photography as art abstraction

Tony Field · Jun 3, 2006

Art is an abstraction process that allows the viewers mind to interpret the intent of the artist. Art can be totally abstract and is created purely by the artist. It can be complete or partial representation of reality - however this is an abstraction process as well.

Photography is generally a partial representation of reality. IMHO, the more of an abstraction the photograph is, the more it approaches art. If this is the case, the real difficulty is choosing the style of abstraction used. You could, for example, choose lighting, composition, technical processing, shutter speed control, or may other techniques.

One form of abstraction that I personally like (but seems to be abhorent to most modern digital photographers) is the use of grain or noise in such a way that it adds to the image abstraction in "an appropriate way". The artistic process hopefully starts with idea of creating such an image, and the development of that image into a final print representation.

I have been playing around with using noise as a fundamental abstraction component of the image ever since my university days (in physics/math/computing). Here are a couple of images that I think try to move in the direction of art:

Recent shot at a jazz joint (the Beat-Niq in Calgary):

Ancient shot from UofCalgary frosh week, 1970. The group is Lighthouse:

Asher Kelman · Jun 3, 2006

Hi Tony,

I appreciate that you have the goal of a print. That is why we are here!

One print at a time is the best way to go, unless several prints are part of an inseparable series. I won't delete your second image. but let's deal with the first one.

Here's just my take:

The image is art simply if it causes an eruption of feelings and a need to revisit. If this works over time, it is art. If it affects a lot of people then we are even more certain it has currency. I call it "ART" if it can be sold.

The rest, concerning technics, reality, exactness etc is not important as defining art. The possible components are so endless and varied, IMHO, that structure, itself, practically defies description.

So art can be "correctly defined" and "truly accurate" or "imperfect" or "partially-represented" or in any combinations of these representations.

So how do we approach calling a photograph "art"?

"It either works or it doesn't!" is my point of view. Then, it can "sell or not" and that is totally another matter (depending on many things including fashion, cultural bias, the economy etc.).

Your first image I can get into. I find it fascinating. Not the second, however, because it doesn't, at this time, speak to me.

The first image has interesting shapes and colors. I like it.

I wonder what you might feel about its integrity, (to your vision,) if you were to excise a quarter of an inch from the top, (that would remove the very top front part of the hat with everything above. Also to add a cut below the v-neck sweater, just allowing the v point and then another 2.5 mm. Everything below would be cropped.

With these changes, one's eyes are locked into the image more and I happen to enjoy it better.

One way to judge is to print the picture at its expected size and crop with overlaying black paper. The print is really the final container for your vision.

I haven't mentioned any other changes to the image as yet because, to me at least, any cropping might alter subsequent needs for further adjustments.

I'd like to see how it goes. Thanks for sharing.

Asher

P.S. The fact that you took the picture at ISO 6400 is worth noting!

Alain Briot · Jun 3, 2006

Asher Kelman said:
Hi Tony,
I call it "ART" if it can be sold.
QUOTE]

Interesting. So you have art and ART. Does that mean Van Gogh was an artist and not an ARTIST since he hardly sold anything in his lifetime?

I prefer to define art as originating with the intent of the artist, the photographer in this case. If the photographer intends to create art, then it is art for this photographer. Whether that intent is communicated to his audience or not is where success, or failure, to communicate lies. Whether it sells or not has nothing to do with it. I make that point in my Being an Artist, and Being an Artist in Business essays. I wrote these essays separately to further emphasize that one has nothing to do with the other. The first is aimed at expressing oneself. The second is aimed at making an income. While the two can be combined, we are really looking at two different professions and endeavors. Those who succeed have studied and are good at both. It's a lot simpler to do just one or the other.

ALain

Asher Kelman · Jun 3, 2006

I like your stimulating post Alain.

Allow me to interject in blue my comments to what you have written so as not to force me to create an over-long essay.

We have come to this point from different culturally rich backgrounds. Our schools and even our museums are run differently! My own ideas are constantly challenged by each piece of art that stops me in my tracks and by the opinions of others.

So, it's a special pleasure and instructive to read your thoughts on this subject. We do not seem to differ in the end by a lot, but there might be some unresolved differences in persepctive:

Alain Briot said:
Asher Kelman said:

Hi Tony,
I call it "ART" if it can be sold.
QUOTE]

Interesting. So you have art and ART. Does that mean Van Gogh was an artist and not an ARTIST since he hardly sold anything in his lifetime?

BTW, I only use the terms art and "ART" not "ARTIST".

To make a point, Theo, Van Gogh's brother, knew the art's potential worth, for sure. He knew it would be valuable, collected and traded like gold! Everything that Theo did showed commercial value follows cultural recognition only under the right circumstances.

Vincent was an Artist to himself and in his lifetime to just an elite circle. Now he's celebrated everywhere.

Further, this, purely artistic, valuation has stood the test of time. I believe, and you I'm sure would agree, that even if his works had been locked away, their discovery now, would most likely lead to the same assessments.

