the Purpose of Art...

The23rdman said:
10450519_862113613807932_8754462923341234686_n.jpg
Click to expand...

I think I get it now, what he meant was 'triggers for emotions', I like that better, it makes sense and is a much simpler to appreciate, although emotion is an experience:thinking:.

I would ask Brian, whether he means 'all' experiences can be triggered by art objects, in the same way that literally 'all' emotions can be triggered by artworks.

Yes, I think if that had been the wisdom he was trying to impart, few, in particular me, would be able to disagree with it or think it a silly thing to say.

Amazing what changing just one word can do to change the effect of a statement or an opinion.

Nonce for example:rolleyes:
 
Pookeyhead said:
Good question actually. Firstly... he was one of the first who embraced the camera for what it was... not a device to mimic pictorial landscape paintings, but a precision, optical device to capture reality... but STILL a means of creative expression. Along with other members of the f64 club, decided to set around making some shifts in how people use and appreciate photography. He took it to the next level with not only the exposure of the negative, but the development, and the printing. He was a pioneer in the extent of the extremes he manipulated every aspect of the photographic process for creative purposes. That's one aspect.. the fact that he innovated, but perhaps the more important reason is the motivation behind it, which was the drive for conservation of the pacific north west's natural habitat, and he was instrumental in lobbying the national parks service and government in preserving many areas that are now protected... his work was instrumental in that. He actually used his images to evoke the emotions of those that could make such policy happen. In that respect, it's art... it has purpose, and while many regard Adams as a technician (quite rightly) he is one of the MANY artists who strike that perfect balance between art and craft. Some don't, and don't need to... but if Adams's work was not so beautiful, it wouldn't have worked.. it wouldn't have had the purpose he intended for it.
Click to expand...

Coming back to this. What do you think it takes to make art from landscape photography these days? Something to say is a start I expect.
 
The quote does finish with, The value of the work lies in the degree to which it can help you have the kind of experience that you call art
 
Byker28i said:
The quote does finish with, The value of the work lies in the degree to which it can help you have the kind of experience that you call art
Click to expand...


Which quote? Sorry been mostly skimming this thread, far too much ego in many of the posts.
 
steveo_mcg said:
Coming back to this. What do you think it takes to make art from landscape photography these days? Something to say is a start I expect.
Click to expand...


That would help yes, but most landscape photography today is repeating itself. Same shots, of the same places, with the same processing. It's a means for photographers to show off their skills, and that's all they care about.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/th...aphers-collection-sunrise-in-shanghai.565469/

That first shot is brilliant... it sums this up perfectly. How can that be art? They'll all get the same cookie cutter photograph. It's something to stick on their flickr pages to say "look how good I am". Why else go to St Michael's Mount? Durdle Door? That silly reservoir with the bug plug hole thingy in it.... or any of the other places that repeatedly get shot over and over again. They're taking it for the sole reason of making "wow" photographs to impress people. It's taken for self promotional purposes. The image does NOT transcend itself, it is just about the image and nothing more. The author often doesn't care about the subject at all. In fact, he/she went there with the sole purpose of creating an image that will make them appear better as photographers, nothing more. In that respect, it's more commercial photography than art. It's self-promotion. If you had any genuine concern or emotional attachment to the place, why the same processing, why the same 10stop filter... why do exactly the same "procedures" that every other amateur photographer who went their before you did? Why just take one photo? Why not explore the area and produce a series of images that tells the real story of that place. Why regurgitate even more tourist/amateur images of it?

It's not art in most cases.. it's mass production of hyper-real, hyper-processed images that serve to promote the author only.
 
steveo_mcg said:
Which quote? Sorry been mostly skimming this thread, far too much ego in many of the posts.
Click to expand...

Post 179
The original post took only a small part of what Brian Eno said

Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences. (Roy Ascott’s phrase.) That solves a lot of problems: we don’t have to argue whether photographs are art, or whether performances are art, or whether Carl Andre’s bricks or Andrew Serranos’s p*** or Little Richard’s ‘Long Tall Sally’ are art, because we say, ‘Art is something that happens, a process, not a quality, and all sorts of things can make it happen.’ … [W]hat makes a work of art ‘good’ for you is not something that is already ‘inside’ it, but something that happens inside you — so the value of the work lies in the degree to which it can help you have the kind of experience that you call art.

BRIAN ENO, IN “MIRACULOUS CURES AND THE CANONIZATION OF BASQUIAT”

So if you take the who quote rather than just the first part in a nice meme it makes a lot more sense, but then we wouldn't have 9 pages of mostly discussion...
 
