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
|
|||
|
|||
Musings about Photography as an Art
The problem with the term 'art' is that people use it as a term of
praise. Thus, you said: "My work probably does not make the grade of art, despite great care and quality, because I have not developed a unique style or statement." 'Art' has nothing to do with 'grade' and never will. Photographs CANNOT be art, no matter what 'grade' they are, no matter how beautfiul they may be. 'Art' a technical term, not a value term. Painting and sculpture are art. Photography is not and never will be. To be 'art' does not imply a higher standard of 'x'. To be an artist means you work with paint and canvas, or marble and chisel. That's ALL it means. Ken Smith wrote: Language is always changing. At least a living language such as English is always changing to mirror the times. The inexplicable term art has been worn out to meaninglessness . The fact that art also has to transcend accepted meaning to qualify as the real McCoy is likely too much to handle for most rational, utilitarian minded people. Besides it certainly shouldn't be considered a positive compliment to be considered an artist, if you also consider the degree of shock, shlock, and outright market driven nonsense that is produced to convince the buyers/dealers that something new is happening when it isn't, or at least isn't anything but "new". "New" being the Holy Grail of the art world, persists despite the general lack of anything elevating about it. New isn't enough for ART, but it sells, and that's what really matters. Painting and similar fine arts shattered and exploded into myriad directions and lost touch with it's history, it's public, and relavence altogether. True art today thrives in a folk tradition, i.e. in the individual more so than the culture itself. The experience of knowing thyself is the greatest aspect of making art, and it has been driven underground by a fantastically powerful mass media that focuses on externals, trivia, and lust; essentially pornography, i.e. you are inspired to desire something you dont have as opposed to discovering something you do have. Photography, according to Robert Adams anyway, has remained true to its history. Though most people prefer traditional work, the medium is still evolving in a fairly straight line. It is changing with the times, and has not imploded with a self-consciousness yeilding a dead end. It is still a Mars Rover. Still a viable tool for discovering, despite massive repetitiousness. No medium is art. Painting is no more art than sculpture, photography, or underwater ballet, until an artist reaches into it and breaths new life. Meaningful, inspiring, relevant life. Art is what an artist makes. And many artists have used photography to make it. That is taken as fact by far too many serious, capable figures in this medium to dispute intelligently. It is an accepted cultural fact agreed upon all over the world that some artists use photography, and to hear over and over this refuted with rationalized language points is less than convincing. Nor is the false modesty from those who insist that they are not artists. They probably aren't. My work probably does not make the grade of art, despite great care and quality, because I have not developed a unique style or statement. Nor have I broken thru influences and discovered a meaning I didn't anticipate. There are so many great ideas to discuss regarding art. Is it or isn't it can't really be argued without those more essential questions. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Musings about Photography as an Art
It is usually considered good manners for those who wish to discuss
philosophical matters to make themselves familiar with the terminology and concepts used in the field. It is not uncommon today, however, for this simple courtesy not to be observed. Aesthetics is the discipline that is concerned with 'art'. Aesthetics belongs to the field of philosophy. Since so very few photographers are educated in this field, it is very, very, very difficult to discuss this matter with them. They literally have no idea what they're talking about. They use the language of aesthetics, while having no training beyond what they have picked up from other equally uneducated photographers. Many photographers would like to consider themselves 'artists' because they understand that term to be one of praise. It certainly is no such thing. Artists, throughout history, have been considered among the lower ranks of society. In the 18th and 19th century, artists, actors and actresses were considered to be among the lowest classes. Even among the Greeks, the artist was considered merely a sort of tradesman. Why someone should want to be considered an artist is beyond comprehension. To be an artist is not something ennobling at all. It is merely someone who works with paint and canvas, or with marble and chisel. Being an artist does not make you any better or more important than anyone else. Being a very, very good photographer does not make you an 'artist'. It merely makes you a very, very good photographer. Being a very, very good auto mechanic does not make you an artist, either. I suggest some readings in aesthetics. You may want to consider starting he The Aesthetic Understanding by Roger Scruton http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...024923-7049417 Without some understanding