I prefer to define art as originating with the intent of the artist, the photographer in this case.

Are you specifying that intent must be before, during or after the picture is taken? Or how about 10 years later? As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter. Well, I do concede that I'd find it interesting and even instructive to learn whether the artist DOES indeed make any such intent known to him/herself, even subconsiously before that shot is taken

If the photographer intends to create art, then it is art for this photographer.

Bien sur! in fact I believe that an artist might even create art without intent and still be appreciated as and BE art

Whether that intent is communicated to his audience or not is where success, or failure, to communicate lies.

I have never been happy with "failure to communicate", as it could be that we are the wrong people to observe and appreciate this particular art. All I can say is that "it moves me or not"," I like it or not", "I will return to it or not". I may guess, from my experience with other pieces and the market, as to whether others, I have knowledge of, might react to it differently. Still, this is merely a poorly educated and rough guess.

Whether it sells or not has nothing to do with it.

We totally agree! It could be buried in the forrest for years and that would not per se alter it's artistic validity.

I make that point in my Being an Artist, and Being an Artist in Business essays. I wrote these essays separately to further emphasize that one has nothing to do with the other. The first is aimed at expressing oneself. The second is aimed at making an income. While the two can be combined, we are really looking at two different professions and endeavors.

Completely understood and appreciated and I agree with what you have written!Those who succeed have studied

This puzzles me. The first point I have seem to have a real DEEP issue with. I ask the question, is study absolutely necessary? and are good at both. It's a lot simpler to do just one or the other.

That was easy to agree to. You are lucky to have achieved competency in both. Van Gogh, was not! Asher

ALain

Click to expand...

Alain Briot · Jun 3, 2006

"I only use the terms art and "ART"

Then was Van Gogh making art or ART? Same thing. You're splitting hairs aren't you ;-)

"Are you specifying that intent must be before, during or after the picture is taken?"

It doesn't matter as long as it is during the act of creation.

"is study absolutely necessary?"

In my view yes. Otherwise how do you do it? By luck, happenstance, the muses visiting you and you just acting randomly? You have to know what you are doing, you have to develop your skills, you have to understand the medium you are working on, your motivation, what moves you to create and one thousand other things. And how else do you develop this knowledge if not by study either on your own or with others? And what about business, marketing and salesmanship? I don't know about you, but personally I wasn't born with that knowledge and had to study to acquire it.

Alain

Asher Kelman · Jun 3, 2006

Alain Briot said:
"I only use the terms art and "ART"

Then was Van Gogh making art or ART? Same thing. You're splitting hairs aren't you ;-)

"Are you specifying that intent must be before, during or after the picture is taken?"

It doesn't matter as long as it is during the act of creation.

"is study absolutely necessary?"

In my view yes. Otherwise how do you do it? By luck, happenstance, the muses visiting you and you just acting randomly? You have to know what you are doing, you have to develop your skills, you have to understand the medium you are working on, your motivation, what moves you to create and one thousand other things. And how else do you develop this knowledge if not by study either on your own or with others? And what about business, marketing and salesmanship? I don't know about you, but personally I wasn't born with that knowledge and had to study to acquire it.

Alain

Alain,

Thanks again for challenging my point of view! Here is my take.

Van Gogh was only making art. That, I believe without any hesitation, was his obsession. His brother and agent knew about potential real world transformation of art into currency. That is entirely different and I call that art as currency "ART"

That is not splitting hairs. ART in "my" clear definition means "equivalent to some market value" in gold, sterling, US$ or whatever.

Art is art and we would agree in many cases, no doubt!

To the subject of the need for study: I agree, most of us ordinary folk need to study, strive and learn whether it is the art of art or the art of commerce.

For myself, by example, I knew nothing of any selling or merchandising capability. We simply knew no one that did such a thing! That was not in my nature, culture nor vocabulary. I've had to take considerable pains to learn such things!

Some few, however, unlike us, are "naturals" in art, music and in commerce.

As if from nowhere, a savant can take a Rubik's Cube and whiz around the blocks and get order from disorder in about 6 strokes, whereas trained mathematicians, might be stuck for hours.

All, or almost all the Great Masters were apprenticed many long years to study their art, to make faces real and glass sparkle with each facet of cut crystal. In this your statements, concerning training, are entirely correct.

Still, some children have, from infancy, been able to paint expressively as soon as they could hold a brush! Some prodigies play the piano by ear with no instruction. It is just natural territory.

Others grow up in cultures where everyone trades and bargains and sells, has connections here and there and have a natural eye for new ideas. Others have no special training, just trader’s natural genius. They absorb skills.

Two cases in particular. One, an illiterate man: couldn't write his name and no bank would give him a loan for his start up tire store.

Anyway, he sold tires. He was so good, that he bought up all the adjacent lots and had the largest tire business in town.

The very bank that refused him a loan, because he was illiterate, invited him on their board. Why? He was a born "natural" entrepraneur and businessman and they recognised that as fact!

