RE: what makes a photograph art...
Hi, [...] There is another definition that I'd like to bring to the consideration of honorable assembly. Art is something you remember after being exposed to. [...] The point being, if you're exposed to something that makes you think and/or feel different and you remember it some time after the show - it is definitely (good) art. first time I've thought a kick in the balls might be art... Bob
Re: what makes a photograph art...
På 8. mai. 2005 kl. 09.53 skrev Bob W: Hi, [...] There is another definition that I'd like to bring to the consideration of honorable assembly. Art is something you remember after being exposed to. [...] The point being, if you're exposed to something that makes you think and/or feel different and you remember it some time after the show - it is definitely (good) art. first time I've thought a kick in the balls might be art... It depends on the shoes
Re: what makes a photograph art...
Hi! first time I've thought a kick in the balls might be art... Yes of course. Art, Martial Art... wink -- Boris
Re: what makes a photograph art...
- Original Message - From: Bob W Subject: RE: what makes a photograph art... first time I've thought a kick in the balls might be art... It needs to be done with a certain amount of style to make it that far. William Robb
Re: what makes a photograph art...
BW Personally, I have never really understood why people feel the need to BW categorise things as art or not-art, or even as good, bad and indifferent BW art. I would rather approach the object or performance in question, and BW examine my own reaction to it, the reactions of other people, and its effect BW on the world. This is what really matters, not its art status. Extremely well said! Thanks. Frantisek
Re: what makes a photograph art...
Hi! Background: I bought Bill Fortney's Great Photography Workshop book a while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called Developing The Creative Edge in Photography by Bert Eifer. That book contains some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what makes a photograph 'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. Eifer and are not necessarily his. These are some of the definitions: art pleases the eye My be, and then again may be not. art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony Sometimes. art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life It might. art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction We usually think this way. But not always. I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these definitions. Do you disagree with any of them? Neither agree nor disagree. William Robb said: Art tends to invoke an emotional response of some sort from the person it is inflicted on. which would be the closest of the opinions I would really agree with. I think art (of any kind) is something that takes you out of your routine. If you watch a good movie (good in a sense of good art) you start thinking of something you never considered before. If you look at good photograph (again in a sense of art), you feel something you don't usually feel (beauty of model's eyes, pain of homeless, etc). There is another definition that I'd like to bring to the consideration of honorable assembly. Art is something you remember after being exposed to. Let's say I've been looking at Frank's photos he made for the jazz band. I can readily recall one or two. So, Frank, for me you created some art. I can easily recall some photos Jostein showed in my camera club. So, Jostein, you win. I can easily recall some of Shel's work too. I can continue the list, but that's not the point. The point being, if you're exposed to something that makes you think and/or feel different and you remember it some time after the show - it is definitely (good) art. That would be my shot at the subject. Boris. P.S. Frank, Jostein, Shel - please don't thank me, will you? I brought you here merely as some examples...
Re: what makes a photograph art...
On 6 May 2005 at 7:34, Tom Reese wrote: art pleases the eye art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these definitions. Do you disagree with any of them? what makes a photograph art...? the image it holds Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: what makes a photograph art...
That's a very narrow definition. It would exclude many of those works hanging on the walls of the world's museums. Art can create disharmony. It can provoke and inspire chaos. It can be ambiguous or straightforward and clear. And of course there's a difference between personal art and universal art. If I create something that I love, it is at least personal art. If the rest of humankind embraces it as well, it is universal art. In between those two extremes there are other layers. Different cultures are moved by different words, different pictures. The only real test of great universal art is time. If a work endures and speaks to every generation, one can say that it is great art: a classic. Paul On May 6, 2005, at 7:34 AM, Tom Reese wrote: Background: I bought Bill Fortney's Great Photography Workshop book a while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called Developing The Creative Edge in Photography by Bert Eifer. That book contains some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what makes a photograph 'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. Eifer and are not necessarily his. These are some of the definitions: art pleases the eye art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these definitions. Do you disagree with any of them? Tom Reese
Re: what makes a photograph art...
