Musings about Photography as an Art

The problem with the term 'art' is that people use it as a term of
praise.

Thus, you said:

"My work probably does not make the grade of art, despite great care
and quality, because I have not developed a unique style or statement."

'Art' has nothing to do with 'grade' and never will. Photographs CANNOT
be art, no matter what 'grade' they are, no matter how beautfiul they
may be. 'Art' a technical term, not a value term. Painting and
sculpture are art. Photography is not and never will be.

To be 'art' does not imply a higher standard of 'x'. To be an artist
means you work with paint and canvas, or marble and chisel. That's ALL
it means.

Ken Smith wrote:
Language is always changing. At least a living language such as English
is always changing to mirror the times. The inexplicable term art has
been worn out to meaninglessness . The fact that art also has to
transcend accepted meaning to qualify as the real McCoy
is likely too much to handle for most rational, utilitarian minded
people.

Besides it certainly shouldn't be considered a positive compliment to
be considered an artist, if you also consider the degree of shock,
shlock, and outright market driven nonsense that is produced to
convince the buyers/dealers that something new is happening when it
isn't, or at least isn't anything but "new".

"New" being the Holy Grail of the art world, persists despite the
general lack of anything elevating about it. New isn't enough for ART,
but it sells, and that's what really matters.

Painting and similar fine arts shattered and exploded into myriad
directions and lost touch with it's history, it's public, and relavence
altogether. True art today thrives in a folk tradition, i.e. in the
individual more so than the culture itself. The experience of knowing
thyself is the greatest aspect of making art, and it has been driven
underground by a fantastically powerful mass media that focuses on
externals, trivia, and lust; essentially pornography, i.e. you are
inspired to desire something you dont have as opposed to discovering
something you do have.


Photography, according to Robert Adams anyway, has remained true to
its history. Though most people prefer traditional work, the medium is
still evolving in a fairly straight line. It is changing with the
times, and has not imploded with a self-consciousness yeilding a dead
end. It is still a Mars Rover. Still a viable tool for discovering,
despite massive repetitiousness.

No medium is art. Painting is no more art than sculpture, photography,
or underwater ballet, until an artist reaches into it and breaths new
life. Meaningful, inspiring, relevant life.

Art is what an artist makes. And many artists have used photography to
make it. That is taken as fact by far too many serious, capable figures
in this medium to dispute intelligently. It is an accepted cultural
fact agreed upon all over the world that some artists use photography,
and to hear over and over this refuted with rationalized language
points is less than convincing. Nor is the false modesty from those who
insist that they are not artists. They probably aren't. My work
probably does not make the grade of art, despite great care and
quality, because I have not developed a unique style or statement. Nor
have I broken thru influences and discovered a meaning I didn't
anticipate.

There are so many great ideas to discuss regarding art. Is it or isn't
it can't really be argued without those more essential questions.

It is usually considered good manners for those who wish to discuss
philosophical matters to make themselves familiar with the terminology
and concepts used in the field. It is not uncommon today, however, for
this simple courtesy not to be observed.

Aesthetics is the discipline that is concerned with 'art'. Aesthetics
belongs to the field of philosophy. Since so very few photographers are
educated in this field, it is very, very, very difficult to discuss
this matter with them. They literally have no idea what they're talking
about. They use the language of aesthetics, while having no training
beyond what they have picked up from other equally uneducated
photographers.

Many photographers would like to consider themselves 'artists' because
they understand that term to be one of praise. It certainly is no such
thing. Artists, throughout history, have been considered among the
lower ranks of society. In the 18th and 19th century, artists, actors
and actresses were considered to be among the lowest classes. Even
among the Greeks, the artist was considered merely a sort of tradesman.
Why someone should want to be considered an artist is beyond
comprehension. To be an artist is not something ennobling at all. It is
merely someone who works with paint and canvas, or with marble and
chisel. Being an artist does not make you any better or more important
than anyone else. Being a very, very good photographer does not make
you an 'artist'. It merely makes you a very, very good photographer.
Being a very, very good auto mechanic does not make you an artist,
either.

I suggest some readings in aesthetics. You may want to consider
starting he

The Aesthetic Understanding by Roger Scruton

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...024923-7049417

Without some understanding of these matters, discussion is unlikely to
be fruitful.


Ken Smith wrote:
Language is always changing. At least a living language such as English
is always changing to mirror the times. The inexplicable term art has
been worn out to meaninglessness . The fact that art also has to
transcend accepted meaning to qualify as the real McCoy
is likely too much to handle for most rational, utilitarian minded
people.

