Pheeling philosophical: Art or Accident

[colinh]

Alternative NPC reply:

(remember, for example, that half the population has an IQ of less than 100)

Oh dear. Are you suggesting only "smart" people can understand art?

Marlin: Do you want this anemone to sting you?
Nemo: YESS!


😀

colin

 

[weser]

Would this be a bit like that guy who sploshes buckets of paint all over the floor and then calls it art? (He can call it whatever he likes - but other people seem to like it too.)colin

Jackson Pollock worked for years and years on this 'accident'.

I believe there are no accidents.
Things/accidents/whatever-you-want-to-call-it occur all the time, everytime. But unless one is ready, they will go by un-noticed.

Being ready means, being there. Being in the moment. Being able to actually notice/see/realize/capture those accidents.
Getting ready requires dedication, hard work and some (more or less) talent.

Yes, somebody simply can get lucky. But the more one works on their passion, the more often one gets lucky.

 

[Robert Price]

Jackson Pollock worked for years and years on this 'accident'.

Elephants can paint too. I would rather have a canvas full of paint by an elephant before I would even call most of Jackson Pollock's work art.

http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/

At least you expect crap from an elephant.
😱 🙂 😀

 

[Finder]

The majority voted Bush (eek, political comment).

Not the first time around. But we should not go there...

 

[Finder]

Elephants can paint too. I would rather have a canvas full of paint by an elephant before I would even call most of Jackson Pollock's work art.

http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/

At least you expect crap from an elephant.
😱 🙂 😀

So you agree with Colin that art is just what you like?

 

[Sparrow]

🙂

EDIT


Sooooo,

from the viewer's perspective I suppose it doesn't matter. From the artist's perspective I think its a point of honour and pride.


colin

If the artist is proud and honorable is his print of greater artistic value than a scoundrel's? What I’m getting at is; the artist and the artists’ methods don’t matter if the observer is unaware of them, it's the viewers prejudices that ascribes any value judgments like greatness

 

[Robert Price]

So you agree with Colin that art is just what you like?

Of course, Art is what a person likes. I buy art for me, not because a critic tells me it is "great art". I make art because of me, not because I have a book of art that tells me how to do it.

HA HA HA HA!

And stupid people don't know art, They get their art off the rack from Ikea.
(there is sarcasim here)

 

[peterc]

To further muddy the waters.
Art, in its basic form, is something created by a person to stimulate other humans in some way. And, yes, some artists use elephants and monkeys to make their art, but there's still the human element of picking the pile of dung or feces flung at the canvas.
How you get to the finished art is really only of concern to the artist. The person you are stimulating with your art likely doesn't care whether you deliberately composed the picture or accidentally snapped it when you tripped on a crack in the sidewalk.

 

[Finder]

Remy, marketing came much, much later. Now, especially since the late 70's early 80's. marketing is as much an art as the art is. How much of this "art" will around in 20 years? Look what happened to much of the post-modernist artists of the 80's. So few of them are even around anymore or are making art.

de Vinci's success came in part from his great success at marketing himself. Art movements and genre were a product of marketing - pre-Raphaelites, for example. It has even happened within phtography - the New Objective and the f/64 Group were "marketing" and neither style/group were together very long. Just because "marketing" is a rescent term does not mean it never existed.

I don't think you can value art because a particular form is no longer practiced nor the practitioners are no longer working in the field.

 

[colinh]

Jackson Pollock worked for years and years on this 'accident'.

That's the guy. Actually, I looked some of his stuff up on Google. Some of it I quite liked. But then, the paint was not applied randomly. I also saw pictures of him painting. This is one of those things where you might say "Hah! I could do that!". Well then, do it! It's often not quite as trivial as you might think.

As it happens, I have done paintings a bit like this. I took a large sheet applied a layer of white acrylic paint and poured some black acrylic from a foot up, but not randomly. There were paint paths and lots of drops and splashes. Then I asked a byestander what she thought it was. She wasn't sure, but she was trying to fit something to the stimulus.

Then I made some swooshing swipes with a spatula and her jaw dropped 🙂

I believe there are no accidents.
Things/accidents/whatever-you-want-to-call-it occur all the time, everytime. But unless one is ready, they will go by un-noticed.

What about my softrelease induced shots, many of the lenscap? I'd call them accidents.

But the more one works on their passion, the more often one gets lucky.

I think we're agreeing most of the time. The better you are, the less film you waste AND the more good shots you get.

colin

 

[colinh]

from the viewer's perspective I suppose it doesn't matter. From the artist's perspective I think its a point of honour and pride.

If the artist is proud and honorable is his print of greater artistic value than a scoundrel's?

Well, no, not from the viewer's perspective. That's what I said.

But for the artist it might make a difference. Why else the Don't Crop idea?


colin

 

[Finder]

Well, no, not from the viewer's perspective. That's what I said.

But for the artist it might make a difference. Why else the Don't Crop idea?


colin

What if the viewer is "educated" or "sociallized" with the "don't crop" aesthetic? Can technical issues be relavant to the viewer. I think this is where the simply "liking" an image idea does not go far enough. There can be other factors influencing the viewers judgement.

 

[Sparrow]

What if the viewer is "educated" or "sociallized" with the "don't crop" aesthetic? Can technical issues be relavant to the viewer. I think this is where the simply "liking" an image idea does not go far enough. There can be other factors influencing the viewers judgement.

So for an uneducated viewer the artists’ methods are irrelevant, whereas to an educated viewer the way the artist produced the art has a value?

 

[Sparrow]

Well, no, not from the viewer's perspective. That's what I said.

But for the artist it might make a difference. Why else the Don't Crop idea?


colin

Should the artist have any say in the appraisal of his own work?
If the answer is no then it’s of no matter what the artist thinks

As you already did one crop when you framed the shot why should that one be OK and one later not be? I don’t see the difference

 

[colinh]

As you already did one crop when you framed the shot why should that one be OK and one later not be? I don’t see the difference

Exactly. For the viewer it makes no difference (larger grain, but it could just be a grainier film?).

For the artist it means the difference between being a "good" photographer who saw the image the instant it was taken and framed accordingly and being a "less good" photographer who can't see the image and react that quickly.

Of course, even HCB couldn't swap lenses or change location instantaneously 🙂

Anyway, I need some fresh air. Have fun, everyone...

colin

 

[Dektol Dan]

And you can quote me

And you can quote me

Photographers collect accidents. Editors make them into art.

 

[Finder]

So for an uneducated viewer the artists’ methods are irrelevant, whereas to an educated viewer the way the artist produced the art has a value?

Why not? Here is a whole forum focusing on photographs made by rangefinders.

 

[Sparrow]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparrow
So for an uneducated viewer the artists’ methods are irrelevant, whereas to an educated viewer the way the artist produced the art has a value?


Why not? Here is a whole forum focusing on photographs made by rangefinders.
.

but that means the photographers’ methods have a value independent of his print? Difficult concept

 

[RML]

I'm liking this thread. 🙂

 

[Finder]

but that means the photographers’ methods have a value independent of his print? Difficult concept

Why? You agree that folks differenciate between black and white and color, or film and digital (I assume you have heard about that 😉 ). Why not other methods. It is simply a matter of value to the viewer. I value the work of photographers that do not crop.

Do you appreciate rangefinder photography?