• 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!

what IS "art" in photography all about?

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Let's see what we find we can agree with about the term art as implied in the question of Klaus Esser.
We might be able to flesh out first what is meant by "art" in this context. Subsequently, far later in our travail, we can then try to find a place for this in photography. So first let's tackle further as you have above, what "art" means to us all.

For art, in lower case letters, not Art or ART which might imply commerce or some high level success, just to have enough characteristics to be recognized as "art", the words we commonly seem to agree on include:

Creativity, Imagination and Work.

So that gives us some minimal understanding but does not inform us sufficiently to direct the making of art or even to tell people how to recognize it. We need more instruction.
This is not going to be satisfactorily described in a few words. However, we can find what we agree on, since we all believe we have at some time seen and experienced art.

We might try refining these three words by asking about the order of the three terms and the qualifications we might add to each of them.

First we can assume, just for trying things out for now, that a person does this work with creativity and using imagination. Presumably the artist has the imagination sufficient to start and complete the work of art to be made.

So we do not need just imagination, but sufficient imagination. But sufficient to reach what goal? What is the test that might be used to determine whether or not the imagination is sufficient to make the art. What is the test to find out if what has been made is art?

Let me add another part of this puzzle. The artist. We also can agree that if a work of art requires imagination and creativity, there must be something going on in the mind of the artist so set off this process of imagining and creativity!

Like any story, there must be an inciting incident or stimulus. This might come from the mind or from the world around the artist. Also there needs to be another factor to be considered and that is skill. Mental skill, physical dexterity and expertise in choice and or use of tools to implement that which the creative attributes of the artist inspires and has volition to execute.

So now we have

  1. Inciting incident/trigger

  2. imagination& creativity feeding on one another

  3. A design framework within which to mobilize creativity and imagination and arrive at a working concept or sketch of what might be made

  4. Intent: The commitment of the artists mind to that project.

  5. Drive and persistence: Having the sustained will and energy sufficient to assemble the resources and drive the creative work to completion.

  6. A skill set appropriate for the work to be created: Mental and physical skills of the artist

  7. A Physical Medium: A physical medium in which to embed the design made in the mind

  8. Feedback: Feedback as work proceeds to compare current and eventual form with the mind's original plan at the start of all this effort and to modifications of the work and/plan in an iterative process until brain is satisfied.

  9. Satisfaction: When that occurs, that satisfaction in the artist's mind that the work is "done", no more, no less, then art, at its minimal sense is made and exists, at least in the realm of the artist.

At this point, the artist needs no votes, no agent, gallery representation or anything else. But we are used to seeing art displayed in homes, galleries and museums. So what is it about the art of the artist that gets it into the public arena? We can see from the many answers that might be offered that we ,might need to know about what functions, purpose or conceit if any art can perform in people's eyes so it is valued, sought afters, treasured, returned to time and again. When that happens we might reasonably say art works and now its "Art", or art arrived!

That gives us an inkling of what it might been for art work to be "successful". However, for art to "work" for us as individuals and then for us as part of our cultures, what else is needed?

For a light bulb to work, it must shine when switched on. So is that what we mean by art working?

I'll return this for discussion or challenge. :)

Asher
 
Last edited:
I have copied this partial post from the "Discussion of "But is it Art" and Goerg Baumann's reply: "I Can, and why I do it"" here since this expands on our understanding of what art means to us. This then will help us tackle Karl Esser's more difficult question on what art in photography might mean.



Art to me is a lifestyle, and I practise it since such a long time, I suppose I am tired to listen to the certainly educated and often eloquent, nevertheless inherent diarrhea some art critics, or such who dream of being one, produce for a living. No offense, really not meant to be, I welcome critic, in fact, I grow from good critic, but well, I guess you know what I mean, sure hope so.

Art in my world has a function, is a responsible task in a social context! In my own context it is about the fragility and the beauty of creation that surrounds me, this need not be the same for other artists we will represent, it is just my own function I see in arts.

I was on more gallery openings than leaves are on the copper beach in front of my house in the summer, put it this way, it is a big tree, with a lot of leaves, and frankly, less than a handfull I remember with a warm feeling and smile, the rest of them slowly but surely fades my memories for good! <grins>

Bottom line, I stand for every single word of what Ray quoted of me there, I am just a guy with a camera, and a studio and a few printers and a strong desire to create, and so on, the rest.... Not my judgement!

But one thing is for sure, whatever people say or do not say, I am out there tomorrow, with my camera. :)

~^..^~
Bear
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
The points raised by Georg are that art for him:

  1. Is a lifestyle
  2. Has a function, to fulfill responsible task in a social context!
  3. Concerned with fragility and the beauty of creation

Kar wrote

"In my eyes "art" is what a human being expresses, visualizes him-/herself with.


What makes a "good" and "individual" picture a piece of "art"?"


So Georg has the idea that art can serve a social function, a kind of wake-up bugle, perhaps! Klaus however, doesn't as yet, make that point, He's more about expression of the inner self. So we have to consider whether art in its essence has or should have a social function. For sure it functions within a social setting, but does it always have a social function.

I would answer yes.

I would postulate that art shared between people distributes creative possibilities, points of view, emotions, hope, fantasies, and new possibilities. Artists specialize in doing this through one physical medium or another.

Asher
 
Last edited:
I would postulate that art shared between people distributes creative possibilities, points of view, emotions, hope, fantasies, and new possibilities. Artists specialize in doing this through one physical medium or another.

I like that! :)

I used to say about music, It is a language, a language that is understood by every human being, and in opposite to all other languages, extinct and in the past, or not even evolved yet and in the future, music as a language has no dedicated function or inherent capability to create lies.

Of course the three points I was quoted here are only a very condensed reflection, there is more to it, much more.

I also think art needs a vision, without vision it lacks an important aspect, again in my world that is, ymmv.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I think we are in fair agreement then in what we might consider as art. but what about the world outside of "us" in OPF. What do people consider art in different countries? We need to finally address Klaus' starting post!

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Let me kick of on this topic of the organization of art clientele and choice of artwork in different countries. Just use my own contribution as a foil to start to compare our perspectives and to argue with, as my experience has larger gaps and thus may not be so grounded as your own.

France: The major national museums are ultimately under the guidance and control of one minister who oversees their limited budgets. So there can be a tendency to have tendencies! I mean that the very structure lends itself to top down direction of attitudes and preferences in style, relevance, importance and value of all works available to acquire and be shown.

Of course private museums and galleries can offset this somewhat, but the main thrust in France appears to be a top-down system of directives and influence on selection.

USA: Here the museums are mostly totally and even fiercely independent of government control. The museums have directors who are answerable to strong boards of Directors who make sure that the flow of money supports new acquisitions. The taste of the museum directors and curators influences the acquisition of new art and the arrangement for loans of major collective works from other sources.

Private Galleries in the USA are at the cutting edge of support for new artists and there is a cross pollination between artists who's work appears in advertising and work that's sold as art. Still, each gallery has only so much wall space. A typical gallery has therefore a limited roster of artists who's work are shown. For a new artist to get covered is a major commitment by any gallery, since during that time, they are not showing works of other better know artists on their roster whose works already have a following by clients and potential buyers on their mailing list.

The very fact the art sold has to pay the rent and cover the 3-4 ladies and gentlemen explaining the pictures, means that if pictures cannot fetch $4,000 they will often not be shown. Each square floor of wall space used MUST generate money or the place cannot stay in business.

So in the USA, least, the work in the private galleries have to meet marketing and immediate impact requirements that are very different from the private museums. The latter have the money to be leaders. Private museums can lead the way way well ahead of fashion to bring to the public works that are either too large, too weird or too expensive for private galleries to risk holding.

