When is a photo one's own art?

[Ed K.]

Lately, I see a lot of "art" done by photographers using very fancy equipment or processes. Sure, it's great to see nice work, however more and more it seems that some photographers are doing a simplistic recording of another person's artwork in their books.

In one sense, recording things around us or in our lives is surely part of the art in photography, especially when there is at least something special that the photographer brings to it. What bothers me is seeing people record the following in a very straightforward manner and then sell it or present it as their own "art" creation:

photos of tatoos, where the tatoos are the prinicpal / sole subject.
photos of a building, where the building is the only subject, presented in an plain manner
photos of objects that are not in an artistic setting/composition, with plain light
photos where a billboard makes the statement and is really the sole subject

I would make an exception for recording nature or found art, or makeing statements
through the use of one or more found objects, or taking us to a viewpoint or time point
that we might not visit perhaps. A whole context of things, where the photo is about
that context is fine with me too - for example, a cityscape at a particular time.

It's an important and legitimate part of photography to record/document things, I'm not
knocking that, however when the photographer puts it up as his or her great art, I'm
bothered by it somehow. If I snapped a shot of a famous scupture, by itself, in isolation
from anything else, I don't think I'd be pushing it as my art.

It's a gray area at times Where do YOU draw the line on it?

[Kirk Gittings]

To risk being over simplistic......

Much of the art of "straight" photography is in the simple act of pointing. Fine printing, technical mastery, color vs. black and white etc. are a function of the expression of emotion or thoughts related to that pointing.

[Oren Grad]

Case in point: I just received a copy of Karambolage (http://www.steidlville.com/books/174-Karambolage.html), the book of car-crash snaps by policeman Arnold Odermatt, that his film-maker son turned into an art phenomenon.

So is it really "art"? Did Officer Odermatt have inklings of transcendence as he was making these record shots for the file, or was he just a really competent technician who happened to have a good eye in fulfilling his documentary responsibilities? I don't know, and I don't care. I appreciate the fact that the son's cleverness at playing the art-promotion game is what ultimately brought these pictures to my attention, but beyond that, all that matters is that many of them are just really good pictures, and lots of fun to look at.

[John Kasaian]

Letssee,---If I changed my name to "Art" and took a really well executed photograph, then folks could say:

"Thats really fine, Art"

;-)

[Brian Ellis]

Sounds a lot like what Walker Evans did and he's considered one of the great photographic artists of the 20th century.

[Kirk Gittings]

One shouldn't confuse ones personal taste in art with an attempt at defining what or what is not art. Ones personal taste merely defines for that person what is good art. For each of us there is good, bad and indifferent art. Bad art is still art.

Architectural photography is a genre that is totally preoccupied with the interpretation of someone elses art. For me it does not become my art unless I inject enough of my vision that the resulting image is more about my visual ideas than illustrating the design intentions of my client. I know intuitively when that line is crossed and it is very exciting. At that point usually the building or fragment becomes an abstract vehicle for my own aesthetic. These personal images of architecture are usually not appreciated by my clients until they become recognised in some public venue as my art. These crossover images from modern architecture are rare for me.

[Henry Ambrose]

Kirk wrote:

"Much of the art of "straight" photography is in the simple act of pointing. Fine printing, technical mastery, color vs. black and white etc. are a function of the expression of emotion or thoughts related to that pointing."

That's one of the best explanations of straight photography I've ever read. Right to the bone.

[neil poulsen]

I like what Kirk wrote. But, it doesn't include the ideas of framing and selection of perspective. (Although, some framing can be done in the darkroom.) By selection of perspective, I mean selection of camera position to achieve the best perspective. Both of these are incredibly powerful tools that may or may not be applied in an artful way. Subtle changes in either can make a big difference in the outcome. I don't think that "pointing" is all that simple.

