Is color landscape photography art ?
Quang-Tuan Luong
Kerry Thalmann wrote:
>>Although the artistic images are nice, I personally prefer more
>traditional color landscape photography.
It seems that most people, including many of the practitioners of this
form of
photography consider it to be less artistic than other photographic
pursuits.
Why that ? My explanation would be that nature supplies most of the
ingredients,
and the control of the photographer, besides viewpoint and framing is
quite
limited (black and white is more interpretative). Eventually, two
photographs of, let
say, the Delicate Arch, from a similar perspective are not going to
look that different.
As far as I am concerned, I don't consider myself to be an artist, but
rather a good (hopefully !) technician with knowledge of locations,
conditions,
and photographic tools. I don't have any real "artist's statement"
rather than
bringing back something pretty to hang on the wall which reminds me of
the emotions I experienced while being there.
Tuan.
--
Quang-Tuan LUONG at SRI +1(415)859-5138 lu...@ai.sri.com
photographs in The Mountain Gallery at:
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~qtluong/gallery/
steven T koontz
Quang-Tuan Luong wrote:
>
> I don't have any real "artist's statement"
> rather than
> bringing back something pretty to hang on the wall which reminds me of
> the emotions I experienced while being there.
>
then the rest of us.. example: my brother house is full of folk art
(junk to me) that I think is ugly but other "artists" say is great
stuff.. When I show my photography to alot of people they really like
it but the "artists" alway have some comment about how it's too
"motionless" or "doesn't make a statement". I probably wouldn't like
it if it did make a statement.. If I like serene "motionless" prints,
why should I care if someone else doesn't? I used to worry about it
but now have learned not to. I shoot for me and have learned I could
care less if some "artist" thinks it's art...I'm the one who has to
look at it!
--
steve's photography & Z car stuff @ http://www.mindspring.com/~skoontz
sko...@mindspring.com
Bob Zwarick
In article <35762964...@mindspring.com>, sko...@mindspring.com wrote:
|...
|sounds like me.. seems there are alot of self proclaimed "artists" and
|then the rest of us.. example: my brother house is full of folk art
|(junk to me) that I think is ugly but other "artists" say is great
|stuff.. When I show my photography to alot of people they really like
|it but the "artists" alway have some comment about how it's too
|"motionless" or "doesn't make a statement". I probably wouldn't like
|it if it did make a statement.. If I like serene "motionless" prints,
|why should I care if someone else doesn't? I used to worry about it
|but now have learned not to. I shoot for me and have learned I could
|care less if some "artist" thinks it's art...I'm the one who has to
|look at it!
|
There are two kinds of 'artists' those who bitch and moan about others work
and those who shoot :-))
Bob
'Never sign a thing, ask an Indian first.'
Geoff Wise
Given your interest in mountaineering, I think all you have to be is a good
craftsman as your subject matter oozes drama. Personally, I think
Wilderness Photography is more masochism, sweet mascohism.
Geoff Wise Wise's Wilderness
wi...@zip.com.au http://www.zip.com.au/~wises
PO Box 3042R, Rosemeadow NSW 2560, Australia
Quang-Tuan Luong wrote in message <357615B1...@ai.sri.com>...
Richard Knoppow
nv...@anv.net (Bob Zwarick) wrote:
The first are art critics Learning the jargon of art criticism is an
ammusing endeavor.
>'Never sign a thing, ask an Indian first.'
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
evp...@insync.net
Is color landscape photography art? Jack W. Dykinga, Eliot Porter, Ernst
Haas, an occaisional Muench, Jim Bones, Galen Rowell's Tibet photos, several
japanese photographers... I know there are more I am just not aware of them.
The thing that transforms normal photography into art is the seeing, the
amount of personal involvement the photographer has with his/her subject and
the ability for us the audience to interact with that vision. A lot of great
looking landscape photography is just photography of great looking or exotic
landscape; Nothing wrong with that, it's just that sometimes I wonder where
the photographer's heart, soul, intellect, sense of humor, sense of
themselves is. I recently made my first trip to Big Bend National Park and as
a photographer I came away feeling defeated. As a human I came away feeling
changed and charged up. Cheers, Ellis
In article <35767ad4.2256261758@nntp.netcruiser>,
dick...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> nv...@anv.net (Bob Zwarick) wrote:
>
> >In article <35762964...@mindspring.com>, sko...@mindspring.com wrote:
I probably wouldn't like
> >|it if it did make a statement.. If I like serene "motionless" prints,
> >|why should I care if someone else doesn't? > >Bob
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
mla...@aol.com
In article <357615B1...@ai.sri.com>,
Quang-Tuan Luong <lu...@ai.sri.com> wrote:
> As far as I am concerned, I don't consider myself to be an artist, but
> rather a good (hopefully !) technician with knowledge of locations,
> conditions,
> and photographic tools. I don't have any real "artist's statement"
> rather than
> bringing back something pretty to hang on the wall which reminds me of
> the emotions I experienced while being there.
I don't consider myself an artist either but the last sentence sounds like a
pretty good definition of art. Paraphrased, you're creating a likeness of the
subject, based on your emotions. The emotion, "That's pretty" is
certainly a valid one.
