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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Vervoordt wrote: On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 06:57:40 -0700, Tom Phillips wrote: Gregory Blank wrote: In article , Tom Phillips wrote: Oh, but I want to find out! Steve Simmons must see a lot of good work come across his publishing desk. So I propose we send Nebezahl's work there for a real critique. Come on, Steve will fair despite Davy being his nsg nemesis and harasser. We could have a juried nsg show, see who is a real photographer vs who's just a troll I think its a good, idea. I can think of less involved parties in this; respected judges though. Why do do you think people like "them harassers" have the attitude they do, publishing is very difficult even for people like you and I who actually have talent ;-) Must be a bitter pill to be completely devoid of imagination. Well, I can't toot my own talent, in all humility Rick Rosen suggested in largeformat the nsg posters have a show. I suggested this also (if only to weed out the photogs from the trolls.) I'd contribute 3-4, 5 prints. I'd like to see some work by long time posters. Maybe Simmons would help organize. AMazing! After all these posts and flamewars, you guys actually cmae up with a good idea. Not quite so new I've thought about it before. Could be a good idea and possibly a good exhibit. And NM might be an ideal place. Hey, a rec.photo.darkroom/.equipment. largeformat show sponsered by View Camera? Congrats, Robert Vervoordt, MFA |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Phillips wrote:
Jörgen Persson wrote: Yes... simplified; not specified. This is /not/ an art group and I don't think there is a need to be more specific to answer the question whatever photographs are art or not. Of course not. Because they are and that was decided long before any of us were born. Witness Stieglitz... Danger, Will Robinson! Danger! This was an open question among art critics for a long time because it is a hard question. Today most of them agree photography is art. You can read much more about it in ''Trace and Transformation'' by Joel Eisinger. Sincerely, Jörgen |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 19:55:42 -0800, David Nebenzahl
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? Lemme jump in here, being one of the few folks (on the planet, I'm guessing) who actually somewhat shares MS's view of photography/art (though I'm not quite so absolutist about it): I think you're philosophically confused here. In particular, words have meanings because of social conventions. If everybody else uses the term "art" to include photography, then that's what the word means. As Wittgenstein put it, "the meaning of a word is its use in language." Words mean things because there's a social consensus about their meaning. We call a "chicken" a "chicken" not because it has some Platonic chickenality; we call it that because we have social conventions about what the word "chicken" means. If you said "everybody else thinks that this type of bird is a chicken, except for me," people would think you mad. And they'd be right. The fact that they call it a chicken is what makes it so. Likewise, art. I observe that there are institutions known as "art schools," and that those institutions include photography in their curriculum. I also observe that there are "art galleries" and "art museums," and that these institutions also feature photography in their collections. I therefore conclude that, as used in English in the early 21st century, photography is art. The fact that something moves the viewer doesn't make it art: art requires other attributes in order to be art. Lots of things can cause "deeply moving experience[s]", but not all of them are art. However, even if photographs aren't art (as I believe they are not), there are You've never said why it's not "art," though. In order to make an argument for your position, you have to first define art, then demonstrate that your definition was widely accepted, and then explain why photography doesn't fall within the ambit of the definition. You haven't done any of that. certainly many aspects of a photograph that can make one better than another. Some of these things are fairly well agreed upon by those who take, view and criticize photographs, while others are, let's say, a lot more subjective. 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. Music is art by photography isn't? Why not? 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. You can have preferences about the sort of photography you like that have nothing to do with the skill of the photographer. But the same is true of music: some people prefer jazz to classical music. Some people might react badly to an Ansel Adams landscape or Helmut Newton nude because they're not particularly interested in that genre. But, by the same token, somebody might react really badly to a very skilled classical pianist because they find classical too confining, and prefer jazz. I certainly think it's possible to make at least some judgments about the technical skill of certain photographers, just as you can make judgments about a musician's technical skill. That high level of skill might produce images some folks find revolting, but that doesn't obviate the skill involved. I find some of Mapplethorpe's sadomasochistic efforts revolting, for example, but that doesn't mean he didn't implement them with a high degree of skill. -- Pete McCutchen |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Jörgen Persson wrote: Tom Phillips wrote: Jörgen Persson wrote: Yes... simplified; not specified. This is /not/ an art group and I don't think there is a need to be more specific to answer the question whatever photographs are art or not. Of course not. Because they are and that was decided long before any of us were born. Witness Stieglitz... Danger, Will Robinson! Danger! This was an open question among art critics for a long time because it is a hard question. If I may say without offending, it's also a stupid retreaded question. Today most of them agree photography is art. You can read much more about it in ''Trace and Transformation'' by Joel Eisinger. I am well aware of the history and [lame] controversy regarding photography as art. It was dreamed up by a bunch of aristocratic art critics and gasp painters who had a fear photography was about to take away their livelihoods. Snobs, in otherwords. Fortunately photography was so massively popular it overcame both that and the silly idiots (pictorialists) who then insisted a photograph could not be "art" unless it looked like something other than a photograph. Photographers who paid attention to this "controversy" typically made horrid, pretentious photographs denying the very medium they were using and which are now, IMO, only a historical curiousity, not examples of great "art." Photographers who paid no attention to it simply accepted the limitations of the medium and went about the business of making photographs. When people talk about great 19th century photographers the names that are most often mentioned today in conjunction with photography as art are those who simply made photographs (such as Timothy O'Sullivan), and those photographs are considered some of the best examples in history of photography as art. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Phillips wrote:
Fortunately photography was so massively popular it overcame both that and the silly idiots (pictorialists) who then insisted a photograph could not be "art" unless it looked like something other than a photograph. ....and the reason to my reaction -- Stieglitz started out as a pictorialist. Yes it is a lame question from todays perspective. Maybe it was a conspiracy, maybe it was not. It still was a controversy and I try to respect that heritage. Besides... this question has learnt me a great deal about photography and art theory. Sincerely, Jörgen |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Jörgen Persson wrote: Tom Phillips wrote: Fortunately photography was so massively popular it overcame both that and the silly idiots (pictorialists) who then insisted a photograph could not be "art" unless it looked like something other than a photograph. ...and the reason to my reaction -- Stieglitz started out as a pictorialist. But he didn't remain one and rather religiously rejected it. Yes it is a lame question from todays perspective. Maybe it was a conspiracy, maybe it was not. It still was a controversy and I try to respect that heritage. Besides... this question has learnt me a great deal about photography and art theory. Yes it is photography's heritage and there are useful things to be learned from it. I just don't think the "is it art or not" argument to be relevant anymore. Sincerely, Jörgen |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Where did I say anything about ZS being pictorialistic? I said ADAMS
was a pictorialist, and he WAS. Pictorialism evolved parallel to painting. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Where did Adams say that photography was 'art'?
Adams was actually quite ignorant of some aspects of photo chemistry. He was demonstrably wrong about a great deal of it. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Where did Adams say that photography was 'art'?
Adams was actually quite ignorant of some aspects of photo chemistry. He was demonstrably wrong about a great deal of it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|