newest new question of the day

[JamesD]

It's a rough one, I think. Seems that it's easy to recognize--most of it is already labelled "art," anyway. I've recently found myself evaluating photographs of famous photographers, and I think I'm gradually coming to understand the interpretive aspect of it. It's difficult for me, because I'm analytical and technical--I'm an electronics technician, for crying out loud!

It seems like some of it has to do with the body of work. Pick a recognized "great photographer" and you'll find a set of photos with great composition, technical excellence, and "emotional impact." Or, if you're not all that good at appreciating art, a set of very "pretty pictures." A relatively small set, because they only show you the ones they want to.

On the other hand, take me: A set of photos with so-so composition, technical mediocrity, and general blandness. Or, if you even know what art is, a set of rectangular pieces of paper which, over all, yawn "blah." A very large set, because I see every single one I take.

But then again, I don't care for van Gogh, but it's Art. Why? I dunno. Perhaps because he has a specific style. Perhaps some other reason.

Anyway, I think my train of thought has stalled. Next, please!

 

[Hertz van Rental]

As I've stated before, Great Art can only be determined by posterity - it's to do with Universality and influence.
As far as recognising Art (or even art) is concerned, there are some rules of thumb.
Technique and control of the medium for a start. Does the artist have total mastery over what they are doing?
Repeatability and history. Looking at one piece tells you nothing - it could just be a fluke. Looking at a lot of the artist's work will tell you wether what they do is intentional or accidental. It will also show if their ideas and technique are constantly changing and improving.
Art (and therefore the artist) is about self-exploration and pushing boundaries in part. If an artist churns out the same picture over and over with minor variations then they aren't very good or they lack inspiration.
Ideas and Philosophy. Good artists generally have something that drives them. They don't do it for a hobby or for status - they do it because they have to (the starving artist...). And they do it because they have something to say or something inside them that they have to resolve.
These are only a few - and very rough - guidelines. It is of course a lot more complicated, but they should give you a starting point from which to work in making up your own mind.
If in doubt err on the side of caution and give them the benefit of the doubt, otherwise leave it to posterity. It's easy to differentiate good Art and bad Art - it's the big grey area of mediocrity in between that's the tricky bit.

Footnote:
http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?object_id=79766
You might not believe it but this is probably the most important - certainly the most influential - painting of the past 200 years. And Picasso didn't even finish it.

PS I used to have a friend called Art. I must try and get in touch with him. There are a lot of people around taking his name in vain at the moment and I think he might be upset by it.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Ah but Hertzie, how about not great ART but just plain old everyday go to a sidewalk show and buy art. I can't afford a century old oil, but I might be able to swing a still damp oil painting buy some talented kid. It's still art to me, If I like it.

Of course you buy what you like and call it art. On a personal level that's art maybe not ART but art none the less.

James asked the question that is central to this whole thread. Framed it simply and made it quite obvious. Pat did as well but we keep passing over it.

The difference between the snapshot and the art shot. I was a 'working for da bread' photographer for 30+ years. Which means nothing but that I bring that mentality to this type discussion.

For me a snapshot is what photography is best at. That being said, no matter how good it is, I couldn't sell and wouldn't try to sell a snapshot of my 4th of July picnic. Here is one definition of this boiled down to modern day terms.

It's art if you can sell it in the park for 30 bucks.... it is ART if you can sell it for 30 grand. If you can't sell it at all, then it is probably a snapshot, or just a coat of paint on canvas.

Not a very grand definition but an honest one. I expect everybody has their own definition.

We probably should be careful not to confuse ART, art, and the artistic snapshot. Which is probably the better question after all.

 

[JamesD]

It's art if you can sell it in the park for 30 bucks.... it is ART if you can sell it for 30 grand. If you can't sell it at all, then it is probably a snapshot, or just a coat of paint on canvas.

Okay, how about this: I went to a studio and had a portrait made of me in my greens, because I'd been promising my mum I'd get one for, oh, three years or so. I sent one copy to my mum, and one to my sister, and one to my grandmum. The photo was taken by a professional with 30+ years experience, who charged me eighty bucks. It wasn't a very good photograph (so says everyone except my mother and grandmother).

Another portrait, one that I took on the spur of the moment, enlarged and gave to the subject at cost... almost everyone that's ever seen it has said "Hey, that's neat," or some variant. Granted, I got lucky, but still, everyone seems to like it better than the one taken by a professional.

So, which one is art? Is either art? Does it matter whether it was just a snapshot at the unit barbecue, or a professionally made portrait taken in a studio? One that was taken in a standardized environment with a standardized process that only takes a few minutes to process (or was only given a few minutes of processing, depending on your point of view); or the one that was pored over for hours, making ajustments, trying to get it just right? One taken by a professional who "knows what he's doing," or one taken by an amatuer who's really working at it? Whether or not it's sold at cost with no stipulations; or sold for a ridiculous price, model release required, and copy-rights pointedly pointed out? (Yeah, I know, it's a different topic, and I'll try not to get off on a tangent about it, but I'm still irked... I didn't even get a discount, much less time-for-prints! But anyway...)

I'm not trying to turn this into a discussion about the professional having earned the right to charge for his services, or market devaluation, or whatever... merely the point of artistic quality.

What do you think?

 

[mysteryscribe]

This needs to be taken one thing at a time since it has so many good points,
Okay, how about this: I went to a studio and had a portrait made of me in my greens, because I'd been promising my mum I'd get one for, oh, three years or so. I sent one copy to my mum, and one to my sister, and one to my grandmum. The photo was taken by a professional with 30+ years experience, (actually three years ten times.) who charged me eighty bucks. It wasn't a very good photograph (so says everyone except my mother and grandmother).

