OT- Fine Art photography?
Martin Francis
trouble categorising my work- specifically, terming anything i've done as
fine art.
A quick Google suggests "Fine Art" photography is B&W nudes- or just B&W in
general. Anyone have a more useful definition?
--
Martin Francis
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."
William D. Tallman
> Putting my site together at the moment, and so far i'm having a little
> trouble categorising my work- specifically, terming anything i've done as
> fine art.
>
> A quick Google suggests "Fine Art" photography is B&W nudes- or just B&W
> in general. Anyone have a more useful definition?
Ummm... how about a rule of thumb?
"Fine arts" is a term that defines the paintings, drawings, sculptures, etc.
of recognized masters of a medium. Whatever subject matter they address,
when addressed likewise by photographers should therefore be considered as
"fine art", or so it would seem reasonable, I think.
Now, "fine art photography" has no doubt been defined by various and sundry
"art experts" and "art critics" (they're professionals: they get paid...),
but unless there is a general agreement, I suspect you're free to create
your own. It's probably fair to take into account decisions that are
supported with valid arguments, but that still casts nothing in stone.
Perhaps you can think about it, and put your conclusions as to the
definition of "fine arts" above the fold on the first page of your site.
Just a thought.
HTH
Bill Tallman
Patrick L.
"Martin Francis" <mcs...@com.btinternet> wrote in message
news:c8r87d$27m$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
Just be artistic.
Pour a bag of sand on a floor, take a picture of it with a Holga, and
voila, you got art!
LOL
Patrick
Lewis Lang
>From: "Patrick L." nice...@ifyoucangetit.com
>Date: Sun, May 23, 2004 7:17 PM
>Message-id: <10b2j8f...@news.supernews.com>
That's not art, that's a mess, mister. Now clean it up! The Pidgeon sisters are
visiting us soon and I don't want the apartment to look like the Normandy
invasion.
Felix (I may be dead but at least I know the difference between a Holga and a
Hoagie)
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Remove "nospam" to reply
***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***
Lewis Lang
>From: "Martin Francis" mcs...@com.btinternet
>Date: Sun, May 23, 2004 6:22 PM
>Message-id: <c8r87d$27m$1...@titan.btinternet.com>
>
>Putting my site together at the moment, and so far i'm having a little
>trouble categorising my work- specifically, terming anything i've done as
>fine art.
>
>A quick Google suggests "Fine Art" photography is B&W nudes- or just B&W
>in
>general. Anyone have a more useful definition?
Hi Martin:
I'm not sure how or why a definition of "Fine Art" will help you present your
work -- it either is fine art or it isn't.
Was it done with artistic intentions and/or does it have qualities that go
beyond mere utilitarian decoration or beyond mere recording of the facts? Does
it say something meaningful and/or powerful? Does it make you think, feel,
about the subject beyond its mere surface qualities? Then, good or bad, its
fine art. It matters little how you categorize the work (according to media,
style, subject matter, whatever), it either is fine art or it isn't. Fine art
is not merely a subject or a style, its a vision -- an outlook on
life(/you/society/etc.). Like class, you usually know it when you see it... or
make it.
Michael Scarpitti
> trouble categorising my work- specifically, terming anything i've done as
> fine art.
>
> A quick Google suggests "Fine Art" photography is B&W nudes- or just B&W in
> general. Anyone have a more useful definition?
NO photography of ANY kind is 'Fine Art'. ALL 'Fine Art' is made BY
HAND (paintings, sculptures, etc.).
Call it 'Personal Work', but UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES call it 'Fine
Art'.
Tom Thackrey
On 23-May-2004, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
> NO photography of ANY kind is 'Fine Art'. ALL 'Fine Art' is made BY
> HAND (paintings, sculptures, etc.).
>
> Call it 'Personal Work', but UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES call it 'Fine
> Art'.
ROTFL
Photography has been accepted as 'fine art' by museums, galleries, critics,
and collectors for more than 50 years.
Can you name a museum of fine arts that doesn't have photography in its
collection?
Can you cite a dictionary or encyclopedia which does not list photography as
a fine art?
Can you cite a reference (other than yourself) that defines fine art as
'made by hand'?
--
Tom Thackrey
www.creative-light.com
tom (at) creative (dash) light (dot) com
do NOT send email to james...@willglen.net (it's reserved for spammers)
Michael Scarpitti
> On 23-May-2004, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
>
> > NO photography of ANY kind is 'Fine Art'. ALL 'Fine Art' is made BY
> > HAND (paintings, sculptures, etc.).
> >
> > Call it 'Personal Work', but UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES call it 'Fine
> > Art'.
>
> ROTFL
>
> Photography has been accepted as 'fine art' by museums, galleries, critics,
> and collectors for more than 50 years.
False.
>
> Can you name a museum of fine arts that doesn't have photography in its
> collection?
That doesn't make it 'fine art'. It merely provides a place to see
'photography'. Most call it 'art and photography'.
>
> Can you cite a dictionary or encyclopedia which does not list photography as
> a fine art?
Of course.
>
> Can you cite a reference (other than yourself) that defines fine art as
> 'made by hand'?
Of course.
jimkramer
news:c8r87d$27m$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
Basically any photograph taken for artistic rather than documentary
purposes.
I would argue with Michael that made by hand would include photography as a
human hand is usually what trips the shutter. If he doesn't want to be
labeled as an artist that's fine. Myself, 95% of what I take is strictly
documentary the other 5% might be art or it might be garbage, depends on my
mood and the phase of the moon.
Jim Kramer
Lewis Lang
>From: "jimkramer" Sophomo...@NOSPAMjlkramer.net
>Date: Mon, May 24, 2004 9:38 AM
>Message-id: <10b3ujd...@corp.supernews.com>
Some documentary photography (Atget comes to mind, so does the childhood
documentary work of Lartique of his family/etc. in the Belle Epoque era/early
2oth century), whether intended as art or merely as record keeping is fine art
as well -- it depends on its aesthetic, intellectual and other qualities
inherent in the work, whether intended or not, not the mode it was shot in
(documentary, commercial, personal work, etc.) whether a piece or a group of
pictures/work should be considered fine art or not.
Some of Rembrandt's best work, certainly a writier with light, if not with a
camera, was done as "commercial work" yet you see no museum shunning his work
because of it. He was a master and his work was fine art regardless of whether
it was a self-portrait done for himself or a commission of a group (Drapiers of
the Syndic's Guild/whatever its called) paid for by others.
Fine art refers to the qualities of the work not the subject or mode!!! :-).
Tom Thackrey
Then do so. Your inability/unwillingness to substantiate your opinions makes
them less than compelling.
Al Denelsbeck
>
> On 24-May-2004, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
>
>> "Tom Thackrey" <use.si...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:<2Wfsc.56274$0S.1...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>...
>> > Can you cite a reference (other than yourself) that defines fine
>> > art as 'made by hand'?
>>
>> Of course.
>
> Then do so. Your inability/unwillingness to substantiate your opinions
> makes them less than compelling.
Now Tom, Mikey has spoken. You're being ungracious if you doubt his
pronouncements. Bask I say, bask in the wisdom he has deigned to impart!
[Hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee!]
- Al.
--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
Al Denelsbeck
> Putting my site together at the moment, and so far i'm having a little
> trouble categorising my work- specifically, terming anything i've done
> as fine art.
>
> A quick Google suggests "Fine Art" photography is B&W nudes- or just
> B&W in general. Anyone have a more useful definition?
I don't think there *is* a firm definition for "fine art", and in
fact "art" still seems to be pretty much up for grabs.
You might want to define it as something demonstrating one of the
classifications of the art world: Impressionism, Post-Modernism, blah de
blah de blah. These lines can and usually are fudged by a significant
amount, so you can get away with a lot. But I would suggest your "fine art"
images be at least a) well-liked, or b) striking, to a majority of viewers.
This isn't a necessity, but saves you the potential of being labeled as
self-absorbed when you call something "fine art" that most others would
classify as "crap" ;-)
From my own standpoint as a nature photog (which some would consider
its own classification outside of all others), I consider something "art"
when it can be used in a variety of ways, and especially when it can also
be used to demonstrate multiple factors of composition. On my site, the
images I use for the headers of most of my galleries are what I consider
"art", as opposed to other images which are intended more as portraiture or
identification purposes. http://wading-in.net/page96-SalesBio.html and
http://wading-in.net/page100-Commercial.html are among my favorites (the
latter needs cleaning).
Tom Thackrey
On 24-May-2004, Al Denelsbeck <ne...@wadingin.net> wrote:
> Now Tom, Mikey has spoken. You're being ungracious if you doubt
> his
> pronouncements. Bask I say, bask in the wisdom he has deigned to impart!
