Ren Hang... art or not?

[mmaria]

So what do you think? Is his photography art?

Warning! Before you click the link...

Totally and completely not safe for work.
Explicit scenes, you kinda need to have the stomach for it....

Ren Hang 2016

 

[runnah]

Art? Yes.

Good? No.

 

[pixmedic]

Art....maybe? Technically?

Not a compelling shot in the bunch.


Sent via Synchronized Cardioversion

 

[table1349]

Art? Yes/No/Really doesn't matter.

Not something I care for, but then Robert Maplethorpe had lots of admirers as well. Depends on ones tastes.

 

[dunfly]

Interesting, but not very good. From an "art" perspective, it looks sort of amateurish to me. If I could get that many naked people together, I could be an artist too.

 

[alexis.alvarez]

Definitely not art -- where's the aesthetic vision? -- and definitely not good. Even if the photographer is trying to distil some humor, the images simply aren't compelling -- they're not even so bad they're good, they're just tacky. (And I'm not a big fan of Mapplethorpe, too cold/no heart, but he had vision.)

 

[jcdeboever]

They are art. IMO, they are distasteful and appear on the edge of child pornography. I only witnessed a few, and morally, not my cup of tea.

 

[alexis.alvarez]

For those who think this crap is art, can you explain what the aesthetic vision at work is? Or do you think that kitsch counts are art?

 

[Ysarex]

The confusion arises from the need so many people have to equate the term 'art' with 'good art.' If it's bad then it can't be 'art' because the definition of 'art' requires the adjective 'good.' That's a mistake. It doesn't have to be good to be art. There are other adjectives often used that cause the same confusion. It doesn't have to be beautiful to be art. It doesn't have to espouse lofty ideals to be art, etc.

For example a musician is an artist. So even though it pains me to say it, Justin Bieber is an artist. I can also say the world would be a better place if Justin's vocal cords were surgically removed.

Joe

 

[alexis.alvarez]

I'm not confused; I've studied art and practiced it (or tried to) for a very long time. What I want to know is, for those who consider these images art, just what the aesthetic vision at work is.

 

[limr]

Art does not have to be visually pleasing, or even that technically difficult, but it should always be thought-provoking. Yes, this is my definition of art. If it manages only one of these things, it might still be art, but sort of...meh.

I find this to be very borderline. I suppose it does provoke some thought, but what? Is he (or she?) trying to convey a message with the naked bodies, or are they totally gratuitous? Is the technique amateurish on purpose? If so, why? If not, is that interfering with a possible intended message or idea? Is it a matter of lack of vision or lack of skill to achieve that vision?

Art can quite often be uncomfortable, and these most certainly are, though mostly because I can't discern any purpose to the nudity other than shock value, or edginess for its own sake. So they're naked and in weird positions. So what? Are we supposed to confront something about ourselves with these images? Are we supposed to acknowledge a discomfort or disconnect with the human body? Um...don't we already know that? And why should we confront it? To what end, what goal? For the ones taken in the water or on rocks, I can almost see a sort of "vulnerable humanity in nature" kind of theme. But it's really a stretch to come up with something.

Art should always be thought-provoking, but if those thoughts consist of, "Huh?" and then a bunch of mental gymnastics to come up with the most tenuous conclusion, then it's not successful art.

So, by my definition, is it art? Well. As stand-alone images, it is doubtful. As a portfolio of work, it's slightly more successful...but just by the skin of its teeth. I think it's visually distasteful for no good reason, its message - if there is one - is possibly hindered by the amateurish photographic techniques, and it is only barely thought-provoking, provided we concede that 'thought' includes giving the benefit of the doubt and trying really hard to fill in the gaps.

 

[BrentC]

This seems less art and more someone catering to their own fetish.

 

[waday]

Thanks, @mmaria, for the NSFW warning.. that would have been bad on my work computer... haha

Art does not have to be visually pleasing, or even that technically difficult, but it should always be thought-provoking. Yes, this is my definition of art. If it manages only one of these things, it might still be art, but sort of...meh.

I find this to be very borderline. I suppose it does provoke some thought, but what? Is he (or she?) trying to convey a message with the naked bodies, or are they totally gratuitous?

I like your definition.

To me, it seems solely gratuitous. Attention seeking, rather than thought provoking.

That said, who are we to judge it as art or not? Sure, it can be art, if that's what the originator wanted in the photos. But, that doesn't mean I/we have to enjoy it.

Who knows, maybe this is the purpose of the photos? Just to get people to talk? I don't know.

Art can quite often be uncomfortable, and these most certainly are, though mostly because I can't discern any purpose to the nudity other than shock value, or edginess for its own sake. So they're naked and in weird positions. So what? Are we supposed to confront something about ourselves with these images? Are we supposed to acknowledge a discomfort or disconnect with the human body? Um...don't we already know that? And why should we confront it? To what end, what goal? For the ones taken in the water or on rocks, I can almost see a sort of "vulnerable humanity in nature" kind of theme. But it's really a stretch to come up with something.

But.... far too many questions for it to be considered anything but gratuitous and attention seeking, IMO.

 

[JonA_CT]

I think I agree with those who say it is a bit too gratuitous...but I do wonder if our perception would be different if the production value were higher.

 

[table1349]

I'm not confused; I've studied art and practiced it (or tried to) for a very long time. What I want to know is, for those who consider these images art, just what the aesthetic vision at work is.

Please to provide for us a Universally Accepted definition of Art. Until that is accomplished there is no such thing as "Art". It is merely a human term that tries to make highbrow out of Like or Dislike.