Another, young man, I personally know, rebelled against working in the family fish store! The son started to cook fish upstairs (no training, mind you, just sense of taste, herbs and judgment) and soon the lines were stretched around the block, people waiting hours, paying in advance to eat at "Legal Seafood".

Check it out! A multi-million dollar company with stores all over!

In each case, the acumen and skills were innate and the environment allowed that to flourish.

In art, it is not much different. Only that “to paint in oils”, for example one has to know that particular medium, as you have correctly stated.

However, an artist with talent can do all this by trial and error. The result will, of course be different.

There are, it is true, technical barriers to be overcome. In photography, one can't give an infant a 1Ds and say, "OK, genius, create!"

Still, give that very same child charcoal and you might be surprised. Further, if that child can indeed work wonders with the charcoal, later on, for certain, he'll have no problem mastering the camera too.

For sure, if that young man would walk with you, watch you and stand by you printing, then the path would be easier. Still, I believe, certain gifted people will absorb the skills, composition, color, texture, tone and more, by themselves, anyway, from the world around them and by just "knowing" that it is something they can do.

So while I entirely agree that technique can be trained, appreciation can be enhanced, and one can be coached to make a facsimile of the art of someone else, natural propensity and facility is perhaps the most important factor!

It doesn't matter what creative person you are talking about: be it artist or market maker, natural talent is the critical ingredient that can't be taught and which can, even without formal instruction lead to some significant degree of success.

And why? Through millions of years of development, particular talents useful for man's mastery of himself and the planet have been selected and imprinted in real brain circuits and patterns of learning and behavior. Certain people are endowed with special versions of this inheritance. These are the "naturals".

For lesser people, like ourselves, we have to study and work so hard to develop our skills. To then be able to sell, as you have done is unusual! As you know I’m a strong fan of your art, your teaching as well as your ability to actually sell! Not many people can, themselves, do all three things well!

However, we must not then believe that study, and even "skill" is of necessity a barrier for the gifted. They do indeed simply absorb from their environment. Then, when they give back, we are moved, stunned, amazed and everything else.

And to Tony, we haven't forgotten your photograph! I will now sit back and let others express their own opinions and guidance for you. I don't want my own penchant for debate to be mistaken for definitions of fact. What I state is merely my own POV.

I am most interested in Alain's advice on your prints and note how privileged we are to have him available for all of us!

Asher

Alain Briot · Jun 3, 2006

Well, let's move on to practical applications of your beliefs: what percentage of your work is due to talent, and what percentage is due to training? In my case, I would say that about 20% is talent. The other 80% are training. If talent was responsible for more than that, then I would have been creating the work I am creating now since day 1.

I am also interested in what percentage other readers consider to be theirs. Clearly, if talent is solely responsible for someone's work, then there is no need to ask for comment on this work. It is what it is and study won't improve it. On the other hand, if study is mainly responsible for the quality of your work, the way it is for mine, then help is something you will value.

Asher Kelman · Jun 3, 2006

Alain,

I wouldn't know how to even estimate a percentage and I don't think it is important, unless it is God looking down from heaven on man or man in the future looking back in history and then I'm, for sure, not relevent!

My view is that we exchange ideas on images and we gain perspective.

Case in point, Tony's picture of the lady with the hat. I've been drawn to it more. Wendy, my wife and I have been discussing it. She is a Museum docent and also curates art. She felt that the picture had a special architectural value and that the triangular V neck and the rectangles on either side of the woman were in themselves powerful. "Nothing needs be cropped!", she said, except, of course, the black information border along the bottom edge, which perhaps was causing problems for my appreciation.

Was this teaching? Perhaps. My take? I think it was merely discussion and exploration of why we react and why we hesitate.

I now agree with Wendy! We enjoy the picture as it is! Still, Tony, I would really like your report on an actual print and other people's reactions.

Asher

Tony Field · Jun 4, 2006

Asher Kelman said:
Still, Tony, I would really like your report on an actual print and other people's reactions.

My actual print of preference is similar to the presented image in terms of colour and vertical height. However, my overall sense of balance prefers a more horizontal aspect compared to the original web image above. The general response is that most "people" like it very much. Some "photographers", on the other hand, strongly disklike the noise. The "people", on the other hand, only see the noise as a "pointilism" technique.

My final print is a 13x19 glossy on a Canon dye printer. I am printing this as well on the Epson 4800 pigment printer as a 19 inch high image however have not been able to make a print (glossy or matte) that matches the visual effect of the glossy. Humm, just like the good old days - the glossy silver prints always outshine the mattes

(Interesting that the appreciation of "art for artists", "dance for dancers", "photographs for photographers", "music for musicians" are often very different than the appreciation experienced by mere "people".)

Tony Field · Jun 4, 2006

If the photographer intends to create art, then it is art for this photographer.

Bien sur! in fact I believe that an artist might even create art without intent and still be appreciated as and BE art

Whether that intent is communicated to his audience or not is where success, or failure, to communicate lies.