[tim atherton]

Atget, Pointing

As a way of beginning, one might compare the art of photography to the act of pointing. All of us, even the best-mannered of us, occasionally point, and it must be true that some of us point to more interesting facts, events, circumstances, and configurations than others....

To note the similarity between photography and pointing seems to me useful. Surely the best of photographers have been first of all pointers-men and women whose work says: I call your attention to this pyramid, face, battlefield, pattern of nature, ephemeral juxtaposition....

Full essay at:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Museum/7101/szark1.html

[Ed K.]

The devil's advocate says:

"So the Artiste finds your photograph, uses a 16x20

view camera and then photographs it, carefully interpreting

it to not include borders, and then makes a marvelous

platinum print of it. Subsequently, with no credit to

you, it appears in their latest fine art book entitled

‘The Meaning of Life’, by Artiste. And yes, Artiste used

even wet plates!

Or next, the x-ray technician whose work is technically

superior ( and large format at that! ), publishes a set

of unremarkable x-rays ( though technically perfect )

as "The Fine Art Human Experience".

And a now famous building, which is quite deliberately

a piece of sculpture, designed more with the intent of

it being a sculpture than say, a functional music hall

or something like that, appears as the isolated subject

in a great new photographer's book, with major emphasis

only on the greatness of the photographer. The architects

designed every possible view of it, carefully considering

the play of light, shadow and environment.

Thus all the photographer does is fine art no matter the

source of content or lack of meaningful interpretation?

‘I shall take some fine wine and cheese to have an opening

at my next oil change, where the technical execution

of flowing oil, perfectly done is such an art. ‘

Meanwhile, fine art books with reproductions of the

fine platinum reproduction ( carefully cropped to

exclude those nasty borders! ) of your photograph are

selling like hotcakes, and in bookstores everywhere

they toast the Artiste, who expresses disdain for

the banality of your work as it is, while taking credit

for improving it so dramatically through use of the

black art"

Flip side:

Sure - art in everything, every act, every part of life

and death. Art with or without meaning or statement,

and the artist always the legitimate source with no

good or bad. There is nothing but art, thus the

artist treads on, with reckless abandon?

It sounds like there is a defense for the art of most

anything from what people say so far. Perhaps the issue

is more at the moral or ethical side of it as opposed

to the art of it?

Any thoughts on the ethical aspects?

[tim atherton]

ed - once you work out for yourself what art really is, all the rest will fall into place one way or the other - but only you can do that.

as for scenario 3:

http://www.edwardmitterrand.com/artists/Sugimoto/indexarchitectures.php

done and done well (as have most of your other scenarios - some many times over).

Duchamp appropriated the urinal - if you get that, the rest will make sense - even if you don't agree or dislike it.

[Kirk Gittings]

I wouldn't worry about the ethics of such a person as you descibe. The career of someone who copied some elses images would be as short as their creativity.

This, in fact, has already been done. There was a woman some years ago, who to make a point copied some Walker Evans and printed them under her name to make the arguement that there were too many images in the world and it was time to recycle. It was a stupid, art school, kind of idea where dumb "new" ideas are sometimes recognized briefly as significant.

The fact that I cannot remember her name speaks volumes as to the value of her work.

[Percy]

As a visual artist ( drawing nudes, painting) who came to photography ultimately, I couldn't agree with your original statement more, Ed.

Photographing works of art of others is not art making.

[Nicholas F. Jones]

Kirk,

That would be Sherrie Levine. If you happen to have a copy of Andy Grundberg's Crisis of the Real (Aperture 1999) nearby, Levine's "After Walker Evans: 2, 1981" in reproduced on p. 10.

[Nicholas F. Jones]

As Percy says, photographing works of art of others is not art making.

Where Sherrie Levine is concerned, I'd add that making a critical point about art, however original or discerning, is not art itself necessarily. Much painting, sculpture, photography etc. can't help but be an implicit commentary, rejection or otherwise, on others' painting, sculpture, photography, ... whereas Levine seems simply to be making a very prosaic observation on the medium. Twenty five years ago, that observation may have possessed some in-your-face shock value .... a kind of emperor's new clothes revelation that everybody already understood but no one else until that point had had the guts or temerity to make explicit.

