Photography as Art?

[TheLostPhotographer]

... You seem to want the entire medium to be considered art...

Oh no I most definitely don't.

Some photography is so void of anything beyond a visual record of a moment. A bad visual record at that.

 

[TheLostPhotographer]

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. (too minimalist more likely). Whether someone is or isn't is not up to them and ultimately only history will judge. After all, who would have dreamed that a bunch of stacked soup cans would be considered Art?...

This is the worst argument of all. Just because you can't see the value today, you have to wait for 'history' to tell you if art is genuinely art or, not.

Then you think 'oh, okay it's art - someone important told me it's art, but I still don't get it as art'.

Get a brain!

 

[TheLostPhotographer]

Then you have forgotten Advertising photography where you start with an empty studio and build the picture up from scratch...

Or, you just steal the ideas from creative artists.

I've seen ad campaigns here in the UK that so often just steal an idea from an art exhibition and manipulate it for their gain.

In the modern world, advertising and TV commercials are possibly the biggest venue for new ideas. That counts for a lot. TV commercials often present an 'art' image to avoid the very obvious commercial connotations. An arty ad is very often the most successful.

 

[Mike_E]

This is the worst argument of all. Just because you can't see the value today, you have to wait for 'history' to tell you if art is genuinely art or, not.

Then you think 'oh, okay it's art - someone important told me it's art, but I still don't get it as art'.

Get a brain!

I Have one thank you. If you'd use yours then you would have caught the inference that I Do Not consider a stack of soup cans to be Art. Good Graphic design? Yes. Art? No. However, no matter how Great an artist you turn out to be, the worth of your work is going to be determined by a lot of people over a long period of time. In other words, by the weight of history.

Or, you just steal the ideas from creative artists.

I've seen ad campaigns here in the UK that so often just steal an idea from an art exhibition and manipulate it for their gain.

In the modern world, advertising and TV commercials are possibly the biggest venue for new ideas. That counts for a lot. TV commercials often present an 'art' image to avoid the very obvious commercial connotations. An arty ad is very often the most successful.

Oh Great Sir who considers original thought to be so plentiful as to be of little value. Do you have any idea how rare an original thought is in the rest of the world? Stephen Hawking may have had one or two but even he riffs off of the thinking of people before him (as has every other person since before recorded history).

Once again, words are of little value in the building of a body of work (unless you shoot soup cans ). Do your best and don't worry about it.

mike

 

[deanimator]

An old artist just said to me last weekend, "hell, it isn´t art till you´re dead anyway"...which sound like an admonition to get on with it too, and at least stop agonizing over it.

Having a bit of a think about it can´t do any harm, but let´s not dwell on it too long...there´s plenty of stuff to do. Someone else can give it a label if it really needs one...which is a bit Duchampian again

 

[mysteryscribe]

My son and law and I had a conversation about this thread. Just the bare essentials. I mentioned early on that Im a hack and he immediately said, "Well I'm an artist." . He has been in it three years lol... I didn't laugh he copies magazine shots of brides for their portraits. Nothing much about the bride but lots about the location. Just thought it was kinda interesting

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Or, you just steal the ideas from creative artists.

I've seen ad campaigns here in the UK that so often just steal an idea from an art exhibition and manipulate it for their gain.

In the modern world, advertising and TV commercials are possibly the biggest venue for new ideas. That counts for a lot. TV commercials often present an 'art' image to avoid the very obvious commercial connotations. An arty ad is very often the most successful.

I wasn't making the case for Ad photography as 'art'. It's the area I trained in and I worked in it long enough to know full what it really is. I was merely making the point that it is possible to do Photography starting with a blank canvas and controling every element.
And if you look at Art - certainly from the past 100 years - I think you will find that they have stolen as much from Advertising as Advertising has stolen from them.

As I have always said in threads like this (here included), and echoed here by others, the true Artist never gives it a second thought as to whether he is creating Art or not. He just gets on and does it because he has to. It is History which decides on his worth and his place in it.

