art?

back alley

back alley

IMAGES
Local time
9:55 AM
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
41,289
photographically speaking, how do you define art ?
how much does emotion factor in your defination vs. intellect.
can art be a series of photographs or must it be a single stand alone image?
 
Any photograph whose sole purpose is NOT the recording of an event or object as proof of its existence can be defined as art to the appropriate audience e.g. Gallery exhibit.
An "art" photograph can exist as an individual image or a series of images that tie together.
 
"Art" is the first syllable of:
Artifact: an object made by a human being, typically an item of cultural or historical interest (Think "Edward Curtis")

Articulate: having or showing the ability to speak fluently and coherently (Think "Robert Adams")

Artifice: clever or cunning devices or expedients, esp. as used to trick or deceive others (Think "Jeff Koons")

Artificial: not existing naturally; contrived or false (Think "Cindy Sherman")

Artillery: large-caliber guns used in warfare on land (Think of "Print Size" in any present-day photo gallery)

Artiste: a professional entertainer (Think "blogger")

And finally,
Artsy-fartsy: associated with or showing a pretentious interest in the arts (Think "your friends' thought when you start going on and on about photography")

Hope this helps move the thread along. :)
 
Paraphrasing some other quote: "I can't define art, but I know it when I see it."

Generally, it is an image that will make me feel. They are few and far between.
 
back alley said:
photographically speaking, how do you define art ?
Click to expand...
If enough people call a particular photograph 'art' then it is art. Just a matter of consensus.

how much does emotion factor in your defination vs. intellect.
Click to expand...
Both are irrelevant.

can art be a series of photographs or must it be a single stand alone image?
Click to expand...
It can be anything that is agreed on as being art. Could be torn up photographs, half a photograph, whatever you like.
 
hipsterdufus said:
Paraphrasing some other quote: "I can't define art, but I know it when I see it."

Generally, it is an image that will make me feel. They are few and far between.
Click to expand...

The original quote was from US Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart vis-a-vis porn. Kinda gives new meaning to your second sentence. ;)
 
kxl said:
The original quote was from US Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart vis-a-vis porn. Kinda gives new meaning to your second sentence. ;)
Click to expand...
LOL. I actually remembered that after I posted it. I wondered if anyone would catch that... :angel:
 
Kwesi said:
Any photograph whose sole purpose is NOT the recording of an event or object as proof of its existence can be defined as art to the appropriate audience e.g. Gallery exhibit.
An "art" photograph can exist as an individual image or a series of images that tie together.
Click to expand...

As with all attempts to define art there are often problems.

Migrant Mother by Dorothea Lange is certainly a documentary image, produced for and paid for by the US Government. But when I think of a photograph that moves me and makes me feel, that is the first one that crosses my mind.
 
Any object (in this case photos) that may elicit an aesthetic response is potentially art. But only these objects which have been cherry-picked and promoted for aesthetic consideration, primarily by museums (but also galleries and similar venues), are actually art. So, calling something 'art' is a convention, not too dissimilar to the public act of christening. (There are differences: you cannot be unchristened but a work that once was declared 'art' may fall from grace or be forgotten.) This is what one does when they baptize their work 'art' or call themselves 'artists'. But one does so prospectively without really having the discretionary power of an institution like a museum to inaugurate something as art. Of course critics and museums also deliver judgements that are subjective, but the consensus of the 'art world', whatever that is, is an established fact. The main problem is to negotiate some kind of balance between the private, visceral experience we all get when confronted with art, and its public assessment and ensuing canonization as such.

.
 
I don't really define photography as art at all, not because that I don't think it is, but because absolutely anything can be art if the maker considers it so, so really my views are inconsequential.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom