The Art

[Petraio Prime]

What does beauty have to do with art? Not a damn thing.

In reference to which post? I agree, beauty has nothing to do with it.

A carpenter is not a woodcarver. A woodcarver is an artist; a carpenter (qua carpenter) is not. Even inept woodcarving is 'art'; beautiful carpentry is not 'art'.

 

[Petraio Prime]

World English Dictionary
art 1 (ɑːt)

— n
1. a. the creation of works of beauty or other special significance
b. ( as modifier ): an art movement
2. the exercise of human skill (as distinguished from nature )
3. imaginative skill as applied to representations of the natural world or figments of the imagination
4. a. the products of man's creative activities; works of art collectively, esp of the visual arts, sometimes also music, drama, dance, and literature
b. arts See also fine art ( as modifier ): an art gallery
5. excellence or aesthetic merit of conception or execution as exemplified by such works
6. any branch of the visual arts, esp painting
7. ( modifier ) intended to be artistic or decorative: art needlework
8. a. any field using the techniques of art to display artistic qualities: advertising art
b. ( as modifier ): an art film
9. journalism photographs or other illustrations in a newspaper, etc
10. method, facility, or knack: the art of threading a needle ; the art of writing letters
11. the system of rules or principles governing a particular human activity: the art of government
12. artfulness; cunning
13. get something down to a fine art to become highly proficient at something through practice

----

see #9

#9 refers to a term used in layout. It means merely "something other than text".

This shows how misleading dictionaries can be. I happen to do layout in programs such as PageMaker, and the manuals discuss this. In layout, everything is either 'copy' or 'art'.

Nice try, Bubba.

 

[bentcountershaft]

What does beauty have to do with art? Not a damn thing.

In reference to which post? I agree, beauty has nothing to do with it.

A carpenter is not a woodcarver. A woodcarver is an artist; a carpenter (qua carpenter( is not. Even inept woodcarving is 'art'; beautiful carpentry is not 'art'.

I wasn't necessarily correcting you, just clarifying. You seem to assume people think that a beautiful photo is art but a regular photo isn't. I don't know if anyone has been making that case here. If they have I have missed it but I felt it needed to be mentioned for any that do.

 

[Petraio Prime]

What does beauty have to do with art? Not a damn thing.

In reference to which post? I agree, beauty has nothing to do with it.

A carpenter is not a woodcarver. A woodcarver is an artist; a carpenter (qua carpenter( is not. Even inept woodcarving is 'art'; beautiful carpentry is not 'art'.

I wasn't necessarily correcting you, just clarifying. You seem to assume people think that a beautiful photo is art but a regular photo isn't. I don't know if anyone has been making that case here. If they have I have missed it but I felt it needed to be mentioned for any that do.

I think that's the general notion, that a photograph that is extraordinarily beautiful is a 'work of art'. The term 'fine-art photography' is tossed around, and is used to describe photography of 'pretty things', and includes typically as subject matter nudes and landscapes.

The term 'art' in this context is a term of approval and praise, referring to something that has transcended 'mere' photography and entered the divine world of 'art'. I argue this is not the case.

I wish to point out that 'artist' basically means 'painter'. Photographers should stop comparing themselves to painters and quit feeling inferior to them. The world needs carpenters and woodcarvers. I can imagine someone who does both woodcarving and carpentry, but surely you understand the distinction.

The whole Pictorialist movement stemmed from this feeling of inferiority; photographers kept trying to imitate artists (painters) with the result that the photographs so produced no longer exhibited the virtues that photography has.

Pictorialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also note this:

http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/pictoria.htm

"By the second half of the nineteenth century the novelty of capturing images was beginning to wear off, and some people were now beginning to question whether the camera, as it was then being used, was in fact too accurate and too detailed in what it recorded. This, coupled with the fact that painting enjoyed a much higher status than this new mechanistic process, caused some photographers to adopt new techniques which, as they saw it, made photography more of an art form. These new techniques came also to be known as High-Art photography." (My italics for emphasis; bold in original.)

