Did the Photographic Era Cause the Beginning or the End of Art??

Did the Photographic Era Cause the Beginning or the End of Art??

  • Enabled Art

    Votes: 45 32.1%

  • Destroyed Art

    Votes: 8 5.7%

  • Yawn

    Votes: 87 62.1%
  • Total voters
    140
Pherdinand said:
Nick,i disagree with that. Take the works of Vermeer, or Rembrandt. The light that they knew to paint so well (and that makes their works masterpieces, works of ART, or craftmanship, call it whatever you like,) does NOT have to represent real light in the scene at all.
They did not jus ttry to copy reality as good as they could - they did MUCH MUCH more than that..
Click to expand...

They did the painterly equivalent of putting on a colored or diffusion filter. Not art. They attempted to communicate nothing. Their work was evocative in the same way a well-crafted quilt or Persian rug made with great skill and detail is evocative. In fact, "rugs" make your point better than the artists you cite because rugs are inherently abstract - dealing usually with patterns, not representations of reality. But just because something is abstract or an aspect of it is exaggerated or altered - in the cases you cite, light and reflections, does not qualify it as art. They attempted to communicate nothing to the viewer. Simply, they attempted to milk the beauty of a scene by exaggerating aspects of it in the same was a cinematographer might with a scene in a movie. This is not art, and these stand as masterpieces of craftsmanship, which is different from art - even bad art. This is not to denigrate in any way whatsoever what they achieved.
 
PKR said:
No need to be sorry Stewart.. I think i know the liquid .. kind of yellow-green in color, packaged in a tall glass vase-like container?

This thread is peppered with humor..

p.
Click to expand...

Galileo Galilei, apparently, had been drinking that very nectar with Caravaggio .. and while seeking out a drink among the empty bottles he looked down the neck of one ... and everything looked closer 😱
 
@Sparrow Relativism? What kind? Moral? In any flavor - absolutely not "twaddle". What proves this? Science of all things!!! TS Kuhn's, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions proved relativism even as it pertains to "nuts and bolts" of how the universe works. As Einstein proved, even space/time is relative (let alone man-made conventions like "morals") to the universal constant. The only thing that is twaddle are "non-relative" views. Look - who are most against relativism? The religious! They have a crusade against relativism! And what is someone who is religious? Someone who has to by necessity abandon reason and logic in order to prescribe to assorted mythologies, mysticism, and dogma - all that which is illogical! In order to understand how it all works is a bit complex. One must understand Horton's tragically obscure notion of primary and secondary theory, which nails it. Herein lies the truth.
 
Last edited:
I voted for "Yawn". Sure, everything influences everything. It's not too hard to make the connections. Vague generalizations don't add much to knowledge but do make for lively conversations. Why set photography against "art", meaning painting and drawing, I guess. Why not the influence of painting on sculpture? Or the paint brush against the palette knife? Or, canvas replacing cave walls? And digital? Well, we won't even go there!
 
NickTrop said:
Nope. Simply right - I'm 100% correct, as always. That stuff in those "Adult Comics" is not art. They're illustrations. - not art. Photography, not art for the reasons outlined and for the same reason illustration is not art.
Click to expand...

Dear Nick,

On the basis of a rough word count on the quote above, I disagree only with about 3% of what you say.

The 3% in question being the word 'right'.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Nick,

On the basis of a rough word count on the quote above, I disagree only with about 3% of what you say.

The 3% in question being the word 'right'.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

😛

The truth is both poll's (main) options are equally absurd. And I can't yawn either when I am that surprised... How could anyone imagine any activity can be the start of a much previous group of creative disciplines, or be the end of something that didn't end after that activity appeared, and that has never ended after any kind of new activity, and never will? The answer is, it happens when art has not been understood in person as a need, and when the personal need is playing with words.

Cheers,

Juan
 
patrickjames said:
Nick, I am curious how you became such an expert on art.
Click to expand...


I don't agree with Nick's argument, but if you read his posts, i can't say he's setting himself up as an expert. This thread has many posts.. you're the first to come up with this ? why?

p.
 
Of course: the original name of the building came from it being offices when it was an offices building, but if Uffizi didn't mean crafts, the wonderful gallery wouldn't have used that same name with the other (crafts) original, root meaning... That was nice: people who used the "offices" name previously in Florece's daily life for that place, had -then- to use the same word for a building now full of art... I guess my teachers were romantic... but true. And there's another thing: it's fair and humble calling arts crafts, or relating them and giving them the same value... Some modern art movements or tendencies have equalized both terms... The usual art history / critique expression arts&crafts is traduced as artes y oficios... Uffizi, that's a real humble name for such a marvelous place with the greatest art of the world, and it reminds us of the importance of the craft and the technique in art: something deeply respected by the greatest artists of all time, but something every generation tries again and again to declare irrelevant...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Pherdinand said:
you're funny again, Nick 🙂)
but please, don't mix science with art or craftmanship.

I an also say - philosophy is NOT science. LOL
Click to expand...

No, but there is a philosophy of science, and the work I cited, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, all but proves relativism. Precisely because relativism can be applied to hard science, which relies on the pure quantitative, facts, and undeniable truths about nature, is exactly the same reason its argument against rationalism on the whole is so powerful as to demolish/negate it.
 
Last edited:
Although it depends on each boy, yes, I agree: that new birth of the human being then, our senses, our joy, shamefully degenerated in a new vanity race that keeps growing and growing now more than ever, after 500 years...

Young people wanted the truth and being free then; some time after -250 years- everyone wanted to be rich, and now all kids want to be stars... It's the other's opinion what's dominating our minds and dreams now... I see young artists do things trying to be recognized instead of trying to have a moving body of work born from their vital experience... Then art has become -to the young artist- a thing that's more related to what others think of them, and less related to a necessary inner expression... Of course the absolute values remain through time after all vanities -and life- are extinguished...

Cheers,

Juan
 
The answer is neither.

Photography hasn't even been considered a form of art until the 1950s.

The factors for the origin of impressionism and cubism have nothing to do with photography.
 
Today "art" is just an artificial term used only for marketing and self promotion purposes. Long before that it meant exceptional crafmanship.

Knowing that i don't care much what is said to be art (like naive descriptions at the exhibitions which try to add value to the photos). Most important is to be aware enough to see and feel for yourself, not waiting for any judges that will tell You what is "worthy".

Classification is needed only by people who don't have opinion or don't understand and just... need to be told (of course that is most people).

And by the way - in my opinion photography itself is not an art and never was. Only a "couple" of guys made art using photography, and that's it. :]
 
Last edited:
starless said:
Museums, curators, art critics ...

http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/97/10.9.97/photography.html
Click to expand...

Not all of 'em. In fact, only the more reactionary, ignorant and self-interested: the intellectual descendants of that miserable worm Ruskin (I use the word 'intellectual' in its loosest sense). All right, Steiglitz could be pretty tedious, but he was not exactly a voice crying in the wilderness, and there were plenty of 'photographic artists' in the 19th century.

Remember: not all art is good art, and daubing ground-up earth on stretched canvas with the aid of bristles fastened to a stick ain't necessarily art either.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom