In light of the recent discussions about user critique I decided to try at a loose definition of photography as Art. This may help in understanding which aspects we care to learn about in the user critique section. (It also helps to add some more non-technical discussions to the forum).

In my opinion there are 4 main criteria (possibly levels?):

1. Competence
Obviously it is helpful to have a technically correct art-expression. The artist does not need to be competent with the medium chosen, because competence can be hired, as in a director & camera crew. However, it probably helps if you know the characteristics of the medium.

2. Composition
Probably the most discussed part of Art. It's important to have a sound composition, as in: All elements should contribute to the composition and support the narrative. There is necessarily one and only one subject. You should be able to form a single sentence that describes the composition.

3. Narrative
The expression should convey a predetermined message or story. If it doesn't, then the expression becomes random communication which reeks of Jules de la Tourette and usually ends up in the luna-house. If you're a proponent of making images "intuitively", it still means you have a predetermined goal to make that image with a certain framing etc to your liking. You can not submit an image without predetermination, as it would constitute a contradiction of terms. The act of offering such an image as a form of expression = predetermination.
The message should preferably be effective, as in the majority of the audience can empathize with the story.

4. Metaphor
To actual make it to the level or Art with a capital A, an expression needs to encapsulate a predetermined metaphor. It should have an additional, more profound message with a deeper impact, on top of the more obvious narrative. It can of course be a pinch of salt or a slap in the face metaphor. It could be irony, sarcasm, or any of those hard-to-define traits.


And to spice up the discussion: we all have different levels of skill when it comes to photography. But we also have different ambitions in level of skill. It appears that the vast majority of say more than 90% never makes it beyond level 1, and remain dwelling in the technicalities of equipment ad nauseum. I recently read an analogy about people discussing the absolute top-speeds of their sports-cars, but only being able to take their multi-thousand $ cars for a short 55mph trip to the local grocery shop. I LMAO.

Only a small portion actually make it to & thru level 2. This is entirely due to the subjective nature of the beast. That is why you find so many "technical" minded people lining up on level 1 with some faint ambition to drop their current career and instead aspiring to pursue a career of free spiritness and rebellion, but never being able to make it to level 2 because the lack of guidelines. And they keep growing over time. It's almost like a polarity thing, where electrons collect at the gate...

Level 3 of course is where things become interesting. This is where you learn to "communicate" as opposed to just uttering well-formed language. It does require a certain amount of emotional wisdom because you need to recognize a possible story to be able to transfer it through communication. It takes one to know one. You can read a book to children boring them to h*** or you can tell a story that captures them. A story narrated well, invites a return visit. A point&shoot moment simply spells: nice image, goodbye, next... In other words; an intuitive image usually says "i didn't take the time to think this over, so why should the audience?"

And then there is Level 4.
Well, I'm not an Artist, what can I say?

Interesting ideas.

Competence isn't usually rented by users of this site.  They prefer to do it themselves.

Composition is, arguably, the most discussed and least understood element of art on this site.

Narrative is usually provided as words by the photographer.  The image isn't allowed or required to speak for itself.

Methaphor is at most a pinch of salt.  Now salt is a great spice and can be quite subtle, but there is pepper too.

I'm not so sure that photography as art must have a predetermined narrative or metaphor because photographs can and do take on a life and meaning of their own.

On the other hand, the predetermination and accomplishment of an intended narrative or metaphor is a skill, perhaps part of the definition, of a photographer.

Certainly I have taken photographs with one intention in mind and later realised and assigned a different meaning to it.  (But I make no claim to being an artist and am only a student of photography with a poor instructor who stresses trial and error methods.)

First, I agree with Gordon's comments completely.  I've been there, too (often).

Second, one aspect of much "photography that works" that isn't addressed in your four levels, that I think needs to be in there somewhere but isn't, is that it somehow engages the thought and/or imagination of the viewer.  To have the viewer notice the narrative and/or metaphor but not care is a partial failure.  I feel that the best work engages the imagination of the viewer, getting them to ask themselves questions like, "I wonder how those people are feeling and/or what paths led them there?" or "I wonder what interesting place that trail goes to?" or "Who built those ruins long ago and why did they allow them to decay?" or even just "It looks unreal and magical; where on earth could that possibly be?", or, better yet, gets the viewer to imagine themselves to be "inside" the scene and consider how they feel there.

Lisa

"... , because photographs can and do take on a life and meaning of their own."

My father used to tell me that "even blind hogs acorns once in a while."

