Who determines what is ART? was: Is color landscape photography art?
John Wasak
David Fokos, bea...@netcom.com writes:
>>I don't think that whether something is or is not art has anything to do with the viewer. Two people can look at the same thing and one person may think it's art and the other person think it's not. .....<<
...........
It seems to me that in making this statement David seems to believe that
there is some sort of arbiter telling us just exactly what is and what
is not "ART".
In a follow up post, Dirk J Bakker asks "Who determines what is ART?"
and then supplies the following statement, "An art "object" becomes art
when it _connects_. Art is in our souls or NOT!"
I happen to agree with Mr. Bakker wholeheartedly. I can still remember
the impact Edward Weston's bell peppers had on me when I was first
learning about photography. I don't believe it had anything to do with
Weston's wanting to convey some message to me ( as David Fokos would
suggest in his post) but rather that Weston saw, and connected, to an
object in a particular way, photographed and printed it with a high
degree of craft, and put it out for all the rest of us to see. When I
first saw it, my connection to that photograph was strong and immediate.
To my mind, this was great art. I've known people who have seen those
photographs and never made that connection, who've never thought of it
as art, even some who don't think it's a particularly good photograph
(silly people!).
An object becomes art only when it informs our emotions in some way. By
extension a photograph can be viewed as art, (Color or Black & White
notwithstanding), when it makes us see something in a way that maybe we
never had before.
Beakman
John Wasak (mr...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: David Fokos, bea...@netcom.com writes:
:
: >>I don't think that whether something is or is not art has anything to do with the viewer. Two people can look at the same thing and one person may think it's art and the other person think it's not. .....<<
: ...........
: It seems to me that in making this statement David seems to believe that
: there is some sort of arbiter telling us just exactly what is and what
: is not "ART".
: In a follow up post, Dirk J Bakker asks "Who determines what is ART?"
: and then supplies the following statement, "An art "object" becomes art
: when it _connects_. Art is in our souls or NOT!"
: I happen to agree with Mr. Bakker wholeheartedly. I can still remember
: the impact Edward Weston's bell peppers had on me when I was first
: learning about photography. I don't believe it had anything to do with
: Weston's wanting to convey some message to me ( as David Fokos would
: suggest in his post) but rather that Weston saw, and connected, to an
: object in a particular way, photographed and printed it with a high
: degree of craft, and put it out for all the rest of us to see.
Yes, exactly. But WHY did Edward Weston do this? What was his intention?
He didn't photograph the pepper just so that he could keep a catalog of
his vegetables. He did so because there was some beauty that he saw in
the pepper and that he wanted to convey this to others by committing it to
film. THAT is his message to you -- and it seems as though it was
successful too.
: When I
: first saw it, my connection to that photograph was strong and immediate.
: To my mind, this was great art. I've known people who have seen those
: photographs and never made that connection, who've never thought of it
: as art, even some who don't think it's a particularly good photograph
And still, I assume you would agree, that Weston's photograph doesn't
cease to be art just because there are people who do not think that
it is art. So by your point of view, how many people need to connect
with a piece before we are "allowed" to call it art?
My point is that art is the creative output of an artist, and being an
artist has nothing to do with whether or not your creative output connects
with people, it's about seeing things in a unique way, feeling things
differently, or considering ideas and concepts and then TRYING to convey,
your thoughts or feelings to others through your work. That's what being
an artist is about. Notice that this has nothing to do with whether or
not it succeeds -- i.e. whether or not the viewer thinks it's art, or
whether or not it actually manages to connect with anybody.
By way of analogy, suppose a company made life preservers. When they
began designing their life preservers they set out to make the very
best, but to keep costs down they hired a bunch of kids just out of
school to do the job. Lacking experience, but with the enthusiam of
youth the kids set about their task.
What makes a good life preserver they wondered. To find out they put
together a focus group, but alas due to inexperience, the study group
consisted soley of interior decorators from Kansas. The results were that
the key design element for their life preservers should be a nice
pin-stripe wool fabric and a soft, comfy inside.
So, in their naievete off they went and produced the most fashionable life
preservers around. Unfortunately, no one thought to actually test them in
the water before they began selling them. It turned out that their life
preservers got waterlogged and sank after 15 minutes in the water.
