Regarding photography, these are my problems defining art exclusively by "intent":
+When I take a photo I always have the intention of creating an image, the same goes when my grandmother takes a photo. Does this fact declare as "artists"? If that intention is not good then what intention/s define art? Art is defined by the intention of making art? +An artist's father owns a company that cleans dead people's apartments. Possessions that are not claimed -like photos, in most cases family snapshots- are selected by the artist with the intention of communicating the value of certain aesthetic. Most of these photos where not created with the intention of creating art, they become art by the view of the artist that is showing them. By this extreme example you can say that any photo is potentially art, waiting to be interpreted as that by an artist. Intent needs to exist before the photo is created or can be found after its creation? +What about Lartigue? He's the father of vernacular photography, lots of these photos are the equivalent of today's snapshots, he just happened to be wealthy enough to have access to technology that wasn't easily available to the rest. I don't think that when John Szarkowski found his work he pondered about "intent". +The same goes with the example of the NY Crime Scene photos that I posted before. On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:33 PM, eckinator <eckina...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/5/18 Tom C <caka...@gmail.com>: >> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 2:55 PM, steve harley <p...@paper-ape.com> wrote: >>> >>> another problem with requiring "intent" is how does the viewer know about >>> the intent ... >>> >>> is it always obvious? is any intent sufficient? must one meet or learn about >>> the artist as well as experience the art? what if we perceive intent where >>> there is none? what if we perceive no intent where there is some? what about >>> art that deliberately manipulates the perception of intent? >>> >> >> Well I have my simple answer to that. >> >> 1. I can tell art even when it's art I don't like. There's a ton of >> art that I do not like or that I actually detest, or I think 'why >> would anybody do that?', yet I will admit it is art. >> 2. In my book if there is no intent or if the shown item (assuming >> we're limiting the discussion to things visible) displays no intent, >> then I'll conclude logically that there was no intent, so I don't >> define it as art. >> >> Put another way, if the maker of something deliberately produces >> something that is so incongruous or disharmonious, that ist's devoid >> of perceivable intent, then I have every right to view it in that way. >> I would likely view it as junk and not art. >> >> I would also venture to say that a random sampling of the general >> populace would view it the same way and that virtually the only ones >> that would view such a work as art, is the art theorists themselves. >> >> Really I've tried to see it from their point of view but I couldn't >> get my head up that far. >> >> Everyone of course is free to disagree. > > I couldn't agree more. My thoughts exactly. > Cheers > Ecke > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