Besides it certainly shouldn't be considered a positive compliment to
be considered an artist, if you also consider the degree of shock,
shlock, and outright market driven nonsense that is produced to
convince the buyers/dealers that something new is happening when it
isn't, or at least isn't anything but "new".

"New" being the Holy Grail of the art world, persists despite the
general lack of anything elevating about it. New isn't enough for ART,
but it sells, and that's what really matters.

Painting and similar fine arts shattered and exploded into myriad
directions and lost touch with it's history, it's public, and relavence
altogether. True art today thrives in a folk tradition, i.e. in the
individual more so than the culture itself. The experience of knowing
thyself is the greatest aspect of making art, and it has been driven
underground by a fantastically powerful mass media that focuses on
externals, trivia, and lust; essentially pornography, i.e. you are
inspired to desire something you dont have as opposed to discovering
something you do have.


Photography, according to Robert Adams anyway, has remained true to
its history. Though most people prefer traditional work, the medium is
still evolving in a fairly straight line. It is changing with the
times, and has not imploded with a self-consciousness yeilding a dead
end. It is still a Mars Rover. Still a viable tool for discovering,
despite massive repetitiousness.

No medium is art. Painting is no more art than sculpture, photography,
or underwater ballet, until an artist reaches into it and breaths new
life. Meaningful, inspiring, relevant life.

Art is what an artist makes. And many artists have used photography to
make it. That is taken as fact by far too many serious, capable figures
in this medium to dispute intelligently. It is an accepted cultural
fact agreed upon all over the world that some artists use photography,
and to hear over and over this refuted with rationalized language
points is less than convincing. Nor is the false modesty from those who
insist that they are not artists. They probably aren't. My work
probably does not make the grade of art, despite great care and
quality, because I have not developed a unique style or statement. Nor
have I broken thru influences and discovered a meaning I didn't
anticipate.

There are so many great ideas to discuss regarding art. Is it or isn't
it can't really be argued without those more essential questions.

UC wrote:

'Art' has nothing to do with 'grade' and never will. Photographs CANNOT
be art, no matter what 'grade' they are, no matter how beautfiul they
may be. 'Art' a technical term, not a value term. Painting and
sculpture are art. Photography is n ot and never will be.

To be 'art' does not imply a higher standard of 'x'. To be an artist
means you work with paint and canvas, or marble and chisel. That's ALL
it means.

Ah. Now I understand. That is why there are no recording artists, and
the Academy of Recording Artists, and the Academy of Motion Picture
Arts and Sciences, do not exist; why theatre is not an art and why
there are no dramatic artists; why there are no performance artists,
why there is no folk art; why ballet and music are not art and never
will be; and why I don't have some degree or other that ends in "of
Arts". It was all so confusing to me before.


Of course there are two central senses of art, which overlap some. The
first and part of the second is famously well-described as follows:

"Science knows, art does; science is a body of connected facts, an art
is a set of directions... the directions of art vary with the artist
and the task. But, as there is much traffic between science and art,
and, especially, art is often based on science, the distinction is not
always clear; the art of self-defence, and the boxer's science- are
they the same, or different?"

The second sense, of course, is simply the following: anything that is
consciously made to represent, convey, or inspire an aesthetic
impression, sensibility, or feeling- these being things that have to
be understood on their own terms, just like e.g. the sense of smell or
the sense of equilibrium.

The part about being consciously made explains why in general,
photography is LESS of an art than e.g. musical composition, painting
or sculptu a large portion of the construction is automatically
made, by machine (camera), rather than by the artist, who manipulates
instead relatively few aspects of the final work.

From a certain well-regarded dictionary:

ART 1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the
work of nature. 2. a. The conscious production or arrangement of
sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that
affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the
beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium. b. The study of these
activities. c. The product of these activities; human works of beauty
considered as a group. 3. High quality of conception or execution, as
found in works of beauty; aesthetic value. 4. A field or category of
art, such as music, ballet, or literature. 5. A nonscientific branch of
learning; one of the liberal arts. 6. a. A system of principles and
methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of
building. b. A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles
and methods: the art of the lexicographer. 7. a. Skill that is attained
by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the
blacksmith's art. b. Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive
faculties: "Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to
practice" (Joyce Carol Oates). 8. a. arts Artful devices, stratagems,
and tricks. b. Artful contrivance; cunning. 9. Printing. Illustrative
material.

