The Art

[Petraio Prime]

I don't know about any status or thinking anyone is better than anyone.
My goal is to become a photographer with an artistic flair. In other words I want to be good enough to be considered a photographer by other photographers and I want to use that medium to develop my artistic / creative side.

I believe many "photographers" feel the same way, and this would make your sweeping generalization about what [implied - all ] photographers want to be called

This is off point, but I think it's important to keep in mind. You shouldn't worry about making photos that impress other photographers. I made that mistake with music. The more I learned, the more I wanted to impress other musicians. You know what I ended up with? Music only musicians like. Don't worry about pleasing anyone but yourself. Unless you are doing it for a client. Then worry about pleasing your client to your own standards.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Don't look at other photographers work too much. If you do, you will tend subconsciously to copy or imitate or try to out-do them.

If you do want to look at other photography, look at very old stuff that is not at all like what is contemporary.

Here is a nice example of very old-fashioned photography that I kind of like:

http://a69.g.akamai.net/n/69/10688/.../x/x/x/medias/nmedia/18/65/32/43/18847206.jpg

 

[bentcountershaft]

I don't know about any status or thinking anyone is better than anyone.
My goal is to become a photographer with an artistic flair. In other words I want to be good enough to be considered a photographer by other photographers and I want to use that medium to develop my artistic / creative side.

I believe many "photographers" feel the same way, and this would make your sweeping generalization about what [implied - all ] photographers want to be called

This is off point, but I think it's important to keep in mind. You shouldn't worry about making photos that impress other photographers. I made that mistake with music. The more I learned, the more I wanted to impress other musicians. You know what I ended up with? Music only musicians like. Don't worry about pleasing anyone but yourself. Unless you are doing it for a client. Then worry about pleasing your client to your own standards.

Well that is a good point. I think though that I already realize that artistically or creatively I will please myself with my photography. But I would like to be respected by peers for the work as far as it's technical side. If they don't agree with my choices but can see that they were choices I made out of my proficiency and ability, then that is good enough for me.

I know what your saying, and like I said, it's just something to keep in mind.

 

[Petraio Prime]

The all-too-common understanding of the term 'art' is that it is a term of praise or merit, not a technical term such as 'carpenter', 'mason', or 'riveter'. But that's exactly what the word 'artist' is.

I'm with you 100% on this point. I can certainly concede that there are some people would feel insulted if you said their photographs weren't aren't because of this reason. Using, "that's a work of art" as praise is not doing anyone any favors and it perpetuates the misinformation.

An artist is one who makes 'art', by hand, and is a job title, just like a mason, carpenter, or riveter. Photography cannot be art, so photographers (as such) cannot be (properly called) 'artists'. If a photographer wants to paint or sculpt, fine! Then he becomes an artist!

The men who made Tut's coffin mask were artists because what they made was art.

The men who photographed it so marvelously here, are not (as such) artists:

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/...tian-museum/resized/king-tut-mask-wp-gfdl.jpg

This, as you know, is where we disagree.

Why? Do you want to expand the concept of riveter so that anyone can be a riveter? Do you think I am narrow-minded if I insist that riveters drive rivets into beams, masons lay bricks, and carpenters saw wood and nail pieces of wood together?

What do you think if riveters suddenly started doing what they call 'fine-art riveting' and calling themselves 'artists'? Absurd, right? Well it's no more absurd than photographers doing it.

Why do you think that photography needs to be called art? What purpose does it serve? Language needs to be kept precise and useful.

Riveter:
http://www.benlampman.com/photogallery/Construction/riveter.jpg

Mason:
http://www.sposatomasonry.com/slides/1.jpg

Carpenter:
http://image.shutterstock.com/displ...-attach-asphalt-shingles-to-roof-15906955.jpg

Artist:
http://tightwadtechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/painter.jpg

Photographer:
http://www.travel-images.com/miguel-torres-photographer.jpg

 

[bentcountershaft]

Why? Do you want to expand the concept of riveter so that anyone can be a riveter? Do you think I am narrow-minded if I insist that riveters drive rivets into beams, masons lay bricks, and carpenters saw wood and nail pieces of wood together? Why do you think that photography needs to be called art? What purpose does it serve?