The connotation of "art" is rather strange. It seems to me that "art" can only be a term ascribed by a viewer who is not the creator. In fact, the creator creates and the independent viewer states that it is art. If the viewer perceives that a number of creations by one person are works of art, the viewer states that the creator is an "artist".

If I create a series of photographs and hang them on the wall, they are merely photographs until someone else states they are art.

Asher Kelman · Jun 4, 2006

Tony Field said:
If the photographer intends to create art, then it is art for this photographer.

Bien sur! in fact I believe that an artist might even create art without intent and still be appreciated as and BE art

Whether that intent is communicated to his audience or not is where success, or failure, to communicate lies.

The connotation of "art" is rather strange. It seems to me that "art" can only be a term ascribed by a viewer who is not the creator. In fact, the creator creates and the independent viewer states that it is art. If the viewer perceives that a number of creations by one person are works of art, the viewer states that the creator is an "artist".

If I create a series of photographs and hang them on the wall, they are merely photographs until someone else states they are art.

Tony, Hi again,

I see your lady now as an old friend.

I believe that you, yourself are also an audience to your own work. Give yourself the same respect as to others! Haven't you ever gotten out of bed and looked at what you created again? That drive to revisit and the emotion stirred by the visit, are, IMHO, the very biological underpinnings of the phenomenon we call art.

It is a way of creating "infectious feelings". I have, for the first time expressed my thoughts as exactly as this. I would ask you to google "meme". This word, in case it is new to some people, refers to infectious ideas: religions, fashions, ideas that Bush is "dumb", "brilliant", "childish" "brave" etc are competing memes.

I believe art is a related phenomenon.

In any case, when something exits the "secret cathedral" of your mind and is expressed in some way, it arives stamped with whatever ideas and secrets are being discussed in the different parts of this great creative space, not quite available to you.

When it arrives as a choice of action, something framed by you and something else excluded, in it, there may be some important emotional element you are trying to express.

It is that "essence" which appears in art. When it is strong enough to evoke feeling and be demanding that you return to explore further, you have been infected, hooked and suckered and this is what art is! That is how I view things today.

So, if you are moved, even by by your own work, it is art, if you wish to call it that.

Asher

nicolas claris · Jun 4, 2006

Tony
I agree 200%
Stating oneself as an artist, whoever one is, looks to me so pretentious! or at least naïve...
On my own I really appreciate when viewers appreciate what I call my "work". If some call it "art" I tend to tell them, thanks, but let's wait a century, we'll then see if you'll still call it "art"...

And to reply to above posts, what percentage can we speak about?
I tend to agree with Asher, what is difference between training, culture, experience, evolution of appreciation etc...
Training comes certainly for use of softwares, technic (?).
But I do not train my feelings...
IMHO

John Carolan · Jun 4, 2006

Definition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art

IMHO whether a photo is art or not is broadly dependant on the context in which it is displayed/used as well as the intent of the photographer. Plus in any case the meaning/interpretation of a photograph will change as time passes. Let history be the judge as they say. I'm not convinced that abstraction in itself promotes the interpretation of something as art. Of the two images posted above I think the first works pretty well as art as it has a pleasing composition, it isn't a standard issue/traditional contemporary portrait and because the subject is not looking into the lens there is a certain mystery/anonymity, I'm also a big fan of noise/grain! There are also a few meanings that could be read into the image, what is the woman looking at? Is she turning away from something? Making a decision? There appears to be an open area on the right of the image in the background, but she is facing away from this. So there is a pleasing ambiguity here. The second image just looks like a pretty good photo from a gig (obviously) and I cannot with any enthusiasm look at it as an example of art. To contradict myself a little here I suppose if you played around with the image in photoshop, printed it out, distressed the hell out of it with scratches and hand applied paint splashes (an abstraction process I guess) then stuck it in a frame in a gallery it would more resemble art? Context and intent y'see

Alain Briot · Jun 4, 2006

"If I create a series of photographs and hang them on the wall, they are merely photographs until someone else states they are art."

This all depends whether you decide that the audience controls your work or whether you decide you control your work. It also depends if you believe you define your audience, i.e. choose your audience or if you believe the audience chooses you.

If we follow your model, then a lot of what we now consider art wasn't considered art by the audience when it was created. This includes many of the artists we respect today, including Monet, Van Gogh, Picasso and virtually all the cubist painters, and many many more than I have time to list in this cursory listing.

In my model I control my work and I choose my audience. My work is as it appears on my website, shows, publications, etc. and my audience are viewers and collectors who love my work. Certainly, some do not like what I do. That is fine, they are simply not part of my audience. This makes my life easier as I do not need to spend time telling people why they should like my work when they obviously don't.

As an aside, it is important to note that no matter how inocuous what you create is --and certainly landscape photography is generally perceived as inocuous and inoffensive-- there are people who do not like certain landscape representations. As I said, those are not part of my audience.

Of course, your position is perfectly valid, acceptable and respectable. It is simply not mine. Note that I don't challenge it. As I always say, it is a free country and you are free to do as you please. However, personally, I would have none of it. Far too restrictive for my taste. I need freedom! In fact, the number one reason why I choose to be an artist is to have this freedom and to enjoy it. I am therefore not about to give it up by letting others control what I do.

If I can allow myself one recommendation, it is to consider this aspect carefully. At what point do you stop doing what you like and start doing what your audience wants you to do, simply because they consider "this" to be art and "that" not to be art? In my view this is the big danger.

In my opinion the artist has a vision that is fullfilled in his work. While some exchange of views with one's audience is important, it is also important to know that this audience does not have the artist's vision.

ALain

Alain Briot · Jun 4, 2006

"Stating oneself as an artist, whoever one is, looks to me so pretentious! or at least naïve..."

No more than to "state oneself as an" engineer, doctor, surgeon, photographer, painter, sculptor, butcher, plumber, landscaper, marathon runner, personal trainer, race car driver, you name it. In other words, it is a profession defined by having the proper training, qualifications and competency. I fail to see what in this is pretentious or naive. Where I do perceive naivete is in the lack of understanding of the tenets of this profession on the part of the audience. There is naivete there in thinking that Artist is a profession like no other while it really isn't. There is also pretention there in defining artist as not being a profession.

That pretention comes into view when one considers how many people are employed as artists: this includes all actors, comedians, show performers, musicians, singers, composition artists, doubles, most of the people working in a creative role in the movie industry, of course all visual artists working in the beaux arts --painters, sculptors, ceramicists, architects, musicians, photographers-- all performing artists, jewelers, interior decorators, etc. etc. The list is much longer than that of course but you get the idea. To say that these people do not have a profession, or are not professionals, is indeed both naive and pretentious.

If you feel that calling yourself an artist is pretentious, or naive, this is your call and it may be justified. After all, I personally wouldn't call myself a surgeon, a plumber or pretend to be part of a profession for which I have neither the training, the qualifications or the experience. However, to extend this approach to others is denigrating them the fact that they are part of a legitimate profession, as I explained earlier. In my view this is inacceptable. I have spent my entire life training, studying and praticing being an artist and reading that calling myself what I am is naive and pretentious is very insulting.

Alain Briot · Jun 4, 2006

The two essays listed below go a long way towards showing what I am talking about here and describing my experience as an artist. Both were published on Luminous-landscape.com in the context of my regular column, Briot's View. If you have not read them yet, I recommend doing so as they provide valuable information about my experience and the positions I am taking regarding art. The other essays in this series are equally important and relevant to other posts I have made on OPP. Here are the links:

Being An Artist:
http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/aesthetics10.shtml

Being an Artist in Business:
http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/Artist1.shtml

Briot's View (entire series listing):
http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/briots_view.shtml

Dierk Haasis · Jun 5, 2006

Not that I think anybody in the real world needs a rigorous definition of 'art' or 'Art' but when we go for it we should leave out any moral or modal apprehension. Most non-technical definitions of art [and I come back to my spelling differentioation in a moment] fall into the trap of incorporating personal evaluation, 'good' vs. 'bad'. Not so.

In English I have the big advantage of showing a difference between the more general term 'art' and the usual meaning of 'Art', the latter denoting high art: paintings, statues etc. most people easily identify as Art. This is the sense most people use it, with 'good' being implicit; Mona Lisa by Leonardo is Art.

Obviously this cannot be all there is to it or we would be hard-pressed to decide if a stack of paper is art or not. In the more general sense 'art' is everything man-made, everything made with an intention to be precise. It is the opposite of 'nature', so to speak. This definition incorporates the Mona Lisa as well as the countless Monarchs of the Glen in living rooms all over the world.

We are still left with the question, how to recognise Art. We cannot just say that art becomes Art when I like it. Equally wrong would be to ascribe the decision to the majority or to experts. What about the artist himself? Actually this is not a bad way to define what is Art (= high art), when someone says it is, we have a starting point. If others agree, say, a museum, it is Art. We may not like it but that does not matter.

The big advantage of these definitions is that we forego any personal evaluation. We don't need to answer the question if it is good or bad - both, art and Art, can be good or bad. We also avoid any structural component either limiting us to certain forms of art or bringing back evaluative meaning through the backdoor: if it is representative, not abstract, can it be Art?

The whole, ongoing, discussion about photography being art or not, which began in 1835, was never convincing to me, exactly because of the difference many laid upon the (false) dichotomy between representative vs. abstract.

Eventually we are only left with two decisions a personal - Do we like a piece of art? -, and a general - Will it transcend the moment? The first is very easy to answer, the second only time will tell. The funny thing is, it is the latter we try to answer whenever we start discussing what art is. Luckily we get glimpses of what is needed to make a piece of art into a piece of Art.

I leave my answers to the last problem for other posts and articles.

