The Art

[JG_Coleman]

Ugggghhh... I'll hand it to you, Petraio, you know how to keep me in the game...

The reason why I can't be bothered with this any further... and believe me, after this post I refuse to further humor or dignify your nonsense... is that you still haven't really even made a complete argument.

You have droned on and on about how art as opposed to photography is about causal relationships and natural vs. artificial. Everyone here understands what you're saying... what we have been asking you in every way imaginable is why we ought to accept this relatively trivial distinction as the sole and most valid consideration in determining if photography is art. Your point has been made... the question is... what is the point of your point? Why does your supposedly philosophical view matter, at all? What makes it a more valid viewpoint than other philosophies of art?

Let's face it... you are unable to answer such questions...

Your philosophical style is reminiscent of Descartes... interesting, but mostly useful for demonstrating to new philosophy students how philosophers go astray by espousing one idea to the exclusion of others which are just as, if not more, plausible. The mere fact that you can make a point of some kind by some statement doesn't make that point sacred or correct or functional or even sound. Any philosopher would understand that.

You're quite a poor philosopher, Petraio... and the mere fact that you are content to insinuate that you are a "philosophical scholar" of sorts just demonstrates that there is no cure for your ideological arrogance.

There... done. How's that for an emotional response?

 

[abraxas]

Because it is valuable and unique to photography.

So how does that make photography more important than art?

-

 

[Petraio Prime]

Ugggghhh... I'll hand it to you, Petraio, you know how to keep me in the game...

The reason why I can't be bothered with this any further... and believe me, after this post I refuse to further humor or dignify your nonesense... is that you still haven't really even made a complete argument.

You have droned on and on about how art as opposed to photography is about causal relationships and natural vs. artificial. Everyone here understands what you're saying... what we have been asking you in every way imaginable is why we ought to accept this relatively trivial distinction as the sole and most valid consideration in determining if photography is art. Your point has been made... the question is... what is the point of your point? Why does your supposedly philosophical view matter, at all? What makes it a more valid viewpoint than other philosophies of art?

Let's face it... you are unable to answer such questions...

Your philosophical style is reminiscent of Descartes... interesting, but mostly useful for teaching new philosophy students how philosphers go astray by espousing one idea to the exclusion of others which are just as, if not more, plausible. The mere fact that you can make a point of some kind by some statement doesn't make that point sacred or correct or functional or even sound. Any philosopher would understand that.

You're quite a poor philosopher, Petraio... and the mere fact that you are content to insinuate that you are a "philosophical scholar" of sorts just demonstrates that their is no cure for your ideological arrogance.

There... done. How's that for an emotional response?

What makes a work of art a work of art?

Have you ever seen statue of David?

http://cache.virtualtourist.com/3309811-A_copy_of_David_in_Piazza_della_Signora-Florence.jpg

http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/7f/e8/ba/copy-of-the-david-florence.jpg

It's a great work of art, right?

No it isn't! That is a copy! It was placed there in 1910 to allow the original to be kept in a museum.

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/david/David.htm

This is the original:

http://www.tortillabay.com/images/Europe/Michelangelos_David.jpg

Why isn't the copy a work of art?

Suppose we take David and make a cast of it and make thousands of Davids from the mold. Are they works of art?

No?

Why not?

Because they were not made by hand. The original was made by hand.

A work of art is made by hand. Photographs are made by machines, not by hand.

That's why the distinction exists between art and photography.

An essential characteristic of what we call 'art' is that it is made by hand. That's what makes it art, and that's why photographs can't be works of art. Nor are copies of works of art considered works of art, even if indistinguishable:

http://www.contempaesthetics.org/newvolume/pages/article.php?articleID=516

"...we simply prefer the original as "real" while the copy cannot be designated by this category. In this regard, a copy of an art piece can never be art in the true sense of the word."

It's impossible for a photograph, by its nature, to be a work of art, no matter how beautiful or moving it is.

