The Art

[Petraio Prime]

As defined by philosophers not by artists. Philosophers, contrary to what they believe, do not make the rules for the rest of us. Philosophers like to ponder, study and try to understand life. The rest of us prefer to live it.

Yes, we do. That's the job of the philosopher, to argue and discuss the meanings of concepts. We do define what art is, not you. It's our job, not yours. You're not qualified enough to talk about it.

My impression is that photographers have no business even trying to understand aesthetic theory. It's not their business. That's why they should abstain from claiming they are artists. It's ironic anyway that photographers want to be considered artists, because photographs are more important and meaningful than art is.

This job you claim is self appointed, not something anyone besides other philosophers generally feels is needed. I would be willing to bet that no one, not one single person has ever said, "I sure wish I knew what it was I was doing here but I'll leave it to a philosopher to figure out for me." What's funny is that you think the concepts of philosophy are too complicated for us simpletons to understand. They aren't. What we don't understand is why someone would rather waste their life trying to figure out the why instead of just getting on with the do.

It isn't up to you or anyone else to decide what is more important or meaningful when it comes to expression and oddly enough this is the same problem I have with the art world. Too much emphasis on why this or that is important, why this artist is brilliant and that one sucks. Too much emphasis on making everyone think the same which is so completely counter intuitive to art of any kind it boggles the mind.

I don't have any delusions of changing your mind and have wasted enough of the evening beating my head against this brick wall, but I will leave you with this final thought: I can see the benefits of studying the philosophy of just about any subject. Science, politics, education or what have you, there are benefits. However, art, including literature, music, dance and photography, is about freedom of rules. Freedom to express something you can't otherwise. Freedom to not only think outside the box, but to play out there too. If philosophy dictates having such a narrow mind concerning a subject that was born and thrives in minds that are anything but, well I guess I just find that really sad and a little ironic.

Art isn't about 'freedom of rules'. How naive. The artists of ancient Greece operated under rather strict traditions and so have most artists throughout history. Nor is it about "express[ing] something you can't otherwise".

Philosophy is about discussing and analyzing and clarifying concepts and formulating theories that account for those concepts and make them coherent. The 'folk' notions of art and what constitutes art are almost worthless. Most people do not know that artists in ancient Greece were thought of as mere laborers, the same way we would think of roofers or construction workers today. Photographers in general are extremely naive about the history of art and yet want to be called 'artists'.

Nor is it narrow-minded to establish what constitutes art.

 

[bentcountershaft]

something you can't otherwise".

Philosophy is about discussing and analyzing and clarifying concepts and formulating theories that account for those concepts and make them coherent. The 'folk' notions of art and what constitutes art are almost worthless. Most people do not know that artists in ancient Greece were thought of as mere laborers, the same way we would think of roofers or construction workers today. Photographers in general are extremely naive about the history of art and yet want to be called 'artists'.

Nor is it narrow-minded to establish what constitutes art.

The Greeks didn't invent art so I fail to see how they are relevant. Whether someone is in an esteemed position or not is not relevant either. I don't look down on roofers or construction workers. I guess you do and that's your problem. Being an artist has nothing to do with how well you know the history of it either.

ETA: Trying to establish what constitutes as art is the definition of narrow mindedness. Goodnight.

 

[abraxas]

... photographs are more important and meaningful than art is.

To who and how so?

 

[Petraio Prime]

something you can't otherwise".

Philosophy is about discussing and analyzing and clarifying concepts and formulating theories that account for those concepts and make them coherent. The 'folk' notions of art and what constitutes art are almost worthless. Most people do not know that artists in ancient Greece were thought of as mere laborers, the same way we would think of roofers or construction workers today. Photographers in general are extremely naive about the history of art and yet want to be called 'artists'.

Nor is it narrow-minded to establish what constitutes art.

The Greeks didn't invent art so I fail to see how they are relevant. Whether someone is in an esteemed position or not is not relevant either. I don't look down on roofers or construction workers. I guess you do and that's your problem. Being an artist has nothing to do with how well you know the history of it either.

ETA: Trying to establish what constitutes as art is the definition of narrow mindedness. Goodnight.

Who says I look down on roofers or construction workers? I said they are laborers.

Your second statement is not even intelligible so I cannot reply.

 

[abraxas]

... photographs are more important and meaningful than art is.

To who and how so?

 

[Petraio Prime]

... photographs are more important and meaningful than art is.

To who and how so?

I'm trying to destroy the notion of great photographs being 'art'.

They are not art, but I think photographs can be more important than art. To call a great photograph art is erroneous ad demeaning.

 

[abraxas]

... photographs are more important and meaningful than art is.

To who and how so?

...

They are not art, but I think photographs can be more important than art. ...

How?

-

 

[Overread]

To call a great photograph art is erroneous ad demeaning.

