Photography as Art
Jim Henson
From thread on: http://communites.msn.com/objectivistforum
As someone with a passion for photography as art, I disagree with Ayn Rand's
position on photography, which is reproduced in full here.
"A certain type of confusion about the relationship between scientific
discoveries and art, leads to a frequently asked question: Is photography an
art? The answer is: No. It is a technical, not a creative, skill. Art
requires a selective re-creation. A camera cannot perform the basic task of
painting: a visual conceptualization, i.e., the creation of a concrete in
terms of abstract essentials. The selection of camera angles, lighting or
lenses is merely a selection of the means to reproduce various aspects of
the given, i.e., of an existing concrete. There is an artistic element in
some photographs, which is the result of such selectivity as the
photographer can exercise, and some of them can be very beautiful - but the
same artistic element (purposeful selectivity) is present in many
utilitarian products: in the better kinds of furniture, dress design,
automobiles, packaging, etc. The commercial art work in ads (or posters or
postage stamps) is frequently done by real artists and has greater esthetic
value than many paintings, but utilitarian objects cannot be classified as
works of art."
The first point Rand makes seems to be that photography is not art because
it is capturing of reality rather than rendering a version of reality (and
what is implicit here but explicit in her words elsewhere is that art is man
as 'he should and ought to be'). So a camera cannot perform a visual
conceptualization of a concrete in terms of abstract essentials, but
sculpture and painting, for instance, can. A photograph is merely a
selection of the means to reproduce an existing concrete.
Firstly, I think that photography CAN be a visual conceptualization of a
concrete as much as a painting. While some photographs are indeed a
snapshot of reality, and not a conceptual work, the reverse is also true
(and the same can be said of other forms of art). Taking a certain subject,
casting it in a particular (literal) light, framing the result to present
the artists' concept - this is the EXACT same process in
painting/sculpture/photography. It doesn't work to apply a distinction in
intent and/or process to differentiate photography from painting as art.
The distinction is in the tools - and the idea that manipulating the light
that falls on photosensitive film to produce an abstract image that evokes a
concept is somehow different than manipulating any other substance (oil,
watercolor, canvas, clay) to produce an abstract image that evokes a
concept. This is not a compelling distinction.
A corollary to this is the argument that if photography is not art because
it is a selection of the means to reproduce an existing concrete - then
neither is anything where a model was used - portraiture, sculpture, etc.
(And if the argument is 'but it's not just a reproduction of a model, it's
conveying a concept', then see above! :))
Another issue I have is that Ayn Rand is essentially saying 'utilitarian
products, such as furniture, clothing, cars, etc, can't be artistic.' Since
when? And then doesn't that exclude ANYTHING that remotely has a 'use'?
According to that principle, architecture is not artistic!
IMHO, applying artistic values to 'utilitarian' objects is what puts color
in life. Creating a meal pleasing to the eyes, nose, taste buds; building a
guitar with beautiful woods; assembling clothing that is appealing and
tasteful; arranging fruit in a bowl in the kitchen; flowers in a vase, etc
etc etc ad nauseum.
I'm an amateur photographer and my stuff is mostly landscapes - still
haven't got the hang of humans yet - but I am definitely looking to capture
something in my photography - it's not just about preserving reality.
Choosing what to leave out is almost as important as what to put in. If
anyone's interested, I can post some of my photos here.
Bree
Those interested in a disscussion on this issue are encouraged to vist (and
join!) http://communites.msn.com/objectivistforum
AviGDorin
From: "Jim Henson" J...@Henson.net
writes:
"Creating a meal pleasing to the eyes, nose, taste buds; building a
guitar with beautiful woods; assembling clothing that is appealing and
tasteful; arranging fruit in a bowl in the kitchen; flowers in a vase, etc
etc etc ad nauseum."
Avi: "Jim Henson, Are you that muppet dude reborn (after an awesome funeral)?"
Malenor
"Jim Henson" <J...@Henson.net> wrote in message
news:7uxe8.24815$Se.85...@typhoon1.we.ipsvc.net...I read your post and did not find where you offered much
to aesthetic theory yourself, only a criticism of Rand's theory,
and statements beginning with, "But I don't see why I can't..."
