The Art

[OrionsByte]

There's a picture of this thread next to the word "semantics" in the dictionary. True story.

Defining something does not give it meaning. The meaning of something does not give it a definition. Definition and meaning are obviously related, but you can't get to one from the other.

You could define "home" simply as a residence, but that doesn't say anything about what a particular "home" might mean to the person that lives there. "This is my home," and "I am at home," are completely different statements, even though they may refer to the same place.

Photographs, paintings, architecture, music - you can define them in terms of the implements used and the techniques involved, but you cannot define or quantify what they mean to the people that create or observe them. A discussion about whether or not photography is art has nothing to do with definition and everything to do with meaning, and meaning is personal and subjective.

You can try to draw lines in the sand all you want, but no amount of philosophy is going to convince me that whether or not something is called "art" should change how I feel about it, nor that anyone has a right to tell me that something that moves me cannot be considered "art" to me.

If we want to talk intelligently about anything, we need to learn the language and terms involved. Want to discuss golf? Then you better learn what chipping, putting, driving, slice, and hook mean.

Those terms are not relative. Why should 'art' be any different?

Chipping, putting, driving, slice and hook are not relative. "Nice shot" is relative.

F-stop, aperture, emulsion, exposure and light are not relative. "Nice shot" is relative.

I reject your statement out of hand.

That's probably what I should have done with your statements as well. Ah well, live and learn.

 

[Petraio Prime]

If we want to talk intelligently about anything, we need to learn the language and terms involved.

Hey PP,

Out of all the 'words' you've been typing, it seems you -forgot- the word, 'artisan.'

-

No, I haven't

 

[Petraio Prime]

There's a picture of this thread next to the word "semantics" in the dictionary. True story.

Defining something does not give it meaning. The meaning of something does not give it a definition. Definition and meaning are obviously related, but you can't get to one from the other.

You could define "home" simply as a residence, but that doesn't say anything about what a particular "home" might mean to the person that lives there. "This is my home," and "I am at home," are completely different statements, even though they may refer to the same place.

Photographs, paintings, architecture, music - you can define them in terms of the implements used and the techniques involved, but you cannot define or quantify what they mean to the people that create or observe them. A discussion about whether or not photography is art has nothing to do with definition and everything to do with meaning, and meaning is personal and subjective.

You can try to draw lines in the sand all you want, but no amount of philosophy is going to convince me that whether or not something is called "art" should change how I feel about it, nor that anyone has a right to tell me that something that moves me cannot be considered "art" to me.

If we want to talk intelligently about anything, we need to learn the language and terms involved. Want to discuss golf? Then you better learn what chipping, putting, driving, slice, and hook mean.

Those terms are not relative. Why should 'art' be any different?

Chipping, putting, driving, slice and hook are not relative. "Nice shot" is relative.

F-stop, aperture, emulsion, exposure and light are not relative. "Nice shot" is relative.

I reject your statement out of hand.

That's probably what I should have done with your statements as well. Ah well, live and learn.

Photographs cannot be works of art because of what the word 'art' means.

 

[OrionsByte]

Photographs cannot be works of art to me because of what the word 'art' means to me

Fixed that for ya.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Photographs cannot be works of art to me because of what the word 'art' means to me

Fixed that for ya.

Sorry, language doesn't work that way. It is possible for people to use words incorrectly and need correcting about it.

No, 'art' has a meaning that is well established, and photographs don't fit in the meaning of the word 'art'.

You can't make something art by just using the word 'art'.

 

[Derrel]

Ohhhhhhmmmmmm........ohhhhhhhmmmmmmm......ohhhhhmmmmmmm.....we're not worthy......we're not worthy......we're not worthy.......ohhhhhhhmmmmmmm......ohhhhhmmmmmmm.....we're not worthy......we're not worthy......we're not worthy.......philosophy is God......philosophy is God......philosophy is God......philosophy is God......philosophy is God......ohhhhhmmmm......ohhhhhhmmmmmm........ohhhhmmmmm....we concede your point P-P......we concede your point P-P......we concede your point P-P......we concede your point P-P......we concede your point P-P......we concede your point P-P......ohhhhhmmmmm....ohhhhhhmmmmmm......philosphy is God....philosophy is God....

A bit exaggerated perhaps P-P, but seriously, this is not even a discussion...this is a ridiculous exercise in intellectual masturbation for you. People need to stop enabling you.

 

[Mike_E]

Someone who goads others into a conversation which they know better than to get into due to it's juvenile subject matter is called a baiter.

Someone who is a master of the exercise is called.. you get the rest.

 

[pgriz]

Sorry, language doesn't work that way. It is possible for people to use words incorrectly and need correcting about it.

No, 'art' has a meaning that is well established, and photographs don't fit in the meaning of the word 'art'.

So Petraio, why is it important for you to continue this discussion, as it appears that you're not convincing anyone?

The original poster made this comment:
"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..."

If you don't believe that photographs can be art, then you don't really have a dog in this race, do you? For the rest of us (at least those who believe photographs can be art), the question was essentially, whether a photograph had to be technically correct before it could be considered to be art. And the answer was essentially, that yes, it was not necessary for the photograph to be technically perfect to convey its artistic message.