Pookeyhead said:
That would help yes, but most landscape photography today is repeating itself. Same shots, of the same places, with the same processing. It's a means for photographers to show off their skills, and that's all they care about.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/th...aphers-collection-sunrise-in-shanghai.565469/

That first shot is brilliant... it sums this up perfectly. How can that be art? They'll all get the same cookie cutter photograph. It's something to stick on their flickr pages to say "look how good I am". Why else go to St Michael's Mount? Durdle Door? That silly reservoir with the bug plug hole thingy in it.... or any of the other places that repeatedly get shot over and over again. They're taking it for the sole reason of making "wow" photographs to impress people. It's taken for self promotional purposes. The image does NOT transcend itself, it is just about the image and nothing more. The author often doesn't care about the subject at all. In fact, he/she went there with the sole purpose of creating an image that will make them appear better as photographers, nothing more. In that respect, it's more commercial photography than art. It's self-promotion. If you had any genuine concern or emotional attachment to the place, why the same processing, why the same 10stop filter... why do exactly the same "procedures" that every other amateur photographer who went their before you did? Why just take one photo? Why not explore the area and produce a series of images that tells the real story of that place. Why regurgitate even more tourist/amateur images of it?

It's not art in most cases.. it's mass production of hyper-real, hyper-processed images that serve to promote the author only.
Click to expand...

Disagree. Art doesn't have to be original, only original to you. Though it certainly helps if you want to make money, or make a name for yourself.

Byker28i said:
Post 179
The original post took only a small part of what Brian Eno said

Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences. (Roy Ascott’s phrase.) That solves a lot of problems: we don’t have to argue whether photographs are art, or whether performances are art, or whether Carl Andre’s bricks or Andrew Serranos’s p*** or Little Richard’s ‘Long Tall Sally’ are art, because we say, ‘Art is something that happens, a process, not a quality, and all sorts of things can make it happen.’ … [W]hat makes a work of art ‘good’ for you is not something that is already ‘inside’ it, but something that happens inside you — so the value of the work lies in the degree to which it can help you have the kind of experience that you call art.

BRIAN ENO, IN “MIRACULOUS CURES AND THE CANONIZATION OF BASQUIAT”

So if you take the who quote rather than just the first part in a nice meme it makes a lot more sense, but then we wouldn't have 9 pages of mostly discussion...
Click to expand...

Eno's full quote makes a more sense than the 'triggers for experiences' one-line extract. I'm rather liking his last sentence: "[W]hat makes a work of art ‘good’ for you is not something that is already ‘inside’ it, but something that happens inside you — so the value of the work lies in the degree to which it can help you have the kind of experience that you call art." He's basically repeating the time-honoured cliché that 'art is in the eye of the beholder' which, come to think of it, is not a very original definition. Good though :)
 
HoppyUK said:
Disagree. Art doesn't have to be original, only original to you. Though it certainly helps if you want to make money, or make a name for yourself.

Eno's full quote makes a more sense than the 'triggers for experiences' one-line extract. I'm rather liking his last sentence: "[W]hat makes a work of art ‘good’ for you is not something that is already ‘inside’ it, but something that happens inside you — so the value of the work lies in the degree to which it can help you have the kind of experience that you call art." He's basically repeating the time-honoured cliché that 'art is in the eye of the beholder' which, come to think of it, is not a very original definition. Good though :)
Click to expand...

And this is something which also makes much more sense, at least to me.
 
Byker28i said:
Post 179
The original post took only a small part of what Brian Eno said

Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences. (Roy Ascott’s phrase.) That solves a lot of problems: we don’t have to argue whether photographs are art, or whether performances are art, or whether Carl Andre’s bricks or Andrew Serranos’s p*** or Little Richard’s ‘Long Tall Sally’ are art, because we say, ‘Art is something that happens, a process, not a quality, and all sorts of things can make it happen.’ … [W]hat makes a work of art ‘good’ for you is not something that is already ‘inside’ it, but something that happens inside you — so the value of the work lies in the degree to which it can help you have the kind of experience that you call art.

BRIAN ENO, IN “MIRACULOUS CURES AND THE CANONIZATION OF BASQUIAT”

So if you take the who quote rather than just the first part in a nice meme it makes a lot more sense, but then we wouldn't have 9 pages of mostly discussion...
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. I wish I'd said it.
 
Maybe I'm weird, but the original shorter quote made sense to me.
The longer one fleshes it out, but doesn't fundamentally change the point being made.
 
HoppyUK said:
Disagree. Art doesn't have to be original, only original to you.
Click to expand...



ancient_mariner said:
And this is something which also makes much more sense, at least to me.
Click to expand...


