Photography as Art
Jim Henson
From thread on: http://communites.msn.com/objectivistforum
As someone with a passion for photography as art, I disagree with Ayn Rand's
position on photography, which is reproduced in full here.
"A certain type of confusion about the relationship between scientific
discoveries and art, leads to a frequently asked question: Is photography an
art? The answer is: No. It is a technical, not a creative, skill. Art
requires a selective re-creation. A camera cannot perform the basic task of
painting: a visual conceptualization, i.e., the creation of a concrete in
terms of abstract essentials. The selection of camera angles, lighting or
lenses is merely a selection of the means to reproduce various aspects of
the given, i.e., of an existing concrete. There is an artistic element in
some photographs, which is the result of such selectivity as the
photographer can exercise, and some of them can be very beautiful - but the
same artistic element (purposeful selectivity) is present in many
utilitarian products: in the better kinds of furniture, dress design,
automobiles, packaging, etc. The commercial art work in ads (or posters or
postage stamps) is frequently done by real artists and has greater esthetic
value than many paintings, but utilitarian objects cannot be classified as
works of art."
The first point Rand makes seems to be that photography is not art because
it is capturing of reality rather than rendering a version of reality (and
what is implicit here but explicit in her words elsewhere is that art is man
as 'he should and ought to be'). So a camera cannot perform a visual
conceptualization of a concrete in terms of abstract essentials, but
sculpture and painting, for instance, can. A photograph is merely a
selection of the means to reproduce an existing concrete.
Firstly, I think that photography CAN be a visual conceptualization of a
concrete as much as a painting. While some photographs are indeed a
snapshot of reality, and not a conceptual work, the reverse is also true
(and the same can be said of other forms of art). Taking a certain subject,
casting it in a particular (literal) light, framing the result to present
the artists' concept - this is the EXACT same process in
painting/sculpture/photography. It doesn't work to apply a distinction in
intent and/or process to differentiate photography from painting as art.
The distinction is in the tools - and the idea that manipulating the light
that falls on photosensitive film to produce an abstract image that evokes a
concept is somehow different than manipulating any other substance (oil,
watercolor, canvas, clay) to produce an abstract image that evokes a
concept. This is not a compelling distinction.
A corollary to this is the argument that if photography is not art because
it is a selection of the means to reproduce an existing concrete - then
neither is anything where a model was used - portraiture, sculpture, etc.
(And if the argument is 'but it's not just a reproduction of a model, it's
conveying a concept', then see above! :))
Another issue I have is that Ayn Rand is essentially saying 'utilitarian
products, such as furniture, clothing, cars, etc, can't be artistic.' Since
when? And then doesn't that exclude ANYTHING that remotely has a 'use'?
According to that principle, architecture is not artistic!
IMHO, applying artistic values to 'utilitarian' objects is what puts color
in life. Creating a meal pleasing to the eyes, nose, taste buds; building a
guitar with beautiful woods; assembling clothing that is appealing and
tasteful; arranging fruit in a bowl in the kitchen; flowers in a vase, etc
etc etc ad nauseum.
I'm an amateur photographer and my stuff is mostly landscapes - still
haven't got the hang of humans yet - but I am definitely looking to capture
something in my photography - it's not just about preserving reality.
Choosing what to leave out is almost as important as what to put in. If
anyone's interested, I can post some of my photos here.
Bree
Those interested in a disscussion on this issue are encouraged to vist (and
join!) http://communites.msn.com/objectivistforum
Charles Novins
photography, and I'm restricting myself to that (the latter solely because
there's only so many hours in a day...). The advent of the "software
studio," as it were, has opened up the creative possibilities vis-a-vis
"realism" so that I can make a result far more abstract than any painter or
penciller. This tends to support Rand's view as much as conflict with it
because using the software can get pretty technical, while the image itself
may bear little resemblance to anything that actually exists. Even so,
there is a "paint by numbers" aspect to what I do, since the original
"plain" image serves as a template for all that follows.
I find Rand's comments on art refreshing and bold, and I find her taste in
art reasonably parallels mine, but I really couldn't care less what she
specifically categorizes as art/not art insofar as there is some reasonable
disagreement as to a specific aspect. (That said, I support her view that
some stuff is art, and plenty ain't.) I'd say that having an iron-clad
detailed guide to what is and what isn't art is taking Objectivism way too
far. If you seem to be a criminal according to Rand's definitions, I'd give
that serious thought, but if she says you're not an artist, I can't imagine
why you'd care. Personally (if she were alive), I'd have greater angst if
she disliked my work than I would if she "declassified" me and said it
wasn't art at all. I'd say, "Fine. It's not art. How do you like my
photographs?