This is no different than comparing a technically perfectly played piano sonata, or one that is played with feeling and emphasis, even with mistakes; or a dance that is not "perfect", but conveys the energy and passion and raw emotion.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Sorry, language doesn't work that way. It is possible for people to use words incorrectly and need correcting about it.

No, 'art' has a meaning that is well established, and photographs don't fit in the meaning of the word 'art'.

So Petraio, why is it important for you to continue this discussion, as it appears that you're not convincing anyone?

The original poster made this comment:
"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..."

If you don't believe that photographs can be art, then you don't really have a dog in this race, do you? For the rest of us (at least those who believe photographs can be art), the question was essentially, whether a photograph had to be technically correct before it could be considered to be art. And the answer was essentially, that yes, it was not necessary for the photograph to be technically perfect to convey its artistic message.

This is no different than comparing a technically perfectly played piano sonata, or one that is played with feeling and emphasis, even with mistakes; or a dance that is not "perfect", but conveys the energy and passion and raw emotion.

Well, there's more to it than that.

1) 'Art' has a long history:

You might start here:

Egypt: An Introduction to Egyptian Art

This will help you understand what 'art' is.

It has almost nothing to do with 'self-expression'.

2) No amount of manipulation will make a really weak photograph into something good. It has to be good to start with, and that also involves technical competence. No, a photograph doesn't have to be 'perfect' but a certain degree of competence is required to be taken seriously.

Whether I am convincing anyone is irrelevant to me.

 

[pgriz]

Well, thank you. I didn't realize I was deficient in my understanding of what "art" is. I'm married to an artist (watercolours, conté, charcoal, etc.), and in my immediate family is a writer, a poet, a singer, a musician, a folk-craft maker, and a craftsman specializing in metal. In my slightly wider circle of family and friends we have more musicians, photographers, potters (ceramics), and woodworkers.

As for your reference, it points out that art has fulfilled many functions over the span of history, including being an instrument of state propaganda, a method of enforcing conformity, a way of showing status, a form of rebellion and a form of self-expression. Prior to the invention of the printing press, "art" was an important method of disseminating information (along with songs and storytelling).
There is a correlation between the wealth of a society, and the degree that "art" is practiced by the population. Art, like any other human endeavor, evolves with the times and occupies new ground as it becomes available. It happens that "self-expression" (that you claim has little to do with art) IS one of the main drivers of the current understanding of what art is.

As for your last point (#2), is anyone seriously arguing this point in this thread?

 

[Petraio Prime]

Well, thank you. I didn't realize I was deficient in my understanding of what "art" is. I'm married to an artist (watercolours, conté, charcoal, etc.), and in my immediate family is a writer, a poet, a singer, a musician, a folk-craft maker, and a craftsman specializing in metal. In my slightly wider circle of family and friends we have more musicians, photographers, potters (ceramics), and woodworkers.

As for your reference, it points out that art has fulfilled many functions over the span of history, including being an instrument of state propaganda, a method of enforcing conformity, a way of showing status, a form of rebellion and a form of self-expression. Prior to the invention of the printing press, "art" was an important method of disseminating information (along with songs and storytelling).
There is a correlation between the wealth of a society, and the degree that "art" is practiced by the population. Art, like any other human endeavor, evolves with the times and occupies new ground as it becomes available. It happens that "self-expression" (that you claim has little to do with art) IS one of the main drivers of the current understanding of what art is.

As for your last point (#2), is anyone seriously arguing this point in this thread?

Yes, apparently. Are you an art historian? What has the fact that you are married to an artist have to do with anything?

And all art throughout history has been "made by hand"; that is the common element, and that is why photographs cannot be called 'art'.

 

[white]

Well I think the "made by hand" argument is silly because all steps of the photographic process are by hand with conscious intent, and even something as simple as dodging and burning in the traditional darkroom (which is not so simple, really) is all about shaping light and changing the tonal quality of the print deliberately. And that is really no different than an artist using a pencil or brush to build up tones in their work.

So if being a photographer means not being an artist, I'm inclined to argue that being a printmaker sure as hell does. But I don't agree with the original premise, so whatevah. :meh:

 

[Petraio Prime]

Well I think the "made by hand" argument is silly because all steps of the photographic process are by hand with conscious intent, and even something as simple as dodging and burning in the traditional darkroom (which is not so simple, really) is all about shaping light and changing the tonal quality of the print deliberately. And that is really no different than an artist using a pencil or brush to build up tones in their work.
:meh:

Yes it is. It could hardly be more different.

Whether you feel it's 'silly' or not is utterly irrelevant. It's what the word means.

I think 'water' is a silly word for H2O. So what? That's the word!

 

[white]

Nah. See what you don't get is light can be treated like an artistic medium the same as paint or graphite.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Nah. See what you don't get is light can be treated like an artistic medium the same as paint or graphite.

But you can't hold it and shape it with your hands. That's why photography is not and cannot be art.