Why? Because it's not made by hand.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Because it is valuable and unique to photography.

So how does that make photography more important than art?

-

Because there is no substitute for a photograph.

 

[Derrel]

Surely a learned philosopher with a love for the golden age of Hollywood understands the hidden meaning of this device...

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

 

[fwellers]

I Love my Machine-art. :thumbup:

I kind of like these ones also.

 

[Petraio Prime]

I Love my Machine-art. :thumbup:



I kind of like these ones also.

They are nice.

 

[AdrianC]

An essential characteristic of what we call 'art' is that it is made by hand. That's what makes it art, and that's why photographs can't be works of art. Nor are copies of works of art considered works of art, even if indistinguishable:

Hmm, what about music? Is it only art if you listen to it live? If I listen to an mp3 on my laptop, is it not art?

 

[fwellers]

An essential characteristic of what we call 'art' is that it is made by hand. That's what makes it art, and that's why photographs can't be works of art. Nor are copies of works of art considered works of art, even if indistinguishable:

Hmm, what about music? Is it only art if you listen to it live? If I listen to an mp3 on my laptop, is it not art?

As long as it's not a bootleg version.

 

[Petraio Prime]

An essential characteristic of what we call 'art' is that it is made by hand. That's what makes it art, and that's why photographs can't be works of art. Nor are copies of works of art considered works of art, even if indistinguishable:

Hmm, what about music? Is it only art if you listen to it live? If I listen to an mp3 on my laptop, is it not art?

The art is in the singing and playing and composing, not in the listening

 

[abraxas]

Because it is valuable and unique to photography.

So how does that make photography more important than art?

-

Because there is no substitute for a photograph.

Well, I have to say, you've touched on a point or two I've had similar thoughts on. It's a shame you aren't the creative thinker behind these ideas and capable of discussion. I'll move on and let you continue with your convoluted bitterness.

 

[Petraio Prime]

So how does that make photography more important than art?

-

Because there is no substitute for a photograph.

Well, I have to say, you've touched on a point or two I've had similar thoughts on. It's a shame you aren't the creative thinker behind these ideas and capable of discussion. I'll move on and let you continue with your convoluted bitterness.

I'm not bitter and my arguments are not convoluted. I somehow find the charms of a an HDR photo of a kitchen lost on me.

 

[AdrianC]

I have a feeling you're trolling here, but ok.

I've taken the liberty of finding the definition of photography in a couple of dictionaries.

Oxford Dictionaries calls photography an art. definition of photography from Oxford Dictionaries Online

Dictionary.com calls photography an art. Photography | Define Photography at Dictionary.com

Yahoo education (which, I believe, uses the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language ) calls photography an art. photography - Dictionary definition and pronunciation - Yahoo! Education

The Wordnik dictionary calls photography an art. PHOTOGRAPHY - definition and meaning from Wordnik

The Merriam-Webster dictionary calls photography an art.Photography - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

The Encarta Dictionary calls photography an art. photography definition - Dictionary - MSN Encarta

 

[mishele]

I'll play......lol

 

[Petraio Prime]

I have a feeling you're trolling here, but ok.

I've taken the liberty of finding the definition of photography in a couple of dictionaries.

Oxford Dictionaries calls photography an art. definition of photography from Oxford Dictionaries Online

Dictionary.com calls photography an art. Photography | Define Photography at Dictionary.com

Yahoo education (which, I believe, uses the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language ) calls photography an art. photography - Dictionary definition and pronunciation - Yahoo! Education

The Wordnik dictionary calls photography an art. PHOTOGRAPHY - definition and meaning from Wordnik

The Merriam-Webster dictionary calls photography an art.Photography - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

The Encarta Dictionary calls photography an art. photography definition - Dictionary - MSN Encarta

When they say "the art or process of..." that's something different. You're confused. They are not saying photographs are 'art-works' in the same sense paintings are. They merely mean 'craft' or 'skill'. Just like "the art of boxing".

Also, the word 'process' should give you a clue.