Is there such a thing as fine art photography anymore? [Archive]

cyrus

27-Jun-2012, 18:55

For my own satisfaction, yes, but gosh I'm having a crisis over that now and not just in photography -- I paint and do sculpture for example and noticed that you can buy mass reproduced Chinese sculptures and paintings at very small $ nowdays so who would want my stuff when you can get a mass reproduced chinese bronze of whatever subject you want for pennies on the dollar of what it would cost me to make it? It costs me a LOT of $ and effort and years of whiffing chemicals...and no one appreciates it because there's BILLIONS of other images out there on Google. Maybe generations ago, the product of skilled labor was appreciated, at least if only for the sake of the craftsmanship nevermind artistic merit. But nowdays, it has become not only cheap and easy to simulate the skills, but we also have this whole idea of art as entirely subjective so there is no "good" vs "bad" art anymore either. Some scribbles on canvas? ART! Even if an elephant did it. The important thing is to make it BIG - the bigger the canvas the better, regardless of content.

So if you stick with it as an artist, you can go one of two ways -- either produce banalties that sell (if you're lucky) to a mass market, that billions of others can do equally well with "Instagram" etc. for people who don't know the difference between a pixel and a enlarger and just want a pretty picture to put over the sofa or a pretentious coffee table book as decor, or go make stuffed sharks in tanks that while the masses may not appreciate but the frou frou all-black wearing crowd can feel is 'exclusive' (and expensive) and sets them apart from the hoi poloi... but really, is just silly & is really more about celebrity and hype and sensationalism than about art. And in the end, Does anyone care? Is there such a thing as Art, meaningful Art, anymore? or has everything been reduced to an empty hype and banality for and by hipster poseurs.
Should I chuck it all and go sailing?

Erik Larsen

27-Jun-2012, 18:59

adam satushek

27-Jun-2012, 19:14

You know what they say, "make it big...and if you can't make it big make it red."

C.T. Greene

27-Jun-2012, 19:24

I shoot for myself, let other folks label it however they like it makes no difference to how I enjoy myself in the pursuit. Fine art photography isn't dead, there's just a lot more fine art photographers than there used to be:) Regards
Erik Depends on how one defines art & photography then the aspect of craft respectively to what you call 'Fine Art Photography'?

Vaughn

27-Jun-2012, 19:26

I still feel appreciated for the fine art photography that I do. A few sales here and there are also much appreciated (two this month). I am my primary audience -- and since I tend to be a fairly honest critic and editor of myself, what I put out there seems to strike a chord with other people -- except those, of course, who are biased against B&W and/or landscapes.

IMO, millions (or billions) of banal images just makes the good ones stand out a bit more -- not hide them.

But sailing would be a nice break.

Vaughn

PS -- I will be in a group show at the Ansel Adams Gallery next month (honoring the Merced River), if anyone happens through Yosemite Valley.

cyrus

27-Jun-2012, 19:31

Erik Larsen

27-Jun-2012, 19:34

Depends on how one defines art & photography then the aspect of craft respectively to what you call 'Fine Art Photography'?

It's difficult for me to come up with a definition, it's kind of like pornography - you know it when you see it. That's why I don't put a label on it.
Erik

Erik Larsen

27-Jun-2012, 19:44

Well I certainly appreciate that people do art for their own satisfaction but it seems very limiting and self-referential -- is that all that there is to being an artist? I mean, people fix cars because they enjoy it too, or golf, or collect seashells. There's gotta be more meaning to being an artist than "I do it because I personally enjoy it". Generations ago, the Expressionists brought us a new way of seeing things when they rebelled against the worn academic art of the time. We don't even have anything to rebel against because its all lost any meaning and significance. The best you can hope for is to piss off some fundies by putting christ in a jar of pee or something but that's just a cheap way to bait them and create some sensationalism. And apart from the fundamentalists, no one really gives a hoot about that either.

Just my opinion,
Some artist make art for a living and that drives them. Some artists have little desire for success financially and pursue art because they "have to" it fulfills them. Some manage both but I think it's few and far between. If your driven by financial success, I believe you must obey the market and that can be stagnant to the artist IMO. I must put down the liquor and stop trying to type on this blasted iPhone:) forgive my rambling.
Erik

SergeiR

27-Jun-2012, 20:15

Is photography as a fine art form, dead? Are we so saturated with images, cheap and easy-to-create images, that they have lost any significance? When any 9-year old with a cellphone camera and Photoshop can be a photographer, does it mean anything anymore? This isn't a wet-vs-digital rant. The question is whether photography as a whole, wet or digital, reduced to banality.

it isnt.

Jay DeFehr

27-Jun-2012, 20:16

Cyrus,

Theres nothing new in decrying the ease and ubiquity of photography, and lots of people who think of themselves as artists have little or no education in the arts. I think of art as a conversation between culture and history, and anyone who walks into the conversation without a solid background in it, isn't likely to have much of interest to contribute, whatever their skills.
For me, the most significant change in photography is not in the way photos are made, or in what numbers, or of what subject matter, but the way they're shared, stored, collected, displayed, etc. Photographs are no longer Sontag's slim objects , but code. Photographers who aren't confronting this paradigm shift may soon find themselves having a separate conversation, about the past.

rdenney

27-Jun-2012, 20:35

Nearly 40 years ago, Sontag wrote about the ubiquity of easy photography making it impossible to make a fresh artistic statement in the way that, say, Weston did with his peppers. This is not a new question.

It seems to me that the drive for those trying to make art is to still be fresh, and the need to innovate becomes a slavemaster.

For me, the question is this: Is it still required to be fresh? If so, I'm stuck. I can find little that is innovative about my work, even those brief moments where my craft actually succeeds.

The definition of art photography is easy: It's photography made for the purpose of being art. Whether it succeeds or not is another matter.

I suspect that art that people love to look at is still successful as art, even if it's stale or banal to those with more education. At least I sure hope so, because what the educated in photographic art seem to like still baffles me.

Rick "who preferences as an art consumer lean to well-crafted and beautiful things, just for the sake of quality and beauty" Denney

Eric Rose

27-Jun-2012, 20:38

There is no such thing as "fine art photography". There is only fine art. One of the many mediums that are used to produce this "fine art" is photography.

jcoldslabs

27-Jun-2012, 21:14

There's gotta be more meaning to being an artist than "I do it because I personally enjoy it".

Really? Why? That's why I do it (photography, that is), but I do not consider myself an artist. That term seems to be externally defined and is culturally relative to boot. Is Britney Spears an artist? To her fans, probably. To her detractors, probably not.

But don't listen to me. I'm a nihilist at heart and figure that when I'm dead all of my work will be tossed in the trash and my brief time on this planet will be wiped from the collective memory shortly thereafter. Therefore, I photograph in the here and now because I enjoy it, full stop.

Jonathan

ajmiller

27-Jun-2012, 22:53

I often wonder if by labelling photography as 'art' we do it an injustice and limit it's own inherent, creative potential as a unique medium.
At a recent local galleries' 'open' exhibition - featuring painting and photography submitted by local artists and photographers - the examples of what the curators considered fine art photography was laughable - mostly mediocre images, badly sepia-toned in Photoshop - photographs trying to be paintings.
I saw an interview with Jeff Wall (over at apug) and he put it quite nicely:-
"And probably what it means is anyone with a telephone can make a great photograph - the problem with that is - can you make a second one?"
Good photography has an underpinning of history, culture, critical analysis and ideas - Jay DeFehr has it right above.

Maris Rusis

27-Jun-2012, 22:55

When I make photographs to show others I do try conscientiously to deliver fine art values as I see them.

I want to provide a rich visual experience for people. All of my photographs are made one at a time, start to finish, and in full by my own hand. I offer then to folks who love rarity, singularity, fully realized handcraft, precious materials, archival durability, my version of coherent scholarship, and what I reckon is interesting content. I earnestly hope, foolishly or otherwise, that my photographs will remain worth looking at by people who do not know me.

As for making nice photographs for personal amusement I think a genuinely artistic motivation goes further. Pablo Picasso is supposed, famously and coarsely, to have put it this way "If you are truly an artist you know you have to make art just the same way as you know you have to piss".

Heroique

28-Jun-2012, 00:36

Are we so saturated with images, cheap and easy-to-create images, that they have lost any significance?

Lost significance?

It’s a way to gain significance if you’re clever.

Whoops, profound.

sanchi heuser

28-Jun-2012, 00:39

The problem can be understood if we make a difference between creativity and art.
I found in a Wikipedia article this definition of creativity:

"Creativity refers to the invention or origination of any new thing (a product, solution, artwork, literary work, joke, etc.) that has value. "New" may refer to the individual creator or the society or domain within which novelty occurs. "Valuable", similarly, may be defined in a variety of ways."
quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity

We may define art as any creativity that has the power to evoke feelings, thoughts and insights
or just give joy to the audience
and good art, as any creativity that has the impact to expand and change the way we define and understand art,
at its peaks in a completely new way, in a way that never existed before.

Curt

28-Jun-2012, 00:50

When did it become fine art? I thought it was still high art.

If I like it, that's fine.

Because there is so much visual overload it makes the best art so much better and enjoyable.

jcoldslabs

28-Jun-2012, 01:30

If I make photographs intending them to be "art," does that imbue them with the quality of art-ness? And if I purposely take snapshots that lack all artistry does this mean they can never be considered art because the intent is absent?

Duchamp and Warhol, among others, answered the "What is art?" question decades ago. Art is what people (collectors, museums, consumers, the public at large) say it is, and this changes over time.

Jonathan

Darin Boville

28-Jun-2012, 01:52

I cringe when I hear the phrase "fine art photography." Sounds like sunday painters. Stand tall and call it what it is: call it photography or call it art. What the heck is fine art painting or fine art sculpture? Yes, people will be confused at first and think you are a wedding photographer or whatever but that just gives you a chance to talk about you work. Welcome it.

--Darin

Darin Boville

28-Jun-2012, 01:58

Cyrus,

Theres nothing new in decrying the ease and ubiquity of photography, and lots of people who think of themselves as artists have little or no education in the arts. I think of art as a conversation between culture and history, and anyone who walks into the conversation without a solid background in it, isn't likely to have much of interest to contribute, whatever their skills.

Hey Jay, given the painful (painfully bad!) nature of most art writing you risk a bit of self-parody here. Do you really think, on the whole, that the "conversation" is for the most part an interesting one to begin with? Do you really think those poor, uneducated artists want to join in in the first place? (I just wrote "in in in" three times in a row--cool or what?)

--Darin

Steve Smith

28-Jun-2012, 02:00

Is photography as a fine art form, dead?

Photography is just a medium the same as painting or sculpture. Just as you can paint a nice picture or a door frame or you can sculpt a piece of stone into a figure statue or a lintel for a window, you can use photography to make something nice to look at and hang on your wall or to illustrate the instructions for putting together some flat pack furniture.

All of those mediums can be used to create art or even fine art but they are more often used for something more utilitarian.

The medium should not be confused for the thing it is being used to create.

Steve.

cyrus

28-Jun-2012, 02:47

Art is what people (collectors, museums, consumers, the public at large) say it is
Yikes. Dogs playing pool and velvet paintings of Elvis? :rolleyes:

Anyway I guess I'm les concerned about the semantics of what "fine art" photography means as I am about whether there's any meaning in artistic (versus utilitarian) photography or any other artistic medium (painting, sculpture etc) Not only is the image now ubiquitous and cheap and easy to reproduce, there's no real distinction between art and decor. Once we supposedly agreed that a can of soup or a urinal or random splashes of paint on a canvas can be art, well, then what's "not-art"?

jcoldslabs

28-Jun-2012, 02:58

Yikes. Dogs playing pool and velvet paintings of Elvis? :rolleyes:

Even "paint by number" kits.

"Every Man a Rembrandt!"

http://americanhistory.si.edu/paint/rembrandt.html

Jonathan

lecarp

28-Jun-2012, 05:05

I want
Yikes. Dogs playing pool and velvet paintings of Elvis? :rolleyes:

Anyway I guess I'm les concerned about the semantics of what "fine art" photography means as I am about whether there's any meaning in artistic (versus utilitarian) photography or any other artistic medium (painting, sculpture etc) Not only is the image now ubiquitous and cheap and easy to reproduce, there's no real distinction between art and decor. Once we supposedly agreed that a can of soup or a urinal or random splashes of paint on a canvas can be art, well, then what's "not-art"?
I want more than this. I want Dogs playing pool with Elvis painted on velvet in a Chinese sweat shop.

John Jarosz

28-Jun-2012, 05:29

When I started personal photography 35+ years ago I made a conscious decision not to become a "Fine Art Photographer". So I never have been required to conform to the norms dictated by the galleries, critics, or consumers. All my photography is done for me. I have some nice images and wonderful experiences. The craft of photography gives me an avenue to express things graphically. When I go I won't care if my images end up in a landfill or a museum. Neither will anyone else.

jcoldslabs

28-Jun-2012, 05:31

I'm not sure I understand why there needs to be a distinction between what is art and what is not. Who is the arbiter of what is and is not art? Should we appoint someone? The art police?

Who says art and utility have to be separate things? What about vintage cars? Quilts? Fabergé enameled clocks? Tiffany lamps? One gets you to the store for some milk, one keeps you warm at night, one tells time, and one lights up your living room, but can't they also be works of art in their own right? As for the difference between art and decor, I've seen some well coordinated Frank Lloyd Wright or Greene and Greene interiors that blur the line.

Jonathan

rdenney

28-Jun-2012, 06:00

Theres nothing new in decrying the ease and ubiquity of photography, and lots of people who think of themselves as artists have little or no education in the arts. I think of art as a conversation between culture and history, and anyone who walks into the conversation without a solid background in it, isn't likely to have much of interest to contribute, whatever their skills.
For me, the most significant change in photography is not in the way photos are made, or in what numbers, or of what subject matter, but the way they're shared, stored, collected, displayed, etc. Photographs are no longer Sontag's slim objects , but code. Photographers who aren't confronting this paradigm shift may soon find themselves having a separate conversation, about the past.

Going back to Jay's post.

I do think naive art is not a vacuous category, and what makes it naive is the ignorance of "culture and history" on the part of the artist. I'm always a little scared of "culture", or at least talking about culture. For me, culture should be built in, not built on, and too often, we try to make people cultured by browbeating them into treating as art what we want them to treat as art.

There are, of course, those who have the education to carry a conversation at a high level between culture and history. But in general they can only be entertained when talking amongst themselves. At a cocktail party, two physicists can talk shop in ways perhaps nobody else present can follow, but that does not make those others philistine. The physicists don't mind, because they realize that physics has to be translated into plain English before it can be appreciated by non-physicists. (They may despise how much simplification is required, and they may have opinions about why that is the case, but that's another argument.)

Artists, though, have to consider to whom they are speaking, if they have the objective of actually communicating. And just as physicists are engaged in criticism when they talk shop at a cocktail party, but (usually) considering end applications when actually doing physics, artists may also dip into deep jargon when engaged in criticism or talking shop but still seek to reach out to people of less education with their art.

It seems to me there are three possibilities for target audiences: The artist himself (and I might perhaps include the artist's circle of friends as an extension of himself), the common art buyer, and the art purveyor. The artist may choose to speak only to himself, in the hopes that what resonates with him might also resonate with others. Or, the artist might have something to say to regular people--non-artists. Or, the artist might be specifically trying to impress an art critic, gallery owner, or some such. It is cliche to think that all artists are so mentally self-sufficient that they seek only to please themselves and care nothing for the opinions of others. Many try to sell art in flea markets and other retail situations where the potential buyers are not educated in photographic art criticism, and those who are might think of them as pandering to a low market. But for that group, the art that is good enough may be too sentimental, nostalgic, or obvious for the more educated. That does not make it not art, or even not good art. It just may not be the art that pushes the medium in new directions. Not everyone has to be innovative.

And I go back to my concern that innovation is given too much weight in art criticism. A museum might most desire to preserve and display art that redefines a medium, or that pushes historical boundaries. But are museums really where all artists belong? Doesn't art really belong in the hands of people who love it and display it for their own edification and appreciation? But more often than not, artist wannabes fall into one of two traps. The first is that they do not know art history, and present as innovative something that has already been done. This could be a career-damaging mistake for those physicists mentioned above. In young artists, it mostly just seems embarassing as much as dishonest, especially when they try to define their work as innovative using incomprehensible words rather than by their art making it plain. The second is that they become so innovative that they forget to speak to people. Occasionally--just occasionally--one of these artists rises above this mistake and does something that is unappreciated in his own time but that redefines the medium. And maybe he's driven by a vision so clear that he doesn't care that nobody else appreciates it. But I suspect that most who try to be one of these artists is acting out a role rather than really being that person, and are subject to being crushed by rejection.

I suspect there is much room in the world for simple beauty, even if it is not at all innovative. People still hang reproductions of old art because they like it, and because seeing it on their walls gives them pleasure. As I said before, I hope that's good enough, because that's the best that most of us (me, especially) can hope to achieve.

