Photography is not art

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Photography is not art

Post  Dick Fitzwell on Fri May 13, 2011 7:08 am

Nah Ville Sky Chick wrote:Ha Ha, that's OK, the answer is yes, animals can make art monkey

I don't know, it's definitely somethin'...

Dick Fitzwell

Posts : 591
Join date : 2011-04-14
Age : 25
Location : Wayoutisphere

Back to top Go down

Re: Photography is not art

Post  Guest on Fri May 13, 2011 5:54 pm

Captain Hi-Top wrote:Seriously. How is taking a picture of something art? You're not even really creating anything. You're only capturing something that already exists. Every other art form (painting, literature, music, poetry, etc) requires you to create something from your heart. A photographer is a only reported, not a creator.

Anyone that thinks this is art can fuck right off: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

Further...if I grant that a photographer is creating something (the photograph, obviously), that still doesn't make it art. Because it's not the PHOTOGRAPH people admire. It's what's IN the photograph. ie, if you show me a picture of the night sky, I am not admiring your excellent composition and mastery of color theory, I'm admiring the night sky. That is what's stirring my emotions. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the photographer. Art is a communication between an artist and an audience. In photography, the communication is not coming from the artist. It's coming from the subject of the photograph.

Now, there are obviously skills involved in being a photographer. It's possible to be a great photographer and it's possible to be a terrible photographer. But how does that make it art? It's possible to be a great basketball player or a shitty basketball player, but basketball sure ain't art.

Discuss.

Hi Captain, if photograhy isn't Art because the photographer is caturing/arranging things that already exist, does this mean that Literature is invalid as Art because the writer is capturing/arranging words that already exist? I thought the genius of Art is the skill and finesse of the arrangement or presentation of things that exist in reality or in the mind of the artist. scratch

My first impression of the Darth Vader photo is that it is a parody of the Temperance Tarot card.




Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photography is not art

Post  precinct14 on Fri May 13, 2011 6:24 pm



Motherfuckin' art



Motherfuckin' NOT art

precinct14
Coming up empty from the piggy bank?

Posts : 297
Join date : 2011-04-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Photography is not art

Post  Guest on Fri May 13, 2011 6:30 pm


...oh dear...I'm glad we're not trying to define poetry.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photography is not art

Post  precinct14 on Fri May 13, 2011 8:06 pm

Methinks our resident enfant terrible has hit the buffers with his contention that photography cannot qualify as art. An artist is an artist, a photographer is a photographer. This doesn't mean that he, the photographer, does not, cannot, produce art. I see art wherever I look. Certain chefs are artists, certain architects, footballers, carpenters, gardeners. They all are capable of producing art. Cartier Bresson didn't need lighting, studios, sets, photofuk, whatever, to create his art. He didn't even crop. The cropping had already been done the instant he took the shot. His timing, observation, composition, humour, soul, all contribute to him being one of the great 20th century artists:











Finally, a literary giant, immortally captured by a photographic giant. Artists both:


precinct14
Coming up empty from the piggy bank?

Posts : 297
Join date : 2011-04-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Photography is not art

Post  Dick Fitzwell on Sat May 14, 2011 2:35 am

blue moon wrote:Hi Captain, if photograhy isn't Art because the photographer is caturing/arranging things that already exist, does this mean that Literature is invalid as Art because the writer is capturing/arranging words that already exist?

You're being too literal (a huge problem around here, it seems). Extend that logic to music and it's not art either. Luckily that's not the logic I'm using.

Strawberry Jam wrote:Why? That's easy: Poetry is when it fuckin' rhymes.


Of course...free verse is obviously not poetry. It's the poetic equivalent of Metal Machine Music- NOT ART.

Dick Fitzwell

Posts : 591
Join date : 2011-04-14
Age : 25
Location : Wayoutisphere

Back to top Go down

Re: Photography is not art

Post  Dick Fitzwell on Sat May 14, 2011 2:39 am

ANDY wrote:I find no distinction in your argumentations between casual every day photography and photography as an arform.
When I take a picture - which is something I only do rarely, but way too many people are making way too many picture that are be shown to way too many viewers these days in my humble opinion - of my nephew after he ate a bar of chocolate, that's obviously not art: not intended to be either.