This is part of the reason that everyone with a camera thinks they are real photographers, because they have one good image to prove it.

Lisa, you certainly have a very active imagination.

Isn't that like avoiding the responsibility of your communication?

I presume you assigned a different meaning to an image because the majority of your environment assigned a different meaning to it. But obviously one can't change the initial *intention* after the fact. The intended communication apparently failed. If I don't accept that, how can I learn from mistakes, or change my communication?

Assigning those skills to the definition of a photographer is an interesting take. I first started out writing the 4 traits as competence required by the artist. (as in "technical competence", "compostional competence"). But I realized quickly that that doesn't hold for technical competence as mentioned.

Agreed. Empathy was presupposed though. As mentioned in the story telling analogy. You can just read the words, or you can captivate the audience. If it's worth a revisit, then people apparently care...

I understand what you mean, but I do want to be careful also. A picture can be shocking for the sake of shock. In that case it "moves" the audience, it can have a profound impact on people's life, but I don't find that a particular useful response. When you say "care" that certainly makes sense to me, because I associate that with a positive, constructive emotion.

I once took a class in the appreciation of poetry.  I was and still am amazed that a poet could jot down a few lines of not very clear English, and manage to have captured such a multitude of thoughts, ideas and emotions.  What really amazed me was the thought least likely to be the poet's real thought was the one that was most obvious to the causal reader - what the words really said.  Seems a poet just couldn't say what he really meant.

In the past I have tried to think about this topic in terms of four levels of landscape photography.

Beginner - The image has some potential but is only partially developed visually. The image lacks interesting composition and may exhibit other flaws.

Intermediate - The image is good, but the composition is not complete. When looking at these images you think about additional cropping to strengthen the image, or how moving a cloud or rock with Photoshop would strengthen the image.

Advanced/Good - The image is very good. The composition is compelling and feels complete. There are no obvious flaws that you might try to fix with Photoshop. The image has appropriate contrast, color, sharpness, etc.

Excellent/Sublime - These are the images we dream about making. The image has all the positive qualities of an advanced image with one big addition, EMOTION. When we see these images, we are pulled in and want to take a long look. An Excellent/Sublime image evokes a longing, a pain of beauty, a pull of emotion. These are the most powerful photographic images which are Art of the highest level.

While it is possible to generate an emotional response from an inferior image, the emotion usually comes from the subject and our relationship to the subject, rather than the visual image alone.

Although people generally have differing levels of emotional response to an image, I believe that an excellent/sublime image will transcend that barrier and communicate emotion to most viewers. When viewing other people’s photographs we judge the merits of the work almost immediately. Our real problem is the editing and judging of our own work. The difference between a strong advanced composition and a lyrical sublime composition which moves the heart is difficult to quantify.

Not again!  Collective monologues on the vagaries of aesthetics have been blessedly absent for quite a while.  Let it be, people!

russel, to be perfectly blunt, if you don't want to read and contribute, then don't.  Because the topic is boring to you or beneith your dignity does not mean that others don't enjoy it.

This forum is call "But is it Art?".  Seems just the place to be talking about aesthetics.  What else would you have us discuss here???  I'm happy to see most anything under this forum, since it's rare for anyone to start a new post here, and it's a more interesting subject (IMO) than yet another debate about resolution and crop factors...  :p

Lisa

At the risk of piling on...

If you don't care for discussions of aesthetics or composition or the Meaning of Art, nobody's forcing you to participate or even look. If this subject bores you, go click on something in Digital Image Processing or whatever.

Competence and composition are really one in the same and just comes down to skill. Certainly you work on both at the same time. Narrative and metaphor are not required as there is no reason to have a story and it does not need to be metaphoric of anything; a work can simply be beautiful. You may perfer Piccaso over Van Gogh because there can be a narrative and metaphors in the work, but you can not say the work is a "high level" or even better.

Suppose I make a lifetime study of photography and eventually produce a -- meaning only one -- photograph that precisely meets all of opgr's four requirements.  Thereafter, although I continue to take photographs, none quite hit the mark.  My questions are:

1) Is my one qualifying photograph "Art"?
2) Am I an artist?
3) Am I a photographer?

If I then become qualified as an artist or photographer, at what point did this occur?  After qualifying that single photograph, for what period of time am I an artist and/or photographer?

What if the qualifying photograph was the very first one?  The last one?

Your one piece of "art" would only be "art" if recognized as such.

"Artist" is a label given to a person who creates a work of "art." (See above)

"Photographer" is a person who makes photographs. Quality of the work is not implied.

Thanks for your input opgr, but I beg to differ on many points, and am interested in you explaining to me your reasoning for some of your statements.


Sorry, this is not obvious to me. Who determines what is technically 'correct'. Some works which are not what we have 'learned' to be technically correct, are the most powerful and trigger the greatest response.



Who said that there should be one and only one subject???? What do you mean by 'subject'? In Jonathan's recent image for critiquing "POW MIA Memorial Car", in my opinion there were two subjects- the person and the car...each having their own symbolism for each viewer. Why is it necessary to form a single sentence to describe the composition?



I think it is a bit arrogant and controlling to assume how the viewer is going to respond to an image. How can we assume that we know that?

How can we determine that a message is effective?.... just because it conforms to what you have in your mind is the meaning of your image?? So does 'majority' rule?? and make an image make the grade? What if the 'majority' don't empathise, but you have communicated deeply with ONE person, and they are moved so greatly by an image, it makes an impression on them for their entire life?

Sorry opgr, I don't think your criteria for determining wheteher something is Art works for me at all.

Is it Art?...a question which has probably been debated for centuries. I like this definition by Leo Tolstoy (written 1896)as a starting point, "#1. In order correctly to define art, it is necessary, first of all, to cease to consider it as a means to pleasure and to consider it as one of the conditions of human life. Viewing it in this way we cannot fail to observe that art is one of the means of intercourse between man and man". An interesting article is here http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361r14.html

Julie

Does anyone else belong to the "It is art because I tell you it is art" school of thought?

Well, it is a good a definition as any. "I think it is art," would most likely be more accurate.

I've been asleep on my side of the globe and was pleasantly surprised to see some life in this part of the forum. Thanks everyone for participating.

I suppose I am of the school of "Art=Communication", but I realize full well that there are alternative views out there such as "Art=Interaction" or "Art=Metaphysical". I prefer "Art=Communication" because it is applicable to the majority of Art, and specifically to photography as Art. Good communication obviously is "interaction" but a photograph happens to be one of the more static media of expression.

Now, most of us learn to communicate subconsciously. That obviously doesn't mean there is no structure to it or doesn't have rules. Perhaps the Art teachers haven't been able to define the rules very well. The rules of Art can not be too strict, it results (or resulted if you will) in Artists desperately trying to break the rules, redefining them, or otherwise showing that the rules are not applicable. To then say that there are No Rules At All may be exaggerating as well. If we consider Art as an element of our society than it has structure. The trick is to properly define the structure, so we can transfer/communicate the concept. (Note that we used to ascribe something to the divine beings if we couldn't explain it properly).

Back to the criteria. Given the above, I want to emphasize the idea that it is a loose definition. One that helps me to more effectively judge images on artistic merit. I wouldn't personally apply the criteria as strict rules, and, most importantly, one should not reverse the implication:

if the rules apply, then it is art.

is completely different from:

if it is art, then the rules apply...

If you like art in some utilitarian sense, then the criteria are certainly not "required".
But it's one thing to say "art is a utility", it is entirely another to say "a utility is art".


So what about Competence?
By "technically correct" I mean: It should be reasonably clear what the medium of expression is, and how that expression should be interpreted. In photography that means a reasonably exposed image and a subject that is reasonably focused. If you don't know how a camera works, you won't be able to communicate with it. You can obviously experiment with how much blur or lack of light an image or subject can sustain until it becomes unrecognizable as an expression of art, but that simply indicates that you are really competent in the use of the camera.



As for Composition:
Obviously, as indicated, this is possibly the most discussed, least understood part of photograhy, and I am certainly the last person to be contributing something authoritatively to this matter. (And I certainly don't want this to become another monologue on the vagaries of aesthetics).

Given that "Art=Communication" I personally prefer to think of composition as creating a well-formed sentence structure. The rules of composition are then akin to the rules of language. The rules do not restrict, but instead supply relatively objective guidelines for an expression with all the freedom that comes with it, without losing the ability to effectively communicate with an audience or, better yet, captivate the audience.
I believe one of the rules of language states that a sentence has one subject only. If there is another noun, not part of the subject, it would for example be the object.
Again, I am not trying to be strict about it, I just find that there are useful parallels. If it's ambiguous what the subject of a photograph is, then the composition is usually not considered well-formed or complete and it will be hard to come up with a single sentence that describes the photograph well.  

This also doesn't mean that you can't stretch the rules to their limit, but that will only help to define the rules. They are there, because as soon as you lose the ability to communicate with your audience, you apparently crossed the line. And, if it is your intention to *captivate* your audience, then it would be useful if you didn't stretch the rules too much.

I suppose "Rules Are Tools"?


A predetermined message:
I presume we all agree that there is a difference between "Intent" and "Meaning". If you "intent" to convey a certain "meaning", then I call that "predetermination". Obviously, if the majority of your audience assigns a different meaning to your expression, then you have an opportunity to learn what kind of expression will effectively convey that different meaning.
When using language we also do not just randomly utter words. Because we intent to communicate a certain meaning, we predetermine the sentences we will use. (Although I admit that in the internut age...).

Note that I don't define who or what the audience is. To me that is irrelevant although I do not personally believe in a two men art club.



1) Is my one qualifying photograph "Art"?
Yes. IMO The important factor would be that it is your intent to produce such a photograph. Whether it takes you your entire life to do so, or you struggle your entire life to produce another, is between you and your divine creator.

2) Am I an artist?
I associate the word "artist" with the question: "What do you do for a living?"
If you do everything in your power to be an artist, then you are an artist. Whether you'll be an artist with a capital A remains to be seen. But it may not be in your lifetime that you will see it, and you have to accept that as part of the deal.

3) Am I a photographer
Did you do any weddings recently?

I would say that was a contradiction of your own philosophy. If I can learn language subconsciously, then I have learnt it without the need to define it. It is intuitive and requires no logical process. Since no definition and logic is required, then the point of art of having a "concept" is moot.

Obviously these are your personal definitions of art and you have found they help you. Nothing wrong with that. If we apply them in a universal sense, then they start breaking down. For them to work, they need to be based on a few unproven assumptions. In this case, "art is to communicate a concept" and "art has a definable structure" amoung others. The real problem here is that your are implying art has an absolute "artness." Art only has reality in reference to human perception (not just vision, but all processes that form our view of the world). And not just on an intellectual level, but something much deeper that goes right down to our biology.

I think that predetermination of meaning is an illusory goal. In my experience, the most success images are ones that transcend the creator's intent or ambition. When the art works, it achieves a complexity and richness that allows each viewer to take something different and personal from it. This is how I judge that a photograph I have created is art and not just a picture.



Be careful about trying to analytically judge work as art. The definition of art is a simple binary, yes or no, that each person makes for themselves. The criteria: did this work go past your eyes and touch your heart or mind? If yes, then it's art... for you.

As to the question "are you an artist?" In my opinion, if you say you are, you are. If someone else says you are, you are. Being an artist is not a job, but a calling. We should not confuse being an "artist" with being a "successful" or "popular artist".

Edward Weston had some pithy things to say about the whole issue of art and photgraphy and composition:

"Now to consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk. Such rules and laws are deduced from the accomplished fact; they are the products of reflection."

I believe it was Edward who once said something like, "Composition is simply the strongest way of seeing," and "Let the subject generate its own composition."

And I seem to recall that for an exhibit once the gallery wanted to bill him as "Edward Weston, Artist", and he said  "Scratch the word 'artist' and write 'photographer' -- of which I am very proud."  (I'll check the exact quote in the Daybooks when I get home this afternoon.)

Eric  

"As to the question "are you an artist?" In my opinion, if you say you are, you are. If someone else says you are, you are. Being an artist is not a job, but a calling. We should not confuse being an "artist" with being a "successful" or "popular artist"."

You have made some excellent points here, all too often the success part gets confused with talent. Sometimes they do coexist, and you can through academic credentials into the mix to confuse things more. Artist or not???Good question, some of the most impressive examples of any kind of 'art' come from sources that people do as a hobby, thus yielding the word amateur, in its truest form. Others function in a more matter of fact mode, take a wedding photographer as a job. First, there are those who do an adequate job with the best equipment and are successful. Others have much lesser gear, and do an even better job. Who is the artist? Either, both? Neither? Ultimately it is up to the viewer to decide if a particular type of work or image has that certain something. I'll accept either label, but luckily count on my main career outside of photography to keep food on my table happily.

Don't know how much I added to the conversation overall, but thanks for letting me be part of it, it is what drives any of us lovers of photography to go on and strive for improvement, great thread...

Anon, defining a photographer as a person who makes photographs without regard to quality of the product is so overly simplistic as to be virtually meaningless.  You probably don't really even use that definition yourself.

