The Art

[Infidel]

Your claim is that some photography can be art if it's "good enough", essentially. Correct?

As I stated earlier, that was not my claim, therefore you were mistaken.

OHHH SNAP!!!

 

[usayit]

Your claim is that some photography can be art if it's "good enough", essentially. Correct?

As I stated earlier, that was not my claim, therefore you were mistaken.

OHHH SNAP!!!

Let's not forget referencing material that doesn't support his claims... also a mistake.

 

[Petraio Prime]

His opinion is without merit. Saying Philosophy trumps history is utterly ignorant.

It's not merely opinion, it's argument, and you can't just dismiss argument; you have to refute it.

You do all the time... and now you are complaining?


Ok here is a refute. Art is subjective and subject to many definitions. You assert that there is only one definition.. You are wrong. I only need to show one example. According to Paul Anderson, in his book, The Fine Art of Photography, fine art is “any medium of expression which permits one person to convey to another an abstract idea of lofty emotion”.

No. You're not following.

There are necessary conditions and sufficient conditions. Do you understand the distinction?

If Janson says that for something to be classed as art it must be 'at least....a tangible thing being made by human hands', that 'at least' is to be read as a necessary condition. It is not a sufficient condition, because some things made by hand are not art.

Agreed?

Now, since photography does not produce anything by hand (lenses and sensitive materials are involved) and since that violates the necessary condition, photography cannot produce art.

It's really very simple.

 

[hazeleyes1992]

Well...there are different forms of photographs...some people may think that the person that took a picture didn't do something right on his/her camera. However, the photographer may have wanted the picture to look that way. "The camera doesn't take the pictures...the person holding the camera does."

 

[Petraio Prime]

Well...there are different forms of photographs...some people may think that the person that took a picture didn't do something right on his/her camera. However, the photographer may have wanted the picture to look that way. "The camera doesn't take the pictures...the person holding the camera does."

It's not that simple. Photography can be automated and random. Art cannot be.

 

[Infidel]

Now, since photography does not produce anything by hand (lenses and sensitive materials are involved) and since that violates the necessary condition, photography cannot produce art.

It's really very simple.

Lenses (which are adjusted by hand) determine how photons are applied to film.

Brushes (which are adjusted by hand) determine how paint is applied to canvas.

It's really very simple.

 

[usayit]

If Janson says that for something to be classed as art it must be 'at least....a tangible thing being made by human hands', that 'at least' is to be read as a necessary condition. It is not a sufficient condition, because some things made by hand are not art.

Let me remind you that Janson does not support your foundation. Here.. it is for your short memory

Oops, in my haste of posting a quote, I also forgot an important sentence in that passage:

"In itself, photography is simply a medium, like oil paint, or pastel, used to make art and has no inherent claim to being art. What distinguishes any art from a craft is why, not how, it is done."

- Horst Woldemar Janson, Anthony F. Janson



(ok I lied.. I left it out on purpose thinking it would be useful to be used later on)



Do you hear something? Yup.. its my credit card completing a purchase of a more valid/complete resource on said topic... PP, thanks for pointing out a good book.

No, it's not, and of course he's full of crap. It's not "simply a medium, like oil paint, or pastel, used to make art".
Janson defined what art is, properly, by saying it's "something tangible made by human hands". If you understand what photography is, you know it's not "something tangible made by human hands".

and no its not simply stating that art has a single definition... it does not. I have refuted that stance already.

 

[Overread]

Well...there are different forms of photographs...some people may think that the person that took a picture didn't do something right on his/her camera. However, the photographer may have wanted the picture to look that way. "The camera doesn't take the pictures...the person holding the camera does."

It's not that simple. Photography can be automated and random. Art cannot be.

erm you are aware that today sculpting, painting, sketching etc... .can all be automated - heck with some lego and a pen you can make a remote controled pencil sketching machine - hook that up to some automated software and away you go

 

[Warren Peace]

Look on the bright side. Your post counts are skyrocketing because of this ongoing conversation. At this rate, everyone will be passing Big Mike by Sunday. :lmao::lmao:

 

[Overread]

*wonders if this thread *would see any life if it slipped down into offtopic*

 

[Petraio Prime]

Now, since photography does not produce anything by hand (lenses and sensitive materials are involved) and since that violates the necessary condition, photography cannot produce art.

It's really very simple.

Lenses (which are adjusted by hand) determine how photons are applied to film.

Brushes (which are adjusted by hand) determine how paint is applied to canvas.

It's really very simple.

But it's not analogous.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Well...there are different forms of photographs...some people may think that the person that took a picture didn't do something right on his/her camera. However, the photographer may have wanted the picture to look that way. "The camera doesn't take the pictures...the person holding the camera does."

It's not that simple. Photography can be automated and random. Art cannot be.

erm you are aware that today sculpting, painting, sketching etc... .can all be automated - heck with some lego and a pen you can make a remote controled pencil sketching machine - hook that up to some automated software and away you go

Then it's not 'art'. Understand why?

 

[Petraio Prime]

If Janson says that for something to be classed as art it must be 'at least....a tangible thing being made by human hands', that 'at least' is to be read as a necessary condition. It is not a sufficient condition, because some things made by hand are not art.

Let me remind you that Janson does not support your foundation. Here.. it is for your short memory

Oops, in my haste of posting a quote, I also forgot an important sentence in that passage:

"In itself, photography is simply a medium, like oil paint, or pastel, used to make art and has no inherent claim to being art. What distinguishes any art from a craft is why, not how, it is done."

- Horst Woldemar Janson, Anthony F. Janson



(ok I lied.. I left it out on purpose thinking it would be useful to be used later on)



Do you hear something? Yup.. its my credit card completing a purchase of a more valid/complete resource on said topic... PP, thanks for pointing out a good book.

No, it's not, and of course he's full of crap. It's not "simply a medium, like oil paint, or pastel, used to make art".
Janson defined what art is, properly, by saying it's "something tangible made by human hands". If you understand what photography is, you know it's not "something tangible made by human hands".

and no its not simply stating that art has a single definition... it does not. I have refuted that stance already.

I quoted what he said is a necessary condition, not a definition. If something does not satisfy a necessary condition, then the discussion is over.

You have an extraordinary propensity to ignore the point of the argument and bring up irrelevancies.

Do you understand what a necessary condition is or not?

 

[Warren Peace]

*wonders if this thread *would see any life if it slipped down into offtopic*

It might pass Word Association in posts.

 

[Overread]

It's not that simple. Photography can be automated and random. Art cannot be.

erm you are aware that today sculpting, painting, sketching etc... .can all be automated - heck with some lego and a pen you can make a remote controled pencil sketching machine - hook that up to some automated software and away you go

Then it's not 'art'. Understand why?

Depends of course on the degree of automation involved of course, but at a basic level its understandable. However photography isn't automated when its done by a human controlling the camera - even with in camera processing and JPEG outputs there is still a significant amount of human involvement needed (Esp to make art).
Just because part of the process relies upon more advanced technology (and of course I include the fold film; glass slates etc... methods in this) than say other forms of art (though of course that is a fallacy in itself as there is a whole mass of technology behind brush production and paint creation for example) does not make it more or lesser than the others.