Okay you went to a place that you didnt know, you wore clothes you dont usually wear you were surrounded by things that were slightly foreigh and somebody said smile... You did your best to smile but it doesn't look at all like you. But he has no idea how you look normally.

Another portrait, one that I took on the spur of the moment, enlarged and gave to the subject at cost... almost everyone that's ever seen it has said "Hey, that's neat," or some variant. Granted, I got lucky, but still, everyone seems to like it better than the one taken by a professional.

The absolute reverse of the studio setting and she was cute with that chocolate ice cream on the tip of her nose.

So, which one is art? Is either art? Does it matter whether it was just a snapshot at the unit barbecue, or a professionally made portrait taken in a studio? One that was taken in a standardized environment with a standardized process that only takes a few minutes to process (or was only given a few minutes of processing, depending on your point of view); or the one that was pored over for hours, making ajustments, trying to get it just right? One taken by a professional who "knows what he's doing," or one taken by an amatuer who's really working at it? Whether or not it's sold at cost with no stipulations; or sold for a ridiculous price, model release required, and copy-rights pointedly pointed out? (Yeah, I know, it's a different topic, and I'll try not to get off on a tangent about it, but I'm still irked... I didn't even get a discount, much less time-for-prints! But anyway...)

Try this on for size... ask yourself if I framed it and put it in a sidewalk show would a complete stranger buy it....

I'm not trying to turn this into a discussion about the professional having earned the right to charge for his services, or market devaluation, or whatever... merely the point of artistic quality.

What do you think?

For me the picture has to have an emotional appeal as well as a graphic appeal. If he grabs me by the throat then I would pay for it maybe... if not there is no chance...

 

[JamesD]

Okay you went to a place that you didnt know, you wore clothes you dont usually wear you were surrounded by things that were slightly foreigh and somebody said smile... You did your best to smile but it doesn't look at all like you. But he has no idea how you look normally.

Good points. However, the photographer was recommened to me by someone I do know and trust. This photographer has a reputation for doing military portraits. The studio setting was a bit strange, true. However, there's a basic tennet of any formal military photograph: stand at attention and look like you want to kill. I mentioned this, then he explained how he does it, and he's also known for doing such portraits. I figured he knew what he was talking about.

As for the clothing... I'm intimately familiar with my greens, and I know they fit right, look right, and are right. If I walked in with my jeans and stetson, I might be a little uncomfortable because I don't appear to fit in with that environment (even though I wear them all the time). However, when in uniform, it's totally different. It doesn't matter where you put a soldier; he (or she) owns the place, even if not really totally comfortable in the environment. It's one of the things they instill from day one in basic training, because nobody's comfortable on the battlefield, but we have to own it. And another Army catchphrase: "train like you fight." Of course, that's neither here nor there, and I probably should have stuck with what I know.

The absolute reverse of the studio setting and she was cute with that chocolate ice cream on the tip of her nose.

LOL Okay, point taken.

Try this on for size... ask yourself if I framed it and put it in a sidewalk show would a complete stranger buy it....

If you were selling a van Gogh (and I actually had the expendable income) I probably still wouldn't buy it, simply because I don't care for van Gogh. On the other hand, in all fairness, a lot of people would; I do believe that I'm in the minority. Would I buy a Bob Ross? Probably; I love his stuff, and have ever since I watched his show on PBS when I was a kid.

For me the picture has to have an emotional appeal as well as a graphic appeal. If he grabs me by the throat then I would pay for it maybe... if not there is no chance...

Yeah, what you said. Except, if he tried to grab me by the thoat, I might try to make him a real photographer (if you get my drift).

I suppose the "is either one 'art'" question is kinda hard to answer without seeing the photos in question.

 

[mysteryscribe]

The would a strange buy it is the bench mark for what is a commissioned work and what I sell at festivals or on ebay. The individual item is of no importance it is just the tape measure. A picture of my grandson is high art to me and my wife but I doubt you (a stranger) would buy it at a street fair. That was my point about shooting for friends. Sorry it sounds kinda ridgid and there is no such thing in art. My own opinion only.. and where is terri in this discussion..

 

[terri]

and where is terri in this discussion..

can't I watch from a distance...?

 

[mysteryscribe]

NO

 

[terri]

NO

 

[mysteryscribe]

but ... but...:heart:

 

[Torus34]

In my very best H*y*m*a*n K*a*p*l*a*n manner, let me introduce a word into the discussion:

A*e*s*t*h*e*t*i*c*s

I believe it has a definite bearing on the subjects of high vs. low art and also on what constitutes a portrait.

Since I mentioned portraits: the phrase 'more than simply a likeness' is germaine.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Ah I see Torus is a minimalist as well. Sir I am afraid I don't understand your meaning... But then I never said I understood any of this.

No seriously please expound for us.

 

[JamesD]

I think I understand as applied to portraits. The picture has to look good, but more than that. It has to show the character, to show the subject in "a good light." It's taking a random shot of someone, versus capturing a moment that describes the personality and character of the invidiual.

My portrait, as paid eighty bucks for, didn't capture the character it was supposed to. The portrait I took captured the personality of the subject fairly well. Therefore, people (in general) would probably prefer the latter.

Nevermind that my shot was almost (or all mostly) by accident... I'd been into this photography stuff less than three months at the time.

Is that sorta what you were saying, Torus? Or am I way off base?

 

[mysteryscribe]

I don't know that it is what he meant.

The portrait even bad in your greenies has a quality that transends a better picture of you in utilities. But then I don't know exactly what he had in mind.

Drag him back and we'll put him on the rack till he brakes and spills his guts.