The Art

[abraxas]

There have been a few interesting points brought up, but mostly selective pretentious rhetoric and talking in circles. I think this has indirectly been about envy and striking out at artistic creative ability. Too bad. Maybe blog it.

 

[Overread]

The notion that we can sort of just extend and expand what is 'art' makes no sense.

Why not? Words are always being changed, chopped and evolved into language in a continuous process. Say "I have a very gay friend" today and people think you mean something very different today to what they thought you were saying 50 or 100 years ago. The meaning of the word - its definition has expanded to include new meanings.

So if the historical definition of art is no longer valid then I think its safe to say that the word has evolved in its meaning to include new forms of artistic expression that are recognised in the current, modern world by the vast majority of the population (both professional and unprofessional).

 

[Petraio Prime]

The notion that we can sort of just extend and expand what is 'art' makes no sense.

Why not? Words are always being changed, chopped and evolved into language in a continuous process. Say "I have a very gay friend" today and people think you mean something very different today to what they thought you were saying 50 or 100 years ago. The meaning of the word - its definition has expanded to include new meanings.

So if the historical definition of art is no longer valid then I think its safe to say that the word has evolved in its meaning to include new forms of artistic expression that are recognised in the current, modern world by the vast majority of the population (both professional and unprofessional).

'Self-expression' isn't what makes art, 'art'. It is important that our concept of art be consistent with calling ancient Egyptian art, Byzantine art, and every other kind of ancient or exotic art, 'art'. Self-expression was not only not part of what they were doing, it was actually discouraged in some cases. What needed to be 'expressed' was often what Pharaoh wanted, or the Pope wanted, or the Crown wanted, or the Gentry wanted. So, it makes no sense to use that criterion (self-expression) to expand the concept of art, because it means closing off the past to the application of the word 'art'. It is utterly irrelevant to the meaning of the word 'art' despite the fact that many people think it does.

Is that clear enough? If self-expression is the criterion, much of what has always been called 'art' no longer can be called 'art', because self-expression was not involved at all. What was involved, what constitutes an essential criterion, is "made by hand", and that's why photographs, which are formed optically and not made by hand, cannot be called 'art'.

So, if you want photography to be called 'art', then you cannot call Tut's coffin mask 'art' anymore. If it 'expresses' anything at all, it is what the Egyptian tradition as administered by his court and successors, called for.

I think you would have an extraordinarily hard time justifying that.

This is not all that difficult to grasp.

 

[Overread]

The original meaning of the word gay still stands and remains in the dictionary - I said change and extend the meaning not rewrite the whole meaning. So there would be the part of the definition that covers old art as well as the newer aspect that deals with more modern parlance.

 

[Infidel]

What I'm saying is that Wiki has no authority any greater than that of people here coming to leave comments.

Fair enough, although I suggest that you ought to include yourself in applying the above statement.

[/THREAD]

 

[Petraio Prime]

What I'm saying is that Wiki has no authority any greater than that of people here coming to leave comments.

Fair enough, although I suggest that you ought to include yourself in applying the above statement.

Not at all. I am claiming the traditional definition applies, and why it applies.

 

[OrionsByte]

What I'm saying is that Wiki has no authority any greater than that of people here coming to leave comments.

You must also accept that you have no authority any greater than the rest of us.

The notion that we can sort of just extend and expand what is 'art' makes no sense. It is based on a misunderstanding of what characterizes art, what makes it deserve that term, and historically, 'self-expression' has never been the most important criterion, and in fact was not even considered for the vastly greater part of the history of art.

If you are suggesting that the meaning of words is always permanent, and never transitory, that's simply not the case. Words change meaning all the time, through use. No single word has intrinsic value or definition; they only gain definition through use, and if the use changes, the definition changes.

Semantic change, also known as semantic shift or semantic progression describes the evolution of word usage — usually to the point that the modern meaning is radically different from the original usage. In diachronic (or historical) linguistics, semantic change is a change in one of the meanings of a word. Every word has a variety of senses and connotations which can be added, removed, or altered over time, often to the extent that cognates across space and time have very different meanings. Semantic change is one of three major processes to find a designation for a concept. The study of semantic change can be seen as part of etymology, onomasiology, semasiology and semantics.

