Where is the line between appeal and art in photography?

[JC1220]

Don't waste your time getting annoyed with what a particular website says is "art." I say this a lot: You will see quite a bit of superficial photography, things that are clever or trendy; some may be good pictures and get noticed, happens all the time. But the true test of an artistic photograph is to last to join the great art that has persisted through the ages. Wait a day, week or month and these photographs will be gone, especially if you need words accompanying your photograph.

Spend your time on your work it is much more productive and rewarding.

 

[LaFoto]

While spending time on our own work may be more productive and rewarding than discussing what is art and whether what sells best is "the most" art or not, I still find this discussion thoroughly interesting and something to think about.

While I never studied anything art-related, neither painting, nor photography, nor music, nor anything, I feel I can appreciate art, but must at the same time also say that I am very subjective about what I LIKE among what is rated as "art". So appreciation is always subjective, often possible, even among those who are not educated as much, and can also vary within the same person over the course of time.

Example: when I started to like classical music, it were the Russian symphonies I started out with, roaring, huge orchestras with about every instrument playing at some point in time, even shooting canons (in Tchaikovsky's Ouverture 1812, for example) and all that "jazz" ... and it took a bit of teaching myself to listen and listen more to come to liking the more filigrane works of baroque played by chamber orchestras, for example.

The same happened to me with pictures/paintings. While the impressionists were the first to capture me (Dégas and his ballet dancers, or the opulent, colourful scenes by Renoir), I have meanwhile found my way also to more expressionist/abstract art. It is a process. You can teach yourself if you want to do so.

But I am with Alex here in so far as there must have been forms of "pop-art" that I have never liked, ever in my life, things that also I would call "kitsch".

That aside I feel that in the appreciation of a photo (to come back to where we started) the majority of people do follow the path of "nicest is what is most popular". Which is the reason why I have stopped contributing to the monthly photography challenge of my local paper because the "Photos of the Month" chosen by the jury there just make ever so obvious to me that no one really knows a good photo (photography-wise) from some "Ah, cute! - that's our winner then"-snap.

Not that I would go as far as to call my photos "art" ... I would not DARE to call them that. It would sound presumptuous to my own ears! But I still feel I can take the odd good photo and to see and know that it is always a cute animal or child pic that wins feels to me like in entering my photos is casting perls before the swine ...

... while at the same time none of my submissions to this, the TPF Challenge of the Month has ever even got ONE VOTE ... so I do know my limits! It depends on who comes to look and judge, too.

 

[mysteryscribe]

The first and only time I entered a photo contest I lost, no big surprise there, to a rip off a pulizer picture. I was so angry I went home kicking things. I would have cried if I had been a girl. Of couse when I kicked the door open to the bedroom, Barbara who was napping jumped up screaming. She must have thought the mongol hoard had come to pillage ect. I broke down and laughed. The anger was gone.

I explained it all to her and she said, "Don't be too surprised. Those things are popularity contests."

Before I get banned let me explain. 1st I don't care how objective you are who shot what does come into the decission making process.

In the case of the dirty feet and the etheopian (sp) soldier, the judges saw something familiar from a name they recognized and it was a good shot there is no denying it, which is why the original won the pulitzer. The remake with a girl's dirty feet on the beach did lack some of the drama but heck it was a small contest.

It's kind of like you go to traffic court the day the judge's wife gave him the cold shoulder the night before and then burned his toast that morning. If you happen to catch him that day your odds of going to jail are much higher.

So the point is I personally don't enter contests. A lot of folks do and I never thought one was rigged. I just don't shoot popular pictures, and it is a popularity contest. Picture wise if not person wise. If you do chose to enter one, shoot babies it always increases you chances. chick's love babies.

If I entered dozens of contests and lost this would be sour grapes. Since I don't, it is just an observation and remember it comes from the apprentice village idiot. So please dont complain to the management on me. That was a disclaimner guys.

 

[LaFoto]

... and remember it comes from the apprentice village idiot.

Teehee ... isn't the apprentice diploma looming on the horizon as yet, not to mention mastership?

Sorry :hug::

Yes. You are right. The majority ARE popularity contests, and if the jury is only three varying "someone's" you cannot expect too much. (Only today have I seen which photo won the November contest of said local paper and I can only shake my head in disbelief ... it is a photo that has EVER so many flaws and faults but ... it is butterflies).

 

[mysteryscribe]

I have been waiting for this chance.


No the villiage idiot still has his job, he just doesn't know he's the villiage idiot.

About the contest you should have entered a picture of a child with a butterfly on his/her finger.

 

[DocFrankenstein]

\but because I simply don't like it, and I probably did not like it already at the age of 5 or so

And your tastes in art haven't evolved since you were 5 or so? I nominate you as a prime example of a flickr user.

