• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Photography Art that Monkeys Could Make?

Daniel Harrison

pro member
Ben Lifson said:
Daniel Harrison refers us to a link to Jackson Pollock's Blue Poles Number 11, in Australia and for which the Australian government paid $2 million (a long time ago) and says

"That is alot of money for someone to pour paint on a canvas. "

I've never seen Blue Poles Number 11 but I do know that it's considered one of Pollock's best paintings and that Stanley Marsh, of Amarillo, Texas (who financed Robert Smithson's Amarillo Ramp and was the "idea", if you will, behind the Cadillac Ranch) sent a talented young Texan painter to Australia to copy it for his, Marsh's, "Dynamite Museum," a Museum of acknowledged forgeries of 50-some important American paintings. Blue Poles Number 11 was the Pollock that Mr. Marsh wanted even though the young painter could have copied one of the great ones in the US for a small fraction of the cost of going to Australia and staying there the several months it took to complete the work.

However, I have seen many Jackson Pollock paintings from this same great period in his career -- and saw the Museum of Modern Art 1990s retrospective of Pollock's work -- and can tell you that Jackson Pollock never poured paint on a canvas in his life, not in the way I think Daniel Harrison implies, i.e. just poured paint on canvas. .

While it may have been very intentional pouring of paint, it is still pouring paint, somthing that even I think I could aspire to. Hence I am unimpressed, and yes I have seen it, and all I can say is I want my tax money back :)
 

Ben Lifson

New member
Daniel Harrison, Jackson Pollock and Criticism

Daniel Harrison replied to my little thing on Jackson Pollock by saying:

While [Jackson Pollock's technique in the creation of Blue Poles Number 11] may have been very intentional pouring of paint, it is still pouring paint, somthing that even I think I could aspire to. Hence I am unimpressed, and yes I have seen it, and all I can say is I want my tax money back :)

"Aspire to" and "execute" are two different things. I should like to see what Mr Harrison could come up with by pouring paint on canvas -- I'd fly to Australia to see his works next to Bue Poles Number 11.

But let's remember that by the time Jackson Pollock left the Kansas City Art School as the favorite student of the realist painter Thomas Hart Benton he could paint a realistic or naturalistic painting with the best of them. Then he saw Picasso's work and fell under its influence. Realism, even Benton's heightened realism, just wasn't right for his vision. So he spent years first getting out from under Benton's influence then getting out from under Picasso's (and that of the 16th-C triptych altar piece) to get to the painting that could express him, his own vision, his own huge and hugely conflicted soul. It was like when Charlie Parker, Oscar Pettiford, Thelonius Monk, Dizzy Gillespie et. al. broke loose from Swing (essentially a theme and variation music) into progressive jazz (whose principle is not variation but developmennt). "I could hear it," Parker once said of his years of struggle to get out from under the influence of Lester Young..."I could hear it but I couldn't play it." Pollock's years of struggle were like that: he could see it but he couldn't paint it. Then he could.

I wonder if Mr Harrison wants to take that route to painting the way Pollock painted. It took Pollock over ten years. This kind of passion, of dedication, of fortitude, of going forward despite failure and despite loneliness, of certainty that one has a vision and that when realized one can communicate it strongly to others so that they see it, this kind of faith -- in art, in oneself, in paint, in feeling -- and everything else Pollock put into those years of searching, including the time, yes, all this is certainly something to aspire to.

As for:

I am unimpressed, and yes I have seen [the painting[ and all I can say is I want my tax money back

This is not criticism. It is only a statement of taste, not even a defense of it. It's not about the painting. It's only about Mr. Harrison, who is the subject of its four clauses

I am unimpressed
I have seen it
I can say
I want my tax money back

Well, now Mr Harrison has told us a little more about himself but nothing about the painting.

yrs,

ben

www.benlifson.com
 

Daniel Harrison

pro member
Hi Ben,
I am 21, so please use my first name. As I said it is my personal taste, I am a photographer not a painter, so I guess my opinion matters little - I guess something is worth what people will pay for it.

the fact is for me as and end viewer, I don't care how many years he spent painting it, I don't care about the passion he put into it, I don't care who taught him - I only care about the end product, which is in MY opinion, not worth the price paid. but what has this got to do with monkey taking photos? I don't know, I still say that monkeys can't take good photos! another one of my opinions :) (although i think this one is backed by popular opinion)

I mean, where's the job security? Monkey's will take over the industry ;-)
 

Dierk Haasis

pro member
Daniel Harrison said:
As I said it is my personal taste, I am a photographer not a painter, so I guess my opinion matters little

Nothing to do with what you are except if you've chosen 'critic'*, you don't need to be a painter to perceive a painting.

Before the thread was broken up I wrote a small aside about my opinion not being of interest, just in the vain you did. It was not smug but had something behind it: If the photographer likes what he does, critique may be welcome but is never decisive, only what the photographer wants matters.

Now, trying to straighten out a few points made in this and various other threads:

1. There's a difference between art and Art, the former being anything non-natural, the latter being what is sometimes called high art or fine art.

2. While art is easily defined, Art is not.

3. There are two different ways to define something, observational and declarative.

4. Defining Art observational will not work since at the heart of any piece of Art lies singularity.

5. Defining Art declarative works well.

6. Declaring some thing Art does not say anything about is value to society, its moral stance, its historic importance, or its value to individuals.

7. Personal taste does not and should not matter in defining Art. This includes backdoor entries by other names, e.g. contents, style, skill.

8. The jury is still out on intentionality.

9. The monkey/ape thought experiment is not about practicality or even feasability but probabilty and possibility. The animal group used is just a concrete illustration; they - in conjunction with the typewriters - stand in for any kind of randomiser!

10. I just included a tenth point because it makes for such a well-rounded list. BTW, Daniel, I apologise if I hit too hard once or twice. Instead of thinking you were a stubborn older fellow [a bit like me] not trying to get the point, I could have figured you for someone - this is not meant derogatory, to the contrary! - with half my years and a lot less experience. Sometimes experience needs aging, just like a good single malt, cognac or rum.





*There's a whole essay in this sentence I may one day write. Let's just say that a producer of Art may not be the best critic and vice versa; it's not a well thought out criticism towards a critic to tell him to 'do it better'.
 

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
Hi Dierk,

Being the rational/scientific kind of person with a soft/artistic side, I love such lists. Thank you for making one, and a good one at that too. Maybe now we can start wrapping up this discussion a bit. I'd like to react to some of your points in the list please.

Dierk Haasis said:
1. There's a difference between art and Art, the former being anything non-natural, the latter being what is sometimes called high art or fine art.
See the definition of art and Art (i.e. fine art) in this Wiki article. I know that Wikipedia is anything but authoritative on such issues but this one seems to be well written/edited to me. I believe that art is intentional, as defined in that Wiki article, so it is therefore non-natural. We agree on that.

Dierk Haasis said:
2. While art is easily defined, Art is not.
See the above article. They refer to art which is created for art’s sake as being fine art. I don’t necessarily agree/or disagree with this definition since I am not sure whether there must be a difference between art and Art to start with. If we should differentiate them, then this definition works for me just fine (pun intended).

Dierk Haasis said:
3. There are two different ways to define something, observational and declarative.
I think that there is a third category which starts with observation and moves onto declaring later. And a fourth one, which declares first and observes later (such as the scientific process of stating a hypothesis and setting out to proving/disproving it)

Dierk Haasis said:
4. Defining Art observational will not work since at the heart of any piece of Art lies singularity.
Well, scientifically one could always define certain attributes of any item and categorise them into a declaration later. Nevertheless, if we should follow your “declaration” of what Art is, then this statement is true.

Dierk Haasis said:
5. Defining Art declarative works well.
Well, defining anything declarative works, as long as you are the one declaring and you believe in it. If others choose to ignore your declaration, then we’ll end up having discussions like these. If a declaration is tangible, one can prove/disprove it by means of observation. If it is philosophical, then it may turn into a belief statement, you either believe in it or not.