Why is it demeaning ?(we already know your stance no not believing photography is an art form even if we don't believe your argument)

 

[fwellers]

I'm trying to destroy the notion of great photographs being 'art'.

Try and tell that to all the ART museum curators who fill their walls with photographic ART.

Thank goodness that there are still people around with artistic bents and talent that do not allow themselves to be put inside boxes created by narrow minded people.
You can attempt to define, box-up, judge and compartmentalize life all you want. Those are YOUR self induced limitations. Break free of it man. Life and Art are bigger than the boxes your thoughts conceive of. And at least try not to argue and cajole others into your shallow world.

 

[bentcountershaft]

something you can't otherwise".

Philosophy is about discussing and analyzing and clarifying concepts and formulating theories that account for those concepts and make them coherent. The 'folk' notions of art and what constitutes art are almost worthless. Most people do not know that artists in ancient Greece were thought of as mere laborers, the same way we would think of roofers or construction workers today. Photographers in general are extremely naive about the history of art and yet want to be called 'artists'.

Nor is it narrow-minded to establish what constitutes art.

The Greeks didn't invent art so I fail to see how they are relevant. Whether someone is in an esteemed position or not is not relevant either. I don't look down on roofers or construction workers. I guess you do and that's your problem. Being an artist has nothing to do with how well you know the history of it either.

ETA: Trying to establish what constitutes as art is the definition of narrow mindedness. Goodnight.

Who says I look down on roofers or construction workers? I said they are laborers.

Your second statement is not even intelligible so I cannot reply.

Well, you said this...

Most people do not know that artists in ancient Greece were thought of as mere laborers, the same way we would think of roofers or construction workers today.

...and that leads me to believe that you don't see them as very important. You don't have a very high opinion of photographers as you don't want to be considered one. You're above photographers. As you've stated, photographers are above artists because what they produce is less important than photographs. The term mere laborers in and of it self is demeaning enough even if you weren't comparing them to artists which you apparently have such disdain for.

I'm not spending any more of my time dealing with someone with such a false sense of entitlement to think they are above anyone, as it's abundantly clear you think you're above us all.

 

[Petraio Prime]

The Greeks didn't invent art so I fail to see how they are relevant. Whether someone is in an esteemed position or not is not relevant either. I don't look down on roofers or construction workers. I guess you do and that's your problem. Being an artist has nothing to do with how well you know the history of it either.

ETA: Trying to establish what constitutes as art is the definition of narrow mindedness. Goodnight.

Who says I look down on roofers or construction workers? I said they are laborers.

Your second statement is not even intelligible so I cannot reply.

Well, you said this...

Most people do not know that artists in ancient Greece were thought of as mere laborers, the same way we would think of roofers or construction workers today.

...and that leads me to believe that you don't see them as very important. You don't have a very high opinion of photographers as you don't want to be considered one. You're above photographers. As you've stated, photographers are above artists because what they produce is less important than photographs. The term mere laborers in and of it self is demeaning enough even if you weren't comparing them to artists which you apparently have such disdain for.

I'm not spending any more of my time dealing with someone with such a false sense of entitlement to think they are above anyone, as it's abundantly clear you think you're above us all.

"Mere laborers" is not intended as a term of derision. Laborers are not 'professionals' such as doctors, lawyers, professors. They (laborers) are vital of course, but you don't need a PhD, JD, or MD to do construction work.

Yes, I do want to make clear that I am not a professional photographer and moreover don't want to be. The reasons are not what you might think though.

On the last point, yes, I do have an education in philosophy that most photographers don't have. That doesn't make me better than you, but what it does is provide me with some knowledge and insights that most photographers don't have. What does that mean? It means you should pay close attention to the arguments I make here.

I find it most ironic that the most important aspect of photography - its truthfulness - is the aspect most under attack by photographers. The constant attempts at manipulation, at making photographs less truthful, more 'artsy', work against photography being taken seriously.

In the late 19th and early 20th century, it was Pictorialism.

In the 1960s, 70s, 80, and 90s, there was a series of 'techniques' that became popular (Tri-X in Rodinal printed on Agfa Brovira #4 paper; 'pushing' and high grain; posterization using lith film; slide sandwiches; multiple exposures; zoom during exposure; cross processing; Velvia film, etc.)

All of these 'techniques' served only to make one wonder: what is wrong with a truthful photograph?

 

[abraxas]

... photographs are more important and meaningful than art is.

To who and how so?

...

They are not art, but I think photographs can be more important than art. ...

How?

 

[Petraio Prime]

To who and how so?

...

They are not art, but I think photographs can be more important than art. ...

How?

Because they record reality.

 

[abraxas]

...

They are not art, but I think photographs can be more important than art. ...

How?

Because they record reality.

and how is that more important?

-

 

[Warren Peace]

I cant believe I just wasted a half hour of my life I will never get back reading this pile of crap. :er::er:
Art is like beauty. It is in the eye of the beholder. :lmao::lmao: