Art vs Equipment

[Tompas]

What I'm saying is that you can define for yourself whatever you want but unless you find a way to communicate this to other people you'll just be speaking your own secret language. You can also define 'for yourself' that you're Napoleon. That's what society calls crazy (which, in this colloquial use of the word, means nothing more than that you're unfit to live in this society).

Jamie, really, thinking 'I am Napoleon' is not the same as thinking of oneself as an artist. 🙂

(I also hope, 'society' does not think everyone crazy who feels himself an artist. I know some aren't.)

I suggest we let our little quarrel rest; we've probably both made our positions clear, and we just disagree. Nothing to worry about, I think.

 

[Sparrow]

Sure! I think "art" is a relationship between viewer and viewed (when that's applicable.) But I still think the statement "I am an artist" is one that cannot be argued with. 🙂

Sorry we disagree, I don't think anything can exist without compression

 

[kevin m]

What I'm saying is that you can define for yourself whatever you want but unless you find a way to communicate this to other people you'll just be speaking your own secret language.

Exactly. Minus a connection, "secret language" seems a perfect definition of art. I feel sorry for anyone who hasn't had the experience of discovering that they suddenly understand a 'secret language.' Still, "I am an artist" exists separately from that. The intent is all. The connection can't be manufactured.

 

[taxi38]

Sure! I think "art" is a relationship between viewer and viewed

.
.
.
.Do you think by recognising art this makes you an artist?or by going to a gallery you become #artistic#.......Art,if it exists,is the creative act only,at this point nothing is defined ,not the art nor the artist.It is a force.

 

[semilog]

Perhaps it would speed things along if we were to agree on this: there is more than one kind of art.

 

[Sparrow]

Perhaps it would speed things along if we were to agree on this: there is more than one kind of art.

Well not really we know it involves intent, but dance is clearly different to drama witch isn't graphic as conceptual, also, isn't. We seem to be divided roughly between;-

art is what the artist thinks it is

art is what the viewer thinks it is

art is what they agree is art

(did I miss anything?)

 

[semilog]

(did I miss anything?)

Nothing that I noticed.

 

[kevin m]

Well not really we know it involves intent, but dance is clearly different to drama witch isn't graphic as conceptual, also, isn't. We seem to be divided roughly between;-

art is what the artist thinks it is

art is what the viewer thinks it is

art is what they agree is art

(did I miss anything?)

Joking aside, I don't think this is too far off the mark. I think there IS some contradiction inherent in any attempt at defining these terms.

 

[peterm1]

"The more I look at photography, the more I change my perception of what "Image Quality" is. What Image Quality is to me now is the quality of the light, moment, the convergence of visual attributes and the vision someone uses to bring finality to the journey that is the photograph for them.

Of course sharp lenses and great technical pairing is not to be put aside, but what you wrote above this reply really said it all, yes?"

Too true. I often see posts on some forums where people rave about a photo essentially because its sharp. The image itself is often rubbish though, as it lacks all of the above. And I for one do not mind how I get it - including using post processing to make a contribution.

Specific equipment matters when you need it as someone (I think the author of the above quote) put it.......for example the first time I bought a fast prime !

Wow I suddenly had a whole new way of visualizing the world, that I could not experience before and of course that led me to buying more of the same type in different focal lengths as I could afford it - but if truth be know I did not really need them.

At the end of the day its the artistic vision that counts the most. Its much easier to turn in great photos with basic equipment backed by terrific artistic vision than it is to turn in a great image when you have no artistic vision and all the equipment in the world. In the latter case you are relying on sheer luck and statistics - on the monkeys writing Shakespeare theorem.

 

[outfitter]

Joking aside, I don't think this is too far off the mark. I think there IS some contradiction inherent in any attempt at defining these terms.

Its not off the mark at all. The great artist hailed by all who fetches high prices for his work is only a great artist because there is a lot of agreement out there that he is a great artist. That is why artist's reputations and prices wax and wane with fashion (or critics). There are no absolutes in art; no litmus test to determine what is art and what is not. The viewer's job is to like it or not, but denouncing an artist's intentions is to subvert the whole notion of art.

 

[outfitter]

Perhaps providing your source would be helpful

For starters I could recommend to you Schnitzler's Century The Making of Middle-Class Culture 1815-1914 by Peter Gay (W.W. Norton & Company, 2002)

 

[outfitter]

Nonsense. If it influences one's emotional response to a work, it is part of the work's aesthetic content.

