What is '"Art Photography"

[Darin Boville]

"Is all writing literature? Is all photography art?

Does that mean that there is good art photography and not so good art photography?

I would argue that there is photography and then there is "art photography". This is a value judgement that I am pleased to make everyday.

If everything is art then nothing is art."

If it claims to be art, it is art. If it claims to be literature, it is literature. If it claims to be science, it is science.

It is up to you to to judge it on a scale from "That's a load of b.s." all the way up to "My God, this makes my life worth living!"

It is the value judgement we really care about, not the identity. Most of the time when people make a claim to art they are mixing up both the identity and a value judgement, all in one. What we need is a new word for "art with a small 'a'" and reserve the use of "art" for those times when we mean "Art with a capital 'A'".

My kid creates art. I hope to create Art.

--Darin

www.darinboville.com

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Hi there,

In my rather damn arrogant opinion, because any opinion is rather damn arrogant, here goes:

99 44/100% of photography is just that, photography, because it does not create anything, it merely records whatever. There are exceptions but they are rare, extremely rare. Example:

George Hurrell was a famous photographer who took 1,000s of portraits. No matter how well done or elaborate, they were mostly product shots of Davis 'thing', Crawford 'thing', Gable 'thing', ect. There were a few 'snap shots' of persons but usually product shots. There is one exception that I have seen and Hurrell was not the artist, simply the technician that recorded the performance. The artist was Norma Shearer and in 1/10 second she transcends the medium, she transcends time and space, she transcends herself and projects 'Feminine' and gave Venus a face.

Is the photo 'Art'?. No, but it is a stunning and beautiful record of the art. I do not think photography can ever be 'Art' because it does not create.

"The message of the 20th century art world, starting with Marcel Duchamp's exhibition of a urinal as art, is that the question of what is art is just not a fruitful line of inquiry."

A urinal, a shovel hanging from the ceiling, three toilets, ect. is not art, it was a tasteless bad joke played by a pampered spoiled brat. It is funny but it is just a tasteless bad joke. If you don't get it, you're standing at the wrong end of the joke.

Smile

[paulr]

It looks to me like you didn't read the thread on "what isn't art" closely enough.
I know this because you're still clinging to the pre-20th century idea that "art" implies a value judgement.

As far as "fine art" and likewise "fine art" photography, these are likewise not value judgements.
Fine Arts are a designation originally meant to distinguish painting, music, and architecture from the Liberal Arts, which were defined in classical times. Today, Fine Art is a convenient term of distinction from the Commercial Arts (illustration, design, architecture, etc.)

[Aaron_3437]

I once learnt that Art has the following ingredients:- Ethos, Pathos, Logos.

[Robert A. Zeichner]

If you only make photographs that you think will sell, that to me is not fine art photography. The same is true with painting or sculpture or music. The goal in those instances is more commercial success than creating art. And there are some immensely successful (financially) people doing just that. Thomas Kincade and Kenny G. are two names that come to mind! If after making art, whatever form or medium you choose, you can honestly answer YES to the question: Have I to the best of my ability created this work for the sole purpose of satisfying a need to express what I'm feeling, regardless of what anyone else thinks or how marketable it might be? Then, it's fine art. Whether it's good fine art or awful fine art is another issue. If what you have created resonates with other people and they like what you've done enough to exchange their hard earned money for it, you are fortunate. If you are making stuff for the purpose of pushing the crowd's buttons and racking up sales, that's something else. I was once talking to a photographer who pointed out that he was recently inducted into the "Camera Craftsmen of America". He showed me a hard bound annual of his fellow members work and bios and proudly pointed out his picture in this volume. I was polite about it and congratulated him, but in looking at the alphabetical list of members, many photographers who I would regard as notable "craftsmen" were conspicuously absent from the roster. I asked him what the criteria was for being invited to this august society. His answer was: How many photographs you sell. A better title for the organization might have been "Photo Marketeers of America". Just some more opinions.

[Jay DeFehr]

Paul,

Duchamp's work was an indictment of the role of craft in art. If you don't get that, then I understand your position.

Jay

[Kirk Gittings]

"I know this because you're still clinging to the pre-20th century idea that "art" implies a value judgement. "

I would say though that I cling to a West Coast post-pictorial photography aesthetic.To the above quote, I say, So What.

The real question related to Duchamp, who I find very clever but not very profound, is to what purpose would one want to indict the role of craft in art? What purpose does that serve. What has been the result in art schools of the degredation of craft.

I don't know how many people out there have ever taught in art schools. I have, 12 years at the University of New Mexico and 5 years at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (currently). In the post Duchamp era, post judgetment era, it is difficult to say anything of real value to students because everyone is trying to be so non-judgemental and trying to de-emphasize the evils of craft. I don't know how many times I have talked to confused students, after a seemingly endless critique by some enlightened professor, who will come up to me and simply ask "do you think he liked my work?". Judgements are important. In my teaching, I try to be constructively critical but it is impossible not to make judgements. One just needs to be honest about their values and where they are coming from.

"It looks to me like you didn't read the thread on "what isn't art" closely enough." No I simply don't agree with those who worship at the feet of Duchamp, who appears to be an aesthetic god to many here.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

to what purpose would one want to indict the role of craft in art?



Exactly! An APUG member expressed very well when he said art beguins where craft ends.

[Ralph Barker]

I guess my question, Kirk, is, "Does it really matter?"

It seems to me that, to a large degree, most of the analysis of art, and the assignment of classifications of art is completely artificial, or at least somewhat arbitrary. Which classification gets assigned depends more on the perspective of the person doing so than on some pre-defined, universally accepted criteria. Professional art critics, the people who most often take it upon themselves to proclaim these classifications, are always self-appointed, never elected. Their ability to get published may depend on some editor's conclusion that the critic has something pithy to say (or, that they'll sufficiently pith people off to sell papers or magazines), but I've yet to come across an art critic's licensing board.

So, unless a photographer (artist?) is trying to sell into a market that tends to define his/her work differently than he/she does, I'm not convinced that classifying work as "art photography" or "fine art photography" really makes any difference - other than perhaps as index tabs on the navigation structure of a web site. Essentially, the classification is only useful to the degree that a majority of people will not be shocked by the type of work they see behind the tab (or, gallery flier).

[Annie M.]

Hmmmmmm... by strange coincidence I happened to be at the Palazzo Grassi the day that
fellow peed in Mr. Duchamp’s urinal... (not the real urinal.... real pee though)... and as it was
explained to me... yes it had to be explained to me I didn’t ‘get it’... I thought there was a crazy
person loose in the gallery and I hid behind The Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors
(evidently not the original either ) until the incident was over... apparently it was all about
‘intention’ in the mind of the artist... both the urinal and the pee were art because that was the
intention of the artists... mind you I believe Mr. Duchamp also added the viewer to the mix.

Now this has got me wondering.... I believe that I still have the ticket from the exhibition that
day, if I photograph it and hang it in my bathroom is it art... or does someone else actually have to look at it to make it so.

Hmmmmmm... just wondering also is Stieglitz’s photograph of the original urinal art or
documentary photography.