Is photography an art or just a medium?

[robbins.photo]

The thing is, this isn't a trivial issue. If you have internet access, the odds are excellent that you live in a country that spends money acquiring and funding art. Your money is being spent on Art with a capital A.

Why? Ostensibly because Art is something that is inherent in humans, that it betters and enbiggens us, that it is an inherently Good Thing that ought to be Funded to some degree. Whatever Art is, it seems to change over time, so we can't just just write down a 17 page chunk of some legal code that defines it, and then we fund That but not Anything Else. Since it evolves, someone needs to try to keep up. Which means these conversations have to continue. How are we going to notice when Photography stops being Art, if we're not occasionally asking the question?

Since it's your money being spent, you at least have a right to have a position on it, and arguably you ought to have a position on it. If you have a camera, you're at least slightly connected to the issues at hand, and perhaps might find yourself more inclined to a position.

By all means, dismiss it as a stupid conversation had by stupid eggheaded stupid people, but you're dismissing a conversation that actually matters to society, to us as people, and which is, perhaps a few steps removed, about spending your tax monies.

Ok, well before you can finish your church lady superior dance, here you go:

A definition is a statement that explains the meaning of a term. The term "Art" is simply not one that you’re going to be able to do this with for a very simple reason. Art is by it's nature an attempt to evoke an emotional response from an individual. Since what will evoke an emotional response varies from individual to individual so too then does it only logically follow that the meaning of the term Art must then also differ from one individual to the next.

This makes any meaningful definition of the word "Art" unobtainable, as the true meaning of Art differs from each individual to the next. Indeed to attempt to define Art is an oxymoron of the highest order, as the very nature of Art lies in its subjectivity and as such it could never be expressed in the objective terms required for a proper definition.

In fact to do so simply displays a total misconception of what Art truly is and what it is that makes Art, Art. Indeed the only way to define Art is to render it meaningless, devoid of emotion and therefore once it is defined, it ceases to exist.

So.. Schrodinger’s Cat BABY!!!!!

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a book burning to attend. Ciao Campers!

 

[photoguy99]

I got robbins to contribute something meaningful and intelligent, I am pretty sure.

I am also pretty sure that this means I win.

 

[photoguy99]

When you come back from your book burning, noodle on this one a little, then:

If Art is strictly individual, why are there so many works of Art that pretty large chunks of some pretty large societies seem to agree are Art, and Good Art at that? I think the answer to this could be pretty illuminating.

 

[unpopular]

Meaningful Robins?

And here I thought that they were just a sign of spring.

 

[JacaRanda]

Crap, I lose my individuality because I am in a large chunk. That sucks

 

[unpopular]

save your existential problems for your proctologist!

 

[robbins.photo]

Crap, I lose my individuality because I am in a large chunk. That sucks

Rotfl - ok, ya, that's a thread winner there. Not much that can be said to top that one.

 

[astroNikon]

Some starting points for a useful definition of art:

Does the artist have a concept, some idea to communicate? Does some idea or concept get communicated? Do people looking at the piece experience it as Art, according to whatever they think the word means?

if you take a photo of art, is art art?

No, that is Photograhic Art
or
just call it a "Phart"

just don't take a picture of a painting of someone cutting the cheese. That is something completely different.

 

[astroNikon]

back to the OPs question ... photography is what we want to make of it ....

 

[runnah]

When you come back from your book burning, noodle on this one a little, then:

If Art is strictly individual, why are there so many works of Art that pretty large chunks of some pretty large societies seem to agree are Art, and Good Art at that? I think the answer to this could be pretty illuminating.

Because despite what we tell ourselves, we are all just dumb pack animals.

Just remember, you are unique, just like everyone else.

 

[robbins.photo]

When you come back from your book burning, noodle on this one a little, then:

If Art is strictly individual, why are there so many works of Art that pretty large chunks of some pretty large societies seem to agree are Art, and Good Art at that? I think the answer to this could be pretty illuminating.

So your ultimate goal here is for me to have an intellecutal conversation with.. myself? Rotfl. Wow. Ok, well sorry bunky but like I said earlier just way to busy for this "If a tree falls in the woods" style silliness. The answer to your question of course is painfully obvious, not something that needs to be noodled on or even given to micro-second's worth of thought really. Frankly it stuns me that a world class intellectual such as yourself would even need to ask something so incredibly rudimentary and obvious.

But whatever floats your boat I guess. Me I have pretty much zero interest in the topic. By your definition that makes me anti-intellectual, which of course is even more ironic I suppose, much in the same way that the fact that I don't sit around discussing feminine hygiene products would then also lead you to conclude that I'm "anti-woman". Frankly if you were meaning to stun the world with intellectual prowess here, lol - well lets just say that I'm guessing more than a few of us are still waiting for that one to materialize.

 

[unpopular]

meh. this thread isn't even worth derailing.

 

[photoguy99]

It's ok to say "I don't know" robbins. The astute observer, by the way, will note that you helpfully provided a definition of Art in your post attacking the idea of defining it. And not a bad one, at that.

 

[unpopular]

back when I cared, I posted this about art in the http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...265881-sharpness-overrated-6.html#post2422771 thread.

It's really getting to the point that I refer to previous posts than bother writing anything new.

 

[nzmacro]

Hmmm, it obviously must be art because some say so and are very open about it.

I see often when you see a link and click on it and its says "Fine art prints" ​on their website. I've seen on a few photography forums where they come on and tell you they take / make .... fine art.

I always find it strange and generally tell them I go out and take photos, not fine art. So there is a difference between them and what I do, there must be. What's interesting is when you go and look at all these fine art prints, you know what, they all look like photographs to me. So it must be just me I guess. I look at the fine art shots and smile and go, hmmm yeah okay

Anyway, I better head out and take some shots ..... or is it art I'm taking ...... or is that making. I'm all confused now.

Danny.