They all work for me. Thanks for posting. Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: what makes a photograph art... Background: I bought Bill Fortney's Great Photography Workshop book a while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called Developing The Creative Edge in Photography by Bert Eifer. That book contains some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what makes a photograph 'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. Eifer and are not necessarily his. These are some of the definitions: art pleases the eye art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these definitions. Do you disagree with any of them? Tom Reese PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: what makes a photograph art...
Paul Stenquist replied to my message about art definitions: That's a very narrow definition. It would exclude many of those works hanging on the walls of the world's museums. Agreed. We could also debate whether a great many of those works are actually art. G Art can create disharmony. It can provoke and inspire chaos. That's an interesting thought. An image can definitely do that. Can an image that does so be considered art? Those who support the Mapplethorpe type confrontational art would probably say that it can. I'm not so sure. It can be ambiguous or straightforward and clear. The ambiguity definition is the most interesting to me and it's probably why I wrote the message asking the question. That requirement is IMO the most challenging to us as photographers. I love the idea of ambiguity but it isn't easy to pull off in nature photography. After thinking about it for a while, I've come to realize that the art that I personally find most interesting does have some ambiguity to it. I definitely believe that art should cause the viewer to pause and think. Ambiguity is definitely something I want to explore in my work. And of course there's a difference between personal art and universal art. If I create something that I love, it is at least personal art. I have a lot of images that I love but I wouldn't call them art. They're beautiful to look at but I don't know if there's anything there beyond the eye candy. My opinion is that an image has to be more than eye candy to be considered art. If the rest of humankind embraces it as well, it is universal art. In between those two extremes there are other layers. Different cultures are moved by different words, different pictures. The only real test of great universal art is time. If a work endures and speaks to every generation, one can say that it is great art: a classic. Agreed. Thanks for the reply Paul. I appreciate your different point of view. Tom Reese
Re: what makes a photograph art...
Collin Brendemuehl wrote: There was a time when art was reduced to include any and all expressions and the term really became meaningless. There was nothing to distinguish art from non-art. It was wholely subjective. I don't know if the term is meaningless. There is a lot of wiggle room in the definition and I agree that it is subjective. That's what makes the question so interesting (to me at least). The definition has changed with time too. I never studied art history but I'm dimly aware of the various movements: cubism, immpressionism etc. Some of those movements met with resistance where the initial reaction was look at that crap! but they've since been embraced. That brings up another question Can something be art if nobody recognizes it as such? To that I'd say Yes, given the original intent and the character of the product. I agree. Many of the painters who are now revered met with complete indifference or worse during their lifetime. Thanks for the reply. Tom Reese
Re: what makes a photograph art...
--- Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only real test of great universal art is time. If a work endures and speaks to every generation, one can say that it is great art: a classic. Oh goody, I love these types of discussions -- aesthetics! My background and attitudes about art are shaped more by writing, painting and music than photography, but I think the basic principles apply. I agree with Paul, time is the only true test. I believe art challenges, rearranges, annoys, disrupts, makes the viewer/reader/audience think about things in ways they would not have otherwise. Art makes you squirm. Perhaps this is the divide between pop art and true art: the former reassures and comforts, the latter reaches beyond the known and actually enlarges our concept of what is reality. Norman Rockwell is pop art and will be forgotten except as an artifact of his time. Giotto, after 800 years, still startles. As for photography, I don't think there has been enough time for us to know whether any of it will survive as art. I have my doubts. *UncaMikey __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: what makes a photograph art...