Is a writer only one who writes?
-- A painter only one who paints?
-- A poeter only one who poets?
-- A musicer only one who musics?

Such literal definitions would be so all encompassing as to be meaningless.  By virtue of having a few years of elementary school education, everyone would be a writer, painter, poet, musician, etc.  Nearly everyone in the developed world would be a photographer.

I'll bet everyone participating in this discussion would note the nuances of the questions:  "Were you the photographer?"  as compared to "Are you a photographer?".

Eric,

"Edward Weston had some pithy things to say about the whole issue of art and photgraphy and composition:"

I think he was also creditted for something to the effect that everything worth photographing wasn't very far from the car.  Maybe Weston wasn't always so right.

To acquire a skill subconsciously does not contradict that you could acquire that skill more quickly if the concept was defined and the logic exposed. Nor does it contradict the more important fact that you would be able to communicate *about* the concept more effectively. So it is not entirely moot. But I agree that it is indeed not required.

And yes, there are assumptions, but it is more like: "Art is to communicate" and that in itself is the concept. From that assumption it follows logically that it has a definable structure. However, I am also a proponent of the assumption that "chaos is our inability to define structure". Structure is a filter we use to define our world. Art is part of that world, so it can be viewed through *a* structure. The fact that we have not yet found a meaningful or effective way to define that structure doesn't necessarily mean there isn't one.

On the other hand, if Art is indeed a deeper something or metaphysical concept, then it may well be that "pure reason" is not applicable as a tool.

Agreed, and I believe that an artist needs to be a perfectionist with a scrutiny exceeding well beyond that of the audience.

To not call yourself "Artist" may also be a form of evading your responsibility. If I believe Edward Weston to be a true Artist and want to learn from him, and he only says: "I'm just a photographer, if you want to learn what I do, just come along with me for the better part of either of our lives, and perhaps intuitively you pick up the trade..." (but perhaps not), then that doesn't really acknowledge the responsibility both people have towards each other. (this is not meant as grave as it my sound).




But this begs the question: does the resulting emotion need to be positive? constructive? Somebody sees your art and commits suicide. Apparently it was a profound experience for the person, but is it then a useful expression of art? (this is a genuine question to find the limits of the concept, no sarcasm).

As a medical professional, I would say that suicide over an image or any piece of art, is not so much about the "art" as the person who kills themself. No piece of art is worth that reaction, and I can't see anyone without other issues committing such an act. Now maybe if the artist commits suicide, that is another matter....maybe :-). I do not think it is the creators responsibility to guard against all possible acts resulting from viewing his work.

This is not to say, that some art could not be offensive in the extreme or plain outright disgusting. I can think of a few such items that could come to mind. BUT my reaction to them would  not elicit suicide from me. I think we need to leave out such things as death of kids as a possible subject, that might cross some offensive borders, but otherwise most 'art'for its own sake, should not elicit such reactions.

I guess one question would be "was it the artists'  INTENTION to cause such a reaction?" Other than that, any piece of art can cause a range of reactions from "I must buy that and put it up in my house and I love it" to "that is just junk thrown together...Yuckkk" "Why did they waste the time and material"....beauty is in the eye of the beholder type thing. Usefullness sort of falls into this kind of range.

But that is exactly the question we are exploring; predetermination. (The suicide reaction is of course just a thought experiment). I personally have somewhat of a problem with the proposition that "if it evokes a profound reaction, then it must be Art". A profound reaction can be *provoked* very easily. So how can I tell the difference?

I would say simply that it depends on what this 'art' is? IS it the artists intention to kill someone with his art? assuming it is not a poison delivery system made to be part of it...then it is NOT art but a weapon with a specific purpose...hehe. Yu are asking for specific responses, can you describe such art, and the artists motivation in making it? With such an example, we may be able to tell you whether this 'art' is ART. Art is supposed to be profound and provoke an emotional response, no doubt, but why make something so provacative to elicit someones death? Was it meant to kill a certain individual? What was the artist's rationale for making it in the first place? Did it have a specific target? Lots of questions.....

I think you are confusing the case of a person in the persuit of an activity and a profession. This is why we have amatuer and professional photographers. I have seen some amateurs produce higher quality images that professionals. I have seen some professionals who produce work no better than someone who takes a random snapshot. If we can have good photographers, we certainly can have bad. Quality is not an issue.

Quality requires value judgements. At that point, what a "photographer" is, is simply an opinion. Then it is simply my criteria against yours. BTW, the dictionary agrees with me.

