The Art

[table1349]

Maybe Im a retard...but.
If a musician uses his instrument to create his art, and a woodworker uses his tools to create his art, or a painter uses his brushes to create his art, or a cartoonist uses his pencils to create his art, why is it so wrong for a photographer to use his camera to create his art.
sorry...Im dumb as a post and no where near the photographic geniouses you all are here, but it just crossed my mind while having my lunch.

Trust me Warren Peace, It's not you. If you read PP's posts in this thread and in other threads you will find him an eating, breathing, typing contradiction. With all replies on this or any forum one should take them with a grain of salt as they are often nothing more than opinions. With PP's replies in threads of this nature, I would suggest that you take them with a semi-tractor trailer load of salt.

 

[Warren Peace]

Trust me Warren Peace, It's not you. If you read PP's posts in this thread and in other threads you will find him an eating, breathing, typing contradiction. With all replies on this or any forum one should take them with a grain of salt as they are often nothing more than opinions. With PP's replies in threads of this nature, I would suggest that you take them with a semi-tractor trailer load of salt.

I always thought that was the beauty of being an "artist" whether it was a painter, sculpture, cartoonist, musician and whatever else, was that it was up to the individual to get his/her vision across. I have never figured out who it was that wrote all these so called "guidelines" or "rules" as to what an "artist" can and cant not do. I have never seen a "bible" on how to create art, only someone elses opinion, or their visions on how it is done. These are only words given to describe things. During the day the average human becomes many things. Pedestrian,Motorist, Commuter,Shipper, Doctor, Newscaster, but inside it is still the same person. Art is just a word, photographer, just a word, painter, just a word. All these are words to label someone.
When we look at music, it is now broken down. Musician is many things. Drummer, Singer, Pianist, and so on. Within music, it is broken down to genres, country, metal, dance, hell even rap. Then take metal for instance. It gets broken down to death metal, glam metal, thrash metal. Even photography is broken down into genres, wedding, street, baby, nature, birds. Everything just goes on and on. :er: Just enjoy what we have today, and enjoy that we have the freedom to create art.
These are just my opinions, and dont mean sh!t in the real world. :greenpbl:

 

[Petraio Prime]

Trust me Warren Peace, It's not you. If you read PP's posts in this thread and in other threads you will find him an eating, breathing, typing contradiction. With all replies on this or any forum one should take them with a grain of salt as they are often nothing more than opinions. With PP's replies in threads of this nature, I would suggest that you take them with a semi-tractor trailer load of salt.

I always thought that was the beauty of being an "artist" whether it was a painter, sculpture, cartoonist, musician and whatever else, was that it was up to the individual to get his/her vision across. I have never figured out who it was that wrote all these so called "guidelines" or "rules" as to what an "artist" can and cant not do. I have never seen a "bible" on how to create art, only someone elses opinion, or their visions on how it is done. These are only words given to describe things. During the day the average human becomes many things. Pedestrian,Motorist, Commuter,Shipper, Doctor, Newscaster, but inside it is still the same person. Art is just a word, photographer, just a word, painter, just a word. All these are words to label someone.
When we look at music, it is now broken down. Musician is many things. Drummer, Singer, Pianist, and so on. Within music, it is broken down to genres, country, metal, dance, hell even rap. Then take metal for instance. It gets broken down to death metal, glam metal, thrash metal. Even photography is broken down into genres, wedding, street, baby, nature, birds. Everything just goes on and on. :er: Just enjoy what we have today, and enjoy that we have the freedom to create art.
These are just my opinions, and dont mean sh!t in the real world. :greenpbl:

You just don't get it. That's OK, not everyone is a philosopher, but it helps to know what words mean and use them clearly and properly.

What makes one an artist is not exclusively or even primarily self-expression, any more than it makes a riveter a riveter. Being an artist (painter or sculptor, is what is usually meant by that term) is a specific kind of occupation, like riveter, welder, etc. It is someone who works with his hands (this can mean using tools, of course) to fashion something to be contemplated, manipulating solid materials (though they can be liquid for working).

http://www.chihuly.com/persians/persB001.html

So far as I know, there is no art made of gases.

:lmao:

 

[OrionsByte]

I'm both surprised and not surprised that this thread is still going. Here's the problem though: the two sides of the argument are not talking about the same thing.

Petraio has adopted a very specific, narrow philosophical definition of the word "art". The rest of us are looking at the broader use of the word.

I know the definition thing has been done in this thread a couple of times, but I'm going to go at it from a slightly different perspective. Bear with me.

The definitions in BLUE below seem to apply to photography. The definitions in RED would exclude photography according to Petraio's arguments. I'm going to try to do this pretty conservatively, and some of my classifications are no doubt debatable, but let's just see how this looks.

1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.

3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.

4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.

5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.

6. (in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story?

7. the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.

8. the craft or trade using these principles or methods.

9. skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.

10. a branch of learning or university study, esp. one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature.

11. arts,
a. ( used with a singular verb ) the humanities: a college of arts and sciences.
b. ( used with a plural verb ) liberal arts.

12. skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature.

13. trickery; cunning: glib and devious art.

14. studied action; artificiality in behavior.

15. an artifice or artful device: the innumerable arts and wiles of politics.

16. Archaic. science, learning, or scholarship.

So Petraio, I'd ask you to specifically address the definitions I've colored blue above, and explain how they do not apply to photography. The reason I'm asking you to do this is because the rest of us do not agree with your philosophical definition of "art", so if you want to convince us that you are right and we are wrong, you will need to do it on our terms. If you can't do that, and instead you must fall back to the philosophical arguments you've been espousing for 20 pages, then I really don't think that either side has anything else to bring to this discussion.

Debate only works if there is some common ground between the two sides, and you're debating from a perspective that none of us shares. See if you can bring us closer by coming at it from our perspective.

 

[Petraio Prime]

I'm both surprised and not surprised that this thread is still going. Here's the problem though: the two sides of the argument are not talking about the same thing.

Petraio has adopted a very specific, narrow philosophical definition of the word "art". The rest of us are looking at the broader use of the word.

I know the definition thing has been done in this thread a couple of times, but I'm going to go at it from a slightly different perspective. Bear with me.

The definitions in BLUE below seem to apply to photography. The definitions in RED would exclude photography according to Petraio's arguments. I'm going to try to do this pretty conservatively, and some of my classifications are no doubt debatable, but let's just see how this looks.

1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.

3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.

4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.

5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.

6. (in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story?

7. the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.

8. the craft or trade using these principles or methods.

9. skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.

10. a branch of learning or university study, esp. one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature.

11. arts,
a. ( used with a singular verb ) the humanities: a college of arts and sciences.
b. ( used with a plural verb ) liberal arts.

12. skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature.

13. trickery; cunning: glib and devious art.

14. studied action; artificiality in behavior.

15. an artifice or artful device: the innumerable arts and wiles of politics.

16. Archaic. science, learning, or scholarship.

So Petraio, I'd ask you to specifically address the definitions I've colored blue above, and explain how they do not apply to photography. The reason I'm asking you to do this is because the rest of us do not agree with your philosophical definition of "art", so if you want to convince us that you are right and we are wrong, you will need to do it on our terms. If you can't do that, and instead you must fall back to the philosophical arguments you've been espousing for 20 pages, then I really don't think that either side has anything else to bring to this discussion.

Debate only works if there is some common ground between the two sides, and you're debating from a perspective that none of us shares. See if you can bring us closer by coming at it from our perspective.

The fine arts are:

Painting
Sculpture (woodcarving too, I suppose)
Architecture
Engraving

(and analogous activities such as glass-blowing)

When photographers say 'fine-art photography' they mean to equate photography to painting, sculpture, etc. That cannot be done, for several reasons.

Yes, 'art' is a broad word with many uses. The point is this: photography is not among the activities that are classified as the 'fine arts'.

That does not make photography inferior though, just separate.

 

[Warren Peace]

[You just don't get it. That's OK, not everyone is a philosopher, but it helps to know what words mean and use them clearly and properly.

What makes one an artist is not exclusively or even primarily self-expression, any more than it makes a riveter a riveter. Being an artist (painter or sculptor, is what is usually meant by that term) is a specific kind of occupation, like riveter, welder, etc. It is someone who works with his hands (this can mean using tools, of course) to fashion something to be contemplated, manipulating solid materials (though they can be liquid for working).

Chihuly - Persians

So far as I know, there is no art made of gases.

:lmao:

Oh I get it and Im not going to worry about it. Im going to do what I enjoy now, before Im too old to be able too. Like I said, it is only a word.:lmao:
I do cartooning, photography, digital manipulations and animation, and use all 4 of them to create the visions I have, cause in todays world, we have that technology, and Im going to use it, no matter what it might be called.

 

[OrionsByte]

The fine arts are:

Painting
Sculpture (woodcarving too, I suppose)
Architecture
Engraving

(and analogous activities such as glass-blowing)

When photographers say 'fine-art photography' they mean to equate photography to painting, sculpture, etc. That cannot be done, for several reasons.

Yes, 'art' is a broad word with many uses. The point is this: photography is not among the activities that are classified as the 'fine arts'.

That does not make photography inferior though, just separate.

Okay, see now we might be getting somewhere, because you've just narrowed down your definition of "art" in terms the rest of us can relate to.

So, knowing that, the debate is no longer, "is photography art" but rather, "is photography fine art", or more correctly, "can photography be fine art".

That's a different discussion than I think most of us have been having.

 

[Petraio Prime]

[You just don't get it. That's OK, not everyone is a philosopher, but it helps to know what words mean and use them clearly and properly.

What makes one an artist is not exclusively or even primarily self-expression, any more than it makes a riveter a riveter. Being an artist (painter or sculptor, is what is usually meant by that term) is a specific kind of occupation, like riveter, welder, etc. It is someone who works with his hands (this can mean using tools, of course) to fashion something to be contemplated, manipulating solid materials (though they can be liquid for working).

Chihuly - Persians

So far as I know, there is no art made of gases.

:lmao:

Oh I get it and Im not going to worry about it. Im going to do what I enjoy now, before Im too old to be able too. Like I said, it is only a word.:lmao:
I do cartooning, photography, digital manipulations and animation, and use all 4 of them to create the visions I have, cause in todays world, we have that technology, and Im going to use it, no matter what it might be called.

I have no intention of discouraging you. Just don't want photographers to feel inferior to painters or try to justify their work as important by calling it 'art'. I have known several artists and dated a couple of them (I met a bunch of girls who were students at CCAD). They are no different from you or me, and there is certainly no need to feel inferior to them.

Furthermore, I don't understand why everyone want to be called an 'artist'. I sure as hell don't.

 

[table1349]

I'm both surprised and not surprised that this thread is still going. Here's the problem though: the two sides of the argument are not talking about the same thing.

Petraio has adopted a very specific, narrow philosophical definition of the word "art". The rest of us are looking at the broader use of the word.

I know the definition thing has been done in this thread a couple of times, but I'm going to go at it from a slightly different perspective. Bear with me.

The definitions in BLUE below seem to apply to photography. The definitions in RED would exclude photography according to Petraio's arguments. I'm going to try to do this pretty conservatively, and some of my classifications are no doubt debatable, but let's just see how this looks.

1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.

3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.

4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.

5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.

6. (in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story?

7. the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.

8. the craft or trade using these principles or methods.

9. skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.

10. a branch of learning or university study, esp. one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature.

11. arts,
a. ( used with a singular verb ) the humanities: a college of arts and sciences.
b. ( used with a plural verb ) liberal arts.

12. skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature.

13. trickery; cunning: glib and devious art.

14. studied action; artificiality in behavior.

15. an artifice or artful device: the innumerable arts and wiles of politics.

16. Archaic. science, learning, or scholarship.

So Petraio, I'd ask you to specifically address the definitions I've colored blue above, and explain how they do not apply to photography. The reason I'm asking you to do this is because the rest of us do not agree with your philosophical definition of "art", so if you want to convince us that you are right and we are wrong, you will need to do it on our terms. If you can't do that, and instead you must fall back to the philosophical arguments you've been espousing for 20 pages, then I really don't think that either side has anything else to bring to this discussion.

Debate only works if there is some common ground between the two sides, and you're debating from a perspective that none of us shares. See if you can bring us closer by coming at it from our perspective.

The fine arts are:

Painting
Sculpture (woodcarving too, I suppose)
Architecture
Engraving

(and analogous activities such as glass-blowing)

When photographers say 'fine-art photography' they mean to equate photography to painting, sculpture, etc. That cannot be done, for several reasons.

Yes, 'art' is a broad word with many uses. The point is this: photography is not among the activities that are classified as the 'fine arts'.

That does not make photography inferior though, just separate.

Except I would like to see PP directly answer the question. None of his normal self styled philosophical ramblings, but direct answers to the questions in blue as you asked. For I have yet to see any proof of what PP continues to repeat, over and over.

 

[Petraio Prime]

I'm both surprised and not surprised that this thread is still going. Here's the problem though: the two sides of the argument are not talking about the same thing.

Petraio has adopted a very specific, narrow philosophical definition of the word "art". The rest of us are looking at the broader use of the word.

I know the definition thing has been done in this thread a couple of times, but I'm going to go at it from a slightly different perspective. Bear with me.

The definitions in BLUE below seem to apply to photography. The definitions in RED would exclude photography according to Petraio's arguments. I'm going to try to do this pretty conservatively, and some of my classifications are no doubt debatable, but let's just see how this looks.

So Petraio, I'd ask you to specifically address the definitions I've colored blue above, and explain how they do not apply to photography. The reason I'm asking you to do this is because the rest of us do not agree with your philosophical definition of "art", so if you want to convince us that you are right and we are wrong, you will need to do it on our terms. If you can't do that, and instead you must fall back to the philosophical arguments you've been espousing for 20 pages, then I really don't think that either side has anything else to bring to this discussion.

Debate only works if there is some common ground between the two sides, and you're debating from a perspective that none of us shares. See if you can bring us closer by coming at it from our perspective.

The fine arts are:

Painting
Sculpture (woodcarving too, I suppose)
Architecture
Engraving

(and analogous activities such as glass-blowing)

When photographers say 'fine-art photography' they mean to equate photography to painting, sculpture, etc. That cannot be done, for several reasons.

Yes, 'art' is a broad word with many uses. The point is this: photography is not among the activities that are classified as the 'fine arts'.

That does not make photography inferior though, just separate.

Except I would like to see PP directly answer the question. None of his normal self styled philosophical ramblings, but direct answers to the questions in blue as you asked. For I have yet to see any proof of what PP continues to repeat, over and over.

The fine arts are (this is not a matter for debate):

Painting
Sculpture (woodcarving too, I suppose)
Architecture
Engraving

(and analogous activities such as glass-blowing)

When photographers say 'fine-art photography' they mean to equate photography to painting, sculpture, etc. That cannot be done, for several reasons.

The fact that you don't like the way words are properly used is irrelevant.

The fact that you have been misinformed or poorly informed in the past about the meanings of certain words is irrelevant.

The fact that you didn't or don't know something doesn't make it false.

 

[Infidel]

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

The fine arts are:

Painting
Sculpture (woodcarving too, I suppose)
Architecture
Engraving

(and analogous activities such as glass-blowing)

Here's the wikipedia entry on Fine Art:

Found some interesting reading there:

Historically, the fine arts were limited to painting, sculpture, architecture and engraving.

Where have I read that before?

The very next sentence reads:

Today, the fine arts commonly include visual and performing art forms, such as painting, sculpture, installation, Calligraphy, music, dance, theatre, architecture, photography* and printmaking.

*Bold added for emphasis

When photographers say 'fine-art photography' they mean to equate photography to painting, sculpture, etc. That cannot be done, for several reasons.

Please see linked article.

Yes, 'art' is a broad word with many uses. The point is this: photography is not among the activities that are classified as the 'fine arts'.

Yes it is; at least according to the wikipedia article cited above. The beauty of wikipedia is that the format is designed to yield an article that is representative of the views of many experts (open to everyone) within a given field. Granted, I've found minor flaws in articles related to my specific field, and I have corrected them myself (with references), but in general, I find the wikipedia articles on scholarly topics (at least within my field) to be largely accurate and useful.

 

[Petraio Prime]

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

The fine arts are:

Painting
Sculpture (woodcarving too, I suppose)
Architecture
Engraving

(and analogous activities such as glass-blowing)

Here's the wikipedia entry on Fine Art:

Found some interesting reading there:

Where have I read that before?

The very next sentence reads:
*Bold added for emphasis

When photographers say 'fine-art photography' they mean to equate photography to painting, sculpture, etc. That cannot be done, for several reasons.

Please see linked article.

Yes, 'art' is a broad word with many uses. The point is this: photography is not among the activities that are classified as the 'fine arts'.

Yes it is; at least according to the wikipedia article cited above. The beauty of wikipedia is that the format is designed to yield an article that is representative of the views of many experts (open to everyone) within a given field. Granted, I've found minor flaws in articles related to my specific field, and I have corrected them myself (with references), but in general, I find the wikipedia articles on scholarly topics (at least within my field) to be largely accurate and useful.

Wikipedia is not authoritative, but is based on internet contributions. This list is has a long history, is traditional, and can be found in the Century Dictionary.

 

[usayit]

For I have yet to see any proof of what PP continues to repeat, over and over.

Gryph... don't you know???? PP IS the ultimate/one-stop-shop/definitive resource. Notice how zero references to help build a stance has been provided? he can't even quote the dictionary properly


From Merriam-webster.com

Main Entry: 2art
Pronunciation: \ˈärt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin art-, ars — more at arm
Date: 13th century
1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
2 a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : liberal arts b archaic : learning, scholarship
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1) : fine arts (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art
5 a archaic : a skillful plan b : the quality or state of being artful
6 : decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter
synonyms art, skill, cunning, artifice, craft mean the faculty of executing well what one has devised. art implies a personal, unanalyzable creative power <the art of choosing the right word>. skill stresses technical knowledge and proficiency <the skill of a glassblower>. cunning suggests ingenuity and subtlety in devising, inventing, or executing <a mystery plotted with great cunning>. artifice suggests technical skill especially in imitating things in nature <believed realism in film could be achieved only by artifice>. craft may imply expertness in workmanship <the craft of a master goldsmith>.

I see nothing in there that excludes photography. In fact, photos (printed) hanging on a wall in a decorative manner falls under #6.

Heck, art in its purest form really is just something that is the product of skill (any skill). For example, the "Art of War".

 

[Infidel]

Wikipedia is not authoritative, but is based on internet contributions. This list is has a long history, is traditional, and can be found in the Century Dictionary.

Well you're not really contradicting anything I stated in my original post. In fact the wikipedia article acknowledges the historical value of your list of "fine arts".

 

[Petraio Prime]

Wikipedia is not authoritative, but is based on internet contributions. This list is has a long history, is traditional, and can be found in the Century Dictionary.

Well you're not really contradicting anything I stated in my original post. In fact the wikipedia article acknowledges the historical value of your list of "fine arts".

What I'm saying is that Wiki has no authority any greater than that of people here coming to leave comments.

The notion that we can sort of just extend and expand what is 'art' makes no sense. It is based on a misunderstanding of what characterizes art, what makes it deserve that term, and historically, 'self-expression' has never been the most important criterion, and in fact was not even considered for the vastly greater part of the history of art.

I can see calling Dale Chihuly's glass pieces 'art', but that's because it is a kind of sculpture, something that is already on the traditional list. Glass-work as art has a history too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Chihuly

But the important thing is that every piece is wrought, made manually...that's a core part of it being 'art'. And that is why a photograph can never be 'art'. It isn't merely that photographs don't happen to be art, it's impossible.

http://www.chihuly.com/macchia/Art/CdMac069_Pilchuck_ca83_B.jpg

I happen to have seen quite a bit of this glass-working, as I have friends who have friends who are glass artists. It is hot, nasty work.

Another glass artist:

http://glass.ae/en/index.htm

Stained glass as 'art':

http://www.thestorefinder.com/glass/library/history.html