Thanks for supporting my point.

Would you like a picture of a fertile female with rimlights? It's very artistic.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Hey if he doesnt send it to me roflmfao

 

[Alex_B]

And your tastes in art haven't evolved since you were 5 or so? I nominate you as a prime example of a flickr user.

Thanks for supporting my point.

It certainly has changed a bit and evolved, but certain things i never liked and never will, ... but maybe that is just because I am an uneducated working-class retard who will never fly as high as all those intellectuals.

 

[LaFoto]

Ah. C´mon Alex... you and I agree on not liking kitsch now and never having liked it - ever. Shake hands on that! While other tastes can VERY WELL develop and evolve - kitsch is kitsch. Full-stop!

 

[dgs]

I heard a story once about an emperor that demanded clothing be tailored for him with ever increasing artistry, novelty and beauty. He was convinced by his enthusiastic court that his latest suit of clothing was absolutely the most marvelous ever created and anyone that could not appreciate it was most certainly a fool. Well, you all know the rest of the story.

I've not much patience with "The Arteestic Intelligentsia" Top galleries the world over are full of work spurned by the academics contemporary to the artist.

It seems to me the hallmark of art is an authentic expression that achieves some measure of universality. I believe it a necessary condition of art that it is able to speak on its own terms and in its own voice.

Beware of anyone that sneers at you because you are "untutored". Is the coin of the realm art or conformity?

This is not to say there is no kitsch. Trite and hackneyed objects or images will always be so. They have no authentic voice.

Education is a good thing. Elitism sucks.

 

[Illah]

Would you like a picture of a fertile female with rimlights? It's very artistic.

Haha, it was those type of pics that spurred me to start this thread!

For examle, at the moment on popurls.com (a great aggregator BTW) the top Flickr photo is...a gorgeous girl who seems to do little more than take pictures of herself. Granted, they aren't just vain snapshots. They're vain photographs. They are clearly a step above the average user, but when reading the comments it's clear that more than a few of her admirers are more enraptured by the subject than the work. And, from what I can tell, it's clear that she likes it. And I admit, I joined the thousands who viewed a dozen or so of her pics.

I've been tempted to whore my fiance on the internet for a little e-fame. She's very beautiful and exotic (so exotic that few can guess her ethnicity despite the fact that she's not multiracial). It's tempting to have her put on makeup and heels and throw a hard side-light on her, convert to contrasty B&W, and likely have a whole boatload of positive comments. I probably will take those pics one day, but only for our ourselves.

I guess getting to my definition of art, it should really cross all the lines. Sure, a pretty girl can do that (at least for men) but that's not really what I'm talking about.

I've always looked at it as something that anyone could appreciate, whether schooled in art or not. I've found that art school does more to tell you what art *isn't* than what it *is*. It's basically a filter that teaches you dismiss the easy hits (like pretty girls in B&W) so you can really appreciate the good stuff...but that doesn't mean a lay person can't appreciate the good stuff as well.

I guess the true definition for me is universiality. Like some of those dustbowl photos showing the distraught expressions of poor children. That photo will resonate with people as long as we are human - take it back in time 2000 years and they'll get the same feelings.

Modern art that is justified as some commentary on mass commercialization...oh boy. Some of that bugs me even when I like the work! Reminds me of a saying I learned in art school (and I'm paraphrasing):

"The only thing separating an artist from a regular man is the artist can come up with enough bullshhh to justify his work."

--Illah

 

[Christie Photo]

is one that bugged me in film school also - where do you think the line between art and appealing to an audience is?

If I had to use one word, it would be "endurance".

I think this applies not just to the visual arts, but to the performing arts as well.

If you compare a photograph to... say... a song. Most of the music produced today, while capturing large, paying audiences, is little more than a fad. How much of this work will be performed a century from now? I wonder how many photographs will have the same appeal in 100 years as they do now.

Pete

 

[fmw]

If I had to use one word, it would be "endurance".

I think this applies not just to the visual arts, but to the performing arts as well.

If you compare a photograph to... say... a song. Most of the music produced today, while capturing large, paying audiences, is little more than a fad. How much of this work will be performed a century from now? I wonder how many photographs will have the same appeal in 100 years as they do now.

Pete

There aren't many Mozarts or Michaelangelos, are there.

 

[mysteryscribe]

And its a good thing. If everyone could do it then it wouldnt be art either...

 

[Illah]

I agree with endurance. I still vote for 'universiality' as key, but 'endurance' would be another strong factor.

Although one could argue that 'endurance' is a result of greatness, not a cause of it.

--Illah