Can I call myself an artist if I produce no works of art? I think the term defines what someone does. "Art" means skill. A cabinetmaker is an artist as well as a photographer or painter. I could call myself "the President of the United States," but that does not make it so. Even if everyone here called me that, I don't think I would be allowed in the Oval Office.

Maybe I am misreading this, but why does art have to provoke and emotional response? Why does it have to be profound? Can it simply be well crafted?

If, for the sake of argument, that art should create a response. What if the audience does not respond. Is that the fault of the work, or the audience? Both? Then how do we determine which is at fault?

The opposite point of view maybe that it is Art if the viewer chooses to view it as Art, otherwise it is just a photograph. That way we avoid the need to intellectualise the discussion.

This seems to be getting back to a topic here some time ago.  I am a fine art photographer because I say I am, even though I'm sure what that is.  Like a "visual artist."  What's that?

"Art is anything you can get away with." - J. Campbell

Best of luck on shoe-horning visual expression into a verbal corset. What visual art expresses best is what words are least able to say.

Then what is a "visual artist?"  Is it one of those things I can't define but I know when I see it?  Seems to me that if one decribes himself as an artist, visual or whatever, he should be able to describe what it is he is claiming to be.  I don't agree that just because it is hard to define what an artist is, I shouldn't have to do that before I decide I am one.  Does it come down to "I am, therefore, I am."?

I ordered sushi and then found out it was raw fish!

Except the person you quoted has a very definite idea of what art is.

For a light-hearted tongue-in-cheek look at art, in this case a sculpture, you might enjoy this blog entry I wrote:

Appreciating Art

Well, after yesterday's visit to the Art Institute in Chicago I must say I enjoyed reading this thread. Consider:

In the Modern Art gallery - around 13 framed 8-1/2x11 sheets of white graph paper, island mounted and framed in white, portrait, with a single pencil-drawn diagonal line drawn corner to corner, from NW to SE. That's it. Nothing more. Whither narrative (they can't speak - but do they need to??? - I sure as heck couldn't figure it out)? Whither metaphor?? Hmmm...

Upon reading the artist's explanation, it turns out these were inspired by his now-dead partner's medical readouts of his T-cell count, which was basically in decline as he died of AIDS. So the artist made these graph pages, and framed them. Interesting - as far as it goes. Empathy? Of course - dealing with death and dying must invoke that. But art? I'm still having trouble with that.

On the other hand, if narrative is an important aspect of art, then these works are loaded with it - only when one understands the narrative behind the work does the work suddenly come alive. Very odd. I find myself continuing to reflect on these works today as I write this. And research it (check this out: http://www.guggenheim.org/exhibitions/sing...lights_13a.html ).

Dunno. Certainly has implications for our work in photography. Certainly makes me question even bothering with "pretty picture" compositions any more.

And my favourite from the music realm.

Tim, intesting link. Oddly enough, I have a CD with Cage's 4'33" on it.

Art is the expressive arrangement of elements within a medium. It has nothing to do with skill, craft, monetary value, reputation of the person, technology etc. If discussing decorative or traditional art, then skill and craft may be very important in the arranging of those elements in an expressive way, but one can skillfully arrange elements in an unexpressive way, which is another way of saying what Ansel Adams said about technically perfect, but boring photographs. Expression is a form of communication where an emotional concept is conveyed, at its most basic level, an understanding of the motivation for creating that image in the first place and an empathy with the artist. Pleasure that derives from beauty is the most easily and commonly conveyed concept, but there is always a fine dividing line between cliche and originality. However, success at art is learnt and developed from the ideas of others. There is very little true originality, just incremental development.

Well, maybe not a concept as such as that would be too well formed, although art often has a significant design element. However, successful art does not have to be designed anymore than it has to be crafted. Expressive in this context would mean communication of the emotional response that prompted the work to be created in the first place.
Narrative may help in appreciating a work of art better, but is not essential anymore than any of the other things that often go hand-in-hand with creating art.

An interesting thread. I find it strange that no-one has proposed that there might not be a universal definition, as in one that we all or even the majority can agree upon, of art or what an artist is.

My own opinion (which is all it is, and like certain anatomical parts, everyone has one), is that art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. And the eye of the beholder is definitely influenced by many factors such as culture, background, education, expertise, personality and more.