As for Max Bloom's question: "who needs Art?"
The answer is: nobody needs it - but if you have any degree of intelligence and any kind of soul you find it can make your life that little bit more bearable and interesting.

(As an aside, I have frequently found that students who 'can't see the point' of Art hold that view whilst themselves wanting to be considered 'artists'. I think it's because they realise how inferior they are in comparison so want to bring everyone else down to their level. )

 

[TheLostPhotographer]

...It is History which decides on his worth and his place in it.
...

This is no longer true (if it ever was). Sure there are plenty of examples of great artists who weren't recognised until long after their death - Van Gogh is an obvious example. However, there are just as many who were appreciated during their lifetime and were also financially successful.

The measure of an artist in the contemporary art market is how influential they are. Andreas Gursky has been hugely influential and he's nowhere near retirement yet. His works sell for hundreds of thousands. He is recognised today for his innovation and influence. Many people consider him to be a great artist now and even more will probably think that way as history progresses.

If Van Gogh had access to modern communication technologies (including modern transport) would he have remained relatively anonymous during his lifetime? With effective marketing and promotion contemporary artists are able to exhibit their work to huge audiences. The world moves at a faster pace today. The influence of original and innovative artists can be seen almost immediately.

Great artists are recognised today - in their own lifetime. Or, at least the very lucky/well connected, very few do.


Personally, as an artist, photography is my favourite medium. I have no idea whether my photographic art is any good. I've been shortlisted for awards a couple of times, but never actually won anything. I exhibit occasionally and sell a small number of prints each year. It remains an expensive hobby rather than a profitable business.

I started this thread because I think without the 'art value' photography would stagnate. Digital technologies have resulted in an explosion of photographers publishing their work worldwide. There are millions of extremely high quality photographs on the web. However, they're all very similar in content and style. The innovators are few and far between. Despite the number of quality images found on the web the new photographic ideas remain in the art galleries and art magazines.

I'd like to see more discussion about art in photography magazines and photography web forums. It is the only way photography can move forward.


Oh, and apologies for mouthing off at times in this thread. I do that occasionally. I'm an artist - us artists are well known for being stroppy gits at times.

 

[Mike_E]

And I apologize for being a bit of a grouch as well.

I do think you should spend some time considering the question of original thought because it is very rare. This is why you see so many of the same photos done by so many different people. No mater how unique we are, our differences are very small in truth which leads us to being so very much alike.

There have always been popular artists -lifted high by their contemporaries- but they are judged on the same merits as politicians, not so much for their art but rather their marketing.

The real value of a work of art can only be ascertained by it's measure against every other piece ever presented. The worth of an artist is measured the same and this takes time. It takes time because there is much to consider and because the whole body of work must be considered in the case of the artist- which will not, presumably, be finished until their death.

It also takes time because people need time to change their minds. Take rap/hiphop for instance, it's popular right now but when compared to music as a whole it's really, really boring!

So, if leaving a legacy is in your ultimate plan then take a longer view. If self gratification is your aim then market yourself well!

luck to you

mike

 

[TheLostPhotographer]

...

I do think you should spend some time considering the question of original thought because it is very rare....

Thanks for the sending of luck Mike. We all surely need it whatever path we choose. I gave up a financially rewarding career in design and marketing to go full time as an artist about Two and half years ago. I've been exhibiting photographs on a very small scale since I left college 20 years ago.

Original thought is something I've given plenty of time over the years. I think art inspires original thought. The art 'arena' is also the place that accepts original thought most readily. Science is an industry that encourages original thought of course, as do most industries, but more often than not original thought is dismissed as madness.

My own belief is that we are all capable of original thought just as we're all capable of being artists. It's simply a matter of forgetting what you've been conditioned to think. Without going down the nature/nurture debate to heavily, I think societal pressures drum all originality out of us. The safe option is to conform to normality. No room for crazy new ideas in the money driven world we all live in.

Original thought in our time is probably dismissed even more readily than great art that isn't recognised in our own time. Convention always rules.

I've chosen to chase a career as an artist. However, I'm finding peoples refusal to accept new ideas even more frustrating as an artist than I did in my commercial life. I can go out and complete a 30 minute sketch of The Alhambra and sell it very quickly to a passing tourist for €30. A €uro a minute is very good going in Spain, but it's not the art I want to be doing. Strangest thing is that the richer tourists who proclaim to be a lover of culture and art (the biggest spenders) always choose what, in my opinion, is my worst work! Generally, those who choose my best work are younger, less affluent travelers. The younger people are also the ones that appreciate my more unconventional photography. Perhaps, it's not so strange afterall - younger minds are less conditioned and more open to original concepts.

May take a trip down to the local library and look up some books on original thought to see what the Spanish take is on the subject. It will improve my Spanish if nothing else.

I find the internet and web forums specifically are great places to find inspiration for new ideas. It's an extremely useful tool. Thanks for the feedback.

John.

 

[sabbath999]

Sure there are plenty of examples of great artists who weren't recognised until long after their death - Van Gogh is an obvious example.

The rest clipped

I am not arguing your point, you are completely correct on this...

I admit it, I am a Van Gogh fanboy, and I travel to see his works in person. I have, to date, seen dozens of them... and I have never, once, seen a photograph that compares in quality to what Vincent did.

Perhaps it is just me, but I think that the medium of photography is not nearly as pure a channel into the soul as the brush is.

I can't paint, not a lick. I can take pictures... so that is what I do. I cannot pretend that, in any way, my pictures are equivalent in artistic value to a painter who possesses my skill level in his own medium. They just are not.

IMHO.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

This is no longer true (if it ever was). Sure there are plenty of examples of great artists who weren't recognised until long after their death - Van Gogh is an obvious example. However, there are just as many who were appreciated during their lifetime and were also financially successful.

If you care to look at Art History you will find that there are a great many of these successful artists who were forgotten very quickly after their death. Financial success (or failure) is no indication of worth as an artist. Neither is popularity.
What establishes your position is your effect on Art - how influential your work is. And you can only see this in hindsight - so it is History that determines an Artist's real worth. And it always will.

 

[Seefutlung]

For moi, one of the criterium for "art" is that it evokes emotion(s), whether it's music, paintings, sculpture, et al. But exceptional journalistic images also evokes emotions ... Flag Raising on Iwo Jima, Kent State, Tsunami victims, Olympic Champions, et cetera ... but those pictures are not art ... okay .. just talked myself into an understanding ... just because something creates emotions doesn't qualify it as an art piece ... one must set out and preconceive/create a piece which installs emotion ... not capture a scene which is charged with emotion in which the photog had no imput.

Gary

 

[Mike_E]

Gary, I would tend to agree if you qualify that with "good".

The finger paintings of a child can convey emotion and even be the beginnings of a long and storied career.

Shock shots are of the same ilk as the dead puppy story in literature. Yes they convey emotion but are generally juvenile. (journalism is not included here as it is not -supposed to be- one of the creative arts)

Good art, to me at least, should convey complex emotions without the need of settings or explanations. Really good art should stir within you an idea- again without the need for setting or explanation. Great art should Illustrate a point of view which alters your thinking.

I believe that van Gogh is/was a Great Artist because he presented a point of view that allowed others to see things as they had never seen them and allowed his viewers to think in ways they had been unable to before that point.

Because of this I believe that photography can be used in Great Art in it's ability to freeze time and focus in on one bit of reality while ignoring all else. Tough to do in one shot surely but with a series one 'might' use their photos as words from a dictionary.

$.02

mike

 

[Seefutlung]

I have yet been exposed to finger painting of children which stir an emotion ... but then I'm probably an bit more jaded than most.

"Great Art", (as you described), in one image is hard ... which is why it is great ... not everybody can create said art in one image.

As to using "photos as words from a dictionary", that is the concept behind photo journalism. Reporters paint an image using words ... photogs tell a story using pictures. One reason why most major market media orgainizations require a degree in communications/journalism for their photogs ... because for them it isn't about phortography ... it is about the ability to capture and tell the story.

Gary