Topic: Talking Art!

[osoling]

Leon Talylor asked about the toy camera, and if it was relied upon as a visual vehicle to create images.  In the great respones that ensued, I asked to talk about art.  It was suggested that we start a new thread.  Here it is.

To focus us, I recommend this as a topic...

Let's start with the art of photography, where its power lies, and what social responsibility do we have as artistic photographers.

That shoudl give us enough to chew on for a while.  I am looking very much forward to hear the ideas that flow from this!

[dave miller]

Photography isn’t art. Art is art, and photograph is, well; photography. Why do you want to try to turn photography into art? There is an art in photography, in the sense of  a skill, or talent being required to put emotion into a photograph, but nothing more. Leave art to the painters, and the many digital daubers trying to emulate them. The only other connection between the specialities that I can think of, is that we like to frame, and hang both; the reasons for that being equally diverse.

[david b]

What definition of "art" are you using to come to that conclusion?  I've heard this argument before and I can't really understand it - photography is a creative process resulting in the production of aesthetic objects, sounds like art to me.

[FrankB]

Sorry Dave, I have to disagree. (I'll qualify that a little by saying that I'm about as far from an expert in such matters as it's possible to get, and so my opinion may not be worth very much! )

As far as I understand it (not far), the argument that photography is not art runs along the lines that photography merely depicts the real world rather than coming purely from the artist's imagination. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

That may be true of straight record shots, but not when we get into the realms of darkroom (or PS) manipulation and toning or in-camera techniques such as blur, selective focus, use of IR-film (David!), etc.  When we get into this territory the photographer / printer is imposing his / her will on the image. It may be a minor change to emphasise one detail over another or something that changes a familiar object into an unrecognisable abstract, but it is not how the "real world" scene would have appeared to the viewer.

Looking at Susan's work for example, to me there is vastly more "art" than "craft photography" going on there, although I appreciate that the one could not exist without the other (the way a master painter could not create a great work without the ability to properly use his / her tools).

I read somewhere (a Lenswork preview article, I think) the opinion that, once you get past the technical bits, photography is primarily about subject selection. What makes us stop in our tracks and choose to make a photograph at a given spot with our camera aimed in a certain direction? Why include this and exclude that?

I'll chuck one in to start off. I was walking along a track in Tarn How in the Lake District with a friend and stopped without really knowing why. The tripod came off my shoulder, I swapped lenses on the Mamiya, metered and made an exposure and we started walking again. Why there and not elsewhere? Art? Probably not, although the print had more manipulation than almost any I've ever done.

Thoughts?

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Phil Bebbington]

Photography isn’t art. Art is art, and photograph is, well; photography.

Sorry I don't quite get that....Art is art? Art is many things of which photography is one. I see all art as expression and interpretation. Surely that's what most photographers and other artists are trying to do, share their view of something whether that be through photography, sculpture, painting you get the picture. I see talk on here all the time of photos being recognisable as being taken by a certain person, surely that is also an artistic style. I'm sure if all asked to photograph the same thing we would end up with a bunch of very different results, we know the object is the same but artistically we have all seen it in a different way and so we all make different artistic choices in an attempt to get that onto the film.....and so we chose our camera, lens, film, position, time of day etc.

Again I read on here talk about this developer and that developer and why it's used, this method and that in order to obtain a negative with these and that qualities. Artistic choices? I think so. We also have the home made lens people who produce some stunning work and if that ain't art I'll eat my socks. Ending of course with the wonderful things that are achievable in the darkroom. Surely all of these things are the skills and tools of our art that we use use to get the vision that we had at the time onto paper.

I have rambled a tad there so sorry if it doesn't read good....need to get me an education! I guess I ought to comment as well on the other part of the original post. Where does it's power lie......I guess you only have to open up a newspaper to see where it's power lies and this type of photography probably motivated many of us to pick up a camera in the first place....never to take that type of photo but perhaps moved by what appeared to be honesty, the familiarity, perhaps the ordinariness ....I guess because we are seeing what the eye sees we feel it more likely to be truthful. I remember as a kid my parents saying the camera never lies.....clearly it  does. But that is where the power is I feel you can instantly relate to what you see in a photo, perhaps even trust.....but the camera does lie I guess we just don't want it to. Whereas with paintings I guess we know it's artistic interpretation.....we've all seen stuff by painters who are able to paint like a photo.....that's why we are amazed by it I think because it looks like a photo...it looks like the truth.
As for social responsibility....I guess that depends what you are trying to achieve through your photographs....are you trying to produce pleasing shapes formed by light to frame and hang on a wall, are you trying to artistically yet truthfully capture something, are you just documenting and or being intrusive! I guess the answer there could be yes or no.

I purposely haven't touched on the fantastical digital manipulations that we see all around us these day's in an attempt to keep it about film. OK I need coffee now....please be gentle with me!

[Phil Bebbington]

As far as I understand it (not far), the argument that photography is not art runs along the lines that photography merely depicts the real world rather than coming purely from the artist's imagination. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

A little to general I feel....I might agree if all art looked like Pollock or Rothko but I seem to remember that many artists paint from real life...I pass one every day sat on the canal bank painting the scene before him....not his imagination as he is painting what I might point my camera at. Sue there may be more interpretation in what he is doing, he makes all his choices there as he paints as to the colour and texture he imparts onto the canvas. Whereas I may choices as far as I can at the time with a view to what will be done in the developing and printing stage. We both have a vision in our head as to how we would like the eventual scene to be portrayed. I guess generally photographs more accurately show any particular scene  as it is but as we know using Susan as a great example it doesn't have to be that way.

[LT]

dave - I sort of agree with you in so far as saying photography isnt art  - it isnt, it's a technical process to capture light on film, just as pencil sketching is represetning a viewpoint on paper using graphite and clay on paper. BUT a print is art.  It takes a medium and adds some creativity and comes out with a finished interpretive piece - it is a work of art, so photography leads to art, and maybe this means photography is art in the end - perhaps I have a circular arguement here?

the power for me is in the way an image strikes the psyche - obviously this is entirely subjective for each viewer, but this is the crux of the matter in my opinion.

Now - social responsibility .. a difficult one.  I feel, as with everyting else, we al have a social responsibility to not exploit any other person or animal to increase our own personal gain .. so keep away from that and everyting will be fine ...

[dave miller]

"Now - social responsibility .. a difficult one.  I feel, as with everyting else, we al have a social responsibility to not exploit any other person or animal to increase our own personal gain .. so keep away from that and everyting will be fine."

Does that include those that got boiled to make the emulsion?

[LT]

Does that include those that got boiled to make the emulsion?

that would depend upon whether you saw it as exploitation or recycling

[FrankB]

Don't they use gelatin in some cheesecakes...?

[Francois]

This debate sounds kind of crazy to me. It's probably because I've had one too many Art History classes back at University, or because the debate has been going on as long as photography has existed...

Photography is one of those strange animals. Part craft, part art. When we look at the traditional genres, it usually relates a bit more to the craftsman. But with Plastic Photography (not related to Resin Coated or Toy cameras necessarily... maybe Contemporary would be an easier but diluted term), things are the other way around (more art and less craft). If anyone wants me to write something about it, just ask for it.

Art is related to interpretation, our view of the world, and our ability to convey something wether it be emotional or a message.

As for the print being an art, I'm not always sure. It is a craft, that I'm certain. The point at which it becomes an art can be debated. Jerry Uelsmann did push it to an artform. Plain dodging and burning... it's more of an hard to master technical skill.

As for social responsability, unless you're a reporter, I think it is somewhat limited. You can have opinions... and choose to or not to express them through your images.

[dave miller]

Don't they use gelatin in some cheesecakes...?

I'm not into recycling; I just consume.

[Teja]

I study cultural sciences with a focus on photography.

The question about photography being art or not is quickly answered with "no" where I study.
There is something like for example art WITH photography (Land art, sequences or similar) as art forms which use photography as one possible tool to create something that can claim to be art.