Just because someone labels it as "Art" doesn't mean that I agree, nor that I have to.
For example, much of the "Modern/Abstract Art" scene I just don't get or relate to. To me that is not art, but often just pretentious scribblings of an overinflated ego. But other folks find the work sublime.

The distinction that some posts make between "art" and "Art" (and similarily "artist" and "Artist" is amusing to me. It is the ultimate in personal judgement being presented as if there was "One True Way" or one overriding definition of what art and artists are. Though it might be insightful and even useful to make attempts at the creation of such an all-eccompasing definition, I don't think there is such a thing. It's my opinion that it's a holy grail, and interesting metaphysical concept that has no actual existance.

So the questions "Is it art?" or "Is that person an artist?" are paradoxes (unless the art contains two Mallards, in which case one might argue that it's a pairaducks).

The masses have been conditioned to look to the "experts", such as art critics, gallery owners/curators and the like to tell them what "art" is and which people warrant the term "artist". It is a convenient and lazy approach that most folks are happy to assume, since it's the path of least resistance and doesn't require the engagement of any brain cells.

But I would suggest that this is a disservice to humanity and the arts. The proper questions, in my mind, are "Do I think it's art?" and "Do I think that person is an artist?". And my answers may be very different from yours. These questions also do not presume that you need "like" the piece(s) in question to answer in the affirmative. I have seen lots of art that I didn't especially like, though I did consider it art.

Art can be compared to pornography in this respect, as in "I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it".

Philosophical arguments aside, I have always believed that art typically requires technical mastery of the artist. That does not mean that the art itself need be technically masterful, meaning it displays the artists fluency in intricate detail, though it can be. I'm thinking of the Oriental masters as examples of this, where their technical mastery was unquestioned and the product of decades of intense study, work and apprenticeship, but their "master works" were just a few brush strokes on a canvas. Ah....but the strokes were technically and aesthetically perfect in their conception and execution.

In photography, technical mastery encompases control of exposure, focus, depth of field, and the like. But it also slides into the areas of composition, since there seem to be some common "rules" of composition (ie. rule of thirds, golden mean, etc.) which mastery of could be seen as a "competency" that is to be learned. As with the definition of art itself, competency slides into a grey area somewhere in the realm of composition.

It's been said, to paraphrase, that the true master knows what rules to break and when. The unspoken implication is that they have learned the "rules", meaning they have the ultimate in technical competency. There are also some situations where a display of exquisite technical mastery might be considered art in and of itself, even in the absence of narrative/metaphor, but I think that is rare.

A sunset (the sunset itself, not a depiction of a sunset on a canvas, photographic paper or other medium, is typically not considered art. It is beautiful. It can inspire strong emotions (joy, peace, contentment, etc) in people. It's composition can be perfect. But is it art? Most people will probably say it is not.

Building on that, most definitions of art seem to imply, either explicitly or implicitly, the action/will/intent of a person (the artist). The aforementioned sunset can become art by the application of human intent, ignoring the "pretty sunset" cliches that some might raise as an objection. Use another example if you must, for the example subject is not relevant to the point I'm trying to make.

And if human "intent" is a key ingredient of art, as it seems to be, then the term "accidental art" is an oxymoron.

I could leave my camera on a table and my cat could come along and trip the shutter. The image could be technically perfect (autofocus, matrix metering and the like makes that not unlikely), with wonderful composition and engender strong emotions and reactions on the part of viewers. It might even contain strong narrative and metaphor. But it's an accident.

Is this cat-image art? I'll let you ponder that....

My opinion (remember the common body parts?), is that art should also stand on it's own. What I mean by this is that it shouldn't require a huge "out of band" explanation of what it means, what the narrative/metaphor is nor should the external explanation be required to engender emotional involvement by the viewer. The example of the diagonal lines on the paper is a good one. Without the detailed explanation of the creator's AIDS affiction, the piece has no real impact, barring that of confusion on the part of the viewer ('what is this @)$(*$" and why is it in an "art" gallery?). I suppose you can consider that the "art" is the sum total of the graphs and the explanation, but I find this to be contrived and it bothers my personal sensibilities. Sure it brings out strong emotions, but it seems a bit contrived. And technical mastery is very much lacking on the part of the "artist". It was a novel idea, even an interesting one. But is it art? Maybe to you, which is fine, but not to me.

So I guess what I'm trying to get at in this long diatribe is a very simple concept:

art/Art/artist/Artist = YMMV

That about sums up my NSHO on the topic. ;-)

What is wrong with this as a universal definition? It is the second time that I have proposed it and on both occasions, all I hear is the howl of the wind and bits of tumbleweed blow past me. I agree with much of what you say and I strongly object to galleries/museums/rich patrons determining what is art. In the past, visual art was usually decorative and representational and often inspired by religion. Technical competence/craft was very important and often it still is (but it is not essential).
In the nineteenth century there were two key developments which have had a massive impact. The first was the development of photography, which freed the artist from the need to always be representational. Secondly, the museum or art gallery, where peer approval conveyed some fame to the artist and monetary value to the artworks. In the twentieth century, the key developments have been mass media and the hideous cult of the celebrity that has arisen out of it. The effect that this has had on art is that the works that seem to capture the public imagination are those that shock and generate maximum publicity. My opinion is that a visual piece succeeds as art when it easily conveys (without the need for excessive narrative) what it was that motivated the artist to make that piece in the first place. No need for rules (especially the rule of thirds, which is complete BS).

Interesting thread. I would like to address the orginal post. As a new comer I have been personally irritated when a gallery requires and judges a narative equally to the work in a solo show application. I began to realize, I know I catch on slowly, that I looked at photography very differently than hte proposition in the orginal post. I don't use photography as self expression. I have nothing to tell the world. I never pre-determine anything with my photographs. I was very put off by the fine photography establishment demanding it.

I would propose there are two kinds of photography. One a photographer and one a Photographic Artist. Each has her/his place in the world. The Photographic Artist, in my exercise, is someone who creates/mantipulates content. I realize that all photographers manipulate content by cropping, it's my rules in this exercise and that doesn't count.

Those that create content indeed have a pre-determined vision-statement that they are trying to reproduce/present via a photograph. But "photographers" are basically just saying I found this aspect of life interesting. Their photographs could have great emotional content but my "photographer" is a great observer. His/her art is the art of seeing vs. the art of creation. They share a unique vision of the world. As they walk through the landscape or the urban jungle they "note" in their photographs a view of the world that many people overlook.

I think this is a valid perspective that is not allowed in today's photo establishment.

On the subject of what is art:
One comment. Before my first solo show I was picking out images and trying to choose my best. I video tape my shows because I like to see how people are reacting to the work without me in the picture and during the openings I am too busy talking to people to see their honest reactions. The tapes along with the comments made me realize that after the work is up on the walls it is no longer mine. What the image meant to me is really gone. Each viewer relates to each piece differently depending on their experience. They choose images for their own reasons and often they choose to buy images that I don't consider my best. It actually caused me a little crisis in how to make selections if the images I choose are not as interesting to the public as other images I made, but didn't choose for the show. So they judge what is "art" from a personal context and the work seems to have a life of it's own like a child grown up and on their own.

JUst my two cents

Mr. Mike Kelly wrote:

> I would propose there are two kinds of photography. One a photographer and one a Photographic Artist.

The standard way of phrasing that distinction is documentary vs. art photography. Lately, however, I've been leaning toward a third category:

1) Non-art (documentary) photography, such as vacation snaps and crime scene evidence
2) Artisan/craft photography, such as calendars, mainstream landscapes, and good photojournalism
3) Art photography, which in essence has no practical objective - everything from sunset snaps to Thomas Barrow.

Your statement

> I don't use photography as self expression. I have nothing to tell the world

Pretty well sums up what I mean by 2). This in spite of the fact that your later statement

> What the image meant to me is really gone

seems to ontradict this position. The phrase "what the image meant to me" could be taken to suggest that it has some non-documentary content. (If you ever want to move all the way from category 2 to category 3, just practice shooting from the heart and from the hip simultaneously.

Dale, My work doesn't fit into your categories because I shoot primariliy very abstract images. Not useful for anything but not "constructed content" (from my previous post). just subjects I see. I don't shoot from the heart or the hip and I don't consider myself an "artist". I try to remove my self entirely. The comment about "means to me" does sound contradictory but I meant in the case of my abstracts that I, like most of my viewers, relate to abstracts because of aspects that remind them of something. I relate the same way but after the fact.

Doesn't really matter, the idea is that some photographers, like myself, are just observers and I think that is ok. It is not fair on my part but I get quite tired of reading what I consider a lot of psycho-babble associated with fine art photography. That's my problem because I think the "Photographic Artist" has the perfect right to any form of creative expression but I don't like those folks imposing their rules on me.

I think these folks sometimes try too hard to impose artifical meaning to photography and they end up with a narrow box that requires a narrative before images can be created.