But when a professional photographer does is every bit as much as art as what you are describing above; through composition, lightening, perspective, etc. he can portray his subject in such a way that he reveals aspects from it that might not meet the eye from a casual glance at the subject, distort our regular understanding there of, provoke etc. A photographer may choose a certain subject and compostion for merely aesthetic reasons or he may use a certain aesthetic style to enhance aspects of a chosen subject.

I.e. good photographs are not at all mere representations of banal reality, but the result of a skilled reflection upon subject and craft.

precinct14 wrote:Methinks our resident enfant terrible has hit the buffers with his contention that photography cannot qualify as art. An artist is an artist, a photographer is a photographer. This doesn't mean that he, the photographer, does not, cannot, produce art. I see art wherever I look. Certain chefs are artists, certain architects, footballers, carpenters, gardeners. They all are capable of producing art. Cartier Bresson didn't need lighting, studios, sets, photofuk, whatever, to create his art. He didn't even crop. The cropping had already been done the instant he took the shot. His timing, observation, composition, humour, soul, all contribute to him being one of the great 20th century artists:

Both of you are right of course...but I still don't see why the photographs you posted are anymore "art" than the Vader photo.

Dick Fitzwell

Posts : 591
Join date : 2011-04-14
Age : 25
Location : Wayoutisphere

Back to top Go down

Re: Photography is not art

Post  precinct14 on Sat May 14, 2011 2:53 am

Captain Hi-Top wrote: I still don't see why the photographs you posted are anymore "art" than the Vader photo.

Here's the thing: where's the 'art' in the Darth Vadar photo? There isn't any. It's fucking staged, for a motherfucking start (you think swearing's great, right? You and me both). Now go back and look at the Cartier-Bresson photos. Apart from the last, of Camus, none of them are planned. They might look as though they are, but they're not. And they're pure art. And another thing: Michelangelo had a bunch of buggerable, pretty boy assistants, and several years, to paint the Sistine chapel. Cartier-Bresson had 1/125th of a second to take most of those photos.


Last edited by precinct14 on Sat May 14, 2011 3:53 am; edited 1 time in total

precinct14
Coming up empty from the piggy bank?

Posts : 297
Join date : 2011-04-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Photography is not art

Post  Dick Fitzwell on Sat May 14, 2011 2:58 am

So prepared photos aren't art then?

Dick Fitzwell

Posts : 591
Join date : 2011-04-14
Age : 25
Location : Wayoutisphere

Back to top Go down

Re: Photography is not art

Post  precinct14 on Sat May 14, 2011 3:36 am

Captain Hi-Top wrote:So prepared photos aren't art then?

I never said that. But here we have a prepared/ planned/ staged photo of Darth Vadar, that is complete fucking inconsequential toilet, while on the other side we have these Cartier Bresson photos that completely transcend life, as we generally see it, and represent not only art, but genius, and will live for as long as people can gaze up at the Sistine Chapel ceiling, and wonder what Michelangelo visited upon those motherfucking cherubs.

precinct14
Coming up empty from the piggy bank?

Posts : 297
Join date : 2011-04-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Photography is not art

Post  pinhedz on Sat May 14, 2011 4:22 am

precinct14 wrote:... not only art, but genius, ...
Is the other kind art without genius?

It's a common knee-jerk reaction to declare every bad job to be not-art (or not-jazz, not-blues, not-folk, or not-whatever), if it's badly done.

Aren't some works just poor art? Or do we declare the work of the poor artist to be artless--and therefore not art? geek

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11533
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Photography is not art

Post  precinct14 on Sat May 14, 2011 5:07 am

pinhedz wrote:
precinct14 wrote:... not only art, but genius, ...
Is the other kind art without genius?

It's a common knee-jerk reaction to declare every bad job to be not-art (or not-jazz, not-blues, not-folk, or not-whatever), if it's badly done.

Aren't some works just poor art? Or do we declare the work of the poor artist to be artless--and therefore not art? geek

So, are you suggesting that everything is art? If I point a camera at the sea, and crack off a shot, I'm not going to run around shouting, "That's art". Should I?

precinct14
Coming up empty from the piggy bank?

