Photography and Existentialism

[Chris101]

So ... suppose that I mine some silver with my bare hands, distill nitric acid from my own excrement, dry out sea water and precipitate some silver halide, and let the sludge dry on the inside of a tree I've hollowed out. Then I poke a pinhole in it (with a hangnail from my toe of course) and make some exposures of myself. I use my own urine to develop it (yep - it works!)

No 'other' has been employed in any step. Is this photography?

 

[Finder]

Wow. There seems to be a confusion between religion and ideology.

 

[dave lackey]

I am currently writing my term paper in my Existentialism class on photography, so I figured I would post some of those ideas here.

-Photography is an art dependant upon "the other," in that all of the tools required to practice it are made by others. Even the film we use is produced by others, which determines the look of our output. Does this mean that photography cannot be considered authentic?

-In street, and portrait photography, where the photographer uses other people to create his message, or at least to portray the message, can it be considered only the product of the photographer?

-Indeed, in any photography save for studio work of still life, where the photographer is in control of everything, is the photographer ever truly responsible for the entirety of their output?

Just a few things to ponder... 😉

To begin with, an artist working with paintdoes not normally create his own tools, be it the brush or canvas. Nor is any artist in total control of what he is creating...if he/she were, then they would have both control over the mood of the art and the reaction/emotions of its viewers.

So, it seems that there are differences between photography and other forms of art, but I think they are more similar than dissimilar.

YMMV..

 

[Sparrow]

To begin with, an artist working with paintdoes not normally create his own tools, be it the brush or canvas. Nor is any artist in total control of what he is creating...if he/she were, then they would have both control over the mood of the art and the reaction/emotions of its viewers.

So, it seems that there are differences between photography and other forms of art, but I think they are more similar than dissimilar.

YMMV..

In what way is photography similar to dance, or music?
🙂

 

[rogue_designer]

In what way is photography similar to dance, or music?
🙂

They both attempt to communicate ideas/emotions to an audience. Both photography and dance in particular manipulate time and motion (one static, on fluid) to do this.

(edit: and a leica shutter thwap IS music. 😉 )

 

[mfunnell]

So ... suppose that I mine some silver with my bare hands, distill nitric acid from my own excrement, dry out sea water and precipitate some silver halide, and let the sludge dry on the inside of a tree I've hollowed out. Then I poke a pinhole in it (with a hangnail from my toe of course) and make some exposures of myself. I use my own urine to develop it (yep - it works!)

No 'other' has been employed in any step. Is this photography?

Probably. However, it sounds deeply unpleasant. At the very least, I'd personally avoid touching any contact prints 😱

...Mike

 

[Sparrow]

They both attempt to communicate ideas/emotions to an audience. Both photography and dance in particular manipulate time and motion (one static, on fluid) to do this.

(edit: and a leica shutter thwap IS music. 😉 )

Are you sure? I don’t think anyone has yet argued for the necessity of any audience.
And yes a Leica shutter has a tonality all it’s own 😀

 

[rogue_designer]

Are you sure? I don’t think anyone has yet argued for the necessity of any audience.

Ah - I thought an audience was implicit in the definition of art. But that gets into another thread altogether.

 

[Sparrow]

Ah - I thought an audience was implicit in the definition of art. But that gets into another thread altogether.

I’m pretty sure it’s this one actually…………..😉

 

[dave lackey]

In what way is photography similar to dance, or music?
🙂

Oh, my...such a deep question whilst I am at work. So much to discuss about the definition of art, it would be impossible to discuss here. Thanks for eliciting some discussion...

But, we could at least start with a basic definition of art:

"National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act* (excerpts)20 U.S.C. 952 (b) The term ''the arts'' includes, but is not limited to, music (instrumental and vocal), dance, drama, folk art, creative writing, architecture and allied fields, painting, sculpture, photography, graphic and craft arts, industrial design, costume and fashion design, motion pictures, television, radio, film, video, tape and sound recording, the arts related to the presentation, performance, execution, and exhibition of such major art forms, all those traditional arts practiced by the diverse peoples of this country. (sic) and the study and application of the arts to the human environment.
20 U.S.C. 952 (c) The term ''production'' means plays (with or without music), ballet, dance and choral performances, concerts, recitals, operas, exhibitions, readings, motion pictures, television, radio, film, video, and tape and sound recordings, and any other activities involving the execution or rendition of the arts and meeting such standards as may be approved by the National Endowment for the Arts established by section 954 of this title. "

Whew!

Then there is the idea of conveying, creatively, emotion and expression.

We could discuss forever but must get back to work. Will check back later.🙁

 

[rogue_designer]

Hmm - well that definition is useful for determining which disciplines are listed under that heading within the federal government. But not for determining art itself.

For me its a fuzzy word.

I have some elements I certainly prefer within the definition, but there are so many exceptions. One version:

A human enterprise whose intent is to communicate through a chosen medium the ideas or emotions of the creator (rather than a commercial enterprise) - usually through indirect means. (e.g. Showing a sad face, rather than stating "I am sad")

Obviously this is woefully inadequate. It does not account for the artist who toils away in an attic and does not ever intend to show his work to an audience, though it could be argued he is his own audience for this purpose, or has created a specific one in his mind to which the works are aimed.

And of course any other number of holes.

 

[Sparrow]

Oh, my...such a deep question whilst I am at work. So much to discuss about the definition of art, it would be impossible to discuss here. Thanks for eliciting some discussion...

But, we could at least start with a basic definition of art:

"National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act* (excerpts)20 U.S.C. 952 (b) The term ''the arts'' includes, but is not limited to, music (instrumental and vocal), dance, drama, folk art, creative writing, architecture and allied fields, painting, sculpture, photography, graphic and craft arts, industrial design, costume and fashion design, motion pictures, television, radio, film, video, tape and sound recording, the arts related to the presentation, performance, execution, and exhibition of such major art forms, all those traditional arts practiced by the diverse peoples of this country. (sic) and the study and application of the arts to the human environment.
20 U.S.C. 952 (c) The term ''production'' means plays (with or without music), ballet, dance and choral performances, concerts, recitals, operas, exhibitions, readings, motion pictures, television, radio, film, video, and tape and sound recordings, and any other activities involving the execution or rendition of the arts and meeting such standards as may be approved by the National Endowment for the Arts established by section 954 of this title. "

Whew!

Then there is the idea of conveying, creatively, emotion and expression.

We could discuss forever but must get back to work. Will check back later.🙁

Sorry I don’t agree with all that lawyer speak it’s impractical as a definition; in a recent discussion some friends and I arrived at something like “art is anything conceived by man, and craft is its practise” where the terms art and craft don’t imply any value judgment. Do you think that holds water?

 

[Finder]

Hmm - well that definition is useful for determining which disciplines are listed under that heading within the federal government. But not for determining art itself.

For me its a fuzzy word.

I have some elements I certainly prefer within the definition, but there are so many exceptions. One version:

A human enterprise whose intent is to communicate through a chosen medium the ideas or emotions of the creator (rather than a commercial enterprise) - usually through indirect means. (e.g. Showing a sad face, rather than stating "I am sad")

Obviously this is woefully inadequate. It does not account for the artist who toils away in an attic and does not ever intend to show his work to an audience, though it could be argued he is his own audience for this purpose, or has created a specific one in his mind to which the works are aimed.

And of course any other number of holes.

Nice attempt, but there are too many holes. The painting on the Cistine Chapel was a commercial enterprise and I have no idea if it reflects Michealangelo's ideas or emotions. If a character in a Shakespeare play says he is sad, it is not an artistic expression? Words in a photograph disqualify it as art?

Sorry, I don't mean to pick. You gave a very good attempt at defining something that cannot really be defined. BTW, Bower birds make aesthetic compositions so it is not limited to humans.

 

[Finder]

I think the answer to these questions are in relationships to the work and not the work itself. I also think the artist's relationship to a work is not the same as a viewers.

 

[rogue_designer]

BTW, Bower birds make aesthetic compositions so it is not limited to humans.

Yes - far too many holes. I agree. 🙂

I will say that I think an aesthetic composition without intent doesn't qualify it as art... which does limit it to human endeavors. They can be aesthetically pleasing - but are not art - just as art doesn't have aesthetics as a requirement.

A photograph of a bower bird's composition tho, is art. 😉 We congratulate the photographer, and not the bower bird.

 

[Finder]

Yes - far too many holes. I agree. 🙂

I will say that I think an aesthetic composition without intent doesn't qualify it as art... which does limit it to human endeavors. They can be aesthetically pleasing - but are not art - just as art doesn't have aesthetics as a requirement.

A photograph of a bower bird's composition tho, is art. 😉 We congratulate the photographer, and not the bower bird.

But the Bower bird's constructions do have intent and they are unique to each bird.

 

[rogue_designer]

But the Bower bird's constructions do have intent and they are unique to each bird.

I would maintain that intent is human. But that's a more personal call.

 

[lushd]

Marc - you are far more qualified than I to guide someone in a quest to understand the idea of the other. But I would like to offer this photograph as one that is utterly steeped in questions about "otherness" and race:

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/W/winogrand/winogrand_central_park_zoo_full.html

The idea of photography being a means by which we create our identity as individuals through others (and the Other) is one well worth exploring, and existentialism (in the sense portrayed by Sartre in "Nausea") may come into it. I think it was the nausea that undid Diane Arbus, in the end.

 

[ruben]

.... The old guy photo in my Avatar looks like an formal shot of an old guy comtemplating some deep thought. In fact, it's probably more that he is having a bought of indigestion. ......Here's the complete photo:

And I thought the guy in the Avatar was you :bang:

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[Steve Bellayr]

I am not really sure if photography meets all the definitions of existentialism. (Existentialism also deals with Man's alienation in a hostile universe & freedom of choice and responsibility for one's actions.) Photography may be partially existential, if you exclude Man Ray & photograms. Roland Barthes in his treatise "Camera Lucida" defines photography as an instrument that provides evidence of existence. The photographer was there; the object photographed existed at one time in one place. Another book that might be of interest is Dyer's "On Going Moment." After all it was the literary crowd that invented Existentialism not the photographers.