Nevertheless this discussion always seemed a bit pointless to me, since we cannot even say what art is.
How should we be able to discuss how to make it then?

I found myself looking at it this way:

I am interested in creating something that "opens it´s eyes and watches at me" like Adorno describes an ability of a piece of art.
It´s something that evokes something inside of me whatever kind of feeling/idea, but always intense, with a moment of undescribeable strangeness to it.
Maybe it´s the same idea that Leon talks about when he writes about "an idea that strikes the psyche"

I think THIS is a huge part of many pieces of music, pictures whatever which we consider to be "art".

I am not interested in what exactly is called art by the contemporary theories.

As long as it has this shocking moment of strangeness in it, causing fascination, I think it goes back to all the experiences mankind has made and touches them in conscious or subconscious ways.

I think that some photographs have exactly this "thing" to it.
That´s what really interests me.
If that´s not included in the word art, I am not interested in art.

I only scratched on the surface of this huge topic now,

greetings to everybody,


Teja

[Francois]

Don't they use gelatin in some cheesecakes...?

I just love Jello...
Has anybody tried to use raspberry Jello as a base for coating emulsion 
Prints so nice you can taste them 

(don't try to make any sense of this... there is none)

[osoling]

Now - social responsibility .. a difficult one.  I feel, as with everyting else, we al have a social responsibility to not exploit any other person or animal to increase our own personal gain .. so keep away from that and everyting will be fine ...

I sold a print recently at an art show.  I attached it for reference.  So, I shot, printed, framed, hung and sold this print.  I made more money than I invested.  It has a person in it.  Is that person eploited?  Dictionary.com says exploit means:  1.   to utilize, esp. for profit; turn to practical account 

I certainly did that.  The person in the shot got nothing.  Did I exploit them?

Here is another way to think about the question.  There is genocide in Darfur.  I am selling art.  I don't mean to be a downer.  Really.  But this has been on my mind.  I know that art is the carrier of the culture.  I even believe that this is true.  But what responsibility do we have to this big floating marble when we use resources to produce something that has no real function at all? 

I swear that on my next post, I will tell a joke or something...

[attachment deleted by admin]

[david b]

There's been genocide and war constantly throughout human history - if we stopped doing "frivolous" things whilst they're going on nothing would ever happen, and unless you're willing to don a flak jacket I don't think there's much an individual can do with photography to change things. Political art tends to be crap too.

And, anyway, I don't agree that art and culture have no real function - they're the bit that gives me some hope. We can be creative as well as destructive.

[Phil Bebbington]

I sold a print recently at an art show.  I attached it for reference.  So, I shot, printed, framed, hung and sold this print.  I made more money than I invested.  It has a person in it.  Is that person eploited?  Dictionary.com says exploit means:  1.   to utilize, esp. for profit; turn to practical account 

I certainly did that.  The person in the shot got nothing.  Did I exploit them?

Yes you did to a degree but not in any real way....probably exploited the moment. The image is fairly anonymous so it wouldn't worry me. If it worries you don't take the shot, don't use it or speak to everyone you photograph get model release forms signed and offer them a cut in any print sales.

Here is another way to think about the question.  There is genocide in Darfur.  I am selling art.  I don't mean to be a downer.  Really.  But this has been on my mind.  I know that art is the carrier of the culture.  I even believe that this is true.  But what responsibility do we have to this big floating marble when we use resources to produce something that has no real function at all?

I feel pretty much the same about this as I do about global warming. The impact I can have is very small, all I can do is live my life in as honest and ethical a way as possible without it preventing me from functioning on a day to day basis. I guess how much you let it effect you will depend on what sort of life you want. The same sentiment as above applies I guess.....if it bothers people that much it is for them to decide to what degree and what they want to do....have no fun, perhaps donate all their spare money, sell their house move to Sudan and live like or help the poor souls there! And would that in fact achieve anything...does it need to as long as you feel good about yourself....or is that all it's all about...justifying ourselves to ourselves

[yola10go]

Now - social responsibility .. a difficult one.  I feel, as with everyting else, we al have a social responsibility to not exploit any other person or animal to increase our own personal gain .. so keep away from that and everyting will be fine ...

