and the site receives a small commission
Photographic rules do they really apply to a good photo ?
- Thread starter BADGER.BRAD
- Start date
- Messages
- 7,903
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
That's like saying physics can be different things to different people.
I'd suggest that all art has an intellectual component - going back to the earliest rock art. There are ideas behind the art which makes it look the way it does. Of course conceptual art has put the idea to the forefront to the extent that it becomes the art. Which is difficult to exhibit and monetise so objects of some kind have to be made - objects which taken out of the context of the idea can easily appear nonsensical.
But if you don't study the history of art you might not think this, you might think that art is only about making things which are decorative. It's not. Although that is how a lot of amateur/hobbyist painters/photographers approach making their work. They may make paintings and photographs. They don't make art.
Is this an elitist attitude? Certainly not. Everyone can learn to appreciate (as in understand rather than like) art. But they need to approach it with an open mind, not with the thought that anything they can't immediately understand is pretentious crap.
- Messages
- 25,321
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
No; your question was
It’s clearly ART, whether I like it has no bearing on that objective fact.
- Messages
- 7,903
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
And art is anything an artist says is art.
- Messages
- 23,527
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
But if someone isn't an artist yet makes claims about their work, do those claims make it art after all?
Semi-serious question.
Cockney
I asked Admin for a user title
- Messages
- 9,481
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That's like saying physics can be different things to different people.
I'd suggest that all art has an intellectual component - going back to the earliest rock art. There are ideas behind the art which makes it look the way it does. Of course conceptual art has put the idea to the forefront to the extent that it becomes the art. Which is difficult to exhibit and monetise so objects of some kind have to be made - objects which taken out of the context of the idea can easily appear nonsensical.
But if you don't study the history of art you might not think this, you might think that art is only about making things which are decorative. It's not. Although that is how a lot of amateur/hobbyist painters/photographers approach making their work. They may make paintings and photographs. They don't make art.
Is this an elitist attitude? Certainly not. Everyone can learn to appreciate (as in understand rather than like) art. But they need to approach it with an open mind, not with the thought that anything they can't immediately understand is pretentious crap.
I take your point, although I totally disagree with much.
The first sentence is rubbish but you know that.
If you have to study or have what the artist intended explained to you, they have failed. ( In my view)
You also know people have been arguing about ”what is art" for ever, so I don't think we will bottom it out here.
Cockney
I asked Admin for a user title
- Messages
- 9,481
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If it causes no emotion in me then no, it's not. Although it may be for you.
- Messages
- 7,903
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
Which raises the other question: who decides who is and isn't an artist?
- Messages
- 7,903
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
I wasn't saying that. I said there is more to artworks than meets the eye. Whether what lies behind their creation is important or not doesn't matter. Great art can be appreciated on a number of levels. But the more you know the deeper your appreciation of something can be, and finding out more about art you don't like can help you see why it is still art. It might even change your mind about it.
Agreed.
And this thread didn't start about art, it started about photographic 'rules'.
- Messages
- 23,527
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
(Looks shiftily both ways - coast is clear) Whispers "the art elite". (Slides back into a dark corner).Which raises the other question: who decides who is and isn't an artist?
- Messages
- 3,268
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
Fair enough. My view is different of course as I can't see how it's possible to "understand" anything without studying it.
- Messages
- 3,268
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
But that doesn't make it "good" art
- Messages
- 7,903
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
Indeed.
Given the number of times I've seen on here people say they don't look at photographs from the past as only what's current is worth considering, or who claim to be unaware of some of the biggest names in photographic history, I imagine that you are in the minority.
- Messages
- 104,484
- Name
- The other Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
There are a few comments above that neatly pull together why there is good art and bad art
It is art if it is created as art by an artist and accepted in an art-historical context (e.g. displayed in a gallery). IT ... IS ... ART there is no "it's not art" because "I don't like it".
If I drill a hole in your head I am doing brain surgery. I might not be a very good brain surgeon, you might not survive the procedure but I will have operated on your brain, for better or worse.
The same with any field of human endeavour, it is simply a category error to start saying things that meet the above criteria are not art, they are. What we do get to decide is if, individually, we "like" the art or not and over time a consensus will be built around whether it is good art or bad art.
Hate is an emotion and might be the emotion the artist wanted to stir within you, it is as much art if you have a strong negative response as it is if you have a strong positive response to it. hence the sharks and rotting meat and cans of sh!t
It is art if it is created as art by an artist and accepted in an art-historical context (e.g. displayed in a gallery). IT ... IS ... ART there is no "it's not art" because "I don't like it".
If I drill a hole in your head I am doing brain surgery. I might not be a very good brain surgeon, you might not survive the procedure but I will have operated on your brain, for better or worse.