Tom wrote: Do you disagree with any of them? Well, yes, I do. The two first - about pleasing the eye and creating harmony out of to chaos - are certainly not true. Lots of art is not pleasing at all and may also be chaotic and does in fact the opposite. I guess the sentenses can be seen as examples of what some believe can define art. To me art is a stament, that - in a creative and expressive way - sums up essential facts or points of views, askes questions, challenges your point of views or your imagination etc. - about an issue of (human) interest. I guess the general concept of art also changes over time. A few centuries ago, making a portrait (painting) that actually looked like the real person, was considered to be art. It's not realy anymore. Since photography was invented (even though painters were using lenses as early as the 17'th century), painters were forced to make abstract art (among other things) - paintings that doesn't look too much like the real world - paintings that was more than just a photographic recording. A nice sculpture (like some of Michelangelos famous ones) are really just recordings of what humans look like. Like a photograph/photographic recording. To me recordings can sometimes be art, if they at the same time contains a statement, a point of view or perhaps a feeling. At the end of the day, art is what people consider to be art. BTW: A few years back, a Danish home owner filled up his garden with all kinds of garbage, old furniture, rubbish of all kinds. It looked like a permanent garage sale or the city dump. The neighbours and the city council wanted him to clean up his property. The guy then claimed that, it was a work of art! It took the authorities years to get him to remove this junk from his garden. All the best Jens Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Tom Reese [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 6. maj 2005 13:35 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: what makes a photograph art... Background: I bought Bill Fortney's Great Photography Workshop book a while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called Developing The Creative Edge in Photography by Bert Eifer. That book contains some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what makes a photograph 'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. Eifer and are not necessarily his. These are some of the definitions: art pleases the eye art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these definitions. Do you disagree with any of them? Tom Reese
RE: what makes a photograph art...
Paul wrote: Different cultures are moved by different words, different pictures. The only real test of great universal art is time Isn't this self contradicting? I agree with the first sentence. Not the second. If cultures come and go, so does the art works of these cultures. Diffent cultures will have different artistic values. To some extend at least. I agree that some art works may have universal value. To humans, anyway :-). Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 6. maj 2005 14:06 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: what makes a photograph art... That's a very narrow definition. It would exclude many of those works hanging on the walls of the world's museums. Art can create disharmony. It can provoke and inspire chaos. It can be ambiguous or straightforward and clear. And of course there's a difference between personal art and universal art. If I create something that I love, it is at least personal art. If the rest of humankind embraces it as well, it is universal art. In between those two extremes there are other layers. Different cultures are moved by different words, different pictures. The only real test of great universal art is time. If a work endures and speaks to every generation, one can say that it is great art: a classic. Paul On May 6, 2005, at 7:34 AM, Tom Reese wrote: Background: I bought Bill Fortney's Great Photography Workshop book a while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called Developing The Creative Edge in Photography by Bert Eifer. That book contains some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what makes a photograph 'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. Eifer and are not necessarily his. These are some of the definitions: art pleases the eye art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these definitions. Do you disagree with any of them? Tom Reese
Re: what makes a photograph art...
Friday, May 6, 2005, 2:06:28 PM, Paul wrote: PS That's a very narrow definition. It would exclude many of those works PS hanging on the walls of the world's museums. Art can create disharmony. PS It can provoke and inspire chaos. It can be ambiguous or PS straightforward and clear. And of course there's a difference between PS personal art and universal art. If I create something that I love, it PS is at least personal art. If the rest of humankind embraces it as well, PS it is universal art. In between those two extremes there are other PS layers. Different cultures are moved by different words, different PS pictures. The only real test of great universal art is time. If a work PS endures and speaks to every generation, one can say that it is great PS art: a classic. PS Paul Hi Paul, you wrote in nicely. Especially the last part. For me, art has a transcendental quality. Perhaps I am a platonist :) Frantisek
Re: what makes a photograph art...
TR Art can create disharmony. It can provoke and inspire chaos. TR That's an interesting thought. An image can definitely do that. Can an TR image that does so be considered art? Those who support the Mapplethorpe TR type confrontational art would probably say that it can. I'm not so sure. How about Hieronymus Bosch? Or at least that's how his works look to me. Or you could add many other classic paintings. Are all aspects of Bosch pleasing ? I think not. Good light! fra
Re: what makes a photograph art...
Art is painful to look at Art is disruptive of normality Art questions, reduces and simplifies our experience of life Art is clear, straightforward and uncomplicated. Based on these definitions, Art is a guy. It's early in the morning, He needs a shave. mike wilson wrote: From: Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/05/06 Fri AM 11:34:48 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: what makes a photograph art... Background: I bought Bill Fortney's Great Photography Workshop book a while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called Developing The Creative Edge in Photography by Bert Eifer. That book contains some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what makes a photograph 'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. Eifer and are not necessarily his. These are some of the definitions: art pleases the eye Art is painful to look at art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony Art is disruptive of normality art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life Art questions, reduces and simplifies our experience of life art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction Art is clear, straightforward and uncomplicated. I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these definitions. Do you disagree with any of them? Tom Reese No. The above statement is art. - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: what makes a photograph art...
On 5/6/05, Collin Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Art. Hmmm. Good question. There was a time when art was reduced to include any and all expressions and the term really became meaningless. There was nothing to distinguish art from non-art. It was wholely subjective. It's sometimes confused with content. Anything can be done in either artfully or in a plain and sloppy manner. I completely agree. One of my favorite novelists, John Gardner, wrote an entire book about the morality of fiction, entitled appropriately On Moral Fiction. While the book is specific to writing, he addresses art in general. Quoting from the book: Almost all modern art is tinny, commercial, and immoral. Let a state of total war be declared not between art and society but between the age-old enemies, real and fake. He goes on to define art. (My copy is in a box somewhere, but if I can find it within the lifespan of this thread, I'll try to provide more.) This statement, made long before On Moral Fiction was published sums up his (and my) views on art: There is a notion, which has to do with the romantic hero image, that writing is pure genius, and you can't teach it Bread Loaf, in fact, has been going for a very long time and has a very good record of helping extremely talented writers to become solid artists. As best I can understand it ... Art is a qualitative expression of developed, matured skills. As far as I'm concerned, you've hit the nail on the head, Collin. Well said. That brings up another question Can something be art if nobody recognizes it as such? To that I'd say Yes, given the original intent and the character of the product. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- You have to hold the button down -Arnold Newman
RE: what makes a photograph art...
The two sentences are contradictory only when taken out of context, as you have done here. My original post suggested that there is spectrum of art, ranging from the personal, to the culturally exclusive, to the universal. Before one can conclude that a specific work is indeed both great and universal, it must past the test of time. Culturally specific art, on the other hand, is significant in a specific time and place. it is the art of the moment. Paul Paul wrote: Different cultures are moved by different words, different pictures. The only real test of great universal art is time Isn't this self contradicting? I agree with the first sentence. Not the second. If cultures come and go, so does the art works of these cultures. Diffent cultures will have different artistic values. To some extend at least. I agree that some art works may have universal value. To humans, anyway :-). Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 6. maj 2005 14:06 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: what makes a photograph art... That's a very narrow definition. It would exclude many of those works hanging on the walls of the world's museums. Art can create disharmony. It can provoke and inspire chaos. It can be ambiguous or straightforward and clear. And of course there's a difference between personal art and universal art. If I create something that I love, it is at least personal art. If the rest of humankind embraces it as well, it is universal art. In between those two extremes there are other layers. Different cultures are moved by different words, different pictures. The only real test of great universal art is time. If a work endures and speaks to every generation, one can say that it is great art: a classic. Paul On May 6, 2005, at 7:34 AM, Tom Reese wrote: Background: I bought Bill Fortney's Great Photography Workshop book a while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called Developing The Creative Edge in Photography by Bert Eifer. That book contains some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what makes a photograph 'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. Eifer and are not necessarily his. These are some of the definitions: art pleases the eye art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these definitions. Do you disagree with any of them? Tom Reese
Re: what makes a photograph art...
It's time for everyone to go out and rent Pecker, don't you think, Shel? --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
Re: what makes a photograph art...