I sold a print recently at an art show.  I attached it for reference.  So, I shot, printed, framed, hung and sold this print.  I made more money than I invested.  It has a person in it.  Is that person exploited?  Dictionary.com says exploit means:  1.   to utilize, esp. for profit; turn to practical account 

I certainly did that.  The person in the shot got nothing.  Did I exploit them?

Well,  if I remember correctly Jenny didn't mind the photo too much.  Although girls can get "weirded out" when a guy starts following them and going low for a picture.  But she has a BA in photography and knew that you weren't trying to be a perv.  She would have definately said something if she did not want her picture taken when you asked.  As for the print itself, I can't recall her official opinion of it.  It's been a long time since I've seen her.  I don't think you exploited her since you asked permission before you snapped the shot.  And if you feel super guilty about it I'm positive that she would accept any monatary contribution you could throw her way  .  But knowing Jenny...she's long forgotten about it and has moved on to another crazy idea or something.

As for your art...if you made someone smile, then you have already made a positive impact.  One pesrson can't conquer a whole world, we can only steal a small moment in time.

erika

[tread]

"To me, photography is an art of observation. It's about finding something interesting in an ordinary place... I've found it has little to do with the things you see and everything to do with the way you see them.”--Elliott Erwitt

Photography is no more "craft," than any other skill required to make any of these things readily accepted as "art." Painting, drawing, ballet, et al. Have you made any less art if you captured the image, handed the film to a stranger and never laid eyes on the print? Photography truly is a mechanical process, sure, but is it judged strictly by the expertise of this process? Hardly.

[FrankB]

Two photographers go to a location and make exposures of the same subject at the same time and from similar viewpoints. If this were an art-free process and both photographers were technically competent and had kit that was of similar quality then the two resulting photographs should be very similar.

Having been one tripod down from Leon at Cotter Force I know this not to be the case. The two photographs were very different (his was good!).

Give the same negative to two darkroom workers. If this is an art-free process and both printers were technically competent and had kit that was of similar quality then again the two resulting prints should be very similar.

I direct your attention to pretty much any issue of B&WP UK...

[LT]

Having been one tripod down from Leon at Cotter Force I know this not to be the case. The two photographs were very different (his was good!).

Ahh - but Frank .... none of us have seen your pictures from that day, so how do WE know if they're good or not ... ?

I am with you here Frank - but just to play devils advocate .... what you are talking about is interpretation - is that really art?

 

[Phil Bebbington]

I have just re-read all the replies again and there seems to be a division as to whether Photography is art or craft, most seem agreed that painting is art, or at least they are using it as the yard stick with which they are judging photography. The one thing that we haven't come to any real conclusions about is 'what is art.' Surely whether we are talking about painting, sculpture, crochet or photography they are all a craft, a skill. It all seems to me about interpretation...about intention the intention of the artist or the doer! Surely if if I am asked to take a straight shot of a building for recording purposes, purely for others to see what the building is like with no other input then I would question whether I am being artistic or not but surely that is the same as asking a person able to draw to produce a lifelike representation of a cup or a painter to paint that house with the intention of it looking exactly like what is before him....that is indeed a skil but artistic? NOt sure. But as soon as any one of use imposes our thoughts or perception or will on the photograph or the drawing or the painting surely then in the decisions we make we are being artistic. We are changing the reality to how we think it should look....so I think if we are photographers that are thinking in that way then we are being artistic. Does that make it art though?

Need more caffeine.

[FrankB]

Having been one tripod down from Leon at Cotter Force I know this not to be the case. The two photographs were very different (his was good!).

Ahh - but Frank .... none of us have seen your pictures from that day, so how do WE know if they're good or not ... ?

Leon, if I'd had a good one from that day you'd all have seen it. Believe me! 

I am with you here Frank - but just to play devils advocate .... what you are talking about is interpretation - is that really art?

Good question. What then is 'art'?

From Dictionary.com

[Begin quote]
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. 
[End quote]

[Phil Bebbington]

I think taking the dictionary definition Photography slides in there a treat! I think it will always boil down to the photographers intentions and also the viewers interpretation. We've all seen the pile of bricks at the art gallery or indeed Tracy Emin's unmade bed! Obviously the artists intentions were that these pieces were art......now if they alone intend it to be art is that enough? Does it need to be a two way thing? Do I need to accept it as art as well or does just the consensus of opinion have to interpret it that way thus kind of rendering my opinion worthless? IN many ways that seems to be what happens these days, what is art seems to be decided for us and we either opt in or opt out.

[Francois]

What's cool with art is that we don't have to like what we see. We can say we don't like it. We are allowed to look away.
If it moves us, it's great. If it doesn't, it's OK. Especially when it's at a museum, you can see it and not have to live with it.

A while ago, I discovered the Museum of Bad Art (http://www.museumofbadart.org/)... food for thought.

I remember, a few years ago, they showed on the news the winning artwork at a show in London. It was the blinking light in the center of a room. I even thought of making one. But when anyone can "clone" a work of art... is it still as valuable (not only in the money sense) as an idea?

I feel that everything that could be shown has been shown, everything that can be photographed has been photographed. So, lets just have some fun with the process. Lets just let the others decide what is art and what is not.

In a seminar I learned that the artist is the one who is the least able to define his own work. I find this to be true. We can have motivations for creating work. But if this motivation only makes sense to us, then it is somewhat of a failure as it can't be interpreted by others like we intend to. If the others find some sense in what you do, even if it's not what you intended to say, then it is art for sure.

It is all, in the end, a question of communication and message. Quality is relative. Just don't do things half way.

[lauraburlton]

Hmmm, I go away a few days and what an interesting topic
I see photography as an art form, just another medium of expression. I used to draw and paint, now I print, but I still get the same satisfaction that I am creating "art" ( by my own definition, no one elses- my art is for myself really, if others like it great, if not, well, I will still do it in any case, and I still consider art ))
But in saying this, I do not consider all photography art, nor do I consider all painting/drawing art- I mean is catalog illustration or court reporting "art", not usually, just as most newspaper photography is not "art" and by that I mean is it a form of creative self expression ( my personal definition of art)? I am around "art" on a daily basis and I dont like it all, nor do I consider much of it skilled but if it is intended as art, then I suppose that whether I like it or not, it IS art
to explain above statement- I am a lab assistant at an art school that is run by the the Museum of Fine Arts Houston, they have an artist fellowship program for post graduate students there. Most of the work is ( sorry if I get the terminology wrong) postmodern abstract deconstructivist art ( I am sure that each artist has their own label....) and I think it is utter CRAP, but one of our past core fellows just won a $500K grant so who am I to say....they do all mediums, painting, printing, sculpture, - some of my past "faves"include  old plastic milk carton duct taped to cinder block, shipleys donuts on silver ikea shelf, scraps of fabric hung on wall, pile of mud with stick in it.......I mean is this "art" any more "artfull" than photography? I think not, but it is still art, yes? And maybe it is "art" because it is named so and displayed in the right place. So maybe if you create photographs with the purpose of creating "art", well then I think it is art...does not mean it wilol be well loved, purchased or displayed at a museum, but at least you are expressing yourself.

I am rambling and I will shut up now, I need more caffeine and a decongestant

[Francois]

some of my past "faves"include  old plastic milk carton duct taped to cinder block, shipleys donuts on silver ikea shelf, scraps of fabric hung on wall, pile of mud with stick in it

My past favorite at a local gallery space was clay (stoneware actually) cow poo... in 3 versions...

At least, they didn't incorporate the original smell
By the way, it was the same place I went to for the world famous Lettuce exhibit...