Rand's definition of art is, "The selective re-creation of
reality according to the artist's metaphysical value-judgments."
My issue with this definition is that it omits a few steps and
assumes too much. First, she claims that in order to be art,
it must be a re-creation of something real. Second, she omits
the fact that this re-creation must take place within some
artistic medium (paint, granite, wood, words, etc.).
Third, she assumes that a work of art must represent
an artist's actual metaphysical value-judgments.
Fourth, and most crucially, she omits the fact that this
re-creation must first take place in imagination, and that
this imagination is the first medium within which art
must take place.
Art is therefore not a re-creation of reality, but the
concrete representation of the content of one's
imagination. That's not a definition, however.
You represent a guitar for example as itself a work
of art. You have confused something beautiful with
art. In the same way, you have confused beautiful
photography with art. You have done this by
re-creating Rand's error, and that is to omit crucial
steps within the artistic process.
One can construct a guitar in imagination, no doubt,
but to skillfully reconstruct that guitar, not as a guitar,
but as a non-functional representation of a guitar, say
as a sculpture or a painting, is the essence of art. It
of course has no praactical utility, but instead serves
as a psychological influence which itself is a type of
utility -- it makes me "feel things I never felt before
now," etc.
So is photography an artform? Art is not necessarily
beautiful, but stimulates higher sensibility in some
fashion such as to re-create an experience without
having to experience it, and moreover, to teach through
intuition a metaphysical moral. Even a painting with
'the horror of war' as a theme lends itself to a certain
amount of reflection and inward-gazing. What is the
metaphysical or even moral theme of a photograph?
Fruit? A sunset? A building? At best, the picture is
only an imitation of art or a depiction of some work
of art. Does a photograph (if one existed) of Napoleon
riding into battle embody heroism? Does the photograph
of soldiers raising the flag on Iwo Jima embody courage,
victory, and patriotism? Or is it just the mere image of a
historical event.
I will accept in her definition the idea that some sort
of metaphysical value-judgment is involved in the
creation of a work of art. It is not however necessarily
the artist's own value-judgment, as there are artists
who can easily imitate various genres.
I think there is more to this than meets the eye (hint, a
photograph meets the eye, a work of art meets the
subconscious). There is the question of what is meant
by a work of art "embodying" a principle. And what
about the artist's intent? Usenet is not equal to the task
of allowing this important topic to be thoroughly
presented.
I would like to see your photos.
The Individualist Anarchist
it is usefull.
> The first point Rand makes seems to be that photography is not art because
> it is capturing of reality rather than rendering a version of reality (and
> what is implicit here but explicit in her words elsewhere is that art is man
> as 'he should and ought to be'). So a camera cannot perform a visual
> conceptualization of a concrete in terms of abstract essentials, but
> sculpture and painting, for instance, can. A photograph is merely a
> selection of the means to reproduce an existing concrete.
I would have to agree with Ayn Rand that photography by itself does
not perform a visual conceptualization of a concrete in terms of
abstract essentials. However I am not sure that a visual
conceptualization in terms of abstract essentials is a neccessary
component of all art.
> Another issue I have is that Ayn Rand is essentially saying 'utilitarian
> products, such as furniture, clothing, cars, etc, can't be artistic.' Since
> when? And then doesn't that exclude ANYTHING that remotely has a 'use'?
> According to that principle, architecture is not artistic!
I agree with you here. Why would being useless be an essential
component of art?
For the most part I am unable to appreciate most forms of art. I would
rather look at the real thing than a photograph. I would rather look
at a photograph than a painting. I like music and hate poetry.
Objectivist
"Malenor" <smu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:iVEe8.17371$ZC3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Malenor
"Objectivist" <objectiv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:q80f8.27344$Se.95...@typhoon1.we.ipsvc.net...
Yes, there is a possible beauty in photography, just as there is
in actually viewing, say, a picturesque sunset. It reminds me of
a certain scene from "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,"
in which the voyagers took a picture of a beautiful landscape, probably
in Montana, but when the photo came, it was disappointingly
unable to capture the actual reality.
