MFA?

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

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

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

On 5 Dec 2004 06:56:01 -0800, (Jef) wrote:

People who
have the view that photography cannot be art are the same people who
walk into the Abstract Expressionism wing at MoMA and say "I could
paint that!"

Um, I could paint that.
--

Pete McCutchen

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.

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

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

Where did I say anything about ZS being pictorialistic? I said ADAMS
was a pictorialist, and he WAS. Pictorialism evolved parallel to
painting.

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.

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.