Photography:There appears to be a thirst for large photographic prints. companies do not like photographs that show particular people since they are about mood not personalities. Also anything with sexual, ethnic or racial overtones are likely to be passed over for company walls. Landscapes, Architecture, crowd scenes and beauty which does not distract and cause argument is what's needed. For private purchase in someone's home, while a photograph of Bob Dylan by a known photographer will be collected, in general, people are not popular. B&W or color images of plants and buildings and landscapes go well. Pigment prints with Epson or other inkjets are pretty will accepted, but the words "Archival Pigment or some other cover for "inkjet" seems to be in vogue.

I personally have invested a large amount of effort in trying to get photographer's work in galleries. It's not too hard to get an appointment. The gallery owners don't want to miss out on discovering the artist of the century. To get the work represented is much more difficult.

There's another tier of galleries in resort towns where they may be more open to new work. There are huge crowds making more impulsive decisions and lower priced work may get purchased. Also cafés and restaurants often like to have artwork or photography on display so that is a further opportunity.

I hope others will add to this so we can get an idea of the openness of the art world to new work.

Asher
 

Rachel Foster

New member
It seems as if there is (for most of us) an implicit assumption that "art" is good. Is possible to have "bad" art? That changes the meaning of the word and discussion significantly, I think.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Rachel, we would have to know what you meant by "good" and "bad" and that would not put us in a better position to help deal with "getting through barriers" to have one's work shown.

So let's assume that the work is "good", covering good purpose, good intent and good result, again whatever that may mean so we can dismiss this as a factor, at least for now. The feeling that Klaus expressed was that there were barriers to getting work taken seriously. He did not say there was any issue that the work in question was not good by any standard, only that there was no "academic seal of approval", so to speak.

So what we want to learn is how people's experience with getting work taken on by galleries and any regional differences in approach and difficulty.

Asher
 

Rachel Foster

New member
True. But is there not an unspoken assumption that if it's not "good" by whatever standard we are using, it is not art? The point has been alluded to but I don't think it's been explicitly addressed. Can "crap" be art? However one defines it, does it have to meet some sort of standard to be "art?"

This also goes back to Ray's point. I do think we tend to go in circles because we have not made explicit or conscious these assumptions. That's what (I think) Socrates tried to get at with "what do all instances [of art or whatever] have in common?"

This goes to being taken seriously as well. Can "crap" be taken seriously? Warhol was taken seriously...were his soup cans art? Why? Why not?

If work is not given the "academic seal of approval" there is the insinuation that it is not "good."

I'm muddling through the question by trying to articulate my thoughts. This may NOT make sense! I'll have to reread it in a bit. Or perhaps others can tell me.....
 
Last edited:
Can "crap" be art?

The answer to that is definitely affirmative, although not in the way that Rachel meant. A guy back in the '60s apparently fashioned his own dried-out crap into the shape if gold ingots and sold them for the price of an ounce of gold. They now sell for over $60,000 each I read recently. That's the art world for you, eh!
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
True. But is there not an unspoken assumption that if it's not "good" by whatever standard we are using, it is not art? The point has been alluded to but I don't think it's been explicitly addressed. Can "crap" be art? However one defines it, does it have to meet some sort of standard to be "art?"
Of course it can if it is an externalization of your mind and meets the criteria I gave above. For sure then it's art. The issue is not whether it's "art", since we have a reasonably good vessel of definition (with only minor defects) to carry our ideas forward to market.

We want to know what are the barriers to getting our art product to market as ART!

Example: Marketing the "art", "Celestial Turd™"

So if you wish to externalize your good, bad or even poorly worked-out thoughts into a piece of turd, dry or otherwise, that's your medium of choice. It might add character and even qualify your work. It is still art, even if it smells. Let's say you have got hold of the last piece of the work "Celestial Turd™. You know it's "art", a bit arts-fartsy" perhaps, but you want to help get it sold to help some charity. What's at play as you try to sell it?