Great Art transcends culture... Jens Bladt wrote: Paul wrote: Different cultures are moved by different words, different pictures. The only real test of great universal art is time Isn't this self contradicting? I agree with the first sentence. Not the second. If cultures come and go, so does the art works of these cultures. Diffent cultures will have different artistic values. To some extend at least. I agree that some art works may have universal value. To humans, anyway :-). Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 6. maj 2005 14:06 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: what makes a photograph art... That's a very narrow definition. It would exclude many of those works hanging on the walls of the world's museums. Art can create disharmony. It can provoke and inspire chaos. It can be ambiguous or straightforward and clear. And of course there's a difference between personal art and universal art. If I create something that I love, it is at least personal art. If the rest of humankind embraces it as well, it is universal art. In between those two extremes there are other layers. Different cultures are moved by different words, different pictures. The only real test of great universal art is time. If a work endures and speaks to every generation, one can say that it is great art: a classic. Paul On May 6, 2005, at 7:34 AM, Tom Reese wrote: Background: I bought Bill Fortney's Great Photography Workshop book a while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called Developing The Creative Edge in Photography by Bert Eifer. That book contains some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what makes a photograph 'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. Eifer and are not necessarily his. These are some of the definitions: art pleases the eye art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these definitions. Do you disagree with any of them? Tom Reese -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: what makes a photograph art...
Art tends to invioke an emotonal response of some sort from the person it is inflicted on. William Robb
Re: what makes a photograph art...
LOL ABSOLUTELY! (And to think I almost deleted this message. Thanks for the chuckle) BTW, the DVD has a nice special feature that discusses the making of the photos used in the movie. Shel [Original Message] From: Doug Brewer It's time for everyone to go out and rent Pecker, don't you think, Shel?
Re: what makes a photograph art...
Based on these definitions, Art is a guy. It's early in the morning, He needs a shave. and he's single... Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: what makes a photograph art... Art is painful to look at Art is disruptive of normality Art questions, reduces and simplifies our experience of life Art is clear, straightforward and uncomplicated. Based on these definitions, Art is a guy. It's early in the morning, He needs a shave. mike wilson wrote: From: Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/05/06 Fri AM 11:34:48 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: what makes a photograph art... Background: I bought Bill Fortney's Great Photography Workshop book a while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called Developing The Creative Edge in Photography by Bert Eifer. That book contains some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what makes a photograph 'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. Eifer and are not necessarily his. These are some of the definitions: art pleases the eye Art is painful to look at art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony Art is disruptive of normality art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life Art questions, reduces and simplifies our experience of life art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction Art is clear, straightforward and uncomplicated. I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these definitions. Do you disagree with any of them? Tom Reese No. The above statement is art. - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: what makes a photograph art...
More likely than not. Kenneth Waller wrote: Based on these definitions, Art is a guy. It's early in the morning, He needs a shave. and he's single... Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: what makes a photograph art... Art is painful to look at Art is disruptive of normality Art questions, reduces and simplifies our experience of life Art is clear, straightforward and uncomplicated. Based on these definitions, Art is a guy. It's early in the morning, He needs a shave. mike wilson wrote: From: Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/05/06 Fri AM 11:34:48 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: what makes a photograph art... Background: I bought Bill Fortney's Great Photography Workshop book a while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called Developing The Creative Edge in Photography by Bert Eifer. That book contains some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what makes a photograph 'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. Eifer and are not necessarily his. These are some of the definitions: art pleases the eye Art is painful to look at art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony Art is disruptive of normality art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life Art questions, reduces and simplifies our experience of life art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction Art is clear, straightforward and uncomplicated. I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these definitions. Do you disagree with any of them? Tom Reese No. The above statement is art. - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: what makes a photograph art...
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 10:49:50AM -0400, P. J. Alling wrote: Art is painful to look at Art is disruptive of normality Art questions, reduces and simplifies our experience of life Art is clear, straightforward and uncomplicated. Based on these definitions, Art is a guy. It's early in the morning, He needs a shave. And if you don't like him, it's your fault - not his.
Re: what makes a photograph art...
