Photography Is Not Art, Chapter XXXVII
David Nebenzahl
contrarian hypothesis. This one comes from a a cow orker of mine. I noticed
they had a St. Adams poster on the wall by their desk, so I mentioned it by
way of idle chit-chat.
Turns out they *totally agree with me* that photography is not art, but
craft.[1] And this person is not just a lay bystander like me: they used to
own an art gallery. A bona fide successful one in a large metropolitan area,
not a little hole-in-the-wall in SOMA (San Francisco).
In fact, they were so vehement about it that I found myself reflexively almost
wanting to argue against them in devils-advocate mode.
The evidence is mounting. The score is now 2 to 1,567,892.
Now for all of you who are feverishly planning your stinging rebuttals to
this: don't bother. Let's take the worst case: I'm right. Even if that's so,
it shouldn't affect what you do one little bit. You can still take pictures,
make prints, do film tests, whatever else lights your fire. You can still
produce quality work. And you can even still delude yourself that what you do
is "art", and it won't take much to convice your viewers or customers of that.
Even if photography isn't art, it's still something very much worth doing. As
someone else said, it's sui generis. Why not just let it be and get on with it?
[1] This term has become unfairly denigrated these days; recently, the
venerable California College of Arts and Crafts in Oakland (CCAC) dropped the
offending word and is now simply just known as "CCA". Too bad. I guess too
many people associate "arts and crafts" with summer-camp experiences ages ago
making things out of popsicle sticks and tying lanyards. Those Arts & Crafts
movement founders must be rolling over in their graves.
--
Bumper sticker of the week (spotted in Bezerkeley):
Visualize Using Your Turn Signals
- especially fitting for Northern California
pgg
in those Guides to 35mm photography books. But after flipping through an
issue of LensWork today, there is definitely some photography that is art.
Besides, art is subjective. I take a look at some "abstract" paintings
and I see nothing. Nothing at all.
Frank Pittel
David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
: So, if anyone cares, another bit of anecdotal evidence in support of my
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
Gordon Moat
> So, if anyone cares, another bit of anecdotal evidence in support of my
> contrarian hypothesis. This one comes from a a cow orker of mine. I noticed
> they had a St. Adams poster on the wall by their desk, so I mentioned it by
> way of idle chit-chat.
>
> Turns out they *totally agree with me* that photography is not art, but
> craft.[1] And this person is not just a lay bystander like me: they used to
> own an art gallery. A bona fide successful one in a large metropolitan area,
> not a little hole-in-the-wall in SOMA (San Francisco).. . . . . . . .
Okay, so I submit that painting and sculpture are not "art". Evidence number one
is the work of Thomas Kinkaid. Evidence item number two is anything by Jeff
Koonz. ;-) Since I like almost nothing from either of them, that should make it
easy to claim that their works are craft. My argument is also supported by the
fact that most of both of their works are not even worked on by them. "Art" is
indeed a funny world, always full of people trying to describe it, or define it.
:-D
Seriously though, there is a reason people get degrees in Art History. These are
the people who write the books, make the decisions, and define what is (or more
properly what was) art. One of the main college textbooks on art has been
Gardiner's Art through the Ages; funny enough that some examples of photography
are listed as . . . . . art . . . . . go figure . . . . . .
Anyway, since I have a degree in "art", I can only go by what I learned from
textbooks, professors, and the major museums of the world. The value of this is
there are people who know much more about this than you or I; we could call them
experts, authorities, or even snobs, but I think I will learn from their words and
examples, over accepting your view . . . . . nothing personal, since you are
entitled to your opinion.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
LR Kalajainen
some other photographers' works as art. I "do photography" or "practice
the craft of photography." Whether or not I'm also doing art is not for
me to judge. "Art" is not something a painter or sculptor or
photographer does. Art is a judgment made about a work by those who
look at it, and not even by any individual. It is a collective judgment
made over time by the conglomerate of viewers. A work is RECOGNIZED as
art when enough people over enough time think it's worth looking at. It
is the work itself that compels such recognition. The maker of the work
is judged an artist to the extent he/she produces a work that compels
that recognition.
johnboy
"David Nebenzahl" <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
news:1118628764.c67c6b37a2d5f4cb81d04ce3ba6e8988@teranews...
> So, if anyone cares, another bit of anecdotal evidence in support of my
> contrarian hypothesis.
Nobody with a mind cares!
Get a life!
johnboy
news:8KudnZz2i8u...@giganews.com...
> What's the purpose of this troll??
David Nebenzahl wants to be our killfile. Let's do that.
Cheesehead
Even oil painting used to require chemistry skills to mix one's own
pigments.
And sculpting might require tool-making.
But the product -- an item of visual or aural appeal rather than
functional use,
is what separates them. They're luxury. They communicate.
The elegance of a finely-built machine may imply an abstract, artistic
skill,
but it's a functioning machine rather than an item of visual or aural
appeal.
My 2 cents,
Collin
David Nebenzahl
So you're saying that all who replied (yourself excepted, of course) have no
brains? Sounds like a group insult to me.
Robert Feinman
nob...@but.us.chickens says...
> So, if anyone cares, another bit of anecdotal evidence in support of my
> contrarian hypothesis. This one comes from a a cow orker of mine. I noticed
> they had a St. Adams poster on the wall by their desk, so I mentioned it by
> way of idle chit-chat.
>
Art is what art dealers and their community decide they can make money
from by calling it "Art".
Or, if you want to be less mercenary, if the creator thinks it is art
then it is.
Why are religious fetishes from antiquity now shown in art museums when
their creators had no such concept?
--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail: robert....@gmail.com
Jean-David Beyer
> This one comes from a a cow orker of mine.
I never orked a cow. I admit I have not kept up with the latest perversions,
but is this something new? Did you fire this cow orker, or is this a skill
we all should learn?
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 10:20:00 up 15 days, 16:56, 3 users, load average: 4.22, 4.36, 4.35
Frank Pittel
: On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 21:36:45 -0500, Frank Pittel
: <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
: >What's the purpose of this troll??
: Frank, you have this annoying habit of labeling
: as a "troll" anything you don't happen to want
: to talk about at the moment. Who appointed
: you net cop?
I call a troll a troll. I actually enjoy a good flame war and if this
latest "photography isn't art" troll turns into a flame war I may even
join in. :-)
LR Kalajainen
I'm not sure what craft elements are involved in 30 minutes of gnawing
on sheetrock, although Robert's comments on marketing saavy are probably
appropriate here.).
And I agree that the purpose of the creator is certainly a factor,
though not, perhaps the deciding factor, e.g. the religious fetishes
later displayed as "art" in museums. I still think my point about some
widespread, though not necessarily universal, recognition of a work that
endures over time is still one of the key criteria of whether or not
something is art.
I'm reminded of the story of the man with little appreciation or
knowledge of art who after strolling hurriedly through galleries
displaying Rembrandts, Van Gogh's, Matisse's, etc., remarked to one of
the museum guards, "Will, I don't think much of your old paintings."
The guard replied, "Sir, these paintings are no longer on trial. But
those who look at them are."
johnboy
"LR Kalajainen" <lrkala...@suscom-maine.net> wrote in message
news:3OOdnWv9kMn...@suscom-maine.net...
>[...] I still think my point about some widespread, though not necessarily
>key criteria of whether or not something is art.
Of course that is true; the point has been made here and elsewhere before,
and interestingly without rebuttal. End of thread, okay?
Gregory Blank
Jean-David Beyer <jdb...@exit109.com> wrote:
> David Nebenzahl wrote (in part):
> > This one comes from a a cow orker of mine.
>
> I never orked a cow. I admit I have not kept up with the latest perversions,
> but is this something new? Did you fire this cow orker, or is this a skill
> we all should learn?
Na nue na nue.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Gregory Blank
"johnboy" <oka...@nospam.no> wrote:
It been done before, so there's no art to it. As in a pop culture
advertisement-"JUST DO IT" !
at @the-wire.dotcom Lloyd Erlick
Feinman <robert....@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>Why are religious fetishes from antiquity now shown in art museums when
>their creators had no such concept?
...
jun1305 from Lloyd Erlick,
Well, McLuhan remarked that yesterday's
technology was tomorrow's art. He used the
example of ancient Greek urns, today prized
as art, and then used to hold oil or wine. I
don't know if the term technology should
apply to religious fetishes, or anyway to
fetish objects, but I think it's a parallel
to McLuhan's point.
We routinely use terms and concepts that are
undefinable. Truth, beauty, et cetera. The
interesting thing is humans can make art even
though they don't know what it is.
regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email: port...@heylloyd.com
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________
--
johnboy
> Well, McLuhan remarked that yesterday's
> technology was tomorrow's art. He used the
> example of ancient Greek urns, today prized
> as art, and then used to hold oil or wine.
> [...]
Good point. The Ancient Greek's entire esthetic movement was about the
practice and perfection of technique; nothing new was made in that regard.
Make of it what one might, but we have enough of perfect photography now.
Let's get over it.
Bandicoot
news:1118628764.c67c6b37a2d5f4cb81d04ce3ba6e8988@teranews...
> support of my contrarian hypothesis. This one comes
> from a a cow orker of mine. I noticed they had a St.
> Adams poster on the wall by their desk, so I mentioned it > by way of idle
chit-chat.
>
> Turns out they *totally agree with me* that photography
> is not art, but craft
Just idly wondering what painting is then. Both have a visualisation and a
realisation component, and both have a range of freedom in how the
visualisation is interpreted.
The visualisation component is the same.
The realisation component - which could be described as the pure craft
element - is a larger part of the process in painting, and is the more
difficult part to master, arguably the reverse of photography.
There is more freedom in interpreting the visualisation with painting (the
photographer has only the 'scene' and the light that is on it or can be
applied to it - the painter can paint what "isn't there').
Now, I think painting is an art - but the trouble with this analysis is that
all the arguments that are ever used to make photography a craft (and I laud
craft, incidentally) can only make painting one too, only more so.
Personally I think the division is baloney. 'Art' is having a conception of
something _and_ then having the skill to produce some 'work' that shares
that visualisation with someone else. That applies whether you are talking
about sculpture, music, dance, poetry, or painting. All art requires this
pairing, else it is either an idea that the 'artist' can never share (so it
doesn't exist as art at all) or it is skilled but meaningless
sound/words/movement/daubs/whatever. In that sense, no 'artist' (a person
capable of visualising a piece of art) can actually produce that art-work
unless they are also skilled in whichever craft they use to produce the
tangible manifestation of their vision.
So there is no art without craft. Moreover, craft is at best only
utilitarian (the potter can make a flowerpot or a piece of art, the painter
can paint a wall or a picture, the photographer can take a record shot or
make a, yes, artwork) if it has no artistic vision behind it.
This seems to be not polemic or abstract philosophy, but just something
that's rather obvious. The old division between (fine)art and craft is
meaningless, because no piece of art is ever produced other than via
application of craft. Hence the argument that a certain 'process' for
realising something is itself a craft process and so the end object can only
ever be a 'work of craft' is ridiculous. All works of art are also works of
craft, and all mechanisms for realising an artistic vision are craft
processes - the process, and arid debates about whether it is a craft or
not, cannot then be the determinant of whether the end result is a work of
art or not. That is _only_ down to how it affects its audience.
Peter
Stacey
>
> So you're saying that all who replied (yourself excepted, of course) have
> no brains? Sounds like a group insult to me.
>
>
What, sad to see Steve is gone so you threw out this line?
--
Stacey
Stacey
Photography -IS- a craft (and that isn't anything to be ashamed of being
skilled in) but an artist can use this medium to create art. Just as all
pottery or sculpture isn't art, neither is all photography art. To say none
is seems way off base to me. I wouldn't call anything I've done art and
again I'm not ashamed to be good at the craft of photography but I've seen
some work that IMHO truely is art, at least in my eyes.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?include=all&user_id=543917
Mike Henley wrote:
>
> But I think it's entirely true that most texts on photography, and
> discussions by photographers, are very, very poor on "art", and by
> "art" I do *not* mean "artzy", far from it; too many people, especially
> amongst photographers, seem to have the naive misconception that "art"
> is something you do whimsically, with a twist of the waist and a mess
> in the mind, but that bastardization is far from the truth. In fact,
> "art" has been formalised since antiquity and refined over the
> millenia, and it could easily take a lifetime to get familiar with; it
> is literally a discipline, in that it requires immense discipline.
>
> I think in photography it would be useful to distinguis between the
> "craft", and the "art". The "craft" is all issues of equipment and
> "technique", particular to photography, but photography really has *no*
> "art" that should set it apart from drawing, painting, sculpture,
> architecture, cinematography or any visual medium; "art" is just "art",
> and to be illiterate in it, and too many are, won't be changed by a
> practice of the "craft" of photography, however long or frequent,
> regardless of how many cameras you own or years you've used them for.
>
> Those who come from a background of "fine arts" though, the formally
> trained ones at least, and their texts, seem rich on the "education" of
> art. The best photographers I have seen are those who come from a
> background of painting, drawing, sculpture, architechture or so on, not
> . Their "art" may not be obvious to all. And here it is useful to
> distinguish between "art" and "taste"; like I said before, "art" is a
> language that has its conventions and formalities, and though you may
> "break the rules", it's usually evident when an "artist" "breaks the
> rules" that they are quite familiar with them, rather than when someone
> who is clueless about them does it, which, unfortunately in common
> misconception, they usually have no rules to start with yet they want
> to "break the rules"! "Taste" on the other hand, is whether you like a
> thing or not, and too often people mistake it for "art". A piece of
> "art", if you've trained yourself or had been formally trained, can be
> admired regardless of taste, and in fact, that should be the case. The
> more you learn about "art", the more your tastes develop, and become
> aligned to what "art" actually is, hence an "artistic taste"; a little
> akin to wine, but not to confuse here, the more you learn about it, the
> more you appreciate a "fine wine" and its subtleties.
>
> I could've perhaps written more about this but I've just become
> distracted and my train of thought interrupted, and I have to go.
>
> Regards.
>
--
Stacey
Gordon Moat
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . All art requires this
> pairing, else it is either an idea that the 'artist' can never share (so it
> doesn't exist as art at all) or it is skilled but meaningless
> sound/words/movement/daubs/whatever. In that sense, no 'artist' (a person
> capable of visualising a piece of art) can actually produce that art-work
> unless they are also skilled in whichever craft they use to produce the
> tangible manifestation of their vision.
So how would you see Jeff Koons fitting into this statement? Personally, I
don't think what Koons does is art, though it could also be argued that he
really doesn't do much of anything . . . . . . maybe visualization.
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
> Peter
Bandicoot
news:42AE762B...@attglobal.net...
> Bandicoot wrote:
>
> > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . All art requires this
> > pairing, else it is either an idea that the 'artist' can never
> > share (so it doesn't exist as art at all) or it is skilled but
> > meaningless sound/words/movement/daubs/whatever.
> > In that sense, no 'artist' (a person capable of visualising
> > a piece of art) can actually produce that art-work
> > unless they are also skilled in whichever craft they use
> > to produce the tangible manifestation of their vision.
>
> So how would you see Jeff Koons fitting into this
> statement? Personally, I don't think what Koons does is
> art, though it could also be argued that he really doesn't
> do much of anything . . . . . . maybe visualization.
>
> >
He visualises things that are intended to provoke a reaction - he has an
artistic vision, even though not all of those ideas are as interesting as
others (I was actually tempted to buy one of his pieces once, even though I
find many of them banal). The craft element in his particular process of
realisation is very small, but it is still there. That is, I still see his
art as being the product of the essential pairing of visualisation and
realisation. In other words, if a given Koons piece is not art, that's
because his vision was lacking, not because of something to do with the
process he used to realise it.
Sometimes the craft is not carried out wholly by the originating artist, but
under their direction. This is as true of the Old Master studio system as
it is of a photographer using an assistant or a film maker using a cameraman
and editor (though in the last case I note how much of Matt Collishaw's work
is really his editor's vision.) This applies to Koons too - even if
sometimes his craft is solely in giving instruction to a 'production line' -
he has still had a vision, and found a way to realise it (whatever one
thinks of how interesting or not his vision is).
Now, I happened to like the 'pile of bricks' and the 'tyre submarine'
(neither by Koons) - both used easy skills to make them, and the art was
wholly in the 'idea'. To an extent all art is 'conceptual art' - it's just
that some also needs a lot of craft skills to realise... and some doesn't.
That doesn't diminish the value of the idea - either the idea was
interesting or it wasn't: that's a separate judgement from whether one
admires the artist's craft skills as well as their vision.
There is a spectrum from Anish Kapoor and Andy Goldsworthy (and beyond) at
the 'vision heavy' end through Pollock and Rothko, Calder, and on to, say,
Peploe or Rembrandt at the 'craft heavy' end. We may admire or be moved by
the 'art' produced by anyone at any point on this continuum, regardless of
whether we are also impressed by the craft skills they have applied to
realise it.
Peter
Bandicoot
news:3h746dF...@individual.net...
> Reposting from another forum, I think this sums it up
> quite nicely.
>
> Photography -IS- a craft (and that isn't anything to be
> ashamed of being skilled in) but an artist can use this
> medium to create art. Just as all pottery or sculpture isn't
> art, neither is all photography art. To say none is seems
> way off base to me. I wouldn't call anything I've done art
> and again I'm not ashamed to be good at the craft of
> photography but I've seen some work that IMHO truely
> is art, at least in my eyes.
>
I think that says much more succinctly what I was arguing, about all the
production processes in any art being a craft, and that craft can produce
art or it can produce something else that is valid in its own right, but may
not be art.
Maybe I should've been less wordy.... ;-)
Peter
Gordon Moat
Direction of artistic work is a very grey area. Undoubtedly there is some
creativity expressed, whether it is a film director or cinematographer
orchestrating a film production, or an art director developing a visual concept
by guiding others to a creative conclusion. I guess I have trouble calling such
people "artists", though it seems that nearly every creative person uses that
description at some point. Even musicians often call themselves "artists", or
speak of the world of "art". At some point I think there is a personal line
that gets drawn where they think limits exist; for some that might be business
names like "Art of Hair", or "Art Director", some for musicians calling
themselves "artists", and others for anyone not seen as traditional artists.
> ... either the idea was
> interesting or it wasn't: that's a separate judgement from whether one
> admires the artist's craft skills as well as their vision.
To me that seems mostly like stating that someone was "clever". When Jeff Koons
came up with the idea for "Puppy", I did think it was clever, though I hesitate
to call it "art" or call Koons an "artist" because of how it was done.
Expression of a creative vision is one thing, but the manner in which a
creative vision is shared should be an issue.
Going back to the original posting. Since I am trained as a painter, and have
done many oil paintings, I could argue that photography expressed the creative
vision that I would show in my paintings. If only the concept was considered,
then the decision to push the shutter button created "art". If I went further
to paint that image, some people would value that more highly as "art", though
one reality is that it might be just as much "art" to remain solely as a
photographic image.
>
>
> There is a spectrum from Anish Kapoor and Andy Goldsworthy (and beyond) at
> the 'vision heavy' end through Pollock and Rothko, Calder, and on to, say,
> Peploe or Rembrandt at the 'craft heavy' end. We may admire or be moved by
> the 'art' produced by anyone at any point on this continuum, regardless of
> whether we are also impressed by the craft skills they have applied to
> realise it.
>
> Peter
Sure, some are more impressed by the craft, than the creativity. Some people
seem disappointed when an oil painting does not look exactly like reality,
complete with extensive details. The short era of "hyper realists" would
satisfy many of those types of people, yet others would not like using the term
"art" to express any painting or sculpture created by the hyper realists.
In the end we will always be left with people trying to define and explain
"art". The question of "what is art?" comes up often, and never really has an
answer . . . . . . many opinions, yes . . . . . but never an answer.
I would just like to mention that I think you worded your last two postings
quite well. Your points are quite good, and I can agree slightly with a few
things. I am sure this topic will be visited again many times in the future.