While one should never confuse derivation with meaning, the following
is nevertheless useful:

ART c.1225, "skill as a result of learning or practice," from O.Fr.
art, from L. artem, (nom. ars) "art, skill, craft," from PIE *ar-ti-
(cf. Skt. rtih "manner, mode;" Gk. arti "just," artios "complete;"
Armenian arnam "make," Ger. art "manner, mode"), from base *ar- "fit
together, join" (see arm (1)). In M.E. usually with sense of "skill in
scholarship and learning" (c.1305), especially in the seven sciences,
or liberal arts (divided into the trivium -- grammar, logic, rhetoric
-- and the quadrivium --arithmetic, geometry, music, astronomy). This
sense remains in Bachelor of Arts, etc. Meaning "human workmanship" (as
opposed to nature) is from 1386. Sense of "cunning and trickery" first
attested c.1600. Meaning "skill in creative arts" is first recorded
1620; esp. of painting, sculpture, etc., from 1668. Broader sense of
the word remains in artless (1589). As an adj. meaning "produced with
conscious artistry (as opposed to popular or folk) it is attested from
1890, possibly from infl. of Ger. kunstlied "art song" (cf. art film,
1960; art rock, c.1970). Fine arts, "those which appeal to the mind and
the imagination" first recorded 1767. Art brut "art done by prisoners,
lunatics, etc.," is 1955, from Fr., lit. "raw art." Artsy
"pretentiously artistic" is from 1902. Expression art for art's sake
(1836) translates Fr. l'art pour l'art. First record of art critic is
from 1865. Arts and crafts "decorative design and handcraft" first
attested in the Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society, founded in London,
1888.


And while we're at it:

PICTURE [Middle English, from Latin pict˜´ra, from pictus, painted,
past participle of pingere, to paint.]

noun

1. A visual representation or image painted, drawn, photographed, or
otherwise rendered on a flat surface. 2. A visible image, especially
one on a flat surface or screen: the picture reflected in the lake;
focused the picture on the movie screen. 3. a. A vivid or realistic
verbal description: a Shakespearean picture of guilt. b. A vivid mental
image. 4. A person or object bearing a marked resemblance to another:
She's the picture of her mother. 5. A person, object, or scene that
typifies or embodies an emotion, state of mind, or mood: Your face was
the very picture of horror. 6. The chief circumstances of an event or
time; a situation. 7. A movie. 8. A tableau vivant.


IN SHORT: Photography must be considered, albeit as one of the greater
technologies, as one of the lesser arts, which nevertheless SOMETIMES
RISES TO GREATNESS..

UC wrote:
It is usually considered good manners for those who wish to discuss
philosophical matters to make themselves familiar with the terminology
and concepts used in the field. It is not uncommon today, however, for
this simple courtesy not to be observed.

Aesthetics is the discipline that is concerned with 'art'. Aesthetics
belongs to the field of philosophy. Since so very few photographers
are educated in this field, it is very, very, very difficult to
discuss this matter with them. They literally have no idea what
they're talking about. They use the language of aesthetics, while
having no training beyond what they have picked up from other equally
uneducated photographers.

Many photographers would like to consider themselves 'artists' because
they understand that term to be one of praise. It certainly is no such
thing. Artists, throughout history, have been considered among the
lower ranks of society. In the 18th and 19th century, artists, actors
and actresses were considered to be among the lowest classes. Even
among the Greeks, the artist was considered merely a sort of
tradesman. Why someone should want to be considered an artist is
beyond comprehension. To be an artist is not something ennobling at
all. It is merely someone who works with paint and canvas, or with
marble and chisel. Being an artist does not make you any better or
more important than anyone else. Being a very, very good photographer
does not make you an 'artist'. It merely makes you a very, very good
photographer. Being a very, very good auto mechanic does not make you
an artist, either.

I suggest some readings in aesthetics. You may want to consider
starting he

The Aesthetic Understanding by Roger Scruton


http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...024923-7049417

Without some understanding of these matters, discussion is unlikely to
be fruitful.

