Ipse dixit in photography?

[Sparrow]

... I've arrived at this belief ... that art exists in the gaps, the artist conceives it and the viewer perceives. The art itself lives in the gap between the two, leaving aside all the existential stuff, it has to inhabit that space between.

I often go back to things over time and my response to them changes each time ... yet I still have work I did at college that have the same conception they had then

 

[airfrogusmc]

That's the problem though. What's "good" changes based on people's experiences. What wasn't good in 1913 - wasn't good in 1913. If it is good now, it's only because now we have experienced things which have changed how we perceive things to be good.

There is no such thing as inherent good. Good is always subjective. A boat is good for crossing water. A boat is bad for crossing a mountain. So is a boat a good thing or a bad thing? Depends on the circumstances. Though one could argue that a boat is objectively good for crossing water, it is also objectively bad for crossing a mountain. So it is still not inherently good, even if objectively good or bad depending on context.

Art I think is much the same way. It's just art. Whether it's good, or whether it's bad depends on the circumstances. Sometimes what was good decades ago isn't good today. Sometimes something that just confused or bored people decades ago, is today very interesting and good. It doesn't become good retroactively, because people's ideas of what was good were different long ago, and we don't have time machines to go back and convince them otherwise. 🙂

And there is certainly plenty of things that were created then that are art and do stand the test of time. Steichen, Stieglitz, Brandt are just a few that come to mind.

But to your point the bar does move as it should but the fact some of the same elements that go into making an objective decision on what is good and whats not (which should also not be confused with what is or isn't art) we do have 2000 plus years of helping determine what is good and whats not.

A great photographer once told me all the visual elements in the frame like lines, tone, shape, form, etc are either helping your visual statement and if they are not helping then they are fighting or hurting that statement. And all of those things can be helping and making it a good photograph and it still might not be art.

Most of what that is created is not art. That doesn't mean its a bad painting or a bad photograph its just not art.

......"most of photography is not intended as art and should not be judges as such."-Ansel Adams

"Art for art’s sake is dead, if it ever lived." - Edward Steichen

"What is the art experience about? Really, I'm not interested in making "Art" at all. I never, ever, think about it. To say the word "Art", it's almost like a curse on art."-Joel Meyerowitz

I think we should just create and not worry about art. Strive to make good photographs. Ones that are deeper than just, as Weston called it, the obvious or nouns. I am talking about personal work here because most commercial work needs to be the obvious or nouns.

 

[Sparrow]

And there is certainly plenty of things that were created then that are art and do stand the test of time. Steichen, Stieglitz, Brandt are just a few that come to mind.

But to your point the bar does move as it should but the fact some of the same elements that go into making an objective decision on what is good and whats not (which should also not be confused with what is or isn't art) we do have 2000 plus years of helping determine what is good and whats not.

A great photographer once told me all the visual elements in the frame like lines, tone, shape, form, etc are either helping your visual statement and if they are not helping then they are fighting or hurting that statement. And all of those things can be helping and making it a good photograph and it still might not be art.

Most of what that is created is not art. That doesn't mean its a bad painting or a bad photograph its just not art.

......"most of photography is not intended as art and should not be judges as such."-Ansel Adams

"Art for art’s sake is dead, if it ever lived." - Edward Steichen

"What is the art experience about? Really, I'm not interested in making "Art" at all. I never, ever, think about it. To say the word "Art", it's almost like a curse on art."-Joel Meyerowitz

I think we should just create and not worry about art. Strive to make good photographs. Ones that are deeper than just, as Weston called it, the obvious or nouns. I am talking about personal work here because most commercial work needs to be the obvious or nouns.

I think that's pretty much wrong ... how do you fit a musical performance into that hypothesis? ... or dance? not to mention the conceptual twaddle

 

[Andrea Taurisano]

And there is certainly plenty of things that were created then that are art and do stand the test of time. Steichen, Stieglitz, Brandt are just a few that come to mind.

They stand the test of time when time is measured on what scales?

And there are things that we now definitely consider "art" which were not intended as such when they were made. Art museums are full of objects that were made purely to serve a practical purpose.