Sorry Al, you're right. I should know better than to take him seriously.
jimkramer
news:20040524101432...@mb-m02.aol.com...
I'm gon'na respectfully (I think) disagree.
I'm more than willing to let the photographer/artist decide if he/she deems
the work done as fine art or not. I see in museums much "art" passed as
"fine art" and I don't care for the subject/model/mode; i.e. It may be fine
art for someone, but I'm not willing to display it in my house.
You would be really hard pressed to convince me that an image of a seared,
charred and split open human corpse in the trunk of a mostly burned out four
door sedan in the middle of a wooded lot is fine art. Likewise, the splatter
pattern of blood, brains and wisps of hair stuck to the side of a tractor
trailer after someone under rode the trailer is not fine art. The same skill
and attention documenting a dragonfly perched on a cattail above a perfectly
smooth pond backlit by a cherry red sunrise might be fine art; or it might
just be a snapshot. Or is it all simply the hidden meanings and open context
implicit in anything we would call "art" fine or otherwise?
In reality "fine art" is a catch phrase; it's fine if you like it and art if
you don't.
Now what the hell do I do with this soap box? Anybody what to stand on it?
I think one of the boards is loose; be careful.
Jim Kramer
Alan Browne
> Putting my site together at the moment, and so far i'm having a little
> trouble categorising my work- specifically, terming anything i've done as
> fine art.
>
> A quick Google suggests "Fine Art" photography is B&W nudes- or just B&W in
> general. Anyone have a more useful definition?
>
It seems to be a matter of aesthetic and presentation, the subject is
not terribly relevant.
I don't believe it needs to be limited to B&W, and certainly not to nudes.
Is it possible to do a fine art photograph of a homeless alcoholic in
the grimiest section of the city? Why not?
Could a boxing photo be fine art? Why not...
etc.
Fine art photos seem to put an emphasis on static compositions (not
exclusively).
Detail. Contrast. Simplicity. Simple lighting (or appears so).
Lines, curves. Any damned subject.
The recorded image lends itslelf to high quality printing and
presentation. Various presentations I have seen over the last year, in
color (printed from chromes) were definitely fine art and in color.
Cynically, if one puts on a show and calls it "fine art photography"
then it is. Or if you put a portfolio together and name a section of it
as fine art ... then so it is. The market will decide if you're right
or wrong.
The dictionary does not help us much:
One entry found for fine art.
Main Entry: fine art
Function: noun
1 a : art (as painting, sculpture, or music) concerned primarily with
the creation of beautiful objects -- usually used in plural b : objects
of fine art
2 : an activity requiring a fine skill
Cheers,
Alan.
--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
Tony Spadaro
Art -- another college degree. IT is an oxymoron, and quite frankly usually
indicates a bad case of pretension. Stick with Art - it was good enough for
Van Gogh, and Picasso, it should be good enough for you.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Martin Francis" <mcs...@com.btinternet> wrote in message
news:c8r87d$27m$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
TP
>Putting my site together at the moment, and so far i'm having a little
>trouble categorising my work- specifically, terming anything i've done as
>fine art.
>
>A quick Google suggests "Fine Art" photography is B&W nudes- or just B&W in
>general. Anyone have a more useful definition?
I think it is easier to define "Fine Art" photography by stating what
it *isn't*.
It *isn't* work in one of the well-defined genres of photography such
as travel, sports, photojournalism, nature, landscape, social,
architectural, product, fashion, etc. ...
"Fine Art" photography serves no particular purpose other than to
provide an expression of beauty, or perhaps of ugliness.
For example, rather than using composition to good effect to
illustrate a newspaper article, or to portray a person, animal or
plant, a fine art shot might use composition purely to convey to the
viewer an impression of beauty ... of art. Any connection with one or
more of the better-defined genres of photography is incidental to
expressing beauty - or ugliness.
So if you have any work that doesn't fit the major genres, and has a
certain beauty all of its own, that's what you should put in the "Fine
Art" category of your web site.
...
You didn't say, but I assume this is part of your work for your Uni
finals, or an online portfolio to help you find work. Whatever, I
wish you all the very best.
;-)
Alan Browne
> "Tom Thackrey" <use.si...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:<2Wfsc.56274$0S.1...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>...
>>
>> Photography has been accepted as 'fine art' by museums, galleries,
>> critics, and collectors for more than 50 years.
>
>
> False.
How so wonderdog? Prove it. Cite sources and links.
William D. Tallman
Please do so, then.
Bill Tallman
Gordon Moat
> "Martin Francis" <mcs...@com.btinternet> wrote in message news:<c8r87d$27m$1...@titan.btinternet.com>...
> > Putting my site together at the moment, and so far i'm having a little
> > trouble categorising my work- specifically, terming anything i've done as
> > fine art.
> >
> > A quick Google suggests "Fine Art" photography is B&W nudes- or just B&W in
> > general. Anyone have a more useful definition?
>
> NO photography of ANY kind is 'Fine Art'. ALL 'Fine Art' is made BY
> HAND (paintings, sculptures, etc.).
Absolutely, and this is where printmaking comes in. Obviously, you have seen printmaking displayed as
fine art. I think the issue many, like yourself, have with photography is that it is easily reproducible.
If I were to do a painting (and I have done many oil paintings), each one is unique; the same can rarely
be said of photography, with few exceptions.
So this brings up another issue. If I had prints made of my paintings, would they still be fine art?
Would only the original painting be fine art? How does one define reproductions as art?
>
>
> Call it 'Personal Work', but UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES call it 'Fine
> Art'.
Luckily, your attitude is in the rare minority. However, you almost got an excellent troll going here . .
. nice to see you are getting a sense of humour.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
William Graham
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20040524101432...@mb-m02.aol.com...
Yes....Van Eyke painted weddings for documentary purposes....(proof that
they took place) And no one would say that any of his works were not "fine
art".
Michael Scarpitti
> On 24-May-2004, Al Denelsbeck <ne...@wadingin.net> wrote:
>
> > Now Tom, Mikey has spoken. You're being ungracious if you doubt
> > his
> > pronouncements. Bask I say, bask in the wisdom he has deigned to impart!
>
> Sorry Al, you're right. I should know better than to take him seriously.
Will Webster's Third New International do?
Main Entry:fine art
Pronunciation:**|*
Function:noun
Etymology:back-formation from fine arts, plural, translation of French
beaux-arts
1 a : art that is concerned primarily with the creation of beautiful
objects : art for which aesthetic purposes are primary or uppermost b
: the objects themselves *the fetishes of the Negro sculptor T are
fine art John Dewey*
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
Michael Scarpitti
>
> Then do so. Your inability/unwillingness to substantiate your opinions makes
> them less than compelling.
Will Webster's Third New International do?
Main Entry:fine art
Pronunciation:**|*
Function:noun
Etymology:back-formation from fine arts, plural, translation of French
beaux-arts
1 a : art that is concerned primarily with the creation of beautiful
objects : art for which aesthetic purposes are primary or uppermost b
: the objects themselves *the fetishes of the Negro sculptor T are
fine art John Dewey*
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
'Objects' not images!
Michael Scarpitti
> Michael Scarpitti wrote:
>
> > "Tom Thackrey" <use.si...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:<2Wfsc.56274$0S.1...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>...
> >>
> >> Photography has been accepted as 'fine art' by museums, galleries,
> >> critics, and collectors for more than 50 years.
> >
> >
> > False.
>
> How so wonderdog? Prove it. Cite sources and links.
Michael Scarpitti
Michael Scarpitti
> Yes....Van Eyke painted weddings for documentary purposes....(proof that
> they took place) And no one would say that any of his works were not "fine
> art".
Because they were made 'by hand'.
Tom Thackrey
On 24-May-2004, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
"Any art" would include photography
Finished photographs (the kind museums collect) qualify as objects.
I see no mention of 'hand made'.
You have disproven your original 'photography is not fine art' claim.
Thanks.
Tom Thackrey
On 24-May-2004, Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> So this brings up another issue. If I had prints made of my paintings,
> would they still be fine art?
> Would only the original painting be fine art? How does one define
> reproductions as art?
Much sculpture (particularly cast metal) is reproducible. I know there are
multiple 'The Thinker' by Rodin around. I doubt if you could find many
people who would argue that it isn't art.
Frank Pittel
: "Tom Thackrey" <use.si...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<2Wfsc.56274$0S.1...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>...
: > On 23-May-2004, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
: >
: > > NO photography of ANY kind is 'Fine Art'. ALL 'Fine Art' is made BY
: > > HAND (paintings, sculptures, etc.).
: > >
: > > Call it 'Personal Work', but UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES call it 'Fine
: > > Art'.
: >
: > ROTFL
: >
: > Photography has been accepted as 'fine art' by museums, galleries, critics,
: > and collectors for more than 50 years.
: False.
: >
: > Can you name a museum of fine arts that doesn't have photography in its
: > collection?
: That doesn't make it 'fine art'. It merely provides a place to see
: 'photography'. Most call it 'art and photography'.
: >
: > Can you cite a dictionary or encyclopedia which does not list photography as
: > a fine art?
: Of course.
Why don't you then?
: >
: > Can you cite a reference (other than yourself) that defines fine art as
: > 'made by hand'?
: Of course.
Why don't you then?
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
Frank Pittel
: "William D. Tallman" <wtal...@olypen.com> wrote in message news:<10b4di3...@corp.supernews.com>...
Where does your definition preclude photography and require that "art"
be made by hand??
William Graham
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.0405...@posting.google.com...
> "William Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<Norsc.37054$zw.33806@attbi_s01>...
>
> > Yes....Van Eyke painted weddings for documentary purposes....(proof that
> > they took place) And no one would say that any of his works were not
"fine
> > art".
>
> Because they were made 'by hand'.
For documentary purposes, however....
Also, paintings are not made 100% "by hand". A machine wove the canvas, and
made the brushes and paint....Few fine artists create their work 100% by
their own hand, so it's a matter of degree. One can slave over a print for
hours, either in the darkroom, or with Photoshop on a computer. - I may not
personally believe the photo is "fine art", but I can see that there is an
argument for that point of view.......
>
>
> Will Webster's Third New International do?
>
> Main Entry:fine art
> Pronunciation:**|*
> Function:noun
> Etymology:back-formation from fine arts, plural, translation of French
> beaux-arts
>
> 1 a : art that is concerned primarily with the creation of beautiful
> objects : art for which aesthetic purposes are primary or uppermost b
> : the objects themselves *the fetishes of the Negro sculptor T are
> fine art John Dewey*
> 2 : any art (as painting, drawing, architecture, sculpture, music,
> ceramics, or landscape architecture)
They left out ballet and photography....:^) I do notice that they included
ceramics, however.......
Bandicoot
> "Tom Thackrey" <use.si...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<ITosc.3191$VJ3...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>...
> > On 24-May-2004, Al Denelsbeck <ne...@wadingin.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Now Tom, Mikey has spoken. You're being ungracious if you
doubt
> > > his
> > > pronouncements. Bask I say, bask in the wisdom he has deigned to
impart!
> >
> > Sorry Al, you're right. I should know better than to take him seriously.
>
> Will Webster's Third New International do?
>
> Main Entry:fine art
> Pronunciation:**|*
> Function:noun
> Etymology:back-formation from fine arts, plural, translation of French
> beaux-arts
>
> 1 a : art that is concerned primarily with the creation of beautiful
> objects : art for which aesthetic purposes are primary or uppermost b
> : the objects themselves *the fetishes of the Negro sculptor T are
> fine art John Dewey*
Some photography fits that definition 100%, just as some painting doesn't -
this definition is all about end purpose.
> 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
Again, photography fits this definition. The fact that it isn't in the list
of examples is immaterial: read the definition itself. Ballet isn't in the
list of examples either, though music is: they are using music as an example
to show that performance art - art that exists only as it is being made and
re-made with every performance - is included, and assuming that the reader
can extrapolate intelligently from that without them needing to cite ballet,
theatre, etc. individually. In the same way, painting and drawing are
exemplars for two dimensional art forms.
Peter
Bandicoot
news:C7qdnbEb05K...@giganews.com...
It doesn't - he's repeatedly posted a definition that patently includes
photography within its scope. Strange thing to do...
Peter
Bandicoot
There must be line missing from your oft repeated posting of this
definition. As it stands it very clearly includes photography - is the
"PS, oh, and we meant to say, it has to be made by hand (including the
architecture bit)"
line missing from your postings?
;-)
Peter
Michael Scarpitti
Photography is NOT included, which strengthens my position.
Michael Scarpitti
> On 24-May-2004, Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > So this brings up another issue. If I had prints made of my paintings,
> > would they still be fine art?
> > Would only the original painting be fine art? How does one define
> > reproductions as art?
>
> Much sculpture (particularly cast metal) is reproducible. I know there are
> multiple 'The Thinker' by Rodin around. I doubt if you could find many
> people who would argue that it isn't art.
No, there is ONE original. All the rest are 'copies'.
Michael Scarpitti
> On 24-May-2004, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
>
> > "Tom Thackrey" <use.si...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:<oLnsc.72497$Sz1....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>...
> >
> > >
> > > Then do so. Your inability/unwillingness to substantiate your opinions
> > > makes
> > > them less than compelling.
> >
> >
> > Will Webster's Third New International do?
> >
> > Main Entry:fine art
> > Pronunciation:**|*
> > Function:noun
> > Etymology:back-formation from fine arts, plural, translation of French
> > beaux-arts
> >
> > 1 a : art that is concerned primarily with the creation of beautiful
> > objects : art for which aesthetic purposes are primary or uppermost b
> > : the objects themselves *the fetishes of the Negro sculptor T are
> > fine art John Dewey*
> > 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
> >
> > 'Objects' not images!
>
> "Any art" would include photography
>
> Finished photographs (the kind museums collect) qualify as objects.
>
> I see no mention of 'hand made'.
Well, if you notice, all those examples (painting, drawing,
architecture, sculpture, music, ceramics, or landscape architecture)
involved hand-work.
Michael Scarpitti
> Michael Scarpitti <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : "Martin Francis" <mcs...@com.btinternet> wrote in message news:<c8r87d$27m$1...@titan.btinternet.com>...
> : > Putting my site together at the moment, and so far i'm having a little
> : > trouble categorising my work- specifically, terming anything i've done as
> : > fine art.
> : >
> : > A quick Google suggests "Fine Art" photography is B&W nudes- or just B&W in
> : > general. Anyone have a more useful definition?
>
> : HAND (paintings, sculptures, etc.).
>
Do a little thinking, will you? What is common to painting, drawing,
architecture, sculpture, music, ceramics, or landscape architecture?
Tom Thackrey
Which is the original? They are all made from the same plaster model. Cast
in the same foundry. Untouched by the hand of Rodin, incidentally.
Al Denelsbeck
news:2fd2ff8c.04052...@posting.google.com:
> "Tom Thackrey" <use.si...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:<4uxsc.72605$TH3....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>...
>> I see no mention of 'hand made'.
>
> Well, if you notice, all those examples (painting, drawing,
> architecture, sculpture, music, ceramics, or landscape architecture)
> involved hand-work.
"Landscape architecture" involves hand work but photography doesn't?
Then I suppose I can turn my work into "fine art" by handling the
camera with a goddamn Bobcat Loader...
Hey Mikey! Just for kicks, what does your dictionary say under
"Photography"?
(Stay tuned, folks. The thrashing should continue to be fun to
watch).
- Al.
--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
Bandicoot
Architecture and Landscape architecture are more or less totally done with
CAD these days. So is a building fine art if the architect drew the
elevations by hand, but not if s/he used a computer?
There are also sculptors (and a few ceramicists) using CAD/CAM to produce
their 'product'.
The majority of modern composers (of serious music, I don't mean pop) now
use computers to produce their notation. Does this mean that the
performance is art, but the music being played is not?
And of course there is the whole genre of digital art - which you may or may
not like/appreciate/understand, but you cannot deny is accepted by 'the art
establishment' as an art form. As, of course, is film-making. I remember
the first Venice Biennale at which there was a significant video
installation: no one was in any doubt of its 'value' or that it was right
that it should be there, with all the other 'art'. Now such works are part
of the mainstream.
Peter
Sander Vesik
Uhh.. The 'fine art' distinction is one of 'fine art' vs 'applied art' -
the "art for which aesthetic purposes are primary or uppermost" part.
Other parts of art are in fact dealing with creation of utalitarian
objects that also look beautiful.
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
Bandicoot
news:2fd2ff8c.04052...@posting.google.com...
I don't think you know an awful lot about the way Rodin worked, or indeed
most sculptors of bronze works.
There isn't really "ONE original" for The Thinker, either. Originally it
was to be one figure of many for a monumental set of bronze doors, that
figure itself cast from a mould, made from a plaster model, based on a
maquette... Then the figure was re-created separately from the doors, the
original model for the casting being made by a sculptor under Rodin's
(somewhat distant) direction. That doesn't make it any less of an art work.
(In the same way that the renaissance paintings produced under the studio
system are still masterpieces irrespective of how they were made.)
Print-making too. Is a John Piper etching not art, though the plate from
which it was made is? Of course not, the plate is a part of the process
(and not _necessarily_ worked primarily by the artist's own hand) while
the print is the end product: the 'art'. The fact that 100 prints (or more)
may be pulled from that plate doesn't stop them being valid art works. No
one would call one a 'copy'. Ditto Matisse, Miro, Picasso, any one of
hundreds of artists that have used print-making as a medium of choice for
part or all of their output.
Peter
Bandicoot
news:2fd2ff8c.04052...@posting.google.com...
Very plainly NOT the notion that they are 'handmade'. Basket-making would
be art under your definition, architecture would (for the last thirty years
at least) very definitely not be.
Peter
Gordon Moat
Music can be singing, which is clearly not hand work.
Gordon Moat
> On 24-May-2004, Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > So this brings up another issue. If I had prints made of my paintings,
> > would they still be fine art?
> > Would only the original painting be fine art? How does one define
> > reproductions as art?
>
> Much sculpture (particularly cast metal) is reproducible. I know there are
> multiple 'The Thinker' by Rodin around. I doubt if you could find many
> people who would argue that it isn't art.
I would not, but my questions were directed at Michaelangelo Scarpitti, but
we shall see what his answer is next. I was trying to lead into a more
difficult realm for his strict definitions.
Gordon Moat
As we start getting into this, we could easily bring Jeff Coons into the
discussion. He definitely blurs the distinction of what is art, or even what is
an artist.
>
>
> Print-making too. Is a John Piper etching not art, though the plate from
> which it was made is? Of course not, the plate is a part of the process
> (and not _necessarily_ worked primarily by the artist's own hand) while
> the print is the end product: the 'art'. The fact that 100 prints (or more)
> may be pulled from that plate doesn't stop them being valid art works. No
> one would call one a 'copy'. Ditto Matisse, Miro, Picasso, any one of
> hundreds of artists that have used print-making as a medium of choice for
> part or all of their output.
Of course, that was my original posting regarding print making. Obviously,
Scarpitti is not familiar with formal art education.
Gordon Moat
Music can be created with your mouth, by singing. That does not even need hands.
Dallas
> "Tom Thackrey" <use.si...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<2Wfsc.56274$0S.1...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>...
>> On 23-May-2004, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
>>
>> > NO photography of ANY kind is 'Fine Art'. ALL 'Fine Art' is made BY
>> > HAND (paintings, sculptures, etc.).
>> >
>> > Call it 'Personal Work', but UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES call it 'Fine
>> > Art'.
>>
>> ROTFL
>>
>> Photography has been accepted as 'fine art' by museums, galleries, critics,
>> and collectors for more than 50 years.
>
> False.
>
>>
>> Can you name a museum of fine arts that doesn't have photography in its
>> collection?
>
> That doesn't make it 'fine art'. It merely provides a place to see
> 'photography'. Most call it 'art and photography'.
>
>>
>> Can you cite a dictionary or encyclopedia which does not list photography as
>> a fine art?
>
> Of course.
>>
>> Can you cite a reference (other than yourself) that defines fine art as
>> 'made by hand'?
>
> Of course.
I'm trying to figure out who is the most immature. Scarpitti or Polson?
--
I am a product of The Summer Of Love, 1967.
Lose the wings - then fly to me!
William D. Tallman
> Fine Art is a college degree - to distinguish it from Commercial
> Art -- another college degree. IT is an oxymoron, and quite frankly
> usually indicates a bad case of pretension. Stick with Art - it was good
> enough for Van Gogh, and Picasso, it should be good enough for you.
Hear, hear!!
Bill Tallman
Michael Scarpitti
Not quite. Paintings that we today regard as 'fine art' (such as
portraits or religious pieces) were not regarded as such when they
were created centuries ago.
William Graham
>
> On 25-May-2004, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
>
> > "Tom Thackrey" <use.si...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:<lBxsc.72607$4M3....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>...
> > > On 24-May-2004, Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > So this brings up another issue. If I had prints made of my
paintings,
> > > > would they still be fine art?
> > > > Would only the original painting be fine art? How does one define
> > > > reproductions as art?
> > >
> > > Much sculpture (particularly cast metal) is reproducible. I know there
> > > are
> > > multiple 'The Thinker' by Rodin around. I doubt if you could find many
> > > people who would argue that it isn't art.
> >
> > No, there is ONE original. All the rest are 'copies'.
>
> Which is the original? They are all made from the same plaster model. Cast
> in the same foundry. Untouched by the hand of Rodin, incidentally.
>
it? Didn't Rodin do the first one in stone, and they made plaster casts from
that? - Come to think of it, it would be hard to get the cast off.....I
guess they could make two half-casts, and then cement them together again,
pour the bronze, and then break the casts off......
William Graham
"Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message
news:108549731...@damia.uk.clara.net...
use them to print the pictures. But after a hundred or so, the blocks wear
out, and they usually destroy them, so the 100 prints are the,
"originals"......
William Graham
"Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:40B379E7...@attglobal.net...
With music, as with ballet, there is the composer, and the
performer(s).....Both can be considered artists.....Even arranging is an
art, although of lesser status.....There must be some "art" involved with
creating the casts of a works of a sculptor, so multiple copies can be made.
This too, must be considered of lesser import than the work of the creator
of the original........Some of these people however, are very dedicated, and
devote their whole lives toward perfecting their abilities.....Are you
willing to throw away their efforts, and dismiss their work as being, "not
art"?
William Graham
William Graham
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.04052...@posting.google.com...
Few artists get any credit for their work while they are still alive.....One
of the requirements for art (it seems) is that the creator must be
dead......
Tom Thackrey
Rodin made a small model from which the large plaster model was made under
his supervision. The plaster model is used to make a wax model which is used
in the 'lost wax' casting process. The castings are often done in pieces.
The plaster models do exist for some of Rodin's work. Some are still being
used to make castings.
Frank Pittel
: Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message news:<C7qdnbcb05L...@giganews.com>...
They're all art. As is photography.
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
TP
>
>I'm trying to figure out who is the most immature. Scarpitti or Polson?
You're too dumb to figure anything.
Quit while you're behind.
;-)
William Graham
they use a pantograph? Do they use rotating machinery? I guess I should
google up some answers, and not bother you with all this......Thanks.....
Michael Scarpitti
> On 25-May-2004, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
>
> > "Tom Thackrey" <use.si...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:<lBxsc.72607$4M3....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>...
> > > On 24-May-2004, Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > So this brings up another issue. If I had prints made of my paintings,
> > > > would they still be fine art?
> > > > Would only the original painting be fine art? How does one define
> > > > reproductions as art?
> > >
> > > Much sculpture (particularly cast metal) is reproducible. I know there
> > > are
> > > multiple 'The Thinker' by Rodin around. I doubt if you could find many
> > > people who would argue that it isn't art.
> >
> > No, there is ONE original. All the rest are 'copies'.
>
> Which is the original? They are all made from the same plaster model. Cast
> in the same foundry. Untouched by the hand of Rodin, incidentally.
>
> .
Oh, I thought he sculpted ONE original and all the rest are copies.
Michael Scarpitti
The distinction between 'art' and 'non-art' (e.g., photography) is
that 'art' has no CAUSAL relation to any OTHER object, upon whose
existence the image is dependent. In other words, 'art' is a sort of
'fiction', as its CONTENT need not have any relationship to existing
reality. Photography does not meet this criterion: photographs are not
'fiction'. A photograph is always OF something else: an IMAGE of
something: i.e., non-fiction. If I paint a scene before me, even if
it's almost 'photograhically' real, that is still not CAUSALLY related
to the scene before me. No light rays were captured and directed to
the canvas. I moved the brush and paint under my absolute control, and
nothing about that has any DIRECT connexion to the scene.
Michael Scarpitti
>
> Of course, that was my original posting regarding print making. Obviously,
> Scarpitti is not familiar with formal art education.
I know enough to know photography is not 'art'.
Tom Thackrey
On 25-May-2004, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
> The distinction between 'art' and 'non-art' (e.g., photography) is
> that 'art' has no CAUSAL relation to any OTHER object, upon whose
> existence the image is dependent. In other words, 'art' is a sort of
> 'fiction', as its CONTENT need not have any relationship to existing
> reality. Photography does not meet this criterion: photographs are not
> 'fiction'. A photograph is always OF something else: an IMAGE of
> something: i.e., non-fiction. If I paint a scene before me, even if
> it's almost 'photograhically' real, that is still not CAUSALLY related
> to the scene before me. No light rays were captured and directed to
> the canvas. I moved the brush and paint under my absolute control, and
> nothing about that has any DIRECT connexion to the scene.
Making up your own definitions again I see.
Painting is dependent on paint.
Sculpting is dependent on stone, wood, metal, etc.
Drawing is dependent on chalk, ink, etc.
