A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » General Photography » In The Darkroom
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

MFA?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 6th 04, 02:19 PM
Frank Pittel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 6th 04, 03:36 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old December 6th 04, 04:00 PM
jjs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old December 6th 04, 04:05 PM
jjs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old December 6th 04, 04:08 PM
jjs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old December 6th 04, 04:13 PM
jjs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old December 6th 04, 05:56 PM
Jim Phelps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old December 6th 04, 06:18 PM
jjs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old December 6th 04, 06:48 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 6th 04, 08:02 PM
Jim Phelps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.