The Great Art Debate...again

[KJ Smith]

Yep, Its on again. This is a carry over from another thread.


We were given this definition, so its as good as anyplace to start.


"Definition of Art- The systematic application of knowledge or skill in effecting a desired result. Also, an occupation or business requiring such knowledge or skill."

Your thoughts, Please remain civil.

[wclavey]

Originally Posted by KJ Smith

"Definition of Art- The systematic application of knowledge or skill in effecting a desired result.

That is the definition of being a research lab technician... hardly an artist.

[KJ Smith]

That was not my definition.

To be fair I said....


Photography itself is not an Art.

Some photographs are art.


I stand by and will defend that position.

I think that definition was in part a response to my statement.

[tropicpine]

Art does not exist.

With this one stroke of intellectual hooliganism I am:
1.) Free to appreciate the creative works of others without concern of any 3rd party opinion.
2.) Free to pursue my own creative works without concern for how any one else will classify it.

[rockpics]

I don't have a good definition of art, but it seems that it is more than the application of knowledge. Art appeals to the senses and emotions, not necessarily the rational. I would like to think that photography can be art.

[wclavey]

Hey, Kevin, I know it wasn't yours... you're just the instigator, I mean, initiator... but it is still the definition of a research lab technician... among many other things... it is not the definition of an artist.

I agree more with your assertion.

[KJ Smith]

I have, in the past, taken the viewpoint that Photography is Art, period.

Over the last year I have refined my thoughts.

The statement I made reflects my current thoughts.

But if someone has a compelling argument, I can further refine my ideas.

[KJ Smith]

Originally Posted by wclavey

Hey, Kevin, I know it wasn't yours... you're just the instigator, I mean, initiator... but it is still the definition of a research lab technician... among many other things... it is not the definition of an artist.

I agree more with your assertion.

It seems to be closer to the definition of an Artisan. From what I remember.

I don't know if there was some confusion or what.

[shutterfire]

Because the definitions of art are changing in the history. (And, more sophisticated, the questions beginning with “What is…’ are presupposes several determined philosophical ideas.) So we can’t speak about art en général, but only about a given period’s theory of art. Or about a given author’s theory of art.

So we can ask only this: Can photography be considered art in the 21st century? Or more precisely: What kind of photography can be considered art in the 21st century by contemporary art theories?

I – we – can answer this question, in contrast with the “what is art?” and “is photography art?”. But for the answer we have to summarise – at least – the contemporary art- and picture-theories. And this is an almost impossible task; but it is much easier than answering the questions about the definition of art en général. Or if we would like to achieve an answer, we have to try it.

From the early romanticism the art theories started to unsettle the representational or mimetic function of art. The most important art theories in the 20th century (from the end of the 19th century) underlines this non-representational or non-mimetic character of art (I mean: Nietzsche, Mallarmé, Heidegger, the hermeneutics, the poststructuralism, the deconstruction, W. Benjamin, Danto etc.). In these theories the language of art does not speak about something (which is out of the art), but it speaks about itself. Heidegger says: “Die Sprache spricht.” In the second half of the 20th century the so-called “picture turn” emphasises that the visual art can be art only if it does not represent anything (I mean Belting, Boehm, Imdahl etc.).

So we have got a temporal answer: Photography can be considered art in the second part of the 20th and in the 21st century by the contemporary art theory, if it does not represent anything. Or if photography isn’t an illustration or a documentation for/about something, for/about a so-called (outer) reality.

[rockpics]

So we have got a temporal answer: Photography can be considered art in the second part of the 20th and in the 21st century by the contemporary art theory, if it does not represent anything. Or if photography isn’t an illustration or a documentation for/about something, for/about a so-called (outer) reality.[/QUOTE]

By this definition, any photo taken by Ansel Adams prior to 1950 can be art and any photo taken by Ansel Adams after 1950 can't be.

[shutterfire]

could you clarify why it could not be after 1950?

[rockpics]

His photography is representational, and by definition is not art in the latter half of the 20th century.

[shutterfire]

let me clairify it said in the 20th and 21st century which is now,
what is your definition Jill?

[shutterfire]

\

[rockpics]

Definition of 20th century: Jan. 1, 1901 to Dec. 31, 2000.