Well, of course, customers said that they weren't really life preservers
at all were they? But the fact was that they really WERE life preservers,
however due to some business mistakes, bad design decisions and bad
judgement they just weren't very GOOD life preservers.
The moral is that it is the intentions of the creator that determine
whether something is or is not art, but it is the experiece of the viewer
which determines the artistic value of a work of art. Put slightly
differently, art is in the eye of the artist but artistic value (or the
success of art) is in the eye of the beholder.
David
--
______________________________________________________________________________
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
David Fokos
bea...@netcom.com
______________________________________________________________________________
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
John Wasak
> : David Fokos, bea...@netcom.com writes:
>
> Yes, exactly. But WHY did Edward Weston do this? What was his intention?
> He didn't photograph the pepper just so that he could keep a catalog of
> his vegetables. He did so because there was some beauty that he saw in
> the pepper and that he wanted to convey this to others by committing it to
> film. THAT is his message to you -- and it seems as though it was
> successful too.
>
David, you seem to imply that you know Weston's motives. This is merely
an assumption on your part. I don't know why he photographed what he
did but I am glad he did it. You add the word beauty which opens up
another Pandora's Box. Bad enough to have to try and define art, now
we'll have to define beauty too! (I think this is where I get off)
You keep coming back to the idea that art must have a message, I totally
disagree with that. You've mentioned life preservers, Let me give you a
more concrete example: I have a web site containing a number of
photographs. If you were to visit it and found an image or two that
caught your interest, would you need to know my intentions for making
that image before you could determine whether or not you liked it? Or is
it that you merely made an emotional connection with that image? Message
is hardly a critical element in defining what is or what isn't art.
Speaking for myself, I've never liked "Guernica", some people think it's
great art.
Dirk J. Bakker
Beakman wrote:
>
> John Wasak (mr...@earthlink.net) wrote:
> : David Fokos, bea...@netcom.com writes:
> :
> : >>I don't think that whether something is or is not art has anything to do with the viewer. Two people can look at the same thing and one
person may think i
>
> : It seems to me that in making this statement David seems to believe that
> : there is some sort of arbiter telling us just exactly what is and what
> : is not "ART".
>
> : In a follow up post, Dirk J Bakker asks "Who determines what is ART?"
> : and then supplies the following statement, "An art "object" becomes art
> : when it _connects_. Art is in our souls or NOT!"
>
> : I happen to agree with Mr. Bakker wholeheartedly. I can still remember
> : the impact Edward Weston's bell peppers had on me when I was first
> : learning about photography. I don't believe it had anything to do with
> : Weston's wanting to convey some message to me ( as David Fokos would
> : suggest in his post) but rather that Weston saw, and connected, to an
> : object in a particular way, photographed and printed it with a high
> : degree of craft, and put it out for all the rest of us to see.
>
Let's see what DID Edward Weston have to say re: the peppers.
From The daybooks of Edward Weston II.California. Part III, 4. "Peppers,
My wonder and vision increasing-" Aperture
"July 8. ... I am working now with two green peppers of marvelous
convolutions. Yesterday's negative will be finished, which indicates its
value.
July 9. The aforementioned pepper negative will not be finished despite
my yesterday morn's enthusiasm. the reason: -I have far surpassed it with
almost any one of eight negatives made yesterday. July 8, 1929 I will
remember as an important day- and I feel the beginning of an important
period - in my work....
July 13. ... I went on with peppers, my wonder and vision increasing. ...
And now I have two new peppers of amazing contours, -unintentionally
discovered while shopping.
Sat. Aug. 3....When I last printed orders, I took time to include two of
my pepper negatives. They are like sculpture, carved obsidian, and can be
placed with my finest expression.
August 10. I write while a half hour exposure is being staged: a pepper
the sole actor. "
This is some of what he wrote. But more importantly, to me the pepper
conveys passion, tenderness, intimacy, the power of form and, as a
photographer specially, of light. Once he released them to the world his
intentions become secondary to the reception, such as in me. To me
they're art because of the connection with his vision (entirely my
judgment). If someone does not share in viewing that print as art, so
what! My appreciation of the art is not dependent on someone else's
concurrence but solely on my reaction.
> He didn't photograph the pepper just so that he could keep a catalog of
> his vegetables. He did so because there was some beauty that he saw in
> the pepper and that he wanted to convey this to others by committing it to
> film. THAT is his message to you -- and it seems as though it was
> successful too.