The same with any field of human endeavour, it is simply a category error to start saying things that meet the above criteria are not art, they are. What we do get to decide is if, individually, we "like" the art or not and over time a consensus will be built around whether it is good art or bad art.
Hate is an emotion and might be the emotion the artist wanted to stir within you, it is as much art if you have a strong negative response as it is if you have a strong positive response to it. hence the sharks and rotting meat and cans of sh!t
Last edited:
- Messages
- 9,251
- Edit My Images
- No
I have read books about art in which an opposing opinion is put forward that art can only be experienced; attempting to understand it negates the whole purpose of the piece.
Last edited:
Cockney
I asked Admin for a user title
- Messages
- 9,481
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Art is about creating a feeling or emotion. No study required for that.
- Messages
- 25,321
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Nor is there a need to ‘like’ it
More seriously
If great literature is written in French, then I’d have to study French in order to understand that work. If that is a fact (it is) then if I have no understanding of art photography or abstract sculpture (or jazz) how can I judge the quality of it as art?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,268
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
But we have been talking about whether something is, or is not, good art, an individual emotional response to a piece isn't sufficient to decide this, even if its sufficient for us to decide whether we like it or not.
When I was talking about "understanding" it was continuing the point made in my preceding posts, leading to the one you have responded to, about needing expertise in art history and theory to provide sufficient knowledge to assess a work of art in the context of the wider world of "art" before it can be labeled as good, bad or indifferent.
As I've said before I don't have the expertise to be able to decide this. I can decide what I like and don't like, but that's irrelevant to whether it’s a "good" work of art.
We are obviously miles apart with our views on this. :-(
- Messages
- 2,814
- Name
- Kev
- Edit My Images
- No
Reminds me of the book "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" although he talks about things having Quality
Quote:
“Quality...you know what it is, yet you don’t know what it is. But that’s self-contradictory. But some things are better than others, that is, they have more quality. But when you try to say what the quality is, apart from the things that have it, it all goes poof! There’s nothing to talk about. But if you can’t say what Quality is, how do you know what it is, or how do you know that it even exists? If no one knows what it is, then for all practical purposes it doesn’t exist at all. But for all practical purposes it really does exist.”
Quote:
“Quality...you know what it is, yet you don’t know what it is. But that’s self-contradictory. But some things are better than others, that is, they have more quality. But when you try to say what the quality is, apart from the things that have it, it all goes poof! There’s nothing to talk about. But if you can’t say what Quality is, how do you know what it is, or how do you know that it even exists? If no one knows what it is, then for all practical purposes it doesn’t exist at all. But for all practical purposes it really does exist.”
Last edited:
Cockney
I asked Admin for a user title
- Messages
- 9,481
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Nor is there a need to ‘like’ it
More seriously
If great literature is written in French, then I’d have to study French in order to understand that work. If that is a fact (it is) then if I have no understanding of art photography or abstract sculpture (or jazz) how can I judge the quality of it as art?
I don't think were necessarily miles apart, more at cross purposes.
I'm talking about what I view as art and thats what moves me. As Phil rightly points out, I don't have to like it.
Take the picture of the baby in Hiroshima or the burning girl in Vietnam. I don't like them they're horrific, but do they move me? Yeah. Do I see them as art? Yeah.
I dont see how anybody can judge art or grade it in any way. Photographer of the year shows always have so called experts (who have studied it) disagreeing on the artistic merits of contributions.
Having said that I accept that studying Ballet may have increased my chance of enjoying it as an art form but it's not grabbed my attention enough to invest the effort.
- Messages
- 7,903
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
It's pretty easy to differentiate a great painting from a daub by a Sunday painter. Or a great photograph from some Instafiltered tripe.
Cockney
I asked Admin for a user title
- Messages
- 9,481
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It is if you can see it through they eyes and minds of everybody who may view it.
- Messages
- 104,484
- Name
- The other Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Another amusing watch, by all means watch all of it, its very good but the last ten minutes are pertinent to this thread
View: https://youtu.be/0Yv-HykiEAo
BTW it's not more arty-farty rubbish, quite the opposite but somehow I think the "I like what I like" brigade won't like this either, even though it empathetic with their point of view.
BTW it's not more arty-farty rubbish, quite the opposite but somehow I think the "I like what I like" brigade won't like this either, even though it empathetic with their point of view.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 7,903
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
Have we descended into everyone's opinion is as valid as everyone else's territory now?
- Messages
- 25,321
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Nah
Half of all people are below average intelligence
we all have to accept that millions of people watch Love island and read the Sun.
we just have to know that ‘we’ know a great painting. There’s nothing we can do about ‘everybody’.
