The Art

[AdrianC]

And.... now I know you're trolling.

 

[bentcountershaft]

I'd like to thank you Petraio Prime, for encouraging me to do a little research into aesthetics. In my short journey I've discovered Weitz's "The Role of Theory in Aesthetics" and it pretty well says anything can be art, because art is beyond definition. He also seems to say that to define art would do nothing but stagnate it's very essence, it's creativity, and would never grow beyond the art of the past. Being that art has since it's inception done nothing but grow in scope that would seem rather counterproductive. What was that I was saying about narrow mindedness? Oh, I'm sorry, that's called essentialism. What was it Plato said about art, that it's imitation? Photographs are as near to perfect imitation as we can attain two dimensionally.

If you have a problem with fads in photography, and I'm sure there have been many over the decades then I'm going to have recommend you get over it. What does philosophy say about fads? I'm guessing fads are nearly as sure to come as death and taxes. I can't speak for photography but being a long time music fan I can empathize with your fad frustration. The best thing about all fads is that they do eventually come to an end. Standard, truthful photos (as you put it) will always be here, just like classical music, they will endure. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy a little jazz or rock every now and then.

 

[fwellers]

I like that !
It looks like it may have started out life as a leaf of some kind, before you morphed it into photographic art. :thumbup:

 

[Petraio Prime]

I'd like to thank you Petraio Prime, for encouraging me to do a little research into aesthetics. In my short journey I've discovered Weitz's "The Role of Theory in Aesthetics" and it pretty well says anything can be art, because art is beyond definition. He also seems to say that to define art would do nothing but stagnate it's very essence, it's creativity, and would never grow beyond the art of the past. Being that art has since it's inception done nothing but grow in scope that would seem rather counterproductive. What was that I was saying about narrow mindedness? Oh, I'm sorry, that's called essentialism. What was it Plato said about art, that it's imitation? Photographs are as near to perfect imitation as we can attain two dimensionally.

If you have a problem with fads in photography, and I'm sure there have been many over the decades then I'm going to have recommend you get over it. What does philosophy say about fads? I'm guessing fads are nearly as sure to come as death and taxes. I can't speak for photography but being a long time music fan I can empathize with your fad frustration. The best thing about all fads is that they do eventually come to an end. Standard, truthful photos (as you put it) will always be here, just like classical music, they will endure. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy a little jazz or rock every now and then.

Read Roger Scruton (The Aesthetic Understanding (1983)) and get back to me. Then we can talk.

 

[bentcountershaft]

He thinks homosexuality is unnatural and a perversion. I have no idea where I keep getting this feeling of narrow mindedness when it comes to his views.

ETA: Just for clarification, by "him" I mean Scruton. I don't mean to imply anything about P.P.'s views.

 

[Petraio Prime]

He thinks homosexuality is unnatural and a perversion. I have no idea where I keep getting this feeling of narrow mindedness when it comes to his views.

ETA: Just for clarification, by "him" I mean Scruton. I don't mean to imply anything about P.P.'s views.

I would at least partially disagree with that view, but that does not mean he's wrong about photography not being art.

 

[Petraio Prime]

I'd like to thank you Petraio Prime, for encouraging me to do a little research into aesthetics. In my short journey I've discovered Weitz's "The Role of Theory in Aesthetics" and it pretty well says anything can be art, because art is beyond definition. He also seems to say that to define art would do nothing but stagnate it's very essence, it's creativity, and would never grow beyond the art of the past. Being that art has since it's inception done nothing but grow in scope that would seem rather counterproductive. What was that I was saying about narrow mindedness? Oh, I'm sorry, that's called essentialism. What was it Plato said about art, that it's imitation? Photographs are as near to perfect imitation as we can attain two dimensionally.

If you have a problem with fads in photography, and I'm sure there have been many over the decades then I'm going to have recommend you get over it. What does philosophy say about fads? I'm guessing fads are nearly as sure to come as death and taxes. I can't speak for photography but being a long time music fan I can empathize with your fad frustration. The best thing about all fads is that they do eventually come to an end. Standard, truthful photos (as you put it) will always be here, just like classical music, they will endure. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy a little jazz or rock every now and then.

If someone denies that photographs can be works of art like paintings, why does that bother you? Do you think it means that they are "not as good" as paintings, that a photographer is "not as good" as a painter?

If so, why? I certainly would deny both of those. To deny that photographs are works of art is not to say they are inferior to works of art, or that photographers are inferior to painters.

Are baseball players inferior to soccer players? Are musicians inferior to dancers?

 

[abraxas]

Some time I feel like the art part of photography is looked down on. As in if i take a picture and it is lacking "correctness" as in exposure, lighting etc. that it is almost looked down on even if I'm just showing what and how I see things...

Just a Thought

I found the following interesting, and it may help you out-

So consider this: For photography to have its place in the world of Art, it must have within it that quality of having been achieved by the hand of a competent Artist, along with the hand of a technically competent photographer. Many technical photographers do magnificent work in the way of recording what the world has, but only Artist-photographers can do work that can hold its place in Art salons and Collections.

from - Is Photography Art? - © 2001 Robert Balcomb

-

 

[Derrel]

Read Roger Scruton (The Aesthetic Understanding (1983)) and get back to me. Then we can talk.

Continued references to the same, fringe author do not validate your point Petraio. It's easy to cite some fringe author to attempt to lend validity to a long-discredited argument, but it really looks desperate. Refusing to allow the opinions of other authors into the debate shows that to you this is not a debate, but rather a charade you enjoy perpetrating. Fringe viewpoints often garner lots of attention, and yet have basically no validity underlying them.


Continually pointing toward Roger Scruton as the definitive,authoritative source regarding what can be considered art is akin to a drowning man, a former passenger of a sunken ship, desperately clinging to a piece of flotsam...the good ship Photography Ain't Art sunk around the late, mid-1800's...long,long ago...and yet, some of the passengers aboard her still live on as ghosts, clinging to the flotsam and proclaiming the doctrine. She was a sailing ship, powered by the wind. Built back before toilet paper was invented, when high technology meant the telegraph, and people thought that if a man moved faster than say, 45 miles per hour, he would explode. When whale oil lighted the lamps of Europe. Pointing over and over and over to Scruton's work is like pointing to the Unambomber's manifesto and saying, "read it, then we can talk about politics and social issues."

A learned man, somebody who claims he is always right, and who can "educate us", but who insists on allowing only his carefully selected sources to be brought into the "discussion" is little more than a false prophet, afraid that the truth as known by the wider society is a threat to his fringe point of view.

 

[abraxas]

... Then we can talk.

...

A learned man, somebody who claims he is always right, and who can "educate us", but who insists on allowing only his carefully selected sources to be brought into the "discussion" is little more than a false prophet, afraid that the truth as known by the wider society is a threat to his fringe point of view.

PP's better read while on an ignore list. As he's incapable of the adequate explanation of other's ideas, I'll continue my education without the obfuscation.

A discussion of Scruton's point of view:

The Art of Photography by Cameron Gaut

-

 

[bentcountershaft]

If someone denies that photographs can be works of art like paintings, why does that bother you? Do you think it means that they are "not as good" as paintings, that a photographer is "not as good" as a painter?

If so, why? I certainly would deny both of those. To deny that photographs are works of art is not to say they are inferior to works of art, or that photographers are inferior to painters.

Are baseball players inferior to soccer players? Are musicians inferior to dancers?

It doesn't bother me that a photo may not be considered art. What bothers me is that art can not be defined. Over the past 150 years or so, the world has been evolving and growing, art has been evolving and growing and mediums have been evolving and growing in number more rapidly than ever before. Your philosophical view doesn't seem to be growing with it and actually seems determined to stop this growth.

If someone wants to say, "That isn't art to me." then that's fine. Art and our interactions with it are purely subjective and as such can be defined in a personal circumstance. However, when someone tries to impose their personal definition on someone else I can't help but call b.s.

From what little I know about philosophy, it seems to be ever changing and evolving on it's own. Are there still philosophers arguing that the defining characteristic of art is that it is trying to be beautiful? Or have most of them grown past that? From what I've seen absolutes only work in the sciences. It doesn't take a philosopher to understand that.

Oh, and baseball and soccer both suck.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Roger Scruton happens to be a contemporary philosopher who has specifically discussed this topic. Those who wish to read and understand the arguments presented here should consult The Aesthetic Understanding by Scruton.

 

[Petraio Prime]

If someone denies that photographs can be works of art like paintings, why does that bother you? Do you think it means that they are "not as good" as paintings, that a photographer is "not as good" as a painter?

If so, why? I certainly would deny both of those. To deny that photographs are works of art is not to say they are inferior to works of art, or that photographers are inferior to painters.

Are baseball players inferior to soccer players? Are musicians inferior to dancers?

It doesn't bother me that a photo may not be considered art. What bothers me is that art can not be defined. Over the past 150 years or so, the world has been evolving and growing, art has been evolving and growing and mediums have been evolving and growing in number more rapidly than ever before. Your philosophical view doesn't seem to be growing with it and actually seems determined to stop this growth.

If someone wants to say, "That isn't art to me." then that's fine. Art and our interactions with it are purely subjective and as such can be defined in a personal circumstance. However, when someone tries to impose their personal definition on someone else I can't help but call b.s.

From what little I know about philosophy, it seems to be ever changing and evolving on it's own. Are there still philosophers arguing that the defining characteristic of art is that it is trying to be beautiful? Or have most of them grown past that? From what I've seen absolutes only work in the sciences. It doesn't take a philosopher to understand that.

Oh, and baseball and soccer both suck.

Not sure what you mean.

Is this art?

http://brionygilbert.com/custom/king_tutankhamun_golden_mask.jpg

Looks like art to me.

What about this?

http://www.cs.utah.edu/~bigler/pictures/europe2002/italy/sistine%20chapel.jpg

What characteristics do they share, that we call both art?

Why would we all pretty much agree, this brick wall isn't art:

http://static.open.salon.com/files/brick_wall11254935255.jpg

 

[Petraio Prime]

... Then we can talk.

...

A learned man, somebody who claims he is always right, and who can "educate us", but who insists on allowing only his carefully selected sources to be brought into the "discussion" is little more than a false prophet, afraid that the truth as known by the wider society is a threat to his fringe point of view.

PP's better read while on an ignore list. As he's incapable of the adequate explanation of other's ideas, I'll continue my education without the obfuscation.

A discussion of Scruton's point of view:

The Art of Photography by Cameron Gaut

-

I read Gaut's discussion there, and he does not seem to grasp Scruton's argument at all. Does not seem to be a very perceptive guy.

Ever since photography invaded the world of portraiture and took that business away from painters, there has been this tension between artists and photographers. I don't see why this should continue. Painters looked down on photographers, who reacted by developing Pictorialism, because they somehow accepted this lie, and felt inferior to painters. What a joke! Pictorialism was a failure, in that it did not allow the strengths of photography to assert themselves. Instead, Pictorialists tried to imitate painting, and photographers ever since have continued trying to imitate painting and call themselves artists.

Instead of accepting the falsehood (spread by painters) that photography is inferior to painting, photographers should have denied it and developed the strengths of photography, rather than creating the fuzzy photographs that were characteristic of Pictorialism.

 

[Overread]

Because deep down I'm a pyromaniac?