[Jim Ewins]

One may read David Vestal in this months PhotoTechnique. I know I'm visually illiterate, but I know what I smell.

[Kirk Gittings]

"Photographing works of art of others is not art making."

Would that include design arts like the Bay Bridge or the Ifel Tower or perhaps even Stonhenge? Would that include Steigltitz's image of the famous Flatiron building by the famous architect Daniel Burnham? What about images of prehistoric Native American petroglyphs?

Is Hendrix's version of Dylan's "All along the Watch Tower" not powerful art of Hendrix. Did he not use someone elses art but make it his own?

The point is not whether you photograph someone elses art but what you do with it.

If one was a true believer, then God's Art, i.e. nature would be off limits too.

[paulr]

"One shouldn't confuse ones personal taste in art with an attempt at defining what or what is not art. Ones personal taste merely defines for that person what is good art. For each of us there is good, bad and indifferent art. Bad art is still art."

This is one of the simplest ideas around, but I find myself beating my head against the wall getting people to even consider it.

One way I look at it is that anything can be made art if you recontextualize it in a way that asks people to look at it as art. On the one hand, this means anyone can be an artist any time the feel like it; on the other hand, it's a double-edged sword: if you ask people to look at your cocktail napkin sketch or your lawn clippings as art, they will evaluate it as art. And they will be looking at your work (and maybe your soul) with a set of standards that could easily subject you to the beating of a lifetime.

An example: I might show you a t-shirt I just tie dyed in the bathtub. If you're looking at it as a t-shirt, and if you're into that kind of thing, you might say "cool shirt." But if I mount the shirt to a piece of sheet metal and hang it in a white-walled gallery in SoHo, that recontextualization is asking you to look at it as art. By this shift in presentation (which has esthetic, cultural, and art-historical elements) you are probably going to see it as art. Unfortunately for me, you are also going to judge it as art. And very likely your judgement won't be a charitable one. Your critique might read something like "what is this #@%!*#? didn't we see enough of this b.s. quasi surrealism back in the 60s??" And instead of looking at me as some groovy dude who made a t-shirt, you'll be looking at me as a hack poseur.

As far as the specifics of the original question, it's hard to imagine an idea being explored to death more than this one. 80s postmodernism was all about the idea of appropriation. This hit its peak with Sherri Levine's rephotographed modernist masterpieces. She would take a picture we've all seen a million times, like a Walker Evans or an Alexander Rodchenko, and literally photograph it, as you would with a copy camera for reproduction. She would title them things like "After Alexander Rodchenko." The idea wasn't to show her vision or her skill; it was a commentary on the state of contemporary art, much as Duchamp's readymades were a commentary on the art of his time. Unfortunately for Levine (and for the rest of us) she didn't get it the way Duchamp did--she didn't realize that once you made your little point you had to move on. She kept doing this over and over until long after the horse was dead.

At any rate, the larger question is still alive: at what point are we copying, and at what point are we showing something in a fundamentally new way? this question has always been at the center of straight photography, and every new generation of photographers and viewers has to confront it on their own terms.

[Kirk Gittings]

As much as I hate Kincaid's work and the way it is assembly line reproduced by drones. It is however unquestionably art.

[Ed K.]

"At any rate, the larger question is still alive: at what point are we copying, and at what point are we showing something in a fundamentally new way? this question has always been at the center of straight photography, and every new generation of photographers and viewers has to confront it on their own terms"

Just because an unanswered question is alive doesn't mean that it's not worth at least some consideration as time passes and tools progress. Even if there is no clear answer for everyone, it seems that the subject serves some good if it helps us move on.