Posts : 297
Join date : 2011-04-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Photography is not art

Post  pinhedz on Sat May 14, 2011 7:57 am

precinct14 wrote:So, are you suggesting that everything is art?
Putting words in my mouth doesn't do anything to answer my question.

If you can't answer my question, that's OK. But I'll give you another chance; the question is: do you consider works of art executed poorly--art without genius--to be not art, because they are not good?

Many people seem to think that way: bad = not art.

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11533
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Photography is not art

Post  precinct14 on Sat May 14, 2011 8:20 am

pinhedz wrote:
precinct14 wrote:So, are you suggesting that everything is art?
Putting words in my mouth doesn't do anything to answer my question.

If you can't answer my question, that's OK. But I'll give y
ou another chance; the question is: do you consider works of art executed poorly--art without genius--to be not art, because they are not good?

Many people seem to think that way: bad = not art.

First of all, we need to achieve a consensus on what constitutes art. Captain Hi-Chair has thrown his hat into the ring, by throwing photography out. Is that fair? I think not.

Secondly, you need to not feel so threatened by my asking you a question.

Peace.

precinct14
Coming up empty from the piggy bank?

Posts : 297
Join date : 2011-04-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Photography is not art

Post  Yakima Canutt on Sat May 14, 2011 8:46 am

When people talk about art nowadays, what they usually mean is the relatively recent concept of Fine Art, High Art, which I find to be a highly problematic concept ( and one controlled and dictated by millionaire merchants / kollektors in New York, Paris, London mostly). And the resulting debates of "this is ART" ... "this isn't ART" never seem to be terribly useful.

What's going on here? It seems people are trying to codify some special transcendent quality in secular ART, to stand in for the transcendent, divine quality that pre-modern art/music had, which was mostly religious in nature. You're not going to find a consensus for what constitutes the secular transcendent in today's polyglotty world, so why bother?

Take a cue from anthropologists and think of it in terms of utilitarian creations (i.e. a basic unadorned spoon), quasi-utilitarian creations (a festooned spoon), and non utilitarian creations ( A Jeff Koons MJ sculpture).

Yakima Canutt

Posts : 7854
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Photography is not art

Post  pinhedz on Sat May 14, 2011 9:02 am

precinct14 wrote:First of all, we need to achieve a consensus on what constitutes art. Captain Hi-Chair has thrown his hat into the ring, by throwing photography out. Is that fair? I think not.

Secondly, you need to not feel so threatened by my asking you a question.

Peace.
OK, for the sake of peace I'll ignore your secondly Razz and ask you my firstly again. Answering my question would be real progress toward answering your first-of-all question.

Maybe an example will help:

Consider the 12-bar blues. There are 40,000,000 blues songs in the 12-bar format, of which about 450 are good. Many blues lovers will say the blues is always good, because as far as they're concerned, the bad stuff doesn't count. It doesn't count, even though you can count out those 12 bars in every one of them and show that the format is identical to the good stuff.

If we are to consider photography to be art, what are we calling photography? All photography--or just photography with genius--as UZi says "some special transcendent quality in secular ART?" This question is the true "first-of-all" question, without which no one can answer your question.

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11533
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Photography is not art

Post  pinhedz on Sat May 14, 2011 10:50 am

Woody Allen has spoken:

"I have never considered myself as an artist. I have aspired to be one, but I have never felt that I have the depth, substance or the gifts to be an artist. I do think I have some talent, yes; but I don't think it goes as far as being an artist, because if you think Kurosawa is an artist and Bergman is an artist, and Bunuel and Fellini, then it is as clear as a bell that I am not an artist."

He's as clear as a bell--film making is not art; even film making by a talented director is not art. Only film making by a genius is art.

This explains why the theaters that show movies by Kurosawa, Bergman, Bunuel and Fellini are called "art houses."

The other theaters are just showing movies.

Should we all believe Woody, or is he just grandstanding for the Parisians?

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11533
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Photography is not art

Post  sil on Sat May 14, 2011 11:20 am

Am I an artist just because I paint paintings? Of course I'm not.
It's not ALL about what you're doing, it's about how you're doing something that could get classified as art.
Trying to define that line it's the hard part.

sil

Posts : 371
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Photography is not art

Post  pinhedz on Sat May 14, 2011 11:26 am

guacamayo wrote:Am I an artist just because I paint paintings? Of course I'm not.
It's not ALL about what you're doing, it's about how you're doing something that could get classified as art.
Trying to define that line it's the hard part.
But this means painting is not art. Shocked

Will we have to conclude that there is no art--there is only genius?

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11533
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Photography is not art

Post  sil on Sat May 14, 2011 11:33 am

hmmmmmmm I don't think so even if I seem to say the opposite scratch

sil

Posts : 371
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Photography is not art

Post  sil on Sat May 14, 2011 11:48 am

well I said it's not ALL about what you're doing (but how); it plays a part what you're doing.
You can't be an artist just because you collect dog mess, can you? Even if you were a genius...

sil

Posts : 371
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Photography is not art

Post  Dick Fitzwell on Sat May 14, 2011 12:10 pm

guacamayo wrote:Am I an artist just because I paint paintings? Of course I'm not.
It's not ALL about what you're doing, it's about how you're doing something that could get classified as art.
Trying to define that line it's the hard part.

Is this art

Y/N


Dick Fitzwell

Posts : 591
Join date : 2011-04-14
Age : 25
Location : Wayoutisphere

Back to top Go down

Re: Photography is not art

Post  eddie on Sat May 14, 2011 3:44 pm


Artist's Shit, 1961- Piero Manzoni.

eddie
The Gap Minder

Posts : 7840
Join date : 2011-04-11
Age : 60
Location : Desert Island

Back to top Go down

Re: Photography is not art

Post  Yakima Canutt on Sat May 14, 2011 3:45 pm

Pinehedz is correct, a bad artist is still an artist, just as a lazy, apathetic police officer is still a police officer. An artist ( as opposed to the more utilitarian-oriented artisan) is one who makes non-utilitarian objects, pigment splotches, sound waves, light projections, word sequences, bodily contortions etc. If you do this on a regular basis, you can call yourself an amateur artist. If you get paid for it, you're a professional artist.

I think the only reason anyone would say differently is that they are assigning some quasi-magic, incantatory attributes to art ( which is probably why some folks also like to make art a proper noun). I think this relates to my earlier point of High Art being a way for modren, secular peoples to reach for the transcendent qualities of religious culture and experience. I don't mean "transcendent" in any kind of fancy-prancy way, I just mean rising above/beyond the mundane, day-to-day guff that comprises most of planet living.

Of course, the other aspect of High Art is the notion of making paint splotches etc. that illustrate some sociopolitical thesis, or are meant to shock the boojwah-zee purportedly with the aim of upsetting the social order. The lingering Boojwah Shock compulsion has proved strong enough that it still can be found today in cabrons like Jeff Koons, who seem to make Boojwah Shock art for no sociopolitical purpose/agenda whatsoever. Of course, Jeff will just tell you that his photo series (depicting him fucking his Italian porn star wife, lit in crass, commercial pornography style) is meant to evoke the wonderful feeling he got from the aroma of his grandmother's freshly baked nougat bars...


Yakima Canutt

Posts : 7854
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Photography is not art

Post  precinct14 on Sat May 14, 2011 5:58 pm

Uzi wrote:Pinehedz is correct, a bad artist is still an artist

Except he's not quite sure, now that he's discovered Woody Allen's quote about himself not being an artist, since his films can't compare with Bergman's, Kurosawa's, Bunuel's and Fellini's.

Pinhedz would like me to answer this question:

'do you consider works of art executed poorly--art without genius--to be not art, because they are not good?'

My answer is no- even though the question confuses the issue by contradicting itself, asking me to first of all accept these works as (bad) art, then asking me to consider whether they're not art.

Bad art must still be art. Of course, it could also be something else, that's good, at the same time. I could exhibit a pile of fresh manure, and call it Great Steam Journeys. This could be considered to be bad art. On the other hand, it would qualify as good compost.




Last edited by precinct14 on Sun May 15, 2011 1:38 am; edited 2 times in total

precinct14
Coming up empty from the piggy bank?

Posts : 297
Join date : 2011-04-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Photography is not art

Post  Sponsored content Today at 10:58 pm


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum