Why all the addendums and clarifications? As far as I am concerned it really is very simple. There is photography, which is a medium and there is art which is the expressive arrangement of elements within a medium. Expression in this context does not mean 'having something to say' or having a 'meaning'. I entirely agree that visual images created out of a narrative box are unlikely to be art.
I think part of the problem is that as photographers, we are extremely shy about being in any way associated with the terms 'art' and 'artist'. This is precisely because we do not want to be associated with the stacks of paper and 4 minutes 33 seconds of silence brigade. We would much rather be appreciated for mastery of the twin mysticisms of craft and technology that are closely associated with photography. If you strip it back to basics and understand the fundamentals it becomes much easier to appreciate and understand what motivates us to take photographs in the first place.

I agree but we seem to be in the minority.

Here is the Exhibit Application instructions for the Internation Gallery of Contemporary Art in Anchorage Alaska:
HOW TO APPLY FOR AN EXHIBITION

Each year the International Gallery invites artists to submit proposals for solo exhibitions. Artists are not judged solely by the quality of their work, but also by their narrative in which they explain what it is they are trying to learn or what they are trying to explore in the body of work they will prepare for the exhibition. The Gallery accepts only new work that has not been previously exhibited elsewhere in the state. In this way, the Gallery plays an important role in stimulating the creation of artwork. We give artists the permission, excuse, freedom or deadline they need to create a new body of work. Some artists will be more successful than others, but we feel it is the experience of creating the artwork that is critical for development. The International Gallery does not focus on only traditional media, but is open to all art forms including installation and performance art and to new explorative media such as digital, video and other technological forms.

Yeah, I see what you mean. That is another way of saying 'we may be completely baffled by your submission, but if you provide a good written explanation, there is a strong chance we will accept it'. Is it any wonder that most of the public are dismissive of the contemporary art scene? I think we should reclaim the terms for ourselves and stop the anally retentive geeks from deciding for us what is art.

I think it is also an unfortunate form of censorship. A recent juried show here had a juror from Apeture magazine, she stated that she was glad the local photographers, who entered, were "beyond landscapes".

Just because she has seen all the landscapes she ever wants to see doesn't mean everyone in the public has done that. Children are born everyday that have never seen a landscape photograph by anyone. I think it is very limiting to only look for gritty and many times ugly street photography as the only images worthy of showing. God help you if you shoot in color and your images have any asthetic appeal.

I am no traditionalist and I shoot mainly abstracts. I general don't shoot landscapes so I am the last person to want every photo to be a shot of Yosemite Valley in B&W but I think too many in the fine art establishment are too concerned with "nouvo". If it is new it is choosen even if it is not "good work".

Have to get my two cents in because I think we must be the only two photographers in the world that think this way:)


Cheers

I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only one that thinks this way. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and sometimes there is nothing wrong with a beautiful image, be it landscape, wildlife or otherwise.

The woman you refered to would likely classify such shots as "cliches" as a derogatory term. I bought a copy of Aperture once....what a mistake. A bunch of pretentious "art snobs" mooning over ugly and oft times poorly taken photographs. Wanna bet that many of them are closet cute kitten calendar collectors? (say that quickly 10 times!)



Make that three! ;-)

i'm a painter and also have a degree in art history. and a photographer. and i'm a photographer because i say i am. ;-)

i don't think enough photographers have a background in the visual arts in general. if you did, you wouldn't put so much emphasis on technique. you can put emphasis on your technique if you like, but you can't demand it of other's work.

yes, many discussions of modern art are pure wankery. some art critics should have a lesson in writing in plain english. but modern art is full of interesting and challenging ideas. much 20th century modern art deliberately defied definition and stretched the boundaries of art.

lines on sheets of graph paper? taking charts made purely for communication and making them into a gallery piece lifts the prosaic into something to be considered and pondered for themselves. they are probably more images of our time, more relevant to our everyday lives, than another grand view of yosemite. do we need to know they are charts of t-cells counts? no, if you want to read some significance into that, if it makes some "emotional" difference to you -- but you don't have to know it.

this doesn't mean you have to take pictures of medical charts. or gritty street pictures. or poorly exposed snapshots.

art is about visual ideas and communication. as artists and photographers, we should be willing to appreciate other's ideas. just as we appreciate a whole range of music.

Though I agree with you on this in the whole, the end cases would seem to defy it.

For example, I love almost all forms of music. But hard-core rap, I detest. I don't see why I should be willing to appreciate the idea of rap. Mind you, that is only my opinion and of course YMMV.