Paul, you mentioned presentation, which is at the core of it in so many ways. A series of mugshots on Polaroid might be just a pile of mugshots, or when culled and pasted into a collage with a commentary or story ( visual or otherwise ), a piece of fine art.

Another implied question might be "Why must photographers so often insist upon their status as artists?" Is there really any need to be an artist at all times when technology is so much a part of the 'art' ? At some point, isn't there any intrinsic value to something being merely a photograph without a classification?

[Kirk Gittings]

"Is there really any need to be an artist at all times when technology is so much a part of the 'art' ?"

You need to explain this staetement further. I can't make heads or tails of it.

[paulr]

"Just because an unanswered question is alive doesn't mean that it's not worth at least some consideration as time passes and tools progress."

by saying the question's alive, i'm suggesting it IS worth consideration.

i realize now my post was confusing ... while i think artists have beaten the question into the ground by exploring almost every possible extreme of appropriation, i don't think the questions have actually been resolved.

we've had our noses thoroughly rubbed into the issue by conceptual artists on one side, and on the other we've had the same naive questions ... "god made that rock, you didn't--so why is your picture of it art" ... since the dawn of the medium. i think any fruitful approach to the topic will have to dig a little deeper than either of these.

[paulr]

"Why must photographers so often insist upon their status as artists?"

it would be simpler if we stopped seeing the vocation of artist in terms of status. it should just be a description of what someone does, like bus driver, or plumber.

if we could unload all the status baggage from the word, then people who use photography to make art could unapologetically call themselves artists, and people who use it for other things could proudly call themselves something else.

[Ed K.]

Paul - that's exactly the point - the baggage. When I asked why photogaphers so often insist on their status as artists, I didn't mean that photogaphers should not be considered artists, but rather something more like "gee whiz, what difference either way?"

Kirk - to clarify, I meant that sometimes it is okay to be a technician, perhaps even an artfull one at that, who uses technology to achieve the end result as opposed to some mysterious or soul searching art. In many cases, the lack of any personalized interpretation is the goal of photography when it attempts to document or replicate, no? I don't see the two as being mutually exclusive unless one wishes to have it that way.

Personally, I think that history will be the true judge of what is or is not art. I believe that photographers include many who are primarily artists of one sort or another. I asked the question in the first place because I wanted to know how others felt about the issue lately or if it was even an issue at all for most people. When I do my photos for art's sake, I don't really care what anyone thinks of them, as it is very personal. When the photos are for a job, that's another matter, and I care a lot about what certain people think.

One thing for sure, the posters around here can be very passionate about their art, or whatever it might be called!

[Kirk Gittings]

I do make a distinction between my art and my commercial photography though recently my curators, reps and publishers don't. This because To me the difference is between illustrating my own aesthetic ideas vs. illustrating those of my clients.

[paulr]

"I do make a distinction between my art and my commercial photography though recently my curators, reps and publishers don't."

I've never heard curators or art historians sitting around quibbling over what is and isn't art. That's more a topic for cocktail parties and internet forums than anything else. The curators and historians tend to be a pretty inclusive bunch ... and they've learned from their predecessors not to be too presumptuous or dogmatic. Their discussion is more likely to center on whether something is culturally or art-historically important--is it a significant example of what's happening and being thought about and being felt right now.

[Oren Grad]

Paulr, to better understand Kirk's comment, it may help to look at his new book, "Shelter from the Storm", which intersperses his personal B&W work with his color commercial work. The unifying themes, of course, are that the work is all Kirk's and it's all New Mexico. But to my eye at least the two bodies of work are quite different, and I'm still getting my head around the combination. The publisher is New Mexico Magazine, and given their style and market positioning it's not a huge surprise, but I'd be curious as to Kirk's thoughts on this.

[Paul Coppin]

Maybe I'm just getting increasingly jaded/and or cranky in old(er) age, but nothing yet has convinced me that Art is anything more than what the market wants it to be at any particular point in time. In fact I would go so far as to say that Art is the crappy velvet stuff your aunt bought to hang on the living room wall.

