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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Phelps wrote:
: You know nothing about me. Who, what, my background, my education level, : nothing. I like it that way and intend on keeping it so. You judged others : based on irrational measures and I did the same to you. Don't like it? : Then don't do it! Ignore him. -- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Anyway, what I was trying to say to UC is that a person with a MFA is
more likely to understand the aesthetics of photography than someone who's major claim to fame in life is working in a camera store." Hardly. I have a degree in philosophy, as I said. Part iof my studies included aesthetic theory. From Plato to Kant and beyond. Not that I agree with any one of them, the fact is that aesthetics is the province of philosophers above all. There are sound philosophical reasons why photography cannot be 'art'. I doubt seriously whether in an MFA program the rigor typical of a philosophical approach is even attempted. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Jean-David Beyer" wrote in message ... Uranium Committee wrote: If it cannot be art, how is it that some photographs are better than others? That some can cause a deeply moving experience for the viewer? That a very few can touch one's very soul? Some 'art' might touch the very soul, but art need not evoke superficial emotions. Some people weep with joy over paintings of Elvis on black velvet. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
... Which brings me to an issue I've been wanting to raise with regard to this whole "is photography art?" thing, or more properly, the subject you broached, the relative merit of photographs. That is a pretty subjective matter, but I find it interesting that this isn't true certain artforms, particularly music. In music, there are actually pretty objective standards by which you can measure ability and competence, which is what happens, for instance, when one auditions for a position in an orchestra. The judges can pretty well tell who's "better" than who. (Of course, there are lots of other aspects of music that are lots more subjective.) I think it's harder, though, to tell whether one photograph is better than another. Agreed. There is a profound difference between judging the performance of a craft from the outcome of the performance. A musical piece is given the muscian and she is asked to play it, and not neccessarily (indeed, rarely) to interpret it. A similar judging kind of circumstance might be to give a photographer a still-life setup and ask him to photograph it to certain outcomes. Then there is the separate issue of listening to the outcome (recording) of a musician's work and viewing a photograph. Many, many "musicians" of some popularity were just the worst damned craftsmen but due to certain factors became popular, albeit temporarily. I'm sure many can point to these terrible examples of music/art. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Phelps" wrote in message ... Regardless of text books and teachings (they are not always correct as they are not always current), I believe the definition of art is made by the viewing population at large. [...] If the public defines what is art, then the marketplace is the rule, and if that is true then the plethora of calendar images, Elvis-on-Velvet, and Sponge Bob Square Pants is high art. See how foolish that is? 'Art', for better or worse, is determined by scholars, curators, critics (real critics, not popular opinion spewers), and historians. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
om... I have a BA in Philosophy. I have published at the Ph.D. level. PSHAW! "Published at the Ph.D. level" means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, especially from the claimant. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"jjs" wrote in message ... If the public defines what is art, then the marketplace is the rule, and if that is true then the plethora of calendar images, Elvis-on-Velvet, and Sponge Bob Square Pants is high art. See how foolish that is? I disagree that is a valid test. With the exception of in an Arkansas trailer park, Elvis on anything is not art and the same goes for dogs playing poker. I clearly stated the population at large, or in other word, the majority of the population must agree it's art. Nine year olds do not judge what is art, but lets face it, the renderer of those cartoons are considered to be artist, are they not? If the public does not decide what is art or what isn't, then who does? I sincerely hope you will not suggest some Government body or MS! |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Phelps" wrote in message
... If the public does not decide what is art or what isn't, then who does? I sincerely hope you will not suggest some Government body or MS! I wrote to answer that. Read it. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
The criteria used must be 'philosophical', and cannot be based on a
survey or public opinion. What makes art 'art' is that it is: 1) Representational (more or less) 2) Not causally linked to anything else for its subject matter By criterion 1, a fossil could be art because it is representational (that is, it is a 'likeness' of something, such as a sea-shell. By criterion 2, a fossil cannot be 'art' because it is causally linked to the existence of something else. So, fossils are not 'art'. A man-made object torned out on a lathe or whittled that looked exactly like a fossil would be art. One could imagine someone who is gifted enough to be able to turn out very good pieces that look exactly like fossils. He sculpts raw materials by hand. Is that art? Yes. Why? Because there is no causal connection between the existence of the fossil and the artwork. No, let us consider someone who makes copies of fossils (through molding or a similar process) and mass-produces them. Is that art? No. Why? Because there is a causal connection between the existence of the fossil and the reproduction. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"jjs" wrote in message ... "Jim Phelps" wrote in message ... If the public does not decide what is art or what isn't, then who does? I sincerely hope you will not suggest some Government body or MS! I wrote to answer that. Read it. Missed it. Sorry, I thought the post was over with the short line. Then, if a curator exhibits Ansel Adams' photos in his art museum, and subsequently the exhibit travels to other art museums, then this would be a strong suggestion the art establishment has accepted photos to be artistic? If so, this has happened many times over with many different 'artists'. IMHO this would be an indication that photography can, as a medium, be an art form and has been accepted by the art establishment as a form of art. Not to say every photo is a work of art just like every painting/sculpture/"add your favorite genre here" is not as well. And that's what I've been saying all along. The same argument applies to critics and historians. Quite possibly scholars as well, I just cannot cite an example of one. If I'm wrong, please educate me. I am trying to learn the truth (and not according to the casual isotope). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|