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
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
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
- Inciting incident/trigger
- imagination& creativity feeding on one another
- A design framework within which to mobilize creativity and imagination and arrive at a working concept or sketch of what might be made
- Intent: The commitment of the artists mind to that project.
- Drive and persistence: Having the sustained will and energy sufficient to assemble the resources and drive the creative work to completion.
- A skill set appropriate for the work to be created: Mental and physical skills of the artist
- A Physical Medium: A physical medium in which to embed the design made in the mind
- 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.
- 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: