Pheeling philosophical: Art or Accident

[colinh]

There was a thread a while back about what makes a "great" photo, started by MacAulay, I think, which seems to have disappeared. In it I argued (rather convincingly, I thought 🙂 ) that a "great" photo is one that you (and possibly others) really like for some reason.

Now, in the course of my recent spate of photographic activity a couple of things have cropped up.

Let's say, hypothetically, that I shoot a scene, for whatever reason. Then, later, perusing the scan, I notice something which (maybe with a little crop) I think would make a good photo.

Then let's say (hypothetically again) I get the odd comment, like "genius" and "masterpiece" 🙂

Now, would this be Art or an Accident?

I've been trying to convince myself that a) at least my subconscious "saw" the potential at the time of the shot and that b) at least I have vision enough to recognize something good when I see it (later).

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

 

[sebastel]

i do not see any contradiction between art and accident.
maybe this is because i see art as question of perception.

sebastian

 

[iml]

I wouldn't say art and accident are mutually exclusive. It can be both. I've had pleasant surprises on many occasions, when I got something much better than I expected, or something interesting happened in a part of the frame I wasn't concentrating on when I was looking through the VF, leading to a different picture to the one I saw. I just keep quiet about it and pretend it was intentional 🙂

Ian

 

[kbg32]

Colin, your hypothosis on what makes a "great" image is entirely off the mark. Historically, a lot of great artwork that changed how art, music, writing, etc., was perceived, was vilified during the immediate lifetime of the creator. Many "artists" whose work was "publically" popular, are now largely forgotten. Take for example Van Gogh, he never sold a painting during his lifetime. Robert Frank's book the "Americans", was considered communist trash by all but a few. Now many people consider it a "bible". Just because an image is "liked" for some reason, doesn't make it great. It takes a dedicated lifetime of work, exploratiion, self discovery, a dedicated vision.

 

[RML]

I wouldn't loose sleep over it. Maybe you can lower (alter? 😛 ) your expectations of what "art" is. 🙂

 

[RML]

Keith, I respect you but...

Just because an image is "liked" for some reason, doesn't make it great. It takes a dedicated lifetime of work, exploratiion, self discovery, a dedicated vision.

Poppycock! It doesn't take all that at all. It takes marketing. Both Van Gogh and Frank became household names by proper marketing. Even today many people consider both artists crap, and I can blame them. I love Van Gogh (and being able to see much of his work whenever I want in real live, helps), and I enjoy some of Frank's work, but there's also a lot of crap among their (early and late) work.

IMO, Colin's premise of what makes "great" art is as valid as and artist's supposed importance.

 

[FrankS]

I think I'm offended by your remarks about my work, Remy. 😉

Colin, there is no such thing as an accident, and luck favours the prepared.

 

[Robert Price]

What is art?!


That my friends is like argueing about religion and politics. Art is a very fluid "concept". Yes I said concept, the whole aspect of "art" is so dynamic that it can not be considered good or bad. Art, be it a painting, sculpt, photo, or crayon for that matter is subject to a persons feeling. As individuals we can appreciate all forms of art. But as a unit or group of people we can not.

Art reflects the time in society as well as the creators own life too. Most people do not take that into consideration either when judgeing "art". It is only when you can "see" the creators vision that you can truly appreciate, or detest, what they have created.

Most if not all Artist's spend their whole life seeking that one work that defines who they are, only to fail in their attempts at it.

What we as artist's create is ours, and ours alone. Sometimes we share what we think is good with others, what we think is "good". True art is neither, on purpose or an accident, it is a moment, a feeling, a desire, and a curse. It is what drives us to find that perfect piece inside of ourselves.

 

[Finder]

Colin, your hypothosis on what makes a "great" image is entirely off the mark. Historically, a lot of great artwork that changed how art, music, writing, etc., was perceived, was vilified during the immediate lifetime of the creator. Many "artists" whose work was "publically" popular, are now largely forgotten. Take for example Van Gogh, he never sold a painting during his lifetime. Robert Frank's book the "Americans", was considered communist trash by all but a few. Now many people consider it a "bible". Just because an image is "liked" for some reason, doesn't make it great. It takes a dedicated lifetime of work, exploratiion, self discovery, a dedicated vision.

I would look at the writings of Danto. He simple states that an artwork can only be judged in reference to an "art world." So, Colin is very close to the mark. (Naturally, there are many artists who were unpopular during their day and they remain so.) An artwork can only be viewed at a specific moment. We cannot see a Van Gogh in the year he created it, only in the cultural and social climate of now.

The value of a work of art is in the eye of the beholder. Whether that value is placed by a direct reaction or it is culturally or socially induced, does not really matter. "Art appreciation" is the intellectual understanding of an art work and so an emotional response in not required if you can "get your mind behind it."

I don't see why an art director or curator labeling a work "great" has any more significance of me labeling a work "great" - we are both valuing it because we "like" it. The process of that determination does not change the work's significance.

I doubt a lifetime commitment is needed. Frank's most significant work was in "Americans." He did that early in his carreer. His later work is dull in comparison. Does the value of an artwork decrease because the creator only made a few pieces? I don't think there is any evidence that supports that position, or at least there is evidence that contradicts that.

 

[peterc]

I've been trying to convince myself that a) at least my subconscious "saw" the potential at the time of the shot and that b) at least I have vision enough to recognize something good when I see it (later).

Why do you need to see the potential at the time you took the shot?
You could go out and shoot random things and then go through the results and see if there's something you can make "art" from.
What I'm getting at is: does it really matter at what stage in the process the "vision" kicks in?
Isn't it the end result that counts?

 

[Joe Mondello]

My *best* "art" is generally accidental -- save for the part where I was there, with a camera and pushed that little button!

 

[Sparrow]

I always liked the statement “Art should be independent of claptrap” I think it was one of the early modernists said it

Frank; or everything is an accident, and some are lucky to be prepared?

 

[colinh]

😀 Ok, let's try and be methodical here:

1. What is art?

2. Art and Accident need not be mutually exclusive

3. There are no accidents

4. Don't worry about it.



1. Keith, my original posting was a little more detailed than the result. Also, I didn't mean that great art was what the majority agreed on. I often don't agree with "the majority" (remember, for example, that half the population has an IQ of less than 100).

What I meant was that all you need is a group of people who agree that some work(s) are great. Then they can analyse them, try and find certain criteria which the works fulfill, look for other "great works", maybe try and create their own great works and, best of all, argue with other groups.

I have my criteria which have something to do with evoking certain emotions in me. I therefore think the National Geographic photo of the Afghan refugee (young woman) is great. You may agree, you may not - it doesn't matter.

It does matter where money is involved. And there I agree with RML. I heard something on the radio about the Basel Kunstmesse (Art Trade Fair?). There are lots of these, Cologne Fine Art is another one. I've never been to one, but it sounded like there was lots of stuff by wannabe artists with insane prices (It's expensive, so it can't be bad). The people who buy this stuff often do so on speculation. They wouldn't put it in their homes!

This only gets annoying when public money gets spent on the stuff (and if I don't like it).


2. Fair enough. But is "deliberate art" more artistic than "accidental art"? Is someone who can take a lump of rock and form it into a beautiful woman more of an artist than someone who picks up lumps of rock, chooses one and says "this one looks like a toilet"?


3. Hmmm. Well, I've got a soft release on my M7 and it's gone off by accident quite a lot. Oddly enough, non of the resulting shots have had anything good on them.


4. I don't 🙂

 

[Sparrow]

Why do you need to see the potential at the time you took the shot?
You could go out and shoot random things and then go through the results and see if there's something you can make "art" from.
What I'm getting at is: does it really matter at what stage in the process the "vision" kicks in?
Isn't it the end result that counts?

That’s the nub of the question really, which is greater art finding the shot on the contact sheet or setting up a tedious Adams style shot, both “art” in that they are man made do they both have the same value?

 

[Finder]

(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?

 

[colinh]

Why do you need to see the potential at the time you took the shot?
You could go out and shoot random things and then go through the results and see if there's something you can make "art" from.
What I'm getting at is: does it really matter at what stage in the process the "vision" kicks in?
Isn't it the end result that counts?

That’s the nub of the question really, which is greater art finding the shot on the contact sheet or setting up a tedious Adams style shot, both “art” in that they are man made do they both have the same value?

Yup. Pretty much exactly what I was going to say.

I'd like to think that I was a better artist than a well-trained monkey. (This statement in itself probably contradicts some of what I've been saying. But it's a complex topic. No reason to be consistent 🙂 )

My answer to the question would be, "Yes, deliberately created art (with some prior vision) is harder and "better" than discovered art. Although the ability to see something good and isolate it afterwards is also valuable".

Actually the "seeing something good" bit, applied to street photography, is a question of speed. The "good" photographer can see it as it happens, the less good one only after peering at the scene a while. The very good photographer can anticipate and see what's going to happen.

colin

 

[kbg32]

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.

Keith, I respect you but...

Poppycock! It doesn't take all that at all. It takes marketing. Both Van Gogh and Frank became household names by proper marketing. Even today many people consider both artists crap, and I can blame them. I love Van Gogh (and being able to see much of his work whenever I want in real live, helps), and I enjoy some of Frank's work, but there's also a lot of crap among their (early and late) work.

IMO, Colin's premise of what makes "great" art is as valid as and artist's supposed importance.

 

[Sparrow]

Yup. Pretty much exactly what I was going to say.

I'd like to think that I was a better artist than a well-trained monkey. (This statement in itself probably contradicts some of what I've been saying. But it's a complex topic. No reason to be consistent 🙂 )

My answer to the question would be, "Yes, deliberately created art (with some prior vision) is harder and "better" than discovered art. Although the ability to see something good and isolate it afterwards is also valuable".

Actually the "seeing something good" bit, applied to street photography, is a question of speed. The "good" photographer can see it as it happens, the less good one only after peering at the scene a while. The very good photographer can anticipate and see what's going to happen.

colin

What if you find the discovered art more aesthetically appealing than the contrived? Is it still better?

 

[colinh]

(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?

🙂 Absolutely not. It was just a comment on majorities. As it happens, I don't even like the idea of understanding art, but that's just me.

The majority use digital cameras. The majority use Windows. The majority voted Bush (eek, political comment). The majority watch crummy TV shows.

Whenever I find a really nice café, restaurant, cute little shop or whatever, that I really like - you can be pretty sure that a year later it will have ceased to exist because the majority go to Starbucks.

colin

PS. We could start a topic on intellectual, cultural and artistic elitism, but that would have to go in Off Topic - and not in this thread.

 

[colinh]

What if you find the discovered art more aesthetically appealing than the contrived? Is it still better?

🙂 Well, this actually happens quite a lot:

I've had pleasant surprises on many occasions, when I got something much better than I expected, or something interesting happened in a part of the frame I wasn't concentrating on when I was looking through the VF, leading to a different picture to the one I saw. I just keep quiet about it and pretend it was intentional 🙂

Two points.

1. This is actually what has happened to me. Probably happens a lot - and you can't tell from the end result.

2. Why does iml "just keep quiet about it and pretend it was intentional" ?


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