[lauraburlton]

Dude that lettuce exhibit was AWESOME ( esp if youd been smokin)   Speaking of poo, I went to an opening once where this guy had painted real poo gold and put it into velvet lined boxes. I do not remember the artists name but he actually called me by mistake a few weeks later ( recognised the name on caller ID)so I actually got to talk to him about his work a bit. Strange...

[FrankB]

The problem with that exhibit was that it was non-archival. Over time the paint tarnished, and you can't polish a turd...!

I'll get my coat...

[bennyC]

"Art is whatever the artist sh*ts into his hand."
                                                 -Kurt Schwitter

bennyC

[lauraburlton]

too  true, I think next time I make art from poo, I will do a bronze casting, that way it will be immortilized forever...or I could just take a photo I suppose- but would that really be "art" ....here we go again ...hahahahahahahahahaha

[Francois]

Actually, bronze poo has already been done...
And there's even a guy who made a poo machine! I saw it on a German art show and I couldn't believe my eyes! I didn't understand much but it was pretty obvious. It's an artificial digestive system: Lettuce in, poo out. The poo drops on a conveyor and gets automatically put in plastic bags and vacuum sealed (just like coldcuts)... There's something like a 2 year waiting list for buyers...

Just imagine:
-Happy Birthday honey! Guess what I got extra special for you?
-A cake and a nice Hasselblad?
-No, something even better that I've been planning for 2 years!
-What is it?
-It's a nice bag of...
-Oh great, just what I always wanted... 

I really don't think it's a propper present... especially since it probably costs the same as a small car (the artist has a good reputation and is in demand)

Sorry if it grosses some out, I don't want to insult anyone... but here's the link I somehow managed to find http://www.cloaca.be/buynow.htm The artist is Belgian... doesn't surprise me a bit. If you don't like it, I will remove it.

[LT]

it's amazing how we can start of talking about art and end up virtually on copraphilia.

[lauraburlton]

EWWWW- I had to look that one up 
 I promise to stay on task after this but the example sentence was a bit too much to pass up. Feel free to delete this if anyone is offended cos it is kinda gross.

- From Urbandictionary.com

<sub>copraphilia     
       
Attaining sexual gratification by eating the feces of another. See fetish

Although Lana's ravenous penchant for copraphilia made her appreciate her Master's inordinately voluminous defecations, the rate of poop flow in their last encounter was reminiscent of the Apoopalypse[/size]</sub>[/i]

[lauraburlton]

Now to change the subject, I did go to a very nice lecture tonight about new Danish photography by Finn Thrane from the Museet for Fotokunst, Odense, Denmark.  Very interesting show and supports the fact that photography IS in todays museum standards DEFINATLY, and without a doubt, considered to be an art form. Works for me
And there was a nice photogravure towards the end with a photo of a toilet....doh i will not talk about poo, I will not talk about poo....

[Francois]

Don't worry Laura... enough has been said to permanently close this part of the art world.

[Karl]

lots if interesting thoughts. Widening the debate a bit, I found this article intriguing

http://www.slate.com/id/2159172/

Karl

[CarlRadford]

Let me be a little simplistic. Is a tube of paint art, is a stick of charcoal art, is a lump of clay art - well no most would say. Put this medium in the hands of someone who knows what to do with it and out comes art. Give Joe public a 20x24 camera, a Hassleblad or Leica, the latest digital 500 megapixel whatever and whatever meduim they wish to output the resulting images be it silver gelatine or platinium and I suggest the result could well be consigned to the bin - give the same tools and materials to many on this forum and more than one of us would be happy to hang the result on our walls and admire it for many years to come. If a person creates something that others get a great deal of pleasure from looking at, wish to aspire to and often pay good sums of money to own what does one call it?

What responsibility do we have as photographers - none, none whatsoever - unless we try to gain by deceit - propoganda everywhere!

My opinion of course, Carl   

[Francois]

I'll just throw in a curve ball... just for fun
And use the words of a wise man:

The medium is the message.

   -Marshall McLuhan

Think about it...

http://www.marshallmcluhan.com/main.html