Similarily, some "modern" art, I dislike and do not consider "art", again IMO only. I do not feel it has redeeming features, and it typically the artist, or more often the art community, being full of themselves. And as with music, I love many forms of art. I see no reason to "appreciate other's ideas" that I find have no merit whatsoever.

That being said, the process of new forms or limits to art do expand the boundaries. I just don't think we know which "art" expanded the boundaries in a positive and lasting way till the test of time has spoken. Maybe in a hundred or so years we'll know if rap music and some forms of "modern" art really were.

Anyway...it's a beautiful, sunny day, of which there have been too few this past winter. I'm going to go out and enjoy the art of nature. Maybe even will grab a camera and make some "art" of my own. ;-)

"lines on sheets of graph paper? taking charts made purely for communication and making them into a gallery piece lifts the prosaic into something to be considered and pondered for themselves. they are probably more images of our time, more relevant to our everyday lives, than another grand view of yosemite. do we need to know they are charts of t-cells counts? no, if you want to read some significance into that, if it makes some "emotional" difference to you -- but you don't have to know it."

Bugzie,
In life we must evaluate and filter volumes of information everyday. We discard most of it as not being relevent to our lives at the moment by necessity. I respectfully submit that your comment above is ridiculus! Are you saying that any mundane item in life can be elevated to the status of "art" by just moving it into a gallery? A McDonalds placemat, the wrapper off my bag of cheetos and my used starbucks cup can be art for no other reason or effort than proclaiming that they are worthy of consideration and should be pondered for themselves?

You think photographers are too concerned about technique and yet I would submit that the art world currently does not consider it enough. Skill and craft are lost in a free-for-all of no effort art. I pull a chair out of the dump, make references to an imagined previous owner and it is now art and I am an artist.

I realize that inovation in art requires a broad view and a willingness to accept new ideas about what art can be. But on the other hand not everything that can be is quality art. It may be just a boring piece of paper with a pencil line on it and nothing more.

Well said, Mike!

Sometimes the Emperor just doesn't have any clothes on.

people have been taking everyday mass-produced objects and elevating them to gallery pieces for some decades now. it started with the "pop art" movement back in the 60s.

we might put that grand view of yosemite on our walls, but the visual imagery that assaults us everyday and is a part of our lives is, for example, advertising. if art is to reflect culture, why not popular culture?

why be so precious about your art? there is room for humour and playfulness.

part of the pop art movement was to put the wind up folks. all those who would come to the cathedrals of art and worship in respectful and hushed tones.

why is yet another grand view of yosemite a work of art and your cheetos wrapper not?

you don't have to give up your craft here, you don't have to give up anything. it's about opening up your mind to possibilities. opening your eyes. looking at ordinary, everyday things anew.

i'm with you on rap. i don't enjoy it. but i do appreciate the idea of it -- urban poetry. i don't like it much but i don't say well, it's not music.

Bugzie, you're forgetting your art history! Marcel Duchamp did it with his readymades almost a hundred years ago. Remember the urinal that he said was ". . . an ordinary article of life, placed . . . so that its useful significance disappeared under a new title and point of view -- [creating] a new thought for the object."

Come to think of it Edward Weston took some rather nice pictures of toilets . . .

I think you have nailed it on the head for me. This is exactly what I think is wrong. You imply that a previous generation was too stiff and regulated to it's aproach to art and that prevented new ideas from being brought forth. But when all the rules are thrown out there is no value. All value in life is arbitrary. We value daimonds because we do. They are just rocks. But when you tell me that anything can be and indeed is art then there is no distinction. Everything has the same value. The pebble under my feat has the same value as the diamond on my wife's finger. How can we enjoy art when it has no distiguishing value?

The lay public knows quality when they see it. They might not understand it or be able to identify it but when they see cheetos wrappers elevated to the postion of art they know somebody is full of it.

I was saddened when locally high school girl came back from a summer art camp in Chicago. She had a solo show of her work in town and she clearly had some talent in her paintings. But at the art camp they had taught her about installation art. So as she was packing up to go to college she piled all her belongings hap-harzardly in a big pile on the gallery floor and called it an example of installation art.

What a waste of her talents and her time.

You are not, I assure you. I can't really improve on what you've written so I'll just add this affirmation.

Me, too!!!

Eric

I hope this is not too analytical an approach, but is it worth pausing to ponder what we mean when we say that something is or isn't art?