of these matters, discussion is unlikely to be fruitful. Ken Smith wrote: Language is always changing. At least a living language such as English is always changing to mirror the times. The inexplicable term art has been worn out to meaninglessness . The fact that art also has to transcend accepted meaning to qualify as the real McCoy is likely too much to handle for most rational, utilitarian minded people. Besides it certainly shouldn't be considered a positive compliment to be considered an artist, if you also consider the degree of shock, shlock, and outright market driven nonsense that is produced to convince the buyers/dealers that something new is happening when it isn't, or at least isn't anything but "new". "New" being the Holy Grail of the art world, persists despite the general lack of anything elevating about it. New isn't enough for ART, but it sells, and that's what really matters. Painting and similar fine arts shattered and exploded into myriad directions and lost touch with it's history, it's public, and relavence altogether. True art today thrives in a folk tradition, i.e. in the individual more so than the culture itself. The experience of knowing thyself is the greatest aspect of making art, and it has been driven underground by a fantastically powerful mass media that focuses on externals, trivia, and lust; essentially pornography, i.e. you are inspired to desire something you dont have as opposed to discovering something you do have. Photography, according to Robert Adams anyway, has remained true to its history. Though most people prefer traditional work, the medium is still evolving in a fairly straight line. It is changing with the times, and has not imploded with a self-consciousness yeilding a dead end. It is still a Mars Rover. Still a viable tool for discovering, despite massive repetitiousness. No medium is art. Painting is no more art than sculpture, photography, or underwater ballet, until an artist reaches into it and breaths new life. Meaningful, inspiring, relevant life. Art is what an artist makes. And many artists have used photography to make it. That is taken as fact by far too many serious, capable figures in this medium to dispute intelligently. It is an accepted cultural fact agreed upon all over the world that some artists use photography, and to hear over and over this refuted with rationalized language points is less than convincing. Nor is the false modesty from those who insist that they are not artists. They probably aren't. My work probably does not make the grade of art, despite great care and quality, because I have not developed a unique style or statement. Nor have I broken thru influences and discovered a meaning I didn't anticipate. There are so many great ideas to discuss regarding art. Is it or isn't it can't really be argued without those more essential questions. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Musings about Photography as an Art
UC wrote: 'Art' has nothing to do with 'grade' and never will. Photographs CANNOT be art, no matter what 'grade' they are, no matter how beautfiul they may be. 'Art' a technical term, not a value term. Painting and sculpture are art. Photography is n ot and never will be. To be 'art' does not imply a higher standard of 'x'. To be an artist means you work with paint and canvas, or marble and chisel. That's ALL it means. Ah. Now I understand. That is why there are no recording artists, and the Academy of Recording Artists, and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, do not exist; why theatre is not an art and why there are no dramatic artists; why there are no performance artists, why there is no folk art; why ballet and music are not art and never will be; and why I don't have some degree or other that ends in "of Arts". It was all so confusing to me before. Of course there are two central senses of art, which overlap some. The first and part of the second is famously well-described as follows: "Science knows, art does; science is a body of connected facts, an art is a set of directions... the directions of art vary with the artist and the task. But, as there is much traffic between science and art, and, especially, art is often based on science, the distinction is not always clear; the art of self-defence, and the boxer's science- are they the same, or different?" The second sense, of course, is simply the following: anything that is consciously made to represent, convey, or inspire an aesthetic impression, sensibility, or feeling- these being things that have to be understood on their own terms, just like e.g. the sense of smell or the sense of equilibrium. The part about being consciously made explains why in general, photography is LESS of an art than e.g. musical composition, painting or sculptu a large portion of the construction is automatically made, by machine (camera), rather than by the artist, who manipulates instead relatively few aspects of the final work. From a certain well-regarded dictionary: ART 1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature. 2. a. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium. b. The study of these activities. c. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group. 3. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value. 4. A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature. 5. A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts. 6. a. A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building. b. A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer. 7. a. Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art. b. Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: "Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice" (Joyce Carol Oates). 8. a. arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks. b. Artful contrivance; cunning. 9. Printing. Illustrative material. While one should never confuse derivation with meaning, the following is nevertheless useful: ART c.1225, "skill as a result of learning or practice," from O.Fr. art, from L. artem, (nom. ars) "art, skill, craft," from PIE *ar-ti- (cf. Skt. rtih "manner, mode;" Gk. arti "just," artios "complete;" Armenian arnam "make," Ger. art "manner, mode"), from base *ar- "fit together, join" (see arm (1)). In M.E. usually with sense of "skill in scholarship and learning" (c.1305), especially in the seven sciences, or liberal arts (divided into the trivium -- grammar, logic, rhetoric -- and the quadrivium --arithmetic, geometry, music, astronomy). This sense remains in Bachelor of Arts, etc. Meaning "human workmanship" (as opposed to nature) is from 1386. Sense of "cunning and trickery" first attested c.1600. Meaning "skill in creative arts" is first recorded 1620; esp. of painting, sculpture, etc., from 1668. Broader sense of the word remains in artless (1589). As an adj. meaning "produced with conscious artistry (as opposed to popular or folk) it is attested from 1890, possibly from infl. of Ger. kunstlied "art song" (cf. art film, 1960; art rock, c.1970). Fine arts, "those which appeal to the mind and the imagination" first recorded 1767. Art brut "art done by prisoners, lunatics, etc.," is 1955, from Fr., lit. "raw art." Artsy "pretentiously artistic" is from 1902. Expression art for art's sake (1836) translates Fr. l'art pour l'art. First record of art critic is from 1865. Arts and crafts "decorative design and handcraft" first attested in the Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society, founded in London, 1888. And while we're at it: PICTURE [Middle English, from Latin pict˜´ra, from pictus, painted, past participle of pingere, to paint.] noun 1. A visual representation or image painted, drawn, photographed, or otherwise rendered on a flat surface. 2. A visible image, especially one on a flat surface or screen: the picture reflected in the lake; focused the picture on the movie screen. 3. a. A vivid or realistic verbal description: a Shakespearean picture of guilt. b. A vivid mental image. 4. A person or object bearing a marked resemblance to another: She's the picture of her mother. 5. A person, object, or scene that typifies or embodies an emotion, state of mind, or mood: Your face was the very picture of horror. 6. The chief circumstances of an event or time; a situation. 7. A movie. 8. A tableau vivant. IN SHORT: Photography must be considered, albeit as one of the greater technologies, as one of the lesser arts, which nevertheless SOMETIMES RISES TO GREATNESS.. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Musings about Photography as an Art
UC wrote:
It is usually considered good manners for those who wish to discuss philosophical matters to make themselves familiar with the terminology and concepts used in the field. It is not uncommon today, however, for this simple courtesy not to be observed. Aesthetics is the discipline that is concerned with 'art'. Aesthetics belongs to the field of philosophy. Since so very few photographers are educated in this field, it is very, very, very difficult to discuss this matter with them. They literally have no idea what they're talking about. They use the language of aesthetics, while having no training beyond what they have picked up from other equally uneducated photographers. Many photographers would like to consider themselves 'artists' because they understand that term to be one of praise. It certainly is no such thing. Artists, throughout history, have been considered among the lower ranks of society. In the 18th and 19th century, artists, actors and actresses were considered to be among the lowest classes. Even among the Greeks, the artist was considered merely a sort of tradesman. Why someone should want to be considered an artist is beyond comprehension. To be an artist is not something ennobling at all. It is merely someone who works with paint and canvas, or with marble and chisel. Being an artist does not make you any better or more important than anyone else. Being a very, very good photographer does not make you an 'artist'. It merely makes you a very, very good photographer. Being a very, very good auto mechanic does not make you an artist, either. I suggest some readings in aesthetics. You may want to consider starting he The Aesthetic Understanding by Roger Scruton http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...024923-7049417 Without some understanding of these matters, discussion is unlikely to be fruitful. I have a degree in philosophy, including two classes in aesthetics, one of which was graduate level, I read the ultra conservative Scruton who writes right up your alley, and I've read his detractors, with whom I agree. No where in my studies of aesthetics was it written or did anyone say, including Scruton, that only drawing, painting, sculpture were "art". No where. -- Regards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Musings about Photography as an Art