Technology is transforming art in many ways, and I can't imagine that Rand
would have done anything but applaud the changes, even if the result is that
some of her definitions are rendered moot. Think architecture challenges
Rand's own definitions? I wonder what she would have thought of computer
programming.
"Jim Henson" <J...@Henson.net> wrote in message
news:Cwxe8.24816$Se.85...@typhoon1.we.ipsvc.net...
chance
that I dislike Objectivism so much. While I concede that I agree on
many socio-political issues, the very fact that her philosophy is so
devoid of any beauty or deeper meaning makes it suspect. While
Objectivism _claims_ to hold that ones own experiences (vis-a-vis the
senses) are the path to reality I find that this claim is valid if and
only if my experiences match Ayn Rand's. Objectivism is condemnatory
of all the artistic epiphanies that I have had only because the author
of this 'philosophy' was too superficial to have any original thought
of her own.
The true meaning of Life The Universe and Everything can not be
described via vapid bumper sticker 'A is A' circular rhetoric.
Communication occurs on levels where language is not able to convey
its message. Art can not be graphed via the 'Pritchard Method to Good
Poetry'. I feel sadness for those self proclaimed Objectivists that
deny trancendental experiences. These souless individuals deny that
these experiences are valid (or occur at all) purely because they
themselves are either unlucky or unintelligent enough to have had this
direct connection to the sublime.
How am I to describe (in words) experiences that transcend language?
Art is a reflection of that which is. In our minds we associate the
patterns of the world around us with the object that communicates and
ecapsulates the particular _feeling_ and _emotion_ that it was
intended by the creator. Art doesnt have to be abstract. Art does not
have to have mass appeal. Art is evokes a set of neural functioning
that language is incapable of. I pity those that can not appreciate a
sunset because it is 'merely the function of light passing through
materials of different density'. Fuck that.
If you follow this creed then You dont get IT. Plain and simple. IF
you have to analyse the Utility of Art then you have already missed
the entire point. The asthetic makes life worth living. It is the
mechanisim of passion and drive. It provides a basis for the Good and
the Why. While you argue that direct intutition is impossible because
there cant be sythetic a-priori judgements, and that
'Ax(Gx->Ey(Axy&~Axy))->~Ex(Gx)' I am enjoying a life of subtle beauty.
Trying to explain this is like trying to teach a pig to whistle. Its
frustrating and just pisses off the pig.
-chance
R Lawrence
believe you have misunderstood some aspects of her argument.
"Jim Henson" <J...@Henson.net> wrote:
>Another issue I have is that Ayn Rand is essentially saying 'utilitarian
>products, such as furniture, clothing, cars, etc, can't be artistic.'
>Since when? And then doesn't that exclude ANYTHING that remotely has a
>'use'? According to that principle, architecture is not artistic!
The claim is not that utilitarian objects are not "artistic," but that they
are not "works of art." This is an important distinction. 'Artistic' is a
broad term that can be applied to all types of crafts. Part of what Rand is
doing in her aesthetic theory is distinguishing crafts, which may be pretty
and carefully built and otherwise pleasing, from works of fine art, which
exist specifically for the purpose of being contemplated.
>IMHO, applying artistic values to 'utilitarian' objects is what puts color
>in life. Creating a meal pleasing to the eyes, nose, taste buds; building
>a guitar with beautiful woods; assembling clothing that is appealing and
>tasteful; arranging fruit in a bowl in the kitchen; flowers in a vase, etc
>etc etc ad nauseum.
No one has said that you should not do these things, or that they should
not be enjoyed. Rand's claim is simply that these things are not works of
art in the sense that a painting or a symphony is a work of art.
>I'm an amateur photographer and my stuff is mostly landscapes - still
>haven't got the hang of humans yet - but I am definitely looking to
>capture something in my photography - it's not just about preserving
>reality. Choosing what to leave out is almost as important as what to put
>in.
Yes, this aspect of photography is what makes Rand wrong. Photography can
be used to create works of art, just as painting can.
--
Richard Lawrence <RL0...@yahoo.com>
Visit the Objectivism Reference Center: http://www.objectivism.addr.com/