If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Musings about Photography as an Art
UC wrote: Photographs are non-fiction. http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/photofile-b/doisneau-1.jpg Art is fiction. No, fiction is (usually) art of one type. Fictions of other sorts, such as your claims about what is and is not art, are not art. What is fictional about a musical composition?? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Musings about Photography as an Art
41 wrote: UC wrote: Photographs are non-fiction. http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/photofile-b/doisneau-1.jpg Art is fiction. No, fiction is (usually) art of one type. Fictions of other sorts, such as your claims about what is and is not art, are not art. What is fictional about a musical composition?? You've got a point. But, what is non-fictional about it? Obviously, the fiction/non-fiction dichotomy applies to painting/photography. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Musings about Photography as an Art
I did not rule ot borderline cases.
The point being that a 'normal' unmzanipulated photograph is not a work of art. 41 wrote: UC wrote: 41 wrote: http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/photofile-b/doisneau-1.jpg Obviously, the fiction/non-fiction dichotomy applies to painting/photography. Rather imperfectly, as for example the above link shows. Consider also a hand-coloured photograph. Is it a photo, or a painting? If a painting, how little may I colour it that it remains a photo? If a photo, how much do I have to colour it before it becomes a painting? Then consider a painting by Robert Bateman. Is it a hand-coloured photograph? What about a picture made using camera lucida? Then consider a photograph on ancient Tri-X developed in Rodinal, with grain the size of golf balls. What kind of non-fiction is that? Photography surely is a greater technology and a lesser art, as I explained more carefully previously, so much so that it can on occasion be a non-art (automated photography); but enough of an art that it can on other occasions be great art, and the photographer, a great artist. Much of the time though, it's as much art as jet-plane art.* Not zero, but working on it. *Jet-plane art: set up monumental canvas behind a 747 or other impressive jet plane. Start engines. Throw cans of paint into intake grills; produce works of art suitable for any corporate entrance lobby or palatial living room |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Musings about Photography as an Art
"UC" wrote in message
ups.com... 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. Either you're inventing your terms now, or I'm afraid you need to study up on symbolism. I suggest Man and His Symbols, edited by Carl Jung. Your assertion that nobody here should bother talking to you about your claims as to what is and is not art because they don't understand the fundaments of the language is pure poppycock. Look at Scruton, carefully establishing his definitions right from the get go--there is no common parlance in philosophy, except perhaps on a basic level. Every philosopher wants to tell you how they interpret the language, and thus meaning constantly evolves. -- Regards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Musings about Photography as an Art
"UC" wrote in message
oups.com... 41 wrote: UC wrote: Photographs are non-fiction. http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/photofile-b/doisneau-1.jpg Art is fiction. No, fiction is (usually) art of one type. Fictions of other sorts, such as your claims about what is and is not art, are not art. What is fictional about a musical composition?? You've got a point. But, what is non-fictional about it? Obviously, the fiction/non-fiction dichotomy applies to painting/photography. No, following your and Scruton's logic, the fiction is the fact that the arrangement of notes is wholly invented, it's not "just" a literal rendering of what's happening in the world. Putting aside Scruton's claim of an ideal photograph, real photographs utilize depth of field, exposure, time lapse, artificial lighting, double exposure, etc., etc., to capture images in a representational manner--the resulting image isn't what the world looks like, it's what the world looks like through an artist's eyes. Adams saw a half-dome much more dramatic than what was really there, so he used a wratten 25 and various dark room techniques to create something unlike reality--a fiction, if you will. Scruton wants to argue that because each image must start with real objects it can't be representational, but he disregards the finer nuances of the art of photography because it suits his argument to do so. -- Regards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Musings about Photography as an Art
What is the aim of any art? If it's acheived, why the headache over the
means? |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Musings about Photography as an Art
Matt Clara wrote: Obviously, the fiction/non-fiction dichotomy applies to painting/photography. No, following your and Scruton's logic, the fiction is the fact that the arrangement of notes is wholly invented, it's not "just" a literal rendering of what's happening in the world. Putting aside Scruton's claim of an ideal photograph, real photographs utilize depth of field, exposure, time lapse, artificial lighting, double exposure, etc., etc., to capture images in a representational manner No, photographs are iconic, not representative. --the resulting image isn't what the world looks like, it's what the world looks like through an artist's eyes. No, it's not. All those things are merely different possible views of what is. Art creates what is not. Art is genuinely creative, and not dependent upon something else. I can sit in front of Queen Victoria with a brush and easel, and paint a dog. A camera CANNOT photograph a dog when Queen Victoria is before the lens. Adams saw a half-dome much more dramatic than what was really there, so he used a wratten 25 and various dark room techniques to create something unlike reality--a fiction, if you will. No, merely a mateer of emphasis. Scruton wants to argue that because each image must start with real objects