What is '"Art Photography"

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I like what Edgar Degas said about art, a quote found in Lenswork:

"Art is not what you see, but what you make other people see"

[paulr]

A pattern I see in this discussion, and many like it, is that the people voicing their opinions most passionately seem to have the least education on the topic at hand, the least amount of factual or historical basis for their arguments, and the least understanding of what constitutes a logical or illogical argument, or what is even in the realm of opinion or the realm of fact.

A recent example:

"I will overstate the obvious.
There is one truth about art:
* love needs no apology, art needs no explanation *"

Which beckons the questions: obvious to whom?
how are these truisms/cliches to be considered "truths?"
how could either of these statements even be demonstrated, much less proven?

which was followed by:

"There is one fact about art:
* art is a purely human endeavor *"

which beckons the questions,
how is this a fact? how could it ever be supported?
how could it stand up in the face of the numerous and seemingly obvious
counter examples, like artists who work with fractal software, Warhol's deliberate
mechanization of the art process, or other man/machine collaborations
like George Antheil's "ballet mechanique?"

Honestly, it seems like all but a handfull of the comments posted here would be completely shredded in any 100-level college philosophy class. I see impassioned statements that are aware neither of the assumptions that they're based on, the weaknesses of their internal logic, nor of the numerous historical examples that discredit the assumptions in the first place.

If anyone really cares about any of these questions, and it seems like people do, then why not read a good book the philosophy of art and esthetics? You'll find it's a topic that some real smart people have been researching and discussing for a few thousand years now--and that anyone's unstudied, knee-jerk opinion on the topic is extremely unlikely to come close to the kinds of understandings that have been gained by people actually willing to do the work.

[Kirk Gittings]

"the people voicing their opinions most passionately seem to have the least education "

In all honesty after spending a large portion of my life in academia, I would much rather have a discussion with the real practitioners of an art. Those who feel passsionately about the subject, but may not have an advanced degree in the topic, have the most light to shed on a subject. It can be frustrating sometimes because people often times don't bother to read the threads. But on the whole I find the participants here most refreshing. I often go to lectures, critiques etc. in Chicago at the Art Institute where I teach in the summers, and am often bored to death, oftentimes by the lack of passion in academia.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

A pattern I see in this discussion, and many like it, is that the people voicing their opinions most passionately seem to have the least education on the topic at hand, the least amount of factual or historical basis for their arguments, and the least understanding of what constitutes a logical or illogical argument, or what is even in the realm of opinion or the realm of fact.



Wow.....

I was not aware one needed dual PhDs in art appreciation and art history to give an opinion in this forum. So far as I know nobody has been able to define what is art, so regardless of all the books you might have read, it is all an opinion for all I know.....jeeezzz...

[paulr]

"I was not aware one needed dual PhDs in art appreciation and art history to give an opinion in this forum. So far as I know nobody has been able to define what is art, so regardless of all the books you might have read, it is all an opinion for all I know.....jeeezzz..."

who said anything about PhDs?
how about just learning SOMETHING about a topic that has a rich history and some core literature before spouting off about it?

Incidentally, the fact that people who study a particular field haven't reached consensus on a definition does not imply that the definition is just a matter of opinion.

Scientists disagree on the exact cause of the dinosaurs' extinction, and we may never know the answer. This does not imply that a six year-old's whim-based opinion on the subject has any weight whatsoever. The kid doesn't know any of the facts, hasn't followed any of the long-standing arguments, and doesn't know what constitutes a theory and what doesn't, or how to challenge or support one. The same can be said for questions in history and philosophy. There are many questions whose answers lack consensus and which by their nature will never be proven. But meaningful answers will not likely be found by those who have so little understanding of the questions themselves or of existing threads of reasoning that they think the answer is just a matter of opinion. like "what's the best flavor of ice cream."

The definition of art is a question with legs in both history and philosophy. Like most definitions of major ideas in these disciplines, there is a long tradition of thinkers and practitioners grappling with it, evolving it, and reinterpreting it. Also like most such definitions, it is closely tied to developments in culture and in language. The state of the definition right now, or the possibilities for defintions that are currently under examination, are the product of over two thousand years of nearly continuous conversation. For someone to establish an opinion on such a definition without having listened to any of that conversation isn't just naive--it's arrogant. It's no less arrogant than thinking that your uninformed opinion on the distance of the moon or the evolution of primates is as good as anyone else's.

Remember first and foremost, this topic is not about a value judgement: it's about a definition. A definition, by definition, implies some kind of authoritative consensus. When I want to know what "philistinism" means, for example, I don't ask the guy hanging out at the bodega down the street; I look it up in the dictionary.

A college professor was recently interviewed about the sad state of incoming freshmen. He was asked if the problem was that they didn't know anything. "It's not that they don't know anything," he said. "That would be fine. It's that they don't even SUSPECT anything."

[pdwcolumbus]

I think that All of us have not studdied enough photo history to really understand. Art is Art, no matter if it is Photographic, Painting or a Song in the woods. It is en expression of ones passion for a subject from deep inside. Taking a coman thing and showing it in a way that has never been shown before. A personal view that only you can show. Yes you can do this when selling a tub of tooth past or what ever, but when you do it for the joy of self expression, is a a total different thing. That is why a photo from a photographer from K mart is so much different then a photo from Diane Arbus. The feeling is just not the same. Both subjects are a portrait but so different of a feeling.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Hi there,

to all: appologies extended

to kirk: see what you started;-)

to Jorge: I agree with you BUT

to paulr:

I guess I should have checked my email last night, this is just too damn funny.

((A recent example:

"I will overstate the obvious. There is one truth about art: * love needs no apology, art needs no explanation *"

Which beckons the questions: obvious to whom? how are these truisms/cliches to be considered "truths?" how could either of these statements even be demonstrated, much less proven? ))

Define truth!

"truth "truth noun pl truths "truthz, "truths [ME trewthe, fr. OE treowth fidelity; akin to OE treowe faithful — more at true] (bef. 12c)

1 a archaic : fidelity, constancy

**b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance

2 a (1) : the state of being the case : fact

(2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality

**(3) often cap : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality

**b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true

c : the body of true statements and propositions

3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality

b chiefly Brit : true 2

**c : fidelity to an original or to a standard

4 cap Christian Science : god

in truth : in accordance with fact : actually"

Now try rereading what you posted with your eyes open, lips moving if neccessary.

((which was followed by:

"There is one fact about art: * art is a purely human endeavor *"

which beckons the questions, how is this a fact? how could it ever be supported? how could it stand up in the face of the numerous and seemingly obvious counter examples, like artists who work with fractal software, Warhol's deliberate mechanization of the art process, or other man/machine collaborations like George Antheil's "ballet mechanique?" ))

You try to start a fight where there is none. You try to start a fight with me when I cannot lose anything and you cannot win anything (the actual working definition of a fool). Then you prove my point, which begs the question:

What was the point to this silliness???

If you wish to continue this foolish waste of time, I seriously suggest you start a seperate thread. Personally I find it a bore.

Have a nice rest of your life.

[paulr]

Thanks for all that, whatever it was.

I find it so interesting when people react personally to attacks on ideas.
If you're going to let yourself get so so attached to an idea that you feel you have to
defend it with all your ego, why not at least make it a good idea?

For whatever it's worth, I did read the definition of Truth that you cut and pasted from the dictionary.
I even moved my lips, to see if it would help. You'll still have to explain to me how the truism,
"art needs no explanation" can be called a truth, by any of those definitions, or especially, how it could be
"the one truth about art."

I do wonder if you actually read my post before deciding it was an attempt to pick a fight.
Hint: it wasn't.

And in case your question, "what was the point to this silliness" was more than rhetorical, I'll attempt a short answer:
to point out the possibility (or in my opinion, the likelyhood) that profound questions deserve better than casual answers. And that profound questions which have a long history and tradition of discourse deserve answers that show at least a passing awareness of this discourse. Anything less runs the serious risk of being pointless fluff. Which I consider to be a more foolish waste of time than stepping on a few toes to point out the issue. And that's all.

Apologies to anyone I annoyed. This issue happens to be a pet peeve of mine, so I don't let it go as easily as I probably should. I do think it's important. Anyway, I'm off now to have a nice rest of my life.