Having done a fair amount of watercolor painting (with and without the
numbers!), it was important to me (and others I know) to depict the scene
basically as it was. Sure, telephone poles get left out and trees get moved
but that's not done to create art, it is a compositional tool - it simply
looks better with some elements changed. Knowing paint, brushes and paper is
no different than cameras, lenses and film.
Anyway, having the "eye" for a scene, composing it the way you want and
getting it onto your medium is what realistic painting is all about. If that's
art (and it is) then so is photography, color or B&W.
The problem with calling myself an "artist" is that it sounds uppity and I'm
not that kind of a person (or at least, I try not to be).
Mike
Jay Wenner
steven T koontz (sko...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: >
: sounds like me.. seems there are alot of self proclaimed "artists" and
: then the rest of us..
[step up on soapbox]
For the majority of us, photography is a hobby. We do the 9 to 5 (really
8 to 6) argue with traffic, deal with all the crap life deals and then
we have a few hours a week of "free time." I use this free time to do
what _I_ like. Many photographers are concerned if other people like
their work, but the main point is if you like your own work. Do you enjoy
it? That is, you you enjoy the whole photographic process? Some people
enjoy buying and discussing equipment more than clicking the shutter.
Fine. That's a hobby in itself. I enjoy trampin' the woods with a camera
in tow. Many consider that "not creative and mundane." Fine. Who cares,
I enjoy it.
I had a guy look though about 10 years of my work and say he didn't
like it. I was surprised, since most people who don't like your work will
pick an image or two and say they like those, but he blew off the whole
works. As I thought about it, it doesn't matter if people don't like
my work because I'm not really _trying_ to sell it. Sure, I've sold a
few prints, but it hardly amounts to anything compared to the equipment
and time investment. Screw it, I shoot for me. If that means I'm not
an artist, so be it.
[step off soapbox]
Jay Wenner
ma...@my-dejanews.com
To really be able to talk about art we would first have to define it, and
that would be very, very hard. So art, to most people, comes down to what
it's been said here: Art is that thingh that moves me and my emotions. So
to many people Andy Warhole's pieces are not art, but to many other they are,
why is that? Well simiple because it makes some people feel something, good
or bad, and it doesn't too other.
So I agree with Jay W., I take pictures for myself, so that when I see that
picture again I get moved as I did when taken the picture. Though I do not
consider myself an artist I do not think Van Gogh, Rembrandt, Micheal Angelo,
or any other artist, when painting/creatin, thought on doing this or that so
that people would like his art. They would just paint/create because they
wanted to express themselves, they did it for the pure pleasure it brought
them. Just like it happens with us, photographers, either we use color or
b&w film, we shoot for the pure pleasure, and whatever we use, as long as we
obtain what expected, would be, at the end, our own piece of art.
Besides if everyone liked my pictures I would be worried, for that would mean
I'd be doing nothing good, new or personal. Remember, evey head is a world.
Happy shooting.
ABURR
mao75
In article <6l6fhm$6...@epx.cis.umn.edu>,
Roger Cole
[snip]
>sounds like me.. seems there are alot of self proclaimed "artists" and
>then the rest of us.. example: my brother house is full of folk art
>(junk to me) that I think is ugly but other "artists" say is great
>stuff.. When I show my photography to alot of people they really like
>it but the "artists" alway have some comment about how it's too
>"motionless" or "doesn't make a statement". I probably wouldn't like
>it if it did make a statement.. If I like serene "motionless" prints,
>why should I care if someone else doesn't? I used to worry about it
>but now have learned not to. I shoot for me and have learned I could
>care less if some "artist" thinks it's art...I'm the one who has to
>look at it!
>
>--
>
>
>steve's photography & Z car stuff @ http://www.mindspring.com/~skoontz
>sko...@mindspring.com
A-men Steve! Maybe it's art, maybe it isn't, and who really cares?
I'll let the ones who do worry about it. Me, if I like it, that's
good enough. I just shoot and print to make something that I think
looks good. I don't try to express the "Oneness of the wholeness of
Oz" or whatever. If someone else does, fine with me, I wish them the
best.
Roger Cole
Dirk J. Bakker
Quang-Tuan Luong wrote:
>
> Kerry Thalmann wrote:
> >>Although the artistic images are nice, I personally prefer more
> >traditional color landscape photography.
>
> form of
> photography consider it to be less artistic than other photographic
> pursuits.
> Why that ? My explanation would be that nature supplies most of the
> ingredients,
> and the control of the photographer, besides viewpoint and framing is
> quite
> limited (black and white is more interpretative). Eventually, two
> photographs of, let
> say, the Delicate Arch, from a similar perspective are not going to
> look that different.
>
> rather a good (hopefully !) technician with knowledge of locations,
> conditions,
> and photographic tools. I don't have any real "artist's statement"
> rather than
> bringing back something pretty to hang on the wall which reminds me of
> the emotions I experienced while being there.
>
>
> --
> Quang-Tuan LUONG at SRI +1(415)859-5138 lu...@ai.sri.com
> photographs in The Mountain Gallery at:
> http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~qtluong/gallery/
Hello Tuan,
My working definition:
A work of Art is a tool of the soul.