Photography is dependent on light. The fact that it's reflected from the
subject as opposed to being applied by a brush is irrelevant.The
photographer chooses and often arranges the light adjusting its color,
intensity and direction. In the darkroom, further manipulation of the light
is possible.
By your argument an image created solely in Photoshop could be fine art
where an image captured in a camera could not.
Alan Browne
> Quit while you're behind.
TP: Did you shoot 8 or 9 rolls of film today to stay on your average pace?
Or are you falling behind your declared average of 50 rolls per average
*week*?
Frank Pittel
: Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<40B37A9E...@attglobal.net>...
Nice try but you're wrong again. I do agree that your photos aren't art.
Gordon Moat
> . . . . . . . . . .
I was thinking mainly of some of the past legends of the Blues. There was a
project a few years ago to try to record some of the legendary great roots of
the blues, since most of their music and singing was not written down. I
consider them as artists, and since there accomplishments and endeavours were
done without thought of commercial success, or compensation, they would fit the
Webster's definition of fine art, yet they are not "hand work". Okay, extreme
example, but they should not be invalidated due to not fitting Webster's.
> There must be some "art" involved with
> creating the casts of a works of a sculptor, so multiple copies can be made.
> This too, must be considered of lesser import than the work of the creator
> of the original........Some of these people however, are very dedicated, and
> devote their whole lives toward perfecting their abilities.....Are you
> willing to throw away their efforts, and dismiss their work as being, "not
> art"?
If it was Jeff Coons, then I would claim he is not an artist, but I will
acknowledge he is controversial. Generally, sculpture is art. Even Andy Warhol
prints are considered art, though he was predominantly a print maker, and not a
painter.
I see the problem of trying to define fine art, is that the academics and
museums (and art historians) have blurred the line of what constitutes fine
art. If we accept that there is a qualified authority to determine what is fine
art, even in hindsight, then we should accept their judgement, even when we do
not agree with them.
Unless one of us becomes that academic authority, then we have little validity
in which to judge. Instead, attempting to do so diminishes our efforts, and
makes our judgement questionable. Now, I might not like what Jeff Coons does
(or doesn't create), but he has been accepted into the fine art world.
Despite that I have an art degree (with a very high GPA), I am not an authority
on defining what is art. Michaelangelo Scarpitti doesn't even have an art
degree, so he has less validity in judging what is fine art, and what is not
fine art; thus is judgement is purely opinion, and his choice of using a
dictionary (and only one source) shows his lack of judgement, and the weakness
of his opinion.
I hope you did not think I was claiming that music could not be fine art.
Didn't mean to imply that.
Gordon Moat
> Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<40B37BC3...@attglobal.net>...
>
> >
> > Of course, that was my original posting regarding print making. Obviously,
> > Scarpitti is not familiar with formal art education.
>
> I know enough to know photography is not 'art'.
You know barely enough to formulate an opinion, and a very weak one at that. I suppose your
grades in logic class were not that great.
Of course, you are entitled to your own opinion. If you had any real qualifications to put
behind that opinion, then maybe people would take you seriously . . . and working at a camera
store is not any qualification.
Tell you what, go find a museum or art history reference that backs your views. If you can do
that, your logic will stand, otherwise it is only a opinion (and a poor one at that).
Gordon Moat
> Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<40B37A9E...@attglobal.net>...
> > Tom Thackrey wrote:
> >
> > > On 24-May-2004, Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > So this brings up another issue. If I had prints made of my paintings,
> > > > would they still be fine art?
> > > > Would only the original painting be fine art? How does one define
> > > > reproductions as art?
> > >
> > > Much sculpture (particularly cast metal) is reproducible. I know there are
> > > multiple 'The Thinker' by Rodin around. I doubt if you could find many
> > > people who would argue that it isn't art.
> >
> > I would not, but my questions were directed at Michaelangelo Scarpitti, but
> > we shall see what his answer is next. I was trying to lead into a more
> > difficult realm for his strict definitions.
> >
> > Ciao!
> >
> > Gordon Moat
> > A G Studio
> > <http://www.allgstudio.com>
Woo Hoo , here we go again! I guess for you, open ass, and insert head is a normal procedure
for you . . . those chiropractor bills must be fierce . . . Anyway, on to the show:
>
>
> The distinction between 'art' and 'non-art' (e.g., photography) is
> that 'art' has no CAUSAL relation to any OTHER object, upon whose
> existence the image is dependent.
Okay, so you just tossed the realist and hyper realists painters and sculptures out of the
fine art world.
> In other words, 'art' is a sort of
> 'fiction', as its CONTENT need not have any relationship to existing
> reality. Photography does not meet this criterion: photographs are not
> 'fiction'. A photograph is always OF something else: an IMAGE of
> something: i.e., non-fiction.
It seems to me that you need to practice more. It is indeed possible to create photographic
images that are surrealist, or even abstract. Also, it is possible to create "photographs"
without even using a camera. Of course, that is what I mentioned about print making, and
photographic print making is considered fine art, as defined by museums and art historians.
> If I paint a scene before me, even if
> it's almost 'photograhically' real, that is still not CAUSALLY related
> to the scene before me. No light rays were captured and directed to
> the canvas. I moved the brush and paint under my absolute control, and
> nothing about that has any DIRECT connexion to the scene.
It is possible to do photographic prints without camera, enlarger, or even negatives. It is
also possible to generate negatives without cameras, and use those for printed photographs.
How could you not know about these things, and how can you generalize so much . . . is your
mind really that closed . . . or are you just bitter?
Gordon Moat
Even cats can paint . . . and all they have is paws!
Lewis Lang
>From: TP t...@nospam.net
>Date: Mon, May 24, 2004 1:27 PM
>Message-id: <2gb4b0l1o2687f4on...@4ax.com>
>
>"Martin Francis" <mcs...@com.btinternet> wrote:
>
>>Putting my site together at the moment, and so far i'm having a little
>>trouble categorising my work- specifically, terming anything i've done
>as
>>fine art.
>>
>>A quick Google suggests "Fine Art" photography is B&W nudes- or just B&W
>in
>>general. Anyone have a more useful definition?
>
>
>it *isn't*.
>
>It *isn't* work in one of the well-defined genres of photography such
>as travel, sports, photojournalism, nature, landscape, social,
>architectural, product, fashion, etc. ...
>
>"Fine Art" photography serves no particular purpose other than to
>provide an expression of beauty, or perhaps of ugliness.
>
>For example, rather than using composition to good effect to
>illustrate a newspaper article, or to portray a person, animal or
>plant, a fine art shot might use composition purely to convey to the
>viewer an impression of beauty ... of art. Any connection with one or
>more of the better-defined genres of photography is incidental to
>expressing beauty - or ugliness.
>
SNIP
I agree with Tony, but might I add the obvious that fine art is not restricted
to beauty or ugliness as an effect or an ideal - art, and fine art in
particular is more than just about formalistic aesthetics. There are ideas,
moods, etc. that can't be qualified by the mere terms or main aims such as
"beauty" or "ugliness" (though these may also occur as side
attributes/qualities and/or on equal level to other purposes such as
informational/conceptual, moral and/or "religious", commentaries about life,
society, etc.
This post is...
© 2004 Lewis Lang
All Rights (and non-aestheics) Reserved ;-)
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Remove "nospam" to reply
***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***
Lewis Lang
All Rights (and "non-aesthetics) Reserved ;-)
Nick Zentena
>
> It *isn't* work in one of the well-defined genres of photography such
> as travel, sports, photojournalism, nature, landscape, social,
> architectural, product, fashion, etc. ...
So almost all photography is out then? Including the works of everybody
from Adams,Strand,Weston etc?
>
> "Fine Art" photography serves no particular purpose other than to
> provide an expression of beauty, or perhaps of ugliness.
>
If you take the Mona Lisa and use it for a ad inviting people to come to
the gallery then it stops being fine art?
Nick
William D. Tallman
<snip>
> The distinction between 'art' and 'non-art' (e.g., photography) is
> that 'art' has no CAUSAL relation to any OTHER object, upon whose
> existence the image is dependent. In other words, 'art' is a sort of
> 'fiction', as its CONTENT need not have any relationship to existing
> reality. Photography does not meet this criterion: photographs are not
> 'fiction'. A photograph is always OF something else: an IMAGE of
> something: i.e., non-fiction. If I paint a scene before me, even if
> it's almost 'photograhically' real, that is still not CAUSALLY related
> to the scene before me. No light rays were captured and directed to
> the canvas. I moved the brush and paint under my absolute control, and
> nothing about that has any DIRECT connexion to the scene.
Michael, these definitions are at least a century old, and were cobbled up
to eliminate photography from consideration as art. If you don't realize
that, you should check it out.
Art is that which represents something of humanity. It is the result of
hand of man applied to some aspect of the world at large that communicates
something of human-ness, such as can be recognized by another human. The
success of art depends on the effectiveness of that communication.
I suggest that all the rest of this is superfluous, if not outright BS.
Bill Tallman
Lewis Lang
>Date: Mon, May 24, 2004 12:30 PM
>Message-id: <10b48ln...@corp.supernews.com>
>
>"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
>news:20040524101432...@mb-m02.aol.com...
>> >Subject: Re: OT- Fine Art photography?
>> >Date: Mon, May 24, 2004 9:38 AM
>> >Message-id: <10b3ujd...@corp.supernews.com>
>> >
>> >"Martin Francis" <mcs...@com.btinternet> wrote in message
>> >news:c8r87d$27m$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
>> >> trouble categorising my work- specifically, terming anything i've done
>> >as
>> >> fine art.
>> >>
>> >> A quick Google suggests "Fine Art" photography is B&W nudes- or just
>B&W
>> >in
>> >> general. Anyone have a more useful definition?
>> >>
>> >> Martin Francis
>> >> "Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
>> >> no, and yes...."
>> >>
>> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Fine%20Art
>> >
>> >Basically any photograph taken for artistic rather than documentary
>> >purposes.
>> >
>> >I would argue with Michael that made by hand would include photography
>as
>> >a
>> >human hand is usually what trips the shutter. If he doesn't want to be
>> >labeled as an artist that's fine. Myself, 95% of what I take is strictly
>> >documentary the other 5% might be art or it might be garbage, depends
>on
>> >my
>> >mood and the phase of the moon.
>> >
>> >Jim Kramer
>> >
>>
>> Some documentary photography (Atget comes to mind, so does the childhood
>> documentary work of Lartique of his family/etc. in the Belle Epoque
>era/early
>> 2oth century), whether intended as art or merely as record keeping is
>fine
>art
>> as well -- it depends on its aesthetic, intellectual and other qualities
>> inherent in the work, whether intended or not, not the mode it was shot
>in
>> (documentary, commercial, personal work, etc.) whether a piece or a group
>of
>> pictures/work should be considered fine art or not.
>>
>> Some of Rembrandt's best work, certainly a writier with light, if not
>with
>a
>> camera, was done as "commercial work" yet you see no museum shunning his
>work
>> because of it. He was a master and his work was fine art regardless of
>whether
>> it was a self-portrait done for himself or a commission of a group
>(Drapiers of
>> the Syndic's Guild/whatever its called) paid for by others.
>>
>> Fine art refers to the qualities of the work not the subject or mode!!!
>:-).
>>
>> Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
>>
>> http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
>>
>> Remove "nospam" to reply
>>
>> ***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO
>MY
>LIST,
>> PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***
>
>
OK, by all means :-).
>I'm more than willing to let the photographer/artist decide if he/she deems
>the work done as fine art or not. I see in museums much "art" passed as
>"fine art" and I don't care for the subject/model/mode; i.e. It may be fine
>art for someone, but I'm not willing to display it in my house.
>
I know, but that's your inclination/preference, fine art doesn't require the
approval of anyone/anything to be fine art, it has inherent qualities whether
it is displayed or not, liked or not, or even recognized as fine art or not.
>You would be really hard pressed to convince me that an image of a seared,
>charred and split open human corpse in the trunk of a mostly burned out
>four
>door sedan in the middle of a wooded lot is fine art.
See above -- convincing not required, its the work and/or the intention of its
maker (the artist) and sometimes the viewer that counts. I've gone to museum
exhibitions and found the actual paint on the wall moreartistic if not fine art
than the actual painting on the wall (or/instead, if memory serves, either a
plant and/or a chair and a fire alarm to be a better exhibit than what was
displayed. I think Frances Bacon? used feces in his work. David Lynch (yes the
movies director started off as a painter who wanted to animate his work, ironic
because he ) has used decaying meat on a canvas eaten by ants to make his
statements -- not deliscious and not to your liking (my guess) but fine art
nonetheless.
Likewise, the splatter
>pattern of blood, brains and wisps of hair stuck to the side of a tractor
>trailer after someone under rode the trailer is not fine art.
That depends on the work, the artist and the intention. Also, fine art can also
be found in life, not only as inspiration but as "natural ready mades" ie. the
stains on a wall (a la Davinci who saw clouds and battles in them) and colors
in an oil slick. Some find Christo's wrappings of natural things, yellow
umbrellas, hand built stone spiral jetties, etc. to be art and some don't but
this is a personal thing as to whether it is or should be regarded as art or
"Nart" ("not art").
The same skill
>and attention documenting a dragonfly perched on a cattail above a perfectly
>smooth pond backlit by a cherry red sunrise might be fine art; or it might
>just be a snapshot.
True. Or the scene itself may be more fine art than the photograph made of it,
even without the artist's or audiences appreciation or insight or interference.
Or is it all simply the hidden meanings and open context
>implicit in anything we would call "art" fine or otherwise?
>
Could be... :-).
>In reality "fine art" is a catch phrase; it's fine if you like it and art
>if
>you don't.
>
It can be, or it can be more than that and have inherent qualities of fine art
regardless of whether it fits preferences, definitions and/or catch phrases
too.
>Now what the hell do I do with this soap box? Anybody what to stand on
>it?
>I think one of the boards is loose; be careful.
>
>Jim Kramer
>
My boards are all hammered and nailed in place, but wait, I'm getting an idea
to put ants on fine art critics who've met untimely accidents's heads in it
(the soap box) and set it on fire ;-). I think I'll call it "Balking Heads by
David Burns" or "Burning Down The Art House". Now if I can only not find an
audience for it...
This post is...
© 2004 Lewis Lang
All Rights (and Raid ™) Reserved
Michael Scarpitti
I ask you: is a reproduction in 3-d of something made by a pantograph art? No. Why?
Michael Scarpitti
> On 25-May-2004, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
>
> > The distinction between 'art' and 'non-art' (e.g., photography) is
> > that 'art' has no CAUSAL relation to any OTHER object, upon whose
> > existence the image is dependent. In other words, 'art' is a sort of
> > 'fiction', as its CONTENT need not have any relationship to existing
> > reality. Photography does not meet this criterion: photographs are not
> > 'fiction'. A photograph is always OF something else: an IMAGE of
> > something: i.e., non-fiction. If I paint a scene before me, even if
> > it's almost 'photograhically' real, that is still not CAUSALLY related
> > to the scene before me. No light rays were captured and directed to
> > the canvas. I moved the brush and paint under my absolute control, and
> > nothing about that has any DIRECT connexion to the scene.
>
> Making up your own definitions again I see.
>
> Painting is dependent on paint.
> Sculpting is dependent on stone, wood, metal, etc.
> Drawing is dependent on chalk, ink, etc.
> Photography is dependent on light. The fact that it's reflected from the
> subject as opposed to being applied by a brush is irrelevant.
How so? Rge LENS forms the image, not my hand. It makes all the
difference in the world!
> The
> photographer chooses and often arranges the light adjusting its color,
> intensity and direction. In the darkroom, further manipulation of the light
> is possible.
>
> By your argument an image created solely in Photoshop could be fine art
> where an image captured in a camera could not.
That's absolutely correct.
Michael Scarpitti
Is the Sistine Chapel ceiling 'fine art'? It was not considered so at
the time, I believe.
Michael Scarpitti
How so? If it's made by copying something else (as a fossil is to a
bone) it's not art. A fossil is not art. If someone were to take a
piece of stone and make it into an exact replica of a fossil by some
process other than a mere physical impression (e.g., carving by hand),
that's art.
> > In other words, 'art' is a sort of
> > 'fiction', as its CONTENT need not have any relationship to existing
> > reality. Photography does not meet this criterion: photographs are not
> > 'fiction'. A photograph is always OF something else: an IMAGE of
> > something: i.e., non-fiction.
>
> It seems to me that you need to practice more. It is indeed possible to create photographic
> images that are surrealist, or even abstract.
That does not matter. they are still dependednt upon something else
for their content.
Also, it is possible to create "photographs"
> without even using a camera. Of course, that is what I mentioned about print making, and
> photographic print making is considered fine art, as defined by museums and art historians.
That would be the case if no lens is involved to form the image. If I
smear Vaseline on a piece of Polycontrast and develop it in the light,
and the developer does not reach every part of the surface equally, it
will form a 'pettern'. That could be art.
> > If I paint a scene before me, even if
> > it's almost 'photograhically' real, that is still not CAUSALLY related
> > to the scene before me. No light rays were captured and directed to
> > the canvas. I moved the brush and paint under my absolute control, and
> > nothing about that has any DIRECT connexion to the scene.
>
> It is possible to do photographic prints without camera, enlarger, or even negatives. It is
> also possible to generate negatives without cameras, and use those for printed photographs.