Dierk Haasis said:
6. Declaring some thing Art does not say anything about is value to society, its moral stance, its historic importance, or its value to individuals.
I totally agree.

Dierk Haasis said:
7. Personal taste does not and should not matter in defining Art. This includes backdoor entries by other names, e.g. contents, style, skill.
Agreed.

Dierk Haasis said:
8. The jury is still out on intentionality.
No, to me intentionality is an essential part of creating art/Art.

Dierk Haasis said:
9. The monkey/ape thought experiment is not about practicality or even feasability but probabilty and possibility. The animal group used is just a concrete illustration; they - in conjunction with the typewriters - stand in for any kind of randomiser!
Again, being the scientist I am, I agree.

Dierk Haasis said:
10. I just included a tenth point because it makes for such a well-rounded list. BTW, Daniel, I apologise if I hit too hard once or twice. Instead of thinking you were a stubborn older fellow [a bit like me] not trying to get the point, I could have figured you for someone - this is not meant derogatory, to the contrary! - with half my years and a lot less experience. Sometimes experience needs aging, just like a good single malt, cognac or rum.
This is such “old people’s BS” (just joking, just joking). I think it is important to realise that experience can be a bad thing which stands in the way of real creative thinking.

I applaud "young" Daniel for daring speaking out his mind. I used to think along the very same lines when I was 20-30 years of age. My current (ie old age) experience has changed all that. It has also prevented me from joining the discussion earlier knowing fully what has awaited me -it's a jungle out there- should I dare doing so (LOL).

Cheers,

Cem
 

Dierk Haasis

pro member
Cem, a few minor notes starting from the last notion.

As I hoped I made clear I applaud Daniel for daring. Nevertheless, old people have the advantage of knowing how it is being young. Difficault the other way round. I was just apologising for my at times harsh criticism of his entry.

Although Google an Wikipedia have many laudable uses, particularly when it comes to current issues and technolgical entries, I'd rather use other sources for more complex issues. Steven Colbert definitely showed where non-edited [that is, reference works without an authoritative editorial staff] sources come to with several of his calls to change articles in Wikipedia to his liking.

Since we are now rather deep into the matter, I will have to research a little bit about the intentionality issue. My current position is a bit ambivalent since I think it is very hard for a [human] artist to create unintentionally. OTOH, the intention of an artist is not always available to the viewer/listener/reader [hence, literary criticism at universities]; it may also well be that totally unintentional Art is possible, have to think about it a bit more.

The other two definition categories you come up with are just mebers of the continuum between observational and declarative. I left out that the two categories I came up with are only the limiting positions of a continuum. For one I did not want to complicate matters, and I thought it obvious that neither can live without the other. This should be clear from the more comprehensive explanation I gave when this thread was still part of another.
 

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
Hi Dierk,

For clarity's sake, it was very clear to me that you've meant no disrespect to Daniel so much so I dared making a joke about it, I hope it was to him too :).

Re. Wiki/Google/etc, we are in agreement.

It is correct that there will be many more categories between the two extremities. I was stating the obvious, but sometimes one has to in this medium.

I have posted something earlier today in the OPF look/feel forum about the problems of splitting threads (somewhat not unsimilar to splitting hair it seems :)).

Looking forward to hearing more from you and the others...

Cheers,

Cem
 

Ben Lifson

New member
"Let Observation with extesnive View..."

In his point # 4, Dierk Haasis says:

4. Defining Art observational will not work since at the heart of any piece of Art lies singularity.

This is demonstrably not true.

Not argumentably, demonstratably.

Careful observation of works of art in various mediums from various continents and cultures from, say, 3,000 B.C. to the present reveals that although each work of art is indeed singular all of them are made along the same principles.

The figure/ground relationship, for example, was important in 3,000 B.C. and is important now.