As to the definition of art, though, I don't think art is defined by critics. I think critics may influence what people consider to be good art. Sunday painters are artists, even if their work is banal, if they intend it to be and if it pleases them as such. And much art that is considered banal by critics might well be loved by those less critical.

For me, art = craft X choices. This discussion seems to me about the choices, but many will still frame it in the context of the craft. The consumer of art doesn't, perhaps, care, at least when they are buying art for art's sake, and not for some other motive.

Rick "whose choices can usually be summed up by one word: 'Neat!'" Denney

Jody_S

28-Jun-2012, 06:34

Of course there is.

Nicolas-cage-cats (http://nickcagecats.tumblr.com/)

E. von Hoegh

28-Jun-2012, 06:42

Well I certainly appreciate that people do art for their own satisfaction but it seems very limiting and self-referential -- is that all that there is to being an artist? I mean, people fix cars because they enjoy it too, or golf, or collect seashells. There's gotta be more meaning to being an artist than "I do it because I personally enjoy it". Generations ago, the Expressionists brought us a new way of seeing things when they rebelled against the worn academic art of the time. We don't even have anything to rebel against because its all lost any meaning and significance. The best you can hope for is to piss off some fundies by putting christ in a jar of pee or something but that's just a cheap way to bait them and create some sensationalism. And apart from the fundamentalists, no one really gives a hoot about that either.

You have to please and satisfy yourself. You cannot control how anyone else percieves or appreciates your work.

Brian Ellis

28-Jun-2012, 07:17

It can't be dead, I see so many web sites titled "Fine Art Photographs by ________."

Moopheus

28-Jun-2012, 07:51

Nearly 40 years ago, Sontag wrote about the ubiquity of easy photography making it impossible to make a fresh artistic statement in the way that, say, Weston did with his peppers. This is not a new question.

Steiglitz may have been the first to complain about easy photography making everyone think they are an artist. In fact, he may have been the first to say that photography was dead, in the 1890s.

jon.oman

28-Jun-2012, 07:52

But don't listen to me. I'm a nihilist at heart and figure that when I'm dead all of my work will be tossed in the trash and my brief time on this planet will be wiped from the collective memory shortly thereafter. Therefore, I photograph in the here and now because I enjoy it, full stop.

Jonathan

That pretty much sums it up for me as well!

Robert Hall

28-Jun-2012, 08:14

As always it seems to be a matter of literacy. Most seem to think the way to allocate resources culturally today is to buy what is cheapest. Most don't understand quality. People think that if they buy a household appliance that would last them a lifetime it would cost too much even if they might buy 3 or 4 over their lifespan that ends up costing more in the long run.

I think that the lack of education on what is good and what is not, combined with little Johnny getting a "participation" medal for showing up to a soccer game, combined with "the masses" (somewhat guilty myself of this) participating in the mass discussion of how someone bought a diet coke and posted it on facebook and it now has 32 comments is what has brought us to this level of literacy for art, science, and many other things once thought important to be a well rounded adult.

As for fine art in photography, if I can create an image that spurs discussion due to it's beauty -- and not shock value -- or even better, someone wants it enough to have it in their home, then that is what I consider fine art.

Brian C. Miller

28-Jun-2012, 08:27

Is photography as a fine art form, dead?

Photography, i.e., the art of photographing, as in action, is never dead as long as someone practices it as an art. That's rather like asking if dancing is dead, etc.

Now, is there a thriving market for the sale of pictures of rocks, trees, and grass? Depends on the rocks, trees, grass, marketing, audience, and economy.

Are we so saturated with images, cheap and easy-to-create images, that they have lost any significance?

Depends on which images. There's a discussion on APUG based on someone carping about a guy with an 8x10 making big images of field grass. Now, do a web search using the words "pulitzer prize photograph" and see the results. Different than grass, eh? Yes, we are saturated by excellent photographs. There are nearly 7 billion people on the planet, and cameras are common. This isn't 1895.

When any 9-year old with a cellphone camera and Photoshop can be a photographer, does it mean anything anymore?

The Kodak Brownie was introduced in 1900. A 9-year old could operate one of those, too. Did the Brownie devalue photography? Certainly not for the 9-year old. Photography enriched that child's life, and the lives of the child's parents.

This isn't a wet-vs-digital rant. The question is whether photography as a whole, wet or digital, reduced to banality.

PHOTOGRAPHY HAS ALWAYS BEEN BANAL!!!!

The first photograph was of some rooftops. Yeah, the exposure took 12 hours, but that's just the way the material worked at the time. The artistry of the photographer is to create a photograph that transcends the banal. Same with painting, etc. Yes, a two-year-old child can do a decent job of framing a photograph. Will it be an amazing, mind-blowing photograph? Maybe, who knows. Can they do it again?

E. von Hoegh

28-Jun-2012, 08:43

Didn't Hitler paint banal watercolors?

Brian C. Miller

28-Jun-2012, 09:36

Didn't Hitler paint banal watercolors?

Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law): "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

Jay DeFehr

28-Jun-2012, 09:44

Rick,

You make some good points, and I can see how my post could read as a suggestion by me that one cannot be an artist without knowing the history and critical theory of the medium, which, of course, is not true. But on the other hand, naive artists don't typically engage in critical theory/ complain about the state of the medium. If one wants to engage in that conversation between culture and history, and opens with, "Why is the stuff I like less appreciated by the fine art establishment than the stuff I don't understand?", or worse, "The stuff you call fine art looks like crap to me", that person should not expect much indulgence, or even patience.

In a nice little bit of irony, the OP refers to the Expressionists of 1900, apparently blissfully ignorant of the fact that they were as misunderstood and reviled in their time as today's vanguard is by him. Klimt chose to buy back works commissioned for the public buildings of the Ringstrasse, rather than edit them, because they were found "ugly" by the commissioners (the leading lights of Viennese culture). Should Klimt, knowing his audience, have compromised, and if so, what would he have communicated in so doing? Klimt was engaged in that conversation between culture and history, and even if his contemporary culture didn't uniformly understand him, history has. Pandering to any audience is counterproductive.

If we think of art as a conversation, the role of innovation becomes obvious -- without it, the conversation dies, or becomes one about the past, instead of referring to it. You seem to take a rather dim view of innovation:

Occasionally--just occasionally--one of these artists rises above this mistake and does something that is unappreciated in his own time but that redefines the medium. And maybe he's driven by a vision so clear that he doesn't care that nobody else appreciates it. But I suspect that most who try to be one of these artists is acting out a role rather than really being that person, and are subject to being crushed by rejection.

The artists you describe above (though your characterization is uncharitable) are the ones who matter to history. That you're suspicious of any artist willing to risk crushing rejection to redefine his medium says something about you. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi -- innovation isn't the most important thing, it's the only thing.

And much art that is considered banal by critics might well be loved by those less critical.

This is an interesting argument. You seem to be saying that art doesn't need to be innovative, meaningful, or even good, so long as someone likes it. Who is this meant to comfort?

You surprise me, Rick.

E. von Hoegh

28-Jun-2012, 10:26

Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law): "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

I know. "fine art" is a subject that's been done to death, here and elsewhere. I just wanted to get it over with. (winking smiley)

rdenney

28-Jun-2012, 11:33

If we think of art as a conversation, the role of innovation becomes obvious -- without it, the conversation dies, or becomes one about the past, instead of referring to it. You seem to take a rather dim view of innovation:

...

The artists you describe above (though your characterization is uncharitable) are the ones who matter to history. That you're suspicious of any artist willing to risk crushing rejection to redefine his medium says something about you. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi -- innovation isn't the most important thing, it's the only thing.

(I am getting sick and tired of how this interface works with IE, the only browser I'm allowed to use. This is my second attempt at a response, and I hate having to do stuff over again because some errant key cause all the typing to vanish.)

I was not uncharitable at all with those who are driven by some inner vision that turns out to be innovative, no matter how poorly it might be understood in their day. I was uncharitable with those who look at artists like that, and assume they are driven by the desire to innovate, rather than the desire to manifest that inner vision. They then set being innovative as their primary objective, and completely miss the point. Often, in their desire to seem like they are being innovative, they utter the silliest things in their "artistic statements". They are acting the role of the innovator, hoping to be innovative because they act like innovators in behaviors that are really unrelated.

Those who truly do change history didn't set out to, I don't suspect. They just had a principle that drove their work, some principle that they might not have even tried to articulate at all except through their art, that was compellingly important to them. They weren't trying to innovate, they were trying to manifest that principle. In the case of the impressionists, it might have been a principle of being real rather than being realistic, for example. If they believe that current art reflects a principle worth abandoning (and this is frequently the case), they might do battle with it--not because it's old, but because they believe it is wrong.

A musical example: Brahms was one of the great composers of high German Romantic music. Did he invent German Romanticism? No--Beethoven probably deserves the most credit for that, at least for non-dramatic music. Brahms does not represent innovation at all. But even highly educated musicians and musicologists do not disagree on his artistry. He was active about the same time as Debussey, who was doing for music what the Renoir, et.al., were doing for painting. Debussey was the innovator, and much of his music is beautiful even if it was misunderstood in his day. It wasn't beautiful (or whatever adjective is important in any given case) because it was innovative. It was beautiful because we perceive it as beautiful. Yes, our perceptions are informed by history, but that does not contain all the magic.

Most artists take some steps forward, and in a few cases they cross what becomes an important historical boundary. But they are going where their art leads them, and probably don't care much for critics or criticism.

This is an interesting argument. You seem to be saying that art doesn't need to be innovative, meaningful, or even good, so long as someone likes it. Who is this meant to comfort?

Me, for one. But not just me. I believe that art is bigger than just those few who redefine the medium. Let's think of that a different way. Back to music: How many composers of orchestral music (I'll limit it a bit) over the last several centuries could be credited with ushering a truly innovative new category of music? Probably no more than a dozen. Does that invalidate the work of all the other hundreds of composers during those centuries?

And what about musicians? They exercise considerable artistry, but they are still bound by the music that is written on the page by the composer. (The composer may be more or less specific depending on the style. Even jazz charts have a roadmap.) What makes the musician a genius? Is it that the musician played that Beethoven Concerto differently than anyone else? Is it that he became absolutely transparent so that only Beethoven came through (that is impossible, by the way)? Or that he abandoned what was clearly important to Beethoven to make a modern statement? I can find examples of great performances by artists who various held these views. Or is it that he played it with haunting beauty that spoke to the souls of those who listened? If someone plays it just as did some past (but forgotten) master, is it innovative?

If I have listened widely to a range of music, or spend endless days in great museums, such that I'm deeply familiar with a vast range of art, but I don't happen to know that Picasso was expressionist and Renoir impressionist (or that Beethoven was early romantic and Brahms late romantic), would I be unable to judge such art? We apply these historical distinctions as a matter of efficent scholarship, not as a definer of what is art.

It was C.S. Lewis who first articulated the notion, in his book An Experiment in Criticism, that the effect of the art is what made it art. (Do not argue against this because of Lewis's religious views and writings, which are not relevant here. This book was solidly within his field of expertise as a literature don at Oxford and Cambridge, and did not discuss religious topics at all.) It was he who said that if someone--even just one person--read literature and came to love and appreciate it as art, rereading it because of that love, that it would be impossible to declare it as not being art. So, in his estimation, art was art if people accepted it was art. He was quite clear that he was not talking about critics, and in fact he was complaining that critics criticized not to expand horizons but to limit them to their own tastes.

The art speaks for itself. If it's new, it may be exciting for a time. But for every one of the rare innovators, many others must follow, and the fact that they are following does not invalidate them, or invalidate the effect of their work on those who receive their art. Otherwise, art really does become elitist.

Rick "who wrote it better the first time" Denney

cyrus

28-Jun-2012, 11:52

Rick,

In a nice little bit of irony, the OP refers to the Expressionists of 1900, apparently blissfully ignorant of the fact that they were as misunderstood and reviled in their time as today's vanguard is by him.

I'm not blissfully ignorant of that. I just don't think you can really compare the "vanguard" today with the Expressionists of yesteryear. Not just in the quality of their work but also in the social/historical circumstances. Like I said, they revolted against "established" academic salon art -- and like I said no such rebellion is possible today because we don't have anything to similarly rebel against. There is no 'orthodoxy' of art to rebel against. So we don't really have a "vanguard" either. It is all just so vacuous. We just have hype and marketing and celebrity, which seems to have eclipsed values of artistic merit. You can pretty much do whatever you want, and it can be art. The content of your work is no longer the issue -- the propensity to be flashy, celebrity-associated, or hype-generating is what makes you a successful artist. Those are the new values of our vanguard or "high art"

Robert Hall

28-Jun-2012, 11:55

(big snippy) ... You can pretty much do whatever you want, and it can be art. The content of your work is no longer the issue -- the propensity to be flashy, celebrity-associated, or hype-generating is what makes you a successful artist. Those are the new values of our vanguard or "high art"

Again, agreed, it's a matter of literacy.

Vaughn

28-Jun-2012, 11:55

(I am getting sick and tired of how this interface works with IE, the only browser I'm allowed to use. This is my second attempt at a response, and I hate having to do stuff over again because some errant key cause all the typing to vanish.)...Rick "who wrote it better the first time" Denney

If you know you are going to write a thesis, you can always do it in Word or other word-processing program. Then cut and paste it into your forum reply.

I define "art" on a personal level -- as work one puts one's practice, heart and soul into. It is primarily the viewers' (or listener or reader) response to this that might make them consider the piece to be 'art'. The importance or standing of an individual artist in the art world is a different subject, and innovation often is a key factor in that.

Vaughn

cyrus

28-Jun-2012, 12:21

Again, agreed, it's a matter of literacy.

Sadly all literacy does is make you further aware of how vacuous it all is! ;)

rdenney

28-Jun-2012, 12:23

If you know you are going to write a thesis, you can always do it in Word or other word-processing program. Then cut and paste it into your forum reply.

I define "art" on a personal level -- as work one puts one's practice, heart and soul into. It is primarily the viewers' (or listener or reader) response to this that might make them consider the piece to be 'art'. The importance or standing of an individual artist in the art world is a different subject, and innovation often is a key factor in that.

Vaughn

Heh. It never seems like I'm going to write a thesis when I start.

Yes, importance or standing is often related to historical significance, and the innovators figure strongly in that assessment. But while some people define what the canon should include through their work, others apply that canon in their own work. Someone has to follow the lead for a trend to develop, and it's hard to be a trendsetter without a trend. I don't think art is served by declaring the work of those followers as derivative schlock and not art, just because they didn't set the trend. But I see a lot of young artists apparently driven by the notion of setting trends no matter what.

Rick "if everyone's a trendsetter, there are no trends" Denney

Darin Boville

28-Jun-2012, 12:34

Again, agreed, it's a matter of literacy.

Or pretending. Speaking of literacy, the best art book I've read recently is Steve Martin's "An Object of Beauty."

--Darin

mdm

28-Jun-2012, 13:04

You can get as deep and philosophical as you like but here is a nice simple view posted by Ian Leake on his blog. http://www.ianleake.com/daybooks/what-is-the-value-of-art
I think a photgraph can still have value so art is posible in photography.

jcoldslabs

28-Jun-2012, 15:19

In our culture someone who paints--even a Sunday painter--is a rarity. Painting typically requires a good deal of training, somewhat exotic equipment (brushes, canvas, paints) and a lot of time to create each individual work. I have a feeling the word "artist" is synonymous with "painter" for most people. We grow up having "art" presented to us as made by a cabal of nebulous "others" and requiring a talent and level of skill that few will ever possess. I have never looked at a Monet or Klimt or Vermeer and thought, "I could do that." Nor have I listened to Beethoven, Brahms, Debussy or Chopin (or the performers who interpret them) and thought, "That's easy. Anyone can do it." But even I, who should know better, have looked at the occasional Weston or Adams or Sherman or Mann or Shore or Winogrand and--erroneously, to be sure--thought, "I think I could do something similar."

With the Brownie in the hands of millions a century ago, photography became not something practiced by a highly trained class of "others"--photographs were made by just about everyone. Unlike with painting or playing the cello or carving marble, no training at all is needed to make a photograph and the equipment required is included as a bonus feature with your phone or tablet. (Not to mention that which is easily obtained is often seen as having little value.) While it is true that those photographers engaging in a dialogue with the history of the medium and truly innovating are as rare as painters or cellists or sculptors who do so, the other unwashed billions of us snap away and take pictures all the time. I can't think of another art form or craft that just about EVERYONE has direct experience with in daily life. Since its inception photography has had a chip on its shoulder for one reason or another in relation to other art forms. Photographs are now so commodified and ubiquitous that the public at large has trouble seeing the value in them as artifacts and not ephemera. (Sorry to flog the dead horse, here.)

People rarely ask, "Is painting dead?", or, "Is music dead?", or, "Is sculpture dead," in part because these art forms have always existed outside the common experience. But if familiarity breeds contempt, it is no wonder many people see little value in photography as art. If everyone is a photographer, then no one is.