> How could you not know about these things, and how can you generalize so much . . . is your
> mind really that closed . . . or are you just bitter?
The lens is a mechanical device. It is the 'author' of the image. If a
mechanical device is the 'author', it is not 'art'. Just because
photography is not 'fine art' does not diminish its value.
Lewis Lang
>Despite that I have an art degree (with a very high GPA), I am not an
authority
>on defining what is art. Michaelangelo Scarpitti doesn't even have an art
>degree, so he has less validity in judging what is fine art, and what is
>not
>fine art; thus is judgement is purely opinion, and his choice of using a
>dictionary (and only one source) shows his lack of judgement, and the weakness
>of his opinion.
Hi Gordon:
A side note/argument?... Wouldn't authority come from the vastness of
familiarity/experience with, the insight and the validity of one's opinions
and/or judgement about art (or any field of study) _regardless_ of formal
education level?
Lewis Lang
>Date: Tue, May 25, 2004 10:15 PM
>Message-id: <40B3FDA5...@attglobal.net>
Meowwwww!!! Fluffy the artist! Well I guess if an ape can do finger painting
then... That definitely gives me "paws" for thought ;-)
Lewis Lang
>From: Gordon Moat mo...@attglobal.net
>Date: Tue, May 25, 2004 10:15 PM
>Message-id: <40B3FDA5...@attglobal.net>
>
Ever hear of the artist who got the runs? Every time he went to the toilet he
created several fertile masterpieces dungchyouknow... ;-).
Tom Thackrey
On 26-May-2004, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
> "Tom Thackrey" <use.si...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:<L4Ssc.56910$kQ2....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>...
> > On 25-May-2004, mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
> >
> > > The distinction between 'art' and 'non-art' (e.g., photography) is
> > > that 'art' has no CAUSAL relation to any OTHER object, upon whose
> > > existence the image is dependent. In other words, 'art' is a sort of
> > > 'fiction', as its CONTENT need not have any relationship to existing
> > > reality. Photography does not meet this criterion: photographs are not
> > > 'fiction'. A photograph is always OF something else: an IMAGE of
> > > something: i.e., non-fiction. If I paint a scene before me, even if
> > > it's almost 'photograhically' real, that is still not CAUSALLY related
> > > to the scene before me. No light rays were captured and directed to
> > > the canvas. I moved the brush and paint under my absolute control, and
> > > nothing about that has any DIRECT connexion to the scene.
> >
> > Making up your own definitions again I see.
> >
> > Painting is dependent on paint.
> > Sculpting is dependent on stone, wood, metal, etc.
> > Drawing is dependent on chalk, ink, etc.
> > Photography is dependent on light. The fact that it's reflected from the
> > subject as opposed to being applied by a brush is irrelevant.
>
> How so? Rge LENS forms the image, not my hand. It makes all the
> difference in the world!
So the brush, chisel, mold, or knife form the image in their respective
arts.
By your definition finger painting is the only fine-art.
Lewis Lang
>Date: Tue, May 25, 2004 11:08 PM
>Message-id: <7bedo1-...@barley.dyndns.org>
Only if her Pepsident smile doesn't falls out and she becomes "the gumless
'wonder... woman'" ;-)
William D. Tallman
<snip>
>> Art is that which represents something of humanity. It is the result of
>> hand of man applied to some aspect of the world at large that
>> communicates
>> something of human-ness, such as can be recognized by another human. The
>> success of art depends on the effectiveness of that communication.
>>
>> I suggest that all the rest of this is superfluous, if not outright BS.
>>
>> Bill Tallman
>
>
> I ask you: is a reproduction in 3-d of something made by a pantograph art?
> No. Why?
Do you disagree with my definition above? Unless you do, the fact is that
the medium and subject itself do not determine whether a work is, or is
not, Art.
There are commonly and successfully used media and subjects in these
regards, but they are by no means definitive. What is, or is not, art is a
matter of retrospective agreement of informed opinions. As I told Lewis,
art is a cultural term and is valid as a collective designation only.
People have tried to define what is and is not art for... well, probably
throughout recorded history: (No no, Ughhh, blowing colored clay on your
hand on the wall of the living room is graffiti, not art!!!).
None have succeeded without the eventual agreement of others, and unless you
find general agreement, neither will you. I don't define art, but I can
say what I do and do not consider art; that's my personal opinion. The
same goes for you, Michael.
Bill Tallman
Michael Scarpitti
Of course not. If you believe that there is no difference between a
hand-held tool and a device or machine (a camera) that produces an
image, I cannot help you. A brush, a knife, is a tool, a camera is far
more than a tool.
Alan Browne
>
>
> Of course not. If you believe that there is no difference between a
> hand-held tool and a device or machine (a camera) that produces an
> image, I cannot help you. A brush, a knife, is a tool, a camera is far
> more than a tool.
A camera is a tool, period. It may have lesser or greater degrees of
complexity, but it remains a tool.
--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
Tom Thackrey
So photos taken without benefit of a tripod are fine art because the camera
is hand-held.
You are still haven't provided a reference for the 'made by hand' part of
your definition of fine art. You also haven't explained how metal sculpture
falls into your definition.
I do have to give you credit though, you are pretty good at trolling. You've
achieved an expert level of dodging the specific questions and not quite
answering the rest. I should have learned by now to avoid these types of
discussions. It's a finer level of stupidity than Mac vs Windows or Digital
vs Film, but stupid nonetheless. At least it's more on topic than the recent
Nick Berg threads
I will now delete this thread and thereby reduce my stress level and live a
longer life. I think I will use the time saved to work on some photographs;
fine art, art or just snaps-- that will please my soul.
Gordon Moat
> BIG SNIP
>
> >Despite that I have an art degree (with a very high GPA), I am not an
> authority
> >on defining what is art. Michaelangelo Scarpitti doesn't even have an art
> >degree, so he has less validity in judging what is fine art, and what is
> >not
> >fine art; thus is judgement is purely opinion, and his choice of using a
> >dictionary (and only one source) shows his lack of judgement, and the weakness
> >of his opinion.
>
> Hi Gordon:
Guten abend Lewis,
>
>
> A side note/argument?... Wouldn't authority come from the vastness of
> familiarity/experience with, the insight and the validity of one's opinions
> and/or judgement about art (or any field of study) _regardless_ of formal
> education level?
Certainly a degree is not a requirement, but having an art degree, or even formal
art training, can be beneficial. Whether or not one has that, I think the validity
of one's opinions should be judged by the level to which one's peers have ascribed
to an individual. If someone was a noted scholar, speaker of a subject, or a noted
and revered expert, with or without an art degree, then one has attained that
level of validity.
As for myself, all I have done is accomplish an art degree (with 3.7 GPA), and
exhibited my works in galleries, public spaces, and juried exhibits. I don't think
any of those things qualify me to make a definitive statement on what is (or is
not) fine art.
While I definitely have opinions about this issue, they are only my opinions,
despite any claim I might make to knowledge. So I questions the opinions of others
when they do not put those thoughts forward as opinion, but rather as authority. I
don't try to claim I am an authority, and I try to use several sources to back up
whatever I state. I do state when I am voicing an opinion, that it is an opinion,
and I think others should do the same.
I have read about your exploits at Brooks, though the reality is that you have
acquired that knowledge. While I still think if you put forward a definition of
"fine art", it would be better than what Scarpitti has attempted, though I would
see it as your opinion. I do respect your opinion, and I often see you backing up
your statements with other sources. I would expect no less from any other
gentleman.
Gordon Moat
You should find a copy of a book titled "Vermeer's Camera". In that is a discussion about the techniques that Vermeer
used for many of his paintings. In fact, his style was to capture reality, and so he used a camera obscura, and a
camera lucida. These were somewhat common devices for artists to use. This was also prior to the invention of
photography, yet these early devices also became the basis for photographic cameras.
What I wanted to point out here is that a camera was an artist's tool prior to the introduction of film, or
photographic plates. While that may have invalidated the artists efforts of those times, their works were later
considered "fine art".
I apologize if I am seeming a bit harsh sometimes in my statements towards you. I think this discussion is showing how
difficult it is to have "strict" and "finite" definitions. While some may still think there are finite definitions, I
don't think we are anywhere close . . . . not yet . . . so let the discussions continue.
Gordon Moat
> . . . . . . . . .
> > > The distinction between 'art' and 'non-art' (e.g., photography) is
> > > that 'art' has no CAUSAL relation to any OTHER object, upon whose
> > > existence the image is dependent.
> >
> > Okay, so you just tossed the realist and hyper realists painters and sculptures out of the
> > fine art world.