To "bring[ing] back something pretty to hang on the wall which reminds me
of the emotions I experienced while being there." is just as eloquent and
equally meaningful.
We have been too much subjected to the definition of art that has been
imposed on us by an elite. We need to pluck it and simply take it back.
As to limited control in color photography, give a look at the work of
Eliot Porter or Freeman Patterson in Portraits of Earth, 1987, Firefly.
Perhaps they were never told the same or chose not to believe it.
We become what we think of ourselves.
Just a thought.
Dirk
George Stocking
The fact is that color landscape is frowned upon and disdained in almost
every artisic circle that I know. Eco-porn and all that. A couple of years
ago, a friend of mine applied to grad school for photography (MFA),
submitting a portfolio of large format color transparencies. (They were
actually pretty good......a few were excellent) He was rebuffed without
comment from all except ASU. (They talked to him because his undergraduate
degree was from the same institution) Basically he was told that color
landscape wasn't art, they then showed him what was currently the "cutting
edge" of fine art photography. According to most (in the art world),
color landscape has been "done to death", which somehow invalidates it
from the forum of discussion. The old, "if its been done before, it is
passe".
Of course, this whole discussion comes down to the old "what-is art"
question. Ask 100 people, and you will get 100 different definitions, and
that is becauses art is in the eye of the beholder. We are all a product
of our life experiences; we all bring a particular set of prejudices to
the game. Many of my deepest emotional responses to life come from my
interaction with the landscape......that is why I shoot color landscape
for a living. Like everyone else alive, I rationalize what I do, otherwise
I wouldn't be able to it.
For me, art is defined by compositional power. That is, the sum total of
lines, spaces and shapes must come together to make an image "more" than
what it is. The image creates its own power. Subject matter becomes
basically irelevant. It is reported that Edward Weston's bell pepper was
banned from some venues (in his time). Talk about power and movement.
Great art demands your attention, it will follow you around the room.
This is the ultimate challenge for me. To go out into the eternally
amazing wilderness and recognize that moment when the various elements of
compositional power come together. And then create images that reflect the
overpowering emotions that I feel when I stand on a prtuclar spot in a
particlar time.
Is color landscape art? Has it been done before? If it has, does that fact
then invalidate the results? After all, why paint portraits? The Mona Lisa
is already hanging on the wall. Why paint landscapes? Hey, Monet did that.
Why bother trying? Because art is about more than a picture on the wall,
or the statue in front of the museum. It is about human endeavor. It is
about peoples responses to the world around us. Sometimes a picture of a
bell pepper becomes more than just a pepper; and sometimes a photo of a
flower becomes more than grass and petals.
Sherwood Veith
Too much intellectualizing. Yes, yes, yes. All photography is art, from
the passport Polaroids (a little extreme) and my 7 year-olds single use
snaps (of stuffed animals and Barbie dolls), to Galen Rowell, and David
Muench.
Art is creativity at its best and worst. Even more, art is totally
subjective - and your opinion of your own work is the most important. If
you say your work is art, then it is. As we become better "artists" our
opinion of our own work may change, but that helps us grow and improve.
To blow off an amateur's or novice's work because he/she is inexperienced is
to snuff out creativity, and possibly and ultimately good art.
Don't sweat the details, CREATE!
Woody
evp...@insync.net wrote in message <6l6fg0$egj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Is color landscape photography art? Jack W. Dykinga, Eliot Porter, Ernst
>Haas, an occaisional Muench, Jim Bones, Galen Rowell's Tibet photos,
several
>japanese photographers... I know there are more I am just not aware of
them.
>The thing that transforms normal photography into art is the seeing, the
>amount of personal involvement the photographer has with his/her subject
and
>the ability for us the audience to interact with that vision. A lot of
great
>looking landscape photography is just photography of great looking or
exotic
>landscape; Nothing wrong with that, it's just that sometimes I wonder where
>the photographer's heart, soul, intellect, sense of humor, sense of
>themselves is. I recently made my first trip to Big Bend National Park and
as
>a photographer I came away feeling defeated. As a human I came away feeling
>changed and charged up. Cheers, Ellis
>
>In article <35767ad4.2256261758@nntp.netcruiser>,
> dick...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>> nv...@anv.net (Bob Zwarick) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <35762964...@mindspring.com>, sko...@mindspring.com
wrote:
>I probably wouldn't like
>> >|it if it did make a statement.. If I like serene "motionless" prints,
>> >|why should I care if someone else doesn't? > >Bob
js...@vss.fsi.com
This is an interesting thread, but I didn't have a strong basis of reply
until this past weekend. I've been displaying my work at some juried art
fairs, and I finally had a big (and interesting) response.
I have a lot of water lily pictures. One is a picture of group of pink
lilies, about 15 flowers, with a nice irregular diagonal composition, in very
soft overcast light...very serene. The most common comment is "this will
look great in my bathroom". Another picture, "Trio on Black", is a
composition of 3 lily pads in harsher light and polarized such that the water
is black (as in gone!). This picture generates relatively little comment.
However, one visitor looked at each and remarked "That's a pretty picture
(pink lillies), but that IS Art!(trio on black)".
Different pictures, different moods for me, but I can't say I applied more
artistic effort to one or the other. Never the less, they move people very
differently. For what it's worth, the "nice picture" outsells "art" 5 to 1!
My breif art show experience shows me that 1) Art is in the eye of the
beholder, 2)The general public is going to buy what they like, not what they
are told is art (with a few exceptions), 3)Pretty pictures sell better than
art, and 4) The pieces that I feel best express my artistic vision of a
given scene are likely to not sell at all!
Jim
Ken Neely
Just a further opinion on the root subject :
I just participated in a local photo contest, and helped
move work during the judging. It was apparent from the
results that the basis of this whole issue is simply -
subjective opinion.
What constitutes art, anyway ?
There are only two criteria to apply - whether the artist
likes it ( in the case of non- compensated work) or whether
the public ( i.e. client) likes it.
Nothing else matters - It's nice, but not essential to the
intrinsic value of the work, if others appreciate and enjoy
it. If the makers are compensated for their work, in the
professional example, then it's essential that their client
like it. Doesn't necessarily make it "art" though. On the
other hand, if the maker likes it personally, it IS art.
Sorry if this doesn't fit the normal definition (whatever
THAT may be) of art, but like I said, it's entirely a matter
of subjective opinion.
KN
David Ingamells
Art is a pile of bricks in the Tate Gallery (London).
--
David Ingamells
remove 1aa1 from address before replying.
Quang-Tuan Luong <lu...@ai.sri.com> wrote in article
<357615B1...@ai.sri.com>...
Beakman
Sherwood Veith (sher...@telenet.net) wrote:
: Too much intellectualizing. Yes, yes, yes. All photography is art, from
: the passport Polaroids (a little extreme) and my 7 year-olds single use
: snaps (of stuffed animals and Barbie dolls), to Galen Rowell, and David
: Muench.
: Art is creativity at its best and worst. Even more, art is totally
: subjective - and your opinion of your own work is the most important. If
: you say your work is art, then it is. As we become better "artists" our
: opinion of our own work may change, but that helps us grow and improve.
: To blow off an amateur's or novice's work because he/she is inexperienced is
: to snuff out creativity, and possibly and ultimately good art.
: Don't sweat the details, CREATE!
: Woody
First, I don't think that photography = art, that's why we have different
words for it.
Second, I think that too many people give short shrift to "craft". There
is absolutely nothing low, demeaning, or inherently of little value in
craft, yet people seem to think that to call someone a great craftsperson
is somehow insulting. To my mind a great craftsperson should be put up
on the same pedestal (and sometimes an even taller one) than the "artist".
Therefore, I find nothing wrong in calling a photo hobbyist a
craftsperson rather than an artist. This does not mean that hobbist is
*not* an artist, it only means that just because someone takes pictures
and is creative he/she is not necessarily an artist, which brings me to my
last point...
I believe that an artist is someone who trys to *communicate* some
feeling, emotion, or message through a creative act. This means that the
intention of the photographer is paramount. If you take a picture of
your kid so that you can put it in the family album as a keepsake -- this
is *not* what being an artist is about (and there's nothing wrong with
that). If, on the other hand, you took photos of your kid because you
were trying to express some ideas you had about "life in suburbia", for
example, that would be art.
To say that someone is, or is not, an artist is neither a compliment or
an insult. It is merely a descriptive term for some specific type of
creative act.
David
--
______________________________________________________________________________
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
David Fokos
bea...@netcom.com
______________________________________________________________________________
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
F Jake
Ansel Adams was probibly the greatest photographic "Craftsman" of his time.
Jake
evp...@insync.net
"If you can't name a thing, point to it." William Burroughs
"Look,there it goes." Laurie Anderson
According to Max Ernst and man ray there are three relationships involved in
the decisioning of what gets construed as art: there is the relationship
between the subject and the artist, then there is the relationship between
the viewer and the made object, and finally there is the relationship between
the artist and his/her audience. Color landscape photography is paradoxically
easy to reject/ difficult to accept for a modern "educated" audience, because
it mostly seems so impersonally made. It is, for the most part, hard to see
the "hand" of the artist at work, so they think that what is shown is a mere
recording of what was there. When we look at a stunning Ansel Adams or John
Sexton black & white print of a landscape, we think first: "what a print!".
Looking at a color image of the same scene I think our first impression must
be "wow! What a place!" Curiously I think that our Modern sensibilities have
both tuned us to the idea of nature as a place of beauty, and also turned us
away from the acceptence of a color photographic depiction of that beauty. If
we cannot have it at first hand, we want it obviously abstracted. Of course,
if you are the creater and the audience, all bets are off! Ellis Vener
In article <beakmanE...@netcom.com>,
Mike McDonald
In article <beakmanE...@netcom.com>,
bea...@netcom.com (Beakman) writes:
> First, I don't think that photography = art, that's why we have different
> words for it.
By that logic then, sculpture isn't art. Painting isn't art. Drawing isn't
art. Doesn't leave much to be art.
Mike McDonald
mik...@mikemac.com
Dirk J. Bakker
Hello,
Beg to differ. Another way of saying it is: using a typewriter does not
make one a writer. One is a discipline, the other a way of life, a
conviction. They're NOT mutually exclusive, mind you. Just not the same.
Dirk
Beakman
Mike McDonald (mik...@mikemac.com) wrote:
: In article <beakmanE...@netcom.com>,
: bea...@netcom.com (Beakman) writes:
: > First, I don't think that photography = art, that's why we have different
: > words for it.
: By that logic then, sculpture isn't art. Painting isn't art. Drawing isn't
: art. Doesn't leave much to be art.
sculpture does not necessarily = art, nor does painting or drawing. I
draw a map to my house on a napkin, an illustrator paints a picture of an
insect for an entymological journal or a cross-section of the Earth for
National Geographic, or a sculptor makes perfect replicas of flowers out
of glass for a university. None of these things are art -- they are
craft and they should be praised as such. That still leaves an awful lot
of things which can still be called art, including SOME sculptures, SOME
paintings, and SOME drawings, but not all of them.
Michael Liczbanski
Didn't you know that
"the-art-is-what-I-consider-art-not-that-worthless-shit-you-think-is-art-you
-assehole!"
Michael
Mike McDonald wrote in message ...
>In article <beakmanE...@netcom.com>,
> bea...@netcom.com (Beakman) writes:
>
>> First, I don't think that photography = art, that's why we have different
>> words for it.
>
> By that logic then, sculpture isn't art. Painting isn't art. Drawing
isn't
>art. Doesn't leave much to be art.
>
> Mike McDonald
> mik...@mikemac.com
>
Brian Ellis
Very well put.
Jay Wenner wrote:
> steven T koontz (sko...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> : >
> : sounds like me.. seems there are alot of self proclaimed "artists" and
> : then the rest of us..
>
John Wasak
This is a very thought provoking thread. Here's some of the thoughts it
provoked in me: Let's ask some parallel questions, Is Black and White
landscape photography art? Or, Is Photography itself an art form? I'm
sure we'll find answers on both sides of the fence. It largely depends
on who is the audience for these questions. Is it the dedicated
enthusuaists or the general public?
I think the answer lies in how the activity is perceived. Most people
take pictures of some sort at some time in their lives with a camera.
To most of these people the act of photography is seen as being purely
mechanical. That is, they just point and shoot. In this day and age of
automatic exposure and auto focus it seems, at least to the uninitiated
, that anyone can make an image. For that matter they might even get
lucky and make a great image. Does this make them feel they're artists?
Or merely lucky? It should also be pointed out that probably 99.9% of
these exposures will be made on color film. Which might explain why
Black & White images might be considered by some to be "artier", since
they're just less familiar.
If we put paint brushes, or charcoal and chalk, or any other traditional
art medium in the hands of the average person, most will quickly
proclaim "I can't do this , I'm not an artist". On the other hand, put a
camera in someone's hand and instruct them to "just push this button
down" and most will attempt it and probably be successful to some degree
with it.
To further illustrate the poiunt, if I was standing on a street corner
in any major city in the world with a 35mm camera strapped around my
neck, it would probably be assumed that I was a tourist. If I was at
that same street corner, standing in front of an easel with paint
brushes in my hand, it would probably be assumed that I was an artist.
(especially if I had on my old jeans and sweatshirt)
Perception is reality. I think that the mechanical nature of photography
in general will always make it an art form that, like Rodney
Dangerfield, gets no respect.
Kerry Thalmann
Beakman wrote:
>
> Mike McDonald (mik...@mikemac.com) wrote:
> : In article <beakmanE...@netcom.com>,
> : bea...@netcom.com (Beakman) writes:
>
> : > First, I don't think that photography = art, that's why we have different
> : > words for it.
>
> : By that logic then, sculpture isn't art. Painting isn't art. Drawing isn't
> : art. Doesn't leave much to be art.
>
> draw a map to my house on a napkin, an illustrator paints a picture of an
> insect for an entymological journal or a cross-section of the Earth for
> National Geographic, or a sculptor makes perfect replicas of flowers out
> of glass for a university. None of these things are art -- they are
> craft and they should be praised as such. That still leaves an awful lot
> of things which can still be called art, including SOME sculptures, SOME
> paintings, and SOME drawings, but not all of them.
Hi David,
What about SOME photographs? (BTW, I'm not being facetious. I'm real
curious why you think the others can qualify as either art or craft but
you left photography off the "art" list).
Kerry
--
Kerry L. Thalmann Large Format Images of Nature
A Few of My Images Online at: http://home.att.net/~k.thalmann/
David Hay Jones
If there's a choice between commercially successful photography and art
photography for a small audience, I'd choose commerical everytime.
David
Beakman
Kerry Thalmann (K.Tha...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Hi David,
: Kerry
Of course you are quite right -- SOME photography is art and some is
not. I did not intentionally leave it off the list, I was merely
addressing the previous post point-for-point.
Beakman
John Wasak (mr...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: This is a very thought provoking thread. Here's some of the thoughts it
: provoked in me: Let's ask some parallel questions, Is Black and White
: landscape photography art?
Some is and some is not.
: Or, Is Photography itself an art form?
Again, some is and some is not.
: I'm
: sure we'll find answers on both sides of the fence. It largely depends
: on who is the audience for these questions. Is it the dedicated
: enthusuaists or the general public?
: I think the answer lies in how the activity is perceived.