Jonathan

Darin Boville

28-Jun-2012, 15:33

People rarely ask, "Is painting dead?", or, "Is music dead?", or, "Is sculpture dead," in part because these art forms have always existed outside the common experience.
Jonathan

But they do. "Is painting dead?" has come and gone a few times in the past generation or two.

--Darin

jcoldslabs

28-Jun-2012, 15:38

Darin,

Sure, I know it's been asked, (I even have a book on my shelf titled, Is Post-Modernism Dead?) but it seems that it gets asked by critics more often than ordinary folks. I guess that was the point I was trying to make. Average citizens don't know all that much about painting and so probably leave its prognosis to the pros. Photography, on the other hand....

Jonathan

Jim Jones

28-Jun-2012, 16:53

Steiglitz may have been the first to complain about easy photography making everyone think they are an artist. In fact, he may have been the first to say that photography was dead, in the 1890s.

According to Robert Taft in Photography and the American Scene (first published in 1938) Paul Delaroche said, "Painting is dead from this day," [probably in French, though] upon seeing some of Daguerre's earliest photographs.

Jim Jones

28-Jun-2012, 16:59

In our culture someone who paints--even a Sunday painter--is a rarity.

Jonathan

Less so than an outsider might think. I manage a mail list of about 150 mostly adult artists in several rural counties in Missouri, and suspect there are many hundreds more, not counting young students, who haven't come out of the closet yet.

jcoldslabs

28-Jun-2012, 17:25

Jim,

I meant a rarity in comparison to "Sunday photographers."

Jonathan

Jay DeFehr

28-Jun-2012, 18:08

Hi Rick,

Sorry for your troubles with lost text -- I know how frustrating that can be.

I think we might need to unpack the notion of innovation a bit, as it seems it's being conflated with notions of novelty and originality. And I think you're making some assumptions about the motivations and self images of artists based on your own personal biases, unless you have some special access to their inner workings the rest of us don't. Fortunately, we don't always have to guess how an artist feels about innovation, the state of their medium, or their place in history, as they see it. Many artists are more than happy to share their thoughts on the subject. I think it's safe to say that many of the most celebrated artists in history did in fact make conscious efforts to innovate, often at great peril, and actively set out to change history, at least so far as they were able to. The quintessential artist, Leonardo Davinci was an inveterate innovator, for whom changing history was an obsession. More recently Van Gogh, Picaso, Klimt, Pollack, and many, many others were actively innovative, and wrote or spoke about it openly. I think the accidental innovator who changes history by his sheer tenacity to his artistic vision, and who is insensitive to criticism, is something of a romantic fantasy. Innovation is perhaps the commonest characteristic of great artists, and great men, in general.

That being said, I acknowledge it is possible, and even common to create a masterpiece in an established tradition, but not without originality. Brahms might not have been an innovator, but if his compositions hadn't been original, we wouldn't be discussing him today. The more established a tradition becomes, the more difficult it becomes to produce original work within it, which in turn promotes innovation. It's no surprise Debussy was innovating about the same time Brahms was creating works that arguably represent the apex of the period. Similarly, the post modern vein has been mined, sifted, revisited, and referenced to death, and that's saying nothing about modernism. It seems paradoxical to bemoan the stagnancy of the medium, and complain about innovation, successful, or not.

It seems to me you're limiting the role of innovation to that which redefines a medium, or changes the course of history, and that's a high bar to clear. There are little innovations, too, and they accumulate to effect evolutionary changes, in addition to the revolutionary ones. Little innovations allow an artist to create original works within an established tradition, and originality almost always trumps virtuosity. Keeping to musical examples, but of more recent vintage, Django Rheinhardt might not be remembered at all had he not been burned and lost the use of two fingers on his left hand. This disability forced him to innovate, and that combined with his virtuosity resulted in a highly original style of jazz guitar, while virtuosity alone would likely have left him un-celebrated, and un-remembered, along with so many other nameless virtuosos, or whatever is the plural for virtuoso. I claim that any virtuoso that stands out from the crowd of others, does so because of originality, or outright innovation, or they wouldn't stand out. Does that make them lesser artists? I think it does, or at least, less outstanding artists.

If I have listened widely to a range of music, or spend endless days in great museums, such that I'm deeply familiar with a vast range of art, but I don't happen to know that Picasso was expressionist and Renoir impressionist (or that Beethoven was early romantic and Brahms late romantic), would I be unable to judge such art?

I think it's again paradoxical to be both deeply familiar with an art, and unfamiliar with it. One either knows Picasso worked in various styles generally grouped into periods, or one cannot claim to be deeply familiar with Picasso's work. While any person can make personal judgments about any work they encounter, the unfamiliar are not likely to offer meaningful criticisms of it. A person could say, "I don't care for Picasso's Blue Period -- for some reason, it leaves me cold". Certainly that person is entitled to his opinion, but we're not obligated to take it very seriously, or to consider it a valid criticism of the work.

By Lewis' reckoning, art is anything one chooses to call art, so long as that person is not the artist himself -- one of the complaints of the OP. To be clear, I'm not claiming that any of these hypothetical artists working un-originally in established traditions are not artists, or that what they produce isn't art -- I'm claiming they're not likely to be important artists, or to create important works, and are equally unlikely to be remembered. Art is not elitist, except for the elite.

jnantz

28-Jun-2012, 18:55

i never thought there was a such thing as "fine art" whether it was painting, sculpture or photography or anything else.
its is just a phrase people who want to suggest what they own, bought or make is top-tier or so much better call what they make ..
it is just an advertising slogan.

i have watched the "opulence" advert too many times and realize that whenever someone suggests something is
"fine art" it is just about training dogs to play poker or eating gold covered grapes ...

art is what you say it is ( or isn't )
if you suggest it is dead maybe it is,
but to someone else who doesn't think rocks + trees or "whatever"
is (fine art photography ) or art to begin with, but something else extremely different ( and frustrating for some )
then art or "fine" art is quite alive ...

i wish i had a pigmy giraffe ..

jcoldslabs

28-Jun-2012, 19:03

cyrus

28-Jun-2012, 20:08

In our culture someone who paints--even a Sunday painter--is a rarity. Painting typically requires a good deal of training, somewhat exotic equipment (brushes, canvas, paints) and a lot of time to create each individual work.

Nah, those days are over. Jean-Michel Basquiat is a prime example of a painter with no formal training and lots of glory.

David_Senesac

28-Jun-2012, 20:54

A decade ago before the masses of people understood what the Internet was about, the term "fine art photography" was often discussed on early web forums like Compuserve. When I set up my web site a decade ago, I included the term "fine art photography" in the html meta keywords for search engine reasons but even then disliked the term because it did not fit my form of landscape and nature photography art. I've since removed it from all my html code. I was never interested in capturing and then manipulating images by some creative art process as the vast majority currently engage in but rather capturing out in nature, visual moments in time reasonably close to what I experienced. All my subsequent post processing simply has a goal of producing the image moment. Considerable skill may be employed though that isn't really an art process unless one ventures into manipulating what they have raw captured. Oh I can do that haha, but it is not my personal style by choice and interest.

The art in my process is being able to recognize what is aesthetic out in nature and for the most part ends there. Much of the process of producing such images is not at all about an art process but rather a matter of hunting images in the outdoors visually sensing what is aesthetic and what is not. Once I find the general locations, then yes there is an artistic element of refining the best frame under conditions available. That is a combination of art and skills. For instance one can find through various skills and knowledge a landscape with beautiful wildflowers, trees, peaks, sky etc. To distill that once the general scene is in front of a photographer and set up one's tripod location is not always so obvious. It is what separates much of my own work from others and rises out of a sense of my internal aesthetic combined with experience about natural landscapes and natural science knowledge.

Since myriad former 35mm SLR photographers and myriad new young generation photographers have embraced digital cameras, especially those joining the DSLR ranks, much of what used to be photography in all its forms and processes have been discarded, reinvented, and generaly turned upsidedown and shook up. Photography has always evolved however since the mid 1990's change has been profound. Although we are currently awash in images everywhere, few are exceptional, especially larger images where more skill must be employed throughout the capture and post processing. There are a great many good images being produced now and presented to the public however again few are exceptional. To recognize such, one just needs to stroll down any higher quality outdoor art and craft fair or peruse local urban galleries. We large format photographers produce work that has the potential due to image size alone to be placed in a higher art value category. Unfortunately the vast noise created by all other relatively good media and imagery tends to drown out highest quality images such that the majority of the public is not much aware of much beyond the average good quality of those most aggressive in getting their work in front of the public's attention.

Jay DeFehr

28-Jun-2012, 23:31

Jay,

Innovation may indeed be a hallmark of what comes to be known as great art through the ages, but is the intent of all great artists to innovate? Did Lennon and McCartney decide to change the state of music in 1963? Or did they write songs that built on traditions that came before them, songs that they thought were upbeat and fun and danceable? Looking at an artist's career through the lens of history can distort the original intent, if there ever WAS an original intent, and relying on an artist's own proclamations of his or her genius or desire to change the world should be taken with a grain of salt. It is my belief that innovation happens in small, unpredictable ways and not usually by "great men" who set out on that course (although that does happen). Reinhardt, by your own example, did not necessarily set out to change the finger-picking style of the day and "invent" a new style of guitar jazz; he was forced to change his technique for practical reasons. Marlowe and Shakespeare were some of the first to implement the use of blank verse--and subsequently change the course of English poetic structure--but it can be argued they did so in order to make their work more accessible to their audiences and not because they wanted to visit a new literary art form upon the world.

Jonathan

EDIT: In short, I think most often creativity leads to innovation and not the other way around. Creativity usually involves an open and unfettered exploration of ideas, whereas the intention to innovate can box in creativity from the start.

Jonathan,

I think there's some misunderstanding regarding what I mean by innovation. I don't mean to suggest that great artists, scientists, etc., innovate for the sake of innovating, but that innovation results from an unconstrained mindset, and a willingness to experiment, fail, and experiment again. Innovation is the core of creativity, and one cannot extricate one from the other.

As for your example of the Beatles, I think it would be hard to make the argument that they didn't actively and intentionally experiment with new forms and themes, and so it would be equally hard to argue they didn't actively and intentionally innovate.

Rheinhardt innovated out of necessity, but that's not the same as saying he did so unintentionally, and while he probably didn't predict the influence his innovation would have on jazz guitar, his deviation from the style of his contemporaries was certainly intentional, and progressive.

As I wrote in a previous post, innovation isn't necessarily groundbreaking, or revolutionary, though groundbreaking and revolutionary changes are impossible without it, but most often the result of discipline and diligence and building on previous art. In other words, innovation results from building on the past, not from rejecting it.

Innovation is at the very center of creativity, and every great artist is also an innovator, including Brahms, from Rick's example. It's no accident of history that the most revered artists are also the most innovative, and it's no conspiracy by the art elite, but fundamental to the creative act.

jcoldslabs

29-Jun-2012, 00:46

Jay,

Thanks for the clarification. I think we're on the same page on this. That's what I meant by the P.S. to my last post. Creativity in its purest, best sense leads to innovation and new ways of doing and thinking by its very nature. But I see now that you mean innovation in its local sense, not the global sense, as an offshoot of the creative act. The Beatles playing around with new instrumentation, time signatures and melodies is innovation on a very local scale, but in aggregate over the course of 12 albums it led to the group's legacy as pioneers.

I wonder if we haven't all experienced this: some well meaning friend or acquaintance will say, "You're really creative," in response to seeing some of our work. It is a compliment I have trouble accepting because I understand that little of my work is really creative in the way I want it to be. Most of the time when I am framing an image I am aware that it has been done before, that I am not breaking any new ground. I click the shutter anyway because I love the process of using the camera and making the image. This is where your "informed dialogue with the past" comes into play. Because I have an awareness of much of what has come before me photographically, I am aware of how well (or how poorly) my own work pushes at the boundaries of what has been done and what is possible. This doesn't change my enjoyment as a practitioner of the photographic art, but it does allow me to measure my own work against what has come before. So while an outsider might think my photographs are "really creative," I can't help but see them as part of a continuum stretching back into the past and therefore I judge them informed by that knowledge. It's not that I think my photographs aren't any good, but when I'm being honest I can admit that my own level of creativity and therefore innovation is rather low. Yesterday, for example, I posted a scenic shot of east Portland with Mount St. Helens in the distance. I think it is a perfectly acceptable image, but there is not much creative or new or innovative about it.

But I'm not going to let that stop me. Photography is dead! Long live photography!

Jonathan

rdenney

29-Jun-2012, 04:55

This will be short--I'm on my iPhone.

I'm trying separate innovation and creativity, rather than conflate them. And I think those about whom I am complaining do so, too, else they would not so carefully use the word uniquely.

Everyone experiments with what they haven't done before, and they seek to make something from nothing. That is creativity. But when I see a portrait of a college kid barely removed from Arbus's freaks, accompanying an artist's statement about innovation, with "honesty" sprinkled in for good measure, I think the more he tries to be original, the more he fails. It is the claimed objective that bothers me.

Or maybe it's a photo of the downtrodden, or crumbling buildings, or ugly industrial fixtures, or vacant suburban teens, or tacky strip malls, or rusting carcasses of cars, or rotting corpses, or any of the other "innovative" contemporary subjects. or it could pretty rocks, but those don't usually come with such claims.

It's like kids letting their hair grow or mutilating themselves with piercings or tattoos. They think they are being original and rebellious, when really they are just repeating a time-worn pattern.

Occasionally, someone will come along that really does set a new direction, but more than anything that exposes the wannabes.

When photography spelled the death of painting, it wasn't painting-as-art that was doomed. It was painting-as-utility. Now, photography-as-utility is, in many cases, so easy that the highly skilled are no longer needed. There is utilitarian photography that still requires high skills, of course, but less and less.

Art is different. People need expression. Nearly everyone sings, if only to themselves. Many doodle on napkins, some quite expressively, who have no artistic pretensions. There are doubtless more amateur musicians, who have spent as much time developing their craft as most here, than expressive photographers. The vast billions who make photos with their phones are simply gathering mementos, and they have little expressive intent. As photographers, we hope to be expressive, and I don't think we need to be concerned with those who do not. All of those amateur musicians have and are driven by expressive intent, and they are focused on it. They don't worry about those who play digital samplers invalidating that expression or skill. (Utility musicians do worry about that, and rightly.) Few amateur musicians desire, however, to do what has not been done before. Does that make them inexpressive, or invalidate their artistry?

I sure hope not. Art depends more on them than on innovators.

Yes, I'm trying to comfort myself as much as anyone.

Summary: Creativity and expression should be built into art rather than innovation built onto it.

Rick "not worried about art being dead, whatever the state of 'fine art'" Denney

Tony Evans

29-Jun-2012, 06:58

Look at Jay Schlegel's portraits in the latest issue of View Camera. If you don't see these as Fine Art you have lost your soul.

Brian C. Miller

29-Jun-2012, 07:44

This will be short--I'm on my iPhone.

...

Rick "not worried about art being dead, whatever the state of 'fine art'" Denney

No, it's, "Rick 'no, this is not a thesis' Denney" :p

(Did you know you can get full keyboards for iPhones?)

Back on topic. Fine art really is art done with finely honed skill. Basically, anything that you'd look at and say, "It takes a master to do that!" So any time someone looks at your photographs and asks, "how did you do that?" you know that you've produced fine art. Through the "magic" of sweat, blood, and tears, you have labored to produce.

Edward Leedskalnin, a stone cutter from Latvia, built the Coral Castle (http://coralcastle.com/) in Florida. Just about everybody now is asking, "how did he do that?" Even though there are photographs of him at work, nobody seems to believe that he used the lever, pulleys, and a jack. What he created can only be called fine art. It took master-level skill to cut and move those blocks himself. In another hundred years, people will still be impressed with what he did. Now, how much of that was "innovative?" None of it. But it's still a work by a master.

rdenney

29-Jun-2012, 08:28

No, it's, "Rick 'no, this is not a thesis' Denney" :p

(Did you know you can get full keyboards for iPhones?)

Back on topic. Fine art really is art done with finely honed skill. Basically, anything that you'd look at and say, "It takes a master to do that!" So any time someone looks at your photographs and asks, "how did you do that?" you know that you've produced fine art. Through the "magic" of sweat, blood, and tears, you have labored to produce.

Edward Leedskalnin, a stone cutter from Latvia, built the Coral Castle (http://coralcastle.com/) in Florida. Just about everybody now is asking, "how did he do that?" Even though there are photographs of him at work, nobody seems to believe that he used the lever, pulleys, and a jack. What he created can only be called fine art. It took master-level skill to cut and move those blocks himself. In another hundred years, people will still be impressed with what he did. Now, how much of that was "innovative?" None of it. But it's still a work by a master.

IPhone keyboards don't fit in my pocket while I'm standing in a Starbucks. But nevermind.