Cockney
I asked Admin for a user title
- Messages
- 9,481
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well I can't see anyones opinion being as valid as yours. Do you get called a snob a lot?
Cockney
I asked Admin for a user title
- Messages
- 9,481
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Nah
Half of all people are below average intelligence
we all have to accept that millions of people watch Love island and read the Sun.
we just have to know that ‘we’ know a great painting. There’s nothing we can do about ‘everybody’.
The idea of what is art to a 12 year old girl is less valid than somebody elses?
What will be considered as art in 100 years time?
Is rapping art? Only if a musical professor decides so?
Cockney
I asked Admin for a user title
- Messages
- 9,481
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I requote that because I think it's the most crass, snobbish elitist thing I've ever read.
- Messages
- 25,321
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
I never said someone’s opinion was less valid than someone else’s.
But in answer to your ‘art in the mind of everyone’ I was trying to point out that ‘everyone’ won’t agree on anything.
Some people believe that dogs playing pool is ‘art’, I’ll defend their right to believe that, but you can’t make me respect their view
Cockney
I asked Admin for a user title
- Messages
- 9,481
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I never said someone’s opinion was less valid than someone else’s.
But in answer to your ‘art in the mind of everyone’ I was trying to point out that ‘everyone’ won’t agree on anything.
Some people believe that dogs playing pool is ‘art’, I’ll defend their right to believe that, but you can’t make me respect their view
I agree with that.
You didn't say your opinion was superior. I was just going by you liking this drivel below.
- Messages
- 2,996
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Art is a form of communication. In order to successfully communicate, both sides of the communication need to be speaking (and understand) the same language.Nor is there a need to ‘like’ it
More seriously
If great literature is written in French, then I’d have to study French in order to understand that work. If that is a fact (it is) then if I have no understanding of art photography or abstract sculpture (or jazz) how can I judge the quality of it as art?
This is why it took a while for the Impressionists to be accepted - people had to learn a new dialect. Or jazz in the 1930s, or rock music, or Surrealism, or ...
Last edited:
- Messages
- 9,251
- Edit My Images
- No
I feel that's getting awfully close to Schoenberg's “If it is art, it is not for all, and if it is for all, it is not art.”
Not something I can agree with at all.
- Messages
- 7,903
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 2,996
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Not at all. I am saying that you need to learn the appropriate language, not that everyone cannot learn the language.
- Messages
- 3,268
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
It does now sound like we are much closer than I thought.
But I don't thinks its about disliking the subject that is relevant, its about personally disliking the "art" while accepting its still "good art", even if you don't like it.
And I still think that with sufficient expertise and understanding its possible to separate out the good from the bad. But with no expectation of consensus, except possibly at the extremes of good and bad.
Since retiring I've spent a fair bit of time studying art and its not uncommon for an expert while explaining why a painting is justifiably considered a master piece to also admit that personally they have never liked it very much.
My art studies (agreeing with your ballet comment) have massively increased my enjoyment of art and I'm continuing to put the effort into it. I'm really enjoying it and it makes a big change from spending my time studying decision science and statistical modelling
- Messages
- 25,321
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
It’s not drivel. Clearly all opinions aren’t equal.
if I want a cancer treatment plan, an oncologist will do a better job than Dave down the pub.
I’ve met a guy who believes the earth is flat, he has a perfect right to that opinion, but I also have a perfect right to believe he’s an idiot who has limited evidence gathering skills.
there are some genuine wacko opinions shared nowadays, do you really expect me to believe David Ickes opinions are as valid as David Attenborough’s?
Cockney
I asked Admin for a user title
- Messages
- 9,481
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What a soppy analogy.
Cancer treatment is not a purely subjective field. Art is, entirely, thats the point. Daves opinion is as valid as the oncologist if they're discussing the colour of the hospital walls.
If somebody likes and enjoys something as art I don't think anybody has the right to tell them they're wrong. No matter how many courses or appreciation workshops they've been on. It may increase their enjoyment but does not make their opinion more valid than anybody elses. Even if it's Eds.
- Messages
- 25,321
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
It’s not though.
that was my opening point that you disagreed with; and you’re still wrong objectively.
taste is subjective - but whether or not something is art is objective, whether or not something is successful is objective.
I don’t like Queen, but they’re objectively successful.
Most ‘photographers’ don’t like ‘Rhein II’ but it’s objectively a valuable work of art.
Cockney
I asked Admin for a user title
- Messages
- 9,481
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
How is the question of something being art, in my or a young kids objective? Wether I consider something art is subjective not objective.
- Messages
- 23,527
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
I think a question many would like a clear answer on is whether Rhine II is a valuable work of art because it says something, or because it's a unique investment opportunity that has been seized upon by wealthy speculators?