It says it in Webster:
Main Entry:fine art Pronunciation:**|* Function:noun Etymology:back-formation from fine arts, plural, translation of French beaux-arts 2 : any art (as painting, drawing, architecture, sculpture, music, ceramics, or landscape architecture) for which aesthetic purposes are primary or uppermost - usually used in plural Matt Clara wrote: UC wrote: It is usually considered good manners for those who wish to discuss philosophical matters to make themselves familiar with the terminology and concepts used in the field. It is not uncommon today, however, for this simple courtesy not to be observed. Aesthetics is the discipline that is concerned with 'art'. Aesthetics belongs to the field of philosophy. Since so very few photographers are educated in this field, it is very, very, very difficult to discuss this matter with them. They literally have no idea what they're talking about. They use the language of aesthetics, while having no training beyond what they have picked up from other equally uneducated photographers. Many photographers would like to consider themselves 'artists' because they understand that term to be one of praise. It certainly is no such thing. Artists, throughout history, have been considered among the lower ranks of society. In the 18th and 19th century, artists, actors and actresses were considered to be among the lowest classes. Even among the Greeks, the artist was considered merely a sort of tradesman. Why someone should want to be considered an artist is beyond comprehension. To be an artist is not something ennobling at all. It is merely someone who works with paint and canvas, or with marble and chisel. Being an artist does not make you any better or more important than anyone else. Being a very, very good photographer does not make you an 'artist'. It merely makes you a very, very good photographer. Being a very, very good auto mechanic does not make you an artist, either. I suggest some readings in aesthetics. You may want to consider starting he The Aesthetic Understanding by Roger Scruton http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...024923-7049417 Without some understanding of these matters, discussion is unlikely to be fruitful. I have a degree in philosophy, including two classes in aesthetics, one of which was graduate level, I read the ultra conservative Scruton who writes right up your alley, and I've read his detractors, with whom I agree. No where in my studies of aesthetics was it written or did anyone say, including Scruton, that only drawing, painting, sculpture were "art". No where. -- Regards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Musings about Photography as an Art
Matt Clara wrote: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...024923-7049417 Without some understanding of these matters, discussion is unlikely to be fruitful. I have a degree in philosophy, including two classes in aesthetics, one of which was graduate level, I read the ultra conservative Scruton who writes right up your alley, and I've read his detractors, with whom I agree. No where in my studies of aesthetics was it written or did anyone say, including Scruton, that only drawing, painting, sculpture were "art". No where. Scruton: In order to understand what I mean by saying that photography is not a representational art, it is important to separate painting and photography as much as possible, so as to discuss not actual painting and actual photography but an ideal form of each, an ideal which represents the essential differences between them. Ideal photography differs from actual photography as indeed ideal painting differs from actual painting. Actual photography is the result of the attempt by photographers to pollute the ideal of their craft with the aims and methods of painting. By an 'ideal' I mean a logical ideal. The ideal of photography is not an ideal at which photography aims or ought to aim. On the contrary, it is a logical fiction, designed merely to capture what is distinctive in the photographic relation and in our interest in it. It will be clear from this discussion that there need be no such thing as an ideal photograph in my sense, and the reader should not be deterred if I begin by describing photography in terms that seem to be exaggerated or false. The ideal painting stands in a certain 'intentional' relation to a subject.[2] In other words, if a painting represents a subject, it does not follow that the subject exists nor, if it does exist, that the painting represents the subject as it is. Moreover, if x is a painting of a man, it does not follow that there is some particular man of which x is the painting. Furthermore, the painting stands in this intentional relation to its subject because of a representational act, the artist's act, and in characterizing the relation between a painting and its subject we are also describing the artist's intention. The successful realization of that intention lies in the creation of an appearance, an appearance which in some way leads the spectator to recognize the subject. ---------------------------------------------------------------- [2] See Franz Clemens Brentano, Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint, ed. Linda McAlister (London and New York, 1973); Roderick M. Chis- holm, Perceiving (London and Ithaca, N.Y., 1957), chapter 11; and G. E. M. Anscombe, 'The Intentionality of Sensation', in R. J. Butler (ed.), Ana- lyticql Philosophy, Second Series (Oxford, 1965). ----------------------------- The ideal photograph also stands in a certain relation to a subject. a photograph is a photograph of something. But the relation is here causal and not intentional.