Composition was based on the same conditions in 3,000 B.C. as it is now.

Variation was the same then as now.

In flat works, line operated the same way then as it does now, the tension between line as line and line as shape was the same.

In flat works (including Abysinnian stone tablets, Greek funerary steles, Roman stone sarcophogai, fabrics, etc.) , the tension between the representation of volumes in deep space and the creation of patterns on the surface of the work, the handling of the forms considered both as representational imagery and as forms in patterns and compositions was the same in, say, ancient Egyptian bird paintings on fabric, the friezes in the ancient Egyptian tombs at Saqqara, the Parthenon friezes, Rubens' portrait of his 6 yr old daughter Clara Serena, Andy Warhol's silk screens, John Coplans' photographs and Chuck Close's most recent portraits.

Motif and variation was the same in Saqqara and throughout art as it is in Lucas Samaras' most recent work of 14,000 photographs -- variations on a small number of themes : a work that come as read-only scans sealed into a Mac system costing $16,000.

The moving composisitions of Jean-Luc Godard's films are based on the same principles of the compositions of Western painting all the way back, and farther.

Edward Weston's 1920s Mexican portraits are demonstrably constructed the same as are the portraits of the 15th Century Dutch painter Hans Memling, although it's not likely that Weston knew Memling's work.

In Weston's n---s (abbrev for unclothed) of Charis Wilson on the sand the tension between line as line and line as shape is as sustained and bold and beautifully handled as it is in Matisse's drawings of the n___ (abbrev unclothed) and in Rembrandt's graphic work, especially his self-portrait drawings and etchings.

Styles change over the millenia, centuries and decades. Subject matter comes and goes. But art remains the same.

Observation can show you this.

But you must observe.

You can't either concur or rebut this rhetorically.

You must look.

Obbservation can disclose all this and more.

You just have to know how to look, what to look at, how to see it and, once you see it, what to call it.

e.g. "figure/ground relationship" "motif and variation" "design" "decoration"

(From time to time in the 40-some pictures of Tulsa it is obvious that Larry Clark was concentrating in part on decorating his frames and exploring the various ways his subject matter afforded him to decorate them. Kertesz' borders are, among other things, delicate, fanciful, surprising and beautiful decorative passages.)

yrs

ben

www.benlifson.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ray West

New member
You just have to know how to look, what to look at, how to see it and, once you see it, what to call it.

So, personal opinion, based on experience. If you haven't got the experience, what then? rely on personal opinion of others. Who? what axes are being ground? The what to call it, thats the sticking bit.

So, as nothing can be defined, other than by quoting numerous examples, then it seems little point in any one giving an opinion on any type of art, since there will always be someone with more experience, or stronger opinion to add to or detract from a judgement. Maybe this is why liitle attention is given to the 'art' subject matter here, on opf, most photog forums, more on lighting systems, etc., which confirms a commonly held view, that there is little art in photography, mainly technology.

I am sort of very dissapointed, that a simple definition, maybe even with woolly edges could not be determined, something that would give a broad basis of agreement, so that when one person says a picture of an apple is art, another is not saying that it is not, the art is in the farmer getting the colours on the skin.

I find, for my purpose, that the oed definition is sufficient. For some folk it is not, but nothing has been forthcoming, in the manner of succintness, just a list of examples. Not much creativity here, no art to speak of, just repetition.

So, can Dierk get our ten topics down to five, that Ben, we all can agree with, then maybe down to one. Actually, I think it is heading in more or less a consistant direction, perhaps its a case of getting a line round that, refactoring.

Best wishes,

Ray
 

Daniel Harrison

pro member
now if I get this right, what you are all really trying to work out is what photographic art is ? Is that what you are trying to acertain? No hard feelings here about anything :)
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Ray,

I believe the Ben's writings on the "rules" and essentials in of art are really the syntax of its language.

See the current discussion on definitions of "art" started by Guy Tal, whose work I admire greatly.

I offer there my postulates on what constitutes "art" and what its relevence to us really is. I immodestly have assembled my practical "Dogma" which works for me.

Asher's Dogma of Art

Asher

P.S.

Ben

I'd love a book providing succinct elucidation of the trans-cultural time-enduring essentials of art form that you refer to. That would be most helpful to everyone!
 

Ben Lifson

New member
Ray and Personal Opinion

Ray West quotes me:

You just have to know how to look, what to look at, how to see it and, once you see it, what to call it.

and replies:

So, personal opinion, based on experience. If you haven't got the experience, what then? rely on personal opinion of others. Who? what axes are being ground? The what to call it, thats the sticking bit.

I don't base my observation or judgments on my opinions. Opinions are more commonplace than cigarette butts on sidewalks and in gutters. Everyone has opinions. When I smoked I preferred cigarette butts. When they were long and dry enough I could smoke them. They were useful.

When I look at an art object I leave opinion behind and only look at what anyone can see on the object's surface. I only look at what is there today and will be there tomorrow: at what anyone can see and then say, of an Edward Weston n___ (abbrev for unclothed), for example, "That line formed by the figure's shadow against the sand gets broader at the hip, become a tall, steep, sharp triangle at the knee and razor thin along the calf," or, of a Toulouse-Lautrec painting, "There is so much garish blue, green, purple and yellow in the face of that white woman in the right foreground that her skin has almost no relation to the color of white people's skin in real life."

Or, "The figure of the box is seen against the ground of the wall but the box is also the ground against which we see the figures of the clasp and hinges. And that complicates the picture's figure/ground relationships."

That's all I look at.

Every picture will tell you everything there is to know about it if you only look long, hard and carefully enough at it.

There are no secrets in art. Nothing is hidden. Everything is on the surface. Everything can be described. Everything can be named.

As for Ray's "the what to call it," (e.g. "figure/ground relationship") inexpensive, comprehensive, accurate and authoritative dictionaries of art terms are available in most good book stores.

When discussing a professional field it usually helps to know the field's professional terminology.

yrs,

ben

www.benlifson.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ben Lifson

New member
Ray and "Who?" To Rely On

Ray,

Good question. Probably the best asked so far in this whole discussion.

Here's a good short list for starters:

Meyer Schapiro (probably the 20thC's greatest art historian).

His two books for the publishing house, Harry N. Abrams Co.'s "Masters of Art" Series, one on Cezanne, the other on Van Gogh, contain some of the best short (1-page maximum) essays on individual paintings I've read.

In the Modern Art volume of his collected papers, "Cezanne's Apples," the essays on Seurat and Picasso and the 2 essays on Abstract Art are revelations.

John Berger

In his book Toward Reality, the short (2-3 page) essays on 20thC artists (Picasso, Matisse, Leger, etc.) and on artists from earlier centures are the work of a first-rate mind. They are also clear, plainly written, non-technical, humanistic, warm, restrained, insightful, conversational and they consider their respective artists' whole bodies of work as 1) a complete artistic world in themselves and 2) an expression of the personality and soul of the artist who created them.

Heinrich Wollflin


Principles of Art History

A bit academic, a bit dry, a bit stiff, but still the best single volume presentation and explanation of those visual elements in a picture that make for the picture's expressiveness and style. Here you'll find much of the "What to call it?" beginning with the distinction between the linear and the painterly styles which are the major styles of representation not only in painting but also in photography.

One can say that Edward Weston began as a painterly photographer, that in Mexico his style was a mixture of the painterly and the linear methods, and that beginning with his return to California his style became progressively more linear.

I give my graduate students (photographers and painters) at the University of Hartford an extensive reading list that I'd be glad to share with you here if you would so wish.

You could also consult my articles on the visual elements of the art of photography at the Raw Work Flow website: www.rawworkflow.com.

On the home page, click on the "Making Pictures" icon. It resembles a camera lens.