Here are some examples of the extremes to which some photographers went to try to make 'art' photographs:

http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/rejlande.htm

http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/robinson.htm

This last one is merely made with some interesting lighting:

http://thebeat.iloveny.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/goldenskythreewomen1.jpg

I reject Pictorialism's basic premise to begin with: that photography can be considered 'art'. It leads to constant attempts to justify its status as fine art by various 'techniques' that more or less resemble those of painting, that attempt to 'free' photography from its constraints as a mechanical process. Well, yes, if you modify an image so much that it is no longer a photograph, your work approaches that of a 'work of art'. But then of course it can't be both. It's one or the other. The attempt to free photography from its constraints as a mechanical process leads to the ultimate destruction of the photograph as photograph.

Let's say you took a portrait photo of someone, then took the print and used it as a canvas, painting all over it with oils, except the eyes. Is this then a 'work of art'? Probably, because only a trace of the photo remains. Is it a photograph anymore? Not really.

Do you understand what I mean now?

There is no need for photographers to feel inferior to painters.

 

[bentcountershaft]

I understand what you mean, that hasn't been a problem. I agree with you on the beauty of a photograph not making it art. Where we disagree is that I think even the worst snapshot is art. Tacky, bad art in my opinion, but art nonetheless.

 

[fwellers]

I knew a guy who mastered the fine art of lighting his farts on fire.
You won't see that in any of your books but I am quite sure he doesn't feel inferior to painters either.
If you saw him you would have to admit it is an art what he is able to do with bodily methane and a match.

 

[bentcountershaft]

That's performance art and just as valid as anything else.

 

[usayit]

World English Dictionary
art 1 (ɑːt)

— n
1. a. the creation of works of beauty or other special significance
b. ( as modifier ): an art movement
2. the exercise of human skill (as distinguished from nature )
3. imaginative skill as applied to representations of the natural world or figments of the imagination
4. a. the products of man's creative activities; works of art collectively, esp of the visual arts, sometimes also music, drama, dance, and literature
b. arts See also fine art ( as modifier ): an art gallery
5. excellence or aesthetic merit of conception or execution as exemplified by such works
6. any branch of the visual arts, esp painting
7. ( modifier ) intended to be artistic or decorative: art needlework
8. a. any field using the techniques of art to display artistic qualities: advertising art
b. ( as modifier ): an art film
9. journalism photographs or other illustrations in a newspaper, etc
10. method, facility, or knack: the art of threading a needle ; the art of writing letters
11. the system of rules or principles governing a particular human activity: the art of government
12. artfulness; cunning
13. get something down to a fine art to become highly proficient at something through practice

----

see #9

#9 refers to a term used in layout. It means merely "something other than text".

This shows how misleading dictionaries can be. I happen to do layout in programs such as PageMaker, and the manuals discuss this. In layout, everything is either 'copy' or 'art'.

Nice try, Bubba.

ooooo... sorry.. I didn't realize that you were a more important source for definitions than the dictionary. Kinda sounds like an egotistic stance to me. really.. there's no point with reasoning someone who won't even recognize reference material that is widely accepted.

 

[Petraio Prime]

I understand what you mean, that hasn't been a problem. I agree with you on the beauty of a photograph not making it art. Where we disagree is that I think even the worst snapshot is art. Tacky, bad art in my opinion, but art nonetheless.

But why? Why does everyone want to be called an 'artist'? Why do so many feel compelled to expand art as if in some democratization movement?

"Everybody wants to get into the act!" Jimmy Durante

Why aren't photographers content to be photographers, no more, no less? Why have they continued to fall for the lame lie that artists (meaning painters) are 'better'?

Why has so much of the history of photography consisted of attempts to imitate painting and acquire the status of painters?

It's a joke! Painters have no greater status than photographers!

And no, no kind of photography is art or can be art because of what the word 'art' means.

 

[Petraio Prime]

What does beauty have to do with art? Not a damn thing.

In reference to which post? I agree, beauty has nothing to do with it.

A carpenter is not a woodcarver. A woodcarver is an artist; a carpenter (qua carpenter( is not. Even inept woodcarving is 'art'; beautiful carpentry is not 'art'.

I wasn't necessarily correcting you, just clarifying. You seem to assume people think that a beautiful photo is art but a regular photo isn't. I don't know if anyone has been making that case here. If they have I have missed it but I felt it needed to be mentioned for any that do.