The first two defines the opposite to what I see as art. The pleasing, boring things that are only aimed at telling us that everything is alright, and tries to distract us from the fact that there is more to life. The other two are closer, but they still don´t cover the art that starts a process, makes you realize something new, even making you change your mind. Then it has to be irritating, controversial, but not necessarily political. DagT På 6. mai. 2005 kl. 13.34 skrev Tom Reese: Background: I bought Bill Fortney's Great Photography Workshop book a while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called Developing The Creative Edge in Photography by Bert Eifer. That book contains some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what makes a photograph 'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. Eifer and are not necessarily his. These are some of the definitions: art pleases the eye art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these definitions. Do you disagree with any of them? Tom Reese
Re: what makes a photograph art...
På 6. mai. 2005 kl. 15.58 skrev UncaMikey: --- Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only real test of great universal art is time. If a work endures and speaks to every generation, one can say that it is great art: a classic. I agree with Paul, time is the only true test. I believe art challenges, rearranges, annoys, disrupts, makes the viewer/reader/audience think about things in ways they would not have otherwise. Art makes you squirm. I´m not so sure about the test of time. Sometimes art can have an important impact, as some of it did in the late sixties, and loose it´s relevance when the work is done. Even Monet was controversial once, now many of us find it boring, just another pretty picture. DagT
Re: what makes a photograph art...
Doesn't make it any less art, though. If you find it boring does that mean it's no longer art, or a work of importance? Is Peter Max's work no longer art? Is Warhol's soup can any less (or more) than it once was. Sensibilities and culture change with time. Many things fall in and out of favor, but does changing favor change the object from what it was to something else? Shel [Original Message] From: DagT I´m not so sure about the test of time. Sometimes art can have an important impact, as some of it did in the late sixties, and loose it´s relevance when the work is done. Even Monet was controversial once, now many of us find it boring, just another pretty picture. DagT
RE: what makes a photograph art...
There are several very good and accessible books around which discuss this question. I can recommend these: The Art Question Nigel Warburton But is it Art? Cynthia Freeland Philosophy of Art Noel Carroll I probably have some others knocking around, but can't be bothered to get up and look for them. The first of these is particularly well written and argued. Warburton is a professor of philosophy at the Open University here in the UK, and has written several excellent books. He is easy to read without being condescending and without missing stuff out. All of these books review historical attempts to answer this question, and explain why they have failed, and why it is really the wrong question to be asking. It's impossible to answer the specific question 'what makes a photograph art' because it presupposes a workable definition of art. And there isn't one. If there was, nobody would still be asking. Personally, I have never really understood why people feel the need to categorise things as art or not-art, or even as good, bad and indifferent art. I would rather approach the object or performance in question, and examine my own reaction to it, the reactions of other people, and its effect on the world. This is what really matters, not its art status. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: Tom Reese [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 06 May 2005 12:35 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: what makes a photograph art... Background: I bought Bill Fortney's Great Photography Workshop book a while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called Developing The Creative Edge in Photography by Bert Eifer. That book contains some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what makes a photograph 'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. Eifer and are not necessarily his. These are some of the definitions: art pleases the eye art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these definitions. Do you disagree with any of them? Tom Reese
Re: what makes a photograph art...
Art, needs to be in a frame. That way we know when the Art stops the wall begins. -Frank Zappa VBG Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: what makes a photograph art... The first two defines the opposite to what I see as art. The pleasing, boring things that are only aimed at telling us that everything is alright, and tries to distract us from the fact that there is more to life. The other two are closer, but they still don´t cover the art that starts a process, makes you realize something new, even making you change your mind. Then it has to be irritating, controversial, but not necessarily political. DagT På 6. mai. 2005 kl. 13.34 skrev Tom Reese: Background: I bought Bill Fortney's Great Photography Workshop book a while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called Developing The Creative Edge in Photography by Bert Eifer. That book contains some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what makes a photograph 'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. Eifer and are not necessarily his. These are some of the definitions: art pleases the eye art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these definitions. Do you disagree with any of them? Tom Reese PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: what makes a photograph art...
That´s my point. Monet may still be art, as well as Warhol, even if the test of time says otherwise. The test of time only tells us about the current trends and views on history, not about the value or definition of art. DagT På 6. mai. 2005 kl. 20.08 skrev Shel Belinkoff: Doesn't make it any less art, though. If you find it boring does that mean it's no longer art, or a work of importance? Is Peter Max's work no longer art? Is Warhol's soup can any less (or more) than it once was. Sensibilities and culture change with time. Many things fall in and out of favor, but does changing favor change the object from what it was to something else? Shel [Original Message] From: DagT I´m not so sure about the test of time. Sometimes art can have an important impact, as some of it did in the late sixties, and loose it´s relevance when the work is done. Even Monet was controversial once, now many of us find it boring, just another pretty picture. DagT
Re: what makes a photograph art...
Ah, reading this thread, I finally get it, Art is annoying! GRIN! graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- DagT wrote: The first two defines the opposite to what I see as art. The pleasing, boring things that are only aimed at telling us that everything is alright, and tries to distract us from the fact that there is more to life. The other two are closer, but they still don´t cover the art that starts a process, makes you realize something new, even making you change your mind. Then it has to be irritating, controversial, but not necessarily political. DagT På 6. mai. 2005 kl. 13.34 skrev Tom Reese: Background: I bought Bill Fortney's Great Photography Workshop book a while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called Developing The Creative Edge in Photography by Bert Eifer. That book contains some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what makes a photograph 'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. Eifer and are not necessarily his. These are some of the definitions: art pleases the eye art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these definitions. Do you disagree with any of them? Tom Reese -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.5 - Release Date: 5/4/2005
Re: what makes a photograph art...
In other words, an image need only elicits a glandular reaction in order to qualify as art. Don't they all? Jack --- John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 10:49:50AM -0400, P. J. Alling wrote: Art is painful to look at Art is disruptive of normality Art questions, reduces and simplifies our experience of life Art is clear, straightforward and uncomplicated. Based on these definitions, Art is a guy. It's early in the morning, He needs a shave. And if you don't like him, it's your fault - not his. Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
Re: what makes a photograph art...
Also, it seems that, Art is pretentious! Actually I think that anything the person who produced it thinks is art, is art. Now whether it is Good Art is another question altogether. On the other hand my father was Art, it said so on his birth certificate. Come to think of it he was often pretentious, and annoying too. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Graywolf wrote: Ah, reading this thread, I finally get it, Art is annoying! GRIN! -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.5 - Release Date: 5/4/2005
Re: what makes a photograph art...
Good art may be annoying, bad art is pretentious, pretty and boring... DagT På 6. mai. 2005 kl. 21.14 skrev Graywolf: Also, it seems that, Art is pretentious! Actually I think that anything the person who produced it thinks is art, is art. Now whether it is Good Art is another question altogether. On the other hand my father was Art, it said so on his birth certificate. Come to think of it he was often pretentious, and annoying too. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Graywolf wrote: Ah, reading this thread, I finally get it, Art is annoying! GRIN! -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.5 - Release Date: 5/4/2005
RE: what makes a photograph art...
Well, art is much more than pictures and can't always be framed - like music, sculpture, architecture, litterature, poetry, dancing, movies, theatre, jewellery, computer art etc. etc. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Kenneth Waller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 6. maj 2005 20:22 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: what makes a photograph art... Art, needs to be in a frame. That way we know when the Art stops the wall begins. -Frank Zappa VBG Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: what makes a photograph art... The first two defines the opposite to what I see as art. The pleasing, boring things that are only aimed at telling us that everything is alright, and tries to distract us from the fact that there is more to life. The other two are closer, but they still don´t cover the art that starts a process, makes you realize something new, even making you change your mind. Then it has to be irritating, controversial, but not necessarily political. DagT På 6. mai. 2005 kl. 13.34 skrev Tom Reese: Background: I bought Bill Fortney's Great Photography Workshop book a while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called Developing The Creative Edge in Photography by Bert Eifer. That book contains some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what makes a photograph 'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. Eifer and are not necessarily his. These are some of the definitions: art pleases the eye art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these definitions. Do you disagree with any of them? Tom Reese PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: what makes a photograph art...