Curtis Plumb
photograph is one of the best I've ever seen. Looks like
somewhere between Limestone and Road's End. One
nitpick: tilted horizon in the Venice Pier photo. I don't
know if this is art, but it is quite evocative to me.
Curtis Plumb
The Individualist Anarchist wrote:
>
>
>
> For the most part I am unable to appreciate most forms of art. I would
> rather look at the real thing than a photograph. I would rather look
> at a photograph than a painting. I like music and hate poetry.
What you said!! Huzzah!
Frank Emsley
>
> "...Is photography an art? The answer is: No."
Gee. Ayn Rand was wrong. Whaddya think of that?
I can just see the hoardes of Objectivists donning their Lemming Suits
and heading for the nearest cliff screaming "Ohhhh Myyyyy Goddddd!!!"
The great thing about Rand being wrong on this and a number of other
different issues is that it causes the absolutist Star-Trek element of
objectivism to lose their mind and try to justify utterly idiotic
views that Rand held.
"Well photography IS a science rather than
an art. Yeah, yeah, and no other 'art' uses
scientific principles. Yeah, like painting
uses colors and paint and canvas which have
NOTHING to do with science. Hell, paint isn't
even made of chemicals, it's just a bunch
of cosmic fictional ether that PRETENDS to
be matter. Yeah, and painters don't even
exist!!! Yeah, yeah, yeah..."
I often find myself wanting to write insane things and attribute them
to Rand in order to hasten the loosening of the already mongoloidic
minds of the clueless followers in the cult of Rand.
You know stuff like:
"Macaroni and cheese is only real when it is made in a double boiler
over a wood stove. All other incarnations of this dish are a non-food
and contain no caloric value."
Maybe I should work on such a project. Maybe a project of this nature
would drive the Trek-headed element out of objectivism and into some
other form of lunacy... You know, like Japanese Anime based koala
documentaries...
Christ, I need some sleep...
Frank
"There was this guy in my high school, he was the
local genius. We were in class one day and he 'proved'
to me and my classmates that I didn't exist. I then
proved that my non-existent/unreal fist could still
smash in his 'real' face. While I did not prove that
I existed, I did manage to prove that my non-existence
could run up some serious dental bills."
- Me
http://franktank.8k.com
R Lawrence
believe you have misunderstood some aspects of her argument.
"Jim Henson" <J...@Henson.net> wrote:
>Another issue I have is that Ayn Rand is essentially saying 'utilitarian
>products, such as furniture, clothing, cars, etc, can't be artistic.' Since
>when? And then doesn't that exclude ANYTHING that remotely has a 'use'?
>According to that principle, architecture is not artistic!
The claim is not that utilitarian objects are not "artistic," but that they
are not "works of art." This is an important distinction. 'Artistic' is a
broad term that can be applied to all types of crafts. Part of what Rand is
doing in her aesthetic theory is distinguishing crafts, which may be pretty
and carefully built and otherwise pleasing, from works of fine art, which
exist specifically for the purpose of being contemplated.
>IMHO, applying artistic values to 'utilitarian' objects is what puts color
>in life. Creating a meal pleasing to the eyes, nose, taste buds; building a
>guitar with beautiful woods; assembling clothing that is appealing and
>tasteful; arranging fruit in a bowl in the kitchen; flowers in a vase, etc
>etc etc ad nauseum.
No one has said that you should not do these things, or that they should
not be enjoyed. Rand's claim is simply that these things are not works of
art in the sense that a painting or a symphony is a work of art.
>I'm an amateur photographer and my stuff is mostly landscapes - still
>haven't got the hang of humans yet - but I am definitely looking to capture
>something in my photography - it's not just about preserving reality.
>Choosing what to leave out is almost as important as what to put in.
Yes, this aspect of photography is what makes Rand wrong. Photography can
be used to create works of art, just as painting can.
--
Richard Lawrence <RL0...@yahoo.com>
Visit the Objectivism Reference Center: http://www.objectivism.addr.com/