Eight Words Which Have Completely Changed Their Meaning Over Time

Strangely, their original meaning was very different – or totally the opposite – of what it is now.

Artificial
This originally meant ‘full of artistic or technical skill’. Now its meaning has a very different slant.

Nice
This comes from the Latin ‘not to know’. Originally a ‘nice person’ was someone who was ignorant or unaware.

Awful
This meant ‘full of awe’ i.e. something wonderful, delightful, amazing. However, over time it has evolved to mean exactly the opposite.

Brave
This once was used to signify cowardice. Indeed, its old meaning lives on in the word ‘bravado’.

Manufacture
From the Latin meaning ‘to make by hand’ this originally signified things that were created by craftsmen. Now the opposite, made by machines, is its meaning.

Counterfeit
This once meant a perfect copy. Now it means anything but.

Prove
Originally this meant to test. The old meaning survives in the phrase ‘proving ground’.

Tell
Its original meaning was ‘to count’. Which is how we came by the term ‘bank teller’.

So why is the word "art" immune to semantic change? I'll answer that question for you, from what I believe is your perspective: the semantic definition of the word "art" is different from the philosophical definition of the concept of "art". Is that a fair translation of your premise?

The problem is, you're trying to say that the philosophical definition supersedes the semantic definition, but you've provided no argument as to why the rest of us should agree with you on that point. Furthermore, the nature of philosophy suggests that there is no such thing as an "absolute philosophy", so even if you managed to convince us that philosophy trumps semantics, you'd still have to convince us that your philosophy trumps our philosophy.

It's an uphill battle, my friend. I'd suggest that we "agree to disagree" but I have never seen any statements from you that indicate you'd be willing to accept such an offer.

EDIT: Dang, got beat to the punch with both of my points! Must learn to type faster...

 

[Petraio Prime]

What I'm saying is that Wiki has no authority any greater than that of people here coming to leave comments.

You must also accept that you have no authority any greater than the rest of us.

The notion that we can sort of just extend and expand what is 'art' makes no sense. It is based on a misunderstanding of what characterizes art, what makes it deserve that term, and historically, 'self-expression' has never been the most important criterion, and in fact was not even considered for the vastly greater part of the history of art.

If you are suggesting that the meaning of words is always permanent, and never transitory, that's simply not the case. Words change meaning all the time, through use. No single word has intrinsic value or definition; they only gain definition through use, and if the use changes, the definition changes.

Semantic change, also known as semantic shift or semantic progression describes the evolution of word usage — usually to the point that the modern meaning is radically different from the original usage. In diachronic (or historical) linguistics, semantic change is a change in one of the meanings of a word. Every word has a variety of senses and connotations which can be added, removed, or altered over time, often to the extent that cognates across space and time have very different meanings. Semantic change is one of three major processes to find a designation for a concept. The study of semantic change can be seen as part of etymology, onomasiology, semasiology and semantics.

Eight Words Which Have Completely Changed Their Meaning Over Time

Strangely, their original meaning was very different – or totally the opposite – of what it is now.

Artificial
This originally meant ‘full of artistic or technical skill’. Now its meaning has a very different slant.

Nice
This comes from the Latin ‘not to know’. Originally a ‘nice person’ was someone who was ignorant or unaware.

Awful
This meant ‘full of awe’ i.e. something wonderful, delightful, amazing. However, over time it has evolved to mean exactly the opposite.

Brave
This once was used to signify cowardice. Indeed, its old meaning lives on in the word ‘bravado’.

Manufacture
From the Latin meaning ‘to make by hand’ this originally signified things that were created by craftsmen. Now the opposite, made by machines, is its meaning.

Counterfeit
This once meant a perfect copy. Now it means anything but.

Prove
Originally this meant to test. The old meaning survives in the phrase ‘proving ground’.

Tell
Its original meaning was ‘to count’. Which is how we came by the term ‘bank teller’.

So why is the word "art" immune to semantic change? I'll answer that question for you, from what I believe is your perspective: the semantic definition of the word "art" is different from the philosophical definition of the concept of "art". Is that a fair translation of your premise?