This is where I disagree. 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.
The real criteria is what was the intention of the creator of
the piece. If the intention was to communicate some message, idea,
feeling, or emotion to the viewer through the work then I would be
inclined to call it art, and say that the person who didn't think it was
art had incorrectly decided that the work was not art just because he
didn't like it. Not liking a work of art doesn't make it cease to be
art. Similarly, there is good art and there is bad art -- and no matter
how bad it is, if the intention was there then we must still call it art.
Now, if the intention of the creator was not one of conveying a message,
idea, feeling, emotion, etc. -- say he took a picture of his summer house
by the lake for his photo album, just to show the relatives what the house
looked like -- then I would have to say that the person who thought the
photograph was art would be the one who was in error. It might be a
beautiful photograph, and it may have INADVERTEDLY conveyed some emotion
to the viewer, but this emotion and beauty was NOT the intetion of the
creator when he made the photograph and therefore the piece should not be
considered art.
Marcel Duchamp, the noted Dada-ist, once put a toilet bowl on exhibit.
He had absolutely no involvement in the production of this piece
-- it was simply a toilet bowl -- yet it is considered to be art because
of his intentions and the ideas he was trying to convey by exhibiting
it. Obviously, many people looking at it might not consider it art, but
that does not make it cease to be art. Even if NO ONE else thought it
was art, it would still be art -- just not very successful art.
: Most people
: take pictures of some sort at some time in their lives with a camera.
: To most of these people the act of photography is seen as being purely
: mechanical. That is, they just point and shoot. In this day and age of
: automatic exposure and auto focus it seems, at least to the uninitiated
: , that anyone can make an image. For that matter they might even get
: lucky and make a great image. Does this make them feel they're artists?
: Or merely lucky?
Looking at your photos and then trying to decide if you are an artist
means that you are not an artist. An artist makes photographs with the
purpose of intended communication. This means that you have something
you want to convey BEFORE you make the picture.
: If we put paint brushes, or charcoal and chalk, or any other traditional
: art medium in the hands of the average person, most will quickly
: proclaim "I can't do this , I'm not an artist". On the other hand, put a
: camera in someone's hand and instruct them to "just push this button
: down" and most will attempt it and probably be successful to some degree
: with it.
: To further illustrate the poiunt, if I was standing on a street corner
: in any major city in the world with a 35mm camera strapped around my
: neck, it would probably be assumed that I was a tourist. If I was at
: that same street corner, standing in front of an easel with paint
: brushes in my hand, it would probably be assumed that I was an artist.
: (especially if I had on my old jeans and sweatshirt)
This is only because there are many people who are not artists who make
use of the camera to make photographs for non-artistic purposes. How
many people painting a canvas on an easel do you know that do so for
non-artistic purposes?
In the case of photography, the majority of practioners are NOT artists,
and in the case of painters in front of easels, the majority of
practioners ARE artists, hence the assumptions made by the general public.
Now I can tell you that when I am out shooting with my 8x10 camera, a lot
more people assume that I am an artist than would if I shot with a 35mm.
camera.
: Perception is reality. I think that the mechanical nature of photography
: in general will always make it an art form that, like Rodney
: Dangerfield, gets no respect.
I don't necessarily agree with this. There is an awful lot of
photography out there -- orders of magnitude more photographs exsist than
paintings for example. Because of this, a photographic work of art
really needs to be strong to be perceived differently by the general
public (this does not mean that weak pieces are not to be considered
art, just that they may not be perceived to be so by the general
public). By strong I mean "something clearly special". If you have a
photograph which is clearly special, the majority of people will
acknowledge it as art -- Richard Misarach's works in the desert, or Abe
Morell's camera obscura shots of Manhattan, etc. These works rise up out
of the commonplace and ordinary. This is what we must all strive for in
our work as well. If we want respect for work then we must earn it.
David Fokos
Dirk J. Bakker
Beakman wrote:
> <major snip>
>"I don't think that whether something is or is not art has anything to
>do with the viewer."
>"The real criteria is what was the intention of the _creator_ (my
>emphasis) of the piece."
Yet by your VERY example:
> Marcel Duchamp, the noted Dada-ist, once put a toilet bowl on exhibit.
> He had absolutely no involvement in the production of this piece
> -- it was simply a toilet bowl -- yet it is considered to be art because
> of his intentions and the ideas he was trying to convey by exhibiting
> it. Obviously, many people looking at it might not consider it art, but
> that does not make it cease to be art. <snip>
Let's see: It was not art at the moment the crafter (not creator?) made
it, or designed it (a different individual, more than likely, not
creator?). The momemt Duchamp deemed it Art, he "created" it then? Is the
art work the very unit he exhibited, the many just like it (doing their
humble service to humanity) or the idea that a utilitarian object had
something of beauty to be appreciated in it. That art was _not_ the
dictates of the "art" world? It seems Duchamp VIEWED it (into existence
as an art object) in a different (to the art world) light and who was to
argue with an established artist (probably most art critics, at the
time, I'm sure).
While I agree with the imperative of intention (otherwise nothing
happens), I disagree it is the exclusive purview of either artist
(whether creator or not, as you point out) and certainly not of art
critics, but everything to do with art viewers. An art "object" becomes
art when it _connects_. Art is in our souls or NOT!
