The Art

[bentcountershaft]

Of course it is.

Well gravity is a natural process, like light. What's the difference?

Because it doesn't refer to something else or depend on the existence of something else as its subject matter. It's not a lens.

I understand your point. What you don't understand is that your point is not the defining characteristic of art. I'm sorry, you are wrong. I'll put it in a way you'll understand. Art is expression for the purpose of expression. It is the act of and it is the product of said expression and this is indisputable. No further debate is possible.

 

[JG_Coleman]

That's why you need to read Scruton. This is a philosophical distinction, which is a significant one, one that photographers themselves may have had no exposure to. Photographers are not usually trained in philosophy.

There's a difference between rational philosophy and sophism, Petraio. Real philosophers very much looked down upon sophistry... it made a mockery of useful philosophical inquiry.

Philosophically speaking, distinctions between artificial and natural are, themselves, artificial distinctions. And photographs are indeed "created by the hand of man"... the hand that put a camera there to begin with and the mind that intentionally decided to put it there, snap the shutter, and collect photons in a way that reflected a conscious, creative decision which is most definitely a "man-made" and artistic phenomenon. My proof: photographs are not found growing on trees... at least not out here in Connecticut.

As you insist that detailed philosophical nonsense is required to give your argument even a single leg to stand on (a peg leg, at best), I can only assume that you can't reasonably defend your point-of-view.

This thread is beginning to bore me.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Well gravity is a natural process, like light. What's the difference?

Because it doesn't refer to something else or depend on the existence of something else as its subject matter. It's not a lens.

I understand your point. What you don't understand is that your point is not the defining characteristic of art. I'm sorry, you are wrong. I'll put it in a way you'll understand. Art is expression for the purpose of expression. It is the act of and it is the product of said expression and this is indisputable. No further debate is possible.

But that's not what art has been considered throughout history.

Consider a Roman statue of a Roman god, say Janus:

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/nov07/Janus.png

This is 'art' and was considered 'art' in ancient times. 'Art' was not considered primarily an outlet for personal expression, nor were artists held in high esteem.

"Those who practiced the visual arts, including sculpture, were held in low regard in ancient Greece, viewed as mere manual labourers. Plutarch (Life of Pericles, II) said "we admire the work of art but despise the maker of it"; this was a common view in the ancient world."
Art in ancient Greece - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, where were we:

Yes, now as we all know, there is no such being as 'Janus'. It is, then, in a sense, a fiction. There is no 'reference' to Janus because Janus does not exist.

No photons bounced off Janus' head to form this sculpture. It was made 'by hand' (even if a chisel was involved). It represents a notion in someone's mind, expressed as a solid object.

Now consider this sculpture of Julius Caesar:

http://edweb.tusd.k12.az.us/ktully/julius_caesar7_1085967629.jpg

Your first thought may be that this sculpture 'refers' to Julius Caesar, but it is just as 'fictional' as the sculpture of Janus, because even though JC was a real person, this sculpture has no causal relationship to it whatsoever.

One can create a sculpture of anything, real or imaginary, and they are equally 'fictional'. One can create a sculpture of someone long dead, or who never lived, or the product of pure fancy.

Now consider this photograph of Louis Calhern as Julius Caesar:

Photos of Marlon Brando

Is this a work of art?

No, the photograph refers to Louis Calhern. It is 'of' him in a way that the statue of JC is not. The photograph can have no existence apart from the existence of Louis Calhern. The statue of Janus can.

Works of art cannot be dependent upon the existence of their 'subject matter' in a causal connection.

A photograph is always 'of', refers to, and is dependent upon an entity. Art is not.

 

[Flash Harry]

What tosh, try googling "camera obscura" nothing to do with art, it enabled the tracing of an image/scene correctly for recording or historical purposes, its a frozen moment in time, that's it.

Get posting all your "art" for cc, the camera did it, you pressed a button.

Yes you may have the background oof or even the subject depending how garbage you are at this game but in general use a photograph is not art in my book, some photographs are artistic though, but to make photographic art one first has to be able to operate a camera correctly.

Man Ray photographs imo have artistic merit, snapping away at empty barns/birds/scenery/bugs etc etc are for recording purposes, other types/events etc., historical, so if you set out to create art, its art, if not, its a mistake. H

 

[Mike_E]

^^What he said!^^

 

[Petraio Prime]

^^What he said!^^

I find it extraordinarily ironic that photographers want to be considered artists when in ancient times artists were held in low esteem.

 

[ann]

times change

 

[bentcountershaft]

In ancient times they didn't use toilet paper either. As ann mentioned above, times change.

 

[Petraio Prime]

times change

LOL

Well I don't think much of 'artists' either.

I think photography is much more important than art (other than the Mona Lisa), and that the two things are not the same.

 

[Mike_E]

times change

LOL

Well I don't think much of 'artists' either.

I think photography is much more important than art (other than the Mona Lisa), and that the two things are not the same.

It's probably a good thing that you don't depend on what other people think to eat.

 

[bentcountershaft]

I think photography is much more important than art (other than the Mona Lisa), and that the two things are not the same.

Why the Mona Lisa?

 

[Derrel]

Works of art cannot be dependent upon the existence of their 'subject matter' in a causal connection.

A photograph is always 'of', refers to, and is dependent upon an entity. Art is not.

Petraio-Prime, I call bull$h!+ on your entire argument. The painting entitled Mona Lisa was actually a commissioned portrait, a representation "of" an actual,living,real woman. The existence of that painting was dependent upon,and refers to, an "entity. Oops! Mona Lisa--NOT ART!!! Oh no!!!!

Sorry Petraio, I studied fine art and photography at the university level; it is quite possible to create photographic fine art. Your argument was the prevailing argument well over 150 years ago, but your argument discounts the possibility of non-representational photographic art, computer-generated artistic renderings of photographic or digital images, composite art, etc,etc. The argument that no photograph can ever rise to the level of art is a very old argument...that argument was quite easily discredited around the time Abraham Lincoln was President of the United States. Petraio Prime, this is the third or fourth thread in which you have espoused this fringe,revisionist theory. Sorry dude, but it's a bull$h!+ argument...ask the Museum of Modern Art's director why they have collected so much photographic "Art"...ask art museum curators all over the world why photography is such a huge component of their MODERN art sections...the idea that NO PHOTOGRAPH can possibly, EVER be considered art is a crackpot theory that seems to be espoused chiefly by....Petraio Prime...

We're not all uneducated fools like you...think we are...

Your definition of art goes back to before germ theory and X-rays and the telephone were invented...your level of education on this subject is laughably ignorant of "modern" thinking and modern scholarship.

 

[Mike_E]

Pete-boy, don't tell us that you bought stock in it! :raisedbrow:

 

[Overread]

We've had this whole debate before - really we have and in the end we came out with

Works of art cannot be dependent upon the existence of their 'subject matter' in a causal connection.

A photograph is always 'of', refers to, and is dependent upon an entity. Art is not.

being a personal viewpoint that almost everyone else disagrees with. Doesn't make it right nor wrong, just makes it a view point that most people disagree with.

 

[Idahophoto]

I'm paying less and less attention to exposure. Sure I still meter, but I often tweak it at least a bit and often times more than that. I also find myself breaking rules like making a subject out of focus. I have had fun the past few days Shooting my girlfriend with a zip-lock bag over the lens (Awesome softness effect). What is the proper exposure for artistic expression? I don't think you will find a "Correct" formula. Yeah, some people may not like this type of photography, but then again following all the rules and perfect exposure and always dead sharp focus you would still have people who won't like it. That's the beauty of it all. Work it naturally, and let you vision come out, it's been a long and hard lesson for me, but since I have started doing it, I find I am liking my photo's much more.