The problem is, you're trying to say that the philosophical definition supersedes the semantic definition, but you've provided no argument as to why the rest of us should agree with you on that point. Furthermore, the nature of philosophy suggests that there is no such thing as an "absolute philosophy", so even if you managed to convince us that philosophy trumps semantics, you'd still have to convince us that your philosophy trumps our philosophy.

It's an uphill battle, my friend. I'd suggest that we "agree to disagree" but I have never seen any statements from you that indicate you'd be willing to accept such an offer.

Much semantic change is error. People use words incorrectly because they don't know exactly what the word means. The word 'bokeh' is a perfect example. When I first encountered it, it meant the character of a lens's out-of-focus areas. Now, apparently, people are using it to mean 'selective focus'. HDR is another example. 'Dynamic range' refers to the range of loudness in music over time, and by extension, an electric signal carrying music or sound. It has nothing to do with photographs. Scenes photographed have a brightness range, not a dynamic range. 'Dynamic' is of Greek origin, and it has to do with change.

"Main Entry:dynamic range
Function:noun

:the ratio of the loudest to the weakest sound intensity which can be transmitted or reproduced by a recording or broadcasting system"

In music, Italian terms are used to denote the pace and volume at which the music is to be played:

http://www.pianoinstructors.com/musicterms/term.html

Read my prior posts to answer the rest of your question.

 

[OrionsByte]

Much semantic change is error. People use words incorrectly because they don't know exactly what the word means. The word 'bokeh' is a perfect example. When I first encountered it, it meant the character of a lens's out-of-focus areas. Now, apparently, people are using it to mean 'selective focus'. HDR is another example. 'Dynamic range' refers to the range of loudness in music over time, and by extension, an electric signal carrying music or sound. It has nothing to do with photographs. Scenes photographed have a brightness range, not a dynamic range. 'Dynamic' is of Greek origin, and it has to do with change.

Okay, but you're still missing the point. Even if semantic change is "error," that doesn't mean the change doesn't stick. If you told your wife she was "awful" in bed, she's going to slap you, regardless of the fact that the word "awful" used to mean "full of awe" and the definition only changed due to "error." The way we use it today is completely different; you simply can't say, "this is the way it's supposed to be," and have it be that while the rest of the world moves on.

As Overread pointed out, the word "art" hasn't even been completely redefined to the extremes of the examples I quoted - it's simply been extended. I honestly don't understand why you're locked in to a "traditional" definition of the term as the only viable definition when the rest of the world has extended the definition through use, whether or not it was originally "correct" to do so.

Language is not defined by sheer will, it is defined by use. The use has changed. Live with it.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Much semantic change is error. People use words incorrectly because they don't know exactly what the word means. The word 'bokeh' is a perfect example. When I first encountered it, it meant the character of a lens's out-of-focus areas. Now, apparently, people are using it to mean 'selective focus'. HDR is another example. 'Dynamic range' refers to the range of loudness in music over time, and by extension, an electric signal carrying music or sound. It has nothing to do with photographs. Scenes photographed have a brightness range, not a dynamic range. 'Dynamic' is of Greek origin, and it has to do with change.

Okay, but you're still missing the point. Even if semantic change is "error," that doesn't mean the change doesn't stick. If you told your wife she was "awful" in bed, she's going to slap you, regardless of the fact that the word "awful" used to mean "full of awe" and the definition only changed due to "error." The way we use it today is completely different; you simply can't say, "this is the way it's supposed to be," and have it be that while the rest of the world moves on.

As Overread pointed out, the word "art" hasn't even been completely redefined to the extremes of the examples I quoted - it's simply been extended. I honestly don't understand why you're locked in to a "traditional" definition of the term as the only viable definition when the rest of the world has extended the definition through use, whether or not it was originally "correct" to do so.

Language is not defined by sheer will, it is defined by use. The use has changed. Live with it.

It isn't always just 'semantic change'; in some cases it's lies and deliberate distortion, and here, I think a great deal is at stake. If we accept that photography is art (for the reasons proposed, 'self-expression' being chief among them) then we have to exclude much of what is accepted as art.

In other words, we cannot say "This is art because it shows self expression and even though it was not made by hand" and this "this is art, because it was made by hand and even though it does not show self-expression". These are contradictory criteria.