 

[airfrogusmc]

So Adams, Steichen, Meyerowitz and many more share these beliefs including myself are wrong? We were talking about photography but most of it all is not art. Music? look at the Spears and the Biebers and there was probably a lot of music created in the 18th and 19th centuries that is just gone and only the cream for the most part has really survived which sort of reenforces my comments. What you like or dislike is just that and it may or may not be art.

 

[airfrogusmc]

They stand the test of time when time is measured on what scales?

And there are things that we now definitely consider "art" which were not intended as such when they were made. Art museums are full of objects that were made purely to serve a practical purpose.

The scale is are they still in the conversation and again I don't think a real artist goes out and states I'm going to create art. I think they just have a need to create and could care less about labels. I think we all should just create and let time and history figure it all out.

 

[tunalegs]

So Adams, Steichen, Meyerowitz and many more share these beliefs including myself are wrong? We were talking about photography but most of it all is not art. Music? look at the Spears and the Biebers and there was probably a lot of music created in the 18th and 19th centuries that is just gone and only the cream for the most part has really survived which sort of reenforces my comments. What you like or dislike is just that and it may or may not be art.

That is true, but it's forgetting that there's a HUGE amount of music that was popular when it was new - but is considered atrociously awful now. It's not simply the bad songs that are forgotten, there are plenty that were "good" then, but bad now.

For instance Dorothy and A Chinese Honeymoon both outsold any of the Gilbert and Sullivan operettas, but who has heard of A Chinese Honeymoon today? Vs. The Mikado or HMS Pinafore?

So once good = always good is obviously not true. Tastes change. If old work continues to satisfy it does so because it continues to suit current tastes. The Mikado was hugely popular in its day, but it wasn't the most popular. Now more than a hundred years later there is probably no operatic work of the era performed more frequently. Sullivan's compositions for these were commended in their day, but they were also generally considered trivial compared to his other work. But again we're far more familiar with his collaborations with Gilbert today - the "trivial" stuff - than we are with his independent "serious" work.

We could look back and say "well if we don't like it now, then it was always horrible". I suppose. But that would seem to be ignorant and unsympathetic to tastes of the day. It's more accurate to simply note that tastes change, and some work doesn't age well, reflecting this.

 

[Andrea Taurisano]

The scale is are they still in the conversation and again I don't think a real artist goes out and states I'm going to create art. I think they just have a need to create and could care less about labels. I think we all should just create and let time and history figure it all out.

Deal. Let erveryone strive to produce the very best they can within their field of interest, be that a violin, a sculpture, a fresco or a photograph. What does giving lables serve other than to create elites and excluded? Definitions are nothing but cages. If the deal was "no resale, just hang it on your wall", I would surely pay more for a print of my choice made by an unknown photographer than I would pay for the original print of a photo I don't particularly like taken for instance by HCB.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Deal. Let erveryone strive to produce the very best they can within their field of interest, be that a violin, a sculpture, a fresco or a photograph. What does giving lables serve other than to create elites and excluded? Definitions are nothing but cages. If the deal was "no resale, just hang it on your wall", I would surely pay more for a print of my choice made by an unknown photographer than I would pay for the original print of a photo I don't particularly like taken for instance by HCB.

Why are we so consumed with producing art or having that label? Can't we just be striving to create the best painting, photograph, sketch, novel, piece of music and if its good its good and maybe it might be art but it shouldn't be an insult which for some it seems to be if it's not art. It can still be a good and not be art. Like Steichen said a very long time ago, art for arts sake is dead, if it ever lived.

 

[Jamie123]

Good is still good no matter when it was created. Sometimes it takes history and time to see what is or isn't truly valid. Thats one reason many don't achieve any recognition until long after they are gone.

The problem is that art history is a construct of what artworks are recognised when and by whom. No art is inherently good or bad. What is good yesterday might be bad today and good again tomorrow. Or it might be forgotten altogether. And it has just as much to do with social and political developments as it does with aesthetics.

You say in one of your posts that art is not subjective because pne can recognize the significance of an artwork even if one does not like it. I agree. But that has nothing to do with whether or not it's good. It simply means that you have an understanding of the artwork's place in the canon.