>
> : When I
> : first saw it, my connection to that photograph was strong and immediate.
> : To my mind, this was great art. I've known people who have seen those
> : photographs and never made that connection, who've never thought of it
> : as art, even some who don't think it's a particularly good photograph
>
> And still, I assume you would agree, that Weston's photograph doesn't
> cease to be art just because there are people who do not think that
> it is art. So by your point of view, how many people need to connect
> with a piece before we are "allowed" to call it art?
> Whether or not a work is art is not a democratic decision but a personal
one. It is a personal choice or circumstance, such as is any belief
system. It is not a matter of "allowing" but of accepting that it may or
may not be art to someone else!
> My point is that art is the creative output of an artist, and being an
> artist has nothing to do with whether or not your creative output connects
> with people, it's about seeing things in a unique way, feeling things
> differently, or considering ideas and concepts and then TRYING to convey,
> your thoughts or feelings to others through your work. That's what being
> an artist is about. Notice that this has nothing to do with whether or
> not it succeeds -- i.e. whether or not the viewer thinks it's art, or
> whether or not it actually manages to connect with anybody.
>
"To convey (one's) thoughts or feeling to others" by necessity requires
an audience at some point. It's the connection with at least one other
than one's self that makes it Art. Otherwise, all well-intended people
that TRIED would be an artist. Being an artist is about being honest
first with one's self and having the courage to share that with someone
else. In that sense, I am comforted in the thought that art is
potentially attainable by everyone.
<snip>
If I am fortunate enough to hang on to a pin-striped wool cushion (or
ANYTHING for that matter) that's sufficiently bouyant and it saves my
life, please allow me to call it a "life preserver". I would not, though,
have the poor judgment to market (or write much about) it as such.
Dirk
Beakman
: > He didn't photograph the pepper just so that he could keep a catalog of
: > his vegetables. He did so because there was some beauty that he saw in
: > the pepper and that he wanted to convey this to others by committing it to
: > film. THAT is his message to you -- and it seems as though it was
: > successful too.
: >
: You add the word beauty which opens up
: another Pandora's Box. Bad enough to have to try and define art, now
: we'll have to define beauty too! (I think this is where I get off)
: You keep coming back to the idea that art must have a message, I totally
: disagree with that.
You are still missing my point. Perhaps I am just unclear. To be art it
doesn't necessarily need a "message", however it does need an INTENTION to
convey SOMETHING -- this something may be a simple as the appreciation for
an object's beauty and the desire to share that with others.
: You've mentioned life preservers, Let me give you a
: more concrete example: I have a web site containing a number of
: photographs. If you were to visit it and found an image or two that
: caught your interest, would you need to know my intentions for making
: that image before you could determine whether or not you liked it?
No, for me as the viewer it doesn't matter what your intentions were -- I
just respond to your photographs, and if I like them or I don't like them
certainly doesn't make them art or not make them art. However, the
question of whether they are or are not "art" completely depends upon what
your intentions were when you made them and put them up on the Web. It
has nothing to do with my viewing them.
: Or is
: it that you merely made an emotional connection with that image? Message
: is hardly a critical element in defining what is or what isn't art.
: Speaking for myself, I've never liked "Guernica", some people think it's
: great art.
AGAIN, whether the viewer likes or dislikes something has ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING to do with something being art or not being art. That is exactly
why Guernica can still be thought of as great art even though you (and I
am sure many others) don't like it. It was Picasso's intentions which
made it art -- and it doesn't matter a wit what anyone thinks about it.
shooter dan
Actually, I determine what is art. You send me a print to critique and I
review it and assign it to "art" or "pretender" or "trash can" catagories.
You send a check in the amount you wish and I will impartially determine
whether or not your image is art. The larger the check, the more I am
inclined to consider the work "art".
If you have to ask you need to spend a lot more time studying and reading
and much less time wasting your time on the damn computer.
dan smith
DWA652
Anybody here ever read "What is Art?" an essay by Leo Tolstoy? Tolstoy argues
that art is edifying to the beholder, if it is not edifying, then it is not
art. Tolstoy goes on to promote his brotherhood of man theme, in that
"edifying" must in some way benefit the brotherhood of man. I agree with
Tolstoy on the first part, but I, like many, disagree over the word "edifying".
While Tolstoy and I would both use it in a strong religious sense, I do not
see the "brotherhood of man" as the ultimate objective of history, holding to a
more mainstream Christian point of view than Tolstoy did.
So to me, photography is art if it edifies me. Sometimes the actual act of
taking the photo edifies me more than the end result!
Just my 2 cents worth,
Don Allen
dwa...@aol.com
Norman Strand~
Since someone has mentioned Duchamp's toilet bowl and Ed Weston's pepper. What
do people think of Weston's Excusando, A photograph of his toilet bowl in Mexico
City. I have tried to do a simular photograph of my toilet bowl and it is more
difficult than it would appear. Yes I used an 8x10 camera, and I used a
Turner-Riech lens simular in performance to the equipment that Weston used, but
I did not get as interesting photograph that Weston made.
I used to display photographs in a gallery, people would ask me how and where I
took my photographs, then they would say something like, "Oh no wonder you use a
large format camera." and then they walk away, but I could sell paintings, I
thing more people accept painting as something that an artist does, than
photography.
Norman Strand
this is not the opinion of intel corp.
In article <3582C1...@earthlink.net>, John Wasak <mr...@earthlink.net> writes:
|> David Fokos, bea...@netcom.com writes:
|>
|> >>I don't think that whether something is or is not art has anything to do with the viewer. Two people can look at the same thing and one person may think it's art and the other person think it's not. .....<<
|> ...........
|>
|> It seems to me that in making this statement David seems to believe that
|> there is some sort of arbiter telling us just exactly what is and what
|> is not "ART".
|>
|> In a follow up post, Dirk J Bakker asks "Who determines what is ART?"
|> and then supplies the following statement, "An art "object" becomes art
|> when it _connects_. Art is in our souls or NOT!"
|>
|> I happen to agree with Mr. Bakker wholeheartedly. I can still remember
|> the impact Edward Weston's bell peppers had on me when I was first
|> learning about photography. I don't believe it had anything to do with
|> Weston's wanting to convey some message to me ( as David Fokos would
|> suggest in his post) but rather that Weston saw, and connected, to an
|> object in a particular way, photographed and printed it with a high
|> degree of craft, and put it out for all the rest of us to see. When I
|> first saw it, my connection to that photograph was strong and immediate.
|> To my mind, this was great art. I've known people who have seen those
|> photographs and never made that connection, who've never thought of it
|> as art, even some who don't think it's a particularly good photograph
|> (silly people!).
|> An object becomes art only when it informs our emotions in some way. By
|> extension a photograph can be viewed as art, (Color or Black & White
|> notwithstanding), when it makes us see something in a way that maybe we
|> never had before.
|>
|> John Wasak
|> http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Museum/6026
--
Intel, Corp.
5000 W. Chandler Blvd.
Chandler, AZ 85226
E. George Oeser
Ok, here is my .02 worth on this subject,
I am trying my best to be able to arive at the point where I can do what
I love to do and nothing else, create interesting images with my camera.
Do the images I create qualify as art? Truthfully I don't really feel I
know weather a particular image is worthy of the title of "art" until I
have shown it to others. If it gets a strong reaction, be it positive or
negative I don't know if it is art. Whne I hear someone telling me that
my photos are disturbing or beautiful, or sick, or that I should be
arrested (and I have heard all of these things) then I know I have
succeeded in creating art.
My images come directly out of my mind, and when they come to me they
tend to be complete and very detailed, then it is up to me to find a way
to get them onto paper, something much easier said than done many times.
I have never had a photo come to me with any kind of statement attached
to it, these are just images, and I leave them completely open for
interpritation. In fact one of the great joys for me as a photographer
is listening to others tell what they see in my photos, quite often it
is very surprising to me, and even better yet, to the person seeing the
photo. The only thing I want to do with my work is inspire thought,
thought of any kind, I think that is the real purpose of art, not the
presentataion of beauty, but a workout for our brains.
E. George Oeser
p.s. if you wouldn't mind I would love to hear comments about my most
recent work which can be seen at
http://BME.FreeQ.com/art/oeser/index.html
--
___________________________________________________________________________________
Visit my online photo gallery!
http://www.oeser.net/george.htm
The Oeser Family Network
http://www.oeser.net