- Original Message - From: DagT Subject: Re: what makes a photograph art... Good art may be annoying, bad art is pretentious, pretty and boring... So by your definition, good art must also be ugly? William Robb
Re: what makes a photograph art...
On 6/5/05, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed: Personally, I have never really understood why people feel the need to categorise things as art or not-art, or even as good, bad and indifferent art. I would rather approach the object or performance in question, and examine my own reaction to it, the reactions of other people, and its effect on the world. This is what really matters, not its art status. Righteous!! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: what makes a photograph art...
John Francis wrote: On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 10:49:50AM -0400, P. J. Alling wrote: Art is painful to look at Art is disruptive of normality Art questions, reduces and simplifies our experience of life Art is clear, straightforward and uncomplicated. Based on these definitions, Art is a guy. It's early in the morning, He needs a shave. And if you don't like him, it's your fault - not his. Only in his mind... -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: what makes a photograph art...
På 6. mai. 2005 kl. 22.30 skrev William Robb: - Original Message - From: DagT Subject: Re: what makes a photograph art... Good art may be annoying, bad art is pretentious, pretty and boring... So by your definition, good art must also be ugly? Only if it isn´t annoying .-) But as you know it´s not that simple. Definitions like this can only be a game with words, since art itself would loose it´s interest once you could define it with a simple phrase. DagT
Re: what makes a photograph art...
Defiantly single... Graywolf wrote: Ah, reading this thread, I finally get it, Art is annoying! GRIN! graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- DagT wrote: The first two defines the opposite to what I see as art. The pleasing, boring things that are only aimed at telling us that everything is alright, and tries to distract us from the fact that there is more to life. The other two are closer, but they still don´t cover the art that starts a process, makes you realize something new, even making you change your mind. Then it has to be irritating, controversial, but not necessarily political. DagT På 6. mai. 2005 kl. 13.34 skrev Tom Reese: Background: I bought Bill Fortney's Great Photography Workshop book a while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called Developing The Creative Edge in Photography by Bert Eifer. That book contains some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what makes a photograph 'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. Eifer and are not necessarily his. These are some of the definitions: art pleases the eye art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these definitions. Do you disagree with any of them? Tom Reese -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: what makes a photograph art...
A frame. Regards, Bob... A picture is worth a thousand words, but it uses up three thousand times the memory.
Re: what makes a photograph art...
But what about bad art? It won't stand the test of time, but it's still called art - just not good art. If it has a frame, it's art. Regards, Bob... A picture is worth a thousand words, but it uses up three thousand times the memory. From: UncaMikey [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only real test of great universal art is time. If a work endures and speaks to every generation, one can say that it is great art: a classic. Oh goody, I love these types of discussions -- aesthetics! My background and attitudes about art are shaped more by writing, painting and music than photography, but I think the basic principles apply. I agree with Paul, time is the only true test. I believe art challenges, rearranges, annoys, disrupts, makes the viewer/reader/audience think about things in ways they would not have otherwise. Art makes you squirm. Perhaps this is the divide between pop art and true art: the former reassures and comforts, the latter reaches beyond the known and actually enlarges our concept of what is reality. Norman Rockwell is pop art and will be forgotten except as an artifact of his time. Giotto, after 800 years, still startles. As for photography, I don't think there has been enough time for us to know whether any of it will survive as art. I have my doubts.
Re: what makes a photograph art...
Every art has it's accepted display. For photographs, paintings, drawings, etc., it's a frame. For sculpture, it's a pedestal. For music, dancing, theatre, etc., it's a stage. For literature, poetry, etc., it's a binding. For jewelry, it's a finger. etc. Regards, Bob... A picture is worth a thousand words, but it uses up three thousand times the memory. From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, art is much more than pictures and can't always be framed - like music, sculpture, architecture, litterature, poetry, dancing, movies, theatre, jewellery, computer art etc. etc.
RE: what makes a photograph art...
-Original Message- From: Tom Reese [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony This one seems to have very limited application. There is so much art that isn't about order and harmony. -- Peter Williams