What purpose is served by trying to define art? I'm not concerned if photography is looked up to or down upon by anyone I'm anti-definition. I see defining art as pointless as defining any subjective abstract. Love, beauty or evil, abstract entities are beyond definition and I don't see the point in attempting to define them. Perhaps to elevate the philosopher's self esteem so they can feel they have superior knowledge and understanding that others don't, I don't know. In the end such attempts are nothing more than opinions based on generalizations.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Why? Do you want to expand the concept of riveter so that anyone can be a riveter? Do you think I am narrow-minded if I insist that riveters drive rivets into beams, masons lay bricks, and carpenters saw wood and nail pieces of wood together? Why do you think that photography needs to be called art? What purpose does it serve?

What purpose is served by trying to define art? I'm not concerned if photography is looked up to or down upon by anyone I'm anti-definition. I see defining art as pointless as defining any subjective abstract. Love, beauty or evil, abstract entities are beyond definition and I don't see the point in attempting to define them. Perhaps to elevate the philosopher's self esteem so they can feel they have superior knowledge and understanding that others don't, I don't know. In the end such attempts are nothing more than opinions based on generalizations.

What purpose is there in defining any term? It makes communication clearer and fosters mutual comprehensibility. Witness 'bokeh' lately. It has come to mean merely 'selective focus' whereas it really means the character of out-of-focus areas and is a property of a lens.

If anything can be 'art', what's so special about 'art' then?

'Fine art' is not something abstract at all. In the narrow sense, it's something made by hand and intended to be looked at. Ever hear of 'decorative art'?

Do you know the difference between glass as art and glass as functional?

http://www.spencerart.ku.edu/~sma/images/chihuly.jpg

This is made by hand, and intended to be contemplated as something beautiful.

http://www.glassblower.info/images/chihuly-seaforms.jpg

Both parts have to be present to be 'art'.

This is not art:

http://earth911.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/green-glass-bottle.jpg

Why?

It's made by machine and intended only for functional use. But even if it were hand-made it would not qualify as art.

For something to be 'art', it must satisfy the following conditions.

It must be:

1) Made by hand, and
2) Intended to be contemplated as something beautiful.

We are talking of course about the plastic arts, not the performing arts.

A photograph fails to satisfy the first condition (it's made by a lens), the hand-made wine bottle fails to satisfy the second condition (it's not intended to be contemplated as something beautiful).

Now do you understand?

 

[bentcountershaft]

What purpose is there in defining any term? It makes communication clearer and fosters mutual comprehensibility. Witness 'bokeh' lately. It has come to mean merely 'selective focus' whereas it really means the character of out-of-focus areas and is a property of a lens.

If anything can be 'art', what's so special about 'art' then?

'Fine art' is not something abstract at all. In the narrow sense, it's something made by hand and intended to be looked at. Ever hear of 'decorative art'?

Do you know the difference between glass as art and glass as functional?

http://www.spencerart.ku.edu/~sma/images/chihuly.jpg

This is made by hand, and intended to be contemplated as something beautiful.

http://www.glassblower.info/images/chihuly-seaforms.jpg

Both parts have to be present to be 'art'.

This is not art:

http://earth911.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/green-glass-bottle.jpg

Why?

It's made by machine and intended only for functional use. But even if it were hand-made it would not qualify as art.

Other terms can be defined and debated all you want. I believe philosophers use the term concrete for these? I'm not 100% on my terminology here so I apologize if I'm wrong.

And who said art was special? Stating something is art doesn't make it special, I thought we agreed on that. I thought we were past the "intended to be contemplated as something beautiful" thing too. Even if there were defined rules for art, that wouldn't be one of them. And since when is art not able to serve a function?

 

[Petraio Prime]

What purpose is there in defining any term? It makes communication clearer and fosters mutual comprehensibility. Witness 'bokeh' lately. It has come to mean merely 'selective focus' whereas it really means the character of out-of-focus areas and is a property of a lens.

If anything can be 'art', what's so special about 'art' then?

'Fine art' is not something abstract at all. In the narrow sense, it's something made by hand and intended to be looked at. Ever hear of 'decorative art'?

Do you know the difference between glass as art and glass as functional?

http://www.spencerart.ku.edu/~sma/images/chihuly.jpg

This is made by hand, and intended to be contemplated as something beautiful.

http://www.glassblower.info/images/chihuly-seaforms.jpg

Both parts have to be present to be 'art'.

This is not art:

http://earth911.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/green-glass-bottle.jpg

Why?

It's made by machine and intended only for functional use. But even if it were hand-made it would not qualify as art.

Other terms can be defined and debated all you want. I believe philosophers use the term concrete for these? I'm not 100% on my terminology here so I apologize if I'm wrong.

And who said art was special? Stating something is art doesn't make it special, I thought we agreed on that. I thought we were past the "intended to be contemplated as something beautiful" thing too. Even if there were defined rules for art, that wouldn't be one of them. And since when is art not able to serve a function?

'Fine art' serves no function. That's its essence (to be contemplated). It's Zweckmäßigkeit ohne Zweck, to use Kantian terminology. It's not really possible to translate that expression, but basically it means having the kind of form a useful object has but no true intended use.

Applied art or decorative art does or can serve a function. The term 'fine' here means 'pure', not 'elegant'.

Of course art (fine art) is special: it is intended to be contemplated. What I said was that if photographers are trying to elevate themselves by calling themselves 'artists' they're going about it the wrong way. Artists are nothing special. It's like masons calling themselves zookeepers to elevate their status.

 

[Flash Harry]

When its a dead sheep suspended in formaldehyde, no longer edable and not worth looking at unless your a bestial necrophiliac. H

PS are you two having an affair?

 

[bentcountershaft]

Fine art is a category, like rock music. I'm not a fan of categories as they are generally vague, over simplified generalizations that lose meaning nearly as soon as they are adopted. There's nothing special about any art. It is the product of imagination. Just because people like to study and contemplate it and not a rock or a table doesn't make it special or more important than them.

 

[Warren Peace]

Do you think the OP got his answer yet?

 

[bentcountershaft]

When its a dead sheep suspended in formaldehyde, no longer edable and not worth looking at unless your a bestial necrophiliac. H

PS are you two having an affair?

The so called "shock art" or what have you doesn't do anything for me either. And that would be a no on the affair. I'm off work with a back injury and I'm bored. Facebook games can only take up so much time. It's 102 outside with 99% humidity so I'm not going out there. I might melt and people would argue over whether I was art or not.

 

[bentcountershaft]

Do you think the OP got his answer yet?

Actually that's one thing that P.P. has done very well. He has stated numerous times that photographers needn't feel looked down upon.

 

[Warren Peace]

The so called "shock art" or what have you doesn't do anything for me either. And that would be a no on the affair. I'm off work with a back injury and I'm bored. Facebook games can only take up so much time. It's 102 outside with 99% humidity so I'm not going out there. I might melt and people would argue over whether I was art or not.

Have you tried Farmville? It never ends. :meh:

 

[bentcountershaft]

The so called "shock art" or what have you doesn't do anything for me either. And that would be a no on the affair. I'm off work with a back injury and I'm bored. Facebook games can only take up so much time. It's 102 outside with 99% humidity so I'm not going out there. I might melt and people would argue over whether I was art or not.

Have you tried Farmville? It never ends. :meh:

Bubble Island. It's great because you don't have to annoy other people with requests.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Do you think the OP got his answer yet?

Actually that's one thing that P.P. has done very well. He has stated numerous times that photographers needn't feel looked down upon.

At least not by artists....LOL