it can't be representational, Pictures are paintings. Photographs are not 'pictures', but images. They have a direct causal and geometric relationship to something else that exists and MUST exist. A photograph is always of something else. Art is not art of something else. A sculpture is not a sculpture of something else, even when it is a copy. A sculptured Venus is a representation of Venus, not an image of Venus. Venus does not exist.You cannot photograph Venus. Art is its own object. It has no refrence outside itself. Photographs refer outside themselves, and must do so. but he disregards the finer nuances of the art of photography because it suits his argument to do so. The nuances are irrelevant to his argument, and to mine. Only when the photograph is distorted beyond recognition (when it ceases to be a photograph) can it become a work of art. Take your photographic print and do a watercolor on the back. Painting, sculpture, sketching, watercolor, music, and landscape architecture all are indendent of reality for their content. -- Regards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Musings about Photography as an Art
"UC" wrote in message
oups.com... Matt Clara wrote: Obviously, the fiction/non-fiction dichotomy applies to painting/photography. No, following your and Scruton's logic, the fiction is the fact that the arrangement of notes is wholly invented, it's not "just" a literal rendering of what's happening in the world. Putting aside Scruton's claim of an ideal photograph, real photographs utilize depth of field, exposure, time lapse, artificial lighting, double exposure, etc., etc., to capture images in a representational manner No, photographs are iconic, not representative. Your use of "iconic" is unlike any I've encountered before. Icons are pictures. The word comes from Latin "to resemble". In Scruton's terms, that sounds more like a painting than a photo. --the resulting image isn't what the world looks like, it's what the world looks like through an artist's eyes. No, it's not. All those things are merely different possible views of what is. That's a great way to describe any art. Art creates what is not. I agree, until one takes a photo, it was not. And, perhaps more importantly, says who, and why? Art is genuinely creative, and not dependent upon something else. I can sit in front of Queen Victoria with a brush and easel, and paint a dog. A camera CANNOT photograph a dog when Queen Victoria is before the lens. Sounds more like dogma than real thought. By accepting Scruton's reasoning, you've hemmed your understanding into a little corner. Besides, nothing is genuinely creative, not the way you mean it--everything we can imagine has a basis in this reality. Adams saw a half-dome much more dramatic than what was really there, so he used a wratten 25 and various dark room techniques to create something unlike reality--a fiction, if you will. No, merely a mateer of emphasis. Semantics. Scruton wants to argue that because each image must start with real objects it can't be representational, Pictures are paintings. Photographs are not 'pictures', but images. They have a direct causal and geometric relationship to something else that exists and MUST exist. A photograph is always of something else. Art is not art of something else. Why? Who says? Give me a logical reason to believe that. A sculpture is not a sculpture of something else, even when it is a copy. A sculptured Venus is a representation of Venus, not an image of Venus. Venus does not exist.You cannot photograph Venus. Art is its own object. It has no refrence outside itself. Again says who? Photographs refer outside themselves, and must do so. but he disregards the finer nuances of the art of photography because it suits his argument to do so. The nuances are irrelevant to his argument, and to mine. Only when the photograph is distorted beyond recognition (when it ceases to be a photograph) can it become a work of art. Take your photographic print and do a watercolor on the back. Painting, sculpture, sketching, watercolor, music, and landscape architecture all are indendent of reality for their content. I beg to differ--all of them are dependent on the artist's experiences. There is no thought without experience. Art is the expression of life through the filter of one's experiences. A photograph can be that. Besides, the fact that it does touch outside the artist in its creation and continued existence would only mean it isn't art if a person chose to see it that way, like you. Why can't that be art? Think of it this way: The ideal photo could be taken by a machine, and I mean, a Dell computer could do it, not some futuristic sentient machine--it's just a facimile, after all, a direct image of some real thing. Now, speaking of the act of creation, as opposed to automated replication, an original photograph of artistic merit cannot be created by a machine except by luck, any more than could a machine create an original statue equalling David, or a painting such as the Mona Lisa. What is that missing factor, if not art? It's as good a word for it as any, at any rate. Finally, if scientists were to study brain waves and find that a master painter in the act of painting creates the same kind of brain storm (same parts of the brain experiencing heightened activity of comparable degree) a master photographer composing a photograph does, would you continue to argue this line of reaonsing, that the photographer was looking at something concrete and the painter wasn't, therefore the one thing's art and the other isn't? If so, I suggest you're more interested in semantics than real understanding. -- Regards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Musings about Photography as an Art
Matt Clara wrote: .., to capture images in a representational manner No, photographs are iconic, not representative. Your use of "iconic" is unlike any I've encountered before. Icons are pictures. Likenesses. The word comes from Latin "to resemble". Correct. Art represents, it does not resemble. Photographs resemble. If they don't, they're not photographs. A painting of a bull can represent courage or strength. A photograph cannot do that. In Scruton's terms, that sounds more like a painting than a photo. Not so. --the resulting image isn't what the world looks like, it's what the world looks like through an artist's eyes. No, it's not. All those things are merely different possible views of what is. That's a great way to describe any art. No, see above. Art creates what is not. I agree, until one takes a photo, it was not. And, perhaps more importantly, says who, and why? No, it was before the photo was taken. Art is genuinely creative, and not dependent upon something else. I can sit in front of Queen Victoria with a brush and easel, and paint a dog. A camera CANNOT photograph a dog when Queen Victoria is before the lens. Sounds more like dogma than real thought. By accepting Scruton's reasoning, you've hemmed your understanding into a little corner. Besides, nothing is genuinely creative, not the way you mean it--everything we can imagine has a basis in this reality. Not the same thing at all. Adams saw a half-dome much more dramatic than what was really there, so he used a wratten 25 and various dark room techniques to create something unlike reality--a fiction, if you will. No, merely a mateer of emphasis. Semantics. What words mean matters. The difference between 'Yes' and 'No' is semantics. Scruton wants to argue that because each image must start with real objects it can't be representational, Pictures are paintings. Photographs are not 'pictures', but images. They have a direct causal and geometric relationship to something else that exists and MUST exist. A photograph is always of something else. Art is not art of something else. Why? Who says? Give me a logical reason to believe that. Photographs are always 'of' something else. A photgraph of a tree means that that tree exsted. A pianting of a 'tree' has no such causal link. One can paint an imaginary tree, and even if one paints a real tree, there is no causal relationship. The real tree is just like the imaginary one, then. A sculpture is not a sculpture of something else, even when it is a copy. A sculptured Venus is a representation of Venus, not an image of Venus. Venus does not exist.You cannot photograph Venus. Art is its own object. It has no reference outside itself. Again says who? I do. Show me otherwise. Show me a scultpture that has a causal relationship to anything.. Photographs refer outside themselves, and must do so. but he disregards the finer nuances of the art of photography because it suits his argument to do so. The nuances are irrelevant to his argument, and to mine. Only when the photograph is distorted beyond recognition (when it ceases to be a photograph) can it become a work of art. Take your photographic print and do a watercolor on the back. Painting, sculpture, sketching, watercolor, music, and landscape architecture all are indendent of reality for their content. I beg to differ--all of them are dependent on the artist's experiences. The paintings, etc., are not causally dependent on the existence of anything. Period. All the objects in the universe except the painter and his canvas could be wiped out, and the painter could still paint, but the photographer is now out of luck. There is no thought without experience. Art is the expression of life through the filter of one's experiences. HUH? What on Earth are you talking about? A photograph can be that. Besides, the fact that it does touch outside the artist in its creation and continued existence would only mean it isn't art if a person chose to see it that way, like you. Why can't that be art? Things do not become art because of the lack of something preventing it. Art does not just pop into being in the absence of something that prevents it from happening. Art has to be MADE. It does not HAPPEN. Photographs HAPPEN. There is in principle no way to tell whether a photograph was taken accidentally, but no Mona Lisa happens by accident. It is impossible to tell whether a given photograph was taken when the camera fell off the couch. Think of it this way: The ideal photo could be taken by a machine, and I mean, a Dell computer could do it, not some futuristic sentient machine--it's just a facimile, after all, a direct image of some real thing. Now, speaking of the act of creation, as opposed to automated replication, an original photograph of artistic merit cannot be created by a machine except by luck, any more than could a machine create an original statue equalling David, or a painting such as the Mona Lisa. What is that missing factor, if not art? It's as good a word for it as any, at any rate. Finally, if scientists were to study brain waves and find that a master painter in the act of painting creates the same kind of brain storm (same parts of the brain experiencing heightened activity of comparable degree) a master photographer composing a photograph does, would you continue to argue this line of reaonsing, that the photographer was looking at something concrete and the painter wasn't, therefore the one thing's art and the other isn't? If so, I suggest you're more interested in semantics than real understanding. The call against semantics obscures the fact that we are discussing concepts that have names. Whether something qualifies as 'art' is in part a discussion of the history of the usage of this word and the concept it represents. -- Regards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Musings about Photography as an Art
You're full of **** like a christmas goose. Everything is derivative.
Period. And a photo of a bull can have all the symbolic strength of a painting of a bull. If you don't understand that, you don't understand symbolism. You're really more interested in splitting metaphysical hairs than having a true understanding of the creative process behind the creation of what is art. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Outdoor photography resources - articles, newsletter, forum, digital editing | PT | Digital Photography | 0 | September 13th 04 07:54 PM |
questions about SLR photography, nikon n5005 | Pallav | 35mm Photo Equipment | 19 | September 5th 04 11:11 PM |
Study Photography in Venice | Venice School of Photography | Photographing Nature | 5 | February 14th 04 07:43 AM |
Aerial Photography from Alaska, Yukon Territory & beyond | PNW | Photographing Nature | 0 | December 1st 03 11:19 AM |