Alain Briot · Jun 5, 2006

"The big advantage of these definitions is that we forego any personal evaluation. We don't need to answer the question if it is good or bad"

A definition is by definition (...) non-judgemental, and therefore wouldn't include personal opinions about what is good and bad. Doing so would be like defining "butter," or whatever else for that matter, and starting to talk about "good butter" and "bad butter" (replace "butter" by whatever you want to define). Doing so is expressing a personal taste, or bias, not defining what the word means.

Definitions of art in dictionaries are usually fairly accurate. However, as is often the case when defining a concept rather than an object, those definitions are subject to interpretation on the part of the author. Culture plays a significant role in shaping these definitions.

The real problem however is that definitions are only a shell. Much of what I do with art falls outside of these definitions. It's like the definition for "house." It's hard to disagree with the dictionary definition of "house." Yet, that definition bears litle relationship to our experience of our own house, or of our parents house. The same is true of the definition of Art. While the dictionary definition offers little to disagree with, at the same time it offers little we can relate to as practicing artists, art collectors or art appreciators. Eventually, the real "definition" is to be found in our approach and practice of art, not in the grammatical or linguistic definition of the word.

Tony Field · Jun 6, 2006

Alain Briot said:
The two essays listed below go a long way towards showing what I am talking about here and describing my experience as an artist.

Excellent readings... If I attempt to digest Being an Artist, my mind seems to grab on to the following quotes that summarize my understandings and by (mis)interpretation seem to exactly support my view of photography as art:

"Being an artist is about being free to express your personality through art."

"Being an artist means having a lifestyle that makes creativity and art part of your everyday life"

"There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer."

"Being an Artist is sharing your view of the world with a specific audience."

"Talent by definition involves competition."

The first two quotes imply the personal (egocentric) internal need to be creative. The last three imply the strong dependence on a viewer to validate the "creations" as "art". In other words, you merely create - the attribution of "art" is done by the viewer. If a sufficient number of viewer appreciate your productions as "art" then you can correctly describe your self as "an artist". If others do not view your work as art, I strongly suspect that is only a "creation".

Interestingly, the above quotes apply in virtually all "creative and skillful" professions I can think of: mathematics, business, computer programming, race car driving, politics, etc.

Analyzing photography falls into the same general mode. The photographer records and manipulates images. They are only recordings until viewers validate them as art. They are selections of vision. The only skill is in determining the pointing of the camera, adjusting/selecting lighting, adjusting compositional elements, and pressing of the button - skill primarily - not creativity. Any creativity I think is limited to the post-production print generation.

In my particular case, I completely enjoy recording those components of my life that I find pleasurable or illuminating (in particular, I enjoy recording the performing arts). My interest is the souvenir of my experiences. Some of them are "artsy", and very few are actually "art" (and those are mostly "art by accident"). I cannot see that I am an artist although some of my images may be "artistic"

Asher said "I believe that you, yourself are also an audience to your own work." I fully agree that I am my own audience. However my image souvenirs are not art - they are records of my past - if you wish, they are a diary of my life's highlights.

tony

Alain Briot · Jun 6, 2006

"The first two quotes imply the personal (egocentric) internal need to be creative. The last three imply the strong dependence on a viewer to validate the "creations" as "art". In other words, you merely create - the attribution of "art" is done by the viewer. If a sufficient number of viewer appreciate your productions as "art" then you can correctly describe your self as "an artist". If others do not view your work as art, I strongly suspect that is only a "creation"."

I think you are misunderstanding what I wrote. To get to the main point, I never say that the audience defines my work as art. Instead, I discuss at length the importance of the audience, and the indebtedness we have towards our audience. This being said, you decide for yourself how you see your relationship with your audience. My relationship is clearly defined in a previous post on this thread.

I may be wrong, but from what you write you seem to have a difficult time thinking of your work as art and of yourself as being an artist. You also believe, again if I understand you correctly, that considering yourself an artist and considering your work as art is pretentious (another forum member -Eric I believe- had the same belief). I personally consider myself and artist and my work as art, and I explained in a previous post my take on that.

It seems to me that this is about being self assured, of knowing yourself and what you do. Let me ask you this: what is your experience with art and with being an artist? What is your training and how many years of experience do you have? This will help me see where you are coming from. It may be that your lack of self assurance is essentially a lack of experience or training.

Alain

Tony Field · Jun 7, 2006

Hi Alain,
I think you are misunderstanding what I wrote.

I think I actually understand your position as an "artist". This is both self proclaimed (confidently done so) and also clearly supported by the patrons of your art. Of course, the education and peer recognition fully establishes you with this credential. This is not, in any way, pretentious - merely a statement of your simultaneous (a)vocation. In fact, you have a very clear vision of how "you decide for yourself how you see your relationship with your audience".