It's best to start with the earliest one and work your way forward to the most recent.

yrs,

ben

www.benlifson.com
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Ben,

Your generosity in providing for free what others would charge for is so wonderful. I want to thank you. It's a good excercise for photographers, all of us, to ask themselves how in fact they plan and execute their own work. Then this should be compared to the principals, tips, guides and reference to art you provide.

Asher
 

Ray West

New member
Hi Ben,

Thanks for your patience. So for a succint answer, I've gone from a whole mass of galleries, and lifetimes of study, to just four books. But still no definition. But I think that is a great improvement.

I can look at paintings, probably see the basic stuff that you see, maybe not the more involved, but in truth, I think that there is perhaps no simple answer to the question I am trying to ask, but that in itself is a simple answer I can live with. Its just a word, after all.

I noticed that you mentioned what I called 'luck' in another thread, but you called it 'a happy accident'. I tend to think that there is some skill in being able to create the situation for such an accident to occur, but thats another topic, and I'm not up to that discussion at the moment.

So, back to the topic, numerous random monkeys can not create 'Art' (Art being defined in some way within four or more books, or other methods) according to folk with an 'artistic leaning', but they can according to folk with a more 'scientific leaning', and the upright folk in the middle do not exist for the purposes of the question. The artistic leaning folk are not fully understanding the science approach, the science folk are not understanding the artistic approach. Either way, it is very unlikely to be proved, since by its nature, Art can be, will be, defined differently to exclude the monkey art, and the scientists will be able to repeat the experiment any number of times, until they get the right monkeys.

I'm quitting, now, although I may not be ahead, as I've got another train to catch....

Best wishes,

Ray
 

Dierk Haasis

pro member
Sorry Ben, you did not counter-argue my point 4.

First of all you coincidentally read over the phrase 'piece of Art'. The moment you categorice different pieces into one drawer you leave the individual work and look for an essence under which to subsume a whole period, school etc. Like every other categoristaion that works - up to a point.

Sentence 4 of my list alluded to the fact that any work of Art is the expression of one artist [counting group efforts for an individual piece in] at a particular point in time and space. It is his interpretation of the world at a specific point in his biography. Actually I think this is the only viable concept inherent to every piece of Art - hence the only possible way to define Art observationally. Incidentally it is the one idea making it difficult for me to exclude intention from Art.

What you are observing quite correctly is that Art belongs with the historic sciences [like lots of biology, hagiography, literary criticism et al.] in so far as any piece of Art belongs within a tradition - even if, like most of van Gogh's work, it is created particularly outside of [contemporary] tradition.

BTW, I forgot one thing in my list, it belongs within the taste sentence:

- Art can be seen as representational or interpretative, none is superior to the other, and it can be argued that every work of Art that aspires to be representational will always be interpretative.


PS: Anybody trying to define Art with some inherent [that is, universal] characteristic should be aware that Plato's essentialism may be wrong.


[Editorial note]
I wrongly put words in Asher's mouth although they come from Ben. Corrected the mistake.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Any work of Art is the expression of one artist [counting group efforts for an individual piece in] at a particular point in time and space.

This, Dierk, I agree with!

It is in fact a sine qua non of my own postulate of an artist's intent and the expression of it through thinking and making a form. My added components deal with reception, reactions and significance, which are encoded, in the work by the artist

Why, BTW, do you need to add "at a particular point in time" since isn't that laready built into the act of "expression" which must be performed and there must occur at some time!

Asher
 

Rachel Foster

New member
What a thread! There is so much here to digest and ponder it takes a bit of thought.

Would anyone mind if I resurrect this? (I have a few thoughts....ha!)
 

Dierk Haasis

pro member
Why [...] do you need to add "at a particular point in time" [...]

Because 'expression' can be specific as well as general. Should be clear when you look at, say. Friedrich Nitzsche, who has changed his mind on many a thing all the time all through his life. Since a lot of people look for consistency - not only with Nitzsche -, a unified theme in the expression of an artist, it is necessary to point out that expressions [can] change. Just like you do not always grin or smirk or laugh or smile.
 
Top