Whatever the concept of 'art' is, it has to be coherent and not self-contradictory.

Notice we are not talking about "the art of pitching" or "the art of dancing" or "the art of persuasion". We are talking about 'art' as 'fine art'.

 

[Overread]

So in fact we are not debating the term "art" (which I think everyone HAS been debating) but the sub-group of "Fine art" - and to if photography counts as a fine art - which of course accepts that photography is an art form.

 

[Petraio Prime]

So in fact we are not debating the term "art" (which I think everyone HAS been debating) but the sub-group of "Fine art" - and to if photography counts as a fine art - which of course accepts that photography is an art form.

I mean specifically 'fine art' which is what people are claiming by calling it 'fine-art photography'. I don't mean 'the art of dancing' and such, which is not what we are talking about. I don't mean the 'skill' or 'craft'. I mean "photographs as works of art".

No-one is disputing that photography involves skill or craftsmanship. What I am denying is that a photograph can be called a 'work of art' in the sense that a painting or sculpture is, i.e., a work of 'fine art'. If you mean merely 'craft' or 'skill', that's an entirely distinct meaning, and not the one under discussion.

To say 'the art of photography' is not saying that photographs are 'works of art'.

 

[Overread]

So which are we debating then :

That photography is or is not an artistic form of expression

or

That photography is or is not a form of fine art

The latter I think depends greatly upon the nature of the photography involved and I view that whilst some might contribute toward or might indeed be considered fine art it is not a label to attach to all photography - whilst the former I think is a label that can be applied to a greater portion of photography - the other part of the equation generally being journalistic photography.

 

[OrionsByte]

What we have been debating:

That photography is or is not an artistic form of expression

What Petraio has been debating:

That photography is or is not a form of fine art

This is why this thread has gone on so long... it hasn't been the same discussion, and Petraio's refusal to see our side of the discussion (up to this point, arguably) has made it impossible to get anywhere.

 

[Petraio Prime]

So which are we debating then :

That photography is or is not an artistic form of expression

or

That photography is or is not a form of fine art

The latter I think depends greatly upon the nature of the photography involved and I view that whilst some might contribute toward or might indeed be considered fine art it is not a label to attach to all photography - whilst the former I think is a label that can be applied to a greater portion of photography - the other part of the equation generally being journalistic photography.

No, to both.

Photography is not an artistic form of expression, strictly speaking, because it is not 'art'. I suppose one could use it (photography) to express feeling, but only indirectly. A group of photographs of dead birds covered with oil, I suppose, could express outrage at BP. Photographs of beautiful flowers merely reflect the beauty of the flowers and their attractive colors.

(In such cases the word 'artistic' in "artistic expression" must be disallowed in connection with photography. The problem is, what do we say instead? We don't have a vocabulary for photography, but borrow from the vocabulary of painting. We tend to call things 'magical' or 'artistic' when we don't understand them. To the pro football quarterback, the arc of a long pass is not a thing of beauty, but the result of a calculation and skill, to drop the ball into the receiver's hands at just the right angle; to the spectator, it can be a thing of beauty. The spectator just doesn't know it's all just technique and skill. To the primitive races around the world who have no experience with modern technology, such things as phonographs, cameras, automobiles, etc. are 'magical', because they don't understand them. I recall someone on a forum mentioning that a critic for a paper or something like that wrote a column extolling the work of a photographer whose work was being exhibited, for its extraordinary 'artistic qualities'. The laugh was that he had merely pushed Tri-X and got some grainy, fuzzy shots, but to the critic it was 'artistic'. To those of us who know how to achieve this simple effect, her reaction is hilarious. To those of us who don't know how to paint, the work of a DaVinci or a Rembrandt appears 'magical', but it's all just technique. The 'beauty' of a flower is not real; it is merely the work of evolution; there is no 'artistry'; it is but the product of inexorable demands of natural selection and the additional work of breeders. To bees, there are no 'beautiful' flowers, only ones with nectar and ones without.)

A painting allows a more or less direct form of expression, but in any case, self-expression isn't what makes it art.

Photography is not a form of fine art because a photograph is not something made "by hand" but is the product entirely of optical and chemical (natural) processes.