  1. The Mind of the Buyer:This is a rare piece of Celestial Turd™, the price is a mere $160,000. It's interesting! How shall I decide?

  2. Esthetics or "Love:" It inspires me and I feel taken to a special place of repose where I can really relax and be one with nature. This draws me to it maybe the size and shape (really impressive!) or for some inner desire to return to my creative period in childhood. Whatever; I must have it.

  3. Academic intellect: "This work represents a reaction to the shock Dadaism and the post-modern period with forms taken to the logical conclusion. It therefore asks us whether we have been on a self-important adulation of our expression and we really never advance from the un-toilet-trained infant. This art work therefore is important as as a turning point in our understanding of ourselves as merely "self-indulged apes" being amused and entertained by trivialities. So the work is valuable and we should acquire it for our collection! Not to have a piece of Celestial Turd™ would mean an incomplete collection of works of the 21st Century. So we'll buy it! We have a member on our Board of directors who'll love it and make an extra donation.

  4. Art Gallery in New york: Yes it's so special, I saw a similar piece in the University's collection. I think it's very expressive but we already have a full cadre of Artists. I really wish we had the space to do it justice, but we'll have to pass. However, if there's a demand for it, we'll make the space!

  5. Private Collector:Hmm, doesn't really smell so bad. anyway we can keep it stored in plastic in the vault. I wonder whether it should be kept humid or not. We'll have to ask our anal curator, she'd know! I don't know much about this $hit! It's fine for the Museum to collect I want to know it's value too. First lets check the last auction prices in Sotheby, Christie's and Butterfields Maybr a piece of that Celestial Turd™ sold recently on eBay? In any case, the artist died making this so it's the last specimen we're going to see, unless of course some of his unknown earlier work gets unearthed! $160,000 is not such a lot of money for such a rare artwork. If I can get just one open market price in that ball park, yes, I'll buy it!



This also goes back to Ray's point. I do think we tend to go in circles because we have not made explicit or conscious these assumptions.
That, dear Rachel, is part of the package you get with Ray. Art is not a defined but a theoretical goal of "3" which has never been made, like three identical things.

If we are ready to accept some reasonable assumptions, (just as we can recognize a cat, a dog and a frog in one glance) we can understand the concept of art, experientially by visiting art galleries and looking at art on people's walls and/or being involved in making it.

We do not need to define these disparate objects since like all other living things, they are each different. They share in common only that they are the externalized expression of a persons thoughts, emotions or combinations of the two designed to re-invoke and publish a family of reactions intended and some unintended by its creator.

That's what (I think) Socrates tried to get at with "what do all instances [of art or whatever] have in common?"

I thought we have already dealt with that sufficiently! We could, if you insist, further refine our selection criteria. Are you saying that what we have done so far fails the Socratesean test so badly that we cannot for all practical purposes proceed?

Can "Crap" be taken Seriously? :

This goes to being taken seriously as well. Can "crap" be taken seriously? Warhol was taken seriously...were his soup cans art? Why? Why not?

You have already answered the question!

If work is not given the "academic seal of approval" there is the insinuation that it is not "good."
Unfortunately you missed the point. We decided to accept that the word "good" was not useful as we'd go round in circles defining the parameters and sub-classes and grades of good and that would be a fruitless effort.

Art is a process: Art is something of a message sent by an artist first to him/herself, then published to the world who either can read it or not.

I'm muddling through the question by trying to articulate my thoughts. This may NOT make sense! I'll have to reread it in a bit. Or perhaps others can tell me.....

Rachel, it's really simple.

1. "art": We have a working idea that "art" is physical manifestation of the creative imagination of humans. Art must have a physical component which can be experienced by people, sufficiently alert, with working sensory organs and brains to experience the physical forms imprinted in the artist's creative design.