There is, regrettably, too much "art appreciation" by intimidation in
this culture. Notice how differently opera is perceived in Italy compared
to this country. In the former it is about life and popular, in the
latter it is of the elite. Who, then, is benefited by this transaction?
Those who need to feel above the rest or those who simply need it?
If Duchamp had only viewed the toilet bowl and NOT declared it Art would
it have been less art for him? For us?
Dirk
Beakman
Dirk J. Bakker (dba...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: Beakman wrote:
: > <major snip>
: >"I don't think that whether something is or is not art has anything to
: >do with the viewer."
: >"The real criteria is what was the intention of the _creator_ (my
: >emphasis) of the piece."
: Yet by your VERY example:
: > Marcel Duchamp, the noted Dada-ist, once put a toilet bowl on exhibit.
: > He had absolutely no involvement in the production of this piece
: > -- it was simply a toilet bowl -- yet it is considered to be art because
: > of his intentions and the ideas he was trying to convey by exhibiting
: > it. Obviously, many people looking at it might not consider it art, but
: > that does not make it cease to be art. <snip>
: Let's see: It was not art at the moment the crafter (not creator?) made
: it, or designed it (a different individual, more than likely, not
: creator?). The momemt Duchamp deemed it Art, he "created" it then?
In this case the art is NOT inherent in the object itself, or as you say,
everyone's toity would be works of art as well. Here the art was more
like performance art in that the conceptualization and display of the
"work" was the art. So yes, it became art when Duchamp "created" it.
: Is the
: art work the very unit he exhibited, the many just like it (doing their
: humble service to humanity) or the idea that a utilitarian object had
: something of beauty to be appreciated in it. That art was _not_ the
: dictates of the "art" world? It seems Duchamp VIEWED it (into existence
: as an art object) in a different (to the art world) light and who was to
: argue with an established artist (probably most art critics, at the
: time, I'm sure).
: While I agree with the imperative of intention (otherwise nothing
: happens), I disagree it is the exclusive purview of either artist
: (whether creator or not, as you point out) and certainly not of art
: critics, but everything to do with art viewers. An art "object" becomes
: art when it _connects_. Art is in our souls or NOT!
I still must disagree. How can an artwork be art and then also not be
art (no, this is not a Zen koan)? If a work connects with one viewer it
is deemed art, and if it fails to connect with another viewer it is not?
Be careful not to romanticize the physical artwork (however, feel free to
romaticize the artistic endevour in creating the work!). In other words,
you must seperate the art from the artifact. In the case of photography, a
piece of paper hung on the wall with a bunch of chemicals stuck to it
(i.e. a photograph) is just that, and nothing more. However, the
intention of the artist, the desire to use this piece of paper as a
tool for communicating his ideas, is what makes it art, just as Duchamp
used the porcelain throne to communicate an idea. And even if the work
fails to connect with a single viewer it is still art -- just
unsuccessful art.
: If Duchamp had only viewed the toilet bowl and NOT declared it Art would
: it have been less art for him? For us?
Duchamp's "work" has absolutely nothing to do with the toilet bowl -- it
was about (ironically enough) the perception of art. So to answer your
question, I would have to first say that the toilet bowl itself was never
really the art, but merely the artifact. If I were to bend on this, play
devil's advocate for a moment, and say that the toilet bowl Duchamp
exhibited WAS the art then I would have to say that yes, if Duchamp had not
declared it art it would have been less art for him and us -- but again, I
reiterate that the work had nothing to do with toilet bowls or any quality
inherent in the object itself.
David
jwd
vanilla. I like pina coladas, rainy afternoons and walks on the beach,
too. Wait, what was the point of this thread again?
regards
jwd
sorry couldn't resist ;)
Dirk J. Bakker
Beakman wrote:
>
> Dirk J. Bakker (dba...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> : Beakman wrote:
> : > <major snip>
>
> : >do with the viewer."
> : >"The real criteria is what was the intention of the _creator_ (my
> : >emphasis) of the piece."
>
> : Yet by your VERY example:
>
> : > He had absolutely no involvement in the production of this piece
> : > -- it was simply a toilet bowl -- yet it is considered to be art because
> : > of his intentions and the ideas he was trying to convey by exhibiting
> : > it. Obviously, many people looking at it might not consider it art, but
>
> : Let's see: It was not art at the moment the crafter (not creator?) made
> : it, or designed it (a different individual, more than likely, not
> : creator?). The momemt Duchamp deemed it Art, he "created" it then?
>
> In this case the art is NOT inherent in the object itself, or as you say,
> everyone's toity would be works of art as well. Here the art was more
> like performance art in that the conceptualization and display of the
> "work" was the art. So yes, it became art when Duchamp "created" it.
>
I agree that indeed Duchamp the artist "created" the work even though he
did not physically craft it. I use your terminology to assert that in EVERY
case the art is NOT inherent in the objects mistakenly called "art".
> : Is the
> : art work the very unit he exhibited, the many just like it (doing their
> : humble service to humanity) or the idea that a utilitarian object had
> : something of beauty to be appreciated in it. That art was _not_ the
> : dictates of the "art" world? It seems Duchamp VIEWED it (into existence
> : as an art object) in a different (to the art world) light and who was to
> : argue with an established artist (probably most art critics, at the
> : time, I'm sure).