We retread "artists" on a regular basis depending on where our current political correctness/cultural sensitivities are sitting. A good many photographers we now call artists, are documentary recordists who may or may not have had a bias in what they presented. The significance of the bias is our problem, not the photographer's.

I would include photographers like Mary Ellen Mark, Dorothea Lange, Eugene Smith, Walker Evans, and a whole plethora of "artistic" fashion photogs in that category. Some of their images have a quality of composition, tone, etc, etc, that would qualify them as Art (depending, of course, on what you're currently defining Art as...), but many are little better than snapshots, albeit sometimes clever snapshots. If you can blow it up to 16x20, frame it, sell it and somebody is actually willing to display it, perhaps its Art. Is there anyone else out there who doesn't get weak in the knees upon viewing the Mona Lisa?

[paulr]

"nothing yet has convinced me that Art is anything more than what the market wants it to be at any particular point in time."

well, markets are certainly among the things that define art. but it's worth noting that there are a lot of markets, all with their own standards and ideas. the velvet elvis market is one, the international blue chip gallery market is another, and there are many others as well.

there are other things besides markets that have their say. some are academic, like public institutions, others are purely personal. if you find a rusty bedspring in an empty lot, and bring it home because to you it's a beautiful sculpture, maybe one with some kind of metaphorical resonance that you respond to, then you've decided it's art. who can argue with you?

"I would include photographers like Mary Ellen Mark, Dorothea Lange, Eugene Smith, Walker Evans, and a whole plethora of "artistic" fashion photogs in that category. Some of their images have a quality of composition, tone, etc, etc, that would qualify them as Art ..."

but here you're equating art with some kind of judgement of quality or fineness. this was a popular way to think about the issue (or perhaps to confuse it) in classical times, but the modern era has moved us as a culture far away from that. As kirk pointed out, being "bad," by whatever your standards are, doesn't make something not art. It just makes it bad art.

The work of the documentarians that you mentioned has been contextualized as art not because it's such great documentary work, but because it also works for people as art. One of the qualities people have looked for in art over the centuries is that it somehow points beyond itself and and beyond its subject matter. Minor White summed it up well when he said his goal was to depict what's there, and also "what else is there."

Dorothea Lange's dustbowl pictures are excellent documentary work because of what they show about a particular time and place and group of people. But they are excellent artwork because what they say about life on earth goes on well beyond any single time or place. People today respond to images like "migrant mother" whether or not they know or care anything about the dustbowl.

[Kirk Gittings]

Oren is exactly right and in a sense Paul too.

If I had been initiating a book that was an overview it would have been exclusively an overview of my personal b&w, of which there is certainly enough there for such a book. NM magazine on the other hand was interested in a overview that encompassed all facets of my photography (much of the commercial work was done on assignment for NM over the years and much of it was as widely known and republished as my b&w) plus they felt the color work was essential for sales to their audience. They are right about that I think if the book was to be aimed at their audience. Also a book on the top architectural photographers in the world had been done a couple of years earlier which also did a joint collection of my work. This gave NMM confidence in ther perspective. I tried and could not come up with a layout which would work and discarded the whole idea. They put a designer and editor on it and to my surprise came up with something that made some sense historically and visually. I was still not sold on the idea until the Albuquerque Museum requested a draft of the book and were very very enthusiastic about this broad overview of both my b&w and color commercial work. Their curator of art (who I greatly respect and who by the way is a MFA photographer and a PHD in art history) did a tentative layout of the exhibit from the images in the book and added a separate room for the earlier CHACO BODY limited edition b&w portfolio (1987) which they own. They felt my career was significant in all its aspects to justify this mid-career broad retrospective. See the main exhibit room:

www.gittingsphoto.com/content.html?page=3 (http://www.gittingsphoto.com/content.html?page=3)

To this day I would have prefered an exhibit and book exclusively of my b&w work, but I was begining to get comfortable with THEIR vision of the whole of my career and I was willing and flattered to let them play their vision out. The opening had a phenomenal turn out with extensive press and nearly 2oo books sold (both Chaco Body and Shelter). Exhibits and books are always collaborations and sometimes the synergy leads to something really special. I always felt wahtever they did would be phenomenal PR, even if it was not exactly what I would have prefered. The success of the book and exhibit far exceeded my expectations and led amongst other things to a special lifetime achievement award from the state legislature, which I highly prize.

But to me "Shelter..." is about how my state perceives me and is not MY definitive statement about MY work. I don't know if any of this makes any sense. Sometimes you have to maintain absolute control over how your work is used and sometimes you have yo relinquish some control to see thier vision.

The "Shelter.." book and exhibit has bought me a great deal of freedom from publishers and my current book project, an "art" book about mythological landscapes, exclusively b&w, was accepted without more than a 10 minute proposal over coffee by UNM Press.

[Paul Coppin]

...

there are other things besides markets that have their say. some are academic, like public institutions, others are purely personal. if you find a rusty bedspring in an empty lot, and bring it home because to you it's a beautiful sculpture, maybe one with some kind of metaphorical resonance that you respond to, then you've decided it's art. who can argue with you?


...

but here you're equating art with some kind of judgement of quality or fineness. this was a popular way to think about the issue (or perhaps to confuse it) in classical times, but the modern era has moved us as a culture far away from that. As kirk pointed out, being "bad," by whatever your standards are, doesn't make something not art. It just makes it bad art.

Ok, but what I take from that is there really is no such thing as Art, or rather, it is simply what one personally believes it to be. Something metaphysical that exists existentially, and not really in any other space. If that may be true, then the concept of being an "artist" is in trouble, because then the artist is defined entirely in the frame of reference of someone else beliefs. Maybe that is true. Maybe no one can be an artist, they can only be seen to be an artist. Maybe Art is nothing more than iconographic. "I create, but I am of no definable trade, therefore I must be an artist".

I am somewhat more sanguine about the "what else is there". Part of me believes a lot of "what else is there" is sophomoric rationalization. An attempt to elevate the creative work to some status more than what is it is. I agree MEM's dustbowl work is effective documentary, and certainly, the hardship implicit in "migrant mother" transcends the dustbowl, iconographic even :). I'm not convinced that documenting the persistent frailities of the human condition necessarily constitutes a definition of Art. This perhaps goes back to what I started this with: Art is only what you think it is.. For many, "migrant mother" typifies a hard life they can only imagine, being sufficiently well off to have discussions about whether or not it constitutes Art :), whereas there are likely several million people that simply see a portrait of their neighbour, or themselves.

[paulr]

"Ok, but what I take from that is there really is no such thing as Art, or rather, it is simply what one personally believes it to be. Something metaphysical that exists existentially, and not really in any other space. If that may be true, then the concept of being an "artist" is in trouble, because then the artist is defined entirely in the frame of reference of someone else beliefs."

I don't think it's so dire. Your existence as an artist doesn't need to be defined by someone else's beliefs. Your own will do. Looking across genres, across cultures, and across millenia ... even just across different threads on this list, it's hard to avoid seeing how inclusive the concept of art has been forced to become.

Now there's a big caveat: none of this has anything to do with whether or not the work (or the artist) is any good. Or relevent. Or historically important. The real issues come in evaluating the importance of the art, not in deciding if something is or isn't art. And here, unfortunately, you will often be subjected to other peoples frame of reference and beliefs. Just as you will in academia, advertising, publishing, or product design.

Which isn't to say that it's all relative, that all frames of reference are equal, that the opinion of the drunk lady dowstairs, who paints everything purple, is as significant as the opinion of Peter Galassi. But there are different worlds of art, with different standards and frames of reference and histories and traditions, and something that rates poorly in one of them might top the list in another. The Whitney might not like you, but the gallery down the street might. Or vice versa.

"I'm not convinced that documenting the persistent frailities of the human condition necessarily constitutes a definition of Art."

It absolutely shouldn't. My point was that Lange's work wasn't accepted as art because of its success at its original documentary purpose, but rather because of its tangential success at something more universal--something that serves a purpose that people traditionally look for in art. Exactly what that purpose is in this case could be the topic of a lot of discussions. But I think you'll see similar phenomena with all kinds of work that started with one intent and ended up satisfying people's appetites for art.

[Paul Coppin]

I think we're still skating around Ed's original question because we don't have a common frame of reference of what constitutes Art, and therefore can't actually answer it.

To go back a bit:

but here you're equating art with some kind of judgement of quality or fineness. this was a popular way to think about the issue (or perhaps to confuse it) in classical times, but the modern era has moved us as a culture far away from that. As kirk pointed out, being "bad," by whatever your standards are, doesn't make something not art. It just makes it bad art.

There is a non sequitor here: "bad art" has to be defined using "some kind of judgement of quality or fineness", or you can't qualify it as "bad". It you can't boundary Art you can't put a qualifier relating to quality on it. Its just "Art". It may be a bad photograph [print, sculpture, etc], but its still just Art. Bad Art, good art brings me around to what I originally said, art is what the market decides it is at any point in time, the "market" being the end user, regardless of whether or not there is consideration attached. Implicit in this remains the idea that Art and the artist only exist in the terms of reference of the "market". The craftsman can consider himself an artist if he is his own end user, but the work doesn't become generically "Art" until someone else considers it to be Art.

If the market isn't the determiner, so far, the only uniform definition I've come up with is "the body of work of a craftsman", using the term "craftsman" in its most primitive general sense.

This makes Ed's answer to his question: When is a photo one's own art?, very simple. When its made.

All considerations of value aesthetically or otherwise are immaterial to it being Art. If those considerations are not immaterial, then you're back to trying to define what Art is using some kinds of boundaries and frames of reference, and so far, there doesn't appear to be any uniformity. If there can't be uniformity then Art can only be generic and conceptual, like "food".

[paulr]

"There is a non sequitor here: "bad art" has to be defined using "some kind of judgement of quality or fineness", or you can't qualify it as "bad". It you can't boundary Art you can't put a qualifier relating to quality on it. Its just "Art"."

The appraisal as "bad" requires judgement of quality; the defining as "art" does not.

It's not a non-sequitur; it's a distinction. It's treating art just as you treat anything else, by separating definition from appraisal. The worst car in the world ... one that breaks down all the time and won't even stay on the road ... is still a car. Because "car" has a set of definitions independent of of our appraisals of its quality.

just like with art, you and I might disagree fundamentally on what makes a car good or bad, at least within reason.

But unlike art, cars have a more simply defined, static, narrow definition. So people don't spend much time debating if something's a car or a wheelbarrow or a flower pot.

"The craftsman can consider himself an artist if he is his own end user, but the work doesn't become generically "Art" until someone else considers it to be Art."

What if he puts his wicker basket, or whatever it is, in a portfolio case and brings it to the sculpture curator at the Met? if he says "look at my art?"

I honestly don't think the curator will say "that's not art." I think the curator will accept the invitation to look at it as art and evaluate it as such. And most likely, then, to find it an extrememly derivative, unimaginative piece of art; one that's irrelevent from any cultural or art-historical perspective. Wheras if she saw the basket as a craft show, presented as a functional object, she might have bought it. In one case, it's bad art; in another, it's a nice basket. the difference is the context created by presentation.

In a sense, you're right that someone else needs to accept something as art. But the lessons of the 20th century have opened people's minds in this regard-- anyone who's literate in visual culture will be willing to accept most things as art--at least if they're offered as art. This does not mean people will be any more easily impressed than they ever were.

