The Great Art Debate...again

[rockpics]

Like Conor, I do what I do because I like to do it. Rarely, some may see it as art, but frequently no one will except perhaps me.

[wandrson]

Art is a subjective term and as such is really beyond definition. For me the proper question is "Is this art?" Again a subjective question but one limited to a specific item. For me the answer is yes if I find it stimulating to my senses, preferably in a positive way and of course their must have been intent in its making. So for instance a beautiful sunset can be stimulating but is not art; however, a well executed photo or painting can be art. Then their comes the question of perceived value which usually leads to nothing worthwhile.

Curiously, these types of discussions usually involve some form of elitism. For instance the term fine art as opposed to folk art. The modifiers are elitist leftovers from a need to categorize quality or worth.

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by shutterfire

"Aesththetic definitions are held to be too broad because neatly manicured lawns are aesthetically pleasing, products of commercial design are aesthetically pleasing, and created to be aesthetically pleasing but are not art. Aesthetic definitons infer that it is pleasing not all artwork is pleasing." ( Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy)

I didn't say aesthetics were the sole criteria. You're ignoring the 'meaningful' part. I thought I was also pretty clear about purpose/intent of the work.

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by wandrson

Curiously, these types of discussions usually involve some form of elitism. For instance the term fine art as opposed to folk art. The modifiers are elitist leftovers from a need to categorize quality or worth.

The term fine art is not a value judgment. "Fine art" just means art that is created for its own value, rather than serving some utilitarian purpose, eg "art for art's sake".

[Murph]

Fine Art is ageless, and translates well into different eras. Hip/trend/edgy tends to not outlast the fad that created it or the Elites that ooze over it.

[wclavey]

Originally Posted by janikphoto

I agree that this is not the best definition of an artist, but it doesn't really describe a lab tech. It's just written too vague to really get much from it.

And my 2 cents... It definitely does describe a research lab technician. I was a research lab technician for about 6 years. The department chairman (whose lab it was) would describe the work he would like to do... in fairly high level terms ("Read these papers; I want to do something like this...") In my case it was cellular reconstitution from constituent cells parts from various sources. It was my job to (1) define the process by which we would do that; (2) invent processes that did not already exist - - be creative & imaginative, in other words; (3) identify all the materials that would be needed; (4) conduct the work, modifying and adapting as I went along to attain the results; and (5) present in external form the finished result.

Perhaps I was an artist. Perhaps I was a scientist. The scientific community and the journal that published my paper certainly considered me a scientist. And perhaps, since some of the procedures were very complex, I may even have been "an artist" in performing those steps. But this definition really does describe a research lab technician. I think I effected the outcome exactly as the definition implied.

[venchka]

Interesting parallel discussion. 21 pages and growing. If you're really bored.

Why Moonrise over Hernandez? - Large Format Photography Forum

[KJ Smith]

Originally Posted by venchka

Interesting parallel discussion. 21 pages and growing. If you're really bored.

Why Moonrise over Hernandez? - Large Format Photography Forum

The OP in that thread is wanting to know why his stuff isn't selling. That is the real jest of the whole thing.



Moonrise was well liked and available.

Galleries liked having it because it drew in people.

Therefore it sold more.

No, it was not his best.

Just saved you 21 pages of reading. Stay on Topic.

[texkam]

Is said terrorist creative, resourceful, unique or unorthodox in his pursuit? Does he bring new techniques, solutions, perspectives to the discipline? Does he achieve his ends by means that others in his field see as groundbreaking (pun intended)? Then why shouldn't he be considered an artist in his chosen field?

Ding ding ding. We have a winner. Most people have a problem when art is disturbing or somehow lets them down.

[venchka]

Yes sir!

[mmuhlenkamp]

[wclavey]

Originally Posted by texkam

Ding ding ding. We have a winner. Most people have a problem when art is disturbing or somehow lets them down.

Like the hoopla over the Piss Christ photo back in the 1980s?

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by klynam

Is said terrorist creative, resourceful, unique or unorthodox in his pursuit? Does he bring new techniques, solutions, perspectives to the discipline? Does he achieve his ends by means that others in his field see as groundbreaking (pun intended)? Then why shouldn't he be considered an artist in his chosen field?

I write software for a living. I consider it a creative field, but I don't consider my source code "art". Not every field in which creativity and resourcefulness can be applied is art. By that criteria, everything is art, since somebody has probably done it with creativity. I just don't see how such a broad and inclusive definition is useful. If everything is art, then art loses its meaning and value.

[Flea77]

To me, and only in my insignificant opinion, art is a creative endeavor where the final product presents more than the obvious representation of its construction.

To clarify. I must have seen thousands of wedding pictures in my life. Some really bad ones, some OK, some really good, but only a couple really struck me as art. How did they differ? Well the first thing I can tell you is that they conveyed emotion to me, not just a "oh look how in love they look" effect, but they made ME feel. Second, they were extremely creative, unorthodox, not obvious. Thirdly, they were technically superior.

So as for photography in general, I say if it is technically good, creative, and provokes a genuine emotional response in me, then I consider it art. Then again, I am not an art critic so what the heck do I know.

Allan

PS. The number of images I have taken that I would consider art? Well I can count them on one hand in almost 30 years of snapping.

[Murph]

If you look at it, and do not understand it, and it has to be explained to you, then it is not good art. Good art should speak to you without any intermediary.