

For the sciences, yes. For art, no.

Telling other people what they should regard as "good" art could be misconstrued as advocating a British equivalent to the Reichskulturkammer or the Proletarskie kulturno-prosvetitelnye organizatsii - not something, I imagine, that most of us would be happy with.

 

[Retune]

Are you saying then, that there are objective standards of art or are you not?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjHORRHXtyI

 

[myotis]

But that intent could be an empty fantasy, and even if genuine you might lack the skills to realise it.

But I'm still trying to champion analysis of the nature and content of any work, coupled with peer review. Again, we need to keep away from that inarticulate term 'like' - it just doesn't wash, seriously. The nature of art, though, includes emotional and intuitive aspects - but these can be observed within ourselves, analysed and reported on. The discussion isn't firstly about technique - in the case of visual art it's about the experience of seeing (for music, obviously, it's about hearing, but the same arguments apply).

I'm not disagreeing with any of that, I,ve said similar things in other posts.

I suppose I am fighting for the right for someone to call themselves an artist, even if they aren't a very good one, as this would seem to open up the pathway you are championing. Thinking of yourself as an artist affects the way you view your craft.

I don't think photographers actually "need" to call themselves artists, and people take photographs for many reasons, but I do think that when the emotional and intellectual intent of the photographer is to capture and share an emotional and intellectual connection with a subject, that goes beyond a simple record of what it looks like, they need to think like an artist, and not a technician. Even if that realisation of their intent may, but not always, require high levels of technical skill.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

...they need to think like an artist

So how does an artist think?

Does Tracey Emin think like Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni? If they met, would they have anything of mutual interest to discuss? What would Michelangelo think of that bed? What would he think of her drawings or paintings? If they are both "artists" then they must share common traits. What are those traits?

 

[Ed Sutton]

So how does an artist think?

Does Tracey Emin think like Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni? If they met, would they have anything of mutual interest to discuss? What would Michelangelo think of that bed? What would he think of her drawings or paintings? If they are both "artists" then they must share common traits. What are those traits?

Think Like an Artist: . . . and Lead a More Creative, Productive Life: Amazon.co.uk: Gompertz, Will: 9780241970805: Books

Buy Think Like an Artist: . . . and Lead a More Creative, Productive Life 01 by Gompertz, Will (ISBN: 9780241970805) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.

smile.amazon.co.uk

It's a good read.

 

[sphexx]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjHORRHXtyI

More fun than burning books .

 

[droj]

Are either or both art?

The first is about craft and aesthetics, not art.

The second strays into the realm of art - and also (this is a compliment, Dave) the realm of comedy.

Does Tracey Emin think like Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni?

No, and yes!

If they met, would they have anything of mutual interest to discuss?

Hopefully!

What would Michelangelo think of that bed?

He could be appreciative, or dismissive, who knows?

What would he think of her drawings or paintings?

He might find resonance there.

If they are both "artists" then they must share common traits. What are those traits?

The urge & ability to make a visual statement that reveals something.

 

[myotis]

Telling other people what they should regard as "good" art

But "who" is telling you what "you" should regard as good art. As far as I can make out, there is just as much disagreement in the art world (which I am not that familiar with) as there is in the scientific world (which I am familiar with). If you (I don't mean you personally) don't like what one expert is saying, and it matters to you, seek out a different expert.

 

[Ed Sutton]

More fun than burning books .

Perhaps they're just making them easier to burn for double the fun?

 

[myotis]

So how does an artist think?

The common trait, I think, is that emotions drive an artist.

so to quote what I said in context "...they need to think like an artist, and not a technician." and give a very naive example.

A technician might try to get accurate colours of a sunset, but an artist would try to get colours that best captured how they felt when looking at the sunset, which may or may not be accurate colours.

But, I'm sure you know all these arguments and are just being mischievous in your questions

 

[Ed Sutton]

The first is about craft and aesthetics, not art.

The second strays into the realm of art - and also (this is a compliment, Dave) the realm of comedy.

 

[sphexx]

Do people who paint as a hobby mostly describe themselves as artists? I suspect not — I expect they say I paint (flowers, landscapes, whatever) much like people say I take photographs (of flowers, landscapes, whatever).

My brother has a quite serious hobby playing early music on viols (not sure of technicalities) and performs with others in public. I am pretty damn sure he doesn’t describe himself as a musician.

I haven’t done any surveys on this though .

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

But "who" is telling you what "you" should regard as good art.

To quote again what you wrote: "we need to rely on the judgement of experts to help us learn about things, whether it’s the arts or the sciences."

This gives the impression that you believe that there are "art experts" who know better than non-experts what is "good". Perhaps that is not what you meant?

But, I'm sure you know all these arguments and are just being mischievous in your questions

On the contrary, I'm attempting to pin down what you and others are claiming. I've tried to make my position clear, which is that art is simply about "liking", although some objective qualities of accuracy can be applied to the technical skill of a drawing, painting or sculpture.

In my opinion, as someone else mentioned above, "art" has been trying to get away from representationism ever since those idiots Daguerre and Talbot shot that rabbit with their chemistry and lenses. Perhaps "the art world" needs to make the leap properly and just accept that there are no absolutes in art, only degrees of personal opinion and enjoyment.