Well in that sense everything including fly crap on the canvas is part of the work's aesthetic content - which leaves you exactly nowhere. In all likelihood you would view the work and have your emotional response long before you found out whether the model consented or not. Indeed in most instances you will never know for certain as anything can be staged and consents can be had ex post facto.

 

[Instantclassic]

The question about art vs equipment is not valid. Can we agree upon the false dichotomy? I also see nothing but rethoric play since neither art or equipment is defined for an educated discussion. With no common focus the result is endless list of what constitutes each.

 

[Sparrow]

For starters I could recommend to you Schnitzler's Century The Making of Middle-Class Culture 1815-1914 by Peter Gay (W.W. Norton & Company, 2002)

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear, but I meant a source that supported your assertion not one that confirmed mine.

I said in simple terms; the morality that the Victorians espoused in public was not that which they practised in private.

is that clearer?

 

[outfitter]

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear, but I meant a source that supported your assertion not one that confirmed mine.

I said in simple terms; the morality that the Victorians espoused in public was not that which they practised in private.

is that clearer?

Yes that is clearer. Of course the Victorians didn't have a lock on that sort of hypocrisy (perhaps American politicians do) and I still think using "Victorian" as the opposite to so-called modern attitudes about sex, decency and propriety is unhistorical and perhaps overly optimistic.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Yes that is clearer. Of course the Victorians didn't have a lock on that sort of hypocrisy (perhaps American politicians do) and I still think using "Victorian" as the opposite to so-called modern attitudes about sex, decency and propriety is unhistorical and perhaps overly optimistic.

I think people back then were more outspokenly straightlaced about sex than people today are, but like you said, people still had sex, including things that were condemned like homosexuality.

Some of the writings of the time are hilarious. Did you know that Kellogs Corn Flakes were invented because the founder of the company believed that eating bland, tasteless food would keep boys and young men from wanting to masterbate? Back then serious doctors and scientists actually believed that masterbation caused blindness, insanity, and even death!

 

[outfitter]

The question about art vs equipment is not valid. Can we agree upon the false dichotomy? I also see nothing but rethoric play since neither art or equipment is defined for an educated discussion. With no common focus the result is endless list of what constitutes each.

I don't quite know how a question can be invalid. Nonetheless a great deal of ink is spilled on photography forums about one lens vs another or which camera is "better" so it is always good to be reminded that good images can be made with very simple equipment; that the idea trumps mtf charts. I for one never understand why anyone would waste film photographing a log or a lens chart to illustrate lens quality when a serious attempt to make a good photograph would do as well.

 

[outfitter]

I think people back then were more outspokenly straightlaced about sex than people today are, but like you said, people still had sex, including things that were condemned like homosexuality.

Some of the writings of the time are hilarious. Did you know that Kellogs Corn Flakes were invented because the founder of the company believed that eating bland, tasteless food would keep boys and young men from wanting to masterbate? Back then serious doctors and scientists actually believed that masterbation caused blindness, insanity, and even death!

Yet the vibrator was invented as a medical device and in the late 19th century physicians masturbated women to orgasm as a cure for "nervous disorders" Perhaps that is why women had so many nervous disorders - they liked the cure!

Just found a link: http://www.slate.com/id/2121835/slideshow/2121919/

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Yet the vibrator was invented as a medical device and in the late 19th century physicians masturbated women to orgasm as a cure for "nervous disorders" Perhaps that is why women had so many nervous disorders - they liked the cure!

Yeah, I have read that. Interestingly, masterbation in men caused insanity, but in women it cured it!

 

[outfitter]

Yeah, I have read that. Interestingly, masterbation in men caused insanity, but in women it cured it!

Out of curiosity I looked on eBay and there are plenty of 70-100 year old vibrators for sale cheap (I like the Handy Hannah model). So this phenomenon was obviously common and vibrators widely used by our great grandmothers. The fear of Onanism is biblical in origin while women do not suffer from such an interdiction. Interestingly, under Jewish law homosexuality is forbidden (because of the same biblical injunction) but lesbianism is not forbidden. The big taboo in the 19th century was penetration of the female - which the 19th century vibrator didn't do - so the invention of the speculum created an uproar while the vibrator did not. One could go on to discuss the 18th century and earlier which was far more uninhibited about sex than we are.

To bring this around to something relevant to this thread, the notion of creepy, expressed in this thread suggests that we are the Victorians. In any event we are all crazy when it comes to sexuality and nudity.