I do not think art depends solely on skill, though without skill the artists vision can find no expression. As I suggested earlier, Art = Craft X Choices. This was actually suggested by a musician friend on a music forum, but it applies here, too. Without craft, art fails because the expression fails. Without expressive choices, art fails in lieu of a mere demonstration of craft.

I am often struck by the skill that people display without their work having anything to do with art. (Recent example: I observed a master Morse-code operator copy incoming code at about 30 words/minute--which is very fast--while carrying on a conversation with me. He was typing the Morse into his logging computer while we talked. And what he was copying was a call sign and an exchange that could not have been guessed by context. When he was done typing, he reached over and sent a response on a bug--more skill required--without even pausing his conversation with me. It was an amazing display of skill, but I doubt anyone would call it fine art, including the operator.)

Fine art may indeed demand fine skill, but it takes something more than that, too.

Rick "for whom craft must serve some purpose" Denney

Mike Anderson

29-Jun-2012, 08:48

....Fine art really is art done with finely honed skill. Basically, anything that you'd look at and say, "It takes a master to do that!"

Doesn't intended purpose come into play, for instance if Richard Avedon made a Gatorade ad, is it fine art?

Jay DeFehr

29-Jun-2012, 08:50

Hi Rick,

I don't think creativity and innovation can be separated very neatly, and I don't think innovation necessarily means doing something that hasn't been done before-- though that certainly qualifies-- as much as doing something that has been done before, in a slightly different way.

Going back to Brahms -- though he is seen by many as a great academician and traditionalist, Arnold Schoenberg paints quite a different picture in his lectures, Brahms the Progressive, which John Mangum cites here in reference to Brahms' Piano Concerto No. 1 -

Schoenberg liked the piece as a great example of “developing variation,” a Brahms innovation he discussed in his talks on “Brahms the Progressive.” The idea is really quite simple: Brahms would subject his thematic material to variations and transformations as soon as he introduced them, rather than waiting until the development section of a sonata-form movement. This allowed him to create larger structures from these constantly-developing materials.

The word, create can refer to making something from nothing, but in regular usage, creativity is used in a much more nuanced way, and doesn't necessarily imply creation of the new from whole cloth, but a way of thinking, working, or approaching a problem. Innovation, as a concept, is similarly nuanced. A groundbreaking, revolutionary development is certainly an innovation, but so is Brahms' incremental treatment described above.

I think you're being too hard on the authors of awkward artist's statements, and I disagree that "the more he tries to be original, the more he fails.", or at least I believe the more he fails, the more he'll succeed. As I've written, I think the idea of the accidental innovator is a romantic one, and innovation generally follows from dedicated effort, and multiple failures. The "portrait of a college kid barely removed from Arbus's freaks" is more likely a starting point than and end point, and a reasonable one given Arbus' place in the evolution of the medium relative to photographers beginning their careers now.

Regarding our rebellious youth, I'm not convinced they think they're being original-- though many might be ignorant of the history of the traditions they're continuing-- as much as they're choosing a peer group, for diverse reasons we can't reliably infer from their appearances. In other words, I don't think young people grow their hair or pierce themselves to reject something, but to embrace something.

Regarding amateur musicians who do not experiment or innovate, yes, they are lesser artists than those who do experiment and innovate, because they are less creative, but I don't accept your claim that few amateur musicians are creative. Logic demands that the exceptional are a minority, but I don't extrapolate from that to claim the majority are fundamentally dissimilar to the minority -- they are different by degree rather than by kind. I'm not sure what you mean by "Art depends more on them than on innovators.", presumably referring to those who are content to express the ideas and innovations of others. That seems to me a paradoxical statement.

Jay DeFehr

29-Jun-2012, 08:52

Jay DeFehr

29-Jun-2012, 09:12

IPhone keyboards don't fit in my pocket while I'm standing in a Starbucks. But nevermind.

I do not think art depends solely on skill, though without skill the artists vision can find no expression. As I suggested earlier, Art = Craft X Choices. This was actually suggested by a musician friend on a music forum, but it applies here, too. Without craft, art fails because the expression fails. Without expressive choices, art fails in lieu of a mere demonstration of craft.

I am often struck by the skill that people display without their work having anything to do with art. (Recent example: I observed a master Morse-code operator copy incoming code at about 30 words/minute--which is very fast--while carrying on a conversation with me. He was typing the Morse into his logging computer while we talked. And what he was copying was a call sign and an exchange that could not have been guessed by context. When he was done typing, he reached over and sent a response on a bug--more skill required--without even pausing his conversation with me. It was an amazing display of skill, but I doubt anyone would call it fine art, including the operator.)

Fine art may indeed demand fine skill, but it takes something more than that, too.

Rick "for whom craft must serve some purpose" Denney

I think most people would say fine art requires creativity. While your friend is clearly accomplished, even masterful, there's nothing very creative in what he does (as far as I can tell by your description and my very limited knowledge of what he does)-- he doesn't interpret, but only relays.

Robert Brummitt

29-Jun-2012, 09:53

I guess I fall into I photograph for myself. I do shows. My last one was in Palo Alto, Calif and six prints went away. They weren't sold. I gave them to family who love the prints!. It made me feel happy.
I volunteer my camera and photographic skills to several organizations. All non profits. They love me for this and that makes me feel good.
I guess that rocks my boat.

Scott Davis

29-Jun-2012, 10:56

I had an experience the other day that blew my mind. I think it really does speak to the commodification of images. I had someone approach me about my work that I had on display at a large art show here in DC. He said he really loved my work. We talked about it a little, he asked me about the price, I told him and he said it sounded in line with the work I was selling. Then came the jaw dropper when I asked him which piece (or pieces) he was interested in: "I'll have to shop the comparables". If that was a round-about backhanded way of saying the price is too high, just say, "I think your prices are high" or "I'm sorry but that's out of my budget". Or if it's a polite way of saying "I don't really like your work that much" then don't even engage me in conversation and don't waste both of our time. WTF is a "comparable" on original artwork? It's not like shopping for strawberries, or cars. I refrained from uttering what was really the appropriate response to that "comparables" remark - "go fuck yourself" - instead I just let it go.

cyrus

29-Jun-2012, 11:05

I guess people are being distracted into the question of what constitutes "fine art" photography vs other types of photography. My original point wasn't limited to fine art photography but was intended to apply to all forms of what is called fine art -- I used the example of painting and sculpture too. I just mentioned photography because this is a photographer's forum. It seems to me, in short, that we have two trends: "Low art" which tends to be banal, mass produced and mass consumed, mostly serving no function and having no meaning except as decor, which is easily substituted. Then there's "high art" of the sort you like stuffed sharks and such, which again has no real meaning but is judged successful to the extent it is prone to being hyped and celebrity-associated, regardless of content or merit (indeed, we no longer judge artistic merit anyway.) Like I said, the Expressionists are famous because they said something, specifically they rebelled against the pre-existing academic salon art, but today it seems that since everything can be judged to be "art" then there's nothing to rebel against and so it is all vacuous..

The exception is what is called political art, something that has been long marginalized because it isn't profitable especially for the exclusivist art world that caters to the rich who are part of the very establishment that political art seeks to challenge. Even Botero, an established and well-regarded painter whose work was widely shown, heard crickets when he came out with his torture series. I don't mean to sound too negative and I think there are some exceptions to this, of course -- for me there's Banksy who has taken a low-art medium of graffiti and done some really challenging and subversive stuff with it & gained a degree to mainstream "high art" respectability.

Heroique

29-Jun-2012, 11:55

I thought my museum was safe, but I got innovated.

The police came and I filed a report.

Next day I read about it in the Arts section.

-----
Apologies, just having fun... ;^)

I went to the museum and got innovated.

The police arrived and took me away.

Next day bail was met and I went home.

rdenney

29-Jun-2012, 13:02

Jay, I don't really agree with your use of terms, because of the way people I was complaining about use them. And it was me who brought up the topic of innovation (as they seem to use it) and asked whether it was necessary. The boundary between creativity and innovation is much closer to creativity for you, and much closer to innovation for me. But with your definition, we don't disagree much.

We will certainly agree that creativity is required for all art forms--that's what makes it go beyond mere skill. Those are the choices made by the artist about how they will apply that skill. If you want to call that innovation, then fine. But it means I need to use a new word to describe the apparent primary objective by some young wannabes to do what has never been done before.

I never said, by the way, that amateur musicians are not creative. Quite the opposite! I did, however, say that they were not often interested in innovation or doing what has never been done before--most would be tickled pink to do what has been done by someone more masterful than they. The creative part is that they, in real time, assemble a musical concept that is coherent and meaningful, starting with just black spots on a piece of paper and a few instructions. Following those instructions is a matter of technique, but giving a musical phrase meaning and direction is something else. If it was innovative, they'd have to do that in a way nobody has done it before--on purpose. That's my stricter definition, but that's how I think those college art school students are using it.

Back to the original post. When I make a photograph, I choose where to place the camera, where to aim it, what lens and format to use, when to push the button, how long to keep open the shutter, what to put in focus and what to throw out of focus, and a host of other more minor decisions. All those choices require some creative execution and expression on my part, even if some are intertwined with technique. If that expressiveness survives my technique and evokes something in the viewer, it succeeds as art, perhaps. And there is an infinitude of choices that might be made. Maybe that's harder to do with pictures of rocks and trees. But I'm still moved by many photos of rocks and trees, so I'm not sure they've been used up quite yet, any more than we are completely done with Brahms.

Rick "not caring too much about semantics" Denney

Brian C. Miller

29-Jun-2012, 13:32

Doesn't intended purpose come into play, for instance if Richard Avedon made a Gatorade ad, is it fine art?

Would you recognize it as finely-made art if he did do it, without knowing that he did it? I.e., might your reaction be, "wow, that's a mighty fine presentation of that sports drink! That could hang in a museum! I gotta get a copy for my wall!" Ansel Adams photographed boots for a catalog, but from what I've read here that's been posted about them, they were just photographs of boots. Now, if you wanted to cut the pictures out of the catalog and put them on the wall, then I would call that fine art.

That's why I referenced Coral Castle. It's one of those things that you look at and think to yourself, "wow!" That's a master work.

I am often struck by the skill that people display without their work having anything to do with art. (Recent example: I observed a master Morse-code operator ...

There is art work, which results in the production of an object, and then there is art. Art, as in "art of war," "art of the dance," "art of polemics," etc., is something that is produced by an ongoing action, and is independent of the formation of a physical object. When the musician ceases to play or the dancer no longer dances, then the art stops. It stops to exist. The "master Morse-code operator" was practicing the art of copying (and I'm sure at times sending) Morse code. (I used to hold an amateur radio operator's license, so I do understand the skill.) Just because the operator didn't produce something pretty doesn't mean that he wasn't practicing an art.

Jay DeFehr

29-Jun-2012, 13:57

Rick,

On the finer distinction of creativity and innovation -- According to some theorists, creativity ranges over a spectrum with interpretation at one end, and innovation at the other. The non-innovating musicians you describe sit squarely at the interpretation end of the spectrum, following the telegraph operator you described previously, who doesn't meet the creative criteria required to be included in the spectrum. I realize you didn't say explicitly that these musicians are not creative -- I meant that they are not creative relative to innovators, according to your description of them.

It's clear you have a strong reaction to people who claim to be innovators, or who confess to wanting to innovate, and in reading your posts in this thread I suspect that follows from your participation in and/or appreciation for orchestral music. I think this is self consciousness, and possibly a measure of inferiority complex. As a musician who undoubtedly has much respect for other musicians, it's understandable that you might get defensive when someone like me claims musical interpreters are lesser artists than musical innovators, even though you claim these musicians have no desire to innovate, and therefore cannot be called failures, and shouldn't be offended by the claim. It can't be denied that innovation is value added to interpretation. Jazz musicians are distinguished by their ability to slide interpretation towards innovation, and many, if not most great composers were also virtuoso musicians.

I think the word you're looking for to describe something never done before, is novelty. That word has several connotations that reflect the fact that being merely new, is not in itself a guarantor of quality.

bob carnie

29-Jun-2012, 13:59

Scott --
Go fuck yourself is actually one of my best phrases,, I use it all the time and it endears me to many people.
another one I would have used in that situation,, Is kiss my ass ,, that also would have been appropriate, also Hit the road Dickhead...

Bob

I had an experience the other day that blew my mind. I think it really does speak to the commodification of images. I had someone approach me about my work that I had on display at a large art show here in DC. He said he really loved my work. We talked about it a little, he asked me about the price, I told him and he said it sounded in line with the work I was selling. Then came the jaw dropper when I asked him which piece (or pieces) he was interested in: "I'll have to shop the comparables". If that was a round-about backhanded way of saying the price is too high, just say, "I think your prices are high" or "I'm sorry but that's out of my budget". Or if it's a polite way of saying "I don't really like your work that much" then don't even engage me in conversation and don't waste both of our time. WTF is a "comparable" on original artwork? It's not like shopping for strawberries, or cars. I refrained from uttering what was really the appropriate response to that "comparables" remark - "go fuck yourself" - instead I just let it go.

Jay DeFehr

29-Jun-2012, 14:08

Just because the operator didn't produce something pretty doesn't mean that he wasn't practicing an art.

No, the distinction lies in the fact that he wasn't being creative (as far as I know). Doing something well doesn't necessarily elevate it to the status of art, even if it's something difficult to do. For many years I worked in construction, mostly in interior finishes, and I can't count the number of times I was told I was an "Artist". That was meant as a compliment. My Dad often accused me of being an "Artiste", which was not. I was never confused about it, in either case.

Jay DeFehr

29-Jun-2012, 14:16

Scott --
Go fuck yourself is actually one of my best phrases,, I use it all the time and it endears me to many people.
another one I would have used in that situation,, Is kiss my ass ,, that also would have been appropriate, also Hit the road Dickhead...

Bob

Wow! You guys are sensitive! I wonder, do you (Scott) think this guy complimented everyone present? Sure, he could have been more delicate in his phrasing, but he paid a compliment nonetheless. I suspect he meant by "shop comparables" that he had a limited budget, and wasn't ready to commit to your work until he'd seen others. Not everyone is as articulate as you guys are. If you were selling your work at Christie's, you would surely encounter more refined conversation, but do you really think the underlying sentiment would be fundamentally different?

bob carnie

29-Jun-2012, 14:27

Jay DeFehr

29-Jun-2012, 15:29

Time wasters are time wasters whether your work is at Christie's or not . I think if the guy was really interested in Scott's work he would lay down the Visa rather than blowing smoke up his hinney or more articulated his rectum.

Do you buy every work that interests you? I think that's an unreasonable standard. I think it's possible to like something -- even to like it very much-- without preferring it to everything else.

Vaughn

29-Jun-2012, 16:31

Mike Anderson

29-Jun-2012, 17:06

...It can't be denied that innovation is value added to interpretation...

I say innovation is orthogonal to quality, be it in art, design, engineering, whatever. But as mentioned, it's just semantics.

jcoldslabs

29-Jun-2012, 17:47

I say innovation is orthogonal to quality, be it in art, design, engineering, whatever.

To label something as innovative is to acknowledge its quality, culturally speaking. A failed innovation is an oxymoron; once it fails it is no longer considered innovative.

(Sorry, yes, I'm playing the semantics card!)

Jonathan

Jim Jones

29-Jun-2012, 19:17

To label something as innovative is to acknowledge its quality, culturally speaking. A failed innovation is an oxymoron; once it fails it is no longer considered innovative.

(Sorry, yes, I'm playing the semantics card!)

Jonathan

By now I must have found many innovative ways to fail!

John Kasaian

29-Jun-2012, 21:30

jcoldslabs

29-Jun-2012, 21:35

I think somebody needs to press their "Happy Button":rolleyes:

It works better if you get someone else to press it for you. Much more fun than pressing your own--trust me!

Jonathan

Mike Anderson

29-Jun-2012, 22:22

To label something as innovative is to acknowledge its quality, culturally speaking. A failed innovation is an oxymoron; once it fails it is no longer considered innovative.

(Sorry, yes, I'm playing the semantics card!)

Jonathan

Oh I think wonderfully innovative things can be complete failures. There's a soft spot in my heart for such things.

RichardSperry

29-Jun-2012, 22:47

I've always thought that the term "fine art" applied to commercial art that was suppose to be better than all the mundane banal crap art like Bob Ross or Thomas Kinkade. (I won't go into who I think photographic equivalents are).

Gallery art that has not become Art, yet. A label applied by gallery owners and salespeople, or modest curators. To sell people on the idea to part money from purse and wallet. When I see the term it usually is attached to some means of sales, a sign on a gallery wall or window for example.

I just assumed that fine art photography was that same sort of meaning applied to photography.

Brian Ellis

30-Jun-2012, 06:01

Steiglitz may have been the first to complain about easy photography making everyone think they are an artist. In fact, he may have been the first to say that photography was dead, in the 1890s.

I don't remember reading that Stieglitz said photography was dead though I certainly could be wrong. It's just that I've read quite a lot (though far from everything) by and about Stieglitz and don't remember reading that he ever said that. But if you have a source I'd be interested in seeing it since I've been on kind of a Stieglitz kick lately. Or are you possibly thinking of Emerson, who after learning about H&D curves said that photography was too mechanical to be a legitimate art form (or something along those lines).

FWIW (nothing to anyone except me) in my own mind I divide photographs into two categories, those that document a subject and those that do more. I consider the latter "art."

Scott Davis

30-Jun-2012, 06:47

Wow! You guys are sensitive! I wonder, do you (Scott) think this guy complimented everyone present? Sure, he could have been more delicate in his phrasing, but he paid a compliment nonetheless. I suspect he meant by "shop comparables" that he had a limited budget, and wasn't ready to commit to your work until he'd seen others. Not everyone is as articulate as you guys are. If you were selling your work at Christie's, you would surely encounter more refined conversation, but do you really think the underlying sentiment would be fundamentally different?

Jay - I have no problem with him saying, honestly, "my budget is kinda tight and I have to think about it". I realize that he might not be able to afford it. But if that's the case, just say so. Hell, if he'd asked nicely, I'd probably have negotiated something with him. But that wasn't how he put it.

Yes, it was a compliment to say how much he liked my work. And I appreciate that compliment - I accepted it with grace and humility, because I always appreciate when anyone likes my work enough to say something about it. But to turn around and say that he has to comparison shop, like it's a Camry/Accord/Mazda6 decision? Again, if you're trying to find a way out of buying something because you can't afford it but don't want to say that, there's always, "I'm trying to decide between your work and another piece. Can I take your card and get back to you?" or the classic, "I have to get my spouse's approval". Or just say nothing. The insult was in the implication that the work could be comparison shopped.

Jay DeFehr

30-Jun-2012, 07:22

The insult was in the implication that the work could be comparison shopped.

Scott,

I'm sorry, but you implied the work could be comparison shopped when put a price tag on it. It is disingenuous, at best, to imply a potential customer has "commodified" work you've offered for sale. And it's just regular old egotistical to imply your work is incomparable. Your story is a good example of why some people hesitate to interact with "artists".

John Kasaian

30-Jun-2012, 07:39

Jay DeFehr

30-Jun-2012, 09:02

Anyone can buy a musical instrument and struggle out a tune.
Everyone I know keeps a pocket knife and can try carving something.
Most people have access to a kitchen and cook daily.
I've seen watercolor sets come free with some kid's meals at burger franchises.
Too many people have cell phones.

Are all the results considered Masterpieces? Fine Art? Yet there is no denying the reality of soulful music, beautiful sculptures, memorable meals and masterpiece paintings, is there? Are artistic photographs any different?

With digital, I'm surprised how many photographs are taken and how few ever get printed and how little the ones that are printed are usually appreciated.
On travels I'd take my point and shoot Olympus, eagerly await the return of my film from the camera store(better quality than the drug store in most cases) and relive the trip by selecting which snaps to insert in a small, pocketable album to show friends.
Now I hand my digi over to my bride, who downloads everything and its put on a disk. Maybe she'll have some printed for her scrap booking. The closest thing we have to sharing photos is posting on her facebook or handing the camera over to someone who sees them on the itty bitty screen.

I like my hand made 8x10 contacts. Call it Art, Fine Art, or just crap---it's now something quite rare and I find that both refreshing and personally rewarding to pursue. I'm stealing images of time in 1/125ths of a second so I don't consider my photography to be Fine Art as much as I consider it to be petty larceny:rolleyes:

"I'm stealing images of time at 1/125ths of a second so I don't consider my photography to be Fine Art as much as I consider it to be petty larceny" ought to be my signature!

Digital has made image sharing easier, and more common than prints ever could. Soon, digital displays will eclipse prints in image quality, and digital prints will eclipse chemical ones, though fewer images will be printed. The "itty bitty" displays of most smart phones are bigger than the old wallet-sized prints people carried around, usually dog eared, in some yellowing plastic sheathe, and these days, who doesn't own a tablet? Oh, and the fact that these same phones and tablets can also make (even at 1/125th second) and disseminate images, and video, is something our old leather trifolds could never do, in any fashion.

The digitization of the wallet is interesting, in itself. It began, of course, with the digitization of currency -- the credit card. Wallets could be made much slimmer when they needed only to carry credit cards, photo IDs, and maybe a few bills for small purchases that don't need to be tracked. My last wallet was this type, a very compact credit card holder with a magnetic clip for bills. Even so, it was one more item to find a pocket for, and to be sure I didn't forget. When I went to the Apple store to get a cover for my iPad, I found a nifty leather iPhone cover with slots in the back for credit cards/ID. Goodbye CC holder/ money clip! This iPhone cover/ CC holder is, of course, a bulky hybrid itself, and will soon be relieved of the need to carry CCs and IDs, as that information is better stored inside the device than outside it. So, the wallet will go the way of the wristwatch, two things I associate intimately with my late father. I can see his wallet, wristwatch and ring as clearly as if they were actually before me now. My dad never owned a cell phone, but my Mother does. None of my children ever owned a wristwatch, but they all have wallets, for now.

Scott Davis

30-Jun-2012, 10:19

Scott,

I'm sorry, but you implied the work could be comparison shopped when put a price tag on it. It is disingenuous, at best, to imply a potential customer has "commodified" work you've offered for sale. And it's just regular old egotistical to imply your work is incomparable. Your story is a good example of why some people hesitate to interact with "artists".

Jay-

you've never interacted with me in person so you have no idea of how I comport myself with customers or even just looky-loos and tire-kickers. Yes, I do in fact think my work is better - otherwise why would I put it out for display and critique? You've got to have some ego to make work and display it in the first place even if you put no price tag on it. I fully understand that I'm making my work a commodity in the sense of something that can be bought and sold by putting a price tag on it. But to say that, to take a personal example, you could comparison shop this image

https://dcphotoartist.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/pearldivevespa.jpg

is fallacious. You're really going to go out browsing for other people's pictures of the Pearl Dive Oyster Bar, at night, with a Vespa parked in front? How are you going to comparison shop that image? Is there a mall where you can go to different vendors selling similar images of the Pearl Dive Oyster Bar and see who has it cheapest? Or would you find multiple vendors in a single location who are selling identical prints of the same image at different prices?

Look at it for a moment from the flip side - you say my ego is sufficiently grandiose that I'm a reason people don't want to talk to artists. I say your response is an example of the entitlement mentality that expects artists to create for your entertainment for free. Yeah, I should spend $1000 and give up days of my spare time after my full-time day job to go hang out at an art exhibit to just nod politely and kiss the ass of people who come by to look at my work in the hopes that they might COMPLIMENT my work? It's far less expensive and far more productive to hire the services of a dominatrix.

Jay DeFehr

30-Jun-2012, 10:46

Jay-

you've never interacted with me in person so you have no idea of how I comport myself with customers or even just looky-loos and tire-kickers. Yes, I do in fact think my work is better - otherwise why would I put it out for display and critique? You've got to have some ego to make work and display it in the first place even if you put no price tag on it. I fully understand that I'm making my work a commodity in the sense of something that can be bought and sold by putting a price tag on it. But to say that, to take a personal example, you could comparison shop this image is fallacious. You're really going to go out browsing for other people's pictures of the Pearl Dive Oyster Bar, at night, with a Vespa parked in front? How are you going to comparison shop that image? Is there a mall where you can go to different vendors selling similar images of the Pearl Dive Oyster Bar and see who has it cheapest? Or would you find multiple vendors in a single location who are selling identical prints of the same image at different prices?

Look at it for a moment from the flip side - you say my ego is sufficiently grandiose that I'm a reason people don't want to talk to artists. I say your response is an example of the entitlement mentality that expects artists to create for your entertainment for free. Yeah, I should spend $1000 and give up days of my spare time after my full-time day job to go hang out at an art exhibit to just nod politely and kiss the ass of people who come by to look at my work in the hopes that they might COMPLIMENT my work? It's far less expensive and far more productive to hire the services of a dominatrix.

Scott,

You're right, I've never met you in person. All I know about you is what you've written about yourself, and it is on that basis that I've commented.

If you think your work is better than others', I assume you'd price yours higher to reflect that difference, or do you think your work is better than all other work? What you seem to be overlooking is the obvious fact that there is more than one basis for comparison. I doubt there are several images identical to yours for the potential buyer to compare with, but I'm sure there are several within the same price range, and that is surely the basis for comparison the potential buyer had in mind when he mentioned "comparables".

I don't know how you could have drawn the conclusion from my remarks that you should have given your work away for free. The irony is that you expect to be treated as if you were doing your customers a favor, instead of selling a product. I promise I will never insult you by complimenting your work.

Tony Evans

30-Jun-2012, 11:27

Cacophony!

E. von Hoegh

30-Jun-2012, 11:35

Cacophony!

More like shitstorm. This always happens when 'fine art" comes up.

Scott Davis

30-Jun-2012, 12:30

Scott,

You're right, I've never met you in person. All I know about you is what you've written about yourself, and it is on that basis that I've commented.

If you think your work is better than others', I assume you'd price yours higher to reflect that difference, or do you think your work is better than all other work? What you seem to be overlooking is the obvious fact that there is more than one basis for comparison. I doubt there are several images identical to yours for the potential buyer to compare with, but I'm sure there are several within the same price range, and that is surely the basis for comparison the potential buyer had in mind when he mentioned "comparables".

I don't know how you could have drawn the conclusion from my remarks that you should have given your work away for free. The irony is that you expect to be treated as if you were doing your customers a favor, instead of selling a product. I promise I will never insult you by complimenting your work.

No, I don't think my work is better than all others - just enough better than some to be worth more than the price of a dime store poster. You obviously don't understand art - it's NOT a product like a car or a cabbage. You can't commodify art the same way you do cars or cabbages. There is an intangible, unquantifiable quality to art that isn't there with a car or a cabbage. Yes, you can sit there and look at two pieces of art and say, "I have X dollars in my budget - I can only afford one or the other. I'll buy piece A instead of B", or you can say, "I like both A & B, but I can't afford either". But you don't sit there and say, " A is a better value per dollar proposition than B" (well, unless you have SO much money to spend on artwork that you view it as an investment). At my price point, you're not buying it for an investment that you expect to sell in 5 years and double your money. You're buying because you like it and can afford it.

You never have complimented my work before, so why should I expect you to do so now? Your comment proves my point about your attitude toward work - you seem to feel that your compliment is good enough and that I should be able to live on compliments alone. Sorry, but I can't even buy canned tuna fish with a compliment. You want to compliment me? buy something.

Jay DeFehr

30-Jun-2012, 13:35

No, I don't think my work is better than all others - just enough better than some to be worth more than the price of a dime store poster. You obviously don't understand art - it's NOT a product like a car or a cabbage. You can't commodify art the same way you do cars or cabbages. There is an intangible, unquantifiable quality to art that isn't there with a car or a cabbage. Yes, you can sit there and look at two pieces of art and say, "I have X dollars in my budget - I can only afford one or the other. I'll buy piece A instead of B", or you can say, "I like both A & B, but I can't afford either". But you don't sit there and say, " A is a better value per dollar proposition than B" (well, unless you have SO much money to spend on artwork that you view it as an investment). At my price point, you're not buying it for an investment that you expect to sell in 5 years and double your money. You're buying because you like it and can afford it.

You never have complimented my work before, so why should I expect you to do so now? Your comment proves my point about your attitude toward work - you seem to feel that your compliment is good enough and that I should be able to live on compliments alone. Sorry, but I can't even buy canned tuna fish with a compliment. You want to compliment me? buy something.

Scott,

I never made any mention whatsoever about the price you put on your work, only that you did put a price on it, thereby "commodifying" it. Why are you so determined to claim I've made some value judgement about your work, or that I've questioned or challenged the price you put on it, which you've never said, and I've never asked? Whatever your personal feelings about it, "I have X dollars in my budget - I can only afford one or the other. I'll buy piece A instead of B" = " A is a better value per dollar proposition than B" -- only the language is different. What makes A a better value per dollar is that the buyer prefers it, for his own reasons, to B. Those reasons aren't necessarily related to thinking of the work as an investment, but more likely as something to be enjoyed.

I don't know if I've complimented your work before, I don't keep track of these things, but you can be sure I won't do so in the future, lest you claim I'm denying you your livelihood. And I won't be buying anything either, in case there's any confusion about that.

jcoldslabs

30-Jun-2012, 13:56

As an art consumer (mainly photographs but occasionally paintings), I have made all of my purchases on an emotional basis. If I reacted strongly enough to a piece--usually with my wife backing me up otherwise we wouldn't be hanging it our house--we would buy it on the spot, funds permitting.

Years ago in Paris my wife and I stumbled into a small photo gallery while walking the city. One of the photos, a tiny female nude, struck us both. We loved the image and wanted to own it. It was by a Czech photographer from the 1920s I had never heard of at the time (don't laugh)--Frantisek Drtikol. I won't tell you what we paid because it was an emotional purchase in an expensive city and, well, maybe we overpaid. We have also purchased photos for $50 at beach-side Sunday flea markets. But the reason, reaction and swift decision was always the same. Just last year we saw a painting by a local artist named Sally Cleveland and my wife and I both wanted to buy it, but at $1,800 it was out of reach.

Putting myself in Scott's shoes for a moment, I think I would feel a sense of disappointment if a potential buyer of my work was not struck in the way I am when I like something enough to buy it. The "shop the comparables" phrase takes all the emotion out of the equation. The guy was indeed shopping for artwork the way he would shop for melons--practically. Admittedly, people buy art for all kinds of reasons, but, right or wrong, fair or unfair, my own personal bias would be hard to set aside when confronted with such a situation.

Jay is right in that there are many ways to compare even apples to oranges. Maybe the guy was thinking of looking at other photos with a similar color scheme to match his couch. But I make photographs because I respond to the scene before me and feel the need to capture it on film, and I buy them for exactly the same reason. An indifferent art consumer who wants to "shop around" goes against the grain of my own experience. I would be disheartened to hear such a phrase uttered in my direction, too. Then again I've never sold a photograph, so what do I know?

Jonathan

Jay DeFehr

30-Jun-2012, 14:34

Jonathan,

I understand your position, and I understand why Scott might have been disappointed -- the guy could have been more delicate, but I'm not sure his wanting to shop around equates to indifference. I've bought artwork primarily to support the artist selling it, and I don't regret doing so, but when I'm thinking of buying something from a stranger, for my own selfish reasons, I don't want to worry about bruising the tender egos of every artist I don't buy from. Sadly, most of the work that really grabs me is way out of my price range, so I don't buy much artwork. Most of what I've collected has been given or traded to me, and I've never sold, or tried to sell my own work, but I do appreciate when someone takes the time to look at my work, is interested enough to talk with me about it, and I'm flattered when someone compliments my work.

It's ironic that Scott makes the emphatic point that his work is not like a cabbage or a car, but refers to potential buyers as "looky-loos and tire-kickers", exactly the way a car salesman might.

Scott Davis

30-Jun-2012, 14:49

Thank you Jonathan for understanding. In reflecting on it, I think the word "comparables" resonates most in the real estate context - it's what realtors and appraisers use when figuring out what a house is worth. And yes, it just guts the transaction of all emotional connection. Yes, a sale is a sale and a commercial transaction, but it's also a transfer of a creation from the creator to the first (and hopefully not last) custodian of the work. As an artist, you hope that what you created will not be thrown away when the couch gets re-upholstered, but instead gets passed on to the kids, or if you're really lucky, your work appreciates in value and they sell it on to someone else for more money than they paid for it. Shopping the comparables turns from that transfer of custodianship into a decor purchase. In the end, if you're buying it because it matches your couch, I don't care, but I don't need (or want) to know that either. It changes something from an emotional "I love it" purchase into "well, this one has the iPod connection AND the floor mats".

Jay - I'm fully aware of the irony, but it's appropriate. When I'm working an art show and talking to people who come up to my exhibits, 90%+ of them come to talk and ask questions and don't buy. Some are reasonable, and some are there to waste time. I treat everyone in person with the same respect, regardless, because the chatterbox this time might be a buyer next time. But after the show is over and the work is back in the box, there are a lot of folks who ARE looky-loos and tire-kickers with no intention of buying. Of you go to enough gallery openings, you'll see certain people there every time - the gallery folks call them grazers because they're not even really looking at the artwork, they're grazing the free canapés and fruit salad. It's a cost of business, and you work around them, but it doesn't make it any less annoying to the gallery owner.

jcoldslabs

30-Jun-2012, 15:10

Jay,

By "indifference" I meant relative to my own "buyer's enthusiasm," which I cannot fairly expect anyone else to have. And no, you are not responsible for bruising the egos of the artists you don't buy from any more than you are responsible for crushing the hopes of all the women you didn't ask to marry you!

It will always be my hope that viewers of my work, and purchasers of it if I put a price tag on it, will in some small way share in the passion that went into making it and see in the photo the spark of what led me to take it in the first place. But this is a romantic notion. I realized long ago that no one will ever appreciate my work as much as I do, because only I was there from inception. Everyone viewing after the fact does not have the context I do as the maker. No amount of blood, sweat and tears that goes into the making of a work will matter to the viewer if the work elicits no reaction on its face.

Jonathan

jcoldslabs

30-Jun-2012, 15:17

Scott,

Sorry, I was composing my above response and only saw yours once it posted.

I've never been in your position as a seller of my work to the public, so I was simply putting myself in your shoes, so to speak. All I have is my experience on the other side of the transaction, and I rely on a visceral reaction to something to guide my purchase. No reaction = no purchase. It may not be rational, but it would sadden me to have my artwork squeezed and sniffed like so many cantaloupe rather than scooped up in an 'aha!' moment. It's a bit like love at first sight: a wonderful myth to subscribe to, but it almost never happens. Although when I'm the one buying the art, it does!

Now if only I could sort out just what 'art' is. I wonder if there's a thread that could help me figure that out....

Jonathan

Jay DeFehr

30-Jun-2012, 16:42

Jonathan, I understand your point, but Scott has me wondering how many of the seemingly nice artists, whose work I've admired and complimented, but not bought were actually thinking, "Go fuck yourself, dickhead", when they said, "Thank you for looking". It kind of takes the fun out of going to an art show.

RichardSperry

30-Jun-2012, 17:45

It kind of takes the fun out of going to an art show.

Exactly!

Combine that with the honest appraisal from Scott Davis of how gallery owners/salespeople and artists like him view non buying viewers or audience of their work... Looky Loos, grazers, tire kickers; only there for the free food, "Go fuck yourself, dickhead"?.

Where does one go to buy such an opinion, such condescending disdain and sense of a right to some sort of obligation from others? How does one continue to work while holding such an opinion of their audience, of prospective customers? It makes one wonder.

It makes one wonder and imagine being a customer of such a person, just so that one could boycott him.

John Brady

30-Jun-2012, 17:59

Haven't these question already been answered?

“He who works with his hands is a laborer.
He who works with his hands and his head is a craftsman.
He who works with his hands and his head and his heart is an artist.”
― St. Francis of Assisi

Although he doesn't address the whole subject of fine art I think he somes up being an artist pretty well.

At one of my shows, I had a lady ask me if my work was art or photography, I had no coherent answer.

www.timeandlight.com

Doug Howk

30-Jun-2012, 18:07

I'm not getting this quote right, but someone said that when you sell a work of art you've found a fellow spirit. Unfortunately, in our overly commodified society we are expected to put a price tag on everything including our art because money is the measure of all things. But for art at least we should buy/admire/compliment based on whether it resonates with us, for whatever reason. And that resonance is very personal based mostly on our life's experiences. Will our work be swamped by the tide that is digital - the billions of images taken every day? On even a national or regional level, the answer is yes; so think global but create local. And enjoy the process, but don't expect it to be anything more than a personal creative outlet.
By the way, the earlier quote from St Francis is actually by Louis Nizer, http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Louis_Nizer

Kimberly Anderson

30-Jun-2012, 20:05

Well Jay and Scott are ruining what I thought to be a pretty interesting discussion. Is there such a thing as fine art photography anymore? Personally I don't bother myself with such questions.

I make my photographs, sometimes I exhibit my photographs, sometimes I even give out free food. Today I spent over $250 on food that I am excited to give away because it will be at a very fun party/reception for work that I have put my heart and soul into. I don't even care if people purchase prints from this exhibit. I don't even care if they like the work. I am secretly hoping that I get to bring it all home because I like it so much I want to hang it in my basement and remind me of when I was there on location making the work.

If people like it...if someone likes it enough to talk to me about it...if someone likes it enough to even buy a print, I will be excited because they will see beyond the work on the very thin paper, and into the deeper meaning of the image and more than likely they will be someone that I want to call a friend and have conversations with in the future. Sure, the check, if there is one ain't bad, but that's not why I made this body of work or why I'm exhibiting it.

Back to the original question. My answer is: "Who Cares?" There is no such thing as the ultimate arbiter of fine art, so why should I worry about it.

By the way, for anyone who is in the Salt Lake City area next Friday afternoon, please come by and 'graze' all you want. I hope you like pickled herring.

76434

Jay DeFehr

30-Jun-2012, 20:11

Michael,

I'm sorry if I ruined a thread you find interesting on a subject you don't care about.:rolleyes:

Kimberly Anderson

30-Jun-2012, 20:18

Now that you put it that way and I have gone back and re-read many of the posts...I should offer an apology to both you and Scott. While your banter at times seemed very rude and unproductive, it caused me to ask some questions to myself and reaffirmed my stance on many of the topics you both find compelling. Such as that is, I then must admit that it actually is a topic that I don't care much about, but I do enjoy reading others opinions and thoughts about it. Mainly because in 'art school' these are the very questions that the intellectuals prided themselves on being able to sound educated about. I enjoyed their debates as I have enjoyed yours, while in the end I have a conversation with myself in the back of my head about where I'm going to go and what I'm going to photograph next.

Initially I claimed that you had ruined it, when in reality you have just propagated it. For that I offer my thanks as well as my condolences.

Scott Davis

30-Jun-2012, 20:25

I'm sorry if I belabored a point to the extent of ruining a discussion for everyone. And I'm doubly sorry that people mistook a moment of venting in frustration as a slam on the consuming public. Nothing I can say at this point will further clarify the point I was trying to make or to defend my now-maligned character; instead we'll all just argue in circles and get angrier and say more things that come across poorly on an online forum but would be taken differently in person. I have obviously argued my way into a hole I did not intend to dig; I'll shut up now to stop digging.

Back on topic, I would say that fine art photography is dead. I'd say it is dead because it has been killed by the internet and the mass availability of consumable images. I'd also say it has been killed by the "fine art" world that has decided aesthetics and beauty mean nothing anymore, and to be truly artistic, one must be at the minimum extraordinarily banal.

Jay DeFehr

30-Jun-2012, 20:31

RichardSperry

30-Jun-2012, 22:08

Well Jay and Scott are ruining what I thought to be a pretty interesting discussion.

Not at all. Confirms my original opinion of "fine artists" and their purveyors.

I thank them both for the honesty, and for posting. It only got interesting when they started posting their discussions.

cyrus

30-Jun-2012, 23:25

I think everyone is getting a little too involved about the "fine art" thing. Look, I appreciated that there is a sort of anti-elitism sentiment, and "fine art" sounds hoity-toity and pretentious, and to some the terms offends a sense of anti-elitism. But all fine art photography means is a genre of photography OTHER than say, wedding photography. That's all. Photography as an artistic medium, like the other fine arts like painting or sculpture or drawing. There need be no further implication of superiority in simply using the term "fine art". If you like taking photos for yourself, and do so with the sort of dedication that a painter does -- even a Sunday painter -- then congrats, you're a fine art photographer. Indeed the very fact that you like to do it for yourself purely for the sake of enjoyment, rather than utilitarian purposes, actually favors the label of a fine artist rather than just a worker or practitioner.

jcoldslabs

30-Jun-2012, 23:39

I have always assumed that the term "fine art photography" is used as a catch-all category for photography that is done without any intended purpose other than to be "art." Wedding photography is done to document a wedding, although it can be quite artistic; product and advertising photography is done for commercial reasons, no matter how creative; sports photography is done to cover sporting events; high school yearbook portraits are done to record who attended a given school that year, etc.

I don't agree with the use of the term, but most of us here who take photographs for the pure aesthetics and joy of it would be considered "fine art photographers" by people who use the "fine art" label. In some circles it seems the more commercially useless the work the more "fine art" it becomes.

Jonathan

Scott Davis

1-Jul-2012, 03:27

Look, I think everyone is focusing too much on the negative of what I was saying - the complaint about the tire kickers and the grazers really applies to maybe 5% of the people you meet. So if you're going to draw the conclusion that artists and gallery owners are arrogant snobs who look down on their customers, you're making a gross over-generalization. In whatever line of business you're in, do you like every last one of your customers? Probably not. And do you come home at the end of a rough day and complain to your spouse about the customer who is a pain because they won't make up their mind/take up a lot of your time to little result? Does that complaint about that one person mean that your spouse thinks you hate all your customers? And would you feel just the slightest bit miffed if someone treated your child like a car for the purpose of choosing them (or not choosing them) for some activity? I was venting because someone treated my emotional brainchild as if it were an interchangeable commodity. And there is a big difference between the curious, the friendly, and the time-waster. The grazers are the type who come in to the gallery opening, scarf up free food, and never interact with the artists or the art.

Jim Jones

1-Jul-2012, 05:48

. . . I would say that fine art photography is dead. I'd say it is dead because it has been killed by the internet and the mass availability of consumable images. I'd also say it has been killed by the "fine art" world that has decided aesthetics and beauty mean nothing anymore, and to be truly artistic, one must be at the minimum extraordinarily banal.

Fine art photography is not dead. It is thriving among those who create it and those who appreciate it. The term "fine art" is sometimes misappropriated by galleries and art producers as a marketing ploy, but that should not denigrate something that moves more than our checkbook..

bob carnie

1-Jul-2012, 07:07

Worse are the professional scarfers who show up for the free food and wine and then interact with the artist. This is a common way for some to have an evening meal.

Look, I think everyone is focusing too much on the negative of what I was saying - the complaint about the tire kickers and the grazers really applies to maybe 5% of the people you meet. So if you're going to draw the conclusion that artists and gallery owners are arrogant snobs who look down on their customers, you're making a gross over-generalization. In whatever line of business you're in, do you like every last one of your customers? Probably not. And do you come home at the end of a rough day and complain to your spouse about the customer who is a pain because they won't make up their mind/take up a lot of your time to little result? Does that complaint about that one person mean that your spouse thinks you hate all your customers? And would you feel just the slightest bit miffed if someone treated your child like a car for the purpose of choosing them (or not choosing them) for some activity? I was venting because someone treated my emotional brainchild as if it were an interchangeable commodity. And there is a big difference between the curious, the friendly, and the time-waster. The grazers are the type who come in to the gallery opening, scarf up free food, and never interact with the artists or the art.

Jay DeFehr

1-Jul-2012, 07:43

I think everyone is getting a little too involved about the "fine art" thing...... But all fine art photography means is a genre of photography OTHER than say, wedding photography. That's all.

So, this was a rhetorical thread?:rolleyes: Thank you for doing our thinking for us, Cyrus! Now we can all go about our business unburdened by our own opinions.

Mike Anderson

1-Jul-2012, 09:31

I have always assumed that the term "fine art photography" is used as a catch-all category for photography that is done without any intended purpose other than to be "art."...

I agree, I think it's that simple. Same with other "arts", painting can be "fine art" or it can be more purposed graphic art for the purpose of something like advertising.

Of course there's no clear line between fine art and purposed art, for instance is AA's canonical work fine art or environmentalist propaganda? And an athlete's portrait can repurposed into a Gatorade advertisement.

cyrus

1-Jul-2012, 10:26

No Jay the question is whether there really is a point when for example there are millions of images that are made and available on the cheap.

Jay DeFehr

1-Jul-2012, 10:57

No Jay the question is whether there really is a point when for example there are millions of images that are made and available on the cheap.

That's not a question at all -- there certainly, and in-arguably are millions, perhaps billions of images available for free! The question is, how does this impact fine art photography (if such a thing exists)?

cyrus

1-Jul-2012, 11:42

I didn't say there aren't millions of photo available, I said "whether there is a point" Could we please stop wit hthe semantic one-upsmanship?

Jay DeFehr

1-Jul-2012, 11:54

I didn't say there aren't millions of photo available, I said "whether there is a point" Could we please stop wit hthe semantic one-upsmanship?

We've established there is a point, and we're past it. My question is-- how is that relevant to our discussion?

Mike Anderson

1-Jul-2012, 12:05

Is the field of editorial-style writing comparable? Now that there are a billion blogs out there, is the professional, thoughtful, conscientious editorial writer a dying breed?

Jay DeFehr

1-Jul-2012, 12:17

Is the field of editorial-style writing comparable? Now that there are a billion blogs out there, is the professional, thoughtful, conscientious editorial writer a dying breed?

Only the professional.

RichardSperry

1-Jul-2012, 15:41

Could we please stop wit hthe semantic one-upsmanship?

This whole thread is about meanings, or semantics.

Before your original question can be answered, a working definition of what "fine art" is must be roughed out. It is obvious that it has as many meanings as there are posters in this thread. A common ground must be formed, or at least an understanding of what others mean by the term must occur before a valid discussion takes place.

Richard Rau

1-Jul-2012, 21:17

So is "fine art" like sand paper? Does that mean there's "medium art' and "rough art"? Hasn't this question been debated for the last 100 years? Photography has already been accepted as "Art"! Because it has been, and continues to be displayed in some of the finest art museums and galleries all over the world and continues to be, thanks to the perpetuation of photographers / fine artists who have joined this forum, as well as the many working photographers / fine artists who may or may not occasionally just lurk here, I think the answer is an emphatic "yes!" There is such a thing as "fine art photography" in the world today, and there will probably always continue to be fine art photographers creating meaningful (and sometimes not so meaningful ~ you know, beauty is to eye of the beholder) works of compelling, creative fine art photography. I'd love to say discussion closed, but I know better.

"everything in the world has already been photographed!" ~ anonymous fine art photographer quote

Nasser

1-Jul-2012, 22:09

Isn't alt process consider a fine art? Like pt/pd?

Steve Smith

1-Jul-2012, 22:34

Isn't alt process consider a fine art? Like pt/pd?

No. It's a medium. Not art in itself.

Steve.

Oren Grad

1-Jul-2012, 23:47

So is "fine art" like sand paper? Does that mean there's "medium art' and "rough art"?

Yes! One minor point - the grade at the other end of the scale is "coarse art", not "rough art".

jcoldslabs

2-Jul-2012, 00:47

A guy who nails 2x4s together to frame a house is a laborer; a guy who joins pieces of mahogany together to make a chest of drawers by hand is a craftsman; and a guy who creates abstract sculptures made of wood is an artist. (Whereas a guy who can assemble IKEA furniture without using the instructions is a genius!) But why?

I can only venture to guess, but I believe it has something to do with utility vs. creativity vs. risk. The house framer is applying a skill to contribute his part to a pre-determined whole. He has little control over the decisions that guide his work and there is little creativity in it as a result. In fact, if he gets creative and deviates from the house plans he can compromise the integrity of the project. The woodworker also works from a plan, but often one of his own devising. What woods he selects, what joinery methods he employs, what finishes he chooses are up to him, although his decisions are limited by the practicalities of making a functional piece. The finished product is utilitarian--a piece of furniture--but one made using skills and decisions well beyond what is necessary to simply make a unit with drawers that holds clothes. (See above re: IKEA.) The sculptor may have a plan, but it is not bound by utility. He can make his sculpture in any shape he wants, or any size, or any color. His sculpture will not house people or hold clothes but will exist for its own sake as a product of the imagination of its creator. The level of creative decision-making is highest for the sculptor, even if he uses some of the same methods and materials as the laborer and the craftsman, and so we call him an artist.

In photographic terms even the best printers are usually considered craftsmen when it comes to their darkroom work, especially if they are printing other people's images. Why? Probably because a good deal of the creative content of the work was done by the photographer. No matter how good a printer is (say, John Sexton), he is bound by what is in a negative made by someone else. Since not all the creative decisions were up to him he is kicked down a notch from artist to craftsman. Take the example of Cartier-Bresson: he was the idea man out taking pictures and was content to let other people print them. It goes without saying that history has not been as kind to the names of his printers as it has been to C-B.

This goes back to Jay and Rick's debate about musicians vs. composers. Ultimately a musician may be seen as less creative than a composer because, like the printer, he does not decide what the notes are but only how to play them. He takes fewer risks by following an existing score than by making one up out of thin air. This is also why cover bands don't get the same respect as the bands they emulate, reporters are not heralded as artists the way novelists often are, and movie directors--not movie producers--are hailed as "auteurs."

This is also at the root of photography's struggle to be viewed as an art form altogether. Initially people saw the photographic apparatus as a recording device and the people who took the pictures simply as "camera operators"--the same way you might think of a movie projectionist, only in reverse. The level of creative decision-making was seen as lower than for painters or sculptors since the control a photographer had over how his subject looked was limited. Whatever was before the camera was recorded to the plate in a pre-determined fashion. (Sounds a lot like a craftsman to me!)

This notion exists well beyond the arts, of course. We reward creative risk-taking in almost every discipline, from finance to pharmaceuticals to entrepreneurship. Even theoretical physicists are seen as the most creative of the bunch because, unlike the experimental guys who go around testing what's already been thought up, the theoretical practitioners are the ones doing the thinking. Etc., etc.

I am not advocating the above positions, simply trying to explore the ideas. I very well may be completely wrong.