The statement may mean "I do not like this particular work of art". That's fine, but saying it may make your case clearer. It may mean "This particular object does not meet my criteria for qualifying something as a work of art". Again, fine, but again, if you say so, the discussion will focus on your criteria, which will presumably yield a more interesting discussion than "This is art" - "Yes, it is" - "No, it isn't".

Things get more complicated when it's not only about evaluating a particular work of art (or a particular object, if you will), but when you start attaching some social consequence or other to your definition of art. If you say "This painting isn't art, and therefore, I will not visit the musueum where it is displayed", you are of course free to do that, and since the consequences (almost) only relate to you, my only comments are those I made above. But if you say "Since this isn't art, people shouldn't be allowed to see this or the artist should be prohibited from producing further such works", the relevance of your concepts extends beyond yourself and must therefore be weighed more carefully. I am in no way saying that any of the posters of this thread has advocated any such thing. I would only contend that the more far-reaching the consequences are that you attach to your definition, the broader your concept of art has to be. If for no other reason, then to prevent that the concept be turned against you and the art that you are making.

I, me, personally, prefer a definition or concept of art that does not focus on the product, but on the process. To me, art is essentially something you are doing, the process of expressing what you think, see or feel about yourself, your life, the world, whatever. Whether or not your specific ways of expressing yourself, your works of art, are appreciated, understood, cherished, bought by others, is of course interesting and maybe important, but, to my mind, not instrumental for describing something as a work of art. The "problem" with this approach is that to know whether something is a work of art, you would need to sit in the artist's head. Since you can't, you can never be sure that you're not being put on. But I can live with that risk .

Incidentally, this "procedural" concept of art can be a way of appreciating or respecting works of art that you do not like or understand: by appreciating or respecting the process behind it that will be very similar to the process behind your own works, however much your works differ from that other person's.

Sorry for this long post. Thanks for reading.

Karsten

Karsten,

I particularly avoided getting into the what is art question because it is a harder topic to tackle. I understand your concerns but I would propose that much of the Fine Art Photography administrative community (those that run gallery's and museums) actually practice a reverse form of censorship. In their blind adherence to the peer pressure of the intelegencia and the desire to be open to all things art they choose to limit what is art by their process of elimination. Landscapes are passe, color is not "in" B&W is "in". By constantly choosing the nouvo over the old they themselves define what is art because of their "post-modern" prejudice. They practice a severe form of censorship by what they accept into their galleries. If the view was wide from this perch I would be more inclined to be supportive but it does not appear that way to me. When I search the net I see from the New York camera club to Photo Center NW a fairly singular filter being appplied. If I was a new comer and did not know what photography entailed I think I would be getting a fairly narrow interpretation.

An interesting perspective, that has much merit, IMO.

What I find fascinating about your comments is the implication that the process is intrinsic to the value of the art. Which to me, (I, me, personally ), means that a trivial "process" means trivial "art", if you can even call it art at that stage.

That rules out me crumpling a cheetos wrapper and calling it "art", with the implication that it's "valuable". Ever notice how people that label aftefacts as "art" are trying to impicitly raise the perceived value of said artefact in many (I would even say most) situations?

This also ties in nicely with my personal value system that equates "art" with some concept of craftsmanship, mastery, expertise and achievement through perserverence.

But that is just I, me, personally of course. YMMV.

I would have to agree with gryffyn. Even though I can't define art. I would say that some of it's characteristics (IMHO)are possibly:
1. Care
2. Passion
3. Skill/Craftsmanship
4. Vision
5. and a bit of time.....

Andrzej,

I'm not so sure about the value. What I meant was that the concept may enable you to, well, relate to another artist's work even if you don't like it, don't find it important or otherwise "valuable".

How difficult or complex it was to produce it is one aspect that I may appreciate in a work of art, but it doesn't end there. I also appreciate if it makes me think harder or feel deeper or if I BELIEVE I understand the idea behind it. On that basis, I MAY also appreciate the crumpled cheetos wrapper, not because somebody has said "This is art", but because I perceive an honest idea behind it that makes me respond.

Karsten

rfw, thank you for reminding me of Duchamp's pissoir. but i'm not really bound up in who did what first.

as to question of value in paintings, some artists have reacted to the sad realities of the "art market". that is, investors will make lots of money out of you once you are nicely dead and if your works are deemed valuable. so some artists like to subvert this whole process by making their art ephemeral. or by not making their art a single unique object.

the subject of diamonds is interesting. diamonds are valuable because they are rare. they're rare because de beers, the south african diamond company, has manipulated the market to restrict the number of diamonds offered and to push the idea that diamonds are desirable. look up de beers and diamonds in google, if you're curious, to learn about the history of the diamond.

the pebble under your foot is just as interesting and beautiful if you care to look at it. :-)

That is true, but if you place the pebble on a pedestal, does that make it art?

yes. ...and you don't even need that pedestal. ;-)

There is no absolute requirement for a particular skill, save one sufficient to complete the intended piece of work.

Contemplating structure ot the "rules", can, IMHO, be rather silly, as implied above. One does not need to know about physics and the mass of one's body to walk, dance or wink at a lady!

Yes, to reproduce a kind of art for which certain esthetic expectation have been defined, one has to obey those rules, whether it is "the rules of thirds" or traditional patterns of a Persian rug, or Japanese ink paintings. To be in the genre and respected by its affectionados, one should follow the appropriate expectations.

Art however, transcends any such rules although it can exist and flourish with them too.

On the other hand, for us, as human sentient beings to appreciate art, magic has to occur in our senses, at basic and at cultural levels. This requires that humans have functioning senses, awake early evolutional prewired neural circuits that cause erruptive emotions and cultural and personal overlays, against, through and because of which the piece of work has or hasn't evoked relevence and profound interest.

The "artist" may be pretty unskilled, uncouth, know no rules and produce art which is profound and compelling simply because it "works". Art has to work. That's it. It is so simple.

All the skills, rules and intentions don't mean anything if the piece doesnt work. However, for succeeding in selling work in a particular genre, the product not only has to work but also must meet the standards by which that kind or class of art are judged and valued in the market place.

So a bunch of wool with dye thown over it would be rejected by a fine rug dealer but may fetch a million dollars as modern art. It just has to work emotionally and be in a class that people are prepared to entertain as "art" to be Art.

That is just my humble view and the guide for my own work.

Asher

a million dollars? i think this is where peeps tend to get their knickers in a twist. if i put my pebble on a pedestal, i'll get big fat zip for it. and even if i'm a famous and "saleable" artist, and it sells for a million dollars -- which is pretty unlikely before i'm dead -- i'm not going to see that million dollars. nothing like it.

i think some of you are confusing art and Art. there's just art. and it can be anything you please.

and then there's the art market. investors, collectors... grossly inflated values. you see those grossly inflated values and think artists are making a mint out of pebbles arranged in a semi-circle on the floor. well, they just aint. you can make a much better living out of nice landscapes for putting on walls.

i think some of you are confusing art and value. and art and worth.

From a junior art student at N.Dallas (my son) comes the word that "art" is any contrived medium that intriges, entertains, or holds interest and is appreciated by more than one person. His intent is in selling his work otherwise the last requirement can be dropped.

Artist create while photographers capture but both are concerned with light, color (black and white is color) space and balance. This is of course as in the context we are speaking, graphic arts - not music, dance ect.

I beg to differ. Photographers do much more than capture: they interpret, crop, adjust, process and print, to mention but a few. And with digital photography, the photographer is enabled to do even more.

If all photography consisted of was simple "capture", then there would be a much smaller difference between the good (or great) photographers and the unwashed masses of snapshooters.

"both are concerned with light, color (black and white is color) space and balance"

What part of "concerned with" did you not understand? Snapshot shooters are little concerned with more than is most of it in focus. When I said photographers capture and artist create it was an essential statement of fact. It could be said that artist capture and photographers create, but I wouldn't want to confuse you.


To make the point, there is a style of painted art that at first glance appears to be a photograph and photographs that appear to be painted. Both are captured, both are created. Both are "art".

It is only your opinion, and one with which I disagree.

Your "high and mighty" attitude is unbecoming of this board and of this thread, which has remained quite civil until your most recent comment.

'nuff said. Last word is yours, should you feel the need to have it.

I'm sorry, I thought lashing out with your "self rightous indignation" followed with your frowny face in response to what I thought was a reasonable comment was what interuppted the civil tone of this tread. It sounded like to me, you missed your nappy time. Of course, that's just my opinion.

I like Mike Johnson's definition of art:

"Art is not an object; it is an encounter with an object."

His photography blog (rss feed) can be found here:

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/atom.xml

Photography is many things to different people. I dont consider it art as such, but it can be..not always though...

I dont see how you can define what makes a good picture with lists or charts....to me at least photography is a feeling, passion, a picture should evoke an emotion...

Technical competence is not enough....

The Online Photographer (Mike Johnson) has a brilliant post up on the subject:

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/...n-internet.html

Kind of sums it all up rather nicely, IMO.

True, it is not sufficient, but it is required, IMO.