Are you an artist? (continued)

[lawrence]

And I don’t understand why you are trying to apply your definition to a single work

Because I wanted to use it as an example of a work that was not originally viewed as "art" but gained art status over time.

...and why must I find the Americans to be art anyway, if for example, if I dislike it would is stop being art?

No, because there is now a consensus view that it is art. Whether something is art or not doesn't depend of the view of a single individual but on consensus. This could be a consensus within a particular group rather than among the whole population.

I can understand that you might not like my definition but can you give a better one? Are we to say that anything is art as soon as someone says it is?

 

[lawrence]

Is an artist not any person who strives to create art, whatever their understanding of that term may be? Determining what art is and whether photography therefore = art is not really possible because both terms are as diverse as the people that undertake them. It also does not matter a bit.

And calling yourself a "photographic artist" or your photography "fine art" is meaningless...and perhaps a little bit pompous?

 

[Sparrow]

Classic stuff.

What class?

What warfare?

Shall we discuss neck straps instead?

Perhaps having freed themselves from the constraints of the European class system, they are now trapped by a hierarchy of artistic pomposity

 

[Sparrow]

Because I wanted to use it as an example of a work that was not originally viewed as "art" but gained art status over time.



No, because there is now a consensus view that it is art. Whether something is art or not doesn't depend of the view of a single individual but on consensus. This could be a consensus within a particular group rather than among the whole population.

I can understand that you might not like my definition but can you give a better one? Are we to say that anything is art as soon as someone says it is?

Yes I can see that in an historic sense, the “The Historic Canon” is art and I can view it as such independent of my own opinion of its merit.

But, I cannot do the same with contemporary stuff, that must surely have the space to “be” until it attains art-status or vanishes, anyway who would judge? do you believe yourself able to? Or if not you who?

 

[Sparrow]

I must ask before drawing a line under this one, and it is a pretty artistic line I can assure you, who is the bashed here and who do the bashing? A shame we are not to be allowed to continue

Regards all

 

[gb hill]

I'm a snapshot artist! I take photos that look like snapshots! Isn't that how William Eggleston got his start? Photographing tricycles? BTW I love Egglestons work. Calling yourself a photographer is much broader than calling yourself an artist. What kind of photographer are you? Shoot weddings? A photojournalist perhaps? What gets me is that many of you go out and shoot strangers out on the street & love street photography but are not able to take that next step & call yourself an artist. If you take photos of life on the street & your motive is not to later somewhere down the road make a book or show your work in a gallery or coffee house, then what is your motive? Enjoyment! nothing wrong with that!...but your still an artist & that's my opinion.

 

[antiquark]

The meaning of "art" is undefinable... one man's art is another man's garbage... art means different things to different people....

As usual, I feel compelled to invoke the name of an artist who has sold millions of prints:

http://www.thomaskinkade.com/

Study Kinkade's work closely, and you will realise that art cannot be discussed with any degree of logic!
🙂 🙂 🙂

 

[hawkeye]

Perhaps we are looking at this backwards. Art is the "search for meaning" I think. When something works--a dance, apoem or a photo-- it is because the viewer finds some meaning to the work.

This makes it a personal experience. And it means that the little old lady who paints bad watercolors is as much an artist--especially in her own heart and mind--as Robert Frank.

The difference of course is that many moe people respond to Robert Frank's work.

Hawkeeye

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I don't do pack-shots or passports.

LOL - but passport shots pay, don't they? 😉

 

[gb hill]

I tend to dislike the pretentious scene that follow the art world -- but then how hard is it to take a few shots of tricycles and red rooms, blow them up and do a gallery exhibit called "**** Bill Eggelston" --- i'm much more commercial than most of my peers
I don't dress all in black and smell funny either

people will appreciate me after I'm dead though, so I guess I am a pretty hardcore artist

Just make sure your daughter gets the rights to all your blues photos when your dead & gone!😉

 

[tom_f77]

.....Take Robert Frank's "The Americans". As Frank journeyed round the US in the mid-50s I doubt that the thought that he was "creating art" ever even occurred to him. His intention was to document the US and its culture during a particular period in its evolution. However, in the intervening fifty years The Americans has achieved the status of an artwork and Frank is now considered to be an "art photographer"; his work has become "art" due to the acclamation of others.

I have read the rest of this thread, but come back to this point to insert my response at the most appropriate place. Robert Frank's 48 state tour of the US, out of which came "The Americans" was funded by a Guggenheim Fellowship. Quoting directly from their website:

"Often characterized as "midcareer" awards, Guggenheim Fellowships are intended for men and women who have already demonstrated exceptional capacity for productive scholarship or exceptional creative ability in the arts."

My point being that you have it completely the wrong way round. Frank always knew he was an artist, and was driven to produce his art. It is the consensus that took years to catch up, not the art.

Tom

 

[back alley]

lawrence seems to have an unnatural aversion to art and artists.
like art is bad and being an artist is worse.

 

[MickH]

I don't know much about photography, but I know what I like.

 

[Henryah]

Most people have aristic tendecies,iprovidied they are not killed by education or social conventiones.Remember: Play is the foundation of creativity.
Have a playuful weeend. Henry.

 

[FrankS]

If I'm chatting with a person I've just met and happen to ask what he does, and he answers "artist" I would then have to go further and ask which discipline/medium. If he had answered "photographer" or "painter" that would have been more succinct. As I said, with my personal definition of artist, based on my experiences and upbringing, when anyone calls themselves an artist, it sounds pretentious to me. In fact, it's just the same with the word "genius". That's a label one doesn't use (seriously) for oneself, but rather a description for others to use. For me, "artist" is the same. Can't help it.

"Interesting party, isn't it?"
"Yes. Hello, my name is Jim. What do you do?"
"Oh, I'm a genius."

An example of person meanings being varied is Fred's difficulty with the term "fine art", one that I have no difficulty with. We all have different taste buds.

 

[charjohncarter]

I wish I was an artist (photography), but as it turns out I'm better at the guitar than my real love Photos. So, I will plod along with my photography, and turn heads with my guitar (just barely).

 

[charjohncarter]

Thanks Pitxu, now I feel better: I am a photography artist. But boy, I wish I could do photos like I can play the guitar.

 

[FrankS]

I'm not sure why a discussion, which involves a difference in personal opinion about the use/meaning of a word, needs to get heated.

 

[charjohncarter]

I'm not heated, but I wish I was a 'hot' photographer.

 

[charjohncarter]

I hope that someday, someone will say his photos 'makes art,' about me. I know my guitar recordings will never make it there.