 

[TimHughes]

Wikihow has a page on how to critique artwork, looks like a sensible approach to me and much of it could be applied to photos produced to be works of art: https://www.wikihow.com/Critique-Artwork

 

[Ed Sutton]

...there are no absolutes in art, only degrees of personal opinion and enjoyment.

Well that's the critique sections of TP redundant. Just hit 'like' and move on.

If we do away with all forms of 'curation' (based on informed opinion and experience) we end up in a swamp of shallow, superfical photography.

 

[myotis]

To quote again what you wrote: "we need to rely on the judgement of experts to help us learn about things, whether it’s the arts or the sciences."

This gives the impression that you believe that there are "art experts" who know better than non-experts what is "good". Perhaps that is not what you meant?

That is exactly what I meant, but I also said.

"We can then accumulate these expert opinions, weigh one against the other, and select an appropriate mix to blend with our own life experiences and form our own opinions."

I am very happy to learn from people who have devoted their life to studying a subject, and perfectly content, to at least start from the position, that they will know far more about it than I do.

But I feel under no obligation to believe everything they say.

I used to start my courses at University by telling students not to simply accept the things I told them, but to test everything I said against what they learned elsewhere, and then decide what they should believe. This wasn't art of course, but ecology, animal behaviour, nature conservation legislation and statistics, all subjects that are full of conflicting "most likely" correct answers.

 

[droj]

Wikihow has a page on how to critique artwork, looks like a sensible approach to me and much of it could be applied to photos produced to be works of art: https://www.wikihow.com/Critique-Artwork

Which is just a schoolteacher-like distraction that reads pretty much like it's trying to tell the time by looking at the cogs behind the clock-face.

 

[droj]

art is simply about "liking"

No way! I think you're confusing art with what might be just decorative. What's just decorative has a place in the world, but it ain't art. Art 'speaks'.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

If we do away with all forms of 'curation' (based on informed opinion and experience) we end up in a swamp of shallow, superfical photography.

That is one option. The other is that we find out what "the customer" likes and work from there, "the customer" being whoever you are seeking to please, be that yourself or a friend or people who will pay you (There are many other possibilities, of course).

...but it ain't art. Art 'speaks'.

You are, of course entitled to your opinion but it's an opinion I don't share.

 

[sphexx]

Art 'speaks'.

Or sings? :

View: https://youtu.be/eAQKifmUUtg

 

[droj]

In about 1970 or so I had reason to visit the Northwest headquarters of the NatWest bank in Manchester, which to flesh out the story had three levels of basement served by conventional and Paternoster lifts. The kitchens were at the lowest level in B3, and so, oddly, was the directors' dining room. On the wall of the last was a series of abstract paintings. These however, but perhaps not surprisingly, were in the realm of token art - vapid washes that were completely meaningless, no doubt chosen by the same hired interior designer that chose the dining table, chairs, and wall colour.

Decor & art are not the same thing.

 

[Ed Sutton]

That is one option. The other is that we find out what "the customer" likes and work from there, "the customer" being whoever you are seeking to please, be that yourself or a friend or people who will pay you (There are many other possibilities, of course).

That's still making work for 'likes'.

Making work for yourself is fine. But liking it is a different matter. There's too great a chance that you'll stagnate and 'settle' for what you're doing.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Making work for yourself is fine. But liking it is a different matter. There's too great a chance that you'll stagnate and 'settle' for what you're doing.

That isn't really picking up on my point.

In the absent of assessment against objective criteria, we're left only with subjective opinion. Whoever is the person whose subjective opinion is primary, is "the customer". While it's possible that work done for yourself may fall into the trap you describe, if you are seeking to please a wider and (possibly) ever changing audience, the target will constantly be in motion and stagnation unlikely.

 

[Ed Sutton]

In the absent of assessment against objective criteria, we're left only with subjective opinion. Whoever is the person whose subjective opinion is primary, is "the customer". While it's possible that work done for yourself may fall into the trap you describe, if you are seeking to please a wider and (possibly) ever changing audience, the target will constantly be in motion and stagnation unlikely.

1) Why should art need an objective assessment?

2) Art isn't about pleasing people.

 

[TimHughes]

Which is just a schoolteacher-like distraction that reads pretty much like it's trying to tell the time by looking at the cogs behind the clock-face.

I see what you're saying but that's a bit harsh, no? A structure to analyze and interpret is a helpful thing?

 

[TimHughes]

1) Why should art need an objective assessment?

2) Art isn't about pleasing people.

1 - in my view art assessment or critique is not essential, but it does help people perceive and interpret works of art.
2 - agreed

 

[myotis]

It can be subject to education, though - I was greatly helped years ago by reading "The Hidden Order of Art" by Anton Ehrenzweig, but not everyone would have the appetite to plough through it.

I'm not sure if this was aimed at me, but this is now on my kindle and I've just finished the intro and first chapter.

So far, I feel I have a bit of a head start with some of it as I studied Freud as part of psychology and philosophy modules at University, and I taught Animal Behaviour at University, so his use of the classic hawk-heron silhouette example made me feel at home.

But I am also struggling with some of the basic arguments. I keep on thinking I've grasped what he means, by, for example, abstract detail and then realise in the next sentence I haven't really grasped it at all . But it's early days and I always need to read a book at least twice, so I will see how it goes.

But thanks for the pointer, it's obviously going to be an interesting, but difficult, read.