Is it art if no one sees it?

[robertdfeinman]

Before the internet people shooting photos had limited opportunities to display their work. Many didn't really try. The popularity of 35mm transparencies, for example led to the dreaded "slide show" when visiting such people.

Many people made prints and darkroom use was fairly high. The advent of home color processing made color prints an option as well. If you shoot a lot and want to make prints you quickly run out of time to print (and process) them as well as a place to store or display them.

Those who try to make a living off print sales are faced with other problems, especially finding venues in which to display and sell their wares. Such photographers end up being salesmen and promoters to a larger extent than they might wish. They also may not have good skills in this area. Once your aim is sales you find yourself shooting what will sell rather than what you wish. This makes one not much different than commercial photographers who shoot on assignment.

So many photographers end up like unpublished novelists. The book is written, but no one sees it. The internet has changed all this.

For very little money one can now put one's images online. Those who are primarily interested in the content use services like Flickr to show off their lives and travels. But those who want more control over presentation can set up their own web site.

Going this route presents new challenges. For decades there have been discussions over the best film or paper to use as well as subtle issues like choice of developer. Books and magazines are filled with these topics. The advent of digital has only expanded the range of discussions. But the people reading the discussions or viewing the images aren't seeing the actual physical object. They are seeing a version created by a printing press or, now, on a computer screen. What's the point of selecting a specific paper surface if no one is going to see it? Many of the aesthetic choices end up as limited as the old days of the home darkroom. If you are going to display online, then one should produce a version optimized for this medium, with all its own limitations of size, resolution and color range. And, unlike the printed page, there isn't even any control over the color reproduction settings of the viewer's monitor.

So, if you have an internal vision of what you want your physical image to look like and the possibilities for others to see it are limited, what do you do? Do you stick with your standards and put your print in a box, or do you compromise your vision to reach a wider audience?

If no one sees it, is it art?

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Of course it's art.

How many paintings did Vincent van Gogh exhibit in his lifetime? How many did he sell?

 

[oftheherd]

Well, the person who created it saw it. If that person considered it art, then I guess it is. But it is correct that many more photos are now in the wild that would have remained domesticated before the internet.

 

[noci]

It's art regardless of whether someone other but the artist sees it or not.. art is there to act out an obsession; it satisfies an internal need - or at least it should. I think that last point is more or less moot by now in the case of many many artists- regretfully so.

concerning the presentation on the net- yeah, one should try to approximate the print, if you think prints are part of the artistic process. it's what I carefully do with every single series I produce: I found that within fuzzy boundaries, it is possible to mimick the appearance of a print.

on the other hand, I believe only a relatively small percentage of works actually does get printed nowadays, which is a shame as in the print there is truth and only the print is an actual artefact. not that I don't understand the digital ethereal, yet I hardly ever see its inherent paradox played out in a piece of work. ..the usual taking technology for granted and "images" at face value. etc. etc.

 

[rpsawin]

If no one sees it, is it art?[/QUOTE]

Turn the question 180...Is it art because someone views it?

Bob

 

[Kim Coxon]

Someone once asked the question "If a tree falls over in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a noise?" I am afraid such converstaions as these don't mean anything to me. If I asked for a definition of art, I would get a huge variety of reponses and the answer to the OPs question would depend on the definition. Certainly for me, to produce a good photo, you need a dgree of technical skill and in some cases an eye for the opportunity but beyond that, I would not call a photographer an "artist" as such and therefore we do not produce "Art".

Kim

 

[robertdfeinman]

One of my problems as an essayist is that I can't adapt my literary style to the blogosphere. If one gives a bland title to a thread then there is a good chance that no one will read it (trust me, I've tried it). On the other hand if one gives a provocative or punchy title then there is the risk that the diary will be misunderstood.

Apparently a great many people stop at the title of such pieces.

This thread was about how to reach an audience, something which a good many people seemed to have missed. There was a clue in that the word "art" never appeared in the body of the posting, except for the repeat of the title at the end...