I have a degree in philosophy, including two classes in aesthetics, one of
which was graduate level, I read the ultra conservative Scruton who writes
right up your alley, and I've read his detractors, with whom I agree. No
where in my studies of aesthetics was it written or did anyone say,
including Scruton, that only drawing, painting, sculpture were "art". No
where.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

It says it in Webster:


Main Entry:fine art
Pronunciation:**|*
Function:noun
Etymology:back-formation from fine arts, plural, translation of French
beaux-arts

2 : any art (as painting, drawing, architecture, sculpture, music,
ceramics, or landscape architecture) for which aesthetic purposes are
primary or uppermost - usually used in plural


Matt Clara wrote:
UC wrote:
It is usually considered good manners for those who wish to discuss
philosophical matters to make themselves familiar with the terminology
and concepts used in the field. It is not uncommon today, however, for
this simple courtesy not to be observed.

Aesthetics is the discipline that is concerned with 'art'. Aesthetics
belongs to the field of philosophy. Since so very few photographers
are educated in this field, it is very, very, very difficult to
discuss this matter with them. They literally have no idea what
they're talking about. They use the language of aesthetics, while
having no training beyond what they have picked up from other equally
uneducated photographers.

Many photographers would like to consider themselves 'artists' because
they understand that term to be one of praise. It certainly is no such
thing. Artists, throughout history, have been considered among the
lower ranks of society. In the 18th and 19th century, artists, actors
and actresses were considered to be among the lowest classes. Even
among the Greeks, the artist was considered merely a sort of
tradesman. Why someone should want to be considered an artist is
beyond comprehension. To be an artist is not something ennobling at
all. It is merely someone who works with paint and canvas, or with
marble and chisel. Being an artist does not make you any better or
more important than anyone else. Being a very, very good photographer
does not make you an 'artist'. It merely makes you a very, very good
photographer. Being a very, very good auto mechanic does not make you
an artist, either.

I suggest some readings in aesthetics. You may want to consider
starting he

The Aesthetic Understanding by Roger Scruton


http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...024923-7049417

Without some understanding of these matters, discussion is unlikely to
be fruitful.

I have a degree in philosophy, including two classes in aesthetics, one of
which was graduate level, I read the ultra conservative Scruton who writes
right up your alley, and I've read his detractors, with whom I agree. No
where in my studies of aesthetics was it written or did anyone say,
including Scruton, that only drawing, painting, sculpture were "art". No
where.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

Matt Clara wrote:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...024923-7049417

Without some understanding of these matters, discussion is unlikely to
be fruitful.

I have a degree in philosophy, including two classes in aesthetics, one of
which was graduate level, I read the ultra conservative Scruton who writes
right up your alley, and I've read his detractors, with whom I agree. No
where in my studies of aesthetics was it written or did anyone say,
including Scruton, that only drawing, painting, sculpture were "art". No
where.


Scruton:

In order to understand what I mean by saying that photography is not a
representational art, it is important to separate painting and
photography as much as possible, so as to discuss not actual painting
and actual photography but an ideal form of each, an ideal which
represents the essential differences between them. Ideal photography
differs from actual photography as indeed ideal painting differs from
actual painting. Actual photography is the result of the attempt by
photographers to pollute the ideal of their craft with the aims and
methods of painting.

By an 'ideal' I mean a logical ideal. The ideal of photography is not
an ideal at which photography aims or ought to aim. On the contrary, it
is a logical fiction, designed merely to capture what is distinctive in
the photographic relation and in our interest in it. It will be clear
from this discussion that there need be no such thing as an ideal
photograph in my sense, and the reader should not be deterred if I
begin by describing photography in terms that seem to be exaggerated or
false.

The ideal painting stands in a certain 'intentional' relation to a
subject.[2] In other words, if a painting represents a subject, it does
not follow that the subject exists nor, if it does exist, that the
painting represents the subject as it is. Moreover, if x is a painting
of a man, it does not follow that there is some particular man of which
x is the painting. Furthermore, the painting stands in this intentional
relation to its subject because of a representational act, the artist's
act, and in characterizing the relation between a painting and its
subject we are also describing the artist's intention. The successful
realization of that intention lies in the creation of an appearance, an
appearance which in some way leads the spectator to recognize the
subject.

----------------------------------------------------------------
[2] See Franz Clemens Brentano, Psychology from an Empirical
Standpoint, ed. Linda McAlister (London and New York, 1973); Roderick
M. Chis- holm, Perceiving (London and Ithaca, N.Y., 1957), chapter 11;
and G. E. M. Anscombe, 'The Intentionality of Sensation', in R. J.
Butler (ed.), Ana- lyticql Philosophy, Second Series (Oxford, 1965).