I have a fair amount of "experience" as a photographer dating back to 1962 when my father presented me with a Yashica A while I was in highschool. In university, as a science student (however took one half-course in photography at the UofCalgary), I managed to put myself through university based upon my photography of fashion, theatre and dance (but for family reasons and the desire to eat regularly, I worked until recently in the petroleum industry). The basic technical training of the mechanical components of photography and many arts are trivial - darkroom work, optical theory, camera technology are simply acquired. In fact, almost anyone with two eyes and a slight appreciation of the world around him can easily take pretty nice images and make them into pictures. This results in "communication" and not "art" in that the photographer conveys what he sees by transcribing it onto paper as a virtually mechanical process that has only some "artistic" (in the sense of "sort of like art") flexibility for modification.

Progression from this recording process (that I think I do quite well) to that of producing "art" is a very major step that requires, first and foremost, TALENT. Of course, this talent must be augmented by training and education - which may be formal (as in university / art school) or informal (as in the exchange of ideas among artists, self study, or the critical examination of other art). The talent allows all of these inputs to connect and register as a clear guide as you explore the mental process of what and how you wish to express your art. This is the realm of the true artist.

Of course, all people have this talent to some degree or other. The key that identifies an artist is where on the talent scale he happens to reside. Since this is a scale (my perception

we must have measuring stick that gives meaning to the scale. I submit that this is the viewer's judgement. If he calls your work "art", you are on the gooder side of the scale. If he neglects to call your work "art", you are on the badder side of the scale

The units of the scale is the number of viewers.

In my case I fall onto the badder end of the scale as an artist. However, I confidently profess to be very good at recording the highlights of my life - be that to photograph a pretty young lady or to document performing artists who please me. Yes, since I am actually on the scale, I am, by defintion, an artist - but that is really pushing the limit of credibility.

As Asher said, the artist is also a viewer - if he is the only one who feels his work is art, that is acceptable - however very much on the diminutive side, no matter how self gratifying the creations are. I do think it is pretentious to call ones own work "art" when that person is the only judge or the only person providing a positive judgement.

Asher Kelman · Jun 7, 2006

Tony Field said:
Hi Alain,
I think you are misunderstanding what I wrote.

As Asher said, the artist is also a viewer - if he is the only one who feels his work is art, that is acceptable - however very much on the diminutive side, no matter how self gratifying the creations are. I do think it is pretentious to call ones own work "art" when that person is the only judge or the only person providing a positive judgement.

My own definitions are socio-biological. They are to do with how we work as humans, as sentient apes, evolved and tested over millions of years.

art, in my view, has a social funtion. It is part of a complex of our communicating capability, like the orchestration of feelings in the slightest glance and smile.

It expresses and is a window to what we know we are thinking about and what the mind is really thinking about and actively metabolising glucose for this purpose. If we were aware of all the evaluations going on, we would become mad and certainly not be able to concentrate on anything.

Creativity allows small vents, mini volcanos, so to speak, that allow us to get some influence from the cathedral of the mind where all the debating is going on, all the testing of ideas, plans and values.

This "Cathedral" consumes 99.99% of all our waking mental energy and is the very capability that makes us human and reasonable to the extent we are.

When we talk, look, examine or create, it informs our intentions, known (and unself-disclosed), our skills (As Alain emphasizes) and our perserverence to accomplish what we chose to do.

When I do that is it art, Art or ART?

Art exists when I look at it and my own emotions are stirred and I'm thrilled, frightened or some other strong emotion.

I'm sure of that when I get up in the night and check it out again and those feelings with added wonder come back. I know I'm an artist, Artist or even ARTIST in neon lights. No debate can change that because I have empowered myself to be as valid an audience as anyone else! No, I understate it. I am the first audience!

Asher

Alain Briot · Jun 7, 2006

I think we are all free to define ourselves as we like. I am an artist, Asher is an artist, who you are is your call, your choice. My only concern, as both artist and teacher, is that many artists are rather hard on themselves when it comes to evaluating their abilities. Many are their worst critics. As I explain in my Being an Artist essay (linked above), I do not recommend that you do your own critique. Do your best, then let it be. Let the critics do their job. While I am an artist, I am certainly not a critic.

I asked about levels of experience because while you can learn a lot about me from my essays, biography, and other online materials, I know virtually nothing about you besides what you wrote on this thread. I appreciate your answer.

Now maybe we should just do art rather than talk about it?

Dierk Haasis · Jun 7, 2006

Alain Briot said:
Many are their worst critics.

Which is one ingredient to be a good artist; and, I assume, the competitive component mentioned earlier.

Alain Briot · Jun 7, 2006

Dierk Haasis said:
Which is one ingredient to be a good artist; and, I assume, the competitive component mentioned earlier.

The competitive component is not about being an artist. It is about being an artist in business. Did you read my essays? If not, the links are above. As an artist being your own critic is actually detrimental.

This is not to be confused with setting high standards. I set world-class standards for myself, but I am not a critic of my own work. The difference is huge. Many photographers / artists confuse the two. This is one of the tenets of my teachings, and one I explain in detail during my workshops. I can only touch upon it briefly here, and point you to my essays in which my main concepts are explained in detail.