>
> : While I agree with the imperative of intention (otherwise nothing
> : happens), I disagree it is the exclusive purview of either artist
> : (whether creator or not, as you point out) and certainly not of art
> : critics, but everything to do with art viewers. An art "object" becomes
> : art when it _connects_. Art is in our souls or NOT!
>
> I still must disagree.
>"How can an artwork be art and then also not be
> art (no, this is not a Zen koan)?
Is a sound still a sound if it falls on deaf ears? History and everyday
life is replete with examples of one people/person missing intention. All I
say is that art is not Art until it communicates to the soul.
> If a work connects with one viewer it
> is deemed art,
To that viewer: YES!
> and if it fails to connect with another viewer it is not?
(same as above)
>
> Be careful not to romanticize the physical artwork
No problem there. Hey! Some would even _deify_ the object! Just look at the
prices! I am in full agreement there.
> (however, feel free to
> romaticize the artistic endevour in creating the work!). In other words,
> you must seperate the art from the artifact. In the case of photography, a
> piece of paper hung on the wall with a bunch of chemicals stuck to it
> (i.e. a photograph) is just that, and nothing more. However, the
> intention of the artist, the desire to use this piece of paper as a
> tool for communicating his ideas, is what makes it art, just as Duchamp
> used the porcelain throne to communicate an idea. And even if the work
> fails to connect with a single viewer it is still art -- just
> unsuccessful art.
If it's unsuccessful in communicating: it is NOT art. Art is in the
perception of the viewer. In the SOUL (not the eye) of the beholder.
Irrespective of: a. intention, (i.e. nature, naive and found art)
b. subject matter, (Weston, Mapplethorpe, Weegee)
c. style (folk and found art)
>
> : If Duchamp had only viewed the toilet bowl and NOT declared it Art would
> : it have been less art for him? For us?
>
> Duchamp's "work" has absolutely nothing to do with the toilet bowl -- it
> was about (ironically enough) the perception of art. So to answer your
(meant rhetorically)
> question, I would have to first say that the toilet bowl itself was never
> really the art, but merely the artifact. If I were to bend on this, play
> devil's advocate for a moment, and say that the toilet bowl Duchamp
> exhibited WAS the art then I would have to say that yes, if Duchamp had not
> declared it art it would have been less art for him and us -- but again, I
> reiterate that the work had nothing to do with toilet bowls or any quality
> inherent in the object itself.
>
An art object is a tool of the individual soul. While an art object has the
potential of eliciting art, it itself is NOT art. Some would say Art
"touches" or "moves" them. Art is in the reaction: enlightenment or
catharsis or disgust. Art is not neutral. It's wonderful.
Dirk
Patrick White
In <beakmanE...@netcom.com> bea...@netcom.com (Beakman) writes:
>The real criteria is what was the intention of the creator of
>the piece. If the intention was to communicate some message, idea,
>feeling, or emotion to the viewer through the work then I would be
>inclined to call it art, and say that the person who didn't think it was
>art had incorrectly decided that the work was not art just because he
>didn't like it. Not liking a work of art doesn't make it cease to be
>art. Similarly, there is good art and there is bad art -- and no matter
>how bad it is, if the intention was there then we must still call it art.
A good deinition but it's missing one (probably assumed) thing -- that
the creator express some sort of creativity. Here's why...
By this definition, all snapshots are art -- they communicate to at
least the photographer. If that artist selects a snap from their pile
(and probably enarges it for viewing ease) and hangs it on a gallery wall,
then it is still art.
If, however, they randomly snap off the shutter to create the pile of
snaps, then the snaps themselves don't qualify as art because they were not
made with any intent of conveying any message or any creativity. Those
random snaps, however, can still be art. The artist can _select_ one and
express their creativity that way.
Even if the artist doesn't themselves know what message they are
trying to convey, if they are at least making the decision of this-snap-but-
not-that-one, then they are communicating _something_.
If the artist picks a snap at random, then it is not art. It doesn't
qualify because the artist has neither conveyed any message nor expressed any
creativity. There's nothing to disginuish the artist from a contraption that
randomly walks the earth taking random snaps and selects one at random to
display. I don't know about the rest of you, but I certainly wouldn't
consider the output of such a contraption art.
Of course, this example only holds true for a _single_ picture. Do
more than one and there's a whole extra way to communicate and express
creativity -- the sequence or the grouping or common qualities or any of
a bunch of other ways.
--
Pat White (work: patbob...@sequent.com, (503) 578-3463)
Internet==Net of 1000 lies. (adapted from Verner Vinge's
_A Fire Upon The Deep_)
RUSSELL B BARBER
Ken Neely wrote in message <357EA797...@earthlink.net>...
>There are only two criteria to apply - whether the artist
>likes it ( in the case of non- compensated work) or whether
>the public ( i.e. client) likes it.
>
>KN
Just my own two cents here - For me, it is art if it evokes an emotional
response in me. It does not need to be awe inspiring or cause tears to
spring to my eyes, but if I feel something, if it moves me in some small
way, it is art.
Russell