I never said it had to be totally original.. because nothing really is, is it. However.. same landscape, from the same spot, with the same processing, with the same lens... same everything? I think you're stretching a point a little here.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=durdle door&safe=off&biw=2563&bih=1395&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=nrlTVP6EKsyd7gbi6YCgBg&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg&dpr=0.9

How can that possibly be art? It's just a cliché of itself. Besides, you've completely ignored the main point of my post of course... which was re: the intent.
 
Last edited:
LOL - should have been durdle door sunset, then almost every shot it the same angle etc
 
Pookeyhead said:
That would help yes, but most landscape photography today is repeating itself. Same shots, of the same places, with the same processing. It's a means for photographers to show off their skills, and that's all they care about.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/th...aphers-collection-sunrise-in-shanghai.565469/

That first shot is brilliant... it sums this up perfectly. How can that be art? They'll all get the same cookie cutter photograph. It's something to stick on their flickr pages to say "look how good I am". Why else go to St Michael's Mount? Durdle Door? That silly reservoir with the bug plug hole thingy in it.... or any of the other places that repeatedly get shot over and over again. They're taking it for the sole reason of making "wow" photographs to impress people. It's taken for self promotional purposes. The image does NOT transcend itself, it is just about the image and nothing more. The author often doesn't care about the subject at all. In fact, he/she went there with the sole purpose of creating an image that will make them appear better as photographers, nothing more. In that respect, it's more commercial photography than art. It's self-promotion. If you had any genuine concern or emotional attachment to the place, why the same processing, why the same 10stop filter... why do exactly the same "procedures" that every other amateur photographer who went their before you did? Why just take one photo? Why not explore the area and produce a series of images that tells the real story of that place. Why regurgitate even more tourist/amateur images of it?

It's not art in most cases.. it's mass production of hyper-real, hyper-processed images that serve to promote the author only.
Click to expand...

It pains me, but you've summed me up pretty much although I do care about the places I go, I like them as they look nice and often allow me to get away from it all.
 
ST4 said:
It pains me, but you've summed me up pretty much although I do care about the places I go, I like them as they look nice and often allow me to get away from it all.
Click to expand...

Yes. It really doesn't matter if the things you like to photograph have been photographed by others hundreds of times in the past. If it's what you want to do, that's all that matters.


Steve.
 
I've never been to Durdle Door so I took a virtual trip via Street View. It didn't look much like getting away from it all to me, nor much like the photos I'd seen. Well worth an on-line visit. :)
 
Steve Smith said:
Yes. It really doesn't matter if the things you like to photograph have been photographed by others hundreds of times in the past. If it's what you want to do, that's all that matters.


Steve.
Click to expand...


In the context of this debate, that's neither here nor there. There's no need to defend a style of image just because people are saying it's not art. Take images of whatever you want.

The puzzling thing is: Why is it that the ones in this thread most outspoken against art are the ones most upset when people accuse their/such work of not being art?

[edit]

Not aimed at you necessarily Steve.... just looking through past threads on this subject, that's generally the case.
 
Last edited:
Ed Sutton said:
I've never been to Durdle Door so I took a virtual trip via Street View. It didn't look much like getting away from it all to me, nor much like the photos I'd seen. Well worth an on-line visit. :)
Click to expand...
Durdle door, lulworth cove, all along that coastline is beautiful and worth a visit. Some great places for food, the castle at lulworth cove is dog friendly, does great food.

However, PH comment on everyone taking sunset/sunrise from the same spot is valid. That's absolutely fine if that's what you want to do, but it's not really original to look at what others have done and copy. Does it devalue the few great images? PH pushes the point that the image is taken for praise and back slapping which is possible as we all like positive commented on our work, but again it's pretty images that seem to be the most acceptable, because these are what are pushed in most media (photo mags, some newspapers etc)
 
Pookeyhead said:
Not aimed at you necessarily Steve.... just looking through past threads on this subject, that's generally the case.
Click to expand...

I'm quite happy for anything of mine not to be considered as art. Someone's opinion of it's category or value (or any other judgement criteria) doesn't change it in any way.


Steve.
 
Byker28i said:
... it's not really original to look at what others have done and copy. Does it devalue the few great images? PH pushes the point that the image is taken for praise and back slapping which is possible as we all like positive commented on our work, but again it's pretty images that seem to be the most acceptable, because these are what are pushed in most media (photo mags, some newspapers etc)
Click to expand...
Copying occurs in certain early stages of development. Think of childhood. Copying can't ever be your own mature voice. Since we're talking about photography on this forum, many photographers won't ever advance beyond that childish phase in their photography - technique can be copied, but heart, insight and originality cannot. Photography however isn't the whole of life, and photographically stalled practitioners may be more effective in other life arenas. The field is open. Anything is possible before the portcullis falls and your children or contemporaries inscribe their brutal epitaphs on your stone.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top