I know a local photographer who insists that his photographs are so good that they are art. I used to know him from the 70s when he took a job with a local industrial firm in their marketing communications area; I was working in photo retail. He knew nothing about photography. I sold him all his equipment and supplies, and taught him how to use it (Mamiya RB67).

I ran into him at a Halloween party a couple years ago and this topic came up. He told me he was now doing 'fine art photography' and of course I told him there was no such thing. He started screaming and yelling that his work was so good it was fine art. He actually turned purple in the face.

Hilarious....and another reason I don't call myself a photographer.

 

[bentcountershaft]

I'm barely a photographer, I've been shooting for less than a year. I would have made this same argument long before I picked up a camera. It has nothing to do with wanting to be more than a photographer. I don't know why you insist that's what it's about.

 

[Petraio Prime]

I'm barely a photographer, I've been shooting for less than a year. I would have made this same argument long before I picked up a camera. It has nothing to do with wanting to be more than a photographer. I don't know why you insist that's what it's about.

That is exactly what it's about. It has been this way for 150 years. Photographers have this inferiority complex and want to be called 'artists' because artists are shown at art galleries and openings etc. Exhibitions of photography are much less frequent and prominent, that's true, but it does not mean that 'artists' are more important or have greater status.

I have known quite a few artists, and trust me, they are no better than anyone else.

Here is the website of a typical 'artist' wanna-be:

http://www.contemporary-art-dialogue.com/barbara-white.html

"Working within a narrow depth of field, painting with light and color, Barbara White creates fine art photography that is reminiscent of still life Impressionist works. With out-of-focus backgrounds, they are often indistinguishable from paintings."

This sort of thing is everywhere.

http://www.frshore.com/

"Thinking of my large format wooden camera as a paintbrush and using only natural light as paint, I lay out my subject matter in a direct and intimate manner, inviting you to investigate further."

 

[bentcountershaft]

I'm barely a photographer, I've been shooting for less than a year. I would have made this same argument long before I picked up a camera. It has nothing to do with wanting to be more than a photographer. I don't know why you insist that's what it's about.

That is exactly what it's about. It has been this way for 150 years. Photographers have this inferiority complex and want to be called 'artists' because artists are shown at art galleries and openings etc. Exhibitions of photography are much less frequent and prominent, that's true, but it does not mean that 'artists' are more important or have greater status.

I have known quite a few artists, and trust me, they are no better than anyone else.

Here is the website of a typical 'artist' wanna-be:

Barbara White Uses Her Camera as a Paintbrush to Create...

"Working within a narrow depth of field, painting with light and color, Barbara White creates fine art photography that is reminiscent of still life Impressionist works. With out-of-focus backgrounds, they are often indistinguishable from paintings."

This sort of thing is everywhere.

So? I've seen mosaics that are indistinguishable from paintings. Do those people want to be painters too?

 

[Petraio Prime]

I'm barely a photographer, I've been shooting for less than a year. I would have made this same argument long before I picked up a camera. It has nothing to do with wanting to be more than a photographer. I don't know why you insist that's what it's about.

That is exactly what it's about. It has been this way for 150 years. Photographers have this inferiority complex and want to be called 'artists' because artists are shown at art galleries and openings etc. Exhibitions of photography are much less frequent and prominent, that's true, but it does not mean that 'artists' are more important or have greater status.

I have known quite a few artists, and trust me, they are no better than anyone else.

Here is the website of a typical 'artist' wanna-be:

Barbara White Uses Her Camera as a Paintbrush to Create...

"Working within a narrow depth of field, painting with light and color, Barbara White creates fine art photography that is reminiscent of still life Impressionist works. With out-of-focus backgrounds, they are often indistinguishable from paintings."

This sort of thing is everywhere.

So? I've seen mosaics that are indistinguishable from paintings. Do those people want to be painters too?

I don't know. Maybe we could ask them. What's that got to do with the point I made? I.e., Why do photographers want to be called 'artists'?

 

[fwellers]

did you know that art rhymes with fart ?
If i could actually photograph a fart would that be considered art ?