"If there can't be uniformity then Art can only be generic and conceptual, like "food"."

I think you hit the nail on the head with that one. If we just start saying "food" instead of "art," there will be a lot less philosophical confusion around here.

[robc]

When I came to consider what art is I had problems resolving a definitive description of what art is. Then it dawned on me that the word art is just a word which defines a very broad range of creative processes. It is a word used as a grouping word to encapsulate all things "artistic".
It is not surprising there is so much argument about "what is art". As an example take the following extract from the cambridge dictionary.

art

noun
1 [U] the making of objects, images, music, etc. that are beautiful or that express feelings:
Can television and pop music really be considered art?
I enjoyed the ballet, but it wasn't really great art.

2 [U] the activity of painting, drawing and making sculpture:
Art and English were my best subjects at school.
an art teacher

3 [U] paintings, drawings and sculptures:
The gallery has an excellent collection of modern art.
an exhibition of Native American art
Peggy Guggenheim was one of the twentieth century's great art collectors.
The Frick is an art gallery in New York.

4 [C] an activity through which people express particular ideas:
Drama is an art that is traditionally performed in a theatre.
Do you regard film as entertainment or as an art?
She is doing a course in the performing arts.

5 [C] a skill or special ability:
the art of conversation
Getting him to go out is quite an art (= needs special skill).

The above descriptions are so diverse that two people are highly unlikely to agree on "what is art".

My own conclusion is that "art is the chronicle of culture" and when you use this phrase to describe the grouping word "Art", then you realise that a painting is a sub group as is photography as is drama etc. But also that the mere fact that a photograph is a photograph does not make it art unless it "chronicles culture". The question then becomes, "How does the photograph chronicle culture?". The answer in 99.9% of cases would, in my estimation, be "only at a very basic or mundane level". This leaves me wondering why so many people call themselves artists when what they are doing is at such a basic level in terms of chronicling culture, that they really should be calling themselves crafts people, since, for the most part, what is passsed of as art is not more than an example of a piece of craft. It may be a highly skilled piece of craftmanship but that doesn't make it art in my book. Only when the work starts to influence others does it start to pass into the realms of art and only when it has very siginificant influence does it become great art as opposed to great craftmanship.

So consider, are you an artist or a craftsman? Also consider whether you need to be a crasftman to become an artist. I think not.

There are far too many people prepared to call themselves artists just because they paint or photograph.

It is the usage of the word "art" that is ultimately to blame for the confusion, simply because its usage is far too liberally used to describe a piece of craft without considering whether that piece of craft has passed into the realms of being art in any significant way. I don't suppose that will ever change and meanwhile the arguments will rage.

I create mostly landscape images. Do they chronicle culture? Only at the most basic of levels which is that I practice a craft. That does not make me an artist no matter what people think of my images. I know that my images are very unlikely to influence or affect in any signifcant way more than a handful of people at most. Does that bother me? No, because that is not my intention. And even if it were my intention, that would not make my images art. It is simply not good enough to lable something as art because that is how you want it to be known.

only my opinions so don't rip my head off for stating them.

[paulr]

"That does not make me an artist no matter what people think of my images."

of course, like the rest of us, one day you'll die and lose any hope of influencing how people look at your work. who knows, a hundred years from now you might be seen as the next timothy o'sullivan--maybe for reasons nobody among us could even understand!

[Paul Coppin]

I think you hit the nail on the head with that one. If we just start saying "food" instead of "art," there will be a lot less philosophical confusion around here.

Existentially, there is no difference between "food" and "art"; both feed some dimension of our being. Since "art" is somewhat of a subset of the more expansive "food", perhaps it should be henceforth known as its appropriate diminutive: "foo"... :)

[paulr]

another vote for "foo."

and we all thought the enemy of art was the neoconservatives. it's been these guys (http://www.foofighters.com/) all along.