On Sep 13, 2007, at 7:27 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: >>>>>>>>>> The question you posed is indeed "What is a good picture?" >>>>>>>>>> a sibling >>>>>>>>>> to "What is art?" ... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We haven't had this debate in at least a month. It's time... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> :o) that, and "does a good subject make a good picture?" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Good pictures come in all shapes and sizes. Sometimes it's >>>>>>> the compositon that makes a shot memorable. But a fascinating >>>>>>> subject can achieve that as well. And of course sheer beauty >>>>>>> is always worth a second look. In truth, there is no single, >>>>>>> narrow definition. >>>>>> >>>>>> What is "sheer beauty"? >>>>> >>>>> It is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. >>>> >>>> The logic of your statement is that there is no definition of >>>> art, or >>>> beauty, that is not entirely subjective. >>>> >>>> Is that qualitative judgment, "in the eye of the beholder", a >>>> product >>>> of nature or nurture? >>> >>> There are many definitions of art, and all of them are in some way >>> subjective. But there can be a consensus. >>> ... >>> >>> Your choices are far too limiting. It's a product of many things: >>> environment, experience, nature, nurture and more. It's quite simple >>> really. If it's pleasing to the eye, it's beautiful. To one >>> individual, that makes it personal art. If the consensus of opinion >>> finds it beautiful, it can be said to be art. But that is still >>> somewhat subjective. Because we are unique individuals, the >>> subjectivity of these kinds of judgments can never be eliminated >>> completely. However, over time, the consensus can become very broad >>> and far reaching. >> >> Consensus does not change whether something is subjective or >> objective. Words mean certain things due to a consensus on their >> meaning, not because a given symbol or utterance has an a priori >> meaning. >> >>> Your choices are far too limiting. It's a product of many things: >>> environment, experience, nature, nurture and more. >> >> The shorthand of "nurture or nature" means "is it something a part of >> the animal (genetics, physiology, atomic structure, what have you) or >> a learned behavior (which includes experience, environment, teaching, >> etc)". There are no other choices to these two classes of kind other >> than possibly the supernatural, which we have yet to see a proof of >> existence for. >> >>> It's quite simple really. If it's pleasing to the eye, it's >>> beautiful. To one >>> individual, that makes it personal art. If the consensus of opinion >>> finds it beautiful, it can be said to be art. But that is still >>> somewhat subjective. Because we are unique individuals, the >>> subjectivity of these kinds of judgments can never be eliminated >>> completely. However, over time, the consensus can become very broad >>> and far reaching. >> >> Your statement presumes that pleasing equals beautiful, that things >> considered beautiful are art, and that a consensus of opinion on the >> beauty of something defines it as art. By your definition, everything >> can be art, because nearly everything can be pleasing to someone's >> eye. >> >> There is plenty of work out there that is considered art which is not >> considered beautiful or pleasing to the eye, from virtually every >> major recognized artist. That would seem to make your definition >> insubstantial. >> >> How do you account for this conflict between consensus of art and >> your definition of same? > > I said no such thing. You're cherry picking. Go back to my original > post.
No, I disagree. All your posts are in sequence above. > I said that there is no single path to successful photography. You said that good pictures come in all shapes and sizes, and in addition: "... And of course sheer beauty is always worth a second look. ..." I asked "What is sheer beauty?" Your response was a circular, subjective support of beauty being something that you know either by yourself or by consensus with others, and then you went on to assert that pleasing equals beautiful, which makes it personal art, and agreement on what is beautiful by consensus also defines something as art. I assert that there is work created by recognized artists and considered by consensus not to be beautiful which is considered art. And that this is in contradiction to your definition. > The paths > to great photography are unlimited. That is why it's impossible to > develop rules or precise measurements. In regard to subjectivity, > nearly all critics of artistic pursuits — whether the genre be > painting, music, literature or even that fledging art known as > photography — agree that consensus -- or the test of time -- is a > valid measure of artistic merit. It's a basic tenet of criticism in > all the arts. It's you who went down the path of defining art as representing something recognized as beauty, not I, and deviated from the original question of "what makes a great picture" when you tossed in that notion of recognizing sheer beauty. How do you define sheer beauty and why is it special? What is the criteria by which it is recognized? Why does art have to be beautiful? Are you asserting that art is ONLY defined by consensus? and that the only criteria of its definition is consensus on 'something pleasing to the eye', which is by definition 'beauty'? Are Diane Arbus' photographs beautiful? pleasing to the eye? art? Annie Liebovitz ...? How about Jackson Pollock's paintings? or ... ? Art has nothing to do with beauty, with "pleasing to the eye", with consensus.... The criticism and appreciation of art might have a lot to do with consensus but is not itself art. Art criticism is judgement, art appreciation is allowing art to enter your senses and affect you which can have a basis in cultural consensus. I posit that: 1: Art is intentional and has affect. 2: Great photographs capture a likeness, are executed with technical expertise, express emotion, or convey information. 3: There are many great photographs in the world. Most of them are not art, but some are. How they differ is in how they are conceived and how they exhibit affect or influence the viewer. 4: Likewise there is much great art in the world. Most of it is not photographs, but some is. Of that subset of art which is photographs, many are not great photographs by the definition above, but that they are art can be discerned on the basis of their intent and affect. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