 

[Andrea Taurisano]

Why are we so consumed with producing art or having that label? Can't we just be striving to create the best painting, photograph, sketch, novel, piece of music and if its good its good and maybe it might be art but it shouldn't be an insult which for some it seems to be if it's not art. It can still be a good and not be art. Like Steichen said a very long time ago, art for arts sake is dead, if it ever lived.

Totally agree. Now let's go out and shoot.. ;-)

 

[airfrogusmc]

That is true, but it's forgetting that there's a HUGE amount of music that was popular when it was new - but is considered atrociously awful now. It's not simply the bad songs that are forgotten, there are plenty that were "good" then, but bad now.

For instance Dorothy and A Chinese Honeymoon both outsold any of the Gilbert and Sullivan operettas, but who has heard of A Chinese Honeymoon today? Vs. The Mikado or HMS Pinafore?

So once good = always good is obviously not true. Tastes change. If old work continues to satisfy it does so because it continues to suit current tastes. The Mikado was hugely popular in its day, but it wasn't the most popular. Now more than a hundred years later there is probably no operatic work of the era performed more frequently. Sullivan's compositions for these were commended in their day, but they were also generally considered trivial compared to his other work. But again we're far more familiar with his collaborations with Gilbert today - the "trivial" stuff - than we are with his independent "serious" work.

We could look back and say "well if we don't like it now, then it was always horrible". I suppose. But that would seem to be ignorant and unsympathetic to tastes of the day. It's more accurate to simply note that tastes change, and some work doesn't age well, reflecting this.

Once though good always good is not what I was saying at all. I did say that time and history has a way of wedding out the riff-raff and this is a perfect example of that.

 

[tunalegs]

Like Steichen said a very long time ago, art for arts sake is dead, if it ever lived.

See the original post, or perhaps expand on this thought. 😉

 

[airfrogusmc]

Totally agree. Now let's go out and shoot.. ;-)

Wish I could. I got hours of computer work to finish 🙁 and I'm screwing around in this thread (LoL)

 

[tunalegs]

Once though good always good is not what I was saying at all. I did say that time and history has a way of wedding out the riff-raff and this is a perfect example of that.

Of course it is only considered riff-raff by our current standards. Something which has stood the test of time up to now may still yet fall out of favor. Or conversely something which was seen as riff-raff may be re-examined under a new set of criteria and found to be brilliant. 🙂

We only know what we know now.

 

[airfrogusmc]

See the original post, or perhaps expand on this thought. 😉

No real artist says I'm going out to create art. They just create honestly and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Of course it is only considered riff-raff by our current standards. Something which has stood the test of time up to now may still yet fall out of favor. Or conversely something which was seen as riff-raff may be re-examined under a new set of criteria and found to be brilliant. 🙂

We only know what we know now.

Again that's why time and history are so important. The immediate desire for galleries to make money will make you believe ever artist is the latest and greatest. You also illustrate why it's should be important for you to have the visual tools to make up your own mind about it all.

 

[tunalegs]

No real artist says I'm going out to create art. They just create honestly and let the chips fall where they may.

It's really sort of beside the point of the thread. Which was questioning if we take an artist's word for truth simply because they're a good artist, or do we take it because it's actually reasonable.

Some artists may produce excellent work, but be totally clueless about certain matters. Quoting them as an authority simply because their work is good is like listening to a hollywood actor talk about politics.

Again that's why time and history are so important. The immediate desire for galleries to make money will make you believe ever artist is the latest and greatest. You also illustrate why it's should be important for you to have the visual tools to make up your own mind about it all.

What I am specifically talking about though is this idea that if we judge something to be good today, then it was always good. No it was not. It is good now. It was not good then. There is a danger of looking at history from a modern perspective, without taking into account the context of the times. This is as true for political history as it is for art, music, architecture, etc.

 

[airfrogusmc]

See what I wrote about Van Gogh. Again history and time are always the great deciders.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I said art is not as subjective as many think. I think I went on to say there are ways to objectively judge (posted links) and went on to say that many things stand up to that and are still not art. It can be a good image and you can like it a lot and that is very subjective and even find very objective reasons to like it and it may still not be art.