-----------------------------

The ideal photograph also stands in a certain relation to a subject. a
photograph is a photograph of something. But the relation is here
causal and not intentional.[3] In other words, if a photograph is a
photograph of a subject, it follows that the subject exists, and if x
is a photograph of a man, there is a particular man of whom x is the
photograph. It also follows, though for different reasons, that the
subject is, roughly, as it appears in the photograph. In characterizing
the relation between the ideal photograph and its subject, one is
characterizing not an intention but a causal process, and while there
is, as a rule, an intentional act involved, this is not an essential
part of the photographic relation. The ideal photograph also yields an
appearance, but the appearance is not interesting as the realization of
an intention but rather as a record of how an actual object looked.

Since the end point of the two processes is, or can be, so similar, it
is tempting to think that the intentionality of the one relation and
the causality of the other are quite irrelevant to the standing of the
finished product. In both cases, it seems, the important part of
representation lies in the fact that the spectator can see the subject
in the picture. The appreciation of photographs and the appreciation of
paintings both involve the exercise of the capacity to 'see as', in the
quite special sense in which one may see x as y without believing or
being tempted to believe that x is y.

---2---
Now, it would be a simple matter to define 'representation' so that 'x
represents y' is true only if x expresses a thought about y, or if x is
designed to remind one of y, or whatever, in which case a relation that
was merely causal (a relation that was not characterized in terms of
any thought, intention, or other mental act) would never be sufficient
for representation. We need to be clear, however, why we should wish to
define representation in one way rather than in another. What hangs on
the decision? In particular, why should it matter that the relation
between a painting and its subject is an intentional relation while the
photographic relation is merely causal? I shall therefore begin
by....."

(end of quote.....)





--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

UC wrote:

No need to quote all that--oddly enough, I perused that exact article just
this morning. However, he doesn't say that only the handful of art forms
comprise all art as you claimed earlier, he's specifically comparing
photography to painting. If I'm mistaken, please quote the exact
sentence(s) where he makes such a claim (as opposed to large portions of an
article), and I'll eat my hat, so to speak.

More importantly, you've selected a single author who supports your
particular point of view, though there are just as many who say differently.
A little convenient, don't you think?

I found him by doing a search using the string 'photography is not art'
in Google.

The quote you want is the first line of the passage:

"In order to understand what I mean by saying that photography is not a
representational art,...."

You must understand that what he means by 'representational art' what
are called the fine arts. A 'representation' is not an image. A bull
may represent strength or courage, and that makes the bull
'representational'. A photograph of a bull is not a representation,
because what is mean by 'representation' is symbolism. A photograph
cannot stand in a symbolic relation to anything. Its relation is always
causal, not symbolic. The symbolic relation is necessary for something
to be art. The statue of Venus represents Venus symbolically, not
iconically. Photographs are non-fiction. Art is fiction.


Matt Clara wrote:
UC wrote:

No need to quote all that--oddly enough, I perused that exact article just
this morning. However, he doesn't say that only the handful of art forms
comprise all art as you claimed earlier, he's specifically comparing
photography to painting. If I'm mistaken, please quote the exact
sentence(s) where he makes such a claim (as opposed to large portions of an
article), and I'll eat my hat, so to speak.

More importantly, you've selected a single author who supports your
particular point of view, though there are just as many who say differently.
A little convenient, don't you think?

Matt Clara wrote:
UC wrote:

No need to quote all that--oddly enough, I perused that exact article just
this morning. However, he doesn't say that only the handful of art forms
comprise all art as you claimed earlier, he's specifically comparing
photography to painting. If I'm mistaken, please quote the exact
sentence(s) where he makes such a claim (as opposed to large portions of an
article), and I'll eat my hat, so to speak.

More importantly, you've selected a single author who supports your
particular point of view, though there are just as many who say differently.
A little convenient, don't you think?

What 'many'? Do you photographers or philosophers? Photogrpahers don't
count.

Matt Clara wrote:
UC wrote:

No need to quote all that--oddly enough, I perused that exact article just
this morning. However, he doesn't say that only the handful of art forms
comprise all art as you claimed earlier, he's specifically comparing
photography to painting. If I'm mistaken, please quote the exact
sentence(s) where he makes such a claim (as opposed to large portions of an
article), and I'll eat my hat, so to speak.

More importantly, you've selected a single author who supports your
particular point of view, though there are just as many who say differently.
A little convenient, don't you think?

What 'many'? Do you mean photographers or philosophers? Photographers
don't count.