This being said, as I mentioned before and will mention many times afterwards, it is a free country and if you want to be your worst critic, you are free to do so. I strongly advise you against doing such a thing, but it is not in my hands to make the decision for you

Dierk Haasis · Jun 7, 2006

Alain, I read your essay some time ago, and I liked them as thought provoking. I simply don't share all your sentiments.

For instance, I can see why you see competition mainly as a business aspect. Since Art has a lot to do with personal expression I cannot quite see how one can compare one Artist against [sic!] another - or even one piece of Art to another in a competitive sense. That invariably leads to the notion that Beethoven is better than Wagner*, Erwitt worse than Adams, "Yesterday" generally preferable to "Lady Madonna"**.

Although I know what you mean when you write an artist is his own worst critic but I disagree. Surely van Gogh went on and on and on, improving his technique, looking for ever new ways to show how he sees the world because he needed to. One reason he needed to go on is that he was never satisfied with what he did.

While it may be of help to listen to others to see clearly what one does, a true Artist will always find flaw with his work and try to improve his future artifacts.

For business purposes an Artist should step back from his works and try not to critique them too deeply - or he will decide to not publish them. Sure, but that's not the point of Art, only a side effect.

In this case the German language has a nice distinction between 'Kunst' (Art) and 'Kunsthandwerk' (craft), the former being Guernica, the latter Monarch of the Glen. More money can be made with craft ...

*I love the first, hate the second.

Alain Briot · Jun 8, 2006

Dierk Haasis said:
Although I know what you mean when you write an artist is his own worst critic but I disagree. Surely van Gogh went on and on and on, improving his technique, looking for ever new ways to show how he sees the world because he needed to. One reason he needed to go on is that he was never satisfied with what he did.

Do you want to be Van Gogh? So critical of his work, so unsatisfied with his achievements and his life, that he cut off his ear then shot himself in the chest and died slowly over days afterwards... Being your own critic does not sound good to me. Setting high standards is my recommendation. Let others critique your work. You'll live a happier life. I've seen too many depressed artists, tormented even. Again, the choice is yours ("it's a free country") but my recommendation is made on the basis of experience. I am a happy artist without any desire to go the way Van Gogh went. I certainly admire his art and his abilities, but I wouldn't want to be him.

I improved my technique, my work, everyday by setting high standards and working towards reaching and exceeding them. But that is different from critiquing my work as I explained. Most people confuse the two. One is goal oriented, the other is best left to those whose profession it is to determine good and bad art.

Asher Kelman · Jul 29, 2006

I believe, like it or not we are our own critics. How often do we "kill our children". We revisit photgraphs that once we graded as exceptional and then now critique that image and find it fails! I admit I have done that often and my ear is still stuck on my head! Of course, I'm no Van Gogh in talent nor do I have a smart brother Theo to save and market my work.

IMHO, one always is self-critical for that is how we make choices: does this meet my vision? When I made the shot, I thought yes. Now? I ask myself is this really what I want to show?

In fact, the very nature of photography is not only selction of subject but also the imperitive to exclude. This pruning of our vision also occurs, I believe at the time of choice for sharing and showing. It is not unreasonable to call this critique, since we use multiple rulers of our values, expectations and experience to rate and criticize our work.

If we do not understand and critique to some extent, we lose a lot. However, I agree with Alain that there is a huge danger of destructive self-critque. This can lead to paralysis.

I was told by Gesa, an accomplished artist and master in stone lithography, that the key is to stop being critical of your work soon enough and only do enough re-work on the photograph or artpiece to transmit the look, feelings and ideas in your vision.

I cant believe that either Alain is wrong or that my ideas are unfounded.

Rather, perhaps, we decribe the same activity and limits with different words.

Asher

Guy Tal · Jul 29, 2006

I've always considered true art (as in art for the sake of art) to be a double-edged sword. I find my best work (subjectively speaking) comes from reaching into the deepest, darkest, parts of my psyche. This applies more to my writing than my photography but not always.

Nietzsche said you must have chaos within to give birth to a dancing star.

Van Gogh experienced some horriffic lows but also some of the most amazing emotional/spiritual/creative highs. Personally I'll take that intensity, good and bad, over a stangant uneventful existence any day.

Guy

nicolas claris · Jul 29, 2006

Tony Field said:
The connotation of "art" is rather strange. It seems to me that "art" can only be a term ascribed by a viewer who is not the creator. In fact, the creator creates and the independent viewer states that it is art. If the viewer perceives that a number of creations by one person are works of art, the viewer states that the creator is an "artist".

If I create a series of photographs and hang them on the wall, they are merely photographs until someone else states they are art.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Enfin! Finaly!
I find someone here with this statement!

Merci Tony!

photography as art abstraction

New member

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

pro member

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

pro member

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

pro member

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

New member

New member

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

OPF Co-founder/Administrator

New member

pro member

pro member

pro member

pro member

pro member

New member

pro member

New member

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

pro member

pro member

pro member

pro member

pro member

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

Editor at Large

OPF Co-founder/Administrator