2. "ART": We know that some "art" sells. This we'll call ART (to differentiate it from "art" by a person who has has never sold or "art" that has not yet become a recognized "name-branded commercialized commodity).


We are not now working on the question:

"What is art"

unless you are adamant that we have no reasonable working idea of what is this "art" that we are referring too. Instead, we are trying to understand

"What are the barriers or doors to getting one's new, as yet un-name-branded and already acclaimed "art" to be shown in galleries!"
 
Last edited:

doug anderson

New member
I think this thread may be about finding a way to talk about photography in a culture overrun by images. Unfortunately, "art" sometimes refers to photography that is mannered and dated. I think in this case, the proper word is "arty." About this category, the French dadaist, Alfred Jarry, said: "Every time I hear the world ART I want to go get my revolver." If you want to gag, go pick up a copy of "The Art of Anne Geddes."

On the other hand, when I look at photos by Cartier-Bresson or Dianne Arbus, something happens to me internally that doesn't happen when I look at a "pretty picture." Afterwards, my ability to see the world, and in particular, to see the world that I otherwise miss, is increased. It is through the vision of those photographers that my experience of the world is enhanced.

I don't get this from pretty pictures or technically well executed kitsch. I think the word here is "vision." I think what and how great photographers choose to see is the key ingredient. Dianne Arbus wrote, "A thing is not seen because it is visible, but conversely, visible because it is seen." It is the quality of seeing that counts.

People who see only what they are supposed to see, who photograph the Eiffel Tower the way it has appeared upon every post card of it, who choose from the visual world only that which confirms the integrity of their world, who are not interested in how with vision the world becomes new, are content with pretty pictures. However, people for whom the world is a wonderful mystery, who have an innate sense that there is more to be seen in the ordinary, are not content with pretty pictures, but in photos that enact a change in them, an increased way of seeing.

I am changed when I look through a camera. This is the reason I take pictures. I am not a professional photographer -- although I can take a "professional" picture -- and my interest in photography a practice of consciousness. I think I am changed for the better by it. I love it.

PS: this is really a great thread.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I think this thread may be about finding a way to talk about photography in a culture overrun by images. Unfortunately, "art" sometimes refers to photography that is mannered and dated. I think in this case, the proper word is "arty." About this category, the French dadaist, Alfred Jarry, said: "Every time I hear the world ART I want to go get my revolver." If you want to gag, go pick up a copy of "The Art of Anne Geddes."

But then, Doug, the Dadaists made there own rules of being against what was art and then gave themselves a new formulary! So what progress is that. Maybe the kickstart the idea of looking beyond what is.

On the other hand, when I look at photos by Cartier-Bresson or Dianne Arbus, something happens to me internally that doesn't happen when I look at a "pretty picture." Afterwards, my ability to see the world, and in particular, to see the world that I otherwise miss, is increased. It is through the vision of those photographers that my experience of the world is enhanced.
That is satisfying. Part of that might be the contribution to merely removing color. That takes away the thingness of everything and says I'm not the thing, like the voice of Maigritte himself.

I don't get this from pretty pictures or technically well executed kitsch.
Especially pretty colored pictures!

I think the word here is "vision." I think what and how great photographers choose to see is the key ingredient. Dianne Arbus wrote, "A thing is not seen because it is visible, but conversely, visible because it is seen." It is the quality of seeing that counts.

A nice quote to have above your desk!

Doug, I thank you for joining us. Feel free to share your photographs, pretty or not.

Asher
 

doug anderson

New member
Thanks, Asher. I'm new to digital photography, and will be sending pictures as soon as I gain some mastery of the Nikon D300 that will arrive some time next week. My photos! Now, I suppose, I will have to live up to the phrase, "The proof is in the pudding."

Cheers,

D
 

doug anderson

New member
"The proof is in the pudding" assumes that the pudding will be eaten. Unless, of course, there's a formula under the pudding which you find after eating it....or well I could keep quibbling....
 
Top