[3] In other words, if a photograph is a photograph of a subject, it follows that the subject exists, and if x is a photograph of a man, there is a particular man of whom x is the photograph. It also follows, though for different reasons, that the subject is, roughly, as it appears in the photograph. In characterizing the relation between the ideal photograph and its subject, one is characterizing not an intention but a causal process, and while there is, as a rule, an intentional act involved, this is not an essential part of the photographic relation. The ideal photograph also yields an appearance, but the appearance is not interesting as the realization of an intention but rather as a record of how an actual object looked. Since the end point of the two processes is, or can be, so similar, it is tempting to think that the intentionality of the one relation and the causality of the other are quite irrelevant to the standing of the finished product. In both cases, it seems, the important part of representation lies in the fact that the spectator can see the subject in the picture. The appreciation of photographs and the appreciation of paintings both involve the exercise of the capacity to 'see as', in the quite special sense in which one may see x as y without believing or being tempted to believe that x is y. ---2--- Now, it would be a simple matter to define 'representation' so that 'x represents y' is true only if x expresses a thought about y, or if x is designed to remind one of y, or whatever, in which case a relation that was merely causal (a relation that was not characterized in terms of any thought, intention, or other mental act) would never be sufficient for representation. We need to be clear, however, why we should wish to define representation in one way rather than in another. What hangs on the decision? In particular, why should it matter that the relation between a painting and its subject is an intentional relation while the photographic relation is merely causal? I shall therefore begin by....." (end of quote.....) -- Regards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Musings about Photography as an Art
UC wrote:
No need to quote all that--oddly enough, I perused that exact article just this morning. However, he doesn't say that only the handful of art forms comprise all art as you claimed earlier, he's specifically comparing photography to painting. If I'm mistaken, please quote the exact sentence(s) where he makes such a claim (as opposed to large portions of an article), and I'll eat my hat, so to speak. More importantly, you've selected a single author who supports your particular point of view, though there are just as many who say differently. A little convenient, don't you think? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Musings about Photography as an Art
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. Matt Clara wrote: UC wrote: No need to quote all that--oddly enough, I perused that exact article just this morning. However, he doesn't say that only the handful of art forms comprise all art as you claimed earlier, he's specifically comparing photography to painting. If I'm mistaken, please quote the exact sentence(s) where he makes such a claim (as opposed to large portions of an article), and I'll eat my hat, so to speak. More importantly, you've selected a single author who supports your particular point of view, though there are just as many who say differently. A little convenient, don't you think? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Musings about Photography as an Art
Matt Clara wrote: UC wrote: No need to quote all that--oddly enough, I perused that exact article just this morning. However, he doesn't say that only the handful of art forms comprise all art as you claimed earlier, he's specifically comparing photography to painting. If I'm mistaken, please quote the exact sentence(s) where he makes such a claim (as opposed to large portions of an article), and I'll eat my hat, so to speak. More importantly, you've selected a single author who supports your particular point of view, though there are just as many who say differently. A little convenient, don't you think? What 'many'? Do you photographers or philosophers? Photogrpahers don't count. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Musings about Photography as an Art
Matt Clara wrote: UC wrote: No need to quote all that--oddly enough, I perused that exact article just this morning. However, he doesn't say that only the handful of art forms comprise all art as you claimed earlier, he's specifically comparing photography to painting. If I'm mistaken, please quote the exact sentence(s) where he makes such a claim (as opposed to large portions of an article), and I'll eat my hat, so to speak. More importantly, you've selected a single author who supports your particular point of view, though there are just as many who say differently. A little convenient, don't you think? What 'many'? Do you mean photographers or philosophers? Photographers don't count. |
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 |