Jonathan

NOTE: I realize I used male pronouns throughout, but it was not my intent to exclude female practitioners from any or all of the above examples. Mea culpa. Oh, and sorry for the thesis. Unlike Rick I didn't lose mine by hitting the wrong key and so it remains in all its tattered, long-winded glory.

RichardSperry

2-Jul-2012, 01:09

No. It's a medium. Not art in itself.

Steve.

Painting is a medium. Are you saying that painting is not art?

rdenney

2-Jul-2012, 05:52

rdenney

2-Jul-2012, 05:58

Painting is a medium. Are you saying that painting is not art?

I just painted a new door for the room where I store my camera stuff. I don't think art was involved.

But there is a subterrainian point in your comment that deserves the plain light of day: Artists often define "art" as being what they consider good art, and define as not art what they consider to be bad.

Once we recognize that art can be bad, the definitions become easier.

Then, fine artists often define "fine" as fulfilling some fine-art objective nearly always tied to their opinion of it. And then they define as something else what they do not consider to be worthy of "fine".

Once we recognize that fine art can be bad, the definitions become easier.

Rick "thinking the world needs bad art to bring to clarity good art" Denney

f90

2-Jul-2012, 06:13

To me art is merely the language of imagination. An artist fluent in his ability to communicate this language will always produce fine work no matter the medium.

cyrus

2-Jul-2012, 07:44

We've established there is a point, and we're past it.

No, we didn't. Thus far the discussion has gone off on the tangent of "what's fine art" and people have been expressing their disapproval of gallery promotiong practices and the pretentiousness of the term etc. Some other photographers have chimed in and said that they don't really care about this issue since they take photos for their own enjoyment -- all the more power to them, but that's neither here nor there.

And that's it.

Look folks, "fine art" is really besides the point. Lets call it "artistic photography". How's that? We do all agree that artistic photography -- photography primarily intended as an art form and not for example wedding photography or other more utilitarian photography -- exists, right? My question wasn't even about photography per se but about art in general. Does art IN GENERAL really matter in our society any more. Is there anything more to it, substantively, than decoration or indulgence of personal interest or celebrity/hype. Is there anything as "meaningful" art left. Can anyone point to a modern equivalent of say, Expressionism? I don't think so.

Jay DeFehr

2-Jul-2012, 08:47

No, we didn't. Thus far the discussion has gone off on the tangent of "what's fine art" and people have been expressing their disapproval of gallery promotiong practices and the pretentiousness of the term etc. Some other photographers have chimed in and said that they don't really care about this issue since they take photos for their own enjoyment -- all the more power to them, but that's neither here nor there.

And that's it.

Look folks, "fine art" is really besides the point. Lets call it "artistic photography". How's that? We do all agree that artistic photography -- photography primarily intended as an art form and not for example wedding photography or other more utilitarian photography -- exists, right? My question wasn't even about photography per se but about art in general. Does art IN GENERAL really matter in our society any more. Is there anything more to it, substantively, than decoration or indulgence of personal interest or celebrity/hype. Is there anything as "meaningful" art left. Can anyone point to a modern equivalent of say, Expressionism? I don't think so.

Cyrus,

If your question wasn't about fine art or photography, then it was poorly phrased, and you shouldn't be surprised the discussion went "off on a tangent" about fine art and photography. As fopr establishing a point, what is required? You posted:

No Jay the question is whether there really is a point when for example there are millions of images that are made and available on the cheap.

That's not in question -- it's an established fact, and common knowledge. Your question is like asking if there really is a point when for example there are billions of people making images, and the answer is... yes! That point has been established, so the question isn't really a question, or at least not one worthy of much consideration.

As for your new questions about whether art matters in society, that's a different discussion, and one better addressed in John Kasaian's thread: Do we really want Artists in America?
(http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?92477-Do-we-really-want-Artists-in-America)

rdenney

2-Jul-2012, 08:59

Look folks, "fine art" is really besides the point. Lets call it "artistic photography". How's that? We do all agree that artistic photography -- photography primarily intended as an art form and not for example wedding photography or other more utilitarian photography -- exists, right? My question wasn't even about photography per se but about art in general. Does art IN GENERAL really matter in our society any more. Is there anything more to it, substantively, than decoration or indulgence of personal interest or celebrity/hype. Is there anything as "meaningful" art left. Can anyone point to a modern equivalent of say, Expressionism? I don't think so.

Modern artists seem to be pretty nihilistic, across the board. The subjects they would choose don't much please me.

And I buy art for pleasure, though pleasure is not the simple "feel-good" thing most people attach to that word. Stuff that is stimulating, or evocative, or nostalgic, or oddly compelling, or funny, or sometimes even just pretty, might give me pleasure. In our home, we have all genres and many media of art represented, some of it sublime, some of it ridiculous, some of it hip (according to the artists of some period), and some of it philistine, but all of it because it gives pleasure according to that broad definition.

Maybe you are asking whether people have an interest in stuff in their house other than the television and what one sits on to watch it. In many cases, they don't. But that has always been true.

Remember that Expressionism was meaningful to some, but not to (most) others. Most people don't have anything of that style in their homes, simply because it doesn't speak to them. For them, it is not meaningful at all. I feel the same way about much of the current nihilistic stuff. I want art that uplifts me--life provides enough to be depressed about already.

Maybe the question you are really asking is this: Do artists apply meaning in the same way as art consumers? And that is an eternal debate, without resolution. But each artist can ask that question of himself. Many refuse to do so, quite on purpose, it would seem, thinking that asking that question is a sellout.

Your question has been asked and answered, with an unequivocal yes. But the caveat is always offered: Not everyone is willing to pay for it, especially if they have an interest in creating their own. More and more people want to sell their photographic art, and fewer and fewer people are willing to pay someone else to produce it when they can make it for themselves. But those who decry the implied selling out of wondering what people want and are willing to pay for can hardly complain when they they want to produce finds no market.

Maybe you should try a different audience.

Rick "who buys art, but only what he likes" Denney

cyrus

2-Jul-2012, 13:43

jcoldslabs

2-Jul-2012, 14:17

What did art ever accomplish? Most of the art movements over the past five hundred years were identified as such well after the fact by critics and historians who needed to categorize and classify for the sake of curating and discussing. Did Picasso wake up one day and declare himself a "Cubist?" Did Monet wake up one day and declare himself an "Impressionist?" Even the term "Renaissance" was applied well after the fact, so in his day Michelangelo was not known as the preeminent Renaissance artist. He was simply a painter and sculptor.

Perhaps in fifty years people will look back on our contemporary period, label it "Art Movement X," and sing its praises for being a "tumultuous yet richly creative few decades" that bridged the pre- and post-digital eras.

I say make art now and let the future art historians worry about what to call it, if it has a point, or if it "accomplishes" anything.

Jonathan

Jay DeFehr

2-Jul-2012, 14:56

Sorry but simply declaring "yes" doesn't really answer anything does it. If there is a point, what is it? What is art accomplishing nowdays? I can't think of anything other than making people feel good about their own little hobby and/or having something to hang over the couch.

Declaring "yes" does answer a yes or no question, which is what you posed. You asked:

..whether there really is a point when for example there are millions of images that are made and available on the cheap.

The answer to that question is, Yes, there really is a point, and it comes between the time when there are less than millions, and the time when there are more than millions, which is now. Maybe you think there's more to your question than you actually wrote? If so, what is it? I've been asking you since you posted.

As for your last question, it seems you're asking if the role of art in society has changed, and how. Or, maybe I've got that wrong. Care to elaborate? What do you feel art accomplished in the past that it no longer accomplishes?

Since you're so fond of the expressionists, perhaps it's worth reminding you Van Gogh was famously unappreciated in his time. It's not hard to imagine his contemporaries denigrating his work and making unflattering comparisons to the old Dutch masters. Why? Because they had learned to appreciate Van Gogh's predecessors, but hadn't learned to appreciate the significance of his contribution to the medium, and so for them, his work was nothing but an emblem of the falling standards in the art world.

RichardSperry

2-Jul-2012, 15:14

I just painted a new door for the room where I store my camera stuff. I don't think art was involved.

I originally was going to write out the exceptions of house painting, curb painting, grafitti, etc.

But thought against it for brevity and an assumption. The assumption being that we were discussing fine art or art.

And the knowledge that there are exceptions to those exceptions. And I did not really want to get into a discussion of graffiti as art or curb painting as art.

That said, re: wet plate, carbon printing, platinum and paladium, tin type photographers... there are more of them, I place more of them, in the artist group percentage wise than those who only hold the camera or release the shutter. And it is the medium that they work with that helps place them there. I disagree with the idea that degree of difficulty of an art form should not be part of the valuation process of the art form; for me it does.

RichardSperry

2-Jul-2012, 15:18

Thus far the discussion has gone off on the tangent of "what's fine art"

It's not a tangent. It is integral of the discussion.

Just because you are the OP does not mean that you can control where a discussion may go. And your disapproval of where it has lead to has no more influence than mine or any other poster here.

Defining what "fine art" photography is, since you did not do it, is an important part of this discussion.

E. von Hoegh

3-Jul-2012, 06:32

Discussions of "Fine Art" should be banned, along with "Religion" and "Politics".

Scott Davis

3-Jul-2012, 07:02

I originally was going to write out the exceptions of house painting, curb painting, grafitti, etc.

But thought against it for brevity and an assumption. The assumption being that we were discussing fine art or art.

And the knowledge that there are exceptions to those exceptions. And I did not really want to get into a discussion of graffiti as art or curb painting as art.

That said, re: wet plate, carbon printing, platinum and paladium, tin type photographers... there are more of them, I place more of them, in the artist group percentage wise than those who only hold the camera or release the shutter. And it is the medium that they work with that helps place them there. I disagree with the idea that degree of difficulty of an art form should not be part of the valuation process of the art form; for me it does.

I agree- the difficulty of a medium should be an influence on value, but not the sole or even primary basis for the value. Unfortunately, there are a lot of folks out there who think that their work has (more) value solely on the basis of the fact that they're working with (film, silver gelatin enlarging, contact printing on AZO, hand-coated alternative processes, wet plate, daguerreotypes, etc). In the end though, a shitty image is still a shitty image, and the fact that it's on a $50 piece of silver-plated copper/100% cotton rag paper and platinum salts/etc just makes it a shitty image with high production costs. As some of the labor-intensive alternative processes come back into vogue, we're seeing an upsurge in people using these processes as their sole claim to fame - the idea that "it's wet plate therefore it's art".

When looking at images, I might be fascinated by and drawn to alternative process prints/originals, and might well decide to buy the alt process image before a silver-gelatin print/ inkjet print were all other things equal, but I'd still have to love the image without regard to the medium.

Jay DeFehr

3-Jul-2012, 07:17

I agree- the difficulty of a medium should be an influence on value, but not the sole or even primary basis for the value. Unfortunately, there are a lot of folks out there who think that their work has (more) value solely on the basis of the fact that they're working with (film, silver gelatin enlarging, contact printing on AZO, hand-coated alternative processes, wet plate, daguerreotypes, etc). In the end though, a shitty image is still a shitty image, and the fact that it's on a $50 piece of silver-plated copper/100% cotton rag paper and platinum salts/etc just makes it a shitty image with high production costs. As some of the labor-intensive alternative processes come back into vogue, we're seeing an upsurge in people using these processes as their sole claim to fame - the idea that "it's wet plate therefore it's art".

When looking at images, I might be fascinated by and drawn to alternative process prints/originals, and might well decide to buy the alt process image before a silver-gelatin print/ inkjet print were all other things equal, but I'd still have to love the image without regard to the medium.

I agree, Scott, though I hesitate to make assumptions about people's motives, which are almost always more complex than surface appearances suggest. I think the appeal of these difficult processes is related to rarity, which has always been an important factor in the valuation of art works. Making four color carbon transfer prints is devilishly complex and demanding of a very high level of mastery, both technical and manual, so there are far fewer people willing to commit to the process, and as a result, far fewer four color carbon prints made than works by other esoteric processes, let alone by the relatively simple silver printing process. This is fairly straightforward economics, but when the qualities of these various processes are considered, things get more interesting.

Brian C. Miller

3-Jul-2012, 12:35

What did art ever accomplish?

Which "art?" If you consider the art of an action, then much has been accomplished by art. Did Sun Tzu actually practice the art of war? Yes, and so did George Patton. The art of polemics was practiced by many Greek orators. Kendo, Kenjutsu, and Iaido/Iaijutsu study the art of the sword. Many thousands study the art of music.

If all you mean by art are pictures or sculptures, i.e., artwork, then of course art doesn't accomplish much. How could it? Artwork is an inanimate object. But practicing art accomplishes a great deal. Sudies have been done about how practicing music, no matter how badly, can lead to enhanced brain function and activity (link (http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0003566)).

So therefore, it is the practice of art that enhances a person's life.

Time to go forth and photograph!

Steve Smith

3-Jul-2012, 13:43

Painting is a medium. Are you saying that painting is not art?

Not always. You can paint a nice portrait on canvas with oils or you can paint some window frames.

In the same way you can use photography to create a nice landscape or use it to illustrate how how to change a light bulb.

They are both mediums and can be used for artistic and non-artistic (utilitarian) reasons but the medium is not the art.

Steve.

Scott Davis

5-Jul-2012, 14:07

I agree, Scott, though I hesitate to make assumptions about people's motives, which are almost always more complex than surface appearances suggest. I think the appeal of these difficult processes is related to rarity, which has always been an important factor in the valuation of art works. Making four color carbon transfer prints is devilishly complex and demanding of a very high level of mastery, both technical and manual, so there are far fewer people willing to commit to the process, and as a result, far fewer four color carbon prints made than works by other esoteric processes, let alone by the relatively simple silver printing process. This is fairly straightforward economics, but when the qualities of these various processes are considered, things get more interesting.

I probably should have phrased it to not impute an unknowable motive, or a quantity of individuals. But there are folks out there who, whether genuinely or disingenuously, are diving into alt processes and producing work that is unremarkable without the alternative process, and (the work) would perhaps be better served if executed in some other medium.

I was not thinking of four-color carbon as an example - that's something that aggressively discourages dilettantism. I was thinking more specifically of some of the more accessible processes like wet plate or platinum/palladium, and even to some degree gum bichromate. Wet plate comes to mind before any of them, as it is "in vogue" right now.

Jay DeFehr

5-Jul-2012, 14:40

I probably should have phrased it to not impute an unknowable motive, or a quantity of individuals. But there are folks out there who, whether genuinely or disingenuously, are diving into alt processes and producing work that is unremarkable without the alternative process, and (the work) would perhaps be better served if executed in some other medium.

I was not thinking of four-color carbon as an example - that's something that aggressively discourages dilettantism. I was thinking more specifically of some of the more accessible processes like wet plate or platinum/palladium, and even to some degree gum bichromate. Wet plate comes to mind before any of them, as it is "in vogue" right now.

I know what you mean, Scott, and I have a similar reaction to a lot of the alt process stuff I see. I feel similarly about most of what I see, whatever the process, but the presentation of the banal by an esoteric process does raise a hackle -- lipstick on a pig, and all that-- I feel like my taste and intelligence are being simultaneously insulted.

Drew Wiley

5-Jul-2012, 15:14

The technical difficulty of the process or the skill of the printmaker have close to zero
influence on the value of a print nowadays. A trendy but otherwise mediocre inkjet or C print might sell for far more than a quad carbon or dye transfer print. The big auction and gallery bucks are spent by those who have bucks to waste, not necessarily by those with superior taste or appreciation of technique (which is why much of the superior work is apt to be purchased by peers, other photographers or printmakers who can realistically appreciate it). Lots of gallery owners aren't even aware of the technical or archival distinctions.

jcoldslabs

5-Jul-2012, 15:29

Jay and Scott,

I recently confronted this in my own work. I was out shooting last week and used a relatively sharp lens stopped down for some of my images, and then used a Petzval for a couple. Once the negatives were developed I found myself much more drawn to the Petzval shot while the other sharper photos were more mundane and, to me at least, uninteresting. But that got me thinking: was I drawn to the Petzval shot simply BECAUSE it was a Petzval shot? In the end, perhaps self-interestedly, I decided, no. The shot was more compelling all the way around in part because I composed by pre-visualizing what the Petzval would "do" to the image.

Some people, including myself, find themselves saying, "A boring shot is a boring shot and no amount of 'help' from goopy edges or expired Polaroid film or Petzval blur will improve upon that foundation." And this seems generally true. But in looking at my photo I realized that, to some degree, if you remove the Petzval imprint from the equation, the photo WOULD be a bit less interesting. So does that invalidate my use of the Petzval? Was I guilty of applying Petzval lipstick to the pig?

I don't think so, but this has made me come to a new way of thinking of lens and media effects upon an image: what is important is that the effect be INTEGRAL to the image and not some kind of overlay or afterthought. Someone who composes using wet plate but who does not know the medium well will often produce work in which the wet plate look is a completely separate quality from the subject of the photograph. But a photographer who is well practiced in collodion will undoubtedly compose with an idea of how the final plate will look and thus uses this knowledge in his or her composition process ahead of time. I would argue that Instagram filtering is 99% applied after the fact just to jazz up images and is therefore is piggy lipstick. But a photographer well versed in Instagram effects could make compelling images if he or she knows at the time of exposure which effect will be applied and why.

