The Art

[Petraio Prime]

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.

I don't think I have ever run into anyone who has such a knack of completely misunderstanding everything I write, no matter how clearly I express myself.

Photographs are not 'representational' (symbolic). They are iconic. They are images of something else produced wholly through natural means. Paintings are not. Paintings are representational (symbolic) produced wholly through artificial means (the hand of man).

No photograph can be a work of art, ever, because of what the nature of a photograph is. It's a matter of definition, not one of quality. 'Art' is a technical term.

Just as an airplane cannot be a horse; they are two different things. An airplane is not 'better' than a horse; a horse is not 'better' than an airplane.

 

[kundalini]

Just as an airplane cannot be a horse; they are two different things. An airplane is not 'better' than a horse; a horse is not 'better' than an airplane.

Leopards do not changes their spots, pigs relish mud and jackasses will remain to be just as they are.

 

[Derrel]

I don't think I have ever run into anyone who has such a knack of completely misunderstanding everything I write, no matter how clearly I express myself.

Sorry dude...your argument was discussed at length, roundly discredited, and entirely discarded--and that all occured about 150 years ago.

No matter how eloquently you try and assert that photographs can NEVER be "art", your argument is baseless, facile, and flat-out stupid.

As I wrote, we're not all uneducated fools like you...think we are.

Got it P-P? You can attempt to re-state your theory, which again has been discussed, discredited, and discarded. Give it up. Everybody else did. By the year 1865.

 

[Mike_E]

Photographs are not 'representational' (symbolic). They are iconic. They are images of something else produced wholly through natural means. Paintings are not. Paintings are representational (symbolic) produced wholly through artificial means (the hand of man).

No photograph can be a work of art, ever, because of what the nature of a photograph is. It's a matter of definition, not one of quality. 'Art' is a technical term.

Just as an airplane cannot be a horse; they are two different things. An airplane is not 'better' than a horse; a horse is not 'better' than an airplane.

A camera, it's medium (glass plate,film or digital) and the printed result are all created by mankind. The images which are the result of the use of the camera and medium are the representation of an idealized (good, bad or indifferent) bit of the world. Even though the representation might be an exact copy of some event the point of view is not an example of the whole.

Canvas, paints, brushes and frames are all created by mankind. The images which are the result of the use of the canvas, paints, brushes and frames are the representation of an idealized (good, bad or indifferent) bit of the world. Even though the representation might be an exact copy of some event the point of view is not an example of the whole.

Airplanes are created by men, horses are not. This example has no merit.

 

[table1349]

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.

I don't think I have ever run into anyone who has such a knack of completely misunderstanding everything I write, no matter how clearly I express myself.

Photographs are not 'representational' (symbolic). They are iconic. They are images of something else produced wholly through natural means. Paintings are not. Paintings are representational (symbolic) produced wholly through artificial means (the hand of man).

No photograph can be a work of art, ever, because of what the nature of a photograph is. It's a matter of definition, not one of quality. 'Art' is a technical term.

Just as an airplane cannot be a horse; they are two different things. An airplane is not 'better' than a horse; a horse is not 'better' than an airplane.

 

[skieur]

B

A photograph is always of something else to which it has a causal relationship. Always. Otherwise it isn't a photograph.

So are most paintings or haven't you ever been in an art class or an art gallery?

skieur

 

[Derrel]

No photograph can be a work of art, ever, because of what the nature of a photograph is. It's a matter of definition, not one of quality. 'Art' is a technical term.

Indeed...run it up the flagpole and see if it sticks...or is that "see if it stinks"??

 

[kundalini]

I just wanted to comment on your signature............'kin awesome. Oh, and I kinda like the B.S. flagpole too.

 

[bentcountershaft]

It's a matter of definition, not one of quality. 'Art' is a technical term.

As defined by philosophers not by artists. Philosophers, contrary to what they believe, do not make the rules for the rest of us. Philosophers like to ponder, study and try to understand life. The rest of us prefer to live it.

 

[abraxas]

Mr. Prime;

Some of the things you're saying I understand, and to an extent, agree with. I believe your demeanor and hardline black and white attitude are counterproductive to making an effective point. Additionally, you're taking on too many things that are irrelevant to what I percieve as your core argument. Good luck with that.

& the Rest;

As I mentioned earlier in the thread--Keep an open mind.

-

 

[Petraio Prime]

So are most paintings or haven't you ever been in an art class or an art gallery?

skieur

Absolutely not. A painting is in no way causally related to its subject matter.

 

[Petraio Prime]

It's a matter of definition, not one of quality. 'Art' is a technical term.

As defined by philosophers not by artists. Philosophers, contrary to what they believe, do not make the rules for the rest of us. Philosophers like to ponder, study and try to understand life. The rest of us prefer to live it.

Yes, we do. That's the job of the philosopher, to argue and discuss the meanings of concepts. We do define what art is, not you. It's our job, not yours. You're not qualified enough to talk about it. Artists make art. Photographers make photographs. Neither has any business discussing the nature of art. That's the philosopher's job.

It is not true that everyone's opinion in this matter carries equal weight.

My impression is that photographers have no business even trying to understand aesthetic theory. It's not their business. That's why they should abstain from claiming they are artists. It's ironic anyway that photographers want to be considered artists, because photographs are more important and meaningful than art is.

 

[Derrel]

Aye,aye,aye! I know that somebody here absolutely loves old cinema references from the golden era of Hollywood. I thought the following image would dovetail nicely.


http://www.hometrainingtools.com/images/650/BE-NETDLX2.jpg

 

[abraxas]

... photographs are more important and meaningful than art is.

To who and how so?

-

 

[bentcountershaft]

It's a matter of definition, not one of quality. 'Art' is a technical term.

As defined by philosophers not by artists. Philosophers, contrary to what they believe, do not make the rules for the rest of us. Philosophers like to ponder, study and try to understand life. The rest of us prefer to live it.

Yes, we do. That's the job of the philosopher, to argue and discuss the meanings of concepts. We do define what art is, not you. It's our job, not yours. You're not qualified enough to talk about it.

My impression is that photographers have no business even trying to understand aesthetic theory. It's not their business. That's why they should abstain from claiming they are artists. It's ironic anyway that photographers want to be considered artists, because photographs are more important and meaningful than art is.

This job you claim is self appointed, not something anyone besides other philosophers generally feels is needed. I would be willing to bet that no one, not one single person has ever said, "I sure wish I knew what it was I was doing here but I'll leave it to a philosopher to figure out for me." What's funny is that you think the concepts of philosophy are too complicated for us simpletons to understand. They aren't. What we don't understand is why someone would rather waste their life trying to figure out the why instead of just getting on with the do.

It isn't up to you or anyone else to decide what is more important or meaningful when it comes to expression and oddly enough this is the same problem I have with the art world. Too much emphasis on why this or that is important, why this artist is brilliant and that one sucks. Too much emphasis on making everyone think the same which is so completely counter intuitive to art of any kind it boggles the mind.

I don't have any delusions of changing your mind and have wasted enough of the evening beating my head against this brick wall, but I will leave you with this final thought: I can see the benefits of studying the philosophy of just about any subject. Science, politics, education or what have you, there are benefits. However, art, including literature, music, dance and photography, is about freedom of rules. Freedom to express something you can't otherwise. Freedom to not only think outside the box, but to play out there too. If philosophy dictates having such a narrow mind concerning a subject that was born and thrives in minds that are anything but, well I guess I just find that really sad and a little ironic.