>
> How so? If it's made by copying something else (as a fossil is to a
> bone) it's not art. A fossil is not art. If someone were to take a
> piece of stone and make it into an exact replica of a fossil by some
> process other than a mere physical impression (e.g., carving by hand),
> that's art.
So the paintings done by Georgia O'Keefe are not art? I guess since cattle skulls and flowers
exist in the real world, painting those things is something that you find not to be art?
>
>
> > > In other words, 'art' is a sort of
> > > 'fiction', as its CONTENT need not have any relationship to existing
> > > reality. Photography does not meet this criterion: photographs are not
> > > 'fiction'. A photograph is always OF something else: an IMAGE of
> > > something: i.e., non-fiction.
> > . . . . . . . . . . .
> Also, it is possible to create "photographs"
> > without even using a camera. Of course, that is what I mentioned about print making, and
> > photographic print making is considered fine art, as defined by museums and art historians.
>
> That would be the case if no lens is involved to form the image. If I
> smear Vaseline on a piece of Polycontrast and develop it in the light,
> and the developer does not reach every part of the surface equally, it
> will form a 'pettern'. That could be art.
Okay, now we are getting somewhere. This is what I was trying to state earlier about printmaking
being art. Of course, we could get more detailed, and only include some types of printmaking.
>
>
> > > If I paint a scene before me, even if
> > > it's almost 'photograhically' real, that is still not CAUSALLY related
> > > to the scene before me. No light rays were captured and directed to
> > > the canvas. I moved the brush and paint under my absolute control, and
> > > nothing about that has any DIRECT connexion to the scene.
> >
> > It is possible to do photographic prints without camera, enlarger, or even negatives. It is
> > also possible to generate negatives without cameras, and use those for printed photographs.
> > How could you not know about these things, and how can you generalize so much . . . is your
> > mind really that closed . . . or are you just bitter?
>
> The lens is a mechanical device. It is the 'author' of the image. If a
> mechanical device is the 'author', it is not 'art'. Just because
> photography is not 'fine art' does not diminish its value.
I guess that goes back to sculpture then, since tools are required. Is it the need for specific
tools that you feel invalidates the process? Are you familiar with Jeff Coons?
Gordon Moat
Oh . . . that's just wrong . . . bad mental image. I remember several years ago a
feature in a (so called) art magazine, of a painter that gave himself coloured
enemas, then sprayed the results on canvas. Of course, as almost anyone can find
a weird enough gallery or museum somewhere, his stuff was displayed, and got an
entire review and write-up . . . sad, but true.
I guess another controversial figure would be Bill Viola. My personal feeling is
that what he does is not art, and in many cases not even original. However, he
has received tons of money for what he does, has displayed in many museums, and
continues to receive favourable reviews . . . oh well.
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <40B543E3...@attglobal.net>
Fair enough, Gordon :-). You should note, however, that my art "education" was
acquired not from Brooks but in Brooks. In other words, they taught me nothing
about art (it was basically atechnical school to turn out the world's best
super assistants ;-)), so I had to teach myself by checking out virtually every
book I could find about artists and art movements that interested me. I can't
define what is or is not art I can only define myself and my own art.
Besides/in addition to that I could only tell you why I think something was
good or bad art or hint at why something doesn't make it for me as art. I guess
I am an authority when it comes to my own opinions about other's art work and I
am, quite sadly, the world's best authority on the art of Lewis Lang but that
doesn't seem to be a paying position/proposition ;-). I definitely have my own
prejuidices for and against but they are more for the artists and the artwork
and less for individual mediums themselves. Its not the medium that's the art
or Nart ("not art"), its the artist that make's it so. My main gripe is against
cliche'd use of the medium when it becomes fossilized into a mode and becomes
"cheap visual anaesthetic for the soul"/emotions. I hate most landscape
photography. I would like to say it lacks vision and bores me to death, but
death bores me less as a subject/mystery/overtones. I can't stand the formalism
of most well lit black and white nudes, edge lit, soft curve against straight
line, tonality that stretches on and on, its almost like a nudie version of
Ansel Adams and the zone system (count me "zoned out" on that genre too).
Though I do recognize that there are not only masters of the genre with
exquisite lighitng, composing, and formalistic mastery and that beyond that
there might be photographers who actually transcend the nauseating boring
cliche'd sameness of a genre and go beyond to explore psychology/relationships
underneath all that "skintography" (the woman photographer who made the book
"Closer" comes to mind, I forget her name at the moment). I also like Lewis
Lang's work which seems to transcend dream-state surrelaism into his own
"toorealism" mix, as well as his PJ and portraiture work, but I can never seem
to afford his work ;-).
Lewis Lang
>Date: Wed, May 26, 2004 2:55 PM
>Message-id: <10b9q17...@corp.supernews.com>
>
>Michael Scarpitti wrote:
>
><snip>
>>> Art is that which represents something of humanity. It is the result
>of
>>> hand of man applied to some aspect of the world at large that
>>> communicates
>>> something of human-ness, such as can be recognized by another human.
> The
>>> success of art depends on the effectiveness of that communication.
>>>
>>> I suggest that all the rest of this is superfluous, if not outright BS.
>>>
>>> Bill Tallman
>>
>>
>> I ask you: is a reproduction in 3-d of something made by a pantograph
>art?
>> No. Why?
>
>Do you disagree with my definition above? Unless you do, the fact is that
>the medium and subject itself do not determine whether a work is, or is
>not, Art.
>
Here I perfectly agree with you.
>There are commonly and successfully used media and subjects in these
>regards, but they are by no means definitive. What is, or is not, art is
>a
>matter of retrospective agreement of informed opinions. As I told Lewis,
>art is a cultural term and is valid as a collective designation only.
Don't agree here. Art can be more than a cultural term, it can be individual
self-expression regardless of what the collective (are we back to Star Trek and
the Borg now?) says.
>People have tried to define what is and is not art for... well, probably
>throughout recorded history: (No no, Ughhh, blowing colored clay on your
>hand on the wall of the living room is graffiti, not art!!!).
>
Colored clay or spray can, some graffiti is art and some is not, regardless of
whether a society or culture agrees about this or not. Keith Haring would have
been a graffiti artist whether society ever knew about or acknowledged his
artistry or not.
>None have succeeded without the eventual agreement of others,
Succeeded? WHat's kind of success? (Success as an artist? as a business person?
as both? as something different?). How do you define success?
and unless
>you
>find general agreement, neither will you.
I think General agreement was electrocuted by general Electric ;-).
I don't define art, but I can
>say what I do and do not consider art; that's my personal opinion.
Here we agree again/I feel/believe the same way :-).
The
>same goes for you, Michael.
>
>Bill Tallman
>
>
>
>
>
>
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <40B54A1F...@attglobal.net>
My first question is who is Bill Viola? And my second question is do I even
want to know (in other words am I going to hear stories about different colored
ex-lax used to make art ;-)).
"And in the end, the art you make... is equal to the Ex-lax... you take" ;-) -
The Laxtles
Skip M
Well said, Gordon!
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Skip M
>
> I apologize if I am seeming a bit harsh sometimes in my statements towards
you. I think this discussion is showing how
> difficult it is to have "strict" and "finite" definitions. While some may
still think there are finite definitions, I
> don't think we are anywhere close . . . . not yet . . . so let the
discussions continue.
>
> Ciao!
>
> Gordon Moat
> A G Studio
> <http://www.allgstudio.com>
>
>
I've noticed, and this isn't a shot at Michael, that whenever anyone tries
to pin a definitive label on art, they begin almost immediately to try to
dig themselves out of a hole they didn't realize they had dug!
Skip M
>
> Oh . . . that's just wrong . . . bad mental image. I remember several
years ago a
> feature in a (so called) art magazine, of a painter that gave himself
coloured
> enemas, then sprayed the results on canvas. Of course, as almost anyone
can find
> a weird enough gallery or museum somewhere, his stuff was displayed, and
got an
> entire review and write-up . . . sad, but true.
>
> I guess another controversial figure would be Bill Viola. My personal
feeling is
> that what he does is not art, and in many cases not even original.
However, he
> has received tons of money for what he does, has displayed in many
museums, and
> continues to receive favourable reviews . . . oh well.
>
> Ciao!
>
> Gordon Moat
> A G Studio
> <http://www.allgstudio.com>
>
The art critics and the rest of the au courant are afraid that they've
missed something, so they are afraid to criticize something they don't
understand. So they applaud it.
Dallas
> "Dallas" <dal...@imageunlimitedwings.co.za> wrote:
>>
>>I'm trying to figure out who is the most immature. Scarpitti or Polson?
>
>
> You're too dumb to figure anything.
>
> Quit while you're behind.
>
> ;-)
See what I mean?
I think it's a dead heat.
--
I am a product of The Summer Of Love, 1967.
Lose the wings - then fly to me!