Think of Julia Margaret Cameron's albumen prints, Steichen's gum dichromate over platinum, Strand's gravures. Some of their photographs might suffer if printed "straight" (whatever that means--a bit like saying someone speaks "without an accent"). That doesn't mean that they hid behind the artifacts of their chosen medium; it simply means they saw some version of the final prints in their heads while composing and took into account the changes each medium brings to the photograph. Of course, f/64 exposures and contact prints are just as much "effects" as soft focus lenses or gentle platinum tones. It is when these effects become integral to the process rather than afterthoughts or unconsidered byproducts that they become more than mere tricks.

Jonathan

Jay DeFehr

5-Jul-2012, 16:10

Jonathan,

I'm sorry if I came off curmudgeonly-- I certainly agree that the signature of a process or anything else in the imaging chain can be used to interesting and meaningful effect, and maybe it's just a matter of my knowing how the sausage is made that's spoiling some of this work for me. I should be ignored a good portion of the time. I am certainly as guilty as anyone of everything I complain about.

mdm

5-Jul-2012, 16:14

Yes there is, in the same way as poetry and literature are still produced but swamped by the junk of the information overload. Like calligraphy in a world where people no longer write by hand. Its there somewhere.

A petzval does not make a picture art, its poetry that does it, the idea and the sensibility, the discernement. A gimmick is a gimmick made with a petzval on 16x20 wet plate or with a phone cam and instagram. Will it matter in 100 years? Yes, then its art. Buggering around with vintage lenses in the 21st century is like dressing up in armour and jousting on horses, its not art but reenactment. Are you doing anything with a speed and a fuzzy lens that a Sunday photographer with a Pony plate camera and a bicycle has not done before? Unless you can use them in some way that advances the art of photography. The same apples to view cameras. (I believe the view camera can still be used to advance the art.)

Jay DeFehr

5-Jul-2012, 16:17

After I posted above, I saw this on Flickr:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8425/7510900690_f2f40acdc8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/guyjbrown/7510900690/) AnTon speaks (http://www.flickr.com/photos/guyjbrown/7510900690/) by guyjbrown (http://www.flickr.com/people/guyjbrown/), on Flickr

This is a perfect example of what you described in your post, Jonathan. This photographer seems to be working on a series images along these lines, and I think it's the most interesting WPC work I've ever seen, and some of the most interesting photographic work being done today. Fantastic!

mdm

5-Jul-2012, 16:23

Will it matter in 100 years? Will he get a major retrosective at MOMA in 2113?

jcoldslabs

5-Jul-2012, 17:36

I'm sorry if I came off curmudgeonly--

No need to apologize, at least not to me. I wasn't trying to refute your point so much as bring it home on a personal level. As someone who loves to use old cameras and oddball lenses I struggle with whether my images are interesting only because of the optical aberrations and expired film effects or if I am using those artifacts expressively in my work. I hope the latter is true since that is my goal.

I spent my 20s chasing the Group f/64 ethic in my 4x5 work, everything sharp and tonally rich. It took me a while to figure out that I was doing this by rote because it had been presented to me as the way LF photography was done, reinforced by my reading and re-reading of the Adams trilogy of technical treatises (Camera, Negative, Print).

My simultaneous discovery of the Aero-Ektar and expired films completely broke me out of that rut. Now, instead of photographing in a certain style by default my lens and film choices make much more obvious differences to the finished product. Of course, had I been paying more attention earlier I would have realized that my lens and film choices mattered just as much in my sharp, tonally rich days. But I hadn't thought of that until I began working in the opposite direction. Shooting with imperfect gear has made all of my photography better by heightening my awareness of technical aspects of the craft, even when shooting with lenses and film that make "mastery" almost impossible.

Jonathan

EDIT: Jay, I do like that wet plate example. It goes to show that a good idea is a good idea regardless of the way it is presented.

RichardSperry

6-Jul-2012, 02:06

Not always. You can paint a nice portrait on canvas with oils or you can paint some window frames.

In the same way you can use photography to create a nice landscape or use it to illustrate how how to change a light bulb.

They are both mediums and can be used for artistic and non-artistic (utilitarian) reasons but the medium is not the art.

Steve.

Please post a link to a wet plate photographer illustrating how to change a light bulb.

I have addressed your objections days ago in a subsequent post btw.

Steve Smith

6-Jul-2012, 02:11

Please post a link to a wet plate photographer illustrating how to change a light bulb.

What?

I have addresses your objections days ago in a subsequent post btw.

What objections?

Steve.

RichardSperry

6-Jul-2012, 02:30

Steve,

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painting

"In art, the term painting describes both the act and the result of the action."

And

"However, painting is also used outside of art as a common trade among craftsmen and builders."

This is a discussion of art. Not house painting. I don't feel it is necessary, considering the context, to include known disclaimers and known exclusions. It is known and understood by all already that there is painting which is not art. I am not interested, as I stated in my previous post, to include them just to exclude them. (though, this is the second time I've done so).

If you know of any utilitarian use(not art) of alternate photography processes which are completely mundane and utilitarian...that would be interesting. Post examples if you may, please. I need some house numbers on my curb, if you know someone who will collodion print them for me, I will take his or her number.

And just for the next poster who wants to object to the known and obvious, I will state it clearly, there is painting which is not art and there is painting which is art. Clear enough?

Steve Smith

6-Jul-2012, 02:36

If you know of any utilitarian use(not art) of alternate photography processes which are completely mundane and utilitarian...that would be interesting.

The only example I can think of is cyanotype which is closely related to the blueprint process for making copies of engineering and building drawings.

Steve.

Jody_S

6-Jul-2012, 04:57

If you know of any utilitarian use(not art) of alternate photography processes which are completely mundane and utilitarian...that would be interesting.

PCBs (Printed Circuit Boards)? Preparing screens for Silk Screen printing, or plates/rollers for printing?

Steve Smith

6-Jul-2012, 06:42

Preparing screens for Silk Screen printing

Practically gum bichromate.

Steve.

Drew Wiley

6-Jul-2012, 09:11

Jay - so much of that kind of stuff was going around here locally in the 70's that it looks sterotypically artsy and predictable to me.

Jay DeFehr

6-Jul-2012, 09:57

Jay - so much of that kind of stuff was going around here locally in the 70's that it looks sterotypically artsy and predictable to me.

WPC images of robots/ robot parts? Really? I'd love to see some!

Kodachrome25

8-Jul-2012, 15:07

I do photography for my self and no one else....and get paid full time for that. When someone asks me what I shoot, Fine Art is one of the things I tell them I do. For me personally, the Fine Art distinction embraces the idea that the image can not be found slathered all over the Internet or on some place like Flickr. It also means that it will never be considered for editorial or commercial use, will remain fine art and that once an edition is sold out, that is it.

I have no problems using the term Fine Art under these beliefs and set of rules...

Jay DeFehr

8-Jul-2012, 17:07

Richard Rau

12-Jul-2012, 20:41

Yes! One minor point - the grade at the other end of the scale is "coarse art", not "rough art".

Yep, I stand corrected. (i actually caught it as soon as I posted it, but it was late and I was too tired to correct it.) None-the-less there is a lot of so-called fine art out there that could be described as "rough"? But then again, this is just semantics and everybody's a critic.

Tajmul12345

27-Dec-2012, 00:44

I am also to create picture for my own satisfaction

gary mulder

27-Dec-2012, 01:51

The expression Fine in this case originates from a moral domain. Most of the time a moral domain is claimed for ones own. Meaning ; it's not art if it does not meet my moral standards.

John Brady

27-Dec-2012, 10:38

27-Dec-2012, 12:18

At one of the shows I recently participated in, a person looked at my work and asked if it was art or photography?

If they are at all computer/math nerdy, you could say "yes" and be confidently correct. If they are not nerdy they'll glare and wish they hadn't asked.

Kirk Gittings

27-Dec-2012, 13:10

At one of the shows I recently participated in, a person looked at my work and asked if it was art or photography? That kind of sums it up.

I am never comfortable describing my work as fine art.

www.timeandlight.com

The obvious answer is both. Why all the hand wringing over such an utterly naive question with an obvious answer that was fought for and won 30-40 years ago?

It still profoundly amazes me that so many people here are so stuck oftentimes in pre-60s aesthetics and ideology.

Brian C. Miller

27-Dec-2012, 14:26

The Online Photographer (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html) mentioned Bill Jay's vision (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/12/bill-jays-vision.html), and this is what Bill wrote on the subject:

Photography-as-art has led us into a morass of problems that denigrate the medium. I am thinking of the fact that galleries—and not the photographer's peers—are now the arbiters of taste and photographic merit; that 'success' is equated with fame and not with an individual's struggle to transcend self; that photographic journalism is riddled with pompous, unintelligible art-jargon and that clear, informative prose is hard to find; that photographers' egos have become so inflated that the individual's integrity has floated out of sight; that differentness, perversity, and slickly presented banality is touted as photography of the highest quality; that gallery and media hype has replaced a long-term committed paying-of-dues and that instant 'stars,' created by publicity and comprising nothing more substantial than hot gases, have diverted attention from the serious worker who has quietly struggled to maintain his or her vision and faith over many years; that something inexplicably yet intrinsically photographic has been killed in the fight for art acceptance.
(Bill Jay, Camera Arts, April/May 1981, emphasis added)

So what was true 31 years ago seems to be still running strong.

Here's the real points to ponder:
1: What does it mean to photographically transcend self?
2: What does "paying of dues" really mean?
3: What constitutes a "serious worker?"

Kirk Gittings

27-Dec-2012, 15:00

I knew Bill Jay a bit (we were both at UNM at the same time) and IMO he was an interesting guy with strong personal opinions who liked to ruffle feathers. Beyond that I personally never took him tooooo seriously. The statement above I would classify as one of his efforts at ruffling feathers to get a rise out of people. Despite the statement above he sought out, studied and hung out with two icons of the "art photography" lexicon, Beaumont Newhall and Van Deuron Coke and lived in the rarified air of the "big leagues" of the academic art community.

rdenney

27-Dec-2012, 15:52

The Online Photographer (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html) mentioned Bill Jay's vision (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/12/bill-jays-vision.html), and this is what Bill wrote on the subject:

(Bill Jay, Camera Arts, April/May 1981, emphasis added)

So what was true 31 years ago seems to be still running strong.

Here's the real points to ponder:
1: What does it mean to photographically transcend self?
2: What does "paying of dues" really mean?
3: What constitutes a "serious worker?"

It would seem to me that answering those questions is likelly to lead one to the same outcomes as Mr. Jay decries. If there was ever a question that invited unintelligible artists' statements, what it means to transcend self surely ought to be the leader.

I think it's easier to define paying dues and working seriously. But I think those descriptions apply a classical musician model for photographers, while those about whom Jay complains are rock stars who learned riffs in garages and basements with their high-school buddies. It's not about subtlety and perfection.

Rick "serious, and paid some dues, but firmly stuck with himself" Denney

Drew Wiley

27-Dec-2012, 16:15

The complaint sure sounds like a currently applicable set of stereotypes to me. But no stereotype is a universal, just something frequent enough to constitute an obvious observation. And basically, this same list would equally apply to any number of visual art genres, over quite a few decades. As per the primary term itself, "fine art" is just about as
valid as "fine doughnuts". If you can sell it to someone who can stomp it into a picture frame, it would seem to fit the category, even with a muddy shoeprint all over it.

John Brady

27-Dec-2012, 16:31

The obvious answer is both. Why all the hand wringing over such an utterly naive question with an obvious answer that was fought for and won 30-40 years ago?

It still profoundly amazes me that so many people here are so stuck oftentimes in pre-60s aesthetics and ideology.

No hand wringing here, I actually found the patrons statement to be ignorant and humorous at the same time. I was posting her comment as satire.

Now with that said, I personally don't like the fine art label put on anyone's art work. The market will determine just how fine it is, not the artist.

I'm of the, if the dogs eat it, it's good dog food, school.

Just my two pennies...

RichardSperry

27-Dec-2012, 16:37

I'm of the, if the dogs eat it, it's good dog food, school.

Do you sell dog food?

It makes a difference if you do. If a photographer(or his or her agents) can double the sales or double the price of the prints by calling it fine art, then so be it. Most people whore themselves one way or another to pay the rent.

Drew Wiley

27-Dec-2012, 16:43

Dogs will eat anything. If you want a valid test, see what nitpicky cats will eat.

John Brady

27-Dec-2012, 16:50

Do you sell dog food?

It makes a difference if you do. If a photographer(or his or her agents) can double the sales or double the price of the prints by calling it fine art, then so be it. Most people whore themselves one way or another to pay the rent.
Only fine dog food...

www.timeandlight.com (both kibbles and canned offerings here)

RichardSperry

27-Dec-2012, 16:50

They eat vomit.

But you can't sell vomit really, novelty vomit is inedible and you can sell that. Maybe sell prints of vomit, fine art prints.

Drew Wiley

27-Dec-2012, 16:53

I've accidentally walked into certain tourist galleries that successfully sell vomit
on a routine basis.

Chuck P.

27-Dec-2012, 17:08

Dogs also eat crap...............

Brian C. Miller

27-Dec-2012, 18:28

Crap has been sold as fine art, too. This doesn't really set a bottom limit on what "fine art" can be, does it? It basically comes down to the concept that if someone with megabucks is willing to shell out for something, that makes it art. Whether or not it goes on the wall. Whether or not the common person would recognize it as being a "work of art" or just a bag of trash or a pile of feces.

And thus we have "insider" and "outsider" art. And "outsider" art is only art if it piques the interest of the "insiders." Otherwise it's a pile of trash produced by some looney yokel.

Scott Walker

27-Dec-2012, 18:42

Discussions of "Fine Art" should be banned, along with "Religion" and "Politics".
:D

C. D. Keth

27-Dec-2012, 21:28

When any 9-year old with a cellphone camera and Photoshop can be a photographer, does it mean anything anymore?

A century ago somebody could buy a brownie for $1 and make pictures. Photography for the everyman isn't new. It isn't even old. It's always been there.

Drew Wiley

28-Dec-2012, 09:23

The most recent major acquition by the SFMMA was exactly that - a huge private collection of interesting amateur prints - people nobody has ever heard of - yet visually
interesting in their own right. I've done the same kind of collecting, though on a far more
modest scale - not for the signature, but just for the sheer look of some old cyanotype
or albumen, or box brownie shot, even in cases where the discoloration looked interesting
because they failed to fix it properly! So maybe someone down the line will make a habit
or raking thru the piles of discarded amateur inkjet prints etc down at the city dump, just
to come up with an intriguing prize from time to time, just like beachcombing.

C. D. Keth

28-Dec-2012, 20:08

So maybe someone down the line will make a habit
or raking thru the piles of discarded amateur inkjet prints etc down at the city dump, just
to come up with an intriguing prize from time to time, just like beachcombing.

I hope inkjet prints last that long.

cyrus

28-Dec-2012, 22:31

Well, as the OP of this thread, let me get back to the original question:

Look folks, "fine art" is really besides the point. Lets call it "artistic photography". How's that? We do all agree that artistic photography -- photography primarily intended as an art form and not for example wedding photography or other more utilitarian photography -- exists, right? My question wasn't even about photography per se but about art in general. Does art IN GENERAL really matter in our society any more. Is there anything more to it, substantively, than decoration or indulgence of personal interest or celebrity/hype. Is there anything as "meaningful" art left. If everything is subjective, and a can of soup or random paint splashes are art, then what's "not art"? The Expressionist changed the world of art and challenged the conventionla, academic art of the time. They had something to challenge. We don't have anything to challenge anymore because everything is judged subjectively and anything can be called art. Can anyone point to a modern equivalent of say, Expressionism? I don't think so. Instead, art has become more about hype, celebrity and flash. It has become passe and is considered embarassing to ask, "But what does it mean?" Meaning has become meaningless.

Hell, thanks to technology, you can't even expect modern artists to have any sort of specially honed skill, other than typing on a computer and using softwar, so you can't even say that a certain artist is great because of technical mastery over the medium, nevermind having substance. Some of the best known artists nowdays had no technical skill at all, and certainly no training either (Basquait)

In short, substance is irrelevant because everything can be art; technique is irrelevant because computers do the work and no one cares about technique anyway. So what's left of art? Just an indulgence and affectation?

Jay DeFehr

28-Dec-2012, 22:38

.... So maybe someone down the line will make a habit
or raking thru the piles of discarded amateur inkjet prints etc down at the city dump, just
to come up with an intriguing prize from time to time, just like beachcombing.

More likely, data mining digital image files from enormous collections like Facebook and Flickr, and whatever replaces them, to use in ways we can't yet imagine.

Greg Miller

29-Dec-2012, 07:17